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

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

With all due respect, I don’t see how all of the Apostles and their successor bishops are all successors of Saint Peter.

Simply put: I don’t see it in Scripture and it’s problematic from a perspective of reason.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

With all due respect, I don’t see how all of the Apostles and their successor bishops are all successors of Saint Peter.

Simply put: I don’t see it in Scripture and it’s problematic from a perspective of reason.

I was always taught that Bishops are successors to Apostles, as College of Bishops is successor to College of Apostles. St. Ignatius was successor to St. John, was he not? I do not think he was successor to St. Peter. After all, Apostles all received power to bind and loose, but not keys of authority. If they did, Scripture would have pointed it out. If all Bishops inherited keys and Apostles did not… it make Apostles inferior to Bishops…

in the sense that Cyprian viewed it. That all bishops are the successors of Peter so the bishop himself would strengthen the local churches

Could you please quote Cyprian? I am very interested in this and can not seem to find it. Source would be great, but quotation is sufficient.

 

[ziapueblo]

With all due respect, I don’t see how all of the Apostles and their successor bishops are all successors of Saint Peter.

St Cyprian of Carthage, in “On the Unity of the Church” (the longer version), refers to the keys, stating that Peter received them on behalf of the Twelve, and that the bishops, being successors of the twelve, are all heirs of the keys, because the episcopal order is a single, undivided entity. Hence, the power of the keys belongs to ALL bishops, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

St. Augustine

“For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received. Hereby, then, is the excellence of Peter set forth that he was an emblem of the Church in its universality and unity, when it was said to him, I give to thee what was given to all. For that ye may know that the Church did receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven hear in another place what the Lord said to all Apostles. “Receive the Holy Ghost,” and then instantly, “whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained”[St. John xx. 22,23].

St. Jerome

“But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all.”[see: S. Hieron., Adv. Jovin. i. cap. xxvi.; P.L. xxiii. 247].

St. Ambrose

“therefore the Lord gave the Apostles that which was previously part of his own juridical authority. Hear Him saying I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, to thee he says, I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, that you may bind and loose. What he said to peter is said to the Apostles.”[St. Ambrose, Enarratio in Psalm. xxxviii. 37; P.L. xiv. 1037].

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Peter received them on behalf of the Twelve, and that the bishops, being successors of the twelve, are all heirs of the keys, because the episcopal order is a single, undivided entity.

If we go by this logic, then Pope of Rome receives keys on behalf of all the Bishops. Episcopal order is a single, undivided entity when in union with Bishop of Rome, who holds the keys. That is what College of Bishops is. Church did receive those keys, as they are gift to the Church, same way Church received Episcopacy. Episcopacy is a gift to the Church, but not every Christian is a Bishop. Same way, while Church collectively has the keys, they are invested in single person- Bishop of Rome, for unity of the Church and service to it, as a gift to the Church.

What he said to peter is said to the Apostles .

and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all .

However, our Lord uses singular when addressing Peter, surely this has some meaning for the Church even today. Would Lord do this just to let Peter have some honor? I have no idea… but it does seem less likely to me.

But yes, same way infallibility belongs to entire Church, not Roman Pontiff alone (and he only has it insofar as he is head of this Church and hence as head of infallible community he also has some charisma attributed to him, so he may not mislead the faithful), authority and the keys are received by every Bishop. Your quotes above actually refute “Every Bishop is Peter” principle, as they grant everything to every Apostle and hence, there is no reason for being “Peter” or his successor in your interpretation. Bishops are DEFINITELY NOT vicars of Roman Bishops, neither do they lack authority themselves, but it is union/college of Bishops, strengthened by Petrine Ministry and unity with Peter, which holds authority. Such is the way of Church.

 

[tafan2]

Why ? 10 chars

 

[tafan2]

I have read some of your conversations. It typically leads to me skimming past much of the conversation.

 

[ziapueblo]

However, our Lord uses singular when addressing Peter, surely this has some meaning for the Church even today.

