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

[ziapueblo]

And Peter’s successors,

Sorry, not submission but communion with.

I’ve heard many holy priests speak about the importance of the people, that it’s a “symbiotic” relationship. Both priest and laity need one another. If there are no priests, we are not able to receive the sacraments. On the other side of the coin, if there are no laity, there is no one to give the sacraments to.

Interesting that one always hears about the importance of communion with Rome but never the importance of Rome being in communion with the others. I can recall recent Popes of Rome saying something similar, but never have a heard the laity speak of it.

Do you not fee that the Latin Church is wounded somewhat? Do you not feel that it is important that all the Churches are in communion with one another? I’m guessing not, since you always speak of submission to and not communion with.

ZP

 

[George720]

Thank you, George.

What would be the Jesus Prayer in Greek? The version I like is this one:

“Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.”

The Jesus Prayer is the one that is mostly discipled in this last century… And I am a terrible student of history… But historically, any short phrase from the Bible or even the Service Books can be used to fill in our lives with God rather than the with the world.

So the long version is:
“O Lord Jesus Christ…
Son of God…
Have Mercy on me…
The sinner…”

In times of great temptations, it can simply be
“Lord have Mercy” repeated urgently…

Another is:
“O Lord be Merciful unto me and Save me…”

Another is:
“O Most Holy Theotokos save me!”

One of my favorites, from Pascha, is;
“Let God Arise!
Let His enemies be scattered!
Let them that hate Him Flee from Before His Face!
Christ is Risen from the Dead!
Trampling down Death by Death!
And upon those in the Tomb…
Bestowing Life!”

Another:
“For behold I was conceived in iniquities…
And in sins did my mother bear me…”

And:
“Thou shalt sprinkle me with Hissop…
And I shall be made clean!”

But the Jesus Prayer is full and complete,
a confession of the Faith of Christ
all in a few words…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

“THOSE” Churches that became Orthodox, down the road of history, WERE first Catholic to begin with.

The East has always thought themselves as Catholic. The West took up the mantle Catholic while the East took Orthodox as to distinguish themselves from each other. Say what you want, we are all One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

ZP

 

[Hume]

Funnily enough, reality was that before Schism, East used to be very hierarchical in nature. Metropolitans and Patriarchs exercised direct authority over local Bishops (not in a synod, and synod could correct Patriarch as it was above them, but individually Bishops were subservient to Patriarchs).

If I understand Orthodoxy, this is still the case today.

It’s just that any position above bishop is a primacy of honor. I find that most Catholics have a bit of an issue understanding what that is, vis a vis 800-1400 years of conflict.

 

[Hume]

No. The various churches were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. The dialogue acknowledges they were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. Restoration of communion will never on the happen on the basis of submission to Rome, but will happen when we mutually recognize we share the same faith.

From my best secular research, this is the truth. Alexandria, Antioch and a bit later Constantinople did not consider themselves under Rome’s rule (Jerusalem was the same as well, but that place was a backwater compared to these cities).

Roman Primacy became Roman Supremacy when Islam silenced these Sees.

 

[steve-b]

Sorry, not submission but communion with.

ZP

And if that is true

THEN

One also follows HERE

If one doesn’t follow that, then technically there is no communion

 

[George720]

“THOSE” Churches that became Orthodox, down the road of history, WERE first Catholic to begin with.

The EOC IS the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ…
It has been so from the Institution of the Church in Power at Pentecost in 34 AD…
It has been the Roman Catholic Church since the Roman Empire moved its Seat to New Rome in Constantinople with Constantine…

But we kept the Primacy of Peter in Roma, Italia, with the Western Latin Church…
Not as the Jurisdictional Authority of the Church…
But as the Primacy of Honor…
Where both Peter and Paul were martyred for Christ…
And where a LOT of Popes followed their example in the first millennium…
Rome was the shining star on the hill for us all for a long time…
But as martyrs, not as authoritarian law givers…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Each local Church Patriarch can take his Church’s Communion out of Communion with any other Church in a disputed matter… Often several will do so against one independently, as was the case between Moscow and ROCOR for so long…

