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.
Isearch said:
40.png
Wandile:
No they exercise the jurisdiction of the bishop. That’s why priests need faculties from a bishop to mass in his diocese.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
Because priests don’t have jurisdiction, bishops do. Priests act as agents of the bishops as the bishop can’t be everywhere at once. Bishops in the early church used to be responsible for saying mass in a diocese but as dioceses got bigger, this became impractical and thus priests were used to perform his functions where he couldn’t be.

Bishops have jurisdiction in their own right as they truly are successors of the apostles, not successors of the pope. A bishop is the Vicar of Christ in his diocese. Bishops are not agents of the Bishop of Rome, they would be if they didn’t have apostolic succession of their own, but they do. Each bishop does. A bishop obtains his authority as a bishop through apostolic succession. The pope does not oversee the territory of another bishop. If he did, then that bishop would be the popes vicar as he is just taking care of the territory of the Pope. Rather the bishop of a certain territory is the overseer of his territory, not the pope. The pope only oversees Rome.
 
Last edited:
Isearch said:
Please see the edit.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it, your inquiry has been answered above. Your inquiry relates to the very nature of the bishopric itself.

Vatican II eloquently teaches on the relationship between bishops and the Pope. It literally rubber stamped the working documents from Vatican I on this matter (they were never published at Vatican I because it was abruptly called to an end due to the invasion of the King of Italy).
 
Last edited:
“This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God.

Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.

21. In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe. For sitting at the right hand of God the Father, He is not absent from the gathering of His high priests, but above all through their excellent service He is preaching the word of God to all nations, and constantly administering the sacraments of faith to those who believe, by their paternal functioning. He incorporates new members in His Body by a heavenly regeneration, and finally by their wisdom and prudence He directs and guides the People of the New Testament in their pilgrimage toward eternal happiness. These pastors, chosen to shepherd the Lord’s flock of the elect, are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God, to whom has been assigned the bearing of witness to the Gospel of the grace of God, and the ministration of the Spirit and of justice in glory.”

Lumen Gentium , the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican II
 
Wandile said:
Bishops have jurisdiction in their own right as they truly are successors of the apostles, not successors of the pope. A bishop is the Vicar of Christ in his diocese. Bishops are not agents of the Bishop of Rome, they would be if they didn’t have apostolic succession of their own, but they do. Each bishop does.
Click to expand...
I need a clarification on what I have emphasized in your post: are you saying that the bishops are not the popes’ vicars precisely because they are bishops (i.e. priests with the ability to ordain)?

And that being a bishop (i.e. being a priest with the ability to ordain) is being the successor of the apostles in the fullest sense of the word?
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
OK, go interrupt in Econ 101 to demand a citation every five minutes.

That’s really the level this is at.
Click to expand...
Not at all. In Econ 101 the instructor is not anonymous, has a known credential, and provides course materials that document the information given. Demanding : a citation every five minutes" is a nuisance. Here, on the other hand, when anonymous people, with no known credentials post ostensible facts without documentation, it seems prudent to ask for sources rather than swallowing tings whole.
 
Last edited:
imo said:
I mean, is it possible that, having their cultural and liturgical practices respected as Eastern Catholics have, the orthodox accepts Papal authority and everything else and return to communion with the Catholic Church? Is something that we can reasonably hope?
Click to expand...
I notice that you mention Eastern Catholicism but not Western Rite Orthodoxy. I’m not looking to impute a motive to you, but I think it is worth asking why?
 
Isearch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Problem is that definition of controversy varies. Once French Bishops started teaching heresy (Gallicanism) and denied that it is heresy- nobody appealed to Pope, but nobody had to. Pope intervened and judged their heresy. They viewed themselves as legitimately Catholic and hence no need for intervention was ever present from their point of view- although it was wrong point of view.

Now yes, that was in the West, but if this happens in the East (or actually anywhere outside Pope’s Patriarchate), under current Catholic ecclesiology he can intervene even if entire Patriarchate goes heretical and nobody appeals to him. It has happened before. On the contrary, if Pope can only intervene if there are appeals made from that Patriarchate, that greatly disturbs unity of the Church as now there is no way to solve the case. And if you go into Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, he would not even be able to do anything about heretical Patriarchate at all, other than pour out some empty threats or deny them communion. Souls of the faithful would be at stake.
Wandile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent point people seem to forget. Historically, because Ottoman government used to control Ecumenical Patriarchate, and because Patriarch being above other Bishops was somehow viewed as “Catholic”, Eastern Orthodoxy started to further promote conciliarism to the point where synods would really hold power and Primates would just have a bit more honor than others, and preside. However, this was not practice pre-Schism. As you have pointed out, there are several communions now that actually follow ancient practice. At the same time, we can see in areas such as Russia that Patriarch actually has two votes in a Synod as opposed to one vote that other Bishops have. Conciliarity itself was exercised in the Early Church, but Primacy meant much more. Asking West to “revert” to a system which never existed would certainly not be fair either. Again, this is very important point many people seem to miss.
 