The Orthodox do not dismiss the Petrine ministry.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Orthodox do not dismiss the Petrine ministry.

From my experience, they usually do… or they attribute it to every Bishop and hence is it not really Petrine Ministry, but Apostolic Ministry and/or Episcopal Ministry. What kind of Petrine Ministry does Orthodox Church recognize … ?

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

Here’s my problem: I read Saint John 20:22-23. Assuming we’re reading similar translations ( Mine is a RSV-CE ), Jesus spirated the Holy Spirit upon all of the Apostles and told them: “ Any sins you forgive are forgiven… “ But, I don’t see how that reconciles with the Upon This Rock passage.

Now I know that the Church Fathers couldn’t be contradicting Scripture, so my question becomes: Upon what basis did the Church Fathers you quoted teach that the entire college of bishops received the keys, because Christ gave them specifically to Saint Peter; through Saint Peter on behalf of all of the Apostles?

In my mind, in Saint John 20:22-23 the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins. But, Jesus specifically gave to Saint Peter the keys. That states to me that Saint Peter’s Office is unique to him and to his successors. Separate from the other Apostles.

Btw: It’s a great joy to converse with someone that recognizes Sacred Tradition. I’m so used to debating Protestants and the only thing they’ll recognize is Sacred Scripture.

 

[Isaac14]

I appreciate the kind words!

 

[tafan2]

Your welcome. I hope my post was clear, just trying to say I understand your frustration

 

[Wandile]

Our Lord gave the Keys of the Kingdom to St Peter and from Peter they are given to the whole church. That’s why unity with the Pope is important as he is the source of priestly authority or as St Cyrpian of Carthage says “the source of sacerdotal unity”

Vatican II echoed this in Lumen Gentium 22:

“ But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation.”

That’s why priests cannot licitly celebrate the sacraments without communion with Rome or at least roman permission. It’s why the SSPX needed papal confirmation to validly celebrate marriages and hear confessions

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Since She had no original sin therefore She could not die but fell asleep. Also, the dogmatic definition in Munificentissimus Deus doesn’t say that She died.

 

[Michael16]

Hey, @Margaret_Ann:

I got a cool story to tell you. One of my sons is discerning the Faith and is taking Catechism class.

Last class, the kids saw a movie on Christmas from the Annunciation to the Massacre of the Holy Innocents.

In the movie, the Nativity happened in a cave and Our Lord was laid in the manger.

I explained to my son that our Orthodox brothers and sisters’ tradition is that Jesus was born in a cave and the Western tradition is the stable. I asked the teacher if the Church has ruled either way on it and she said no.

My son then asked me which do I believe and I told him that I grew up with the stable and I’ll stick with that.

As for the Dormition, I think it’s a cool concept. No Original Sin, thus she’s not subject to death. Makes sense to me.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

In fact: I’ve already incorporated some Eastern concepts into my Latin faith and I’m beautifully enriched because of it.

I’m what is technically called a Latinized Ukrainian Greek Catholic. I grew up learning the Latin Hail Mary, Act of Contrition (yes, I still use it), grace before & after meals, the Rosary, Stations of the Cross etc. I’ve learned how to say the Byzantine Angelical Salutation, Presanctified Liturgy, incorporated Byzantine propers in my Rosary etc.

Even though Orientalium Ecclesiarium, the last document of VII, stated that we should be faithful to our own Tradition, it wasn’t until the 1990s that Rome issued the Instruction and things started to move. In 2004 when Archbishop Soroka said that we would no longer use the Filioque in the Creed I was devastated. I had grown up professing the Filioque all my life and I had to give it up? I think it was St. Augustine who said: “In essentials, unity; in non-essential things, liberty; in all things charity.” Isn’t the Creed essential? The Archeparchy of Philadelphia issued a booklet explaining why the Filioque was being removed but I still don’t understand it. I say the Filioque privately though.

I love my Byzantine Tradition but there are things in the Latin Tradition which I love too.

