Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[babochka]

But did you scroll down and read the comments? About how Catholics tortured their monks? Quoting:
Забыли афониты нашествия католиков…

1274, huh? Time to forgive.
(I do read Russian and this was a tough read.)

Atrocities on both sides are in living memory. It is time to forgive those, too.

 

[Magnanimity]

You see, my Brother, we hold that the complete fulfillment of the fullness of Divine Truth was fulfilled in Christ and in our Holy Mother, and was discipled to the Apostles, and passed on through the Ekklesia to us all

I see nothing controversial about the way you’ve phrased this above so much so that a Western Catholic could enumerate it in precisely the same way that you have.

One cannot hold fast to what one imagines one is improving upon by fulfilling

I don’t know. Without some sense of a development of doctrine it’s a little difficult for me to even understand seven ecumenical councils. For example, the rejection of Arianism (quite the widespread heresy at the time) in favor of the Christology that the church came to eventually hold to seems certainly to be a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. How is it not a development? You might say that the precise christology that comes out of the ecumenical councils was there in germinal form in the original deposit of faith. Fair enough, but the church needed to grow in its understanding of it, did it not? How did the church of the first millennium not grow in understanding?

Holy Tradition is the Deposit of the Faith given once, for all, to the Saints… It is not slowly simmered and improved across time by the Church…

Not sure about this one either. If what you write here is true, then I can’t account for the behavior of, and benefit to the church of, say, Origen, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Aquinas, Maximus the Confessor, etc etc etc. What are these great minds and hearts doing in their writings besides allowing the deposit of faith to “simmer” within them? The deposit of faith is not like Mork from Ork (as Brad Jersak jokes). It didn’t just magically fall from the heavens like a bag of presents from Santa. The Spirit is ever with the church, ever guiding the living body of Christ as the centuries succeed one another. An unfolding or development seems inevitable, given this truth.

Peace be with you, geo

 

[ziapueblo]

Well said, Francis, Pope of Rome.

“The search for the re-establishment of full communion among Catholics and Orthodox is certainly not confined to theological dialogue, but is also accomplished through other channels of ecclesial life. Our relations are nourished above all through authentic gestures of mutual respect and esteem (cf. Rom 12:9). Such actions show a shared fidelity to the word of our one Lord Jesus Christ, and the will to remain together in his love (cf. Jn 15:10). This charity is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22) and a mark of genuine Christian life (cf. Jn 13:35). Moreover, mindful of the one baptism in which we have been regenerated, of the one faith that enlivens us, and of the one Holy Spirit who guides us (cf. Eph 4:4-5), our closeness grows and intensifies each time that we pray for one another (cf. Jas 5:16) and pray together as brothers (cf. Matt 18:19-20). Finally, our relationship is seen to be mature when, obedient to the Risen Christ’s mandate to take the Gospel to all creatures and to heal the sick (cf. Mk 16:15-18), Catholics and Orthodox work together in proclaiming the Good News and in serving the needy.”

https://panorthodoxcemes.blogspot.com/2019/11/message-of-pope-francis-to-his-holiness.html?m=1

ZP

 

[George720]

You see, my Brother, we hold that the complete fulfillment of the fullness of Divine Truth was fulfilled in Christ and in our Holy Mother, and was discipled to the Apostles, and passed on through the Ekklesia to us all

Regarding ever-more fulfillment through ever-more development of doctrine, I would simply ask you the following: “Who has fulfilled the Gospel more than, or even as much as, Christ or the Blessed Virgin or the Apostles Peter and Paul?” Less development is more, you see… Whatever any Christian has after such ‘development’ is less, you see, than these…

And what I see here, on CAF, is a coalescence of Theology with Philosophy and their relegation to Speculation and Surmise… With the appropriately attendant dismissive scorn and contempt, yet couched in respectful phraseology…

You see, in the Orthodox Faith, Theology is empirical and descriptive… It has nothing whatsoever to do with logical inductive or deductive ideological human enterprises… And it is attained in repentance, in denial of self and in overcoming the world… It is apocalyptic revelation from God in purity of heart…

iow: It is not a human product of thought -

Which means it requires purity of heart in the Discipleship of the Body of Christ in order that it be uncontaminated by human impurity in its descriptive transmission…

And if one is “improving” what one has been given by Christ and the Theotokos and Peter and Paul, one is not holding it fast, but is changing it… To imagine that one is doing both is to live in denial of reality…

I remember the first Divine Liturgy I attended at St. Spyridon’s in Seattle as a person utterly un-Churched who knew God - I thought that I would go there and assess what was going on there - I would EVALUATE this “Divine Liturgy”, I said to myself… And I could not even stand up through it… And while I could see the sins of all its Servants, the Service itself was Pure and Holy… And I did NOT understand enough of it to even begin to see what was happening in plain view in front of me…

You see, this Faith evaluates the person approaching it, not vice versa…

So yes, I have “grown” in my understanding of this Faith, as we all do who are following it… And that growing in understanding is in Christ… And Christ is without limit… There is nothing for me to improve, you see… Nor any person except God… And He already has done so…

And I keep remembering St. Thomas saying: “ALL I have written is straw…”

For he had just encountered the Truth…

Peace be with you, geo

And with thy spirit…

geo

 

[George720]

It is just a simple question about the natural moral law as applied to
carnal marriage of clergy.
Does the natural moral law change? Does the natural moral law forbid
carnal marriage of clergy in the Greek Church in 1054,
but OTOH does the natural moral law allow the
carnal marriage of clergy in the Roman Church in 2019?

