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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The only difference is what desserts are being sold at the festivals.

Perhaps in the US, but thing is that Orthodoxy is very culturally structured. It did condemn phyletism though, so I just believe it is side effect of it’s ecclesiology and not desirable situation.

I know the “classic” Catholic Answers tracts. None of this proves universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church.

I don’t think you can disprove it either. I was just reading about Chalcedonian Schism and apparently entire Chalcedonian world was very surprised that Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria dared to excommunicate the Pope
“in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope (of Rome) himself”.

This sounds like excommunicating Pope himself is a big deal.

Did St Peter have a special place among the Apostles? Yes, he most certainly did! Does that Bishop of Rome have a special place among the other Bishops? Yes. Universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

What special place does EP have among his brothers Patriarchs? Certainly paying lip service to Pope or having cooler title does nothing. Primacy of honor was always linked with authority in history, especially in Greco-Roman world.

The “keys” and as well as “binding and loosing” go together. Two chapters later all the apostles are given the power to “bind and loose.” Many of the early Church fathers, both East and West, wrote that all the apostles where given the “keys.”

But through fact Peter was their head and they were in unity with him- same way, Bishops in union with Rome govern the Church. (union termed as communion here)

Insisting on Vatican I and on the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is not bending over backwards.

Exactly, and they are not doing that too clearly. Chieti Document is very ambiguous as well as Balamand Statement and states nothing about Papal Infallibility (inerrancy of Rome as professed in the East before and some time after the Schism in some areas). Without it, Papal Universal Jurisdiction has no real meaning.

After the Resurrection, Christ the Good Shepherd Peter (John 10:11, 14) told Peter three times to tend and “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17).

Can also mean “govern” in direct translation.

 

[Gab123]

How does Simon Peter’s name change prove universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

Not as micromanager but as Vicar of Christ on Earth for all of the sheep, just like Jesus commanded . “Feed My Sheep, Tend my lambs” means all of them, does it not?

It’s universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church is what it is.

It’s a question of obedience to Christ, not to the pope. Jesus set it up this way, not the pope. Why do you think Jesus changed Simin’s name to Peter<?

Did St Peter have a special place among the Apostles? Yes, he most certainly did! Does that Bishop of Rome have a special place among the other Bishops? Yes. Universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

That was always the case, until the split. Simply read the writings of the early Church. Division is from the devil, not Christ. One has to wonder why the Eastern Church has suffered so much under Islam.

 

[Gab123]

If the Pope has universal supremacy and jurisdiction over the whole church, is it not possible that he would order a change in the Eastern Liturgy?

Changing the liturgy would require a Church council, which is usually held to discuss challenges facing the Church. Obviously such a council could be summoned by the pope.

Insisting on Vatican I and on the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is not bending over backwards.

Christ’s commands are not negotiable. Jesus telling Peter to feed and tend all the sheep is a pretty clear authority given to Peter over the entire flock, don’t you think?

Question: do the Orthodox view a Peter as the Vicar of Christ in earth? and why do you think Jesus told Peter that he was going to build His Church upon Peter?

 

[AlNg]

Christ’s commands are not negotiable.

popes throughout history for that matter, have bent over backwards to unite both East and West,

Has the Roman Pontiff bent even the slightest amount to understand the Orthodox interpretation of Christ’s commands or has it rigidly demanded that

the Orthodox authorities need to be humble

and accept whatever the Roman church says.

Changing the liturgy would require a Church council

I suspect that the Orthodox would not be in favor of changing their liturgy, just as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not in favor of changing the liturgy. But do you recall that Archbishop Lefebvre was severely sanctioned for not going along with the change in the Roman Liturgy? Why should the Orthodox submit to the universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff if he could exercise his universal supremacy and jurisdiction and decide to change their liturgical practices? Or have you changed your mind and now admit that the Orthodox position is correct after all and that the Roman Pontiff does not and should not have universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Liturgy?

