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

[Michael16]

@ziapueblo,

I have read an English translation of Pastor Aeternus and I’m understanding the nature of papal primacy.

The nature of his Petrine Office is to listen for the Holy Spirit in the Churches, to strengthen the unity of the Church and his brother bishops, to use his authority to serve the particular Churches and to teach faith and morals. That nothing, save God; is above the Holy Father in the execution of his primatial and pastoral duties.

You raised a good point with the Catechism as well.

I’ll answer you with this:

Did you see the Holy Father acting autocratically during Vatican 2?

 

[CoffeeFanatic]

I know for a fact that in my jurisdiction (Antioch) I’ve definitely seen Confirmed Catholics that were received by Chrismation. I have literally never heard of anyone just being anointed with oil during a profession of faith, so if that’s done elsewhere that’s news to me, which is why I questioned it. I guess the OCA may do that, if what babochka posted is correct. I’ve only ever been a member of an Antiochian parish and have only visited those and GOA parishes. (Well- I have visited one OCA parish- it was Bulgarian and it was a long time ago. It’s the only parish I’ve been to that gave not only antidoron but wine after communion.)

ETA: I can also tell you that my husband and I were baptized with one immersion in a Trinitarian baptism- and that was accepted over three immersions when we became Orthodox. We were received via Chrismation.

ETA again: After we’d been Chrismated- my husband visited St. Anthony’s monastery in Arizona. They wanted to re-baptized him. It was a terrible experience.

 

[ziapueblo]

Did you see the Holy Father acting autocratically during Vatican 2?

No, thank God, but as stated, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church he has the power to do so at any time, at any moment.

But you do bring up a good point about VII ecclesiology, thanks to the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and Bishops, it is closer to the historical ecclesiology. The Bishops are the heads of their dioceses and are in communion with the Pope and the Pope is the head of the Church in the setting of a Council. That’s much better than what Vatican 1 said.

ZP

 

[Michael16]

Well, @CoffeeFanatic; I’m sorry to hear that your husband had a horrible experience. I don’t know why the different Orthodox jurisdictions would handle the Holy Mysteries differently and what for them would constitute a valid Baptism. From the above posts, I remember that one jurisdiction would re Baptize Protestants as I think they don’t view their Baptisms as valid.

According to an above post, again I’m thinking it depends on the jurisdiction in question; Catholics would be received with just Confession.

Now in the Catholic Church, we hold any Christian Baptism, as long as it’s done with the Trinitarian formula; as valid. It has to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Not Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.

I’ve spoken with a Deacon and he says we don’t accept Mormon baptisms as valid.

When I went through RCIA in 2015, I was already Baptized as both a Lutheran and as a Catholic, I was born in a Catholic hospital run by Sisters; so I was already validly Baptized and all I needed to do was receive the Sacrament of Confirmation at the Easter Vigil Mass, 2016.

Beautiful experience, by the way.

 

[Michael16]

Thank you, @ziapueblo; I appreciate your words.

When I read that particular part of Lumen Gentium, I understood that V2 strengthened the bishops and Roman ecclesiology does reflect that of the early Church.

Then, the Council Fathers laid out our offer on the table to the Orthodox, and strengthening our own EC Churches simultaneously; an ecclesiology that I believe would be acceptable to you guys in Unitatis Redintegratio.

Assuming you guys can see our good faith in our handling of the EC Churches since 1965 and overcome your suspicions due to your perceptions of papal supremacy and infallibility.

That’s the basic problem I see in a future restoration of communion.

You guys need to see, from our own actions; and in talks with us that even though, yes; the Holy Father does have the unfettered exercise of his powers as Primate; that it doesn’t automatically mean that he’ll tear across the world messing with dioceses and deposing bishops and overturning the disciplines of our Sister Churches whenever he wants just because he can and declare ex cathedra statements willy nilly or to satisfy a sick, power tripping ego.

Because the basic point that’ll prevent such abuses is that the Holy Father will be listening for the Holy Spirit in the Churches and for the sensus fidei.

Is any of what I’m saying making sense to you guys?

@George720, @Isaac14, @dochawk

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So you would agree that the Church of Rome has fractures of unity since it is not in communion with the East?

Uh. I don’t follow. Would you say Church has fractures of unity since it is not in communion with Protestants? Obviously Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox are not same in some aspects, but neither of them are in the communion with the Church. In Catholic understanding, people separate from Church, not Church from them. Catholic Church is in full communion with itself. Eastern Orthodoxy can however have ruptures INSIDE their own Church as there exists scenario where A is in communion with B, B with C, but not A with C. That is disunity.

