A sister church is a particular local church, such as a Patriarchal church, therefore within the Catholic Church are twenty-four sui iuris churches that are all particular local churches. Among the Eastern Orthodox are many autocephalous and autonomous churches, all particular local churches.
Not sure, I am saying we don’t necessarily view it as being “self-headed” but having it’s own law. Church is headed by Christ in it’s entirety, and College of Bishops in unity with Peter’s successor govern the Church in His sake- best they can, hopefully. It is that Church is closely united to every single member inside it, and every Sui Iuris Church is united in governing entire global Church of Christ. They may have their own rules and laws, but they make up governing body of Church of Christ.
I do suppose this is pretty much leaving things to God… but God can make people die without necessarily violating their free will. To make people repent or reconcile with each other is something He can give opportunities for, but never force it- as He can not deny free will of people. This is why we reject leaving problems such as severed communion unsolved for decades, but are okay with having couple bad pastors who can’t really overrule the Holy Spirit anyway.
Rome does not repent, precisely because it is from Orthodox point of view. I did not force my definitions upon you and even when I did state Catholic viewpoint I never made it so that you have to believe it, unless I properly defended it by arguments. Rome does not share Orthodox point of view, hence they do not see need to repent…
We disagree. A phrase “Church of Rome, with which all must agree” was spoken by some of Church Fathers… as well as Peter speaking through Pope Leo at Chalcedon- while you can say it is because Peter’s faith was stated as true faith, why was it attributed only to Leo? I may be wrong but was anyone other than Pope ever in situation where others stated “Peter has spoken through him”?
And it has become permanent feature of the Orthodox Church- An ongoing nightmare for us… This view that every Bishop is successor to Peter and other Apostles left no successors or Apostles themselves are successors to Peter… and that independence is a virtue and dependence on authority established by God is wrong, as well as that disunity is a good thing, internal schisms are not only possible but also system supporting them is pleasing to God in His Church and that Faith defined by whoever is right now in Church of said believer defines Christianity, with no way to know which Councils are actually Robber ones and which are Ecumenical, neither how to interpret their decisions…
Not sure. I don’t really know… I would presume that it actually says Pope can not teach heresy, not necessarily that he can not hold it- neither that he loses Papacy for it, but there are like 5 views on that. @Genesis315 can provide you with good explanation of the doctrine in this regard, I think.
Let’s tell that to Clement who corrected Corinthians, or Pope St. Gregory who said that every Bishop is subject to Apostolic See… or perhaps to Fathers of Chalcedon, who have ruled that disputes between Bishops (not just in Patriarchate of Constantinople) are to be solved by Ecumenical Patriarchate… overruling previous canons, and quoting rights of Rome to do it too.
You do understand that Latin Church submits to Pope too? It’s not like we are promoting our neighbor to rule over the Church.Authoritarians!!!
I am simply stating that term “autocephaly” tends to be used to exclude any sort of visible communion between Churches other than paying lip service to it, that unity of those Patriarchs is very vague at best and nothing to solve their disputes exists. Sui Iuris nowadays is used to distinguish that from this system. They have their own laws to govern themselves internally, but they head themselves through the Church of Christ and her government- College of Bishops, headed by Pope.
We are simply saying that “Sister Churches” does not mean what you think it means… according to Catholic Church, of course. Your use seems to be whole pro-branch theory, while that is disregarded by all Churches you regard as those branches.
It calls them Sister Church because in addition to holding Episcopate and Eucharist, it also holds Faith unstained by heresy, as a whole. However, this does not make them part of Church of Christ neither does it make them other branch of the Church, neither does it make Body of Christ divided until both sides reconcile. Church is called “catholic” because it is universal and lacks nothing. If Church was indeed split every time someone with valid Episcopate and valid Eucharist Schismed, there would be no point in hierarchy neither unity. We would have to reconcile with every single validly ordained Bishop on Earth (and there are many of them who are not in communion with either of those Churches, neither with Oriental Orthodoxy).
This is all I’ve ever expressed. That according to the Catholic Church, the Orthodox are “sister Churches,” Churches with a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.
Always my favorite thing to see. I still don’t understand how one can be a “Church” with apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist but not be part of the “Church.”
The Church is Catholic, Kata + Holon = “Pertaining to the whole; fullness”. As used by St Ignatius of Antioch, the term “Katholike Ekklesia” meant the “fullness of the Church”. There was no notion of universality, but rather than notion that through the Eucharist the totality of the Church was present wherever the Eucharist was being celebrated. The universal dimension of the Church was manifested by the communion of all rightly ordained bishops with each other, not with one particular bishop.
