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

[George720]

More personal opinion?

Demonstrable…

Where is the record of the administration of this authority you claim for Rome over the first thousand years of this Faith? I have shown that it comes direct from God via Revelation to John to the Angels of the 7 Churches…

And through the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the first thousand years of the Church…

And through the Council at Jerusalem of the first century in the Bible…

I am sorry if I am embittering you in this discussion…

The only place of my personal opinion is in my reading of the development of Peter’s soul by Christ in the Biblical narrative of the events of his life… I would be easily corrected if I am wrong by you showing a passage by a Church Father we both accept that shows me my error… Prior to Pentecost, all the Apostles were weak…

So it might qualify as a theologoumenon - eg a pious opinion…

geo

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

More personal opinion?

Demonstrable…

George720:

Where is the record of the administration of this authority you claim for Rome over the first thousand years of this Faith? I have shown that it comes direct from God via Revelation to John to the Angels of the 7 Churches…

And through the 7 Ecumenical Councils of the first thousand years of the Church…

And through the Council at Jerusalem of the first century in the Bible…

I am sorry if I am embittering you in this discussion…

No problems, I’m fine.

As I’ve said already, I give information properly referenced. What anybody does with it is their business.

George720:

The only place of my personal opinion is in my reading of the development of Peter’s soul by Christ in the Biblical narrative of the events of his life… I would be easily corrected if I am wrong by you showing a passage by a Church Father we both accept that shows me my error…
geo

OK

How bout this

Council of Chalcedon (all emphasis mine)​

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [ The Tome of Leo ], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” ( Acts of the Council, Council of Chalcedon scroll to session II continued [A.D. 451]).

BTW, there was lots of drama against those delegates from Rome.

 

[George720]

OK

How bout this

Council of Chalcedon (all emphasis mine)​

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [ The Tome of Leo ], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” ( Acts of the Council, Council of Chalcedon scroll to session II continued [A.D. 451]).

BTW, there was lots of drama against those delegates from Rome.

And this tells us that Peter’s soul did not develop during his years with Christ as recorded in the Bible so that he could become Chief of the Apostles??

It simply tells us that Leo held the orthodox Faith of Christ as Peter speaking through his mouth… And indeed he did…

geo

 

[EndTimes]

I mean, is it possible that, having their cultural and liturgical practices respected as Eastern Catholics have, the orthodox accepts Papal authority and everything else and return to communion with the Catholic Church? Is something that we can reasonably hope?

There’s always a chance…

Keep in mind that those who oppose Christ do not want to see that occur.

Fact is, they actively work against it.

God wills there be Unity where now there’s division and separation.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Au contraire! It is working perfectly properly…

“May they be one”… yet Orthodox ecclesiology directly contradicts this and result of system itself is disunity. You can say it is martyrdom, but for what? Martyrdom is willingly suffering for God, not self-harm. This Orthodox system is self-imposed persecution which hurts people who follow the system. That is hardly any martyrdom.

Because the Latin Church is an Apostolic Church…

You do understand that one could be Protestant, convert to Catholicism and per Nicene Creed would not be rebaptized. Then if he converts to Orthodoxy, he will not be rebaptized despite his baptism being invalid per this sense? St Augustine says baptism can be administered by anyone, and in dispute with St. Cyprian, Church has ruled that even heretical baptism is valid. How were those heretics different from Protestantism? I don’t think this approach is historically plausible.

Surely you remember him telling Christ He would not wash His Feet?
Or would die before ever denying Him?

Peter fell, but his intentions were good. He wanted to be humble and feared God, and respected him so he did not see any way he would deserve to have his feet washed. That was standard Jewish approach back then anyway. Telling him he would not deny him meant that he wanted to be good disciple and prevent it. He failed but good intentions remain.

Unity is a consequence

And it is consequence of Catholic ecclesiology. Not so much Orthodox one.

unless Church Fathers of the early Church say I am wrong…

I will provide a Saint in Orthodox Church, not recognized by Rome. Not from Early Church but from when Schism was happening. Read on George the Hagiorite, Georgian Saint. Apparently he professed inerrancy of Roman Church before Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople. This monk from Georgia who did not have contact with the West…

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Saint in both our beloved Churches has stated he can render Eastern Synods null and void with strike of a pen.

 

[Michael16]

Thank you for your kind words, George. You have a beautiful way of speaking. Almost like talking to a Desert Father.