 

[dochawk]

What was the practice pre-union?

Presumably, the same as in all of the other slavic churches, and all of the other byzantine churches.

Aside from not reading slavonic, I’d be surprised to find sixteenth century liturgical documents online . . .

Also, there are many discussions out there on the differences between Rutheninan and other byzantine practice (e.g., all of the bread to be used for Communion is consecrated in a Ruthenian liturgy, while only the designated particle are for other byzantines). The lack of mention of such a radical difference in commemorations strongly suggests the lack of such a difference.

Have you obtained any documentation for your assertions?

“Assertions”?

No, I’m not going to hunt down sources for elements which are essential background knowledge for someone who wants to be in such a discussion.

And I’m not going to debate or argue the topic–if I were going to do that, byzcath.org and other places would be far ore fruitful.

Sometimes I think that the value of these exchanges is more to establish personal relationships of friendship rather than to change each other’s minds…

Yes, this.

understanding is what interests me. Once we understand what one another think and believe, we can worry about what to do about the differences (which in some cases comes to admitting that, “Whoops! we’ve been saying the same thing all along!”)

The problem is that the Orthodox need to be humble enough to realize that the successor of Peter has authority over all of the flock.

And stuff like this is what gets in the way . . .

I myself have been told that as I am guilty of the mortal sin of schism for being Orthodox I am condemned to hell.

On this very forum, iirc, by folks that prefer argument to RCC teaching

 

[Gab123]

I suspect that the Orthodox would not be in favor of changing their liturgy, just as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not in favor of changing the liturgy.

That would be for a council to decide, not individuals. Regarding the change in the liturgy, the problem was not the change but rather abuses and false implementation of the legitimate changes. The first mass was very simple as were all the masses in the early Church. Sincerity, humility and, true repentance leading to transformation of heart, always trumps adorned and extravagant liturgies.

 

[HesyCath]

One of the main reasons for Metropolitan Basilios Bessarion’s (the bishop of Nicaea) conversion to Catholicism after Florence was his reading of St Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on grace vs Palmamism and concluded that St Thomas was right. He said (I paraphrase) “if we (the Greeks) have erred on this point, what else might we have been wrong about” .
FYI Bessarion was an anti-unionist prior to the council.

Wandile,

Christ is Born! Protomartyr and Archdeacon Stephen

I couldn’t care less what Bessarion thought.

I have tried over and over again to show you that relational distinctions do not imply composition, and that essence and substance are not equivocal. You continue to repeat the same arguments which I have disproved. The fact of the matter is that you are unable to understand the Essence-Energies Distinction because you seem unable to conceive of a God outside your Thomist-Aristotelian framework, which is NOT dogmatic. I wish you well, and encourage you to read the works of Palamas and get back to me.

 

[ziapueblo]

I don’t think you can disprove it either.

Well, I’m not Roman Catholic anymore so I think it can.

What special place does EP have among his brothers Patriarchs?

As you know the EP is not the Orthodox version of the Pope. He has a primacy of honor just as the Canons indicate:

1. Equal prerogatives to Old Rome (First Council of Constantinople - 381 Canon 3; Council of Chalcedon - 451 Canon 28; Quinisext Ecumenical Council - 692 Canon 36)
2. The right to hear appeals, if invited, regarding disputes between clergy; Council of Chalcedon Canons 9 and 17.
3. The right to ordain bishops for areas outside defined canonical boundaries; Council of Chalcedon Canon 28.

ZP

 

[Gab123]

Has the Roman Pontiff bent even the slightest amount to understand the Orthodox interpretation of Christ’s commands

Yes. In reality the i<rhododendron position has more to do with politics than Scriptural interpretation. But what the pope wants is unity.

Tell me: How do you interpret Christ changing Simon’s name to a Peter and then telling him that hˋHe will build the Church upon Peter, and then telling Peter to feed and tend all the flock?
Did you know that the Canon of Scripture was defined by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in the 4th century? Or that the greatest miracle in modern times, in Fatima Portugal, speaks about the Roman Pontiff’s authority?