Is all marriage kind of definitionally carnal?
Is there a non-carnal marriage alternative?
I mean, there is such a thing as marital celibacy and chastity in marriage…
I mean, are you married?
Is your marriage carnal?
When you see married people, do you see them as carnal?

fwiw, Orthodox Clergy cannot marry - Nor can they divorce…

If an Orthodox communicant receives Communion in a Latin-Communion Church, he or she will be taken out of Orthodox Communion… The idea is that we do not participate in Church Services outside our own Communion… They normally cut some slack for attending marriages, and for attendance at a schismatic Church without receiving Communion…

geo

 

[AlNg]

Is all marriage kind of definitionally carnal?

Generally speaking yes. I only used that term because someone else had pointed out that that was the terminology used in the papal decree of 1054. So i agree with you that it is generally redundant and not necessary to use the term carnal.

fwiw, Orthodox Clergy cannot marry -

Generally, yes. But I understand that exceptions have been made in Russia when the wife of the priest dies and there are several children. Is it not true that there were cases where the widowed priest was allowed to take his children and live in the countryside and remarry so that the children could have a stepmother?

I keep remembering St. Thomas saying

I would be somewhat surprised if an Orthodox Christian would consider Thomas Aquinas to be a saint. After all, he favored the use of the filioque. An Orthodox priest told me that Thomas Aquinas was a heretic as he considered him to be wrong on several points. In any case, I don’t think that Orthodox and Catholics agree on who is and who is not a saint

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would be somewhat surprised if an Orthodox Christian would consider Thomas Aquinas to be a saint.

Geo is Orthodox Christian. Not only he seems very knowledgeable about his religion, what shines from him is also experience and encounter with God, and so he can speak very well about dogmas and doctrines of Orthodoxy, all while being charitable to others. He did call St. Thomas a Saint probably because he believes it to be true- while he does not seem to completely agree with him, it would not change fact that St. Thomas strived to be holy.

The idea is that we do not participate in Church Services outside our own Communion… They normally cut some slack for attending marriages, and for attendance at a schismatic Church without receiving Communion…

Which effectively combats indifferentism- now do not get me wrong, I do not mean to contradict Catholic Canon Law by saying this, but Catholic Canon Law allows for intercommunion for just reasons and when danger of indifferentism is not present- when one needs it on occasion, not all the time. But fact Orthodox Church would ever, even in extreme situations, allow someone to receive Eucharist at Catholic Church- would that mean Eucharist consecrated by Catholic Priest would be valid and salvific for Orthodox Christian?

And if one is “improving” what one has been given by Christ and the Theotokos and Peter and Paul, one is not holding it fast, but is changing it… To imagine that one is doing both is to live in denial of reality…

I agree, and so did many Popes. Idea is that some things need to be defined more explicitly (Nicea did not “improve” Paul’s teaching, just defined it more clearly) to combat heresies (which are almost always based on misinterpretations of Apostolic Faith), almost full of truth, with grain of lies, are ones which are the worst as they are harder to identify. This is why we battle those “almost” true heresies simply by defining faith, Apostolic, pure and true and never-changing, more clearly and explicitly, so no one can twist it. I am sure you have met with misinterpretations of Scripture denying Divinity of Christ, denying Ministerial Priesthood or that Eucharist really is Body and Blood of Christ- all of which were supposedly based on All-True Sacred Scripture, yet in reality contradicted Apostolic Faith.

 

[George720]

But I understand that exceptions have been made in Russia when the wife of the priest dies and there are several children. Is it not true that there were cases where the widowed priest was allowed to take his children and live in the countryside and remarry so that the children could have a stepmother?

Perhaps, but if so, then solely as an exception via the Hierarchical exercise of Ekonomia…

We recently had one who was laicized in order that he remarry and rear his kids…

I call St. Thomas a Saint simply because of the profound impact his story had on me when I was an undergrad philosophy major and an atheist… The story of his encounter with God that stopped his writing of the Summa and his teaching of students reverberated through my atheistic soul… I knew it was genuine and real… I still regard him as a Saint, along with Padre Pio, and Blessed Augustine, but I do not regard them as Church Fathers of theology…

Regarding Thomas, he would be more so such a Church Father of Theology AFTER he stopped writing and teaching - eg Hesychia spoke louder than his written or spoken words… That blessed event in his cell was his elevation, you see - Which as an atheist undergrad I had no way of perceiving, yet it rang true… Once I became Orthodox and started reading the Fathers, what happened to him made perfectly simple, if utterly profound, sense…

