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

[Margaret_Ann]

I’m trying to figure out what @George720 is talking about re “Papal Communion”. That’s a foul ball in left field imo.

 

[Michael16]

Yeah, I agree @Margaret_Ann.

It was a complete screw ball that I couldn’t unpack.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

True trivia tidbit: Then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now BXVI) actually wrote Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and PJPII signed it. I forget where I read that but will post the source if I find it.

That’s how infallibility works.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

(post removed by author)

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I bookmarked the link. That’s a gem.

 

[Michael16]

Gotcha. Thanks, @Margaret_Ann.

I’m amazed at how much Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI did so much work on Church doctrine as Prefect of the CDF before was elected to the papal throne.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

@Margaret_Ann and @babochka, thank God for the Holy Father!

AMEN. (10 char)

 

[Michael16]

Hahahahaha @Margaret_Ann

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I edited my post since you edited yours (and thank you for editing it).

 

[Michael16]

Not a problem, @Margaret_Ann. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

If you want to keep talking; we could go to pm.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

It’s going for 11:25 p.m. so I’m going to call it a night. I have to go back to work in the morning after being off for a week.

 

[Michael16]

Yeah, I totally understand @Margaret_Ann.

Night.

 

[dochawk]

Assuming you guys can see our good faith in our handling of the EC Churches since 1965

fifty years of good faith, following five centuries of abuse is a bit less than convincing . . .

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

We understand the position, but the two issues are,

1. is the understanding correct in the first place, which largely assumes western thinking in place of eastern thinking, and
2. even so, can the west be trusted that way.

Being a “good idea”, whether or not true, carries no weight in such a discussion . . .

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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) ziapueblo:

You can find both pre-schism (and often from the same people, depending upon the issue at hand . . .)

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?

The bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter does not in itself compel the conclusion that he fully exercises all authority that St. Peter himself has.

The RC position is that he did, but it is not the only reasonable conclusion.

Was there even an instance Catholic Churches were in such situation?

I don’t know, but there have been churches which have been in simultaneous communion with Rome and Constantinople for extended periods. The Ukrainian church for a century or so iirc, remained in communion with Constantinople after establishing it with Rome, while the Melkites spent a couple of long periods in simultaneous communion (one over a century, iirc) prior the the schism leading to the creation of the AOC.

These resulted in Rome (A) being in communion with a church (B) which was in communion with a church not in communion with Rome (C).

How in God’s Green Earth does that make any blessed sense at all?

Occam’s Razor, anyone? Please??

How western of you

More seriously, you’re thinking in western terms, and asking the East to do the same.

That’s no excuse for sloppy ecclesiology. There has to be a stable, consistent structure for unity to be actualitas.

Says who?

Sure, it fits your sense of order and security. But that doesn’t mean “has to” . . .

 

[dochawk]

Because Catholic polity is both infallible Church dogma,

But not a useful premise for discussion with those who disagree on it being so . . .

Just as East and West slowly lost communion, I think it will come back slowly.

My own suspicion is that ultimately the Orthodox faithful ultimately say enough is enough and refuse to participate ins schism . . .

Back in the saddle again…

OK, double bonus points for brining Gene Autry into a discussion of church unity!

:1st_place_medal:

 

[ziapueblo]

My own suspicion is that ultimately the Orthodox faithful ultimately say enough is enough and refuse to participate ins schism . . .

Great point!

ZP

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Ukrainian church for a century or so iirc, remained in communion with Constantinople after establishing it with Rome, while the Melkites spent a couple of long periods in simultaneous communion (one over a century, iirc) prior the the schism leading to the creation of the AOC.

I thought Rome did not recognize itself to be in full communion with Melkites until that AOC Schism. That was the whole point- Patriarch wanted communion with Rome and that led to creation of AOC. I am not too sure about Ukraine, but did not Orthodoxy establish rival hierarchy via Patriarch of Jerusalem anointing new Metropolitan?

These resulted in Rome (A) being in communion with a church (B) which was in communion with a church not in communion with Rome ©.

Alright point taken. This did not happen because of break of communion, but because of establishing it. Still not ideal and not what Rome expected or wanted… and not western ecclesiology by any means.

Sure, it fits your sense of order and security. But that doesn’t mean “has to” . . .

Overall for the good of the souls, it is better to prevent Schisms internally. Paul said schism is mortal sin. Can you imagine such ecclesiology in Apostolic times? I don’t think Apostles would approve, as they wanted Church to exclude unrepentant sinners but include true Christians. There was no partial communion neither ABC scenario of above.

Because Catholic polity is both infallible Church dogma,

I agree, but Michael’s other points still stand.

 

[Michael16]

@dochawk, @OrbisNonSufficit and @ziapueblo,

True, asserting infallible Church dogma the East doesn’t accept isn’t a good premise for discussion. Pushing one’s beliefs on others isn’t fair. I may be asserting western thinking and pushing it on you guys; but conversely; you guys are asserting Eastern thinking and pushing it on me.