 

[AlNg]

That would be for a council to decide, not individuals.

So the Roman Pontiff does not have universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Liturgies?

 

[Gab123]

Popes usually decide things in the context of a council.

 

[ziapueblo]

“Feed My Sheep, Tend my lambs” means all of them, does it not?

This is the Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith. I disagree with it.

The Papacy is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy.

It’s a question of obedience to Christ, not to the pope.

Jesus did not set up universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church. All the Bible verses you have shown do not prove that.

Why do you think Jesus changed Simin’s name to Peter<?

Because he held a special place among the apostles to “strengthen the brethren” in unity and faith. Not so that St Peter and his successors could rule over the Church as a monarch.

Simply read the writings of the early Church.

My friend, I have, and not just quotes that are on all the Catholic Answers tracts from my Roman Catholic apologetics days.

Division is from the devil, not Christ. One has to wonder why the Eastern Church has suffered so much under Islam.

Haha! Simply laughable! I’m glad your hierarch nor Church documents teach this!

ZP

 

[AlNg]

Popes usually decide things in the context of a council.

Usually? Why not answer yes or no. Does the Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his universal supremacy and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church and in virtue of the teaching of Vatican I, have the authority to make changes in the Liturgy of a united Church?

 

[Gab123]

As you know the EP is not the Orthodox version of the Pope. He has a primacy of honor

Again, why cannot anyone answer this simple question:

Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter and declare that the Church would be built upon Petr, and then after the resurrection tell Peter to tend and feed the flock? Why did a Jesus do that? Why not jus choose 12 and send them out without making one the visible head?

 

[Gab123]

Because he held a special place among the apostles

okay, now then answer this: Why on earth did Jesus say the Church would be built upon PETER, and why did God change Simon’s name to Rock, the same way He changed Abram’s name to Abraham, and Jacob’s name to Israel?

 

[ziapueblo]

Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter and declare that the Church would be built upon Petr, and then after the resurrection tell Peter to tend and feed the flock?

I have. Did you not read my answer about the Petrine Ministry? You just must not have liked my answer.

Where do the early Church Fathers associate Simon’s name change to kepha with supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church? Where do the 7 ecumenical councils associate Simon’s same change to kepha as supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Why on earth did Jesus say the Church would be built upon PETER, and why did God change Simon’s name to Rock, the same way He changed Abram’s name to Abraham, and Jacob’s name to Israel?

Answered this already about the Petrine Ministry. You know your Catholic Answers Pope tracts!

ZP

 

[Gab123]

I have. Did you not read my answer about the Petrine Ministry? You just must not have liked my answer.

NO, I did not like the answer because you didn’t answer the question. Why did Jesus build THE Church upon Peter and change Simon’s name to Rock, the same way God changed Abrams name to Abraham and Jacob’s name to Israel?

 

[Divine3]

1. I have not listened to this entire video
2. Only went up to 5:30 and a little beyond.
3. Not sure if I understood this Coptic priest but it seems they do not believe that people live if they are not believers – after death that is.
4. Also he seems to say we in the Western church had Christ come because God the Father was angry with us because of sin
God have mercy, when will we ever become one-- if we do not dialogue with one another how will we ever truly obey Christ who asked, on the night of the last supper in the Gospel of John, – that we would all be one —
Since this thread has a question regarding communion – just thought I would ask if anyone knows if the Coptic church believes non believers live in eternity–

 

[AlNg]

what the pope wants is unity .

Unfortunately he does not have unity in the Roman Catholic Church today and it seems obvious that he will not get unity of East and West by insisting that the Orthodox Churches accept his universal supremacy and authority to make changes in their Eastern Liturgy and in other matters.
Further, as mentioned above, it appears that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics do not want unity with the Russian Orthodox church.