I don’t think that Orthodox and Catholics agree on who is and who is not a saint

Normally yes -

Yet I loved the fictional portrayal of the Latin Bishop-Saint in Paris by Victor Hugo in Les Miserable -

Generally speaking, Saints are not normally great Fathers of the Church, although all great Fathers of the Church are Saints… So they will often not be dogmatically perfect, but will have enough to energetically clean out their soul’s sins and be glorified by God, and then by men and then the Church…

geo

 

[twf]

No. The Roman Church, that is the Holy See (not the Latin Church as a whole) has primacy. The Church of Rome can be called “the mother church” in that sense. The local Roman Church, which holds primacy, is not equivalent to the global Latin Church which has no more prestige or precedence than any Eastern Church.

 

[twf]

Yes, this is a true shame. How can the Pope in Rome, with a relatively small team of deputies, realistically oversee over 2000 particular churches spread across the globe? It’s absurd.

That said, there have been steps to restore regional authority in recent decades. Since VII we have seen the rise of the national conferences (not quite regional synods but it’s a step in the right direction), and Pope Francis has recently reenforced the rights of metropolitans to investigate wayward local bishops.

 

[Vico]

OrbisNonSufficit:

Not trying to convert someone who you believe is in error is what I would call cruel and uncharitable.

If restoration of communion is the goal, proselytism runs counter to that.

The Catholic Church agrees with you. We must safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person.

In this connection, it needs also to be recalled that if a non-Catholic Christian, for reasons of conscience and having been convinced of Catholic truth, asks to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, this is to be respected as the work of the Holy Spirit and as an expression of freedom of conscience and of religion. In such a case, it would not be a question of proselytism in the negative sense that has been attributed to this term.[49]

[49] The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

 

[twf]

The truth is, the Catholic Church simply rejects that there’s an issue here. Only the Orthodox take issue on this topic - the Filioque controversy is completely one sided. We see no conflict. Our own Eastern Catholics believe exactly as you do and we / they see no conflict. Pope St John Paul II saw no conflict. And thankfully some Orthodox theologians agree there’s no real conflict… but many continue to insist there is. We don’t know how to convince those Orthodox that we don’t believe what you think we do .

 

[twf]

But we agree she was All Holy and All Pure… and a saint even in the womb (otherwise you wouldn’t celebrate her conception as a separate feast in addition to her birth)… that’s what really counts .

 

[twf]

I’m one Latin who strongly believes Our Lady died, then shared in the resurrection. Her Dormition is prominently depicted at St Mary’s Major, the most important Marian Church in Latin Christendom.

 

[ReaderT]

The truth is, the Catholic Church simply rejects that there’s an issue here. Only the Orthodox take issue on this topic - the Filioque controversy is completely one sided. We see no conflict. Our own Eastern Catholics believe exactly as you do and we / they see no conflict. Pope St John Paul II saw no conflict. And thankfully some Orthodox theologians agree there’s no real conflict… but many continue to insist there is. We don’t know how to convince those Orthodox that we don’t believe what you think we do .

We’ve hashed this out in other threads. We do not believe as you do.

twf:

And thankfully some Orthodox theologians agree there’s no real conflict…

We have had exactly 3 Theologians in the Orthodox Church: The Apostle John, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian (1022 AD).

 

[twf]

No one else can be considered a theologian?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We have had exactly 3 Theologians in the Orthodox Church: The Apostle John, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian (1022 AD).

Which of those denied Filioque (through the Son sense of it) then? Athanasius of Alexandria explicitly affirmed it.

 

[JW55]

The truth is, the Catholic Church simply rejects that there’s an issue here. Only the Orthodox take issue on this topic - the Filioque controversy is completely one sided. We see no conflict. Our own Eastern Catholics believe exactly as you do and we / they see no conflict. Pope St John Paul II saw no conflict. And thankfully some Orthodox theologians agree there’s no real conflict… but many continue to insist there is. We don’t know how to convince those Orthodox that we don’t believe what you think we do

If I recall correctly there were a couple of times , John Paul II held Mass(Divine Liturgy) with Eastern Catholics and did not use the Filioque . I don’t think this particular issue is nearly the stumbling block that it once was.

 

[dvdjs]

No one else can be considered a theologian?

“The one who prays is a theologian; the one who is a theologian, prays.”
Evagrius of Pontus

 

[ziapueblo]

Which of those denied Filioque (through the Son sense of it) then? Athanasius of Alexandria explicitly affirmed it.

I don’t think this particular issue is nearly the stumbling block that it once was.

When it comes to the Filioque, Catholic/Orthodox dialogue has already come to an agreement. It’s the RadTrads on both sides that keep bring it up.

The Latin Church doesn’t even admit the truth of the Filioque, at least not as it was defined at Florence.

“The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as an expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church”.

http://www.christianunity.va/conten...latina-a-riguardo-della-processione-d/en.html

ZP