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

[Gab123]

Realize that St Gregory the Great not only developed the Latin liturgy, he also authored the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts in the Byzantine rite. As for his influence on the Eastern Church, Gregory took issue with the Patriarch of Constantinople who was teaching erroneous things about the resurrected body of the elect. Being that the Patriarch of Constantinople stubbornly dug in his heels, the dispute was settled by the Byzantine emperor who decided in favor of Pope Gregory. This led to the Patriarch’s book on the matter be burned. interestingly, not long after the incident, both Pope Gregory and the Patriarch Of Constantinople became ill; Pope Gregory recovered, but the Patriarch died; happily, on his deathbed he recanted his erroneous teachings.

 

[dvdjs]

If a question is asked,d and I or another knows the answer, it would be beyond selfish not to share it. Similarly if not directly asked, but if it comes up in a discussion.

Not being willing to answer unless I had sources at hand would be, at best, obnoxious.

The key point is that there is a difference between knowing the answer and having an answer.

It is easy to say that the ACROD is perpetuating an Latinization by commemorating the EP, and that they do this because they don’t know better. When such assertions are made, It seems reasonable to ask about the what is the evidence behind it; in the absence of evidence, it is not clear that the answer is known.

you should either take formal classes or observe discussions between those with credentials

The suggestion of further study is a good one, and it’s probably long overdue that I read all of Taft SJ. I am not the lest bit interested in “debate”, btw. I am, however interested in the truth.

This is not an academic site, nor a classroom.)

Different people posting here have different ideas about discussion on internet forums. The forum rules and guidelines allow considerable latitude about what the forum is.

It seems clear that many folks come to this particular forum seeking information about Eastern Catholicism. Accordingly, it is a good idea that information posted here is correct. Sometimes, reaching that state requires discussion and is always advanced by documentation. The discussion may not reach the level of an academic journal, but, IMO, should always strive to be as rigorous as possible in presenting the truth.

 

[Isearch]

You missed the point. I’m not necessarily against any bishop changing some aspects of the liturgies (as long as they’re reverent and do not bring ridicule to the faith). But the notion that the Bishop of Rome can impose the Novus Ordo Mass on all the rites of the Church is another matter entirely; it implies accepting the pope as the supreme, immediate, and ordinary bishop of the whole Church.

And I have an issue about that; this apparently contradicts St. Gregory the Great’s warning against having a Universal Bishop. Vatican I, it seems, had made the popes functionally the Universal Bishops of the whole Church, functionally relegating the other bishops to be merely glorified parish priests of their glorified parishes (also known as the dioceses). And I did not find any satisfactory explanation for this contradiction between St. Gregory the Great and Vatican I.

 

[Isearch]

And I am not necessarily against the Bishop of Rome as head of the whole Church; I am only against him being the supreme, immediate, and ordinary Bishop who can depose and elevate any Bishop to any diocese according to his own pleasure (which Vatican I dogmatized).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And I did not find any satisfactory explanation for this contradiction between St. Gregory the Great and Vatican I.

There is an explanation and it is called Vatican II. Vatican I defined primacy of the Pope but closed before it defined roles of individual Bishops. From Vatican I alone it may seem (or be missunderstood even by good Catholics) that indeed Pope is universal Bishop. However, Vatican II clears that missunderstanding, as it defines role of Bishop and collegiality of Bishops.

And I agree that Roman centralisation is not the answer, as do many Latins on this thread. However, limiting authority of Bishop who oversees inerrant See of Rome is not most logical. Limiting need for his approval for some things, sure. Limiting his right to act? Why, if See of Rome is inerrant?

Pope St. Gregory whom you have quoted said that if any Bishop has a fault, he is subject to judgment of Apostolic See. But if there is no fault, Bishops are all equal. Both parts of that statement are very important. One speaks against nonsensical nominal primacy and other against nonsensical latin centralisation of the Church.

 

[Gab123]

I am only against

We must ask ourselves, who are we to declare ourselves to be against legitimate authority?

Every single council has opposing views, but in the end, issues are settled with authority. As for the Novus Ordo, that liturgy is legitimate and beautiful; the problem are abuses. As for Gregory the Great, he had no problem exercising his authority in the East; simply read the history of the Church in his time. Pope Gregory’s actual writings are full of his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction.

this apparently contradicts St. Gregory the Great’s warning against having a Universal Bishop . Vatican I, it seems, had made the popes functionally the Universal Bishops of the whole Church

Gregory’s comment had to do with John Faster the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was himself seeking to rule as a universal bishop. Pope Gregory was not only bishop of Rome, he was also the Pope, and as Pope only he was the universal bishop; he showed he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster of Constantinople, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop.