Btw, at some point I would love to talk with you on noesis, nepsis and hesychia.

I have to admit @George720, how can unity be a consequence of Orthodox ecclesiology when the consequence is disunity?

I know that you guys honor Saint Peter as the Chief of the Apostles. I get that.

But my question is:

How do you guys honor Saint Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built and as the Chief of the Apostles?

 

[AlNg]

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Saint in both our beloved Churches has stated he can render Eastern Synods null and void with strike of a pen.

Reference and citation?

“May they be one”…

Catholics differ on several issues.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

OK

How bout this

Council of Chalcedon (all emphasis mine)​

“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [ The Tome of Leo ], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” ( Acts of the Council, Council of Chalcedon scroll to session II continued [A.D. 451]).

BTW, there was lots of drama against those delegates from Rome.

And this tells us that Peter’s soul did not develop during his years with Christ as recorded in the Bible so that he could become Chief of the Apostles??

It simply tells us that Leo held the orthodox Faith of Christ as Peter speaking through his mouth… And indeed he did…

geo

Given what was written in those documents presented, How in the world do you read into those documents, your conclusions?

 

[George720]

How can unity be a consequence of Orthodox ecclesiology when the consequence is disunity?

Because Ecclesiastical unity is a consequence of theological unity… Churches often stray and need correction, and withdrawal of Communion is a signal flag to indicate an issue… And with two disputants, resolution is sought in intercession… So if Antioch withdraws Communion from Jerusalem, and Jerusalem returns the kindness, and both are in Communion with Serbia, then both might agree to let Serbia mediate the dispute, or Moscow, or Montenegro, or Rome, or Alexandria, should the two sides not agree on an intercessor… All of it based on agreement by all sides… And the result will be agreed to by both sides… If not, then there will be no inter-Communion until there is agreement… And as the transgression of one becomes more and more apparent, more and more Communions will withdraw their Communion from the one violating the Canons… And as time develops, the offending Church will find itself isolated and only in Communion with itself, and most Apostolic Churches will at that point seriously look at how to change themselves so as to regain Communion with the rest of the Churches… The process is drawn out, giving all sides ample opportunity to find a resolution… Christ gave Jerusalem some 40 years, yes? Then came Rome and scattered the Jews destroying the Temple… Because they would not repent and embrace Christ…

Without unity of doctrine in action, there cannot be unity of Churches, and more than that, the unity must be voluntarily received… In the case of a tyrannical Patriarch, and we have had our share of these, time itself will resolve the issue in the repose of that Patriarch, following the venerable adage that “Time wounds all Heels”, yes?

The private petition first given to someone can often be enough to resolve an issue… The same idea is for a local Church… Then follows a confrontation with one or two others, and the matter may then be worked out… Finally, the whole Church may have to confront the offending party, and failing that, excommunication normally will ensue… That is a plain Biblical teaching… Which we follow…

When a dispute occurs within a Church - Say between two Priests or Parishes - Then we appeal to the local Bishop to resolve it, and failing that, to the Arch-Bishop, and then to the Metropolitan, and then to the Patriarch - And a dispute between two parishioners or Priests should never come before the Patriarch… In a given geographical Church, there is a chain of Command… But not between two geographical Church Patriarchs… Those kinds of disputes are settled not by a “highest” Patriarch, but by the world of the household of Communicants, for by this kind of unanimous judgement, and its subsequent reception by all, we seek to humble ourselves to receive the Will of God in the matter at hand…

[continued]

 

[George720]

How do you guys honor Saint Peter as the rock upon which the Church is built and as the Chief of the Apostles?

We understand it much more broadly, not being under the need to justify it narrowly as the basis for the authority of our Church over the rest of the Churches that comprise the Body of Christ… Peter was himself a foundation stone of the Church, as were, in lesser terms, the rest of the 12 save Judas Iscariot, and later blossomed forth John… Peter was the first… John would overtake him as was indicated in their race to the tomb… John got there first, but Peter was first to enter, for John was a kid, and Peter a mature (and married?) man… The leader, and John deferred to him, as was meet…

The 12 are the foundation stones, and after these the 70, and after these the rest… And all are to be of one mind…

Btw, at some point I would love to talk with you on noesis, nepsis and hesychia.

Whenever you wish, I can perhaps say a little - I know the head of the Anthropology at Berkeley who is delving into “ontological knowledge” in a big and excited way, having tons of words to talk about it… But that, you see, is the problem… Ontological knowledge is not communicated in words, or even images… And talking about silence can easily suffer the same fate… Especially from the likes of lips like mine!

