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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

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.

So, is Petrine Ministry synonymous with Episcopal Ministry, or is it not? Does only Bishop of Rome hold it, or does anyone else …?

 

[ziapueblo]

But, I don’t see how that reconciles with the Upon This Rock passage.

The “keys” and “binding and loosing” go hand-in-hand. The power to “bind and loose” is the forgiveness of sins. I don’t see how the “upon this rock” passage = supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church. I’m not arguing the St Peter was not set apart from the rest, it’s pretty clear from Scripture, but again, papal supremacy?

Jesus specifically gave to Saint Peter the keys

I might argue that he uses the “keys” plural, not singular, meaning all the Apostles would receive the keys. Also, as I’ve stated, the “keys” and “binding and loosing” go hand-in-hand, which of course all the Apostles receive the power to do (I remember arguing this same point over ten years ago on this forum with an Orthodox Christian when I myself was deep into Catholic apologetics and I would copy and paste every CA tract on the subject). The “parallel” passage of Isaiah 22:22 was never recognized by the Church Fathers as a type for Matthew 16. No where do you see this in the early Church. I don’t even think it is used in the documents of Vatican I (although I have not gone through the whole document so I could be mistaken). From what I understand this is a Dr. Scott Hahn interpretation that is now in the footnotes of Catholic Bibles.

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.

Thanks, I enjoy it also. If you really would like to learn about Byzantine Christianity, both Catholic and Orthodox, go to http://byzcath.org/ and check out their forum page (which @dochawk often recommends). You can see many threads on this topic and as said by my friend I just mentioned, the schism is at low tide there.

ZP

 

[Isaac14]

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

I suspect my wife, not to mention everyone else that knows me in real life, would take issue with this!

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes even though the Catholic and Orthodox are not in full communion with one another, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox are true particular Churches and “Sister Churches.” This is why the schism is from within and not outside of the Church. How could one be considered a Church yet outside of the Church, correct?

For the most part, with the exception of some extreme cases, the Orthodox recognize the sacraments of the Catholic Church (at least Orthodox bishops, priests and deacons I have had contact with do). For example, Catholics are not re-baptized (if so that is a no, no) or if a Catholic priest comes into the Orthodox Church he is not re-ordained but vested.

Here is some great reading material:

Unitatis Redintegratio - http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Ut Unum Sint - http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...ments/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html

Balamand Statement - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

I’ve gone over Saint Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22:22.

In Saint Matthew 16, Jesus tells Saint Peter that upon this rock I shall build My Church, that to him he will give the keys, the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church and the power to bind and loose.

Our Lord, however; didn’t give all the Apostles the keys and the binding and loosing powers. Only the authority to forgive sins.

In my mind, this preserves the Latin concept of the Petrine Office.

I’m still not understanding the basis in Sacred Tradition that the Church Fathers that either you or dochawk quoted that they taught that the keys were given to all the Apostles.

I still don’t understand how the Orthodox can say Saint Peter is set apart from the rest and yet say he wasn’t the juridical head of the Church.

As for your statement on validity and schism; I’m glad we still agree that we’re still the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Which makes Catholic-Orthodox dialogue a pleasure compared to Catholic-Protestant dialogue.

 

[ziapueblo]

The truth is, Rome historically has held the primacy. The Petrine ministry has been exercised through the primacy of the Church of Rome. The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy.

Accepting Roman primacy does not mean accepting the current state of the Papacy, as defined and exercised unilaterally by the Church of Rome. But one can disagree with Rome about what the primacy entails, while still recognizing that primacy within its historical limits.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Our Lord, however; didn’t give all the Apostles the keys and the binding and loosing powers.

Matthew 18:18

Which makes Catholic-Orthodox dialogue a pleasure compared to Catholic-Protestant dialogue.

True!

ZP

 

[Michael16]

ZP,

Saint Matthew 18:18 was interesting. I concede the point that all the Apostles have binding and loosing powers.

But what about the keys?

From what I’ve gathered today, I’m wondering if the basic problem we face to heal the schism is all the mistrust of how papal authority would be used upon the East.

I realize that 30 years’ of respect and sensitivity for the ECs is a flash in the pan compared to centuries; but: Do you guys need to see from us demonstrable good faith that you can take as a basis that we won’t abuse you?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For example, Catholics are not re-baptized

Technically, should anyone be ever re-baptized? I thought even protestant baptisms are valid, and Orthodoxy does acknowledge St. Cyprian was wrong to re-baptize heretics… correct?

I’m not arguing the St Peter was not set apart from the rest, it’s pretty clear from Scripture, but again, papal supremacy?

