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.
Wandile said:
The pope does not personally have to appoint bishops himself (anyone can do that depending on prevailing discipline, like the local populaton, synods etc), but as to your overall point, essentially yes.
Click to expand...
This raises a question that I haven’t thought of before: What about the Avignon papacy?

When I googled the names of bishops of Avignon from the start of the diocese until the present day, I found out that the Avignon popes were included in the list. It seems that the popes had become the bishops of both Rome and Avignon at that time.

What do you understand of this situation? Was it an abuse? Were the popes supposed to name or at least allow other bishops to oversee Avignon instead of the popes themselves becoming bishops of both sees?
 
Last edited:
Isearch said:
40.png
Wandile:
The pope does not personally have to appoint bishops himself (anyone can do that depending on prevailing discipline, like the local populaton, synods etc), but as to your overall point, essentially yes.
Click to expand...
This raises a question that I haven’t thought of before: What about the Avignon papacy?

When I googled the names of bishops of Avignon from the start of the diocese until the present day, I found out that the Avignon popes were included in the list. It seems that the popes had become the bishops of both Rome and Avignon at that time.

What do you understand of this situation? Was it an abuse? Were the popes supposed to name or at least allow other bishops to oversee Avignon instead of the popes themselves becoming bishops of both sees?
Click to expand...
It’s more a case of the see being vacant and the Roman popes taking care of the see. Not that they were actually bishops there. Those men were only bishops of Rome residing in Avignon. Why they failed to elect a successor to the Avignon see for periods at a time is an issue only they know.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
OrbisNonSufficit:
Alexandria commemorated Pope until at least 13th century - and even that
Click to expand...
I think it was the EP, and not Antioch, that broke communion.

The Melkites were trying to be in communion with both, and had spent decades in simultaneous communion with both a century or two earlier.
Click to expand...
Rome was never in communion with the Melkites while they were in communion with Constantinople. The Melkites had some catholic bishops (in that they professed catholic faith) but never officially were Melkites in communion with Rome until the Reign of Patriarch Cyril VI Tanas.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Your
ecclesiology,
authority of Patriarchs as well as
understanding of primacy
has changed.
Click to expand...
Ekklesiastically, we still hold that the Church is the Communion of the (geographically) local Churches in Communion one with another…

Rome, instead, has made of Herself the one Church alone in whose Communion is found the Church…

We hold all Patriarchs to be the autocephalous Heads of the local Churches of which each is its Head, subject only to the discipline of the withdrawal of Communion by the Head(s) of the other Church(es) with whom the offending Church is in Communion…

Rome, instead, has now made of Herself the ultimate Authority over all the Patriarchs of all the other Churches in Her Communion alone, able to intervene in their “Sui-juris-icality” according to the sole judgement of the Roman Patriarch-Pope…

The EOC has always held the Primacy of the Pope to be a Primacy of Honor…

The Latin Church NOW has Primacy of Honor to mean the Supremacy of Her Own Authority…

The Latin Church has never been the definition of the Church incapable of error…
The Latin Patriarchate has never had authority over other Patriarchs…
And Papal Primacy has never meant Papal Supremacy over Christ’s Body…

We have never believed any of this from the beginnings…

So who has changed?
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Yes, contrary to their own understanding of the Church… as per Orthodox wiki
Click to expand...
Withdrawal of Communion is a disciplinary measure of one local Church against another, when they cannot resolve the matter directly - And it CAN become enjoined by other Churches, and indeed by all the Communions against the one offending Church… It creates a state of tension offering the offending Church an opportunity to repent from its transgression… ROCOR was out of Communion with many Churches in the EOC because She would not reconcile with the Moscow Patriarchate (for lots of reasons) - They reconciled in Moscow and all the Communions were in that action re-conjoined…

You do not understand it that way - The whole EOC withdrew its Communion from the Latin Church, and that Church alone could only understand that the EOC has departed from Rome and was no longer in Communion with the Source of Communion, the Church of the Chair of Peter… We see this as Ecclesiastical Pride, you see… You see it as God’s will in His Giving to Rome ALONE the defining Communion of His Body on earth…

We have never understood Rome in this manner…

We have always understood Christ alone as the Source of the Communion of the Churches that comprise His Body upon this earth…

