G
Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?
- Status
G
George720
Guest
Luk 22:31
And the Lord said,
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired you of whom to sift as wheat:
Luk 22:32
But I have prayed concerning thee,
In order that thy faith not fail:
And (that) you
Once having turned back
Strengthen thy brethren.
(My wooden translation)
The last, “That you, when you have turned back (to Me), strengthen your brothers…” indicates that while all save John will flee, only Peter will deny Christ (three times)… He was their strongest, and he denied Christ - The rest all fled in fear… Except the Beloved Disciple, John, who was but a young man and apparently was not challenged…
It was because of Peter’s rash boldness that he fell… And it was because of Christ’s prayers to the Father that his faith was not eclipsed entirely, but instead he departed and bitterly wept that he had been so weak when tested… eg He repented in deep tears… And it is why Christ’s Angel instructed later:
Mar 16:7
But go your way,
Tell His disciples
And (tell) Peter (in addition to His disciples)
That He goeth before you into Galilee:
There shall ye see Him,
as He said unto you.
You see, Peter, having denied Christ thrice, had not yet been restored to his discipleship…
And once restored, he would be able to strengthen his Brothers…
Because he had tried, when they had not, though he failed…
Except John, who abided at the Cross with the Theotokos, and became Her son…
Forgive me…
I thought He only mentioned the least, the little child, whose name I cannot recall… He ended up martyred by lions in the Roman Circus… Could you please give me a reference? The least will be the greatest - A current recently reposed Desert Father said he became in prayer nothing at all…
geo
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@George720,
As always, it’s a pleasure to converse with you.
If I’m understanding you right, and I hope I am; you’re saying that primacy of honor doesn’t equate to actual de jure force of law.
So, what my answer is:
If primacy of honor means that Rome’s opinion ranks highest among the bishops; wouldn’t that mean that Rome’s opinion would be heeded above that of the other Patriarchs?
As always, it’s a pleasure to converse with you.
If I’m understanding you right, and I hope I am; you’re saying that primacy of honor doesn’t equate to actual de jure force of law.So, what my answer is:
If primacy of honor means that Rome’s opinion ranks highest among the bishops; wouldn’t that mean that Rome’s opinion would be heeded above that of the other Patriarchs?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
In a way, yes… but history is full of those, and this disunity is, how dochawk put it, “outright common”…
Oriental Orthodoxy has less of those, as Alexandria has some kind of authority over others and they are closer to system where Patriarch holds real authority, not just primacy in synods. It is really interesting how two communions differ in so little ecclesiology-wise and even that little difference literally stops so many internal schisms, anathemas and etc from happening.
Well, up to 8th century or so, Orthodoxy generally agrees with “if everybody only listened to Rome, so many schisms could have been averted!” . …
Yet, it did solve any disputes and according to canons, Constantinople’s resolutions are binding.
Funnily enough, canons do kinda grant Constantinople power because “it is imperial city”… hence now that it is not, what is primacy there for? If it got primacy because Practical reasons > tradition, why is now tradition more important than practical reasons?
Oh, I see. Glad to hear that our confirmation/chrismation is really recognized.
So, why exactly is Catholic baptism recognized but not protestant one? Does not Nicea specify faith in “One Baptism” ? It’s not like only Priests with valid priesthood can actually administer baptism anyway.
Also, about Peter being one most prone to sin… our Lord has come to find what was lost, save what needs to be saved and so on… God has always chosen those who were low to do His will, he has chosen sinner to be Prime Apostle and Prince of Apostles so he shows that even if Popes are bad, his choice lies with them. Actually your analysis further adds to the point of Papacy.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Perhaps, but that does just further add to my point that Orthodox ecclesiology does not work properly. It is one thing when you get persecuted, another when system you created literally does this for you. It isn’t necessarily that someone IN the Church persecutes you, as much as system Church adopted doing that for you…
Is it wrong to be outside canonical status of the Church? To go to semi-schismatic or schismatic Churches that broke communion with their mother Churches? If no, then why would it even matter? Why can’t any Bishop just break communion with everyone and still head proper Church with no problems… what does communion even mean? If yes, then Christians not included by this faulty system are suffering… for one reason or another.
