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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

No. I don’t believe that this was ever true. The Latins may have said per Filium, but never per Filio. Per takes the accusative case in Latin.

My bad. Point stands with “Per Filium”.

No Melkites in my area. Only Ruthenian. Orthodox Divine Liturgies I attend are OCA and Greek.

I see, I thought you were Melkite, my bad. I just can’t seem to comprehend most of things about Eastern Catholics you are saying, because whenever I go and meet them in person, those things are not held to be true by them, and while they say things like “yeah but we understand it differently in the East”, they’d never say there were only 7 Ecumenical Councils nor that they are not bound by Vatican I and definitions stemming from it (which Eastern Catholics did attend and sign by the way, so another Ecumenical Council for you). Their union / communion with Rome is what defines them, and they would rather cease being Eastern than being Catholic, same way I would rather cease being Western than Catholic. Pretending only difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism is paying lip service to the Pope seems wrong from my personal experience.

It sure seems that way.

Or perhaps, he just disagrees with your interpretation of them.

There was no notion of universality, but rather than notion that through the Eucharist the totality of the Church was present wherever the Eucharist was being celebrated. The universal dimension of the Church was manifested by the communion of all rightly ordained bishops with each other, not with one particular bishop.

So, anathema against Nestorians is actually invalid? Uff, this kind of puts even first 7 Ecumenical Councils as being totally wrong, as some of them anathemized valid Bishops who still celebrate Eucharist. I guess Nestorians are actually fully authentically part of Church of Christ, with true faith because they have valid sacraments, valid holy orders and valid Eucharist! This is what stems from your interpretation.

 

[ziapueblo]

We all want union but we can’t pretend that there aren’t any differences between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox that need to be solved first.

I agree. I like Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

–Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.

Again, I’m sure there are bishops and laity who see RC doctrine as heretical, but from my experience, this is few. Just like RC who think the same about the EO (Palamism for example), only a few.

So many Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are themselves as the same. Especially in the “old country”. Think Syria for example. War torn, a Melkite or Antiochian Church May have been destroyed. All worship in the same place and receive communion. That’s an extreme example but it is accurate.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Or perhaps, he just disagrees with your interpretation of them.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

“However, the heritage handed down by the apostles was received with differences of form and manner, so that from the earliest times of the Church it was explained variously in different places, owing to diversities of genius and conditions of life. All this, quite apart from external causes, prepared the way for decisions arising also from a lack of charity and mutual understanding.

For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation. They must take full account of all these factors and, where this is done, it will greatly contribute to the dialogue that is looked for.”

“The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known, venerated, preserved and cherished by all. They must recognize that this is of supreme importance for the faithful preservation of the fullness of Christian tradition, and for bringing about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians.”

“Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.”

“All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.”

I could have just quotes the whole section regarding the Eastern Churches but that would have been to much.

I can look and post quotes form UT UNUM SINT later.

I’m readying myself for Divine Liturgy. I hope you have a blessed time at Mass this morning.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches , and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation. They must take full account of all these factors and, where this is done, it will greatly contribute to the dialogue that is looked for.”

Yes, but those “facts” are very disputed- before separation, there are many accounts which are explicit in need of communion with Roman See, it’s inerrancy and ability of Vicar of Christ to, when he feels it is needed but with respect to dignity of Patriarchs of the East, interfere. There are many pre-schism Eastern Saints who account for it, as well as western. Not many who had opinions contrary to it.

this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful

Yes, this is something that should NEVER be denied to Eastern Sui Iuris Churches.

Other parts speak about traditions of the East, not necessarily about relation to the Rome.

I’m readying myself for Divine Liturgy. I hope you have a blessed time at Mass this morning.

Was actually considering going to Divine Liturgy too but going to Mass in the evening, but thank you! Hope you have/had Blessed time as well.

 

[Wandile]

OrbisNonSufficit:

Or perhaps, he just disagrees with your interpretation of them.

For this reason the Holy Council urges all, but especially those who intend to devote themselves to the restoration of full communion hoped for between the Churches of the East and the Catholic Church, to give due consideration to this special feature of the origin and growth of the Eastern Churches, and to the character of the relations which obtained between them and the Roman See before separation. They must take full account of all these factors and, where this is done, it will greatly contribute to the dialogue that is looked for.”

“The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known, venerated, preserved and cherished by all. They must recognize that this is of supreme importance for the faithful preservation of the fullness of Christian tradition, and for bringing about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians.”

“Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.”

“All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church. We thank God that many Eastern children of the Catholic Church, who preserve this heritage, and wish to express it more faithfully and completely in their lives, are already living in full communion with their brethren who follow the tradition of the West.”

ZP

The last bolded part is clearly about Eastern Catholics and their legitimacy to govern themselves as they have valid traditions in the church without having to latinize themselves as it says:

“ All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church.”

 

[Wandile]

Vatican Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen gentium :

“ This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd (John 21:17), and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority (see Matthew 28:18-19), which He erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Timothy 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est (is), that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church.

This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.

Subsisting is a special case of being . It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word subsistit , the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Church of Christ and and the Catholic Church.

