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 and @Hume,

Let’s not get out of hand and this thread becomes a flame war.

Hume, in the Church: we’re not wild eyed zealots blind to our own faults and we do considerable and well thought out work in our Tradition. The reasonable among us don’t knee jerk “ Everybody else is wrong “ kind of thing.

Steve, please relax and let off.

Everyone, please let’s be civil.
 
Thank you, @Hume.

I don’t know if you ever examine our work, but if you do; you’ll see quite a rigorous and thoroughly scholarly approach with plenty of footnotes and references in our documents.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
40.png
steve-b:
40.png
Hume:
40.png
steve-b:
Where did you get your understanding from
Click to expand...
Books written by men who weren’t trying to defend a religion.
Click to expand...
You call that a reference?
Click to expand...
In fairness, you’re being extremely vague. What do you want, for example, to show that you’re absurdly wrong in your view that “Islam was ‘One’”. Are you basically asking me to cut and paste a map of Europe and the Middle East from 1200?

No thanks.
Click to expand...
Muhammad started Islam in the 600’s.
 
@steve-b,

That’s true. Islam arose with the preaching and career of Muhammad. If I remember right, Islam did split early on into Shia and Sunni sects. I believe it was over dissension in the succession in the Caliphate.

The problem with Islam, and its relationship with Eastern Christianity; is that it swept in like a storm from the desert and conquered Christian lands of the Eastern Empire and destroyed the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire in Persia.

While the West tried to help save the Eastern Empire, the effort wasn’t consistently strong in its impetus and was hamstrung by mutual distrust between West and East because of the 1054 Schism and sins on both sides to their fellow Christians.
 
That is correct, Islam did start in the 7th century. Before long there was more than one Islamic State in North Africa, Arabia and Persia. There were several. Again a good parallel would be that there were several different Christian States, sometimes warring amongst themselves, in Europe.
 
Michael16 said:
@steve-b,

That’s true. Islam arose with the preaching and career of Muhammad. If I remember right, Islam did split early on into Shia and Sunni sects. I believe it was over dissension in the succession in the Caliphate.

The problem with Islam, and its relationship with Eastern Christianity; is that it swept in like a storm from the desert and conquered Christian lands of the Eastern Empire and destroyed the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire in Persia.

While the West tried to help save the Eastern Empire, the effort wasn’t consistently strong in its impetus and was hamstrung by mutual distrust between West and East because of the 1054 Schism and sins on both sides to their fellow Christians.
Click to expand...
The problems over authority were fomenting for 100’s of yrs in the East, before 1054. Schisms and heresies always can point the finger back to rebellion against authority.
 
@steve-b,

No doubt that the Schism had centuries of differences, cultural, liturgical and theological; that developed over time before the final break in 1054.

However: I’m not too sure that the East rebelled against the Holy Father.
 
Last edited:
It is my personal opinion that Christ will not return until His prayer in the garden is made manifest. Christ prayed that “we all be one”, I believe he saw the great schism and that when we see the healing of that divide, we need to look to the eastern sky.
 
Michael16 said:
@steve-b,

No doubt that the Schism had centuries of differences, cultural, liturgical and theological; that developed over time before the final break in 1054.

However: I’m not too sure that the East rebelled against the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Why would you eliminate that point?
 
Wanted to touch on this a bit,

I’m somewhat familiar with Catholic scholarly work as I mentally chewed up a little on my road to non-belief. Like any old faith, your has some zealots, for sure. But Catholicism also has some measured, brilliant minds. Your previous pope was one such example. It’s unfortunate he resigned.
 
Last edited:
@steve-b,

I’m saying this because the excommunications of 1054 were spur of the moment decisions made by our hot headed Cardinal Humbert and their Patriarch Michael.

And also, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly was the canon law status of papal authority prior to the 1054 Schism.

If they’re right that the Holy Father didn’t have universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church as he does now; I’m not sure if they knowingly rebelled against the Holy Father in a technical, canon law sense.
 
@Hume,

Yeah. I liked Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. He had a hard time as a conservative.

Thank you for your kind comments. One of my favorite minds in the Church is Saint Thomas Aquinas.
 
Michael16 said:
@steve-b,

I’m saying this because the excommunications of 1054 were spur of the moment decisions made by our hot headed Cardinal Humbert and their Patriarch Michael.

And also, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly was the canon law status of papal authority prior to the 1054 Schism.

If they’re right that the Holy Father didn’t have universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church as he does now; I’m not sure if they knowingly rebelled against the Holy Father in a technical, canon law sense.
Click to expand...
When

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, did that have restrictions as to what pat of the kingdom Peter didn’t have power of the keys over?

When

Jeaus said , to Peter directly, in front of all the apostles, after the resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven, that Peter

is to

“ ποίμαινε my sheep"

AS IN

shepherd, tend, rule, govern my sheep (present imperative active 2nd person singular) Jesus 1st person singular, is speaking directly to Peter, second person singular…imperatively

Does Jesus restrict which sheep He means for Peter to shepherd, tend, rule, govern? NO

Do the keys of the kingdom that Jesus gives Peter alone, have jurisdiction restrictions (as in Peter can only shepherd, tend, rule, govern, ) only certain sheep and not the entire flock of Our Lord’s? NO
 
Last edited:
And as we must accept all scripture or reject all scripture, we need to read Peter’s confession in the same context as where Christ compares him to the devil a few verses later and where Christ grants the power of the keys (to bind and loose) to all the disciples in the next chapter.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
And as we must accept all scripture or reject all scripture, we need to read Peter’s confession in the same context as where Christ compares him to the devil a few verses later and where Christ grants the power of the keys (to bind and loose) to all the disciples in the next chapter.
Click to expand...
I visited that very place back in 95.

If I was Peter, and Jesus told me he was going to be killed, I’d of said the same as Peter. Like Peter, I would be there to protect Jesus. Thing of it is, Jesus hadn’t told them the whole story YET. They were ALL working off limited information.

AND

It didn’t get better at the point of Jesus arrest and the ensuing crucifixion.

NOT UNTIL

Pentecost did the apostles get illuminated fully.

The keys went to Peter

While the apostles got the power to bind and loose, Peter with the keys could bind what they loose and loose what they bind as well.
 
Last edited:
The Pentarchy wasn’t an invention and it wasn’t a formal institution unto itself. It’s just a word that describes the ecclesiastical reality of Christianity in late antiquity.

We even have a canon of Nicaea that explicitly describes limited jurisdiction of the sees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top