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

[Michael16]

@Margaret_Ann,

I haven’t read Hilaire Belloc; though I do agree that Islam is a Christian heresy. I’ve read parts of the Quran, disturbing book btw; and pretty much it reads as a mishmash of heresies collated together. The rest of the book is pretty much sermons and Biblical stories with a strong dose of believe or burn.

Right now, inspired by the talks with the Orthodox; I’m reading Saint Eusebius’ The History of the Church. I’m trying to research just what the state of papal authority was in the early Church. These Orthodox guys have really got me thinking on this.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Historically, there were 3 Patriarchates - Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. I think it was at the Second Ecumenical Council - Constantinople I, which gave us not only the second half of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed but 2 more Patriarchates - Constantinople and Jerusalem, with Constantinople being #2 in rank after Rome. And if I’m not mistaken, Rome did NOT approve that particular canon because it usurped the traditional order of the Patriarchates against Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Chrismation can only be received once in a lifetime. Since you were validly confirmed/chrismated (I think you posted that you were originally RC?), you cannot receive it again.

 

[Michael16]

@George720,

Interesting what you’ve said.

As I’ve explained to a Protestant on another thread, the Holy Father isn’t a despotic autocrat like the Roman Emperor or the Ottoman Sultan. Far from it.

I understand the Holy Father as the shepherd, guide and teacher; caring for the whole Church as the vicar of Christ. As vicar of Christ, the Holy Father guides and shepherds the Church.

Not a despotic autocrat with all the Churches cravenly falling in line under him in servile fear.

From my research so far, I’ve seen that the Pope began with only the primacy of honor due him as the Bishop of the highest Apostolic See in the Church.

Thus, Rome’s opinion has considerable weight. From what I’ve gathered, the Eastern bishops were fractious and often locked in heated disputes among themselves. When a Church needed an opinion, they went to Rome.

For example, when the Church of Corinth went to Rome. Even though Constantinople was closer.

If I’m not mistaken, if one’s opinion has considerable weight above the others’, wouldn’t that necessarily mean that opinion would be respected and heeded for the most part?

A problem I have with the Eastern collegiate ecclesiology is the apparent chaos I see in the fractious disunity between the Eastern Churches. If there was a central authority to preside over and guide the bishops; I think it would be a considerable good. What do you think?

Another thought I have is this:

I’ve read Unitatis Redintegratio. In it, the Latin Church offered to the East that the Eastern Churches will be self governing according to their own disciplines for the good of the souls in their care. And I feel that the Instructions to the EC Churches Rome issued in the 1990s was a demonstration of good faith that the Eastern Churches could see we were doing.

 

[Michael16]

Interesting, @Margaret_Ann.

I thought Jerusalem was already a Patriarchate. I know that Antioch was Saint Peter’s original See and Alexandria was founded by Saint Mark.

If I’m not mistaken, Constantinople ( As the Imperial capital ) was elevated to it’s rank because it was the Roma Nova of Constantine the Great.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I’ve read parts of the Quran, disturbing book btw; and pretty much it reads as a mishmash of heresies collated together.

In particular, Arianism & Docetism.

And if I’m not mistaken, Mohammed is supposed to be their greatest prophet BUT it’s also in the Koran that Jesus, not Mohammed, will judge the living and the dead. Which begs the question: If Jesus is only a prophet (according to their way of thinking) then why would not Mohammed judge the living and the dead if he’s supposed to be the greatest? The ONLY way that Jesus can AND will judge the living and the dead is because He is the Son of God Who assumed human nature in the immaculate and chaste womb of Our Lady, died to redeem us, rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven by His own Power. He is King by conquest (i.e. He bought us back as St. Paul says in one of his Epistles) as well as by Divine Right. He is our King both as God and Man.

The late Cardinal Edward Manning wrote a book on the Kingship of Christ in the late 19th/early 20th century. I think I gave it away, but now I wish I had it in order to post the title. TAN Books used to carry it.

 

[Michael16]

I agree with what you’re saying, @Margaret_Ann.

The eschatology of the Islamic Jesus does make Muhammad take a lower place than Jesus in their Quran.

My main question on Muhammad’s veracity as a prophet is: Whoever, or whatever; seized Muhammad to recite the verses of the Quran couldn’t be an angel of God because God doesn’t seize people and force them to prophesy. It’s always a call.

Ergo: I conclude that the being who seized Muhammad couldn’t have been the Archangel Saint Gabriel as they claim.

It’s a great surprise to me that Jesus and Our Lady have such a high place in the Quran.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

This is Wikipedia’s article on Nicea I (325 A.D.):

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jump to “Disputed Matters” and it talks about the Patriarchates.

OK. It’s past midnight and I have to go to Divine Liturgy in the morning for the Synaxis of the Mother of God so I have to turn in.

Good night! Hope you had a Merry Christmas.

Christ is Born!

 

[Michael16]

Merry Christmas to you as well, @Margaret_Ann!

I’ve always had a strong devotion to Our Lady and it began with respecting her as the Mother of God, or as she is known in the East as Theotokos.

I need to get to sleep too. I’ve got work early in the morning.

 

[dochawk]

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.

wow; thanks.



