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

[Gab123]

Yes, again, it is all because of pride and lack of humility and obedience to legitimate authority. The Old Testament is a powerful resource for understanding the Church in the New Testament. Read about Korah’s rebellion against Moses, as he guided the People of God through the desert.

 

[ziapueblo]

Why did Jesus build THE Church upon Peter and change Simon’s name to Rock, the same way God changed Abrams name to Abraham and Jacob’s name to Israel?

I’ll let St John Chrysostom answer this:

”What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession [emphasis mine]. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”
(Homily 54 on Matthew)

Christ is the head of the Church which Peter himself confessed and one of course cannot separate the man from his faith. St Peter, “the leader of the apostolic choir,” as St Chrysostom refers to him in the same homily, has a special place, a special mission, among the brethren. We as Orthodox as well, as many Byzantine Catholics I know, believe that definition of this special mission has been changed over the centuries.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

it is all because of pride and lack of humility and obedience to legitimate authority.

I don’t see how this is bending over backwards to understand the respect and devotion that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and others had for the Tridentine Mass. If the Vatican really was bending over backwards to promote unity with the East, it seems like they would have been more sympathetic to the plight of the Serbian Orthodox in Croatia who were tortured in the concentration camps at Jasenovac in WWII. Is it not true that the ratlines were supported by Catholic clergy in the aftermath of WWII and that it was through these ratlines that Ante Pavelic was able to escape prosecution?

 

[Gab123]

St Chrysostom refers to him in the same homily, has a special place, a special mission, among the brethren. We as Orthodox as well, as many Byzantine Catholics I know, believe that definition of this special mission has been changed over the centuries.

Peter indeed not only has a special mission, he has a special office which extends over the entire flock of Christ; after all, feeding and tending means Governing and exercising authority just as we read in Acts 15.

Just as as the infant Church grew into maturity over the centuries, so too the understanding of the faith and the doctrines of the Church became more clearly defined into dogma by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As for settling theological questions, individuals cannot trump the authority of papal authority n union with the bishops of the Church.

As for the Great Orthodox Schism, their break away from the Church subsequently led to the fall of Constantinople and their eventual subjugation under a Islam. While the Orthodox claim the split happened over theological differences (as if they had more authority than Peter) much of the differences were polítical and the refusal to accept the authority of the Pope.

Interestingly, the current Patriarch of Constantinople —Bartholomew I of Constantinople —has recently declared that the reunification of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Catholic Church is inevitable. Though no doubt there will be malcontents and groups who will decide to follow their own path, as we have seen in the history of schisms

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Excuse my ignorance, but what does “iirc” mean? I’m still learning texting abbreviations.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As you know the EP is not the Orthodox version of the Pope. He has a primacy of honor just as the Canons indicate

Equal prerogatives to Old Rome (First Council of Constantinople - 381 Canon 3; Council of Chalcedon - 451 Canon 28; Quinisext Ecumenical Council - 692 Canon 36)

(emphasis mine)

Is EP Orthodox version of how should Pope work if unity is established? Statement above about equal prerogatives seems to imply it. Only thing is that Pope can overrule EP and his decisions made from those appeals, right?

Well, I’m not Roman Catholic anymore so I think it can.

Does not mean you can, just that you chose to believe it based on evidence you have seen. Strictly speaking, it is personal proof, not real proof. Same way, I can not definitely prove Papacy but I have evidence which convinces me in it’s favor. Fact you are not Roman Catholic anymore does not mean you can suddenly prove it, and actually has nothing to do with it logically speaking.

This is the Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in unity and faith. I disagree with it.

If I understand correctly, you disagree that Petrine Ministry is about universal jurisdiction, not that it should not strengthen brethren in unity and faith, correct? Anyway, how exactly is Pope supposed to strengthen his brethren in unity and faith if he has no authority whatsoever to do so, only some cool title and is global representative with no authority himself to enforce any unity or faith. Early Church clearly believed this is because of “inerrancy of Roman Church”, and Church with which “everyone must agree”. One Eastern Cleric went as far as to profess it even despite Byzantine Patriarch and Emperor being wholly against this idea- and he came to Constantinople to plea for autocephaly for Georgia from them, so angering them was not smartest move. Yet, he (fully Eastern Saint) felt like it was needed to profess it.

