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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Follow-up from post above; Orthodox Wiki also wisely discards the “two lungs” theory as applied by many in current era- that Orthodox Church and Catholic Church are both two parts of One Fractured Church of Christ. “Two lungs” expression is meant to express duality of East and West inside the Catholic Church, or of validity of Eastern and Western faith (inside or outside the Catholic Church). It is contained in following text:
“The Branch Theory is a belief, outside of Orthodoxy, that communities of Christians that are not in communion with each other, may still be a branch of the One Church. Recently this has been expressed as a two lung theory by Roman Catholic writers, or there being three main branches by Anglican writers. Sometimes, by others, the entire “tree” is call an invisible church.”

“Catholic” theory present in this short article does also contradict Catholic understanding. Only thing I think does not equate Catholic understanding from the article is part about Apostolic Succession. I am mostly including explanations as to not confuse those who would presume that Roman Catholicism holds branch theory to be true or those who do not understand principles of branch theory.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Back in the saddle again…

You’re cute.

 

[George720]

Collegiate approach is the ideal, but when it fails there is still autocratic one by God to fix it. It works same in Orthodoxy- if Synod was held and Bishops came together, then God revealed to them His Divine Will, they would submit to him… I doubt anyone would say God is too autocratic and does not work in collegiate manner.

That is not the same… Concurrence is not autacracy… And even the concurrence is not authoritarian, as you found out in Ephesus… Ratification by acceptance of Church is the last step…

Sure, but what is the need for Church hierarchy then?

It is a local Church phenomenon, and when the local Churches convene, it promotes the good order of the meetings and Services…

do you mean to say that it should not be revealed which side in the disputes inside Orthodoxy is right and it should just stay mystery? What is good in that?

Fluff is fluff… We just don’t have a well oiled and fully functioning machine view of justice… Giving the party that is wrong enough time to figure it out and repent is a good thing… Christ did not establish a worldly kingdom, but a heavenly one…

Each geographical location with its local Patriarch is a Communion, and within this Communion there is hierarchy of authority… But the Greek Church does not have authority outside the Greek territory, and similarly all others…

The Canons say the same - A Bishop cannot depart his territory without a blessing and an invitation…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We just don’t have a well oiled and fully functioning machine view of justice… Giving the party that is wrong enough time to figure it out and repent is a good thing… Christ did not establish a worldly kingdom, but a heavenly one…

Usually in those issues, only episcopacy or clergy is involved, yet laity is also affected by it. It isn’t just giving enough time to figure out that they are wrong, it’s prolonging disunity inside the Church. As I quoted, Church can not be torn apart, one can only be in communion with it or not.

Ratification by acceptance of Church is the last step…

According to Orthodox Wiki, ecumenicity of the Council was often declared by the council itself at it’s end, which does seem to contradict theory of receptionism. Receptionism itself is explained to be somehow inconsistent in the article itself. There was always consistence in the Church, East or West. Even post-Schism, there was consistence in beliefs and practices of Orthodox Church. Right now though, it does seem to be fading and canons are not respected well enough. I would attribute this to lack of central authority.

But the Greek Church does not have authority outside the Greek territory, and similarly all others…

There was no need to hold Synod in every single area to see if they accept Ecumenical Council to be Ecumenical, and then it was ratified and accepted. Some were accepted implicitly. If Council, at first local, could expect itself to be binding on other areas (if not entire Church), then I believe this is not how pre-Schism Church worked. As stated in article I provided above, Councils declared Ecumenicity even before they were accepted. Infallible Councils declared themselves to be binding for more than their territory, something that heavily contradicts your statements. I actually feel like Orthodox Wiki really describes this perfectly, and from Orthodox sources and viewpoint.

 

[Michael16]

But, @George720; Jesus prayed for us to be one as He and the Father are one.

Breaks in communion isn’t unity. It’s squabbles that break up unity.

You were talking about ecumenical councils to address issues. Here’s my question:

With the 1054 Schism, who’s the highest ranking See in the East? Constantinople, right?

If I’m understanding things right, in the absence of Rome, the EP becomes the Protos?

