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

[Isaac14]

I’m not obligated to agree or disagree with an ongoing dialogue.

Of course you’re not obligated to, but it would help me understand your perspective and frame of reference when discussing various topics with you. But if you choose not to answer, I won’t continue pressing for an answer.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m not obligated to agree or disagree with an ongoing dialogue.

Of course you’re not obligated to, but it would help me understand your perspective and frame of reference when discussing various topics with you. But if you choose not to answer, I won’t continue pressing for an answer.

I’ll just say

When the Chieti doc ignores answers already given to 2 rather large authority issues as in Pentarchy and 1st among equals, as if there is no historical answer ever given to that, from a teaching Catholic source which I’ve posted in the past on other threads

Re: "Pentarchy" & Pope NOT "1st among equals"

then Card Ratzinger addressed this topic (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000)

“The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.
In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.”
From:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

I don’t see anything like that in the Chieti doc.

 

[Hume]

Of course, it’s worth noting that the golden age of Roman Catholicism didn’t last very long. Papal power developed beyond the defensible reason, causing the Great Western Schism where there were three popes at one time, and soon England, German states and Scandinavia were abandoning “Roman corruption” on a wholesale basis.

Today, with the exception of maybe parts of Italy and the Iberian peninsula, Catholic churches in Europe are more anthropological relics and tourist destinations than functioning churches. Secularism is conquering what Islam could not.

 

[steve-b]

Of course, it’s worth noting that the golden age of Roman Catholicism didn’t last very long. Papal power developed beyond the defensible reason, causing the Great Western Schism where there were three popes at one time, and soon England, German states and Scandinavia were abandoning “Roman corruption” on a wholesale basis.

Today, with the exception of maybe parts of Italy and the Iberian peninsula, Catholic churches in Europe are more anthropological relics and tourist destinations than functioning churches. Secularism is conquering what Islam could not.

While

God desires all to be saved

In reality

Jesus said

Here
few are saved

&
Here
few are saved

Because

as Jesus said

the reason is HERE

IOW

most people blow it……by choice, on their own, … fill in the blank as to why THEY blow it

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

• Rome is still ranked #1 when listing sees among the 5
• Byzantium, Constantinople, Istanbul, today , and the largest community of Christians in Istanbul is Catholic.
• Alexandria -----> today Coptic
• Antioch ————> today Orthodox had moved to Damascus in 14th century, due to persecutions. Those persecutions have only intensified massively, today
• Jerusalem today barely has 1% Christian population

How do you mean “Antioch —> today Orthodox” part? Do you mean that Damascus has largest Orthodox population out of Christian ones today?

If I understand your response, it’s fair to say you disagree with the Chieti statement?

I think steve’s point is largely that there is nothing to agree or disagree in Chieti Document. It practically states nothing concrete and neither does it make any hard-line conclusions, hence steve has no clear opinion on it… would that be correct?

Please note that the Pentarchy wasn’t really a recognized institution. It’s mostly a word used to describe the higher Christian ecclesiastical status quo until the 7th century which saw the fall of possibly the largest at the time; Alexandria.

Actually a good point many people don’t understand.

There’s no question that papal power grew in time unless you have a religious reason to say otherwise. And to that, again;

No doubt about that even in Catholicism.

Today, with the exception of maybe parts of Italy and the Iberian peninsula, Catholic churches in Europe are more anthropological relics and tourist destinations than functioning churches. Secularism is conquering what Islam could not.

I largely disagree. While it is true that many Catholics are Catholics for sake of tradition (small t), there are also many who are truly living the faith. Secularism will indeed grow and consume a lot, and Church will lose time and time again, and we are in timeframe where that is probably happening… but it is not as rampant yet.

I don’t see anything like that in the Chieti doc.

Interesting read. I have impression that Chieti Document seems to be either a bit biased or takes too much viewpoint from one side. When I became Christian, I did not completely hold to idea of Papacy nor Catholicism as a whole, and I chose to be Catholic after using largely Orthodox and Protestant sources… it just seemed that even few Catholic ones I encountered happened to have much better arguments, at least for me personally. May God help all who search and may he guide us all to complete and Divine Truth, whether I am wrong or right about my choices.

 

[Wandile]

shrug

For various secular academics and myself, it is not a religious issue. Ergo I have no emotional desire to see myself proven right.

The current academic environment on the matter is the the Pentarchy had rule of the greater church (though including small, insignificant Jerusalem in it really was a primacy of honor).

As these cities fell to Islamic lords, the enormous Christian populations they controlled contracted, leaving Rome the only honorific of the five to remain under Christian temporal control.

Please note that the Pentarchy wasn’t really a recognized institution. It’s mostly a word used to describe the higher Christian ecclesiastical status quo until the 7th century which saw the fall of possibly the largest at the time; Alexandria.