Haha! Simply laughable! I’m glad your hierarch nor Church documents teach this!

How so? I thought Orthodoxy viewed Islam as a test, no? Or perhaps as a punishment of Union of Florence… akin to destruction of the temple for Jewish people being punishment for not believing in Christ. On the contrary, some have also pointed out that Jews did not accept Christ and neither did Byzantium accept the Papacy… all theories that can not be proven, all rhetorical stuff. Yet, not laughable.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We as Orthodox as well, as many Byzantine Catholics I know, believe that definition of this special mission has been changed over the centuries.

It’s exercise was, if I am to be precise. But that is not denied by Catholic Church. It was needed to maintain unity, seeing that loosely united Churches tend to schism over everything, and they still do until now. Maybe it won’t be needed now that Church itself is not as politically influenced as before the Schism. Yet, inerrancy of Rome is what we profess… and if someone is inerrant, not letting him intervene when inerrant person sees you are having troubles that he might resolve would be sign of pride. Of course, it’s not like Orthodoxy professes inerrancy of Rome anymore, so I am not accusing them of pride.

Why not answer yes or no.

Yes. And to add, single Patriarch can also change liturgy according to Orthodox canons (well, maybe with synod I guess). Then there is a fact that Russian Patriarch holds more votes in synod (anti-canonical thing actually) and that denies equality of Bishops in the Council.

Unfortunately he does not have unity in the Roman Catholic Church today

Right. We all break communion with each other almost every decade now. Or was that some other Church? Hm…
Oh well, at least we do not rebaptize any converts that other Churches in our communion do not rebaptize. It would be a mess if some Church did such uncanonical thing which just marks disunity of beliefs…

he will not get unity of East and West

Sorry to break it down to you buddy, but East is part of the Church. It’s just that not entire East. Eastern Catholics are as much Eastern than you.

If the Vatican really was bending over backwards to promote unity with the East, it seems like they would have been more sympathetic to the plight of the Serbian Orthodox in Croatia who were tortured in the concentration camps at Jasenovac in WWII. Is it not true that the ratlines were supported by Catholic clergy in the aftermath of WWII and that it was through these ratlines that Ante Pavelic was able to escape prosecution?

Wow. You are confusing time periods. We are talking about now, not WW2 times… or post-WW2 times. Obviously we mean post-Vatican 2 Church.

I don’t see how this is bending over backwards to understand the respect and devotion that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and others had for the Tridentine Mass.

Funnily enough, if you check approved rubrics, essence of Tridentine Mass stays in Novus Ordo. It is just that some exceptions have been allowed and they have become the norm- Ad Populum namely, but also others. Novus Ordo actually contains epiclesis in 3/4 of it’s Eucharistic Prayers, so I thought it is actually classified as “bending backwards” to please the East. It is syncretism of rites in a sense; though nothing uncanonical or necessarily wrong.

 

[Isearch]

It seems that I have to give it to the Roman Catholics that the teaching that the Bishops of Rome have Divine Rights over the Church is pretty much the first millenium teaching. But, to have him possess ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church is to functionally regard all other bishops to be his vicars (which was condemned by St. Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome).

What recourse do the other bishops have if there is an evil pope who would replace all good bishops with evil ones (I’m pretty sure this has happened)? What was the recourse of Roman Catholic rulers when the popes annuled their rights to govern their states and territories (even if they were innocent of the crimes accused of them)?

Traditionally, there were none (I mean just check Müller’s The Church and Her Enemies, a 19th century work on Roman Catholic doctrines). That same book even called the pope “the Universal Bishop”, contradicting St. Gregory himself on that matter.

Personally, I am faced with an apparent contradiction. Was there a 19th century Roman Catholic work (post-Vatican I is what I am looking for) that had stated that the Bishop of Rome could be justly disobeyed by bishops at all?

Pope St. Pius X didn’t think so. Fr. Müller didn’t think so. Fr. Müller even went on to explain that to believe that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is defined in an inopportune time is heretical in itself.

The usual mantra “there were merely two infallible dogmas by the pope alone” is wrong. This was because the Relatio by Bishop Gasser, one of the Fathers of Vatican I, had already explained that there were thousands of infallible teachings defined by the popes alone.