As for the question at hand, my and other responses to the stament a couple of hundred posts up that Rome has largely complied with Brest kind of hit the sticky points.

At least is has been uncommon for RC priests to tell the congregation from he pulpit to stay away because “EC are not real catholics.” –which would have been near the top of the list 20 or 30 year ago.

How come you make the Sign of the Cross backwards?

“I don’t. I make it the way we always did, and the way you did until a few hundred years ago.”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m still trying to figure out what exactly was the canon law status of papal authority

East does not have canon law. They have canons, but they my understanding (and that is not very deep) is that they come out of conclusions of Synods, not necessarily organized law stuff. It is very hard to determine which canons were actually binding at the time, which were not, and which were just simply forgotten.

Invented

I’d say established, but in the end Pentarchy itself is an invented word. We don’t see it in the history, we don’t see “5 equal heads” stuff either. Elevation of Constantinople was opposed by East as well as Rome, which does show something …

especially because quite recently - even the Orthodox are experiencing serious troubles amongst themselves.

Not just recently, which is indirect proof that their system is simply not working. Their faith is beautiful, but how their “upper management” (all rights of this term go to ZP) works with other “upper management” is messy at best.

There’s always trouble within the Church, Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

True, but troubles within Orthodoxy tend to go a bit longer, a bit more seriously and even in much more unfriendly theme than SSPX - Rome dispute, one I thought really disturbs unity of the Latin Church. SSPX at least pray for the Pope, anathemized Churches stop commemorating each other’s Patriarchs.

But maybe Catholics have some incentive to join what shouldn’t be joined.

That is true, some want Eastern Church to be immediately below the Pope, like Latin Church is.

It will be through Chrismation.

Baptism has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession, and it is my understanding Orthodox view our Apostolic succession as “dubious at best”. If they really do re-chrismate you, that just shows they do not hold our sacrament to have effect…

but it is better than re-baptism for sure.

Disrespecting ancient Catholic faith traditions and refusing to recognize Eastern priests as divinely ordained clergymen of Christ (among other abuses) is also deeply unchristian.

Luckily, this is not a competition. We correct both sides when both are unchristian… hopefully.

At least is has been uncommon for RC priests to tell the congregation from he pulpit to stay away because “EC are not real catholics.”

In Slovakia, it is quite common for them to defend them as their brothers and even point out their unity with Pope and try to really explain we are same Church.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“I don’t. I make it the way we always did, and the way you did until a few hundred years ago.”

Funnily enough, this is one of few “differences” that get spelled out to Latin Catholics asking about Eastern “Greek” (Byzantine) Catholics. This, fact they can have married priesthood and that they have different Liturgies. Yet way someone crosses is one of least importance imo.

In my language, Latins usually say “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Ghost Holy (word by word translation)” while Greeks say “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost”. If I hear “Ghost” i go left, if I hear “Holy” I go to the right. This way I never screw up way I am supposed to cross in each Church

I’ve always had a strong devotion to Our Lady and it began with respecting her as the Mother of God, or as she is known in the East as Theotokos.

My parish priest told me that Eastern Catholics hold Our Lady “even in higher esteem than us, probably”. Yet, for me, neither tradition was capable of really bringing me to Our Lady, only when I became disobedient child of God, my Mother was only one I could turn to and always tries to bring me back when I am lost.

Merry Christmas everyone. May Lord be born in our hearts anew, may we receive most important gifts of Love, Hope and Faith.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Calling a cleric pig-headed is deeply unchristian

Disrespecting ancient Catholic faith traditions and refusing to recognize Eastern priests as divinely ordained clergymen of Christ (among other abuses) is also deeply unchristian.

Nobody is advocating for Bishop John Ireland. Two wrongs don’t make a right and disrespecting a cleric is very much sinful.

 

[EndTimes]

Not just recently, which is indirect proof that their system is simply not working.

As with “Christian Communities” (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant),
“Orthodox” is not an homogeneous understanding…

Recently? As in the Moscow - Constantinople brouhaha? (2018)

The divisions within Christendom ultimately stem from the machinations of AntiChristian agents

 

[steve-b]

Chrismation can only be received once in a lifetime. Since you were validly confirmed/chrismated (I think you posted that you were originally RC?), you cannot receive it again.

they also would be denying their promises originally made in the sacrament of confirmation…

 

[George720]

As I’ve explained to a Protestant on another thread, the Holy Father isn’t a despotic autocrat like the Roman Emperor or the Ottoman Sultan. Far from it.

We address our Bishop as Despotos - He can show up in any parish, and has done so, and deposed (laicized) its priest… Granted, he does not do so willy-nilly, or on a whim or an insult, but with accurately precise, excisionary fire… I have seen him do the same with simple sins… “Uppity” Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons, and an occasional lay person, have all found themselves unable to suppress the demonic powers which they are normally able to keep control over… He carries and wields that Apostolic Power, and is appropriately feared and loved by all under him… He is not a “nice guy”… He is a loving and careful and stern shepherd of his flock… He can be a nice guy as needed…

From my research so far, I’ve seen that the Pope began with only the primacy of honor due him as the Bishop of the highest Apostolic See in the Church.

