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

[ziapueblo]

What do you see as the advantage of being Orthodox rather than Byzantine Catholic?

I can practice as an Eastern Christian, in an authentic way, with others who wish to practice as a Eastern Christians, and not just in a liturgically, but theologically and spiritually as well.

I am in no way saying Byzantine Catholics are not authentically Eastern, but in my particular community I belonged to, there is anti-Orthodox sentiment, Roman Catholics who are only escaping what they see as “bad” liturgical practice in their parishes and by no means are they going to truly become Byzantine Catholics. I’m not saying that they need to switch from one rite to another, but they are Roman Catholic through and through. Many readily admit, they call themselves Roman Catholics who attend a Byzantine parish. If there was an SSPX or FSSP parish, that’s were they would be. My wife and I’s priority is to raise our daughter as an Eastern Christian, not a semi-Eastern Christian, and that can not be done in the local parish I’m sad to say, and the ones that are, are few and far between. I’d have to move to Sacramento, San José, McLean VA or Saint Nazianz.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Also do you go through a ceremony such as chrismation, etc., or is it just confession.

If I was Byzantine Catholic canonically, just a profession of faith. It will be through Chrismation.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry to hear that your parish was home to Latin refugees from V2.

After you’re received into the Orthodox, I hope you’re still going to be here. I’ve really come to appreciate what you say.

I’ve got a question: Why would the Orthodox re Baptize you? Do they not recognize our Baptism as valid?

 

[Michael16]

@AlNg,

You may be right.

 

[ziapueblo]

After you’re received into the Orthodox, I hope you’re still going to be here. I’ve really come to appreciate what you say.

Of course I will. I don’t feel in anyway that I’m “leaving” the Church. Some RC would disagree as well as some Orthodox. Just a change in “upper management” if you will.

Why would the Orthodox re Baptize you?

No re-baptism. Baptized Christians are received through Chrismation.

Do they not recognize our Baptism as valid?

They do. The Orthodox recognize that the Catholic Church has apostolic succession.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

So I responded by giving quotes… Are those quotes from me? No

What, then, are you trying to communicate with what you’ve quoted? Since I asked what is your opinion, it would seem reasonable for me to assume what you quote reflects your opinion, no?

I agree with the quotes I used.

 

[George720]

And also, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly was the canon law status of papal authority prior to the 1054 Schism.

This is the crux of the issue, and the state of the divide over it…

The answer, when looking at the first thousand years of the Faith of Christ on earth, will come by looking at how Churches settled disputes. If one wanted to pursue it, one could list, say, a thousand Church disputes, and then see how they were handled by the disputing Churches - eg What did they do? If Latin Rome was an autocracy exercising juridical rule over Christ’s Holy Body on earth, we should find that whenever a dispute arose between two Churches, they would appeal to Rome and Rome would hear the case in a Latin Court, issue a ruling, and the matter would be settled… There are thousands of disputes between Churches… And if the Latin theory is correct, we should find thousands of cases resolved in Her Courts over the first thousand years…

What we find instead is thousands of efforts to resolve the issues by the parties involved, and appeals to nearby Churches to intercede, and finally, councils to hash them out, and when the issue is big enough, the calling of Ecumenical Councils… Which Rome attended, and even when not, signed off on and received… The first 7 Ecumenical Councils in their reception by the whole (catholic) Church attests to this understanding of the Primacy of the Chair of Peter… It was titular and revered, but not authoritarian in its proclamations… Yet the Tome of Leo was orthodox… And it was acclaimed so by Ecumenical Council…

So the giving of a second millennium reading of the meaning of the Keys of Heaven and the sole giving of them to one man, Peter, alone by himself to dispense to whom he saw fit, and not to all the Apostles sent forth by Christ Himself, is simply not persuasive to the EOC… Peter ALSO received the Keys, after his apostasy-by-denial of Christ on the Cross three times… His reception of them constituted a part of his restoration to his Apostleship by Christ, which Judas did not attain, and which the rest of the Apostles did not lose…

geo

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And also, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly was the canon law status of papal authority prior to the 1054 Schism.