And where do you get this? Sirach 3:2-6, 12-14? Is this the historical context of Sirach, submission to the Pope of Rome?

Read the passage. Same way Pope of Rome has “primacy of honor” before the Bishops, father has “primacy of honor” before the children. Since father has authority over the children, it logically follows that primacy of honor grants authority and hence Pope of Rome has authority over the Bishops.

This is why, in the Orthodox Church, the primate has duties and responsibilities his brother diocesan bishops don’t, they are not subject to him in a subordinate way.

Having responsibility over someone we don’t have authority is weird. You have no way to actually stop them from doing something you are responsible for.

Did Amoris Laetitia reflect the will of all the bishops?

I am not sure about this, but I don’t think it is infallible by any means.

And yet the Pope appoints every single bishop around the world, presumably with no (name removed by moderator)ut from the diocese in question. In the Orthodox Church, the people have to respond “he is worthy; axios, axios, axios” for the newly appointed bishop.

Same in the Catholic Church (Eastern). He also does not appoint every single Bishops… but in Latin Church he just basically checks if it isn’t against his will. Pope can have this right over the Latin Church, correct?

The Orthodox don’t necessarily (ever?) cite that as the reason for the primacy that they recognize in Rome.

Perhaps not post-schism, but pre-schism Rome was called Throne of Peter. Martyrdom of Paul adds to it, yes, but is not the reason for primacy itself

That’s much better than what Vatican 1 said.

Vatican I defined role of the Pope, Vatican II role of the Episcopacy. They do not contradict, they are complementary. Vatican I was still accepted by Eastern Catholics (even Melkites, who did add really cool and good clause into the declaration but signed it anyway). There are no limits on when could Pope act or judge other Bishops (even Patriarchs) in Early Canons.

 

[Michael16]

@OrbisNonSufficit,

I love how you beautifully clarified my use of Sirach to illustrate my point of primacy of honor. Thank you.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Bishops are the heads of their dioceses and are in communion with the Pope and the Pope is the head of the Church in the setting of a Council. That’s much better than what Vatican 1 said.

This is not what Vatican 2 has said. Vatican 2 did not contradict Vatican 1 and did not take any sort of power from the Pope. Vatican 2 even claims it is to be interpreted with previous dogmatic declarations (hence also interpreted with Vatican 1).

I don’t know why the different Orthodox jurisdictions would handle the Holy Mysteries differently and what for them would constitute a valid Baptism. From the above posts, I remember that one jurisdiction would re Baptize Protestants as I think they don’t view their Baptisms as valid.

Because there is no real unity. You can claim dogmatic unity in Orthodoxy (and rightfully so), but interpreting those dogmatic things is another thing. I know that in Orthodoxy it is outright common to discard even canons about Subdeacons being permanent and hence not being able to (re)marry… yet that is literally ignored. Each jurisdiction has different interpretation of canons anyway… just look on Moscow-Constantinople thing. Most other Orthodox Churches supported Moscow out of fear for losing to their rebellious Churches. Yet canons to explicitly give Constantinople power to judge any clerical dispute (and Ukraine is one). Another thing is that this canon also disrupts notion that EP is “first among equals”. Even fact “Ecumenical” is word used in title of Patriarch of Constantinople is weird. After all he is no longer “Imperial” Patriarch… canons granting him power do so for that reason and if reason fades, so should his privilege. It does sound like he now uses title of “universal” Patriarch rather than “imperial” one. Orthodoxy is torn on those issues and nobody can resolve them because that would just create division, and there’s already too much of it in Orthodox Church.

I’ve spoken with a Deacon and he says we don’t accept Mormon baptisms as valid.

Apparently that is because their understanding of Trinity is wrong. They do baptize with words we use, but they view Trinity as 3 distinct “Gods” (and Book of Mormon also contradicts that notion too but it’s a mess not worthy of this thread )

I love how you beautifully clarified my use of Sirach to illustrate my point of primacy of honor. Thank you.

Oh well, I am the one supposed to thank you. I never got that understanding until I read your post, and I do believe this is exactly what you wanted to point out. There is absolutely no contribution from me but thank you for your kind words!

 

[George720]

So, you guys are scared that papal supremacy and infallibility means that the Holy Father acts as an autocrat without any regard for his bishops?