In his 21st Epistle St Pope Gregory wrote: “As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [Rome] ?”

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

Pope Gregory condemned John the Faster’s intention to be "universal Bishop”. ’

It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles, while the supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes. The power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops. The Pope is not the only Bishop, He IS the Pope, and, though his power is supreme, his not the only power. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be bishop over the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal only real bishop . Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or " sole " bishop in his Patriarchate.

Thus Pope Gregory’s comment about the universal bishop was not about his own role as pope, but rather he was addressing the case of John the Faster Patriarch of Constantinople, who wanted to rule over all the other bishops.

 

[Isearch]

Gregory’s comment had to do with John Faster the Patriarch of Constantinople, who was himself seeking to rule as a universal bishop. Pope Gregory was not only bishop of Rome, he was also the Pope, and as Pope only he was the universal bishop; he showed he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster of Constantinople, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop.

This is the usual Roman Catholic response to that letter. And this passage from that same letter is why I’m not convinced:

Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, — what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head. And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.

So no, it is not because John the Faster was usurping the authority of St. Gregory; but it has to do with the fact that no one has universal power over the Church in the first place. Let me provide another passage from that same letter to demonstrate that St. Gregory is also denying for himself what he was accusing John the Faster of doing:

What, then, can we bishops say for ourselves, who have received a place of honour from the humility of our Redeemer, and yet imitate the pride of the enemy himself? Lo, we know our Creator to have descended from the summit of His loftiness that He might give glory to the human race, and we, created of the lowest, glory in the lessening of our brethren. God humbled Himself even to our dust; and humandust sets his face as high as heaven, and with his tongue passes above the earth, and blushes not, neither is afraid to be lifted up: even man who is rottenness, and the son of man that is a worm.

 

[Isearch]

It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles, while the supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes. The power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops. The Pope is not the only Bishop, He IS the Pope, and, though his power is supreme, his not the only power. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be bishop over the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal only real bishop . Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or " sole " bishop in his Patriarchate.

So does this mean that the pope does not have the right to depose or elevate any bishop to any diocese as he pleases? Does this mean that the bishops have the right to say no when the pope commanded them to transfer from one diocese to another? I am asking these because these are the papal powers Vatican I had dogmatized. These had made the bishops no more than glorified parish priests (who could ordain) of the popes.

Though to be fair, if @OrbisNonSufficit is correct, then much of my problems with Vatican I would be resolved.

 

[George720]

Yes, Christ is the head of the Church;

Good - That is a start…

the role of the Vicar of Christ is that of a deputy acting “in the person of” Christ;
that is Christ’s representative;

Very good - That means that every Bishop and Priest is a Vicar of Christ…

Peter is the visible head of the Church.

Indeed he was - He was the visible head of the Western Church…

Your additional jurisdictional presumption has no historical attestation…

He appointed Peter to be in charge of all the sheep.

The history of the Church in the first thousand years, and especially in the second, denies your assertion… The Pope has never had jurisdiction of any kind in, say, Constantinople…

At the apparition at Fatima the Blessed Virgin Mary specifically spoke about the pope, so he does have a very special role in the eyes of heaven.

In Ecumenical dialogues, you would do well to avoid this line of “proof”… The East does not recognize this “apparition” as the Theotokos…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

As for his influence on the Eastern Church, Gregory took issue with the Patriarch of Constantinople who was teaching erroneous things about the resurrected body of the elect.

Who are you speaking of? John IV of Constantinople?

ZP

 

[dochawk]

It seems clear that many folks come to this particular forum seeking information about Eastern Catholicism.

For anyone looking for even moderate levels of documentation, this is the wrong forum. It’s a good place to start, and I"ll happily share what I know. For higher levels, academics, and stuff, the byzcath.org forums are the plan to go, and populated at times by the authors of books that would be cited elsewhere.