I don’t think this is a good thing, by far. It is literally so confusing. Either one is united to Church of Christ or he is not. Someone united to Christ should not be united to someone who is not- (one can not serve two masters) and if both parts are authentically part of Church of Christ, severing communion with one is wrong. It is political move by East to do this in a way to censure, because there is no other authority to resolve anything- one may point out Ecumenical Councils, but because of this phenomenon (and fact that they can actually be ignored by any Church they rebuke) meant that they stopped being called post-Schism.

The biggest theological objection to Papal Jurisdiction over the Church concerns the issue of free-will, and the willful nature of Salvation in Christ… Forced and compelled virtue is no virtue at all…

Submission to authorities was always a virtue. Lord once said “give to Emperor what is Emperor’s” and Paul allowed himself to be judged by civil authorities. How much more are we supposed to submit to Peter’s successor, if we are to also submit to pagans who rule over us?

And power corrupts… This is why the Orthodox have had heretical patriarchs and excommunications of local Churches in transgression or heresy… And it is why they seek resolution in Counciliar discussions and decisions…

It isn’t a given that councils are immune to corruption by power. Actually, it is much more known for conciliar/democratic systems to form some parties and bring to power those who would support them. Neither system is perfect, but in the end Lord did promise one of his Apostles to preserve his faith.

Unity is found in Communion…

Disunity in absence of Communion…

So… is there right now, unity on Orthodox Church? Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A is not in communion with C. Forget that, what about acknowledging which Churches are or are not canonical? I’m sorry but this aspect of Orthodoxy is a mess.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Ability to call an Ecumenical Council…

Actually, pre-schism they were called by Emperor and even if other Bishops wanted them called. To invest this power solely upon the Pope would be an innovation.

Well, there were no automobiles in those days, so they were not the keys to the car!

Keys resembled authority. In Jewish culture, one who would receive keys when King left was one who was left with authority to govern the city until King returned. I would say power to “bind and loose” is sacramental, not necessarily key part.

Κύριε, ελέησον ημας
Lord pity us

Yay! I am proud to say that my country got the translation right. Might be because most Priests (yes, mainly Latin ones at that) I know are better at Greek than Latin

If this portrayal in a Catholic Church is not politics, then what is it except a slap in the face of a man who has helped restore Christian Orthodoxy to Russia?

While sad, it is a far cry from Caesaropapism. This is some national identification gone wrong, not necessarily Caesaropapism.

He is the head of the Body, the Church

Catholic Church does not deny this, it is simply that we acknowledge earthly governor- a vicar, man with almost no authority of himself, hardly worthy of honor bestowed upon him… the Pope.

Interesting that one always hears about the importance of communion with Rome but never the importance of Rome being in communion with the others.

If Rome is indeed inerrant and infallible as it was judged to be even by Eastern Fathers, then it would be like saying “why is it important for us to accept truth when it is not important for truth to accept us?”…

Do you not fee that the Latin Church is wounded somewhat?

Oh I believe it is very wounded, but not necessarily by not being in communion with others. Church was wounded when Arians left- so many good souls went to heresy. Now, Orthodoxy did not go heretical, but similar concept can be applied (though in much better and softer way).

Say what you want, we are all One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Dogmatically speaking, both Churches disagree. So much for infallibility of the Church. Glad we got some hyper-ecumenism which showed us truth after Holy Spirit failed on both sides

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If I understand Orthodoxy, this is still the case today.

Not really. Currently Orthodoxy holds that each Bishop is completely equal… well except some Patriarchs who have more votes in synod like in Russia, but that’s not important to talk about anytime ever.

Roman Primacy became Roman Supremacy when Islam silenced these Sees.