We do not fear authority so much as we love God and seek unanimous consent as Canon 34 affirms - Without it - eg Without voluntary concurrence - But instead with the First Bishop having power to compel concurrence - Canon 34 is made null and void…

And likewise, with the Ecumenical Church, the voluntary consent of all the Bishops is needed for Canons to be proclaimed - But even with it, they are then ratified by their acceptance in practice, by the whole Church… And apart from this ratification, they are null… And the reason is that it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth, and not the Councils or the Patriarchs, or the Bishops or the priest or the laity, but the Whole Church, the Katholiki Ekklessia, that is this body of the Truth… It is not a top-down authoritarian worldly structure, but the whole Church, acting in concert, with one voice and of one accord…

No one person ever gets to dictate the Truth Who is Christ…

Christ never handed the reins of His Body to the Chief of the Apostles… And a Synodia is a body under its head - Normally a body of 12 - The Church is not a Synodia of the Faithful, but in each geographical locus, the Patriarch has a Synodia of Bishops under him, and each of these normally has a synod under him…

geo

 

[Michael16]

You’re quite welcome, @OrbisNonSufficit. I tried to get the point across the way you did; but you did it much better than I.

I agree with you. V1 was affirmed by V2; so there’s no contradiction between the two councils.

And as for your points regarding the Orthodox Churches’s politics: I’ve heard from @CoffeeFanatic that the EP’s been acting like he’s an Eastern Pope and the Orthodox schisms are bad and confusing enough of a political mess already.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

No one person ever gets to dictate the Truth Who is Christ…

The Pope doesn’t do that and if (God forbid!) he did, the Church would not accept it.

 

[Michael16]

Here’s the thing, @George720:

V2 ecclesiology is the Holy Father acting in concert with his synod. So, Canon 34 still holds. The Holy Father isn’t strong arming bishops to slavishly cave into him. He listens for the Holy Spirit in the Churches and for the consensus of the faithful.

Not an autocratic Emperor.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Christ never handed the reins of His Body to the Chief of the Apostles…

I thought that’s what Matt. 16: 16-18 was all about .

 

[Michael16]

Amen, @Margaret_Ann!

 

[George720]

Thank you, @ziapueblo; I appreciate your words.

When I read that particular part of Lumen Gentium, I understood that V2 strengthened the bishops and Roman ecclesiology does reflect that of the early Church.

Then, the Council Fathers laid out our offer on the table to the Orthodox, and strengthening our own EC Churches simultaneously; an ecclesiology that I believe would be acceptable to you guys in Unitatis Redintegratio.

Assuming you guys can see our good faith in our handling of the EC Churches since 1965 and overcome your suspicions due to your perceptions of papal supremacy and infallibility.

That’s the basic problem I see in a future restoration of communion.

You guys need to see, from our own actions; and in talks with us that even though, yes; the Holy Father does have the unfettered exercise of his powers as Primate; that it doesn’t automatically mean that he’ll tear across the world messing with dioceses and deposing bishops and overturning the disciplines of our Sister Churches whenever he wants just because he can and declare ex cathedra statements willy nilly or to satisfy a sick, power tripping ego.

Because the basic point that’ll prevent such abuses is that the Holy Father will be listening for the Holy Spirit in the Churches and for the sensus fidei.

Is any of what I’m saying making sense to you guys?

@George720, @Isaac14, @dochawk

No…

The issue is not “Well gee, we are just so afraid the Pope might abuse his authority…”

The issue is: “Who is the Head of Christ’s Body on earth?”

Our answer is Christ acting through His Body…

Your answer is Christ acting through the Latin Primate…

We trust Christ acting through the Ekklesia…

You trust Christ acting through your own Patriarch…

We do not trust Patriarchs - We Trust Christ…

You only trust Christ acting through your own Pope…

[And of late, that has become dogmatically somewhat problematic, yes?]

geo

 

[Michael16]

@George720,

The head IS Saint Peter and his Successors as delegated to by Christ.

The early Church accepted this.

What your bishops and Patriarchs seem to desire is to maintain their own independence it seems.

And your own EP seems to be trying to consolidate power to be the Head of the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Isaac14]

Having responsibility over someone we don’t have authority is weird. You have no way to actually stop them from doing something you are responsible for.

Not really - it matches up with what is stated in Apostolic Canon 34. And I’ve shared before the document that defines this for the OCA - the Metropolitan is charged with counseling his brother bishops. If they don’t heed his council, he refers the matter to the Holy Synod; in keeping with Canon 34.

Same in the Catholic Church (Eastern). He also does not appoint every single Bishops… but in Latin Church he just basically checks if it isn’t against his will. Pope can have this right over the Latin Church, correct?

if I’m mistaken about how the Pope appoints bishops, I apologize. I have no issues with how the Western church operates internally. My main point was that the Orthodox have a system that takes into account the will of the people of a diocese.