Until the rise of Islam, Christendom was divided fairly evenly into thirds - Latins with their eyes set on Rome, Greeks with their eyes set on Constantinople and Eastern Christians with their eyes set on Alexandria (and to some extent, Ctesiphon).

After the events in the seventh century, the latter two were Christian realms were believers were steadily culled or converted.

This simply left Rome as the effectively unchallenged Christian center by the concluding 13th century - what scholars describe, as no coincidence, the golden age of Roman Catholicism.

With every contraction of Eastern and Byzantine Christian influence, the remainder of the Christian world was more and more Latin. This, according to seculars on the matter, largely coincided with developments in papal power. The establishment of Papal States. The crowning of a Holy Roman Emperor, the mingling of secular and religious power structures. So on.

There’s no question that papal power grew in time unless you have a religious reason to say otherwise. And to that, again;

shrug

I thought you meant Muslims gave the pope power directly. Which is what I found absurd. What you wrote here I agree with. No Christian would have a problem with most of what you wrote here.

 

[Isaac14]

When the Chieti doc ignores answers already given to 2 rather large authority issues as in Pentarchy and 1st among equals, as if there is no historical answer ever given to that, from a teaching Catholic source which I’ve posted in the past on other threads

If your contention is correct that this contradicts the Chieti statement, and indeed would trump the Chieti statement, then I’m left with the conclusion that the Catholic side of the Joint International Commission is not trustworthy and the Orthodox should be very wary of what is agreed. I sure hope this is not the case.

 

[Michael16]

@Isaac14, @George720,

I’ve been doing some deep thinking and some reading on the Eastern Catholics.

I’ve read about the basics of the Eastern Catholic Churches and their history and relationship in communion with the Pope.

According to CA’s 20 Answers: Eastern Catholicism; the ECs have accepted and affirmed all of the teachings of the councils of the second millennium on papal primacy, including papal infallibility and universal and immediate jurisdiction as taught in V1 and reaffirmed in V2.

As sui iuris Churches, each Eastern Catholic Church has, under a Catholic hierarch in communion with the Pope; it’s own self governing hierarchy and within its traditional territories each Church elects and consecrates their own bishops without papal approval.

Beyond their jurisdiction; this authority is limited and is subject to papal authority.

In reading about the history, particularly in America; Latin churchmen have been unjust and driven many to the EO Churches in America. I’m sorry that happened. I wish we didn’t discriminated against them and latinized them.

@Margaret_Ann:

Can you please tell us the lived experience of being an Eastern Catholic in the Catholic Church?

I feel a little bad that we’ve been discussing all this without consulting an EC about what life is like for an Easterner in the Catholic Church.

 

[Hume]

I’ve been doing some deep thinking and some reading on the Eastern Catholics.

These guys are probably the best bet for reunification. They’re in communion with Rome, but there’s a tacit understanding among many that any significant Papal power plays will likely send quite a few into the hands of Orthodoxy. They have one foot in both worlds.

Can you please tell us the lived experience of being an Eastern Catholic in the Catholic Church?

I feel a little bad that we’ve been discussing all this without consulting an EC about what life is like for an Easterner in the Catholic Church.

Also @dochawk is a great resource here. Among others whose name escapes me for now. His posts are usually measured, but fairly light. Asset to the forums, imo.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m left with the conclusion that the Catholic side of the Joint International Commission is not trustworthy and the Orthodox should be very wary of what is agreed. I sure hope this is not the case.

I hope that is not the case as well. I do not understand how does Catholic side provide almost no real sources to support their cause to the dialogue- this is not about appeasing anybody, both sides want truth and real union based on what Church really believed. Fact neither Pope St. Gregory nor George the Hagiorite, nor Maximus the Confessor (actually, not even canons Wandidle mentioned) were mentioned does make me a bit uneasy.

the ECs have accepted and affirmed all of the teachings of the councils of the second millennium on papal primacy, including papal infallibility and universal and immediate jurisdiction as taught in V1 and reaffirmed in V2.

Yes, as much as Rome has accepted Union of Brest, Council of Florence and etc etc

As sui iuris Churches, each Eastern Catholic Church has, under a Catholic hierarch in communion with the Pope; it’s own self governing hierarchy and within its traditional territories each Church elects and consecrates their own bishops without papal approval.

Yup, that’s the ideal. It goes both ways though- there are Eastern Catholics who deny above (Papal dogmas) as well as those who are extremely Rome-centric and do not (or are not technically able to) govern themselves as they should. However, it is true that lately from ultra-centralized, Church has been shifting to Sui Iuris part… let’s just hope that it does not go too far to the other side and become adopt Orthodox ecclesiology 2.0

In reading about the history, particularly in America; Latin churchmen have been unjust and driven many to the EO Churches in America. I’m sorry that happened.

