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

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
We are talking about now, not WW2 times…
Click to expand...
WW2 was not so far away. Less than 100 years and at that time Serbian Orthodox were asked if they had converted to Roman Catholicism. In the Church at Glina, those Serbian Orthodox who had converted were set free, whereas those who did not had to stay and many were killed right there in the Orthodox Church. (See eyewitness testimony in link). Further, it has been only recently in 1991 when Catholic Croatians destroyed and tore apart the monument at Jasenovac. Why do you suppose that they would do such?
https://www.google.com/search?q=gli.....69i57j0l2.4183j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Why do you suppose that they would do such?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Luckily, I wasn’t there that day.
AlNg said:
WW2 was not so far away. Less than 100 years
Click to expand...
Yes, but approach of Papacy as well relationship between both communions has changed massively since then.
AlNg said:
which entails recognition of his Supreme authority to change the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
Merely a recognition, not his approval to change it. I imagine that Sui Iuris Church can change it by themselves. Why would they, I have no idea, but I don’t think anything forbids them to.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
“In the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, doctrine and worship are inseparable.
Click to expand...
There is no formal doctrine against Papal Infallibility, Papal universal jurisdiction or it’s immediate aspect. Liturgy does not focus on that. Ecclesiology is not part of that which is inseparable.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Unfortunately, Catholics require submission to the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff which entails recognition of his Supreme authority to change the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
It’s a question about obedience to Christ. Peter is the Vicar of Christ, so we must not reject him.

The devil always tries to sow division through lies. As we see on the book of Acts when they leveled false accusations against Stephen.

‘For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us“
 
ziapueblo said:
I was responding to Gab123 comments on the Divine Liturgy, not the Pope.
Click to expand...
I understand that, I simply mean to point out change in ecclesiological understanding of Papacy, Primacy and etc (as with Eastern Catholics) does not discard someone from being authentically eastern.
AlNg said:
The destruction of the monuments dedicated to the horrors inflicted on the Serbian Orthodox took place in 1991 well after WW2.
Click to expand...
That is sad and regrettable, but not done by the Pope, nor enforced by him nor anything else.
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
For most, I’m sure of it. For me however . . .
Click to expand...
Do you mean to say that being eastern is subjective? If so, those Latins who come to East just to escape from Western problems are also “authentically eastern” in their subjective sense… and since it is subjective you would not be able to see anyone NOT being authentically eastern at all. Since you did and do, I suppose that it can not be subjective definition.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Do you mean to say that being eastern is subjective?
Click to expand...
Being Eastern, in my view, is living the liturgical, theological and spiritual life of the Eastern Church. Becoming consumed by it, where it becomes every part of your being. To be Eastern Catholic is to be true to the Eastern ecclesiastical heritage, which Vatican II, St Pope John Paul II and other have called Eastern Catholics to do. We’re I am, my former Byzantine Catholic community (which is a wonderful community by the way), sure I could live that way privately, as long as I kept it concealed for the most part, as long as I kept the pomp for the Pope of Rome it was fine. However, if I mentioned theological differences between East and West, especially with the Roman Catholics of the parish for example, I was shunned upon. I’m not going to live my spiritual life that way. I’m going to live and raise my family with like minded people.

ZP
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
…
Merely a recognition, not his approval to change it. I imagine that Sui Iuris Church can change it by themselves. Why would they, I have no idea, but I don’t think anything forbids them to.
Click to expand...
CCEO 150.2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

CCEO 657.1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.
 
dochawk said:
And I’m not going to debate or argue the topic
Click to expand...
Fine. But if you are ot willing to support the assertion, why make it in the first place?
dochawk said:
Presumably, the same as in all of the other slavic churches, and all of the other byzantine churches …
Also, there are many discussions out there …
Click to expand...
If the discussants are well-versed in the the history of the development of the liturgies and practices in particular churches, that then those discussion are valuable. Otherwise, there is every possibility that misinformation is being propagated.
 