 

[dochawk]

I thought Rome did not recognize itself to be in full communion with Melkites until that AOC Schism.

It wasn’t immediately before the schism, but prior to that. I think there were two periods of joint communion, one of which lasted over a century.

The Melkites were only in communion with the EO when a synod was held. It was irregular in that there were only two Melkite bishops (not sure there were others elsewhere), who consecrated a third so that a vote could be held.

In reply, those who dissented complained to the EP, who sent bishops, which purported to hold their own synod–without a single Melkite bishop present –and elect a Melkite patriarch . . .

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.

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

true. But that is at least one occasion on which Rome accepted establishment of communion with a church in communion with EO (Ukraine and such, counting can bet odd . . .), and two separate occasions in which Rome accepted a request for communion from the Melkite church upon the election of a new patriarch without requiring that communion not be established with the EP.

Overall for the good of the souls, it is better to prevent Schisms internally.

But that doesn’t require a particular choice as to ecclesiology to conform to a sense ofoder.

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

That is already doomed to failure: it’s not like they are unaware of these arguments. Discussion needs to be based on where the Church (by which I include both sides) is, not on one side “convincing” the other to accept all or part of its position. That simply isn’t going to happen.

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?

Again, what western thinking . . . everything not just in black and white, but knowable?

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

I don’t have an animus. In fact, I’m EC.

But for the Orthodox, it’s in the “fool me 317 times, shame on you. Fool me 318 times, shame on me.” category.

 

[Michael16]

I see your points to me, @dochawk.

I think I like your admonition to concentrate on where the Church is, and I’ll add that we’re both the Church; and not trying to convince the other side. I’d rather talk with you guys than argue anymore.

As for the animus thing; I’m glad you’re EC. With the way you talk sometimes, it sounds like you’re pretty mad at the Latin side of the Church. Though after reading some history of the EC Churches, I think I can at least sympathize.

Same goes for the Orthodox guys. Reading over our past; we Latins haven’t been real good to them and thus; they’re wary with us.

 

[George720]

Look, what I’ve been saying is that the Orthodox system is chaos and the Roman primacy is: Scripturally based, Church dogma and makes better organizational sense than the Orthodox system.

This Faith HAS organizational structuring, according to geographic location… The Church is NOT an organizational structure… It can be thought of as the Holy Communion of Her Holy Communions… Discipline among these Holy Communions is enforced BY withdrawal of Communion… The system is entirely voluntary among the Churches that comprise the Church… What you call chaos we call a discussion…

Catholic polity is … infallible Church dogma

We regard it as heresy…

I guess I went off the deep end again. Sorry.

When I do that I call it going off the shallow end…

Jes’ sayin’!!!

You see, under the Pope, there are no Communions except the Papal Communion…

That doesn’t make sense. Depending on how they’re counted, there’s 22-25 Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Holy See.

So if one of them decides that Rome is heretical, are they free to withhold Communion from Her?

If yes, I hit a foul ball into left field…
If no, I got a base hit…

This is a long thread…

geo

 

[Michael16]

I’ll just have to disagree with you, @George720; though I love you and I love the Eastern Tradition.

May one day, I can receive Our Lord with you guys in the same Eucharist.

 

[George720]

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.

Western thinking embraces development of doctrine and Papal authoritarian rule of Christ’s Holy Body, and both are symbiotic… Eastern thinking seeks to receive and pass on without change the Faith given once for all to the Apostles… Your argument is that because the Papal institution is in charge, they can change whatever they desire about the Faith because Communion with Rome is the Definition of the Church… To which the East simply replies: We therefore withdraw from Communion with you…

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

Good - Starts are good!

Truth IS Mystery, you see…

We call it Mystery, you call it Sacred Mind…

Yes, but that mystery is revealed to us by Apostolic Revelation.

It was revealed to Peter by God alone…
And to this old ex-atheist as well…
I relate personally to almost every event and person in the NT…
(Yes, even the demoniacs! How delicate of you to ask!)

We know exactly what Eucharist is, we know exactly what Baptism does and we know exactly what Chrismation/Confirmation is for as well.