Thus, Rome’s opinion has considerable weight. From what I’ve gathered, the Eastern bishops were fractious and often locked in heated disputes among themselves. When a Church needed an opinion, they went to Rome.

Good - Seeking third party intervention is a good thing, and especially so in ecclesiastical matters… And Rome was very often a good place to go… She had the most martyrs in Her Papal Patriarchs… And sometimes a closer Patriarch might have other issues that would prevent him from being a good arbiter… But the efforts of arbitration were not binding on the parties - They were often helpful, but honoring them was the right thing to do normally… Sometimes, perhaps not…

A problem I have with the Eastern collegiate ecclesiology is the apparent chaos I see in the fractious disunity between the Eastern Churches. If there was a central authority to preside over and guide the bishops; I think it would be a considerable good. What do you think?

It does not have the precision of case law from the Supreme Court, no question… When the need is great, then will God Arise! I mean, look at the Iconoclast Heresy… Hundreds of years it went on, against the will of Rome, I might add, which further denigrates the idea that Churches were under Latin Jurisdiction…

Primacy of Honor is not Administrative Jurisdiction… Each territory has its own legal traditions and political rule - There was virtually no way that Rome could enforce any arbitration She might provide… At least not without a military invasion of the country not complying…

Indeed the rankings of the Patriarchates was a ranking of honor - Constantinople did not have jurisdiction over Antioch or Alexandria… Christianity is not a Faith of Jurisprudence… That is how Her enemies slandered Her to local governments, accusing Her of having no loyalty to the secular King…

geo

 

[ziapueblo]

Chrismation can only be received once in a lifetime. Since you were validly confirmed/chrismated (I think you posted that you were originally RC?), you cannot receive it again.

I misspoke about Chrismation. Catholics, who are baptized and confirmed/chrismated are anointed with the Holy Chrism. So it’s not a re-Chrismation or Confirmation.

ZP

 

[George720]

The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc… classifies Islam as a Christian heresy.

A heresy has to be originated from within the Church - At least as I understand matters… Hence we do not see Protestants as Heretics, however heretical their ideas turn out to be… And likewise Islam did not grow out of the Church, but most assuredly was modeled on the Church… Father Daniel converted Islamics by substituting Christian understandings for the Islamic ones, and established Orthodox Christianity in Indonesia…

I’m trying to research just what the state of papal authority was in the early Church. These Orthodox guys have really got me thinking on this.

May your efforts be blessed!

geo

 

[George720]

Chrismation can only be received once in a lifetime.

Didn’t the Church receive heretics back into the Church by Chrismation?

I know that when Roman Catholics are entered into the EOC, it is by Chrismation and renunciation of the applicable heretical understandings… We have Chrismated Protestants into the EOC, but the preferred way is by Baptism, because they really do need their sins washed away… Not so with Rome… The idea that Chrismation completes whatever is lacking in a previous non-Apostolic Baptism is, imho, defective - Those folks, say Baptists who have been ‘baptized’ several time, need Apostolic Baptism for the Remission of Sins… Lest we reduce this Faith to Mumbo-Jumbo sloppiness with no Grace… Maybe my open is not so humble… Forgive me, but I think it is important…

geo

 

[steve-b]

Foreknowledge on Christ’s part, and His love for Peter - He knew Peter was rash but good hearted, and that he would deny Christ three times before the cock crowed… And that whoever denies Christ to men Christ will deny to His Father…

Well,

Jesus, said

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 6:
38* For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;

Jn 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Jn 17: 20
even as you Father, art in me, and I in you,

Catch all that?

Peter is the Father’s choice.

why is it Jesus said to Peter, he is the one to strengthen the others after Satan has sifted everyone?

George720:

Because he had the experience of falling away, repenting, and being restored by Christ…

what about Peter is the Father’s choice?.

why, did Jesus not mention someone else in this context…if THEY were the greatest?
why IOW, if someone other than Peter was the greatest, why isn’t that person mentioned and not Peter?

George720:

Well, the Greatest was the Lord’s Mother, followed by John the Baptist, and both of these after Jesus Himself, who was the quintessential Servant of all…

That episode we’re talking about HERE has to do with the apostles, and who is the greatest among THEM?

They are told SATAN is going to sift all of them like wheat. And Jesus says He’s praying for Peter. Jesus mentions no one else

George720:

Peter was the only one who would fall from the strike of Satan… He was the most vulnerable… He was the most rash, having a believed bluster which covers a weakness easily confounded by demonic forces prior to Pentecost…

You’re obviously making stuff up as you go along.

steve-b:

If somebody else is in the room, and Jesus just ended the apostles argument over who is greatest among THEM, then why of all the people in the room, the only person Jesus mentions, is Peter?

George720:

He had the greatest need…

sheesh! THAT’S why Peter is the Father’s choice? Because Peter has the greatest need?
Did Peter ask to be chosen? NO
Did he ask to be an apostle? NO
Did he ask to be renamed Peter(Rock) that the Church would be built on? NO
Did he ask to be given the keys to the kingdom? NO

Peter didn’t ask for any of this, he was chosen for ALL that, and he freely accepted.