Is the REAL dividing point between Catholics & Orthodox whether or not communion with Rome is necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
People assert all the time that the issue of papal primacy is one of what the “nature” of that primacy is: Does it involve jurisdiction and infallibility, as Catholics hold? Is it merely a “primacy of honor” as the Orthodox position is sometimes summed up as?

But more fundamentally, it seems the issue really ought to be: Is communion with Rome necessary? That is, is communion with the See of Peter in Rome necessary to be in full communion with the One Universal Church founded by Christ?

Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no.

What are your thoughts on this?

What evidence would you put in either’s favor?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would say that communion with Rome is nessecary.

et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matther 16:18

The Petrine See is Rome.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would say that communion with Rome is nessecary.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, that is the Catholic position.

So I think we need to focus in on this more than the rabbit hole debates around “primacy.” Of course, primacy suggests communion with Rome. But I think they aren’t always related in discussions.
 
I would say that the best evidence for the primacy of Peter is:

1: History. The Universal Church was mostly one until the Orthodox Churches chose to separate. That was a decision they made in contradiction to the roughly 1,000 years of unity that had preceded that moment. Even had the separation not lasted 1,000 years (or 400, as pointed out by RyanBlack), the fact is that Christ explicitly called for us to be unified, which is something the Orthodox faiths rejected.

2: Jesus’ word. Jesus explicitly used the singular pronoun when talking to Peter about being the Rock and building His Church. It wasn’t a blanket statement to all the Apostles, it was a statement made directly to Peter. Peter is teh Rock. Peter is the foundation of the Church. And through the principle of Apostolic succession, whomever occupies Peter’s seat would be the current head of the universal Church.

3: There must be a central authority. Without one, we see the anarchy of the Protestant faiths, or even the doctrinal differences between the various Orthodox faiths. These divisions in dogma, especially among the Protestants, have given modern atheists an excuse for their disbelief. “They can’t even decide among themselves, why should we take them seriously?”
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
1: History. The Universal Church was one until the Orthodox Churches chose to separate. That was a decision they made in contradiction to the roughly 1,000 years of unity that had preceded that moment.
Click to expand...
You might revise this portion, as it is factually incorrect. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox broke communion in the 5th century.
 
I actually wasn’t aware of the Assyrian Church’s break time, and I guess I grouped the Oriental Orthodox with the other Orthodoxies.

Thanks, I’ve revised the point.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no.
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much the issue, isn’t it?
I’m not an expert, but as I understand it there is very little doctrinally different from Greek Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic other than the Byzantine Catholic Church recognizes the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
 
Yes, it is, but I think it’s better framed – more to the point – when you talk about necessity of communion with Rome, rather than specific details about the extent of “jurisdiction” and so on.
 
I wonder how many of our Orthodox brothers and sisters will participate in this discussion. I hope many do, otherwise it will be a one sided discussion.
 
When we say we believe in “one Holy and Apostolic Church” we are saying that we believe that there is only one church and that the pope, the Bishop of Rome, is the head of that church. The Orthodox churches choose to not recognize his role/authority.
 
When it comes to evidence, I think one early piece of evidence is really hard to get around: Irenaeus’ discussion on apostolic succession in his work Against Heresies. Most of you all will have read this famous quote before, but the gist is this: In rejecting Gnostic groups, he points out that authentic Christian communities are based in the Apostles and have bishops that succeed the Apostles. These bishops guarantee an authentic passing of doctrine from the Apostles down to our (his) own day.

But when he mentions Rome, he not only offers it as the chief example, but he says that ALL other churches – and the “faithful everywhere” – must agree with Rome because of its preeminent and superior origin. He cites this superior origin as coming from the chief Apostles, Peter and Paul.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It would be hard to imagine Irenaeus, a second century bishop who knew both East and West, and who spent time in Rome, regarding communion with Rome as merely optional.

Also significant is Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (in North Africa), a few decades later. He has his own issues with the Roman church, because he held an opinion on baptism. But the Roman church’s view ended up becoming the Catholic view. Regardless of his personal fights with Pope Stephen, Cyprian clearly understood Rome’s place as chief chair of the church and “source” of unity.

