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.
Isaac14 said:
Do you believe this statement is correct or incorrect?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is not a “magisterial” document, so very little Roman Catholics (and this is my opinion from the many responses to this document on this forum) don’t care what it has to say. Even though the Catholic delegation is headed by the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, who is the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, and the statement is vetted by the Pope and the Praefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

ZP
 
Isaac14 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Are you referring to the last sentence

" but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East." ?

You realize the Chieti document (reading the top of the document) is one of an ongoing dialogue
Click to expand...
Yes, as we’ve discussed ad nauseum in multiple threads, I understand this is an ongoing dialog.

But, this statement was agreed to by both Catholic and Orthodox bishops and theologians charged by their respective churches to engage in dialog to bring about restoration of communion. Can we dismiss their work simply because it isn’t yet finished?

Do you believe this statement is correct or incorrect?
Click to expand...
Allow me to quote an Eastern Catholic bishop (retired), Bp Alya, whose Church(Melkite) was Catholic, went to Orthodox, and back to being Catholic.

From Bp John Alyua

"In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
 
steve-b said:
Allow me to quote an Eastern Catholic bishop (retired), Bp Alya, whose Church(Melkite) was Catholic, went to Orthodox, and back to being Catholic.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you don’t want to answer my two questions from the post you quoted…
 
Isaac14 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Allow me to quote an Eastern Catholic bishop (retired), Bp Alya, whose Church(Melkite) was Catholic, went to Orthodox, and back to being Catholic.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you don’t want to answer my two questions from the post you quoted…
Click to expand...
I’m quoting ( Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches ) , NOT from an ongoing discussion.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
Unfortunately this is not a “magisterial” document, so very little Roman Catholics (and this is my opinion from the many responses to this document on this forum) don’t care what it has to say.
Click to expand...
It isn’t that we do not care, it is that it seems to directly contradict our dogmas (not just doctrine btw). However, when looked upon from perspective of what was quoted, it isn’t that bad… it does circle around immediate jurisdiction, but not around universal one. There are direct references on Bishop of Rome being able to overrule Bishop of Constantinople. However, many Orthodox seem to think this document basically says that they were right all along, which it doesn’t. It does not acknowledge current Orthodox ecclesiastical structure as efficient by far, (well, it doesn’t acknowledge current Catholic one either) and from historical as well as current reality, Orthodox structure is not working properly.
steve-b said:
I’m quoting ( Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches ) , NOT from an ongoing discussion.
Click to expand...
While binding for Catholics, CCEO in itself is not dogmatic nor is it ecumenical. It contains nothing binding for Orthodox. However, passage you quoted is dogmatic, and not by virtue of being in the Code of Canons.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the current Melkite bishop speaking on roughly the same issue:


Bishop John Alyua of blessed memory was seen as “latinized” (which I hear from many friends and acquaintances in the Melkite Church) and was one of only two bishops that voted against the Zoghby Initiative (23 or 24 voted for it).

ZP
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
It isn’t that we do not care, it is that it seems to directly contradict our dogmas (not just doctrine btw).
Click to expand...
Maybe the Roman Catholic Church needs to take a serious look at this issue of supreme and immediate jurisdiction. The Petrine Ministry is to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, not rule over the entire Church. Anyway, this is well above my pay grade.

ZP
 
steve-b said:
I’m quoting ( Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches ) , NOT from an ongoing discussion.
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t answer my two questions to you:
  1. Can we dismiss the work of that commission simply because it isn’t yet finished?
  2. Do you agree with that statement?
 
ziapueblo said:
Maybe the Roman Catholic Church needs to take a serious look at this issue of supreme and immediate jurisdiction. The Petrine Ministry is to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, not rule over the entire Church. Anyway, this is well above my pay grade.
Click to expand...
It also does not exist for just nominal power. I am against centralization as much as I am against abolishing power of Pope to intervene. Honestly, it’s not like every Sui Iuris Church should run to Pope with every change they make for approval, with every bishop for appointment and with every single scandal to handle… but at the same time, denying that Pope has a say in those would be catastrophic. If Pope so chooses, he should be able to intervene and hence “strengthen the brethren in unity and faith” even if they do not think they should be strengthened. This does not and should not take away the rights, dignity and honor of Patriarchs and their Sui Iuris Churches. Would you agree with this?
 
Isaac14 said:
40.png
steve-b:
I’m quoting ( Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches ) , NOT from an ongoing discussion.
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t answer my two questions to you:
  1. Can we dismiss the work of that commission simply because it isn’t yet finished?
  2. Do you agree with that statement?
Click to expand...
What do you think, the document, in dialogue, is trying to accomplish?
 
Guys

My question is this:

If the EO accept that appeals to Rome can made from the sui iuris Churches of the East, without relying on Rome for any and everything; then what’s the issue?

From what I gather, there should no longer be a problem with papal primacy.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s how we handle the ECs: They’re self governing with minimal interference from Rome.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
While binding for Catholics, CCEO in itself is not dogmatic nor is it ecumenical. It contains nothing binding for Orthodox. However, passage you quoted is dogmatic, and not by virtue of being in the Code of Canons.
Click to expand...
What do you think “communion” with the Orthodox means?
 
Michael16 said:
If I’m not mistaken, that’s how we handle the ECs: They’re self governing with minimal interference from Rome.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily how we handle them atm… though yes, in recent years this is direction Rome has taken and hopefully will continue to do so.

At the same time, if Pope can only act if there is an appeal, there is limit to when Peter can strengthen his brethren in faith. At the same time, Orthodoxy currently, canonically speaking, has appeal stuff and it is anything but difficult just to ignore difficulty of this appeal. Putting limits on infallible head of the Church or giving someone a chance to ignore decision of Pontiff is not something Catholic Church is very inclined to doing.
 
ziapueblo said:
According to you, submission to the Pope of Rome.
Click to expand...
Same way Oriental Orthodoxy has it- Pope of Alexandria can intervene in affairs of other Churches, even if uninvited. It is based on fact that Alexandria is the Mother Church of those Churches, on his primacy and status as Bishop of Petrine and Holy See of Alexandria. I really like that model, honestly. If Pope of Rome had same status in Orthodox-Catholic communion, it would probably work well too.

And because Oriental Orthodoxy accepts it, it would be unwise to say “East” can not accept such thing…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top