I am impatient, please pray for me. However, what I see is that not only do issues get resolved slowly, they also are born solely out of lack of any central authority. You can say Orthodoxy works on collegiality, but my point is that even that collegiality is not present in Orthodox Church as Ecumenical Councils can not be called, neither can Pan-Orthodox Councils be called, many Autocephalous Churches refuse to acknowledge other ones, they refuse to attend councils called by them and/or are refused entry at councils… if Peter denying Lord lessens his authority, does not authority of Autocephalous Churches get reduced for those fiascos that keep happening over and over? I see no charity in that, neither do I see any way God’s plan works in this chaos. It puts souls at stake too often and too much.
That might actually be true. God does everything to help those in need. If Peter needed to be Prince of Apostles to save his soul, then sure. I don’t see any problem with that. Fact remains he was chosen to be Prince of Apostles, and that his successors were looked to in Early Church, and that canons specified that decision by Rome is binding (and so was actually ruling of Constantinople btw, according to Chalcedon’s Canon which Rome and Alexandria did not accept, unlike one with Rome).sheesh! THAT’S why Peter is the Father’s choice? Because Peter has the greatest need?
Last edited:
I
Isaac14
Guest
It depends on the type of Protestant. Lutherans baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” Lutheran converts are typically received via Chrismation only.
There are other Protestants that baptize “in the name of Jesus” only; this not being a trinitarian baptism a convert from such would likely be baptized according to the Trinitarian formula.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I understand that reasoning, I thought that this is concern with Protestants mostly, not just those Protestants with non-trinitarian baptism. Thank you for clarification.
I
Isaac14
Guest
The situation in America that George references here is messed up because we Orthodox are NOT following our own rules, not because the rules don’t work.
G
George720
Guest
It would be normally regarded very highly, and would be closely attended… Not with the force of Law, but with that of Moral Authority… Yet always with discernment… Regard and obedience CAN be one and the same - Yet remember Christ’s words in the Great Call to Discipleship: IF ANY IS WILLING TO FOLLOW ME… Discipleship is always predicated on the willingness of the disciple… It is not predicated on the Authority of Christ - That will come soon enough at the Great and Dread Last Judgement, and Fear (Phobos) of the Lord is (but) the Beginning of Wisdom… You cannot force a Patriarch - Nor can you force a catechumen… Authoritarian Faith is not what our lives in the shadow of death are about… We are to be willing, and when disputes arise, Communion is withheld until the matter is resolved and received - Or, as with arch-heretics, they are spat forth from the Body…
As for Rome’s Primacy, her opinions would be held in high regard due to her piety, but not necessarily for their dogmatic acumen… Blessed Augustine fell into this category… Saints are not necessarily perfected in Church Dogmatics… Usually not, I should think - But what do I know?
geo
G
George720
Guest
Because the Latin Church is an Apostolic Church…
The local Baptist Bible-believer church down the street simply does not have this imprimatur… Nor do any other non-Apostolic Churches… At least in my opinion… From my own personal and anecdotal experience, I have not seen any of the merely chrismated Protestants, at least so far, take off spiritually in the EOC… Please pray that I am wrong…
It is Christ Who Baptizes, as John the Baptist foretold… And Jesus never Baptized anyone, but only His Apostles whom He commanded, and those passed down from them… I see Baptism as entry into Christ which only Christ can give… His Hands are those of His Servants in His Holy Body, the Church…
otoh: “I will have Mercy on whom I WILL have Mercy!”
Which is why Systematic Theology can get pretty sketchy…
Au contraire! It is working perfectly properly…
When the Russian Royal Family was awaiting execution,
they wondered why they had not yet been killed…
And their servant proclaimed
“It is because we are not yet worthy of martyrdom!”
Orthodoxy in the US is not yet READY for auto-cephaly…
We wait on God’s time, you see…
We do not seek to impose our own…
geo
Last edited:
I
Isaac14
Guest
Then rejoice! I was a Lutheran received via Chrismation. I helped lead our small mission through the year and a half we did not have a priest such that the parish actually grew in that time and built a solid foundation for our priest to work with when he finally arrived.
S
steve-b
Guest
Where’s the evidence Peter wanted to be anything other than a fisherman. He had no clue what God had in store for him.
