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.
steve-b said:
What do you think “communion” with the Orthodox means?
Click to expand...
I understand your point, and I agree with it- however, if you are discussing with Orthodox Christians, they will not take this as a valid source nor argument. That’s all I wanted to point out, I do not mean to say you are wrong or anything- far from it, I believe you are completely right.

As I said, while I am against too tight centralization of entire Church to Rome, I do not support Orthodox model of nominal head which disturbs general unity of the Church.

Oh right, communion would mean that we start sharing same faith, hierarchies are united and there is no contradiction in neither ecclesiology nor theology, and while expressions may differ, we proclaim same true Apostolic faith. In my opinion, as a Catholic, with Pope heading the Church while other Patriarchs not being “nominal” heads either, but holding real authority over their Sui Iuris Churches.
 
Last edited:
Okay. Please help me understand what the Orthodox mean by papal primacy.
 
Here’s something that boggles my mind on Orthodox ecclesiology:

I’m of the impression that each Bishop heads an independent Church and that I’m not quite understanding what the role of an EP is.

So, it seems to me that Orthodox rely on ecumenical councils and synods to resolve issues and if resolution cannot be made at the council/synod level; there’s no central authority to impose a definitive settlement.

I’m just puzzled.
 
steve-b said:
IOW you think a dialogue trumps canon law
Click to expand...
IOW, you really don’t want to answer my questions and would rather make a black and white assumption about what I think rather than listening or having a real conversation.

I don’t think I’ve ever said that dialog trumps canon law. But at the same time, if these agreed statements have no weight then ecumenical dialogue is, frankly, meaningless.

One agreed statement certainly won’t be the entirety of what is needed to reestablish communion, but each one (of which Chieiti is one of many) is part of the step by step process of laying a foundation on which the future basis of restoration of communion will be built. This is precisely why these statements are important.
 
I agree that the Vatican documents like Chieti are valuable ecumenically; as they lay out what historically the relationship was between Rome and the Eastern Churches.

@Isaac14, I’m just not understanding where your anger is coming from. Where is the misunderstanding?
 
Michael16 said:
Here’s something that boggles my mind on Orthodox ecclesiology:

I’m of the impression that each Bishop heads an independent Church and that I’m not quite understanding what the role of an EP is.

So, it seems to me that Orthodox rely on ecumenical councils and synods to resolve issues and if resolution cannot be made at the council/synod level; there’s no central authority to impose a definitive settlement.

I’m just puzzled.
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong that in a sense each bishop and his diocese form a full church - paraphrasing St Iraneaus, where the bishop is surrounded by his flock, the whole church is manifested. Practically speaking, though, while neither another bishop nor the primate may directly interfere in another diocese, the bishop in question is certainly charged with “keeping the peace” (i.e. maintaining communion) with his brother bishops and the primate of the church.

Each primatial bishop, whether titled patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, etc., does indeed have duties and responsibilities that a diocesan bishop does not have. Amongst the primates there is an order of precedence/honor, with the Ecumenical Patriarch being first. The EP has the prerogative to call councils and serve as a place to appeal. Admittedly, there is currently some brokenness in this system
 
Michael16 said:
@Isaac14, I’m just not understanding where your anger is coming from. Where is the misunderstanding?
Click to expand...
My frustration comes from trying to converse with Steve over many different threads where he dodges questions and refuses to engage any points that contradict his black and white thinking.
 
Okay, @Isaac14.

What points are you trying to get across?

As for your kind response to my question: Thank you, I deeply appreciate it.

With this understanding of the Orthodox system, what duties and prerogatives does an EP have when brother bishops appeal to him?

Does he decide and settle the dispute and the disputants must accept his decision and judgment?

Or is the EP’s role in appeals made to him is more like an arbitrator reconciling the disputants and coming to a reasonable mutual understanding?
 
Last edited:
Michael16 said:
hat points are you trying to get across?
Click to expand...
In this instance, simply that the dialogue and agreed statements between the Orthodox & Catholic Churches can’t be dismissed despite not (yet) being magisterial. Further, that reestablishment of communion is not going to be comfortable or easy for either church - we’re both going to have to re-understand our respective theologies in ways that is faithful to our traditions while also being open to understanding the other church is not wrong. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, to both remain faithful yet open our minds, but it needs to be done.

Unfortunately there are diehards on both side that want restoration of communion in completely one-sided terms. Examples would be “submit to Rome” or “repent of your papist heresies.” Neither if those will form the basis of communion
 
Michael16 said:
Or is the EP’s role in appeals made to him is more like an arbitrator reconciling the disputants and coming to a reasonable mutual understanding?
Click to expand...
Ideally speaking, I think this would be role. Orthodoxy definitely seems to prefer discussion and consensus rather than a top-down decision.
 
Sorry, @Isaac14; I had to resolve some issues with one of my sons.

I think your points on restoring communion are sound. Both sides have to hash out some basic statements that we can both agree on as establishing a basis for further talks. Further, I agree that we both have to be respectful, open minded and willing to meet the other side without the “ I’m right, you’re wrong; just accept it and take it. “ attitude in order to affect a sound consensus. My next question is why would there be any dismissal of these statements?

I don’t know what these basic statements are. If you could help me understand; I’d appreciate it.

As for the respective theologies, from what I know of Orthodox theology; I don’t see any insurmountable problems. I see much beauty and value in your guys’ system. In fact: I think, once we satisfactorily resolve the Filioque and Essence-Energies debate; there’s a great deal of compatibility between Latin and Eastern systems; as we both pretty much teach the same thing IMHO.

As for the papal primacy issue: I’m wondering if the Orthodox fear that, if restoration occurs; that Rome would become a heavy handed micromanager that would tear up and overturn centuries of Eastern tradition and theology arbitrarily and impose a Latinization program.

If that’s the case, I can certainly understand the wariness the East feels about papal primacy.

As for the discussion and consensus building: I see good value in that approach. I think that within the Latin Church; there is discussion and consensus building when you look at the national conferences of Catholic Bishops.

What we do in the Latin Church is that sometimes the Pope has to step in and make a definitive ruling on a matter the bishops can’t resolve on their own and essentially the matter becomes either a Church wide problem or the bishops themselves press the Holy Father to make a ruling. As for the papal infallibility thing; the Pope rarely exercises that power and only in cases where the sensus fidei is already there for that infallible definition to be made.

Something else to remember is that it’s not the Pope alone that forms the Magisterium of the Latin Church. It’s the Pope, as head of the college of bishops; and the bishops in communion with him that forms the Magisterium.

I hope what I’ve said helps you and hopefully allays any fears.
 
Last edited:
The Petrine Ministry, which is to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith, has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. The Ravenna and Chieti documents are what I would use to define primacy.

ZP
 
So @ziapueblo; primacy as in: the Holy Father has first place in honor and is occasionally appealed to. But otherwise; he’s simply an Ecumenical Patriarch that keeps a hands off attitude in the internal affairs of the other bishops’ and patriarchates’ Churches?
 
Last edited:
In general, yes. Appeals made as well as “first seat” at the table if you will. Also the Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren.

ZP
 
Okay, @ziapueblo.

My next question for you is:

Petrine Ministry. Without ruling the Church juridically; how does the Petrine Ministry function to strengthen the brethren? What about unity?

What is your concept of the Petrine Office?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top