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

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael16 said:
At least with our mess, our bishops don’t break communion over non sense squabbles.
Click to expand...
If it did, it would be no different with what happened often in the ancient Church. That’s just how it works/worked.

For example, if a Church like Antioch is out of communion with say a Church like Alexandria, they are technically still in communion because they are mutually in communion with the same other Churches and those Churches in communion with them. The only real way for a Church to be really out of communion would be for all the Patriarchs to excommunicate a Patriarch. So, if Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow, Romania, Serbia (am I missing any lol) excommunicated the EP. But that ain’t gonna happen. The MP and EP have played this game before. They seem to enjoy it.

If the MP, EP and Rome played nice with each other, there could be a possibility of true, theologically rich communion, until then, if there is communion with Rome it will be only political. The Patriarchs would get together for the occasional picture op with the Pope of Rome and then go about their business.

ZP
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
George720 said:
We trust Christ acting through the Ekklesia…
Click to expand...
and George defining Church (Ekklesia) as being people of “One Faith” earlier, with no need for hierarchies to actually agree…
Click to expand...
That is what excommunication is all about - For your complaint is regarding the Latin Communion, which as you complain does not even need any other Bishop to be in Communion with Him, (except, of course, those under him)… You see, under the Pope, there are no Communions except the Papal Communion… And that is true of all the Patriarchs… And it is the Communion of all these Communions that IS Christ’s Church… And you are finding out what it is like to have only one Communion as your Church…

geo
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
With all due respect, @ziapueblo:

What?

You’re double talking. In communion, even though you’re not in communion; by a back door with another jurisdiction?

How in God’s Green Earth does that make any blessed sense at all?

Occam’s Razor, anyone? Please??
 
Last edited:
@OrbisNonSufficit

Our earthly parents, which is why Sirach is connected with Matthew 2 in todays Roman lectionary.

ZP
 
Uh, not from my research @ziapueblo. From what I gather, the early Church didn’t act like this.
 
Michael16 said:
How in God’s Green Earth does that make any blessed sense at all?
Click to expand...
Fallen human nature I suppose. And I’m not saying it makes sense, that’s just how it worked when there was a dispute. The difference is Rome’s issues within itself are theological and our issues are political.

ZP
 
@ziapueblo,

That’s no excuse for sloppy ecclesiology. There has to be a stable, consistent structure for unity to be actualitas. Thus, Vatican 1 had to come into play.

At least with theological issues; that’s actually worth arguing over. Politics is earthly and petty and frankly; small minded arguing over little stuff.
 
Last edited:
We’re trying to figure out how to hash out restoring communion @RyanBlack.

That’s a political battle worth fighting. Not over who’s infringing on my jurisdictional prerogatives.
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
We’re trying how to hash out restoring communion
Click to expand...
I’ve read the entire thread. You have argued against Orthodox polity and in favor of Catholic polity in many of your posts. That is arguing over Church politics.
 
Michael16 said:
We’re trying how to hash out restoring communion
Click to expand...
I know it’s not a bad for us to discuss and try to understand, but ultimately it’s in the hand of the bishops and theologians engaged in dialogue - results of which include, among others, the Ravenna & Chieti statements.

Interestingly, it seems those who are the most ardent in arguing the Latin position are most doubtful of that dialogue and in particular the statement from Chieti.
 
Because Catholic polity is both infallible Church dogma, as I’m trying to be a good son of the Church to uphold and defend; and makes a lot more reasonable sense than Orthodox collegial chaos?
 
@Isaac14,

How do you see me being doubtful?

I think I have a pretty good handle on it.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Our earthly parents, which is why Sirach is connected with Matthew 2 in todays Roman lectionary.
Click to expand...
Point is that earthly parents are described to have “primacy of honor”. Same primacy Rome has over other Bishops. Parents have real authority, so does Rome. This is basically matter of consistency. If “Primacy of Honor” means “having real authority” in Sirach, then “Primacy of Honor” means “having real authority” when it comes to Bishop of Rome.
George720 said:
You see, under the Pope, there are no Communions except the Papal Communion… And that is true of all the Patriarchs… And it is the Communion of all these Communions that IS Christ’s Church…
Click to expand...
What about having communion with Christ’s Church == communion with everyone inside Christ’s Church? Would that make sense?
George720 said:
And you are finding out what it is like to have only one Communion as your Church…
Click to expand...
No internal fractures in terms of communion and unity? No need to worry about which Catholic Church I am visiting? It does seem good, and it is consequence of this system.
ziapueblo said:
This is how the early Church worked.
Click to expand...
Early Church did not regard anyone outside communion to be in communion. They would not break communion with someone and leave it unresolved when others would not break communion with them.

Also, if you mean your branch theory, I suggest you read Roman explanation of why is it wrong, and then also Orthodox one. I think there are official declarations against it, I’ll search for it tomorrow (over here it’s 3:40 am, I’ll call it a day I guess :D). It does make sense that both Churches condemned this after you read those… though you are right, Orthodox ecclesiology does support this theory implicitly.
Isaac14 said:
Interestingly, it seems those who are the most ardent in arguing the Latin position are most doubtful of that dialogue and in particular the statement from Chieti.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. I am saying Chieti included almost nothing from Catholic position and there is a lot historical stuff about it too. However, apart from like 2 quotes maximum (may be even 0), Chieti is just wrongly interpreted, not wrongly written.
 
Michael16 said:
That’s a political battle worth fighting. Not over who’s infringing on my jurisdictional prerogatives.
Click to expand...
Of course restoring communion is worth fighting, but don’t complain that the Orthodox fight over jurisdictional prerogatives while arguing the jurisdictional prerogatives of Rome.
 
Look, what I’ve been saying is that the Orthodox system is chaos and the Roman primacy is: Scripturally based, Church dogma and makes better organizational sense than the Orthodox system.
 
Michael16 said:
Because Catholic polity is both infallible Church dogma, as I’m trying to be a good son of the Church to uphold and defend; and makes a lot more reasonable sense than Orthodox collegial chaos?
Click to expand...
But Orthodox aren’t going to accept it as dogma. So you can’t criticize them for arguing over jurisdictional prerogatives and then make one of your own arguments in favor of Catholic ecclessiology one that hinges on the jurisdiction prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top