AND
there is no evidence he sought, lobbied for, this top job Jesus gave Him. Unlike the mother of James and John who asked Jesus for her sons to sit at His right and left hand, …positions of authority
AND
What did Jesus say to HER?
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
G
George720
Guest
I simply read the Biblical account regarding Peter… He was the strongest, and perhaps the oldest, of the Apostles, yes? And he was God-led and very zealous, and very assertive of his leadership among the twelve, yes? And he even tried to assert his leadership over Christ, remember? We have all known such men as these, even when little children, they are “natural born leaders” even when they know nothing - They just want to lead… And God knows how to use this for His Purposes - I mean, heck - He even knows how to use the scruffian likes of you and me to his purposes - So using Peter was a shoo-in - Unlike you and me who were more on the order of a shoe-in, I say!
The making of the Chief Apostle took some turns and twists - It was not handed to him full-born from the git-go, but went through life experiences that contributed to his soul, as did those of Job…
But this particular read of Scripture on Peter is entirely my own - It just seemed obviously there on the surface of the reading of it… I have not seen it contradicted particularly, but I haven’s looked either all that much… Peter the oldest and John the youngest were the two greatest of the 12… And of these, I love John…
But you have only me to blame for these views on the development of Peter as an Apostle from the simple reading of Scripture… It just seems obvious to me… He had to grow into his future responsibilities - Just after telling Kephas his new name, Christ said to him: “Get thee behind me Satan…” This Faith is a struggle… Peter obviously “corrected” Christ more than just once… His falling from his discipleship by denying Christ three times and being re-admitted by triple affirmation of his love for Christ by Christ Himself was needed for him to prepare him for the leadership awaiting him… He needed to be humbled, to become great by becoming less than they were… And he did so and attained primacy, not rulership…
geo
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@George720,
Allow me to share my nous with yours.
I was raised a Lutheran. Growing up and going into my teens I saw so many different interpretations that I knew not all of them could be right. Nothing was consistent and there was no clearly defined authority to lead and to teach. Each believer defined his world for himself.
My father was Air Force and I grew up with a military formed mind; a mind that looked to authority and a clearly defined chain of command.
On my way into the true Faith, I left behind the disordered Protestant sects. No unity of doctrine nor of Ecclesia. It’s rife with schism. Each believer interprets Scripture for himself.
I looked for and needed authority and unity.
I found it in Rome.
Our Lord prayed to the Father that we are one as they are one.
Upon this rock I shall build My Church… Feed My lambs… Tend My sheep… Feed My sheep…
I know you guys speak of Communion is unity and not Communion is disunity; as well as the unity of the Body of Christ.
My questions, spoken with love for my fellow members of the Body is:
How can unity be maintained if each Church is free to disregard the arbitration of authority?
How is it unity if each Church breaks and restores Communion over political and jurisdictional disputes?
How is it unity if there’s no central authority to prevent squabbles from breaking the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?
At least with the Latin Church, under the Successor of Saint Peter; unity is maintained by the college of bishops headed by the Holy Father.
In essence, the Successor of Saint Peter has the authority to teach, guide, shepherd and ensure unity for the whole Church. That is my concept of the Petrine Office.
I think we can all agree ensuring unity strengthens the brethren?
George, you spoke of an authoritarian faith and I agree with you that faith imposed upon one from without is no faith at all. Only servitude. As for the Authority of Christ: Part of what forms my faith is that I know the the Father gave Christ authority. Christ wasn’t just some nut job making wild claims without anything to back Him up.
When I look to Rome, I don’t look cravenly fearing over whether to obey or burn. I listen to Rome because the Holy Father and the college of bishops, our Magisterium; is guided by the Holy Spirit in their teaching and in their governance of the Church.
That they are holy men of God with wisdom, holiness, depth of knowledge, training and experience. I know that I can safely defer to their authority.
Allow me to share my nous with yours.
I was raised a Lutheran. Growing up and going into my teens I saw so many different interpretations that I knew not all of them could be right. Nothing was consistent and there was no clearly defined authority to lead and to teach. Each believer defined his world for himself.
My father was Air Force and I grew up with a military formed mind; a mind that looked to authority and a clearly defined chain of command.
On my way into the true Faith, I left behind the disordered Protestant sects. No unity of doctrine nor of Ecclesia. It’s rife with schism. Each believer interprets Scripture for himself.
