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

[dvdjs]

Even if so, the middle of a discussion is the wrong place for the newcomer to expect to be brought up to speed in such a matter.

Sorry, there is no wrong time or place to fact-check.
Even for a “newcomer” - whatever that means, and to whomever you apply that label.

 

[Bithynian]

Lack of Emperors?

The first seven ecumenical councils were convoked by the Roman emperors, οικουμενικος (oikoumenikos) originally not having any particular religious connotation but instead referring to the breadth of the Roman state.

Later Orthodox councils were convoked by Byzantine emperors, such as Andronikos III Palaiologos for the 5th Council of Constantinople in the 14th century.

 

[George720]

The history of the Church in the first thousand years, and especially in the second, denies your assertion… The Pope has never had jurisdiction of any kind in, say, Constantinople…

I disagree. Rome could overrule Constantinople in their judgment according to canons.

So also could ANY Apostolic See “over-rule” (as you call it) any other Apostolic See… And the MEANING of over-ruling is the withholding of Communion - Which was commonly exercised in the discipline of the Church throughout Her History even to this day and hour…

Pope Saint Gregory the Great stated he can annul their synods with strike of a pen, and also
“Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to Apostolic See?”

ANY Apostolic See can annul ANY Synodial ruling with a writ of excommunication against those who embrace such a writ… In so doing, they are simply, according to their lights, protecting their own Communion from the depredations they perceive in the embracing of that ruling… And it is this guardianship of their Communion that constitutes the discipline of the Church, because we love one another and all desire reconciliation according to the mutually embraced Canons of the Church…

And I should add that Satan has tried to attack the Church through this idea that the Councils RUN the Church, just a he has attacked the Church through the Patriarchs in Her Sees, and as he is now doing through this idea that ONE Patriarch is the Head of Christ’s Holy Body and of ALL other Patriarchs…

So Peter while at Antioch led the Western Church? That was his primacy? When speaking about him in Acts, everybody already knew he is going to leave his successors in Rome? And even model of Pentarchy and Patriarchates? I must have completely missed your point.

I was referring to Rome - Forgive me… I said Peter, because he was martyred there, as was Paul, but Peter’s martyrdom plus Rome being the power center of the Roman Empire made Rome the Petrine Primacy of the Church according to the Holy Tradition of the Church…

So all I meant was that the Church at Rome was the Church of the West - A kind of “Wild West” with all manner of outlaws as it turned out - Not the civilization of the Eastern Churches in the first millennium… It first had to go through darkness, then the Enlightenment, then the Renaissance etc etc… Indeed was it not the German Bishops in the 10th century that brought discipline to the Churches of the West through a consecration of sorts of the monks into fighting forces called the Knights?

History is not my forte!

geo

 

[George720]

It wasn’t that opinion of Rome was “gold” or something.

The opinion of Rome was treasured, my Brother…

Canons explicitly notion that if Rome has been appealed to, decision of Rome in the matter is binding.

How is it bound? You see, the Emperors are the enforcers… And the Latin Church lost Her power and went under persecutions in the first Millennium, and the power went to Constantinople for the Roman Empire - She became the New Rome… And after hundreds of years, the Church of the West re-emerged into power at the end of that Millennium…

Yet the Patriarchates were all Christian Empires under the rule of an Emperor, and that was the sine qua non of a Sui-juris Church, because the Church gave the Blessing to the Emperor and his Christian rule… That form lasted for the first thousand years, coming under the attack of Islam, where the Churches entered into the captivity of non-Christian powers and suffered persecutions… Except in Constantinople and Rome… As the Roman Empire continued to shrink…

But in order for Rome to have jurisdiction, She would have to have power within the geographical regions in which She exercised that jurisdiction - And She had no such power in Constantinople, not in Egypt, nor in Jerusalem, nor in Moscow, nor anywhere else… There was only the pre-Christian Empire of Rome that persecuted the Church in the Roman Circus that had such jurisdiction and that empire moved to Byzantium under Constantine, and became the first Christian Empire on earth… And lasted a thousand years… But the Great Apostolic Sees were all self-governing - There was no immediate Latin Jurisdiction over any of them… Nor did they see Latin Rome as their Ecclesiastical master… If they had done so, there would be extensive records of the rulings of the Latin Church regarding their pleadings to Her…

But they treasured Her opinions, for She was persecuted greatly… To be elevated to Pope meant almost universally to be elevated to martyrdom… But not so after the first thousand years…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So also could ANY Apostolic See “over-rule” (as you call it) any other Apostolic See… And the MEANING of over-ruling is the withholding of Communion - Which was commonly exercised in the discipline of the Church throughout Her History even to this day and hour…

Council in Trullo , canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons of Sardica as recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cessation in cases already judged in Constantinople.