Actually, from my research which was before I really got into Catholicism, Constantinople did kinda meddle with honorary titles, appointed some Greeks to have honorary Patriarchates and then just used that to grow in power.

But as the Primacy of Honor…

What good is that though? What does this serve except to manually silence those Scripture verses? Primacy of honor has no practical applications at all.

 

[Isaac14]

Primacy of honor has no practical applications at all.

I don’t recall if I’ve linked to following for you directly, but I do know I’ve referred to the Statute of the Orthodox Church in America in a number of different threads to point out that the “primacy of honor” belonging to a primatial bishop carries with it duties and responsibilities beyond that of a diocesan bishop. In other words, it is not just an honorific title with no meaning. It carries with it a real distinction from diocesan bishops. And yet these duties are carried out within a collegial and conciliar framework. Compare and contrast the competencies ascribed to each role:

The Metropolitan

The Diocesan Bishop

 

[Michael16]

@Isaac14, @George720;

I have two questions.

1: If your guys’ basic position on papal primacy is that the Holy Father is an Ecumenical Patriarch of the Church that leaves Eastern Churches’ internal affairs alone ( Except when appeals are made to Rome ); wouldn’t that be basically what we see in how the ECs are handled in communion with Rome?

2: Did you guys send observers to Vs 1 and 2?

Also, George 720; your statements of communion is unity and not communion is disunity and that it seems your position is that Eastern Churches should be allowed to function ecclesiologically as they do now, except the Holy Father would be above the EP of Constantinople; makes me concerned.

From what I see in EO Churches’ schisms; it’s a mess of who’s in communion or not in communion with each other and somehow everybody’s mad at the Russians.

 

[George720]

But as the Primacy of Honor…

Hmmmmm…

The idea that authority trumps honor in goodness of service…

We do tend to regard Theology as practical…

This is probably an irrelevant comment…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t recall if I’ve linked to following for you directly, but I do know I’ve referred to the Statute of the Orthodox Church in America in a number of different threads to point out that the “primacy of honor” belonging to a primatial bishop carries with it duties and responsibilities beyond that of a diocesan bishop.

Thanks for source. After reading it though, I do kinda notice that there are only some things that set him apart- Primartial Bishop appoints some functions like chancellor or secratary. Other than that, he convenes Holy Synods which law does require him to convene anyway, and solves everything through it. He confirms election of a Bishop by Holy Synod in which he has one vote, so not something he really has over the others other than fact he is one de-jure convening synod… de-facto it means nothing, as there is no real distinction once Synod start.

If Pope had this kind of primacy, how would that work? Would he appoint chancellor of every Church and be like “yay! Exercising Petrine Ministry at it’s finest!” ? Other than those things, everything else is purely honorific with no practical consequences whatsoever.

Did you guys send observers to Vs 1 and 2?

I think there were Orthodox observers at V2. V1, Orthodoxy was invited to council to participate, but they refused.

wouldn’t that be basically what we see in how the ECs are handled in communion with Rome?

No, because EP does not intervene of his own accord, rarely intervenes and even if he does intervene, no one has to respect his decision. People can literally just laugh at it and go on with their business.

In Catholicism, Pope can intervene if he feels like he should, even of his own accord (but yes, it should be in harmony with respect to Eastern Sui Iuris Churches), his decisions have to be respected and in current age, Popes do interfere a bit less, but they used to intervene a lot.

The idea that authority trumps honor in goodness of service…

We do tend to regard Theology as practical…

This is probably an irrelevant comment…

Idea is, that authority has practical consequence. Bishop going heretical? Synod going heretical? Pope can act and depose them, and provide for the faithful new Pastors who will guide them out of heresy into true faith. Honor itself does nothing, perhaps gives rise to pride in some occasions. Honor itself does nothing to protect unity of the Church, true faith nor souls of the people. Having Pope with some real authority prevents messy and confusing situations, as well as some with real and immediate threat to souls.

 

[Michael16]

@George720,

My next question why do you guys think the Holy Father became an authoritarian law giver?