Fr. Taft is an excellent source. Keep in mind, though, that he is a liturgist, and as Fr. Serge Kehler of blessed memory, and a liturgist himself, constantly warned us, “The difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist!” :crazy_face:

unfortunately, those forums have slowed a lot in recent years. I think the biggest factor in that is not having anyone new asking questions . . . (hint, hint . . .). Anyway, you’d probably find the both the Liturgy and Sacraments and the East and West fora.

As I regularly remind folks, though, behavior and custom are different over there–there are several posts above by multiple authors that would have triggered instant suspensions . . . In spite of the name, it’s an Eastern Christianity forum, not a specifically Catholic forum, and doe not tolerate disrespect in either direction, nor condescension, calling the other side schismatic or heretical, etc.

 

[Gab123]

The East does not recognize this “apparition”

the Miracle of Fatima was witnessed by 70,000 people. Too bad millions of Christians didn’t get the message from heaven. The Five First Saturdays devotion is a great gift from heaven. Anyways, the Blessed Virgin Mary mentioned the pope.

The history of the Church in the first thousand years, and especially in the second, denies your assertion… The Pope has never had jurisdiction of any kind in, say, Constantinople…

Jesus to Simon: From henceforth you will be called Rock. I will build my Church on you Peter. I will give you keys to bind and loose things in heaven and in earth. Feed my sheep. Tend my lambs. Feed my lambs

All the sheep belong to Jesus.

Look, I know what it is like to talk to atheists. One will never convince someone who doesn’t want to believe. No matter what evidence is presented, it will never be good enough.

 

[Isearch]

the Miracle of Fatima was witnessed by 70,000 people. Too bad millions of Christians didn’t get the message from heaven. The Five First Saturdays devotion is a great gift from heaven. Anyways, the Blessed Virgin Mary mentioned the pope.

I do not think @George720 meant that what happened to the sun at Fatima didn’t happen; he most probably meant that, whatever happened that day, it didn’t come from God.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I am asking these because these are the papal powers Vatican I had dogmatized. These had made the bishops no more than glorified parish priests (who could ordain) of the popes.

Luckily, if I am correct, what was dogmatized is Papal Infallibility under certain circumstances- existing not to allow Peter’s successor to reform the faith, but to protect what was handed down. Melkite Patriarch signed the document with clause of Florence; “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.”

Pope rules over the Church as head of College of Bishops. He can exercise this power in monarchical way if it is needed, but in the end even that rests on collegiality as Pope can’t just take care of everything personally. Pope can also lead the Church in collegial way. As Apostles received power to bind and lose after Peter did, so should successors of Apostles- Bishops rule in accordance with their head- successor to Peter, the Pope. As Rock of the Church, Pope has right to intervene if he sees it necessary but he should always respect dignity of his Brothers Patriarchs as well as Bishops.

The history of the Church in the first thousand years, and especially in the second, denies your assertion… The Pope has never had jurisdiction of any kind in, say, Constantinople…

I disagree. Rome could overrule Constantinople in their judgment according to canons. Pope Saint Gregory the Great stated he can annul their synods with strike of a pen, and also
“Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to Apostolic See?”

Indeed he was - He was the visible head of the Western Church…

So Peter while at Antioch led the Western Church? That was his primacy? When speaking about him in Acts, everybody already knew he is going to leave his successors in Rome? And even model of Pentarchy and Patriarchates? I must have completely missed your point.

 

[TheAltarServer]

My solution is that any Rome CANNOT interfere with AT ALL with the Eastern churches UNLESS those eastern Bishops have already appealed to Constantinople to have a LOCAL synod called. If that doesn’t work, they can either accept the ruling from Constantinople OR they can appeal to Rome and in which case an Ecumenical council would be called to settle the matter.

If the West has an issue, they raise it up with Rome and if a council is called, it would be considered a local council* unless the Patriarch of the East and the eastern bishops have a position on the topic. Then it would become an ecumenical council.

*(I consider all councils both east and west AFTER the seventh ecumenical council to be local councils)

 

[dvdjs]

For anyone looking for even moderate levels of documentation, this is the wrong forum. It’s a good place to start, and I"ll happily share what I know.

Without at least moderate levels of documentation, it is difficult to tell the difference between things rightly known and things mistakenly believed.

Fr. Taft is an excellent source. Keep in mind, though, that he is a liturgist, and as Fr. Serge Kehler of blessed memory, and a liturgist himself, constantly warned us, “The difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with a terrorist!”