For myself, I cannot even “understand exactly” the Mystery of the Person…
To me, your assertions above are rash and presumptuous…
You can give the Mysteries of this Faith ten hundred thousands of explanatory words each, and still not know exactly a thing about them…
You see, my Brother, a Mystery is not explained… The first consonant of the word itself, MU, cannot be pronounced without closing your ten thousand word lips, which action happened with St Thomas terminating his writing career… The word itself speaks of standing in silence… Interior silence…

Because the Mystery of the Faith is not explained - It is Entered… And this through the Initiation of Baptism which is a Mystery… It is discipled with words, and has words of the institution of the Mysteries, but these are mere triggers of entry that defies exact knowing in words, but instead gives the words their basis in Spiritual Life as a referential meaning that cannot be conveyed by words…

Continued

 

[George720]

Usually in those issues, only episcopacy or clergy is involved, yet laity is also affected by it. It isn’t just giving enough time to figure out that they are wrong, it’s prolonging disunity inside the Church. As I quoted, Church can not be torn apart, one can only be in communion with it or not.

Discipline is effected by withdrawal of Communion… Failure to come to consensus with the Whole Catholic Church constitutes Apostasy, where eventually the offending Church will have no Communion with any of the Churches that are in Communion with each other… And this describes the condition of the unified Communion of the autocephalous Churches of the EOC and their respective Communions, and the Latin Church’s Papal Communion…

Infallible Councils declared themselves to be binding for more than their territory, something that heavily contradicts your statements.

The only really infallible Council was the first one, comprised of partially martyred Saints as it was… Florence was not received by the Church in Constantinople… So perhaps the article in wiki was not well thought out…

But, @George720; Jesus prayed for us to be one as He and the Father are one.

Breaks in communion isn’t unity. It’s squabbles that break up unity.

You were talking about ecumenical councils to address issues. Here’s my question:

With the 1054 Schism, who’s the highest ranking See in the East? Constantinople, right?

If I’m understanding things right, in the absence of Rome, the EP becomes the Protos?

Rome went off the reservation into Her own Authority over the Body of Christ…

We are a Conciliar Faith…

You keep reverting back to make it an authoritarian one…

But for the Orthodox, it’s in the “fool me 317 times, shame on you. Fool me 318 times, shame on me.” category.

Pretty much…

Can your Melkite Church declare the Pope a heretic and withdraw Her Communion with him and his Church?

I’ll just have to disagree with you, @George720

Your disagreement plus mine plus $5 will get you no change back at Starbucks!

And here we are at post 1054… AD??

geo

 

[dochawk]

As for the animus thing; I’m glad you’re EC. With the way you talk sometimes, it sounds like you’re pretty mad at the Latin side of the Church.

No, I just really see their point.

Though after reading some history of the EC Churches, I think I can at least sympathize.

Learning it wa horrifying . . .

This is a long thread…

The truly amazing thing is that in spite of efforts to do so, the “usual suspects” failed to derail it . . .

This is by far the longest such thread to save vivil and not need to be shut down . . .

Can your Melkite Church declare the Pope a heretic and withdraw Her Communion with him and his Church?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Michael16:

If any EC church could, it would certainly be that one.

I doubt that would take that exact form, but they’ve demonstrated a willingness to stand their ground at times. . . .

Your disagreement plus mine plus $5 will get you no change back at Starbucks!

But you will get an undrinkable, hideously scorched and burnt coffee out of the deal!

 

[ziapueblo]

But you will get an undrinkable, hideously scorched and burnt coffee out of the deal!

My wife and I’s dreaded sign at any restaurant, “we proudly serve Starbucks!”

ZP

 

[dochawk]

I like coffee. A lot.

I’ve even. been known o roast my own.

I will not drink Starbucks . . .

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But that doesn’t require a particular choice as to ecclesiology to conform to a sense ofoder.

Ecclesiology should provide good governing system for the Church and foster it’s unity. What else is point of it?

So if one of them decides that Rome is heretical, are they free to withhold Communion from Her?