1st: And this tells us that Peter’s soul did not develop during his years with Christ as recorded in the Bible so that he could become Chief of the Apostles???

2nd It simply tells us that Leo held the orthodox Faith of Christ as Peter speaking through his mouth… And indeed he did…

geo

The first is the conclusion I was refuting…

The second conclusion I affirm…

These are two opposing conclusions, only one of which is mine…

geo

 

[steve-b]

George720:

1st: And this tells us that Peter’s soul did not develop during his years with Christ as recorded in the Bible so that he could become Chief of the Apostles???

2nd It simply tells us that Leo held the orthodox Faith of Christ as Peter speaking through his mouth… And indeed he did…

geo

steve-b:

Given what was written in those documents presented, How in the world do you read into those documents, your conclusions?

George720:

The first is the conclusion I was refuting…

The second conclusion I affirm…

These are two opposing conclusions, only one of which is mine…

geo

You’re very unclear in your responses. Please be clearer

 

[ziapueblo]

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Saint in both our beloved Churches has stated he can render Eastern Synods null and void with strike of a pen.

Where does he say this? I’m not doubting you, just never heard of this.

Pope Gregory also said this:

“ Whoever calls himself universal bishop , or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist .” (Letter to John the Faster)

John IV of Constantinople (John the Faster) was the first to use the title Ecumenical Patriarch.

Interesting article on the subject between Pope Gregory and the Patriarch:

https://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

I’ve read the article and it was an informative read; though polemical.

I differ with the Catholic apologist’s position that John IV was unchurching every bishop and priest. Though, I do see his point.

I see these points in the article:

1: Pope Saint Gregory the Great rebuked the Patriarch of Constantinople for usurping primacy from Rome. Rome is the higher See than Constantinople. John IV declares himself higher than Rome.

In fact, according to “ Positively Medieval “, a history of the medieval Catholic Church by Jamie Blosser; Pope Saint Gregory the Great was a papal ambassador to Constantinople for eight years. He tried to get military help against the barbarians from the Emperor and got nothing.

Also, this great Saint who’s recognized in the East as well as the West; worked hard to elevate Rome as the basis for Western Christianity to survive in the face of no help from Constantinople. He encouraged Western churches to look to Rome instead of the East.

2: This article affirmed a basic Catholic point of doctrine: The Holy Father is head of the Synod of Bishops of the whole Church.

3: This polemicist obviously has never been to a Catholic Mass. In every Mass, we ask for prayers for our Bishop and the Pope. My bishop is Archbishop George J. Lucas by the way. I met him during my time in RCIA.

 

[dochawk]

So, who knows, as Evil Increases perhaps those who aren’t so Evil shall move closer to each other. .

When President Bush made his speech about the “Axis of Evil”, I recall that some wag (Royko? Dave Barry? ) put together a hysterical piece about the nations that didn’t making the cut forming the “Alliance of Just as Bad” or some such But now I can’t find it on a web search . . .

Roman Catholics who are only escaping what they see as “bad” liturgical practice in their parishes and by no means are they going to truly become Byzantine Catholics

gosh, we get those from time to time, but I don’t think I’ve seen one last a whole month.

They get miffed, even condescending, when we don’t agree that we’re there because we’re “fleeing the Novus Ordo” . . .

And we get an influx of curious visitors from RC Masses that Father covers, some of whom stay.

But no Neo-latin refuges that stay.

But then, there are multiple parishes with one or more Tridentine Masses in town, as well as two (three) full-schismatic
“independent” parishes.

 

[EndTimes]

When President Bush made his speech about the “Axis of Evil”, I recall that some wag (Royko? Dave Barry? ) put together a hysterical piece about the nations that didn’t making the cut forming the “Alliance of Just as Bad” or some such But now I can’t find it on a web search

Not sure how that connects to what I’d written.

At any rate… I think?
Very Soon After 9/11 …
W. Bush? made some announcement re: 7 nations who’d get nuked if a nuke landed on the USA

PS - His Evil … Hillary’s Evil. may not be actual Evil… :cowboy_hat_face:

 

[ziapueblo]

John IV declares himself higher than Rome.

Did he?

2: This article affirmed a basic Catholic point of doctrine: The Holy Father is head of the Synod of Bishops of the whole Church.