We all are… after reading about this incident, I actually asked my great grandmother about Eastern Catholics and she actually told me what they are, how they differ from Orthodox and that they are Catholics as much as we are. I was amazed that people in my country knew- older ones, at least. They seemed to be also aware that Eastern Catholics were persecuted in harsher way than Latins during communism there. Unfortunately, most young people I meet are not as knowledgeable about Eastern Catholics or regard them as different Church. I do blame school system for this a bit, as our school textbooks seemed to put religions as either “Roman Catholic” or “Orthodox/Greek Catholic”. Grouping Orthodox and Greek Catholic makes much less sense than just grouping Catholics imo, and that contributes to most young people thinking Orthodoxy is synonymous with Greek Catholicism.

Well, I do have hope that people will learn about Eastern Catholicism- Clergy and Laity alike, as much as I have hope that Eastern Catholics will not renounce Papal dogmas to appease Orthodox and “lure them in” or something along the lines. Healing Schism could solve this easily though.

 

[Hume]

Well, that’s the sticky part.

As we can largely agree that Rome did not practice jurisdiction over the Eastern Sees in near-ancient Christendom, requiring that these Eastern Sees submit to Papal dogmas in order to achieve reunification is an extremely Rome centered view on this potential reunification.

Do you at least see the existential problem this would pose for easterners?

 

[Michael16]

@Hume,

I can see how it would. I see the EOs being wary of being in communion with an autocrat.

Given our history in the second millennium, especially after the Protestant revolution; I definitely can understand their wariness.

 

[Hume]

It’s not so much autocracy, it’s just that reunification on Roman terms requires that they submit to an authority that they have literally never submitted to since Christ establish the church.

 

[Michael16]

Here’s my thing though:

From what I see in the Chieti and Ravenna documents, the Pope certainly exercised primacy in the first millennium. My thinking is if the Orthodox can trust the Holy Father will minister with a light and respectful hand; that might be the reassurance they need.

What do you think?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As we can largely agree that Rome did not practice jurisdiction over the Eastern Sees in near-ancient Christendom

Oh, don’t get me wrong. Way Rome exercised jurisdiction changed during middle ages, sure… but Rome always had authority to intervene. If you don’t want to call that jurisdiction, that’s fine too- all Catholic Church really wants from East atm is to work same way it did before Schism.

 

[Michael16]

@OrbisNonSufficit,

I think the problem is a basic one of: We Latins have a vertical hierarchy and they have a horizontal collegial hierarchy.

I’m not seeing how we can synthesize the two.

 

[Hume]

The problem in modern history would be the proclamations of Vatican one, particularly papal Supremacy and infallibility. From an Eastern perspective, that’s simply unacceptable. It was never acceptable.

For better or worse, easterners are councillarists. No man is greater than council.

It’s unfortunate that V1 occurred as the papacy managed to survive 1800 years without it. A lot of secular theory abounds that those declarations happened exclusively as a consolation for the papacy because it lost its temporal territory in the Italian Reunification.

 

[Michael16]

@Hume, I’m not sure I follow you on that. My thinking is that papal infallibility has a long history.

Secularists must remember that the Catholic Church doesn’t invent doctrine. We draw our doctrine from the triune sources of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. We draw out meanings and doctrines latent in these sources and formally define them explicitly.

Also, please remember: Given the retrenchment we had to do in the face of the Protestant revolution and the Enlightenment; we were constantly losing ground.

 

[Hume]

And there we differ as a matter of Faith, which is expected. A secularist like myself has little .

Exercises in papal authority dot the centuries, I agree completely.

What changed over time was how welcomed and respected they were by the non-latin church before it’s practical destruction by the Caliphates and Sultanates.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m not seeing how we can synthesize the two.

Actually, East can go being East and West can go being West. Only thing is how we deal with universal level - therefore only defining role of Pope is needed. I am much for synthesis of both systems where Pope has right to intervene when he wants, his decisions are respected but danger of centralization is prevented. I understand for East, this is simply not enough of a guarantee- but then again, was it not East who said there’s no need to define everything? Why does limit of Papacy have to be suddenly defined, other than asking Pope to respect dignity of Eastern Churches?

From an Eastern perspective, that’s simply unacceptable. It was never acceptable.

Well, I did provide reference to at least two Easterners who did profess inerrancy of Roman Church, as well as Saint in their Church (Western one though) who did…

What changed over time was how welcomed and respected they were by the non-latin church before it’s practical destruction by the Caliphates and Sultanates.

Yes, see? You do admit it changed. Therefore, since now and neither during Caliphate era did they respect Papal inerrancy nor right to intervene, it must mean that since this is a changed approach, there was some different approach in Early Church. Logically speaking there is no other extreme to this, hence Pope had to have more authority than they accord to him now.

I can use Augustine to both support and blast Roman Supremacy depending upon the era of his life that I pulled my selections from.

How would you blast it, if I may ask?