Father Taft was the world’s leading scholar on Constantinopolitan liturgy. Fr., Kel;eherr’s quip does not change that in the least.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

(I consider all councils both east and west AFTER the seventh ecumenical council to be local councils)

How so? East has attended both Vatican I and Vatican II. Are Latins and Greeks required for ecumenical councils? Why aren’t Copts? They did not attend any Council after Ephesus. Either Copts are lesser than Greeks and Latins somehow, not human, or your definition is wrong. If you truly want all traditions to participate in order for council to be ecumenical, you can not view Chalcedon and subsequent councils as ecumenical- well until Vatican I and Vatican II, as both were attended by all three traditions (Copts, Latins, Greeks).

My solution is that any Rome CANNOT interfere with AT ALL with the Eastern churches UNLESS those eastern Bishops have already appealed to Constantinople to have a LOCAL synod called. If that doesn’t work, they can either accept the ruling from Constantinople OR they can appeal to Rome and in which case an Ecumenical council would be called to settle the matter.

Historically East could skip appealing to Constantinople and appeal to Rome directly. Why remove that? Also not every issue needs an ecumenical council to resolve it…

And Jesus telling Peter to govern his flock is basically made impossible by your solution.

 

[George720]

Historically East could skip appealing to Constantinople and appeal to Rome directly. Why remove that? Also not every issue needs an ecumenical council to resolve it…

The EOC has been working toward an Ecumenical Council to deal with several issues, and that Council would exclude the Copts and the Latin Communion, except perhaps as observers… So far the calls have not worked out well - Lack of Emperors, and the EP is the problem, and won’t call a council, and other calls have been less than enthusiastically received…

But the issue of Papal jurisdiction in non-Papal Patriarchates clearly has no historical precedent… Anyone can ask for inter-mediation from anyone, and the very act of doing so affirms local ecclesiastical sovereignty… No Patriarchate is obliged to obey any other Patriarch than their own… This idea that Rome has ALWAYS been the “Sui-juris” Head of the earthly Church has no historical attestation… But Her opinion in the first thousand years was gold… Second thousand not so much…

geo

 

[dochawk]

Without at least moderate levels of documentation, it is difficult to tell the difference between things rightly known and things mistakenly believed.

Even if so, the middle of a discussion is the wrong place for the newcomer to expect to be brought up to speed in such a matter.

Father Taft was the world’s leading scholar on Constantinopolitan liturgy. Fr., Kel;eherr’s quip does not change that in the least.

I’m not putting Fr. Taft down, and Fr. Serge’s comment wasn’t directed at him in particular.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But the issue of Papal jurisdiction in non-Papal Patriarchates clearly has no historical precedent… Anyone can ask for inter-mediation from anyone, and the very act of doing so affirms local ecclesiastical sovereignty… No Patriarchate is obliged to obey any other Patriarch than their own… This idea that Rome has ALWAYS been the “Sui-juris” Head of the earthly Church has no historical attestation… But Her opinion in the first thousand years was gold… Second thousand not so much…

It wasn’t that opinion of Rome was “gold” or something. Canons explicitly notion that if Rome has been appealed to, decision of Rome in the matter is binding. If someone appealed to Constantinople, Constantinople’s decision is binding but can be overruled by Rome. There is no “you can appeal to any other Patriarchate” notion in the canons- after all, canons are not guidelines but they are the law. There were appeals but they were never expressed canonically. However, in case of Constantinople and Rome (and no other Patriarchate at all), appeals were to be resolved by binding resolution. You can not find anything contrary to that in Canons.

So far the calls have not worked out well - Lack of Emperors, and the EP is the problem, and won’t call a council, and other calls have been less than enthusiastically received…

Lack of Emperors? EP being a problem? Do you mean the office or it’s occupants? Anyway, Catholic Church did not have Emperors calling the Councils for a long time too; only real difference is that there is central authority. Orthodoxy is too divided on many issues and can not bring themselves together to recognize authority of Council. Russia will boycott EP, EP will boycott Bulgaria, Antioch jurisdictional issues are in place… and even if they do get resolved by Council, chances are that Patriarchates who do not get what they want will just reject the council. Attending the Council is not enough for it’s acceptance to any Patriarchate…

And such council won’t even be called nor attended by those Patriarchates- if they did attend such council it would risk schism between faithful over whether it should or should not be accepted, and rupture communion of Orthodoxy. Best option for Orthodoxy globally is to slowly ignore the issues for the time being.