This is the crux of the issue, and the state of the divide over it…

The answer, when looking at the first thousand years of the Faith of Christ on earth, will come by looking at how Churches settled disputes. If one wanted to pursue it, one could list, say, a thousand Church disputes, and then see how they were handled by the disputing Churches - eg What did they do? If Latin Rome was an autocracy exercising juridical rule over Christ’s Holy Body on earth, we should find that whenever a dispute arose between two Churches, they would appeal to Rome and Rome would hear the case in a Latin Court, issue a ruling, and the matter would be settled… There are thousands of disputes between Churches… And if the Latin theory is correct, we should find thousands of cases resolved in Her Courts over the first thousand years…

What we find instead is thousands of efforts to resolve the issues by the parties involved, and appeals to nearby Churches to intercede, and finally, councils to hash them out, and when the issue is big enough, the calling of Ecumenical Councils… Which Rome attended, and even when not, signed off on and received… The first 7 Ecumenical Councils in their reception by the whole (catholic) Church attests to this understanding of the Primacy of the Chair of Peter… It was titular and revered, but not authoritarian in its proclamations… Yet the Tome of Leo was orthodox… And it was acclaimed so by Ecumenical Council…

[snip for space]

If everybody got the keys then no one got the keys, because that is anarchy.

Jesus even settles an argument at the last supper when the apostles argued over who is the greatest among THEM. And Jesus, AGAIN, singles out Peter, is the one…

Point being also,

Jesus said who got them into the argument in the first place. SATAN who was there in the room with them, but only Jesus could see him. And SATAN continues to keep this argument going as if Jesus didn’t settle this already

 

[George720]

If everybody got the keys then no one got the keys, because that is anarchy.

The Apostles received the Keys from Christ…

Jesus even settles an argument at the last supper when the apostles argued over who is the greatest among THEM. And Jesus, AGAIN, singles out Peter, is the one…
Point being also,
Jesus said who got them into the argument in the first place. SATAN who was there in the room with them, but only Jesus could see him. And SATAN continues to keep this argument going as if Jesus didn’t settle this already

Where are the extensive records of the rulings of the Office of Peter in its unanimously acclaimed sovereign rulership over the entire Body of our Lord Jesus Christ for the first thousand years of Christian history? Such history simply is non-existent… But the Petrine Office, the beloved Chair of Peter, is revered during that entire period, and placed first in honor and precedence…

Did you notice in the example you cited that Christ did NOT say Peter is the greatest? He said that the greatest is the least, the Servant of all… “Being reviled we Bless…” as the Apostle writes… And not the one who has God-given authority over the entire Body of Jesus Christ now on earth…

My Brother, have a Blessed Feast of the Nativity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ… We had Royal Hours at 7 this morning, and the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil at 10AM, and will have Orthros at 10:30PM, followed by the Divine Midnight Liturgy of St. Chrysostom at Midnight tonight… And after that we will break the 40 day Fast of the Nativity together at the Church, and eat together in a pot-luck break-out into cheeses, and dairy, and meats and Christmas cookies and treats - And bacon and eggs in the morning when we wake up…

Let us honor the Birth of our Lord!

We can disagree over these matters another day…

Forgive me, the sinner!

geo

 

[Michael16]

As always, @George720; it’s a pleasure to hear from you and a blessed Nativity of Our Lord to you.

Our Lord said that least among you is the servant of all. True.

One of the papal titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

Now the Latin Church doesn’t invent doctrine; we merely explicitly define what is already present in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture latent and implicit. We draw out what’s already there.

Then consider: “ Upon this rock I shall build My Church… “ and in Saint John 21: “ Feed My lambs… Tend My sheep… Feed My sheep… “

Only these things to Saint Peter did Our Lord say.

 

[Wandile]

steve-b:

The 5th century when the Pentarchy was invented by the East?

Invented

ZP

It was Invented. It was invented during the reign of Justinian. Before that the normal order were the 3 chief sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and even as late as Pope St Gregory the great, pentarchy hadn’t been settled officially as he still only mentioned 3 primal sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[dochawk]

I disagree it hasn’t been honoured. In fact I’m of the opinion that in the last 150 years it has been honoured to 95% of the time barring a few instances like that of Bishop John Ireland in America with the Byzantines.

