Z
Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?
- Status
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Including the Proskomidia (the Rite of Preparation, which is technically the beginning of the Divine Liturgy), we pray for the Holy Father 4 times. First, during the Proskomidia; second, during the Ektenia of Peace, third, in the Insistent Ektenia after the Gospel & homily, and fourth, in the commemoration after the Megalynarion (the hymn to the Theotokos). He’s also commemorated in Vespers.
A
AlNg
Guest
Isn’t it the same with the Orthodox?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
True, but my opinion is that praying for primate of Church is a great thing. Prayers in liturgy work wonders. I would actually support adding prayers for all Patriarchs to Latin Liturgy (OF, EF won’t be changed). Not only would this increase awareness of EC inside Latin Church but might also get those hierarchs some sort of assistance they all need for such hard duty of governing the flock. Also for this reason and “pray for thy enemies” thing, I can not get my head around Orthodox excluding some Patriarchs from prayers during liturgy.
And vice versa. Why should we not be able to correct theology of someone in communion with us, and why not be in communion with everyone of our faith? Both go hand in hand.
And yet it is usually ignored by other side. Catholic model goes around this.
It does seem to me as if you praise Orthodox ecclesiology for bringing problems and disunity, and say they are a good thing. If so, why did our Lord pray for us to be one? Why not get a system that works? Why praise errors?
And that mediation can be rejected. Rightly so, as unlike Rome, they hold no authority and are not inerrant… which Rome was professed to be even by Eastern Churchmen such as George the Hagiorite. You could say Ecumenical Councils are binding and final authority, but there is no clear determination of when is council Ecumenical. You can say whole Church accepting it, but does that mean one layman can reject it and it’s not Ecumenical? One Bishop? Patriarchate? Or does it need majority? But Nicea was rejected by majority of world’s “Christians”. Orthodoxy has no unity to hold Pan-Orthodox synod, I doubt it can hold Ecumenical Council, let alone determine if it is one.
Is communion non-essential? Is unity? Our Lord prayed for unity of the Church, and Fathers have rightly attributed one of four marks of the Church to unity. I would not call that “non-essential”. Neither Russian re-baptisms contradicting not only historical realities ( Cyprian’s dispute ) but also Nicene Creed itself.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I thought it was the Roman Church that disrupted the unity by changing the Nicene Creed when its added the filioque?
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes. Of course we know that you are the only one around here who is right.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
So, “Whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor to the Antichrist,” is to say that “only I as Bishop of Rome can call myself the Universal Bishop of the Church”? Maybe he was threaten by the Ecumenical Patriarch? Both Rome and Constantinople do not have history of “playing nice” with one another.
Also, these quotes from Pope Gregory, I can just say, as some of our Roman Catholic friends on this forum tell me all the time when I bring up the Fathers of the Church or documents they don’t agree with, “he (Pope Gregory) can have his own opinion.”
ZP
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Not really. They added a phrase which was orthodox in doctrine- to this day, through the Son theology is accepted in Orthodoxy. And that is meaning of the doctrine. Armenian Church had their own Creed and nobody cared about that, and in Oriental Orthodoxy nobody cares about it even today. Nicene Creed is not only Creed. Did Council of Constantinople actually disturb unity of the Church because they changed the Creed in local council ( it was not ecumenical yet … )? Yet both wise Fathers of Constantinople and those who added Filioque knew they were professing doctrine held by whole Church, to put it in Orthodox terms. No one can deny “through the Son” anyway. Latin wording of Filioque is also synonymous with it. Language barriers are a problematic thing…
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Pope Gregory asserts equality of Bishops when there is no Roman intervention… and Rome and Constantinople weren’t at bad state back then. Historical conflicts did not happen until century or so later… and non-imperial East stood by the Pope during this controversy. I do not see how did Pope assume very title he rejected or used this to lower Constantinople solely.
Sure you can. You are free to disagree with Church Father respected by both Churches, but fact remains he believed that. If you may provide any binding contradictory statement of the Church, that gives you a pass but otherwise it does sound like you agree with what suits you. I was actually a bit touched by part where Pope says all Bishops are equal when Rome is not intervening, as it changes a lot and I would not have agreed with this view before I saw that Church Father professed it. But I submit to it as I submit to Church, guardian of Truth.
I give arguments to most of what I have to say, so either refute them and help me see the truth, or provide contradictory ones. I have simply quoted Augustine and even explained Filioque stuff through how it was viewed in the East. I apologize if I was too proud in my wording or actions. Yet your comment changes nothing on my argumentation. Please rebuke me if I show pride, but do not dodge arguments. You have used this one on multiple threads to no effect, other than ways getting corrected through logical arguments you did not have response to. If you could, would you provide response to ones I wrote about in Orthodoxy? Would you say I am correct or refute my statements?
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@ziapueblo,
The basic point that I’m getting at is this:
The Holy Father is the Archbishop over the Holy Synod of the whole Church.