AlNg said:
In 1991 … Catholic Croatians destroyed and tore apart the monument at Jasenovac.
Why do you suppose that they would do such?
glina massacre - Google Search
Click to expand...
A lot of Old Country Croats just seem to hate Serbs…

And that video is heart wrenching… Croats he knew, who had come to his home, who had eaten with his family, whom he liked and cared about, turned into soul-less murderers raping and slaughtering alive their Orthodox brothers and sisters… It was a hate fest… Way back in 1942 - Still hating in 1991 - Not wanting to own what they did so long ago… Destroying the monument that honors the murdered Serbian Orthodox…

I knew nothing of this before seeing the video…

Lord have Mercy!

geo
 
dvdjs said:
Fine. But if you are ot willing to support the assertion, why make it in the first place?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) dochawk:
Click to expand...
If a question is asked,d and I or another knows the answer, it would be beyond selfish not to share it. Similarly if not directly asked, but if it comes up in a discussion.

Not being willing to answer unless I had sources at hand would be, at best, obnoxious.

And in this particular matter, this is necessary knowledge to meaningly participate in a discussion. That is, someone who is questioning the statements (not assertions) that I made simply lacks the background to be a participant, as opposed to an observer, in the discussion.

A reasonable comparison would be demanding documentation of germ theory in a discussion on hygiene . . .
dvdjs said:
Otherwise, there is every possibility that misinformation is being propagated.
Click to expand...
In which case perhaps you should either take formal classes or observe discussions between those with credentials, instead of trying to debate those who have done so. . . (and, yes, harsh as it sounds, that is what this [and most other demands for documentation on CAF] come to. This is not an academic site, nor a classroom.)
 
Gab123 said:
Submission to the universal supremacy and jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff which entails recognition of his Supreme authority to change the Liturgy… [is] a question about obedience to Christ. Peter is the Vicar of Christ,
Click to expand...
Obedience to God is the function of the office of the Bishop…
Obedience to the Bishop is the office of the Priest…
Obedience to the Priest is the office of the Deacon…

The Bishop’s Office is not Vicarious …

The Laity have the luxury of obedience to God or to the Bishop or to the Priest or to the Deacon or to other laity - Most especially to spouses and parents…

Christ is not recorded as saying Peter is the Head of the earthly Church… He was given the name Peter because of the Rock of his confession of Christ as the Son of God because of the Revelation given to him by the Father, and not by any person… It is this Confession by Revelation that named him Peter by Christ, and this confession by Revelation is the foundation stone that the Church is built upon…

I do understand that you believe this makes Peter the Head of the Church… The fact is that Christ is the very active and directing Head of His Own Body… And He directs those who listen to Him… The Body of Christ has never been under the rule of a single human person other than Christ… “For lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the Age…”

geo
Click to expand...
 
George720 said:
I do understand that you believe this makes Peter the Head of the Church… The fact is that Christ is the very active and directing Head of His Own Body
Click to expand...
Yes, Christ is the head of the Church; the role of the Vicar of Christ is that of a deputy acting “in the person of” Christ; that is Christ’s representative; Peter is the visible head of the Church. Jesus is the shepherd, but He appointed Peter to be in charge of all the sheep. At the apparition at Fatima the Blessed Virgin Mary specifically spoke about the pope, so he does have a very special role in the eyes of heaven.

Archbishop Fulton J Sheen gives a powerful explanation of Peter being the Vicar of Christ:
 
I say yes. However, the Latin church would have to make two major concessions which I don’t see happening.
  • Filioque
  • Papal infabillity
  • Submission to the Patriarch of the West.
 
TheAltarServer said:
Submission to the Patriarch of the West.
Click to expand...
The Patriarch of the West was one of the titles of the Pope before BXVI renounced it (for which the Orthodox were very upset because Rome is the first of the five Patriarchates that made up the Pentarchy in the early Church).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top