I looked for and needed authority and unity.
I found it in Rome.
Our Lord prayed to the Father that we are one as they are one.
Upon this rock I shall build My Church… Feed My lambs… Tend My sheep… Feed My sheep…
I know you guys speak of Communion is unity and not Communion is disunity; as well as the unity of the Body of Christ.
My questions, spoken with love for my fellow members of the Body is:
How can unity be maintained if each Church is free to disregard the arbitration of authority?
How is it unity if each Church breaks and restores Communion over political and jurisdictional disputes?
How is it unity if there’s no central authority to prevent squabbles from breaking the unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?
At least with the Latin Church, under the Successor of Saint Peter; unity is maintained by the college of bishops headed by the Holy Father.
In essence, the Successor of Saint Peter has the authority to teach, guide, shepherd and ensure unity for the whole Church. That is my concept of the Petrine Office.
I think we can all agree ensuring unity strengthens the brethren?
George, you spoke of an authoritarian faith and I agree with you that faith imposed upon one from without is no faith at all. Only servitude. As for the Authority of Christ: Part of what forms my faith is that I know the the Father gave Christ authority. Christ wasn’t just some nut job making wild claims without anything to back Him up.
When I look to Rome, I don’t look cravenly fearing over whether to obey or burn. I listen to Rome because the Holy Father and the college of bishops, our Magisterium; is guided by the Holy Spirit in their teaching and in their governance of the Church.
That they are holy men of God with wisdom, holiness, depth of knowledge, training and experience. I know that I can safely defer to their authority.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
That’s not how I’ve been reading your positionsteve-b:
I simply read the Biblical account regarding Peter… He was the strongest, and perhaps the oldest, of the Apostles, yes?
That’s NOT how you’ve been portraying him.
Really?
Just
You have NOT been pursuing that view in previous posts. What has all of a sudden changed?
Thanks for admitting that your particular read of this scripture was your own.
OK
We all have opinions. We can all read scripture differently, that doesn’t mean we should come to different conclusions, We should NOT be contradicting the plane sense of what we are reading
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
I know…
Surely you remember him telling Christ He would not wash His Feet?
Or would die before ever denying Him?
Or…
Or…
So you seem to think…
It is easy, because I say things with provocative pith, to assume that I denigrate the Chief Apostle of the 12… I just see him as a man needing to grow into his role… He said himself: “I am just a man as are you…” to someone, in Acts, I think…
And Paul reported that he did not want to be perceived by his reputation as someone beyond what he appeared to them to be…
I try to give Peter the same courtesy, that’s all…
A fair glob of pith there, yes?
Why would I not?
So your job, as an advocate of your reading of the same passages, should you wish to persuade me that I am in error in this understanding, is to cite references to Church Fathers who contradict my plain read that Peter was growing into his position as Chief of the Apostles through life experiences afforded hi by Christ… It seems to me to be such an obvious fact that I am surprised you are challenging it…
I understand that you may think these passages only describe the Latin affirmation that Peter is the law-giving chief of the apostles with sovereignty over the Body of Christ, which my Communion denies… And that by ascribing growth to Peter’s soul’s stature through these events I am somehow denying him his rightful place among the Apostles, which I deny. He is the Chief Apostle of the 12 Apostles… So much so was he that Rome where he was martyred became called the Seat of Peter, and he is venerated to this day by the EOC and the OOC as their leader… And Rome itself, because of his ministry there, is itself given Primacy in the Good Order of the Churches comprising the Church of the first thousand years of Christianity…
But he was never given authority over the whole Body of Christ in that first thousand years, and when the Latin Church asserted that authority, the great schism ensued, and even after 4 crusades, Constantinople chose submission to the Turks over submission to Rome…
I totally agree, unless Church Fathers of the early Church say I am wrong…
Fathers we both accept and receive…
geo
S
steve-b
Guest
G
George720
Guest
That sharing is by noetic and wordless contemplation in neptic hesychia, my Brother…
Yet your thoughts are a treasure to me…
Unity is a consequence, not a cause… And it must be willingly embraced…
If you want the model, you need look no further than Christ’s addressing the Angels [Bishops] of the 7 Church is Revelation… He was correcting them… Through the Prophet and Evangellist John the Theologian…
God did not tell John to send the 7 Churches in Revelation to Rome to be instructed in their Faith… He did not say to them: “God to the Chair of Peter and receive from that Chair the correction you need in the Faith and Morals of Christianity…” Instead, through John, He instructed each Angel directly by a very brief epistle that the “Angel” of each of these Churches would know what needed to be done…
Likewise when Ananias baptized Saul - He was instructed by God to do so, and he did so… In Damaskos, remember? He did not send Ananias to Peter in Jerusalem to let him know what to do with this blind (but now ex- we hope and pray) persecutor of Christ… He simply was told by Christ and he baptized him…
[continued]
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
Likewise when Paul was stirring up the more pharisitic Christians who wanted circumcision to be prerequisite to Baptism into Christ, they did not simply go ask Peter - Instead they called a Council with the Brother of the Lord, Iakovos, in charge, and discussed and debated the issues, and Peter’s argument won the day, and all agreed, and James proclaimed and sent out the notices, and it was settled.