But, I’ll focus on reasoned arguments and defense of these dogmas.

Now, the basis of my apologia of papal supremacy boils down to that Jesus gave to Saint Peter the headship and authority directly. Upon this rock I shall build My Church. Then Feed My lambs, tend My sheep.

And that in Sirach we have: God sets a father in honor over his children.

You guys argue over primacy of honor and what that means. In this Sirach reference, we have a clear definition of honor. Honor means respect, deference and obedience.

Papal supremacy boils down to giving the Holy Father unlimited exercise of his powers to strengthen his brother bishops, maintain communion and good order in the Church as a whole and Churches in particular and to authoritatively teach faith and morals. The Holy Father has to answer to God for the good order of the Church, the catholicity and unity of the Faith. His powers are at the service of the Church; not at his own aggrandizement.

Now, there’s practical limits on the Holy Father’s exercise of his powers. The Holy Father has to listen for the Holy Spirit acting in the Churches and listening for the sensus fidei of the laity and clergy. With the ecclesiology of V2 in Lumen Gentium, the Holy Father acts in conjunction with his bishops. Apostolic Canon 34 still holds.

While at the same time, the Council Fathers issued Unitatis Redintegratio and offered an ecclesiology that respects your guys’ need for autonomy.

So, he simply can’t go all Emperor Palpatine on the Church.

Next, we have your guys’ assertion that this ABC “ unity “ model that says: A isn’t in communion with B, but A is in communion with C; so A is technically still in communion with B. All the while, we’re unity in dogma; but not in the practice of that dogma.

How does your guys’ bishops account to God, Who sees things in black and white terms as sin is a sin is a sin; with such a yes and no nuances?

Looking at it with reason alone, I don’t see how such a state of affairs can be justified to God.

Dochawk, I understand your anger at Rome for the latinizations imposed on the EC Churches. True, 50 years of good behavior from Rome doesn’t wipe away 500 years of abuse.

I myself have serious animus with Martin Luther and the disaster his mistake in reading comprehension wrought on Western Christendom.

But, I’ve learned to forgive Luther and let the heretic go and just focus on the here and now; living a good Catholic life and trying to live peaceably with Protestants.

Please, doc: Maybe you could do something similar in your animus with Rome?

My final point is this, my brothers and sisters:

For the good of souls, I think measures should be put into place to prevent and heal schisms; as well as maintain good order that respects and values our differences without imposing either a Latin domination or an Eastern one.

 

[George720]

And seriously, dude? Living the Mystery?

Aren’t you?

I would certainly hope so…

Catholic Radio proclaims:

“Live Truth - Live Catholic!”

And Paul writes: “We are holding the Mystery of the Faith in a purified conscience…”

geo

 

[Michael16]

You’ve got an interesting point, @George720.

I was flabbergasted at that statement and it’s implied acceptance of the fractious disunity of your Churches.

Yes, I try to live truth, live Catholic

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

And Paul writes: “We are holding the Mystery of the Faith in a purified conscience…”

Yes, but that mystery is revealed to us by Apostolic Revelation. I wouldn’t say this applies to disunity issues being mystery… neither which Church is orthodox being a mystery (mostly saying this against Protestantism).

Sacraments are called Mysteries in Eastern Churches, and it is a perfect name. We know what sacraments do, we can more or less distinguish when were they valid or invalid, but how they work exactly is a mystery. It isn’t to say that effects or baptism are mystery or that way to baptize is mysterious, but great mystery lies in how exactly does God’s grace work and also in fact Almighty God instituted them to save us. Mysteries are also mysteries because they are hidden to our immediate senses- we only see water, we only taste bread and wine, we only smell scent of beautiful oil and we only hear words that accompany those Mysteries/Sacraments. Yet it is through faith that they are revealed to us- we know exactly what Eucharist is, we know exactly what Baptism does and we know exactly what Chrismation/Confirmation is for as well. In contrast to your point about ecclesiology and schisms being a mystery, this does not hold too much.

By the way, Orthodox Wiki (not sure what is their source or anything) does state in article about Branch Theory following:
" As a matter of faith, Orthodoxy believes in the bond between God and his Church, the Church is one, even as God is one. There is only one Christ, and so there can be only one Body of Christ. Orthodox theology does not separate the invisible and the visible Church, and therefore it cannot say that the Church is invisibly one but visibly divided.

Unity is one of the essential characteristics of the Church, and since the Church retains its essential characteristics, it remains and always will remain visibly one. Orthodox writers point out that there can be schisms from the Church, but no schisms within the Church. Schisms do hurt the Church but they cannot affect the essential nature of the Church."
(here)

This is also Catholic reasoning and understanding. But this thesis on branch theory does also kinda disagree with your interpretation of internal schisms and breaks of communion, as they are discarded as being truly impossible.