Cyprian doesn’t offer a developed theory. He seems to reject the very jurisdiction that his own theory would suggest. However, when it comes to communion with Rome, I think one could argue that this third century bishop saw Rome as critical.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no.
Click to expand...
When you start from this premise, it won’t go well.

The Orthodox do not say that.

They say that Rome is in heresy, and that communion is therefore impossible.
ProdglArchitect said:
1: History. The Universal Church was mostly one until the Orthodox Churches chose to separate
Click to expand...
Except that it was Rome that initiated the break . . .

Also note that the various Churches wandered in and out of communion on a semi-regular basis in the first millennium, and the EO continue like this to this day. (quite seriously: Are the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox in communion this week?)
JRS_831 said:
I wonder how many of our Orthodox brothers and sisters will participate in this discussion. I hope many do, otherwise it will be a one sided discussion.
Click to expand...
You will find that the Eastern Catholics here will generally give similar answers to the EO (and sometimes ones that Rome wouldn’t like 😱).

And folks, please do tread carefully and with charity: this is the type of thread in which quite frequently EC have been abused by this forum and lectured (with bad theology). I left several times over the last several years over this.

hawk
 
Obviously, communion with Rome is not necessary as the “source” of the universal church’s unity, in the Orthodox view.

…and as Cyprian said.

Precisely because they think Rome can fall into heresy is not relevant. That they say Rome did shows it is not necessary to them.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
Except that it was Rome that initiated the break . . .

Also note that the various Churches wandered in and out of communion on a semi-regular basis in the first millennium, and the EO continue like this to this day. (quite seriously: Are the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox in communion this week?)
Click to expand...
Except it really wasn’t. The Pope excommunicated a single Patriarch, and that Patriarch excommunicated the delegates the Pope had sent to attempt dialog.

From:

“Even after 1054 friendly relations between East and West continued. The two parts of Christendom were not yet conscious of a great gulf of separation between them. . . . The dispute remained something of which ordinary Christians in East and West were largely unaware” (Ware, 67).

This changed when the Byzantine Empire collapsed suddenly in 1453. A soldier forgot to lock one of the gates of the fortified city of Constantinople, and the Turks sacked the city. With the Turks in control of the capital city, the rest of the empire crumbled quickly. Under pressure from Muslims, most of the Eastern churches repudiated their union with Rome, and this is the split that persists to this day. The current Eastern Orthodox communion dates from the 1450s, making it a mere six decades older than the Protestant Reformation.
Click to expand...
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Except it really wasn’t. The Pope excommunicated a single Patriarch, and that Patriarch excommunicated the delegates the Pope had sent to attempt dialog.
Click to expand...
Yes. I’ve never suggested that the schism wasn’t honored more in the breach than compliance for centuries. But it continued to exist.

As opposed to the western-centric source you cite, pretty much all of the Orthodox I’ve ever discussed this with put the focus on the failed Council of Florence as leading to serious break, rather than pressure to repudiate a union that didn’t exist.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
40.png
ProdglArchitect:
Except it really wasn’t. The Pope excommunicated a single Patriarch, and that Patriarch excommunicated the delegates the Pope had sent to attempt dialog.
Click to expand...
Yes. I’ve never suggested that the schism wasn’t honored more in the breach than compliance for centuries. But it continued to exist.

As opposed to the western-centric source you cite, pretty much all of the Orthodox I’ve ever discussed this with put the focus on the failed Council of Florence as leading to serious break, rather than pressure to repudiate a union that didn’t exist.

hawk
Click to expand...
Well, most people I know believe that the two groups completely excommunicated the other group.

Just because someone has a particular understanding of events doesn’t actually make that understanding accurate. Even good-willed, studied people can be mislead by a bad source or “common knowledge.”
 
dochawk said:
As opposed to the western-centric source you cite, pretty much all of the Orthodox I’ve ever discussed this with put the focus on the failed Council of Florence as leading to serious break, rather than pressure to repudiate a union that didn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Hi Hawk,
Could you please explain this a little bit more? Why do they say the council lead to the split?

Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top