In my experience, the Holy Father convenes a Council and allows the bishops to discuss and vote. He doesn’t dictate to them.

I’m thinking he acts more like a referee in the councils.

For those encyclicals and papal bulls and ex cathedra statements; I would assume the Holy Father consults with theologians, canon lawyers and other experts before he issues them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“THOSE” Churches that became Orthodox, down the road of history, WERE first Catholic to begin with.

No. The various churches were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. The dialogue acknowledges they were never under the jurisdiction of Rome. Restoration of communion will never on the happen on the basis of submission to Rome, but will happen when we mutually recognize we share the same faith.

As Jesus made Peter the head of His Churcfh on earth, and Peter’s last see was the Church of Rome, and Jesus prayer was for all to be perfectly one, with his plan HERE

THEN

THIS canon law has always made sense # 43

Isaac14:

And you still haven’t answered my two questions.

Re: Chieti,

the suggestion was to go back to what was happening in the 1st millenium as to authority?

Around the 5th century, The East, had become divided, and insisted on a patriarchal system of government. Meaning before THAT there was one Bishop everybody would go to for fixing problems. And that new division among patriarchs divided the Church in the East. And here came Islam who was united. Their unity overcome the East’s divisions. Those divisions became the Orthodox Churches.

AND

The council of Florence brought some of those Churches back to the Catholic Church

So

Since the Chieti dialogue began, what has been solved?

 

[Isaac14]

Since the Chieti dialogue began, what has been solved?

Do you even realize the Chieti is statement is one of many agreed statements of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and that this Commission works under the Pontifical Council for the Promotion if Christian Unity?

And I’m still not going to answer your questions until you answer mine.

I repeat one of my questions to you: do you believe the Chieti statement is correct or incorrect?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

And Peter’s successors,

Sorry, not submission but communion with.

I’ve heard many holy priests speak about the importance of the people, that it’s a “symbiotic” relationship. Both priest and laity need one another. If there are no priests, we are not able to receive the sacraments. On the other side of the coin, if there are no laity, there is no one to give the sacraments to.

Interesting that one always hears about the importance of communion with Rome but never the importance of Rome being in communion with the others. I can recall recent Popes of Rome saying something similar, but never have a heard the laity speak of it.

Do you not fee that the Latin Church is wounded somewhat? Do you not feel that it is important that all the Churches are in communion with one another? I’m guessing not, since you always speak of submission to and not communion with.

ZP

2 points

1. Jesus set up His Church with leadership and authority behind Peter and those in communion with Peter… His Church doesn’t follow me, I follow His Church.
2. Submission to and communion with. are complementary terms NOT contradictions and oppositions to each other

The scriptures aren’t calling me the pillar and foundation of truth. That title goes to the Church Jesus established.

When there is disagreement, the scriptures don’t say go to me for the solution. It says go to the Church. And if one doesn’t listen even to the Church, let him be an outsider to you.

People have choices. And we see that choices have consequences. Good and bad.

I didn’t set up any of the Church laws. My name isn’t on any of them…that I quote

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Since the Chieti dialogue began, what has been solved?

Do you even realize the Chieti is statement is one of many agreed statements of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and that this Commission works under the Pontifical Council for the Promotion if Christian Unity?

The Chieti doc you point to was in 2016.

Wasn’t that the same year when the Pan Orthodox council was attempting to meet as well? That the Russians, who make up the majority of Orthodoxy, boycotted?

Who speaks for the Orthodox?

Isaac14:

I repeat one of my questions to you: do you believe the Chieti statement is correct or incorrect?

It’s an ongoing dialogue.

AND

Primacy has been discussed but NOT settled.

 

[Isaac14]

wouldn’t that be basically what we see in how the ECs are handled in communion with Rome?

Considering how EC’s in America were prohibited from ordaining married men as clergy until the last decade or two, no it doesn’t seem to be how it’s handled.