 

[ziapueblo]

The last bolded part is clearly about Eastern Catholics and their legitimacy to govern themselves as they have valid traditions in the church without having to latinize themselves as it says:

However, this is not the Vatican II document on the Eastern Catholic Churches ( DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM). This is the document on ecumenism.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Exactly, so it does say that Eastern Orthodoxy is NOT part of Catholic Church in which Church of Christ subsists. It never makes same claims about Catholics, Eastern or Western- it actually makes opposite ones.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The last bolded part is clearly about Eastern Catholics and their legitimacy to govern themselves as they have valid traditions in the church without having to latinize themselves as it says:

However, this is not the Vatican II document on the Eastern Catholic Churches ( DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM). This is the document on ecumenism.

ZP

I’m well aware of that.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

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

His feast is Nov. 12th, the day of his martyrdom. When his enemies called him “soul-snatched”, he is said to have replied: “God grant that I snatch all of your souls and take them to Heaven.”

 

[dvdjs]

Married clergy, bearded clergy, leavened bread, and “deletion” of the Filioque–all ancient practices–were cited by Rome as “wrongs” by the east.

The bull issued by Humbertus is often characterized in this way, but this characterization is not correct. In most cases, the key point was that Cerularius refused to acknowledge the licity of the Western practices.

The Antiochian Eastern Orthodox priest in this area allows OO to receive Holy Communion. He does not allow RC to do so. Perhaps this is not a general situation. I would not know about that.

That is interesting. The division between the OO and the EP and Catholic Churches is the result of Christological heresy in the theology of the OO; as determined in an Ecumenical Council. There has been no such finding in a Ecumenical Council that support the lack of intercomunion of the EP and Catholic churches.

The filioque issue is not a smokescreen, it is a very big disagreement, concerning the very nature of God

Which of the seven councils determined that this is very big disagreement, concerning the very nature of God ?

 

[AlNg]

The bull issued by Humbertus is often characterized in this way, but this characterization is not correct.

No. There may have been other issues mentioned, but dochawk is right. Married clergy and omission of the filioque were given as reasons to excommunicate Cerularius and his followers.

 

[dvdjs]

There were a number of issues. The one that precipitated the visit was that of unleavened bread. The main problem was actually with the Armenians of the empire; the Latins got caught up in that argument. Here is what the bull said:

Furthermore, when we, the Pope’s ambassadors, wanted to eliminate the causes of such great evils in a reasonable way, he denied us his presence and conversation, forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them “azymites,” had persecuted the Latins everywhere in word and deed. Indeed, so much [did he persecute them] that among his own children, he had anathematized the apostolic see and against it he still writes that he is the ecumenical patriarch.

This does not say that the use of leavened bread is wrong, only that Cerularius was wrong in his objection to the use of unleavened bread, by the Latins.

Likewise, on the matter of facial hair:

And because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice of the Roman Church.

And on the filioque:

Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
This statement does not claim that the Orthodox deleted the filioque, but that they wrongly deny it.

It is fair to say that they state objections to the carnal marriage of clergy and a number of other practices in the East.

Eastern Rite Catholic Filipinos: THE PAPAL BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION TO PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE MICHAEL CERULARIUS IN 1054

 

[AlNg]

It is fair to say that they state objections to the carnal marriage of clergy and a number of other practices in the East.

Does the Roman Catholic Church allow this practice today?
Also, was not the issue of the filioque mentioned?

 

[dvdjs]

Does the Roman Catholic Church allow this practice today?

It does.

Also, was not the issue of the filioque mentioned?

Yes, in the manner that in mentioned above.

 

[AlNg]

It does.

Does that not indicate that something was seriously wrong with this decree of excommunication? Some of the practices cited as reasons to condemn Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his followers, are the same practices which the Roman Catholic Church allows today?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Does the Roman Catholic Church allow this practice today?

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not East change this practice without Ecumenical Council? Same way Rome added Filioque…

 

[thistle]

That is the attitude of the Roman Catholics which is not particularly helpful for any chance of reunion.

It is not an attitude. It is a fact that the Orthodox is a schismatic part of the Catholic Church and not the other way round.

 

[Maximus1]

What you identify might very well be the primary impediment.
I see a different problem as prominent. It is kind of easy to point to atrocity long ago and accept contrition and seek forgiveness. Like Original Sin, the Culpability aspects belong to men who are long dead.
We can all see that atrocity and injustice is wrong quite easily. What is much more difficult is wrong in the sense of doctrinal truths. It led the schism sequence and it remains the last issue in restoration. HOW do you avoid the appearance of," you were wrong and I was right." There is almost an expectation I imagine held by the triumphal of both groups. Somewhere, some place, bending happens, and the triumphal, will focus on it and blow their triumphal horn. It doesn’t matter how obscure brilliant minds can minimize these issues. There is a mole hill waiting to become a mountain. Always with talk about ," why bother at all if we agree to that," laying in wait.
Actually I think the political is not as difficult as this other issue which seems counterintuitive.

 

[dvdjs]

Does that not indicate that something was seriously wrong with this decree of excommunication?

Why do you ask? the question has no bearing on the point that I made, namely, that the glib summary given by on the thread contained serious inaccuracies.

There were number of things wrong with the bull. Hubertus is not a saint. Neither is Cerularius a saint nor champion of Orthodoxy. His attacks on Latin churches in Constantinople brought the legates. His scheming treatment of them led to the crisis. He was deposed and died in prison wating trial for heresy.

Same way Rome added Filioque…

Same was a a local council in Constantinople changed the Creed of Nicea.