I would say that Papal Supremacy is a development. However, power of Rome to intervene and use infallibility granted to Pope is simply using gift from God in smart way. What is more important, dignity and pride of particular Churches, or upholding truth and doctrine? While both are very important, one does seem to rise above the other…

I might argue that he uses the “keys” plural, not singular, meaning all the Apostles would receive the keys.

Interesting idea, but I do not think it logically follows. I am not saying it is not a possibility, but nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone else receiving keys nor having name changed (a big biblical thing) from out of Apostles. Only one who goes through semi-change of a name is Paul.

The Papacy therefore is a VEHICLE through which the Bishop of Rome exercises his special ministry. But when the definition and exercise of the primacy interferes with, or becomes an impediment to, the Petrine Ministry, then it is the primacy that must change, because the Papacy exists to serve the Church, not the Church to exalt the Primacy. To get where we are today, Rome has acted in a high-handed and unilateral fashion for an entire millennium, during which time its approach to its own prerogatives has been entirely tautological: Rome defines the primacy because Rome holds the Primacy.

I agree with most of this. However, someone has to be able to define what primacy means.

Accepting Roman primacy does not mean accepting the current state of the Papacy, as defined and exercised unilaterally by the Church of Rome. But one can disagree with Rome about what the primacy entails, while still recognizing that primacy within its historical limits.

It is hard to p(name removed by moderator)oint historical limits though. East did hold Rome to be infallible, inerrant Church who judges even which synods are Ecumenical and which are not. While some might deny this, there are too many witnesses to this fact and almost none to the contrary. St George the Hagiorite, Georgian Monk who came to no contact with Church of Rome and was living during Schism times upheld this teaching. For what reason and where did it come from? How did it emerge in Georgia? Other than perhaps tradition of universal Church, there is no clear answer.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Do you guys need to see from us demonstrable good faith that you can take as a basis that we won’t abuse you?

I wouldn’t stop at that. Rome has to respect Union of Brest, as well as independence and dignity of Sui Iuris Churches. Rome should stop throwing them under the bus just to appease some Orthodox Churches like they have done time and time again in recent years. Eastern Catholics do not exist to attract Orthodox, they exist to be authentic Eastern Christians belonging in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In turn however, Rome has to defend it’s primacy, inerrancy and infallibility as well as right to exercise their ministry with no regard for petty things such as someone’s pride of independence.

From what I’ve gathered today, I’m wondering if the basic problem we face to heal the schism is all the mistrust of how papal authority would be used upon the East.

That is my concern too. Nobody wants another round of latinization, but neither do we want formal union where Rome professes a dogma while Orthodoxy disregards it (nor vice versa).

But what about the keys?

I do not believe keys are actually connected to binding and losing, or at least not solely expression of it. It seems to me that passage gives Peter twofold power, while another passage gives Apostles one part of that power. There is difference between Petrine and Episcopal Ministry.

 

[dochawk]

I wouldn’t stop at that. Rome has to respect Union of Brest, as well as independence and dignity of Sui Iuris Churches.

For that matter, if actually honored by Rome, Brest could well be the model for Communion . . .

That is my concern too. Nobody wants another round of latinization, but neither do we want formal union where Rome professes a dogma while Orthodoxy disregards it (nor vice versa).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Michael16:

I think this is one of the easier parts: Vatican I was pretty clear that it isn’t the Pope’s infallibility, but that of the bishops exercised through him. A council could easily refine this in a way that required Eastern participation.

 

[Michael16]

Doc, I don’t understand your statement on infallibility. I thought that was strictly a papal power.

 

[ziapueblo]

But what about the keys?

Jesus notes that with the keys came the power to bind and loose. To “bind and loose” is a rabbinic term for the rabbis’ authority to declare things permitted or forbidden.

The Orthodox Study Bible notes for Matthew 18:18-20 has this to say about “binding and loosing”: The authority to bind and loose sins is given to the apostles and transmitted to the bishops and presbyters they ordained. This authority is given for the sake of the salvation of the sinner. The sinner, “seeing that he is not only cast of out of the Church, but that the bond of his sin will remain in Heaven, he may turn and become gentle” (JohnChr).

From what I’ve gathered today, I’m wondering if the basic problem we face to heal the schism is all the mistrust of how papal authority would be used upon the East.

I think that’s a fair conclusion on your part.

Do you guys need to see from us demonstrable good faith that you can take as a basis that we won’t abuse you?

The Ravenna and Chieti documents are a good start to settling the issue. Time will tell.

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

For that matter, if actually honored by Rome, Brest could well be the model for Communion . . .

I do hope that will become a reality one day.

Vatican I was pretty clear that it isn’t the Pope’s infallibility, but that of the bishops exercised through him. A council could easily refine this in a way that required Eastern participation.