Understanding the koinonia of the Ravenna and Chieti documents, the Head of a Synod has full authority to settle disputes within his Synod and to govern his Synod. Rome has primacy of honor as the protos of the Church.
John IV usurped Roman prerogatives when he declared himself universal bishop.
That means he: Declared himself above Rome. His Primate.
The main point being:
The Holy Father as Archbishop of the Holy Synod means that the Pope is the Head of the Church with the authority that goes with an archbishop over his own synod.
An Archbishop rules his synod.
The Orthodox contention of immediate versus mediate jurisdiction is simply hairsplitting to maintain their independence from Rome.
The basic point that I’m getting at is this:
The Holy Father is the Archbishop over the Holy Synod of the whole Church.
Understanding the koinonia of the Ravenna and Chieti documents, the Head of a Synod has full authority to settle disputes within his Synod and to govern his Synod. Rome has primacy of honor as the protos of the Church.
John IV usurped Roman prerogatives when he declared himself universal bishop.
That means he: Declared himself above Rome. His Primate.
The main point being:
The Holy Father as Archbishop of the Holy Synod means that the Pope is the Head of the Church with the authority that goes with an archbishop over his own synod.
An Archbishop rules his synod.
The Orthodox contention of immediate versus mediate jurisdiction is simply hairsplitting to maintain their independence from Rome.
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I agree, but it seems that Pope Gregory became somewhat threatened with the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” which like so many things is a language issue.
As can you.
Hysterical! Just like many Roman Catholics on this forum do. Go back on this thread or others. Anytime I have given a quote from an Early Father, Latin or Greek, I get this response, “they are not infallible” or “they can say what they like.” Then, they post their own Church Father which seems to agree with their argument. I hope you respond to your fellow RC with this same quote, “but otherwise it does sound like you agree with what suits you.” Maybe you have?
It has become a game of lobbing quotes from the Father like hand grenades, similar to slinging Bible verses back and forth with Protestants back when I was heavy into RC apologetics. Many copy and paste quotes of the Church Fathers taken from “classic” Catholic Answers tracts and leave it at that. Hey, I’m guilty of the same thing.
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
@ziapueblo,
I see you’re on the defensive now as the Catholics are surging on the offensive.
I’ve heard arguments like yours before.
From Protestants.
I see you’re on the defensive now as the Catholics are surging on the offensive.
I’ve heard arguments like yours before.
From Protestants.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Did he call himself “Universal Bishop”? What is your source, curious. What I took from the article is that the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” means he is Patriarch of the imperial, or ecumenical, city. Nothing more than that.
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
@ziapueblo,
Doesn’t matter about the ecumenical city.
Can you prove that John IV didn’t usurp the primatial prerogatives of Rome?
Doesn’t matter about the ecumenical city.
Can you prove that John IV didn’t usurp the primatial prerogatives of Rome?
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Well, I am on a Roman Catholic forum. The Catholic forums I should be sticking to are those on http://byzcath.org/, where Roman Catholics can at times:
By the way, this happens all the time with Byzantine Catholics on this forum as well, not just Orthodox. Stick around the Eastern Catholic threads and you will see Latin Catholic telling Byzantine Catholics “correct teaching.”
So yeah, you can say that I am frustrated lol
ZP
Although Byzantine Catholics on those forums are not even half as aggressive towards Roman Catholics as RC are towards EO and their fellow EC.
By the way, this happens all the time with Byzantine Catholics on this forum as well, not just Orthodox. Stick around the Eastern Catholic threads and you will see Latin Catholic telling Byzantine Catholics “correct teaching.”
So yeah, you can say that I am frustrated lol
ZP
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
M
Michael16
Guest
@ziapueblo,
I made mention of the Protestants because I’ve heard them make similar arguments like you EOs do regarding papal authority.
Once you posted the link and I read it, I understood.
The Holy Father has always been the Head of the Church whether the East recognized it or not.
Can you refute any of the points I made after I read that article?
I made mention of the Protestants because I’ve heard them make similar arguments like you EOs do regarding papal authority.
Once you posted the link and I read it, I understood.
The Holy Father has always been the Head of the Church whether the East recognized it or not.
Can you refute any of the points I made after I read that article?
M
Michael16
Guest
Now you’re acting like a man on the ropes.
Your position’s refuted and now you’re lashing out like when a Protestant has been refuted on Sola Fide.
Don’t answer me like that again, please.
I mean this post with love for you.
Your position’s refuted and now you’re lashing out like when a Protestant has been refuted on Sola Fide.
Don’t answer me like that again, please.
I mean this post with love for you.
Last edited:
I
Isaac14
Guest
Being Roman means never having to say sorry, huh?
M
Michael16
Guest
No, I don’t mean it like that @Isaac14.
Just wanting @ziapueblo to stop lashing out like he has and return to a reasonable and coherent defense of his position.
Just wanting @ziapueblo to stop lashing out like he has and return to a reasonable and coherent defense of his position.
Last edited:
- Status