Vatican I is not acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, and I don’t think that the CoE accepts it either. So there is theological agreement between EO and CoE on that, as both disagree theologically with the RCC on Vatican I. Also the unwise RC excommunication of the Greek Patriarch in 1054 and the unwise RC attacks of the Fourth Crusade took place before the establishment of the CoE.
Not entirely. I would argue for Council of Toledo doing so- and as much as Constantinople 381 began as local council, so did Toledo… only difference is that Emperor did not enforce Toledo and it was held in the West.
Depends. It was ratified by Bishops, and while faithful did not receive it in the end, that is also largely thanks to Muslim intervention and Greeks (Eastern Romans) feeling West betrayed them. While it is usually portrayed as Bishops coming back to Constantinople and people outright rejecting union, reality is that people were not on just one side, and neither side had defining majority… well, at first at least.
While that is true, every Protestant agrees with that, and you don’t see Lutheran Communion being held as somehow valid by Orthodox Church. Disagreement with Rome can’t be defining factor of intercommunion… or anything close to it… English Church has no valid Priesthood, therefore it can not have valid Eucharist. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Orthodoxy ever received Priest into their ranks by vesting? Catholic Priests are received that way, to my knowledge- and that hints at Catholic Priesthood being somehow valid, hence why would Eucharist be invalid if CoE Eucharist is valid is beyond me, even if Anglican Priests are received by vesting which would put them just on the same level as Catholics in this regard, not above them.
It would rule out all Ecumenical Council, including first 7… and that was obviously not my point. I am just saying that Council of Toledo declared Filioque, and over time Western Church came to do so too. Filioque existed long before Florence was held. If Constantinople had authority to amend the Creed, so did Toledo. Again, condition of being accepted by whole Church is logical fallacy as acceptance of Council determines who is in the Church.
True, but at the time when no one could… political situation was not simple in Western Europe. People have actually tried helping East after Ottoman Empire conquered Byzantium though.
Actually, anti-unionists bashed their Bishops for actually embracing Latin Bishops and being friendly with them. Even after the Council, most who opposed union did not change their view, and vice versa. Filioque was resolved, Purgatorial fire debate was won by Mark of Ephesus whose definition Latin use dogmatically, and Papal Primacy was defined well- though it was a bit too extreme in practice, where Pope appointed Bishops and Patriarchs outside his boundaries. Latins were so used to having only one Patriarch that they did not think of them as somewhat equal to Pope- which they are. Pope is simply also one who holds Petrine Ministry and such has certain duties and privileges on top of that.
No… It was legitimized in Chalcedon. nd in doing so, they also made it clear that the anathema in Ephesus was not about wording.
it was. Then Moscovy broke away and created its own church. Constantinople held on until under the yoke of the Sultan.
Unwise? He was later deposed and died in prison awaiting trial for treason and heresy.
Yes because it helped to split the Catholic Church in two and the division has not been healed for almost 1000 years. Also, the two Churches, East and West, are further apart now because of Vatican I which the East does not accept.
Still split, even though the excommunications were lifted in 1965.dvdjs:
Yes because it helped to split the Catholic Church in two and the division has not been healed for almost 1000 years. Also, the two Churches, East and West, are further apart now because of Vatican I which the East does not accept.
East did not accept any other council either, it’s not like Vatican I was where East said that union with West is impossible. Big part of identity of Orthodox Church was it’s opposition to West, historically. Also technically “split Church into two” is a theological fallacy at best. Patriarch Michael died isolated from his own Church, from his own people because he was power hungry, and tried to make himself king-maker (or emperor-maker I guess). I am not saying excommunication was for any of that, or that it was justified, or that it was valid or anything… but in the end Patriarch Michael is not staunch defender of Orthodoxy who opposed Latin oppression- history proves that he was very power hungry and not as humble as some make him out to be. Cardinal Humbert has also been described as not-very-humble and history shows he was proud enough as to betray his own Pope and go against his authority. It was unfortunate event which did not even matter until later on, as people did not fully realize reality of Schism hundreds of years later.
Why does the Vatican reject this Council?
I think that Vatican I does make reunion impossible because AFAIK the East is not going to accept papal infallibility nor will it accept universal papal jurisdiction over the entire Church, East and West. AFAIK, the EO will accept papal primacy which is much weaker than what was declared in Vatican I.
There were two councils in Constantinople called the eighth, ten years apart.Vico:
Why does the Vatican reject this Council?
How can there be reunion if the Roman Catholic Church rejects this council but the Eastern Orthodox church accepts it?
Communion is the endgame . . . there is noone suggesting that the churches merge; that would be inconsistent with the unity that
When the Melkite Patriarch belatedly signed the decrees of VI, he included that reservation . . .
Some in the East already did. Eastern Catholics do accept universal jurisdiction of the Pope. In the end, without papacy there might be problems like ones described in your link- Churches not recognized, broken communion because of canonical issues and no final arbiter at all exists to solve those. Church should not be too disunited to prevent it from holding Councils to resolve internal Schisms.
That is very encouraging, but I hope it does not include Catholics renouncing dogmas revealed by Holy Spirit…
As the same should be said for the East.
Forgive me, but when was the last time Orthodoxy has declared something to be revealed by Holy Spirit, and would not be already received by Catholic Church? No eastern dogma contradicts any Latin one- including Papal Infallibility and Supreme Jurisdiction… or at least right to intervene when he wishes to.
Coptic Pope can intervene in any Coptic Orthodox Church, but that intervention is based on their primacy and status as Mother Church of all in this communion.
Yes, something Catholic Church holds to be true. Palamism does not contradict Papal dogmas either way. St. Gregory was a wise, venerable man.
With the Eastern Orthodox Church, but then again there has to be a central authority, one Orthodoxy lacks today and such lacking state results into petty squabbles of Moscow and Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem etc… Such internal schisms are never healthy for the Church.
I don’t necessarily think that is the case. No one claims obedience to Pope is obedience to God, but that obedience to God is also found in obedience to His Holy Hierarchical Church. Prime Hierarch is Bishop of Rome, and always was. Again, I am very much against centralisation system where Pope is de facto leader of every sui iuris Church- I am simply saying right to intervene was there, historically. Popes intervened when heresies plagued the East, when Caesaropapism plagued the East and rightful Patriarchs were deposed for doing their Holy Duty of withdrawing Eucharist from unrepentant sinners- even those found at imperial court. I am absolutely not saying Vatican should intervene in affairs of East unless necessary, but who does judge when necessary? For that role Catholic Church proposes Petrine successor and First Hierarch, Bishop of Rome, servant of servants. After all is it not God-pleasing service to rebuke those who should be corrected?