In a way, yes. However, inerrancy of Rome has indeed been something believed in Early Church. Now I am not saying that individually with no infallibility exercised, Pope can not err, but usually maintaining communion with Rome is logical. To judge whether Pope is in heresy or it’s just missunderstanding is appropriate. Fraternal correction is a better way as well. Why withdraw communion when there can be correction and understanding? Obedience is hard but a virtue nevertheless. Plus since Catholic belief is that Pope can not teach heresy, it would be like asking “can laity consecrate Bishops if all Bishops fall to heresy or all suddenly die?” …

So perhaps the article in wiki was not well thought out…

I dont think it was talking about Florence, but itt might have been wrong, yet points it provides stand. It does not just state things, it supports them with points and references historians and theologians. Orthodox ones at that.

 

[Isaac14]

Fraternal correction is a better way as well. Why withdraw communion when there can be correction and understanding?

Surely you realize that amongst the Orthodox, breaking communion is not the first step in a dispute? It’s a last resort after attempts at fraternal correction have been exhausted.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Surely you realize that amongst the Orthodox, breaking communion is not the first step in a dispute? It’s a last resort after attempts at fraternal correction have been exhausted.

I do, I was referring to Patriarchate excommunicating Pope. Actually Pope Piux X (I think?) addressed this and said that if Pope indeed is terrible, it is just a test for the Church to withstand it- and that it already withstood many bad enough Popes.

 

[Isearch]

How do we interpret Vatican I when it dogmatized the belief that the pope has the Divine Right to change anything in all the rites of the Church. This means that the pope could command the Eastern-rite Christians to replace their ancient traditional liturgies in favor of the Novus Ordo. Was there an interpretation of Vatican I (preferably from some of the Council fathers themselves) that does not suggest that the pope could do that with the rites of the Eastern Christians? Was there an interpretation of Vatican I that does not contradict what Pope Gregory the Great had said against the notion of “Universal bishop”?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Was there an interpretation of Vatican I that does not contradict what Pope Gregory the Great had said against the notion of “Universal bishop”?

Yes, we call that interpretation “Vatican II”…

This means that the pope could command the Eastern-rite Christians to replace their ancient traditional liturgies in favor of the Novus Ordo.

I mean, technically if all Bishops of the East decided to, they could abolish the liturgy too… stuff like this is irrelevant because Church is not a human institution. Papacy does not limit the East, but protects it’s unity. I have not heard of Pope meddling with Eastern Liturgies anyway.

 

[George720]

Can your Melkite Church declare the Pope a heretic and withdraw Her Communion with him and his Church?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Michael16:
If any EC church could, it would certainly be that one.

IF…

The great one word reply of the Spartans to the threats of the invading Athenians…

You see, for us there is no IF…

Each autocephalous Church carries that solemn responsibility
to protect the Faith given once, for all, to the Apostles,
which is why no autocephalous Church is in Communion with Rome,
except Rome…

Because none but God is immune from falling…
The great Carrier of the Light Himself fell…
I sure know I can err and fall…
No man is so exalted he cannot fall,
nor any institution run by men…

And the problem Rome has is their greatest Glory -
Their first thousand years of Papal Martyrdom…
And the advantage the EOC has is its greatest shame -
Their first thousand years of Patriarchal falls…
The Curse is the Blessing, you see,
(from our fallen human perspective…)
And the Blessing the Curse…
Because one can start to actually believe
that because of the Holiness of their Great Ekklesia,
they cannot fall…
We sure did, even in Constantinople, to the Turks,
for lack of Faith and reliance on human institutions…
So that when we hear you say the Office of Peter cannot fall,
we shudder,
for we already see that She has done so
because She thinks She cannot…
And is very busy proving it to all who doubt…
With tons of proofs…
That She alone is God’s Head upon the Earth…

Doing a word search on autocephalous in the first Christian Ecclesiastical millennium might prove valuable - And in the Orthodox second millennium…

Please forgive me for lecturing…

And I don’t drink no steenking Char-Bucks coffee neener-neither…

I mean: “Bleshchke!” (A German long-form of the word we have anglicized into “Yuk”!
And no, it is not an Alaskan native derivative out of the Yu’p Chik tribe… Who were great lovers of coffee, fresh brewed and second or third runs in the early days…

geo