Seems to imply that Rome could overrule Constantinople’s ruling- also seems to be binding as it is declared canonically. If any Patriarchate can intervene with equal (and practically null and void) authority- with which they can just suggest something without it being imposed on those involved in dispute, canons wouldn’t have explicitly mentioned this.

ANY Apostolic See can annul ANY Synodial ruling with a writ of excommunication against those who embrace such a writ… In so doing, they are simply, according to their lights, protecting their own Communion from the depredations they perceive in the embracing of that ruling… And it is this guardianship of their Communion that constitutes the discipline of the Church, because we love one another and all desire reconciliation according to the mutually embraced Canons of the Church…

I don’t necessarily agree. Canons don’t suggest this notion- it is not what Pre-Schism canons debated, especially during early period when rivalry between Rome and Constantinople wasn’t as significant as rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople. Appeals to Alexandria outside it’s boundaries are never mentioned, neither appeals to Antioch, neither to Jerusalem… only to Rome and Constantinople.

I was referring to Rome - Forgive me… I said Peter, because he was martyred there, as was Paul, but Peter’s martyrdom plus Rome being the power center of the Roman Empire made Rome the Petrine Primacy of the Church according to the Holy Tradition of the Church…

Oh, I see. I understand that primacy of Rome was very much acceptable to Roman Empire because it was their capital, but that was not what it was initially based on, neither why it was declared.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yet the Patriarchates were all Christian Empires under the rule of an Emperor, and that was the sine qua non of a Sui-juris Church, because the Church gave the Blessing to the Emperor and his Christian rule… That form lasted for the first thousand years, coming under the attack of Islam, where the Churches entered into the captivity of non-Christian powers and suffered persecutions… Except in Constantinople and Rome… As the Roman Empire continued to shrink…

Emperor nor his councils were regarded with automatic honor and dignity, as with case of Rome. Even after Constantinople gained it’s position over Petrine Sees in the East, Rome was regarded as head of the Church. Emperors were enforcers based on their secular power and position, and it was mostly Byzantine notion that this was the approach (something foreign even to other Eastern countries at the time) that Church should take. However, it was proven time and time again that Emperors were not those who would guide the Church, as they fell into error and supporter Robber Councils quite often.

There was no immediate Latin Jurisdiction over any of them… Nor did they see Latin Rome as their Ecclesiastical master… If they had done so, there would be extensive records of the rulings of the Latin Church regarding their pleadings to Her…

I see your point. Immediate jurisdiction is something that was not exercised often, but appeals to Rome were considered binding. Rome had authority to overrule even Emperors (which they did not respect, but other Eastern Patriarchates did). Fact Second Council of Ephesus tried to excommunicate the Pope was viewed as a shock- and it tried to excommunicate Emperor, Patriarch of Constantinople and many other Eastern clergy as well as nobility. However, notion that Pope could be excommunicated while in office was very foreign even in East. It writes about Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria following:

“in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour”, in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon, “and excommunicated the Pope himself”

This was viewed as big indicator that Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was breaking canons and it was big deal even to Bishops at Chalcedon. It wasn’t because faith of Rome was correct at the time, but because it was inerrant- were it the former, excommunicating Bishop of Constantinople would have been viewed in very similar fashion, but history proves that it was not.

EDIT: nevermind, Council did nothing against Emperor and nobility, my mistake.

But they treasured Her opinions, for She was persecuted greatly… To be elevated to Pope meant almost universally to be elevated to martyrdom… But not so after the first thousand years…

I understand that, but that alone would surely not provide Rome with right to overrule Constantinople (and overrule contains word “rule” and “rulings” are binding).

 

[dochawk]

Sorry, there is no wrong time or place to fact-check.

OK, go interrupt in Econ 101 to demand a citation every five minutes.

That’s really the level this is at.

Even for a “newcomer” - whatever that means, and to whomever you apply that label.

We’re talking about someone at a High School level stepping into the conversation between a graduate student and an undergraduate demanding background on the discussion they’re having.

THAT is what I mean by “newcomer”.

(and, yes, snarky as it sounds, this is like “Shh. The grownups are talking!”)

I’m done with this; we’ve reached the point where there is no point.