A quote from the article, “The careful reader will also note that I above, together with Mr. Likoudis, referred to the Pope of Rome as the Primate of the Ancient Catholic Church. The question is not whether the Pope was primate. This is undoubtedly the case. He was the highest ranking bishop in the Church, and therefore held authority over the entire episcopate as an Archbishop holds authority over his Holy Synod. An Archbishop’s authority is mediate. He cannot act unilaterally. Likewise, the Pope of Rome, as “Archbishop of all the Churches”, had mediate jurisdiction. He could not act unilaterally. Primacy does not equal universal, immediate, jurisdiction.” (Emphasis mine)

As I and others (both EO and EC) have previously pointed out, the Orthodox doe not deny Roman Primacy, only “universal, immediate, jurisdiction.”

3: This polemicist obviously has never been to a Catholic Mass. In every Mass, we ask for prayers for our Bishop and the Pope. My bishop is Archbishop George J. Lucas by the way. I met him during my time in RCIA.

I’m sure he was exaggerating to make a point, meaning, that many Roman Catholics may think that their Bishop is just someone under the Pope, and that the Pope is the only one who matters.

My Church, GOA, is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, we only pray for our local Bishop (in a hierarchical Divine Liturgy it’s a bit different). Actually, I’m know of a Melkite Greek Catholic Church and a Romanian Greek Catholic monastery that only prays for their Bishop and does not mention the Pope, which is their right by the way. They do not need to mention him and they still are Catholic.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

The Holy Father is the Archbishop that holds authority over his Holy Synod?

That proves my point.

In the Ravenna and Chieti documents, the Archbishop has authority over all of the bishops under him. That confirms early Church ecclesiology and the Orthodox agree with that.

The mediate jurisdiction is another interesting point. In the Catholic Church, the Holy Father doesn’t often intervene in the affairs of his bishops. If they can handle it among themselves. Only if they can’t, or someone calls for his intervention; he will do so and authoritatively settle the matter.

Much like an Orthodox bishop.

In fact, Catholic Bishops can run their dioceses with flexibility to meet local conditions and needs. According to Lumen Gentium, bishops aren’t vicars of the Holy Father: They’re vicars of Christ in their own right.

Again: Much like an Orthodox Bishop.

In talking with George720, I’ve learned that an Orthodox bishop is Despotos: An autocratic ruler of his Church that’s feared and loved.

As for the author’s point: You said may. The author spoke declaratively that we don’t. I know from experience, that we hold our bishops with reverence and we go to him first with our needs and grievances.

We don’t knee jerk ignore our bishops, or the national conferences of bishops; and go straight to the Holy Father as if our bishop wasn’t even there.

As for the ECs: They pray for the Holy Father too. I know it because I spoke with a biritual Deacon who serves in both a Latin parish and in an Ukrainian Greek Catholic parish in the city I live near.

@Margaret_Ann: Can you vouch for me on this; that Eastern Catholics pray for the Holy Father in Divine Liturgy?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Reference and citation?

Gregory also said this:
“ Whoever calls himself universal bishop , or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist .” (Letter to John the Faster)

“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.”

and again, "If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”
-Liber regulae pastoralis
Above is probably why Pope St. Gregory opposed elevation of Constantinople and their title. This controversy stems from incorrect translation of title to Latin, as well as Caesaropapism being elevated above Petrine Sees.

“And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,— though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force, . . .”

For more, see this website using also Protestant scholars: Did Pope Gregory the Great Deny Papal Primacy and Supremacy? | Dave Armstrong

I must say I adore Pope St. Gregory’s ecclesiology.

Catholics differ on several issues.

St. Augustine said " in essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty". If you think issues are leavened vs unleavened bread, statues, clerical celibacy or usage of Filioque, you are wrong

 

[ziapueblo]

As for the ECs: They pray for the Holy Father too.

I never said that they do not (my former Ruthenian parish did), only that I know of at least two Melkite Greek Catholic parishes and one Romanian Greek Catholic monastery that does not include the Pope, only their Bishop.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

With love I say this: I see you haven’t answered the rest of my text.

As for the ECs’ praying for the Holy Father: The Instruction from Rome issued in 1990 told the EC Churches to return to their Eastern practices and since V2, the EC Churches are being treated like the sui iuris Churches that they are under the Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Archeparchies and eparchies may run themselves as they see fit under these terms.