Tell that to my priest and other Orthodox priests I know, and these are priests of various jurisdictions (granted I know no Russian or ROCOR priests), all who recognize Catholic sacraments as valid.
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are not sister churches. The Latin Catholic Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church are sister churches.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom of the Melkites (English translation, Eparchy of Newton, 2009) has this:
Yes… And in this manner
Melkite Bishop of Newton (emeritus) John Elya wrote:
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-...yclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
They have valid sacraments and illicit but valid jurisdiction. In this sense they are Church- however, they are outside unity of the Church. Simply speaking, Church of Christ is one- and they are not one with it… per Catholic understanding of course.
But they aren’t in communion with each other. There is more than one communion of validly ordained Bishops, hence they are not one hence not all make up the Church. Plus only having valid Bishop and Eucharist does not make someone legitimate Church… schism is a real possibility even under those circumstances.
I am glad to see that, but as a whole, Orthodox Church officially does not regard them as salvific for people outside their communion. Also, some Orthodox communions tend to recognize Anglican sacraments as valid. Orthodoxy still holds to more of a Cyprianic understanding of sacraments as opposed to Augustinian one that Catholic Church holds to.
How can something be illicit, forbidden by law, but valid, the quality of being logically or factually sound?
Of course
Maybe not from internet uberdox. The same could be said for Latins who have no regard for Church teaching about the Orthodox. Outside of the internet, both Catholic and Orthodox, at the ground level, we see each other as the same. Just not in communion with one another. At least, that is my experience.
Remember, the Catholic Church, as you know of course, is both East and West, the East holding different theologically views than the a West. All one has to do is register for an Eastern Catholic webinar with God With Us Online or watch the Byzantine Sunday Gospel Reflection at the Institute of Catholic Culture.
According to my priest it’s not a re-Chrismation/Conformation, but a sign of coming into the Church.
For example, episcopal ordination of a Priest forbidden by superiors (Synod, Pope, any other authority above Bishop you can imagine) is illicit- but it is valid. Priest is now a Bishop in virtue of his Episcopal Ordination, even if act itself was not according to the law.
I understand that… though I have yet to meet Latin who did not suffer from severe lack of information and was staunchly defending his position by quotes of Church Fathers, documents or councils… and regarded Orthodoxy as anything less than what they are according to Catholic Church.
I don’t have such experience. It may be because of where I am living, but Orthodox teaching from sources I have read, written in my own language, is very much aimed against Catholic teachings. It is as if their identity is based on being resistant to Catholicism. Don’t get me wrong, I do not see Orthodoxy here as simply antagonistic or anything like that (both Churches work closely against abortion in my country, and unlike Protestant representatives, whenever Orthodox and Catholic officials speak at those events they draw from high theology but make it understandable to simple men and women, which I love). Orthodox Church here is working with Catholic Church against issues that we agree are evil… but they do not view us as one Church, and I don’t think they view our sacraments as licit, if even valid.
I am fully aware of that. After all, most of my school year I was attending Eastern Catholic Liturgies… and learning about Byzantine Rite from Czech Priest. I am also often asking Greek Catholic Bishop questions, as he is kind enough to answer them when faithful ask him… himself or through a Priest who has more knowledge about said topic. I do find those people to have much knowledge about Orthodox practice as well as Latin one, and they stand as Eastern Catholics, being distinct from both.
While you view Bishop John Elya as Latinized, I view current Melkite hierarchy (including His Beatitude, the Patriarch) as being somewhat ambiguous to what terms they use mean… “as in first millennium” or “Orthodox faith” could be interpreted both ways- one that agrees with Catholicism and Papal primacy as well as inerrancy of Rome and right of Pope to intervene to protect unity of faith and visible unity of the Church… or Orthodox one that does not agree with the former. I also tend to sense that current Melkite hierarchy seems to be leaning towards the latter. I will try to watch it, but I do not exactly thing that I will agree with everything stated- especially if it concerns ecclesiology.
so… youre repudiating heresy?
Glad to hear your communion has this stance. Sadly, this is still not official nor majority opinion in Orthodoxy.
While the Good Cardinal is correct, for the Body of Christ is one, the understanding of catholicity is begged here. Essential is the Communion of the Churches that comprise the Church… You see, there is a difference in the understanding of the EOC from that of the RCC of the term Catholic… For the RCC, I believe, Catholic is defined as Communion with the RCC, whereas for the EOC, Communion is defined as the presence of the whole of the Body in each of the Churches comprising it, as well as all Churches comprising the whole… And within this understanding, the Patriarchs and Metropolitans and Arch-Bishops and Bishops and Priests and Deacons and Readers and Altar-Servers and all others who serve comprise a hierarchy of Service and not a hierarchy of authority, except insofar as such Service may on occasion necessitate locally…