And it doesn’t help that the one closest to the infallible list, Denzinger, has some doctrines not even upheld by modern Roman Catholics even in this forum. And it doesn’t help that there is no infallible list of infallible teachings. And some Roman Catholics would still excuse every utterance of pope Francis to not fit with the Vatican 1 definition, despite the fact that it appears so. It seems to me that the notion of “Papal Infallibility” is by definition unfalsifiable and useless in giving any Roman Catholics assurance of their doctrines.

It seems that the lists of Papal dogmas and their interpretations are as many as Roman Catholics. No different from what they accuse Protestants of doing.

It is frustrating.

 

[Vico]

…
It is frustrating.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Ludwig Ott) discusses over four-hundred doctrines, including two-hundred-fifty-five dogmas of faith. Revelation is complete but that does not mean that every expression of it is.

 

[Isearch]

Fair enough…I am just frustrated that what was accused of Protestants (causing many different interpretations of the Scriptures) is, in fact, what most Roman Catholics are currently suffering from (causing many different interpretations of papal dogmas). In fact, this is what made me lose faith in Christianity altogether a few years ago. I am just coming back from my faith (in tatters admittedly).

But the problem of the Universal Bishop and St. Gregory the Great is still a problem (and no, simply saying that the bishops are not the vicars of the pope, despite the fact that Vatican I had made them functionally so, won’t cut it).

Honestly, I am slowly being convinced of the EO position on their rejection of Vatican I, but not necessarily their position on the pope as being a mere figurehead like the current Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations.

 

[Vico]

Fair enough…I am just frustrated that what was accused of Protestants (causing many different interpretations of the Scriptures) is, in fact, what most Roman Catholics are currently suffering from (causing many different interpretations of papal dogmas). In fact, this is what made me lose faith in Christianity altogether a few years ago. I am just coming back from my faith (in tatters admittedly).

But the problem of the Universal Bishop and St. Gregory the Great is still a problem (and no, simply saying that the bishops are not the vicars of the pope, despite the fact that Vatican I had made them functionally so, won’t cut it).

Honestly, I am slowly being convinced of the EO position on their rejection of Vatican I, but not necessarily their position on the pope as being a mere figurehead like the current Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations.

That Eastern Orthodoxy does not commit to the validity of Catholic sacraments makes it radically different than the Catholic that even admits the validity of the sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox sister churches.

“the Catholic Church recognises the Assyrian Church of the East as a true particular Church, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...uni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

“The Orthodox Churches and the ancient Eastern Churches share the same faith in the Eucharist, because they have true sacraments.”
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/s...528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html#_ftnref102

 

[Isearch]

That Eastern Orthodoxy does not commit to the validity of Catholic sacraments makes it radically different than the Catholic that even admits the validity of the sacraments of the Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox sister churches.

Umm what has that got to do with me perceiving a contradiction between Vatican 1 and Pope St. Gregory the Great?

 

[ziapueblo]

Peter indeed not only has a special mission, he has a special office which extends over the entire flock of Christ; after all, feeding and tending means Governing and exercising authority just as we read in Acts 15.

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.”

St. Cyprian, Ep. 26
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050626.htm

Matthew 16:18 is being applied to all bishops. This is the undercurrent of Patristic thought: all bishops hold the place of Peter.

. . . much of the differences were polítical and the refusal to accept the authority of the Pope.

I agree that the break of communion between Rome and Constantinople in 1054 had to do with politics but also language, culture and geography (Rome is pretty much separated from the other Patriarchs by some distance). As far as “accept the authority of the Pope,” the East is not subject to the Pope of Rome as is documented in the Chieti Statement.

—has recently declared that the reunification of Eastern Orthodoxy with the Catholic Church is inevitable.

Did I miss an Orthodox council with all the Patriarchs gathered where Bartholomew I declared this? He made a statement, sure, just like where Francis Pope of Rome makes statements and these forums go nuts over what he says. And what is the Roman Catholic response to when the one with universal, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the Church says something controversial? “He can have his own opinion.” Lol

So just as the Pope of Rome can “have his own opinion,” so can the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. He is not the Eastern “Pope” which, unfortunately, many see him this way.

This does not mean that the Orthodox do not want to restore communion, we do, but it must be done the right way.