“Aside from the, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”



And that pig-headed cleric’s bigotry and abuse was far from an isolated incident, coming during a time when the RC bishops attempted to completely suppress our liturgy!

The very fact that we have EC bishops in the US is a testimony to the abuse, and a recognition that the territorial bishops had completely abandoned their duties.

The existence of the code of canon law for eastern churches is a violation of Brest and the like.

That Rome approves and promulgates our liturgies is a violation of Brest.

The specific guarantee of our married clergy and choosing our own bishops?

Were I an Orthodox looking in, I’d be horrified . . .

What happens if it’s the Pope who is heretical?

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

While it would create a mess, it would mean that he ceased to be pope. The most common (but not universal) position is that the cardinals would hold some kind of trial or inquiry not into him or the issue, but to determine whether or not he was still the pope, or whether the see was vacant.

 

[Wandile]

Calling a cleric pig-headed is deeply unchristian. You have to admit that although wrong, most that was done to the Eastern Catholics was done out of ignorance of the local Latin clergy. Not out of hatred for eastern Catholicism.

Most of what you mentioned has existence in the fiasco of Bishop John Ireland. You have to admit most of the articles of Brest have been honoured and about 90% of the time at least. I just read over the articles of the union of Brest to make sure and I think only two articles have been partially violated. That’s about it.

Nobody said it’s perfect and the Code of Eastern Canons had the sanction of the eatsern hierarchy who had their own clergy work on it. I’m not a fan of it by the way. Eastern churches choose their own bishops and have married clergy within their traditional territories.

I mean the Eastern Orthodox aren’t free from their own flaws in how they treat the Latin tradition in their communion. Some of them don’t even consider Latin Christianity to be Orthodox and having no place in Eastern Orthoodxy. As a Latin, I’m horrified by their treatment of latins in recent history

 

[steve-b]

If everybody got the keys then no one got the keys, because that is anarchy.

The Apostles received the Keys from Christ…

Jesus even settles an argument at the last supper when the apostles argued over who is the greatest among THEM. And Jesus, AGAIN, singles out Peter, is the one…
Point being also,
Jesus said who got them into the argument in the first place. SATAN who was there in the room with them, but only Jesus could see him. And SATAN continues to keep this argument going as if Jesus didn’t settle this already

Where are the extensive records of the rulings of the Office of Peter in its unanimously acclaimed sovereign rulership over the entire Body of our Lord Jesus Christ for the first thousand years of Christian history? Such history simply is non-existent… But the Petrine Office, the beloved Chair of Peter, is revered during that entire period, and placed first in honor and precedence…

Did you notice in the example you cited that Christ did NOT say Peter is the greatest? He said that the greatest is the least, the Servant of all… “Being reviled we Bless…” as the Apostle writes… And not the one who has God-given authority over the entire Body of Jesus Christ now on earth…

If as you say, Peter wasn’t the greatest being talked about here… then,

why did Jesus say He was praying for Peter and not the others after the sifting takes place by SATAN?
why is it Jesus said to Peter, he is the one to strengthen the others after Satan has sifted everyone?
why, did Jesus not mention someone else in this context…if THEY were the greatest?
why IOW, if someone other than Peter was the greatest, why isn’t that person mentioned and not Peter?

They are told SATAN is going to sift all of them like wheat. And Jesus says He’s praying for Peter and Jesus mentions no one else ?

If somebody else is in the room, and Jesus just ended the apostles argument over who is greatest among THEM, then why of all the people in the room, the only person Jesus mentions, is Peter?

The point is, Peter is always being singled out by Jesus. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus singles Peter out. Peter is being groomed to be the greatest among THEM.