 

[Wandile]

Gab123:

It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles, while the supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes. The power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops. The Pope is not the only Bishop, He IS the Pope, and, though his power is supreme, his not the only power. John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be bishop over the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal only real bishop . Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or " sole " bishop in his Patriarchate.

So does this mean that the pope does not have the right to depose or elevate any bishop to any diocese as he pleases? Does this mean that the bishops have the right to say no when the pope commanded them to transfer from one diocese to another? I am asking these because these are the papal powers Vatican I had dogmatized. These had made the bishops no more than glorified parish priests (who could ordain) of the popes.

He could do all these things. It just wouldn’t be wise to.

There are a lot of historical examples of popes appointing eastern bishops in eastern sees. Sometimes even appointing bishops previously deposed by eastern synods with the stroke of his pen.
There was a pope who desposed the patriarch of Constantinople and appointed his successor (St Menas of Constantinople) when he visited the capital.

Though to be fair, if @OrbisNonSufficit is correct, then much of my problems with Vatican I would be resolved.

John the Faster, as St Gregory mistakenly thought, claimed to be the sole bishop of the world. That is that all other bishops truly would be his vicars for the world would be his diocese and his alone. Authority was not the matter of the dispute but rather the extent of bishopric/diocese. That’s why Pope Gregory mocked Patraich John’s humility and then said “…You now claim sole bishop”.

If authority were the issue then the patriarchal institution would be called into question too and not just the Pope’s universal Petrine ministry as patriarchs are pretty much mini popes at the patriarchal level. Does a patriarchs authority throughout his patriarchate make the local bishops in his patriarchate his vicars? No. Same for the pope at the universal level and the bishops of the world.

The pope is only the bishop of Rome, not of of the world (Universal Bishop).

 

[Isearch]

If authority were the issue then the patriarchal institution would be called into question too and not just the Pope’s universal Petrine ministry as patriarchs are pretty much mini popes at the patriarchal level. Does a patriarchs authority throughout his patriarchate make the local bishops in his patriarchate his vicars? No. Same for the pope at the universal level and the bishops of the world.

The pope is only the bishop of Rome, not of of the world (Universal Bishop).

The patriarchs in EOC do not have absolute power even over their own patriarchates, while the pope of Rome claims to have that, not only over the Roman patriarchate, but over the whole Church.

What you claimed to be the power of the pope renders all other bishops to be his de facto vicars. A local Roman Catholic bishop in Papua New Guinea is compelled to make the pope happy (or not to offend him) in order to keep his position as bishop of a particular diocese, thus rendering him to be nothing more than the glorified parish priest (who just so happens to have the power to ordain) of the bishop in Rome.

John the Faster, as St Gregory mistakenly thought, claimed to be the sole bishop of the world. That is that all other bishops truly would be his vicars for the world would be his diocese and his alone. Authority was not the matter of the dispute but rather the extent of bishopric/diocese. That’s why Pope Gregory mocked Patraich John’s humility and then said “…You now claim sole bishop”.

Again, St. Gregory had said otherwise:

Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, — what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head . And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy.

 

[Isearch]

Even if it were the case that the EO patriarchs have the same power over their patriarchates as the bishops of Rome claim to have over the whole Church, that case still doesn’t go against St. Gregory the Great because none of those EO patriarchs have that much power over the whole Church.

Again, if @OrbisNonSufficit is correct, then much of my problems with Vatican I would be resolved. This is because the popes would only be able to use that supreme, ordinary, and immediate power if there are problems in other dioceses that would require Rome’s attention and not only the local bishops’ (yes, my position is high-Petrine). If his explanation is true, then Vatican I wouldn’t contradict what St. Gregory had said because the authority of the bishop of Rome wouldn’t be what the Saint had once condemned.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

If authority were the issue then the patriarchal institution would be called into question too and not just the Pope’s universal Petrine ministry as patriarchs are pretty much mini popes at the patriarchal level. Does a patriarchs authority throughout his patriarchate make the local bishops in his patriarchate his vicars? No. Same for the pope at the universal level and the bishops of the world.

The pope is only the bishop of Rome, not of of the world (Universal Bishop).

The patriarchs in EOC do not have absolute power even over their own patriarchates, while the pope of Rome claims to have that, not only over the Roman patriarchate, but over the whole Church.

They used to have supreme authority. You can see all over the preschism pratiarchates all the way up to as late as the Ottoman rule. In modern day Conciliarism has stripped the primates of all authority. Eastern Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox patriarchs have supreme power in their territories.