 

[Michael16]

@Margaret_Ann,

I’m super glad to hear you love things in the Latin faith. I’m sorry to hear that the Filioque is no longer being recited in the Divine Liturgy. What did the Archeparchy say in the booklet?

I’m glad the Holy Father showed sensitivity and respect to your Tradition however.

I agree with Saint Augustine in his statement of: In essentials, unity; in non essentials, liberty and in all things, charity. God knows we need that.

As for whether or not the Filioque is necessary: I don’t know. I’d say that question is above my pay grade and I’ll submit to the Magisterium’s judgment.

I wish we still said the Saint Michael Prayer at the end of Mass. Depending on the priest; he may lead us in that prayer on his own initiative. I know that sometimes we Latins recite Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison. If I’m not mistaken, that’s the last vestige of the original Greek in the Latin Mass.

Something I’d love to learn is how to say the Hail Mary in Greek. I think that would be cool. I know it in Latin too. At one time, I would pray the whole Rosary in Latin.

I remember one time praying the Stations at 1 or 2 am. It was a powerful experience amid the incense smell, the dim lighting, the remonstrance and the icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help in the chapel. I’ll never forget it.

Beyond what you already mentioned; what else do you like in the Latin Tradition? If you want, I can share with you what I like in the Eastern Tradition.

 

[AlNg]

That’s why priests cannot licitly celebrate the sacraments without communion with Rome or at least roman permission.

Apparently you disagree with Vatican II because licit does not mean in communion with Rome. It means according to the law.
Orthodox priests do not need communion with Rome to celebrate their Sacraments in accordance with the law of their Church. My understanding is that the Catholic Church sees the Orthodox Churches as Sister Churches. Since they are a true Church, a Sister Church, they have the authority to govern themselves and therefore even though they are not in communion with Rome, their Sacraments can be licit or lawful if celebrated according to the law of their Church.

 

[Michael16]

If I’m understanding it right, @AlNg; is that the Eastern Churches are Sister Churches because they have Apostolic Succession, and thus a valid priesthood; and all seven sacraments. That’s why the Eastern Churches are Sister Churches with valid Sacraments.

Not because of communion, or a lack of; with Rome.

 

[dochawk]

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.

Unless they completely ignore the history of Rome and the EC churches (particularly in the US, or the treatment of the Maronites), they would be insane not to have such concerns!

So, you guys need to hear it from us, and be able to trust it; that we won’t knock you guys down and make you into Latins?

Particularly the trust part: the abused churches heard that message, and expected in many cases for Rome to abide by the treaties of union (Brest, Uzhhorod . . .)

At some point we have to get past the past, and look forward.

I’m going to start a whispering campaign: @Isaac14 for archbishop!

Maybe we just forgive each other?

a sentiment heard far to rarely around here . . .

I think every Sui Iuris Church has their own synod.

You would think that from the words themselves, but there are even a couple that have no bishops, and more that only get bishops named by Rome. I think it’s the wrong term to use for such churches, which are very much not self governing, but . . .

(not in a synod, and synod could correct Patriarch as it was above them,

synods could and did remove Patriarchs . . .

I’m glad the Holy Father showed sensitivity and respect to your Tradition however.

It was a welcome act–but it was reversing a prior imposition of the type discussed.

I did get a kick out of the prior (red) Pittsburgh liturgical books, though–it had “[and the Son]”, as it usage varied by parish. It also had other notations of “if it is the practice of the parish to use the . . .”. And, of course, page 10A with the Third Antiphon taped in in some parishes and not others

 

[ziapueblo]

From my experience, they usually do…

What Orthodox do not accept is supreme jurisdiction, which in my experience, many RC believe it to be synonymous with the Petrine ministry.

What kind of Petrine Ministry does Orthodox Church recognize … ?

I think I answers that; In two ways. 1st, the Pope of Rome is the symbol of unity. He’s the primate of the Church. 2nd, in the sense that Cyprian viewed it. That all bishops are the successors of Peter so the bishop himself would strengthen the local churches.

ZP