George720:

My Brother, have a Blessed Feast of the Nativity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ… We had Royal Hours at 7 this morning, and the Vesperal Divine Liturgy of St. Basil at 10AM, and will have Orthros at 10:30PM, followed by the Divine Midnight Liturgy of St. Chrysostom at Midnight tonight… And after that we will break the 40 day Fast of the Nativity together at the Church, and eat together in a pot-luck break-out into cheeses, and dairy, and meats and Christmas cookies and treats - And bacon and eggs in the morning when we wake up…

Let us honor the Birth of our Lord!

We can disagree over these matters another day…

Forgive me, the sinner!

geo

Thanks and have a Merry Christmas as well

 

[Michael16]

@dochawk and Wandile,

I agree that what Bp Ireland and the other American Latin clergy did to the ECs in America was wrong. Im glad to see that things are changing however.

I’ve read over Redintegratio and I’m seeing that V2 held out to the Eastern Churches that in a future restoration that they’d be self governing according to the disciplines appropriate to their flocks for the salvation of their souls.

I’m wondering if the Instruction issued to the EC Churches in the 1990s, telling them to return to their Eastern practices; was a demonstration of good faith that the Eastern Churches could see in action.

 

[Salibi]

Calling a cleric pig-headed is deeply unchristian

Disrespecting ancient Catholic faith traditions and refusing to recognize Eastern priests as divinely ordained clergymen of Christ (among other abuses) is also deeply unchristian.

 

[George720]

Now the Latin Church doesn’t invent doctrine; we merely explicitly define what is already present in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture latent and implicit. We draw out what’s already there.

What a beautiful Christmas morning!

Your good words above I ran into some years back in Orthodox literature, and it is certainly relevant here, thank-you… We only educe what has always been held, and beyond that, we let time and the affirmation of the whole Church confirm a doctrine so articulated…

The consequence is that the mere statement by ONE Communion that their new articulation has always been held by the Church is not enough to confirm it, but only its acceptance by all makes it catholic and ecumenical… And by that standard - eg The Great Schism lasting a thousand years over the Filioque, Papal Rule of the Body of our Lord on earth, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc etc have only divided and further divided the Churches in this Schism…

Then consider: “ Upon this rock I shall build My Church… “ and in Saint John 21: “ Feed My lambs… Tend My sheep… Feed My sheep… “

Only these things to Saint Peter did Our Lord say.

[/QUOTE]
That is because he was the only one who needed them for his restoration… John, of course, never left Jesus on the Cross and never denied Him… The rest scattered and never denied Him… Except Peter, who tried to stay and failed to do so and denied Christ three times. He needed restoration to Christ, which in his great repentance Christ graciously gave to him… “Feed my sheep” is what the other Apostles never lost, you see… “Do you love me, Peter? - Feed my Sheep…” Three times for three denials…

That is not true of Matt 16, of course, and here the essential thing is that Peter was the only one to confess Christ as the Son of the Living God, to which Christ made this very relevant comment:
Mat 16:17 And in reply Jesus said to him,
“Blessed art thou, Simon bar Jona:
Because flesh and blood hath not revealed to thee,
but my Father Who is in the heavens.”

This sets the table for Christ’s next words:

Mat 16:18 And I to you am saying, That you are Peter (a rock),
and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The question is why? Why does Christ call Simon a (male) rock, which effectively named him from Christ’s own lips? And why does the Greek then shift the gender, which does not happen in Aramaic, to the feminine form of petra from Petros?

And the answer is because of the term “revelation” from the verb in 17 (“hath not revealed”)… It is because God the Father alone revealed the identity of His Son to Simon bar Jonah that Christ called him makarios… And it is because of this revelation by the Father alone to someone that they become building stones of the Church - So strong is a confession coming from direct Revelation by the Father of the Son…
[continued]

 

[George720]

And though we know that Christ is the Cornerstone, we have to acknowledge that Peter is one of the first of the foundation stones, and moreso than the others because he was first… And the Church honored him as the Proto-Apostle, First among them… But never do we, nor did we ever, take orders from Peter - No where in Scripture is he ever shown exercising authority, nor is there a history of the Western Church in the first thousand years of Christianity acting with authority over any other Church… IF, you see, this had been the case, there would have been a long line of disputants across that thousand years seeking redress of their grievances with other Churches from the Latin Pontiff… And we would have a large repository of these decisions having been graciously provided by the Latin See to Her obedient if rebellious Sisters… But there is no such thing…

There is only the rise of the new doctrine of the Papal Supremacy that burst forth onto the Eastern Churches in 1054, culminating in the Sack of Constantinople followed by the takeover of the Roman Empire in the conquest of the Ottomans with no help from the Latin Communion…

Of course, one must also confess with one Orthodox Saint (I forget which one), who said: “Had there been even just a single ONE holy person in Constantinople at that time, She would not have fallen to the Turks!”