What you claimed to be the power of the pope renders all other bishops to be his de facto vicars.

It doesn’t because a vicar is someone who doesn’t have jurisdiction of his own but exercises that of another. Catholic bishops have their own real jurisdiction in their territories.

A local Roman Catholic bishop in Papua New Guinea is compelled to make the pope happy (or not to offend him) in order to keep his position as bishop of a particular diocese, thus rendering him to be nothing more than the glorified parish priest (who just so happens to have the power to ordain) of the bishop in Rome.

This is true for any bishop under a patriarch even in Eastern Orthodoxy just a few hundred years ago, how do you think the modern Antiochan Orthodox Church got started? The Antiochan bishop Cyril VI and his synod did something that upset the EP so he elected a new patriarch of his own, The Greek Sylvester.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

John the Faster, as St Gregory mistakenly thought, claimed to be the sole bishop of the world. That is that all other bishops truly would be his vicars for the world would be his diocese and his alone. Authority was not the matter of the dispute but rather the extent of bishopric/diocese. That’s why Pope Gregory mocked Patraich John’s humility and then said “…You now claim sole bishop”.

Again, St. Gregory had said otherwise:

Again St Gregory literally said it in his letter. Just read it. In his letter rebuking Patriarch John the Faster he says this explicitly. He does not deny what came to be known as universal jurisdiction. He himself is seen by historians together with Pope Leo as the chief proponents of Universal Jurisdiction… He famously said of Constantinople and it’s bishop ”who denies that even the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?”

Pope St Gregory says it himself, that the matter was Patriarch John claimed to be the sole bishop of the world:

"You pretended to be anxious to avoid the patriarchate, but now you have got it you act as though you had canvassed for it. Having confessed yourself unworthy to be called a bishop, you now seek to be called the ONLY bishop . You disregarded the admonitions of Pope Pelagius, you neglected my own. Though your office is to teach humility to others, you have not yet learnt yourself the elements of this lesson.”
[Epp v:44 ,Pope Gregory the Great to John the Faster]

 

[Wandile]

Even if it were the case that the EO patriarchs have the same power over their patriarchates as the bishops of Rome claim to have over the whole Church, that case still doesn’t go against St. Gregory the Great because none of those EO patriarchs have that much power over the whole Church.

The whole point of your argument is that jurisdiction over a wide area make vicars of those whom are under such jurisdiction. Hence how I disproved this by the evidence provided via the patriarchal institution.

Again, if @OrbisNonSufficit is correct, then much of my problems with Vatican I would be resolved. This is because the popes would only be able to use that supreme, ordinary, and immediate power if there are problems in other dioceses that would require Rome’s attention and not only the local bishops’ (yes, my position is high-Petrine).

There is a difference between how power is exercised versus what that power entails. Even in this day the pope operates as he does as per @OrbisNonSufficit. The whole point of the pope having universal supreme ordinary jurisdiction is so that when he intervenes his intervention is always legitimate and cannot be questioned.

If his explanation is true, then Vatican I wouldn’t contradict what St. Gregory had said because the authority of the bishop of Rome wouldn’t be what the Saint had once condemned.

The pope condemned the idea of a sole bishop, not universal authority. Pope St Gregory was one of the chief proponents of the practice of appointing all the bishops. Like I said, he even claimed to St John the Faster that he had jurisdiction over him when he said :

”who denies that even the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?”

 

[Isearch]

It doesn’t because a vicar is someone who doesn’t have jurisdiction of his own but exercises that of another. Catholic bishops have their own real jurisdiction in their territories.

Do the parish priests have their own jurisdiction (I am asking this question in order to clarify what you mean by jurisdiction)?

Again St Gregory literally said it in his letter. Just read it. In his letter rebuking Patriarch John the Faster he says this explicitly. He does not deny what came to be known as universal jurisdiction. He himself is seen by historians together with Pope Leo as the chief proponents of Universal Jurisdiction… He famously said of Constantinople and it’s bishop ”who denies that even the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?”

I am not against all forms of Universal Jurisdiction. What I am against is the absolute power to elevate or remove any bishop in any part of the world just because he can. I am not necessarily against the pope having the power to judge controversies in any part of the world by favoring or condemning one party.

And what do you mean by Constantinople claiming to be “a sole bishop”? You need to clarify how the claim of being a sole bishop is in anyway different from claiming to have the universal power to elevate and remove any bishop in the world (thus I ask my question about the existence of jurisdiction of the parish priest above).