That is how unity is re-established… It was never done by an autonomous Peter nor the Seat of Peter in Rome… Either God does it directly - As when the Bishop struck the Heretic across his face, and was stripped and imprisoned at the Ecumenical Council, and God visited the presiding Bishops in dreams that night justifying the striker and condemning the heretic… Or God does it by Conciliar rulings that are received by the whole Church… Our treasury is obedience to these rules… Our treasury is not any presumed authority over other Christians… And over that first thousand years, the Theological issues have been pretty much ironed out… And we all share in our obedience to them - Indeed in our immersions them…
Yet transgressions do occur, and normally we can iron them out… Sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly… But however all that transpires, the Faith of Christ is being obeyed and pursued by each of us according to our willingness and strength…
None of the squabblings can disturb the Faith of the Faithful in the Body of Christ… We know what needs to be done… Obedience to men is for us training in obedience, that we should become obedient to Christ… And by God’s Grace and our willingness to sacrifice the self, we will become obedient to Him directly, and not only indirectly through obedience to ecclesiastical direction… “Obey those having the rule over you, as those who will give account for your soul, that they may do so joyfully…” (my paraphrase)
I can tell you that I live in fear of offending my Bishop, and my Priest too, for that matter… These are the carriers and dispensers of the Grace of the Church… But perhaps, at my advancing state of years, I live in loving them more than fearing them, and loving Christ in them - Indeed loving Christ through them…
Thank you for relating your journey…
You are not the only ex-Lutheran here…
I grew up among Lutherans…
Norweigans, mostly…
In North Dakota…
Long ago…
geo
That is how unity is re-established… It was never done by an autonomous Peter nor the Seat of Peter in Rome… Either God does it directly - As when the Bishop struck the Heretic across his face, and was stripped and imprisoned at the Ecumenical Council, and God visited the presiding Bishops in dreams that night justifying the striker and condemning the heretic… Or God does it by Conciliar rulings that are received by the whole Church… Our treasury is obedience to these rules… Our treasury is not any presumed authority over other Christians… And over that first thousand years, the Theological issues have been pretty much ironed out… And we all share in our obedience to them - Indeed in our immersions them…
Yet transgressions do occur, and normally we can iron them out… Sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly… But however all that transpires, the Faith of Christ is being obeyed and pursued by each of us according to our willingness and strength…
None of the squabblings can disturb the Faith of the Faithful in the Body of Christ… We know what needs to be done… Obedience to men is for us training in obedience, that we should become obedient to Christ… And by God’s Grace and our willingness to sacrifice the self, we will become obedient to Him directly, and not only indirectly through obedience to ecclesiastical direction… “Obey those having the rule over you, as those who will give account for your soul, that they may do so joyfully…” (my paraphrase)
I can tell you that I live in fear of offending my Bishop, and my Priest too, for that matter… These are the carriers and dispensers of the Grace of the Church… But perhaps, at my advancing state of years, I live in loving them more than fearing them, and loving Christ in them - Indeed loving Christ through them…
Thank you for relating your journey…
You are not the only ex-Lutheran here…
I grew up among Lutherans…
Norweigans, mostly…
In North Dakota…
Long ago…
geo
- Status