And I guess the good news is that the refugees from Constantinople to the west triggered the Enlightenment of Europe - I recently heard this last idea - I hadn’t connected the two…

And the arguments are all well known and discussed… What I hesitate on is the idea that unity means embracing conflicting understandings… For instance, the idea that Patriarchates are sui-juris unless some conflict is too egregious where the authority of Petrine Rome is needed to preserve unity… The Patriarchates have been autocephalous for 2000 years now… The OOC did not seek out Petrine Rome’s intervention in their withdrawal from our Communion over the “homousios” controversy… The early Church simply did not see Rome as having jurisdiction over territories that were not under Rome… Often there were “appeals to Rome” for the Honor of the Petrine ministry residing there, but there was no authority except moral authority, and that kind of authority seems to be scorned here on the idea that authority without teeth is meaningless… And the simple fact is now that the teeth of the Vatican are mostly no longer in effect anyway… Her bite is toothless for the most part, and moral authority is about all that is left for her…

So I have rambled on enough! Forgive my meandering thoughts!

Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And this was Peter’s restoration - A thrice-denial of Christ is a big deal…

geo

 

[George720]

**If as you say, Peter wasn’t the greatest being talked about here… then,**why did Jesus say He was praying for Peter and not the others after the sifting takes place by SATAN?

Foreknowledge on Christ’s part, and His love for Peter - He knew Peter was rash but good hearted, and that he would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed… And that whoever denies Christ to men Christ will deny to His Father…

why is it Jesus said to Peter, he is the one to strengthen the others after Satan has sifted everyone?

Because he had the experience of falling away, repenting, and being restored by Christ…

But did he strengthen John? We have no record of it if he did… Each Apostle had strengths and weaknesses…

why, did Jesus not mention someone else in this context…if THEY were the greatest?
why IOW, if someone other than Peter was the greatest, why isn’t that person mentioned and not Peter?

Well, the Greatest was the Lord’s Mother, followed by John the Baptist, and both of these after Jesus Himself, who was the quintessential Servant of all…

They are told SATAN is going to sift all of them like wheat. And Jesus says He’s praying for Peter and Jesus mentions no one else ?

Peter was the only one who would fall from the strike of Satan… He was the most vulnerable… He was the most rash, having a believed bluster which covers a weakness easily confounded by demonic forces prior to Pentecost…

If somebody else is in the room, and Jesus just ended the apostles argument over who is greatest among THEM, then why of all the people in the room, the only person Jesus mentions, is Peter?

He had the greatest need…

The point is, Peter is always being singled out by Jesus. All throughout the Gospels, Jesus singles Peter out. Peter is being groomed to be the greatest among THEM.

And so he did become, and was honored for it, but was not given rulership over Christ’s Own Body on earth… Rulership is how despotic regimes enforce their honor… The honor given to Peter never needed to be enforced… The Church is not like worldly kingdoms… It is the Kingdom of the Heavens… Honor is not enforced, but is recognized…

But all these arguments are well understood and not resolved by both sides…

Primacy of honor is not the handing over of the reins of despotic rule… That rule is geographically (regionally) limited to Popes and Patriarchs and Metropolitans and Diocesian Bishops…

geo

 

[Margaret_Ann]

If you read The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc, he classifies Islam as a Christian heresy. There’s an entire chapter on it in his book. He actually predicted the rise of Islam in the late 20th century (he wrote the book in 1937!) when most people thought that Islam was a thing of the past. REALLY good reading.