With regard to Amoris Laetitia, I’m not assuming it’s infallible, but since it’s been said recently in this thread, that the Pope speaks on behalf of the bishops (and not in place of), I’m surprised there would be any controversy what so ever.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’ve heard from @CoffeeFanatic that the EP’s been acting like he’s an Eastern Pope and the Orthodox schisms are bad and confusing enough of a political mess already.

I am no expert. I know just couple of things

1. Existence of Canon attributing to Constantinople right to judge disputes between Clerics.
2. Existence of dispute between Clerics in Ukraine (Moscow vs Ukrainian Orthodox Church considered to be Schismatic formerly)
3. Fact #1 is attributed to Constantinople “because it is imperial city” which may make #1 actually null and void under current circumstances
4. Notion that other Orthodox Churches fear that some of their schismatic ripoffs will get legitimized based on what happened in Ukraine
5. Fact Constantinople did actually legitimize those who broke off from their Mother Church and resisted then-legitimate authority.
6. Notion that Ukrainians dislike Russians and do not want to be under their Church…

I am unsure which side to take, but I am simply saying that there is more to it than EP trying to become Eastern Pope. He actually has power similar to this “Eastern Pope” in this regard but that power might be null and void today… and there is nobody who can judge on this matter. Even if Council is called by other Orthodox Churches, Constantinople will just reject it if they are judged to be deposed as primate and divisions will occur. Orthodoxy at large tries to avoid those scenarios where they define something together, as that could just tear them apart. Silently sitting back is preferable.

Our answer is Christ acting through His Body…

Your answer is Christ acting through the Latin Primate…

Our answer is Christ acting through His Body. How do we recognize His Body? Our answer is that it is headed by Latin Primate. Your answer it “it is held by His Body that it is His Body”.

[And of late, that has become dogmatically somewhat problematic, yes?]

Only if interpreted that way. You disregard role of Bishops in Latin Church, which is actually very very huge role.

We do not fear authority so much as we love God and seek unanimous consent as Canon 34 affirms

There was never unanimous consent. There were always some who would held heresies to be true when they were defined to be false. There was not a time that every Bishop who was in the Church canonically before the Ecumenical Council, accepted said Council. You hold that council identifies who is in the Church and Church identified who is in the Council. Hence you are not really saying that council is binding when whole Church accepts it, you are saying that council is binding if “all who accept it, accept it”. Or other way, that Council is only accepted if no one who was considered to be Church before the Council opposes it (something that never happened and discards even first 7 Ecumenical Councils).

 

[Michael16]

My problem with Orthodox ecclesiology, @George720 and @OrbisNonSufficit; is that it is a fractured body playing politics and jurisdiction arguments while saying: “ There’s still unity “ when there’s not any unity. It’s unnecessarily complicated politics.

The other problem is: “ We honor Saint Peter as the Prince and Chief of the Apostles; though his authority is not binding. “ How does that work?

Come on, make sense guys. Please.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Not really - it matches up with what is stated in Apostolic Canon 34. And I’ve shared before the document that defines this for the OCA - the Metropolitan is charged with counseling his brother bishops. If they don’t heed his council, he refers the matter to the Holy Synod; in keeping with Canon 34.

Point taken. Thank you for clarification.

My problem with Orthodox ecclesiology, @George720 and @OrbisNonSufficit; is that it is a fractured body playing politics and jurisdiction arguments while saying: “ There’s still unity “ when there’s not any unity.

I get it, thing is that while there might be some sense of very hidden internal unity, fact it is hidden is not very beneficial for the Church as a whole, nor for salvation of individuals. I also called it a “sense of unity” as unity itself should be visible and real, not superficial. Orthodox approach might lead to Anglican “Branch Theory” which is rejected by both Orthodox and Catholic Church. If anything, those situations should be prevented, not tolerated.

With regard to Amoris Laetitia, I’m not assuming it’s infallible, but since it’s been said recently in this thread, that the Pope speaks on behalf of the bishops (and not in place of), I’m surprised there would be any controversy what so ever.

Oh well, I understand that notion. Ideally Pope speaks on behalf of the Bishops and if he does not (such as in this case), it brings controversy and is not even accepted by the Church… but I do not want to get too deep intro this controversy as to not derail the thread. In this case, Pope is Patriarch of Latin Church who issues some kind of letter which is viewed as misleading by Bishops (not necessarily a mistake), and that it needs clarification. Sadly our Pope right now does not want to clarify… but we trust that Holy Spirit will get us through this. Luckily, Bishops are our shepherds and Pope is “just their head” (heh never thought I’ll say this ever) and in this case, they are supposed to do their job of protecting The Faith.