Does it not already kind of require Eastern participation, if it is that Bishops exercise it through him? East is full of Bishops after all I also can’t seem to notice the passage which references participation of Bishops. I did find something that I do think Orthodox Church might have somewhat hard time reconciling with though:

Therefore , such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. Would this still be compatible with idea of collegiality in the East?

 

[Michael16]

ZP,

I see your point on St Matthew 18:18.
However: I’m wondering if the keys also mean the access to heaven; since keys lock and unlock doors.

As a Latin, I’m taught that the keys given to St Peter was Our Lord’s assigning Saint Peter the role of royal chamberlain and stewardship of the royal household.

That essentially, Saint Peter was delegated the authority to act as Our Lord’s representative on Earth.

I forget who mentioned it; but I think it’s unfair to say that the Latin Church serves papal primacy. My understanding is that the Holy Father is a servant of servants and acts as the Head of the Church to ensure unity and uniformity of the Faith.

One thing I’d hope you guys can understand about us is we had to deal with the Protestants. For five centuries, we had to take a hardline against heresy and schism. Basically, it was a siege mentality in some senses. So, enforcing discipline and conformity amongst us, and a war mentality with the Protestants and the Enlightenment; probably inculcated in us a knee jerk response of conformity and hardline no compromise attitude.

I’m not excusing bad behavior on our part; just hoping you’d understand us.

To borrow a term from Greek philosophy: The Holy Father, when his office is properly exercised; is the Arche. The governor of the Church.

That Our Lord set His Church upon Saint Peter as the foundation of the Church. In essence, the basis of ecclesiastical structure with full authority to act on Christ’s behalf.

 

[ziapueblo]

As a Latin, I’m taught that the keys given to St Peter was Our Lord’s assigning Saint Peter the role of royal chamberlain and stewardship of the royal household.

I learned the same thing.

My understanding is that the Holy Father is a servant of servants and acts as the Head of the Church to ensure unity and uniformity of the Faith.

The Orthodox wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this. Although, there would be an issue with uniformity. The goal is restore communion between the two Churches.

Look at Byzantine Catholics, there is no “uniformity” between them and Roman Catholics. ByzCaths are on a completely different lectionary and liturgical year and express the faith in the same way as the Orthodox.

One thing I’d hope you guys can understand about us is we had to deal with the Protestants.

For this reason, something that the East lacks, is good “apologetics.” We, EO and EC, never had to defend the faith in the way that RC have to constantly defend their position to Protestant Christians.

I’m not excusing bad behavior on our part; just hoping you’d understand us.

I totally understand. ECs are known for knee jerk responses towards Latins.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

I appreciate your words and understanding, @ziapueblo.

You make a good point on the differences between RCs and ECs. We don’t have an uniform Faith. We understand it as two lungs of the Church.

You know, once a Lutheran attempted to convince me that clearly Saint Paul in Romans taught faith alone based on an linguistic analysis of the original Greek.

I figured out immediately that if his linguistic analysis was correct, the 1st century native Greek speakers reading Romans would have picked it up right away; unless there was a massive 1,500 year mistake in translation and reading comprehension.

He never attempted to refute me on that point.

I wonder what you guys would make of that. Haha

 

[Margaret_Ann]

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.

OK, here goes:

The Traditional Latin Mass aka EF, Eucharistic Adoration, Holy Hour; Devotions to the Sacred Heart, Precious Blood, Holy Face, Holy Name and Holy Wounds of Jesus, the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and St. Joseph; the Brown & Green Scapulars, the Medal of the Immaculate Conception aka the Miraculous Medal. I also found out about devotion to the Sacred Head of Our Lord but I have to learn more about that first.

The only things that I can’t understand about the TLM are 1) kneeling during the Gradual (Alleluia verses), 2) sitting down during the Nicene Creed 3) why the words “Mysterium Fidei” are in the words of consecration over the chalice and 4) the mistranslation of the Kyrie eleison in English. I’ve seen TLM missals translate “Kyrie eleison” as “Lord, have mercy on us.” which is incorrect. It should simply be “Lord, have mercy.”

Κύριε, ελέησον = Lord, have mercy (this is how we do it in Vespers).

Κύριε, ελέησον σε μας = Lord, have mercy on us (Google Translate)

Κύριε, ελέησον ιμας - Lord, have mercy on us (maybe @George720 or @AlNg could tell which “Lord, have mercy on us” is correct)

 

[Elvis_George]

not as much lol

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I did get a kick out of the prior (red) Pittsburgh liturgical books, though

I have the blue paperback version of the red book. And I know two Byzantine Catholic parishes that still have the red books.