Rome agrees, but adds that He Speaks through the Chair of Peter alone…

geo
 
Last edited:
George720 said:
The EOC has always held the Primacy of the Pope to be a Primacy of Honor…
Click to expand...
Term “primacy of honor” is historically misinterpreted. Even Orthodox wiki article I sent says that. If there is honor, there is cause for it but also consequence of it.
George720 said:
Ekklesiastically, we still hold that the Church is the Communion of the (geographically) local Churches in Communion one with another…
Click to expand...
There is no “still”. That was not understanding of Early Church- especially with regards to torn communion and non-transitive communion.
George720 said:
Rome, instead, has made of Herself the one Church alone in whose Communion is found the Church…
Click to expand...
Lord has made it that way, for it was written and affirmed by Fathers that Rome is the Church everyone must agree with. It was affirmed that faith of Peter may not fail and that Church of Rome is inerrant (again, even by completely Eastern Saint).
George720 said:
We hold all Patriarchs to be the autocephalous Heads of the local Churches of which each is its Head, subject only to the discipline of the withdrawal of Communion by the Head(s) of the other Church(es) with whom the offending Church is in Communion…
Click to expand...
And that is not ancient practice. Church is where Bishop, Priests and Deacons are found… geographical Church is not a Patriarchate, but even a single eparchy. Church is hierarchical by nature, and hierarchy does not stop before it reaches Successors of Peter.

EOC has denied hierarchical structure for collegiality… and Patriarchs are now those who just preside, not those who have direct authority- unlike it was in history. This change of understanding of hierarchy led to rejection of Papacy… but we see even from East that it is not the norm. Assyrian Church as well as Oriental Orthodoxy, as well as Latin Church all still hold hierarchical nature… as it was before Greeks changed the practice. Perhaps you have right to change it internally, but you can’t enforce it onto others neither can you deny obedience to outside authority based on it.
George720 said:
We have never believed any of this from the beginnings…
Click to expand...
History proves otherwise.
George720 said:
So who has changed?
Click to expand...
Ecclesiologically and hierarchically? Your communion…
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
40.png
Wandile:
Rome was never in communion with the Melkites while they were in communion with Constantinople.
Click to expand...
I think tha tthe poster is referring to 1054 and immediately thereafter.
Click to expand...
Well fair enough but I think that was only due to the schism being gradual. By the time of Lyons II it was all but clear that there was a schism

For a long time I think Antioch just saw two bishops having tension but not a definitve schism between Rome and Constantinople.
 
Last edited:
I must remind you that, while some EO hold to the view that the First See has mere “Primacy of honor”, this doesn’t mean that all of them do. Some EO are also high-Petrine and would concede that the whosoever holds the First See has actual authority over the whole Church. Some EO bishops under the Ecumenical Patriarch, for example, are high-Petrine. Some even concede that the First See is instituted by Christ Himself. This is one high-Petrine view about the Ecumenical Patriarch within EO.
 
Thank you! I wasn’t aware of this at all, so it is very helpful to me. God bless you.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Wandile:
think that was only due to the schism being gradual.
Click to expand...
At the time, the Patriarch of Antioch wrote explicitly about his unwillingness to participate in the schism.
Click to expand...
I’ve read his letter. He really saw it as a dispute and urged them to reconcile. He did not see it as a definitive split. He really ridiculed the whole affair for the most part. I remember he even remarked to the EP’s criticism of Latin bishops being beardless by saying “what is it with you and beards?”.
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
Rome was never in communion with the Melkites while they were in communion with Constantinople.
Click to expand...
That would be news to them.

I’m not going to hunt down the sources (it’s taking more than a quick search), but Melkites will disagree with this (some sources claim no break at all to the eighteenth century, but I’m skeptical. ).

But for further detail, I’ll wait for a Melkchite to step in.

The Patriarchs of Antioch basically refused to get involved in the Rome/Constinople schism, and managed to keep varying levels of relations with both over time, and I’m not going to hold to any more than that 🙂)
 
dochawk said:
The Patriarchs of Antioch basically refused to get involved in the Rome/Constinople schism, and managed to keep varying levels of relations with both over time, and I’m not going to hold to any more than that 🙂)
Click to expand...
Thats about Greek Patriarchs. Original line either went OO or Catholic (Maronites, Syriac Catholic).
 
dochawk said:
40.png
Wandile:
Rome was never in communion with the Melkites while they were in communion with Constantinople.
Click to expand...
That would be news to them.

I’m not going to hunt down the sources (it’s taking more than a quick search), but Melkites will disagree with this (some sources claim no break at all to the eighteenth century, but I’m skeptical. ).

But for further detail, I’ll wait for a Melkchite to step in.

The Patriarchs of Antioch basically refused to get involved in the Rome/Constinople schism, and managed to keep varying levels of relations with both over time, and I’m not going to hold to any more than that 🙂)
Click to expand...
It wasn’t seen as a schism then, it was still seen as just a dispute between two bishops.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Not entirely. Communion between Antioch and Rome wasn’t broken,
Click to expand...
Very true. You could go further than that: a careful study of history (not the kind of pop-history that most people learn) shows that the 1054 break between Rome and Constantinople was pretty minor, even w.r.t. to the relationship between Rome and Constantinople.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top