ZP

 

[Isearch]

The whole point of my post about the popes having the sole power of changing the liturgy of other rites and the fact that the pope has immediate ordinary jurisdiction on the whole Church, with no one to judge him except God Himself, is the fact that the pope functionally becomes “the Universal Bishop”, something Pope St. Gregory the Great had condemned.

Bishops changing the liturgies willy-nilly shouldn’t be happening anyway, whether the author of the change is the Bishop of Rome or of Moscow (yes, I am aware of the Old Believers of Russia; but, at least the Patriarch of that time simply adopted Byzantine influences in the old Russian Liturgy and didn’t create the whole liturgy that barely resembled any existing liturgy, a sure sign of innovation).

I see an apparent contradiction between St. Gregory the Great and Vatican I. And the Pachamama, the Assisi Meeting, and the Death Penalty change in the official Catechism (which is supposed to be reliable based on Pope St. John Paul II’s letters attach to them) has not made it easy for me to accept Roman Catholic claims again.

And the usual Roman Catholic response to these problems would be:

The death penalty/indissolubility of marriage/converting non-Catholics teaching(s) change is/are not infallible because the requirements of Vatican I are not met.

This seems to me to be simply a rationalization of a change of teaching; an apologetic tool that has made the doctrine of Papal Infallibility unfalsifiable and unproveable.

Contraceptives would probably become acceptable to official Roman Catholic teaching and many here would employ the same response they had used in the change in the doctrine of the Death Penalty.

 

[Vico]

…
Umm what has that got to do with me perceiving a contradiction between Vatican 1 and Pope St. Gregory the Great?

Responding to your satement:

Honestly, I am slowly being convinced of the EO position on their rejection of Vatican I, but not necessarily their position on the pope as being a mere figurehead like the current Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations.

The east focuses upon dogma before communion. The Catholic has emphasized valid sacraments (Holy Spirit). I suppose you mean Vatican 1, Chapter 4 specifically, on teaching authority, not the anathemas on modernism. The teaching authority, per Vatican 1, stems from several roots:

• always maintained by Rome
• constant custom of the church
• fourth council of Constantinople
• Greek profession at second council of Lyon
• definition of the council of Florence

 

[Gab123]

I agree that the break of communion between Rome and Constantinople in 1054 had to do with politics

A perfect illustration of the Orthodox problem, is what is going on today between the Russian Orthodox and the Ukrainian Orthodox, where communion has been ruptured, not over doctrine, but over politics.

 

[George720]

Yes, again, it is all because of pride and lack of humility and obedience to legitimate authority.

IF Papal Authority has jurisdiction over the whole Body of Christ on earth, then most assuredly they can and should impose it…

IF it is voluntarily received, then it is not authority…

It is God who exercises His Authority over His Own Body, yes?

And the rest of us are but His servants…

geo

 

[Gab123]

Matthew 16:18 is being applied to all bishops. This is the undercurrent of Patristic thought: all bishops hold the place of Peter.

Obviously the Orthodox who reject the papacy have to come up with a rationalization to justify their position. While the Church is built upon the apostles, again, Christ chose Peter as the leader for a reason. He did not say, to Andrew, “from henceforth you shall be called Cephas”, nor did he tell John “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”. Jesus did not call all the apostles aside and say “feed my sheep, tend my lambs” it was only with Peter. Peter has a deciding voice, as we see in Acts 15 when the Church began to govern the flock.

Let me ask you, do you believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth?

 

[ziapueblo]

I forgot, the Roman Catholic Church has never had its hands dirty when it came to politics.

ZP

 

[ziapueblo]

Obviously the Orthodox who reject the papacy have to come up with a rationalization to justify their position.

Lol. I guess you never read St Cyprian of Carthage?

He did not say, to Andrew, “from henceforth you shall be called Cephas”, nor did he tell John “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”.

Yes, and? What does any of this have to do with universal, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

Jesus did not call all the apostles aside and say “feed my sheep, tend my lambs” it was only with Peter.

Again, what does any of this have to do with universal, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church?

Peter has a deciding voice, as we see in Acts 15 when the Church began to govern the flock.

Peter speaks, James speaks, they come to agreement. It’s a model of conciliarity.

Let me ask you, do you believe that the pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth?

I believe that the Pope of Rome has a special “Petrine Ministry” to “strengthen the brethren.” If by Vicar of Christ on earth you mean universal, supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church, no.

ZP