 

[Isearch]

Even in this day the pope operates as he does as per @OrbisNonSufficit. The whole point of the pope having universal supreme ordinary jurisdiction is so that when he intervenes his intervention is always legitimate and cannot be questioned.

And if the pope forces eastern-rite Christians under the Roman communion to abandon their ancient traditions in favor of the Novus Ordo (just as he did with the Roman Catholics of the Roman rite), would it be their duty to oppose that command or to obey it, or (you suggest what they should do)?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Even in this day the pope operates as he does as per @OrbisNonSufficit. The whole point of the pope having universal supreme ordinary jurisdiction is so that when he intervenes his intervention is always legitimate and cannot be questioned.

And if the pope forces eastern-rite Christians under the Roman communion to abandon their ancient traditions in favor of the Novus Ordo (just as he did with the Roman Catholics of the Roman rite), would it be their duty to oppose that command or to obey it, or (you suggest what they should do)?

They should advise him against it first but obey if the Pope is unrelenting however, the pope himself would be an enemy of unity in this instance for commanding this. Pope St Victor tried this when he made the churches Asia Minor abandon the eastern custom of celebrating easter on the 14th of Nissan (Passover) instead of the Roman custom (He got his way in the end). Another pope tried to make Alexandria adopt roman customs too (he didn’t get his way but let the matter go after the Alexandrians justified their traditions).

In both instances the Pope was rebuked,not on account of lack of authority to command this, but on the wisdom of such a decision and how it harms church unity. As St Augustine said of different customs in churches:

“in all essential things, uniformity. In non-essentials, plurality”

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

It doesn’t because a vicar is someone who doesn’t have jurisdiction of his own but exercises that of another. Catholic bishops have their own real jurisdiction in their territories.

Do the parish priests have their own jurisdiction (I am asking this question in order to clarify what you mean by jurisdiction)?

No they exercise the jurisdiction of the bishop. That’s why priests need faculties from a bishop to say mass in his diocese.

Wandile:

Again St Gregory literally said it in his letter. Just read it. In his letter rebuking Patriarch John the Faster he says this explicitly. He does not deny what came to be known as universal jurisdiction. He himself is seen by historians together with Pope Leo as the chief proponents of Universal Jurisdiction… He famously said of Constantinople and it’s bishop ”who denies that even the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?”

I am not against all forms of Universal Jurisdiction. What I am against is the absolute power to elevate or remove any bishop in any part of the world just because he can. I am not necessarily against the pope having the power to judge controversies in any part of the world by favoring or condemning one party.

Well having universal jurisdiction logically means he has this authority. However he hasn’t always exercised it and it really is a modern discipline for the pope to appoint all the bishops. He normally only did this because of heretical or schismatics bishops.
However after so many controversies of the past (Gallicanism and conciliarism) Rome started centralising more to ensure these errors don’t take hold again. I’m not a fan of this centralising by the way but he does have the authority to do it.

And what do you mean by Constantinople claiming to be “a sole bishop”? You need to clarify how the claim of being a sole bishop is in anyway different from claiming to have the universal power to elevate and remove any bishop in the world (thus I ask my question about the existence of jurisdiction of the parish priest above).

Sole bishop literally means what it says. Claiming to be the only bishop, Bishop of the world, not of a particular city. The phrase “ecumenical patriarch” got erroneously translated as “universal bishop” instead of “Imperial Patriarch” so Pope St Gregory thought Patriarch John was claiming to be the bishop of the whole world and not just Constantinople. This rendering all bishops his vicars as if there is only one diocese of the world which belongs to him, then all bishops are just Vicars overseeing portions of his territory.

 

[Isearch]

They should advise him against it first but obey if the Pope is unrelenting however, the pope himself would be an enemy of unity in this instance for commanding this.

Wait, so they would have to obey, but the pope sinned in commanding it?

 

[Isearch]

No they exercise the jurisdiction of the bishop. That’s why priests need faculties from a bishop to mass in his diocese.

Then how is this relations between the parish priests and their bishop different from the relations between the bishops and the pope if the priests do not have jurisdiction while the bishops do?

Edit: (let me clarify) how can it be said that the parish priests have no jurisdiction because they are under the bishops, yet the bishops do have jurisdiction even when the pope is above them?

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

They should advise him against it first but obey if the Pope is unrelenting however, the pope himself would be an enemy of unity in this instance for commanding this.

Wait, so they would have to obey, but the pope sinned in commanding it?

In a way he might have sinned as it’s quite arrogant to command them to abandon apostolic traditions. To harm church unity is a sin.