Isearch said:
Wait, so they would have to obey, but the pope sinned in commanding it?
Click to expand...
Same way I was supposed to obey my mother and only visit Church on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, just because she is my mother and she is to be respected by me. However, I would not be saying it was the best decision. Submission to authority is part of being a Christian. If it weren’t that way, we would need authority and assurance that in every case we disobey, we are indeed right… otherwise it would create a scenario where I can disobey any command I dislike and call it sinful.
Isearch said:
And that being a bishop (i.e. being a priest with the ability to ordain) is being the successor of the apostles in the fullest sense of the word?
Click to expand...
Not “being a Priest with ability to ordain” though. As part of his ordination, Bishop becomes successor to Apostles in fullest sense of the word. He gets jurisdiction, he gets authority to teach and he gets duty to protect Catholic Faith. Yes, not every Bishop gets explicit jurisdiction, but by default that’s the way it is. Same way you could have Priests that are not supposed to hear confessions… exceptions exist, but do not take away from what being a Priest is… what being a Bishop is.
 
Please forgive me if this has been addressed in this thread but the Orthodox would have to recognize the Bishop of Rome as being the head of the Church, right(the Vicar of Christ?) and would the Orthodox priests still be allowed to marry? Perhaps the ones already ordained would be able to stay married but new ones coming in would be required to be celibate? And what about divorce and remarriage? Would they be required to adopt annulments?(I’m presuming something the same if the Lutheran Church returned to Rome?) The Catholic Church does acknowledge that Orthodox Priests and Bishops have valid Apostolic succession, right? Just that they are in schism?
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Should Orthodox be required to obey the command of a sinner who is harming church unity?
 
Vanny said:
And what about divorce and remarriage?
Click to expand...
That is a good question because Orthodox allow divorce under certain conditions. In any case if what has been written on this thread about papal authority is what Catholics require that Orthodox accept, then IMHO, there is no chance of a reunion between Orthodox and Catholics.
 
Isearch said:
40.png
Wandile:
Bishops have jurisdiction in their own right as they truly are successors of the apostles, not successors of the pope. A bishop is the Vicar of Christ in his diocese. Bishops are not agents of the Bishop of Rome, they would be if they didn’t have apostolic succession of their own, but they do. Each bishop does.
Click to expand...
I need a clarification on what I have emphasized in your post: are you saying that the bishops are not the popes’ vicars precisely because they are bishops (i.e. priests with the ability to ordain)?
Click to expand...
A bishop is a successor of the apostles with full apostolic authority. The apostles were not Vicars of St. Peter as they were apostles in their own right. So too bishops are bishops in their own right and exercise their apostolic authority to oversee faithful, they are not exercising the Pope’s apostolic authority.
Isearch said:
And that being a bishop (i.e. being a priest with the ability to ordain) is being the successor of the apostles in the fullest sense of the word?
Click to expand...
Yes a bishop is a successor of the apostles in the truest sense of the word. A bishop isn’t just a priest with ability to ordain but rather forms the teaching authority of the church.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
Wandile:
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.
Click to expand...
Should Orthodox be required to obey the command of a sinner who is harming church unity?
Click to expand...
His command isn’t against the faith so yes Orthodox would be bound. His motives more than anything would be what determines if it’s sinful or not.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Wandile:
yes Orthodox would be bound.
Click to expand...
Even if it is harmful to church unity?
Click to expand...
Well councils sometimes harm church unity too and yet we are still bound by them. Hence I say motive is really what matters.
AlNg said:
Well, in that case I see another reason to doubt that there is a chance for reunion between Orthodox and Catholics.
Click to expand...
Remember that a pope commanding easterners to change certain practices actually happened (sadly) with Pope St Victor and the eastern churches of Asia Minor in the second century. It was clearly not enough to bar communion in the preschism church in the second century, so it shouldn’t be today.
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
As St Augustine said of different customs in churches:

“in all essential things, uniformity. In non-essentials, plurality ”
Click to expand...
To paraphrase Paul Harvey, here’s the rest of the quote:

“…; in all things, charity.” 😊
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
It was clearly not enough to bar communion in the preschism church in the second century, so it shouldn’t be today.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but a few things have happened since the second century as the Roman Catholic Church has moved further apart from the Eastern Orthodox church with Vatican I and with several other issues popping up. After President Putin has done so much to support the Russian Orthodox church, it does not help reunion when Catholics pray in front of a huge mural at a Catholic Church showing President Putin burning in hell.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top