New possible obstacle for Catholic-Orthodox unity on the sight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vaseljen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_Mallory said:
The RCC admits that the decretals of pseudo-isodore and the donation of constantine are forgeries. I am not sure what their stance on the “forged” quotes of the Fathers is. I know for certain that St. Maximos the Confessor never supported papal supremacy. I have never seen him used as a source to support it. This is an issue that has been brought up multiple times on this site but no Roman Catholic has cared to respond to it.
Click to expand...
Now you have:

*"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

“For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”.
-St. Maximus the Confessor*
 
Wandile said:
It must be mentioned though that Dvornik made a few errors and was criticised heavily for being too favourable and accepting of the eastern point of view especially at times when the evidence was wanting
Click to expand...
I’d be interested in reading more about that, if you would be so kind to provide further information on it. His work on the Photian Schism is still the standard work on the matter to this day. Are you referring to that specific book or something else?
 
Wandile said:
Now you have:

*"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

“For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”.
-St. Maximus the Confessor*
Click to expand...
Do you know anything about the controversy concerning whether that is an actual quote from St. Maximos or just a forgery?
 
If the unity happens, i wonder what Rome does with the Orthodox saints that criticized Rome, there are many of them, including the latest ones from the 20th century.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
Do you know anything about the controversy concerning whether that is an actual quote from St. Maximos or just a forgery?
Click to expand...
I know very well about it. And the arguments for it being a a forgery are quite weak and pretty much Greek biased. Add to this that those same arguments could be used to discredit the authenticity of the bible if we use the standards of those arguments.
 
Vaseljen said:
If the unity happens, i wonder what Rome does with the Orthodox saints that criticized Rome, there are many of them, including the latest ones from the 20th century.
Click to expand...
Depends how anti-Catholic they are. If they are of Mark Eugenikos persuasion then there is no chance of them being recognised.
 
Wandile said:
I know very well about it. And the arguments for it being a a forgery are quite weak and pretty much Greek biased. Add to this that those same arguments could be used to discredit the authenticity of the bible if we use the standards of those arguments.
Click to expand...
How does the argument go?
 
Wandile said:
Depends how anti-Catholic they are. If they are of Mark Eugenikos persuasion then there is no chance of them being recognised.
Click to expand...
Well if they were theological saints, most of them had strong critics, but they remain unknown to the west because they did not take part in Councils such as Florence. Relations with the west was not their focus.
 
Rohzek said:
I’d be interested in reading more about that, if you would be so kind to provide further information on it. His work on the Photian Schism is still the standard work on the matter to this day. Are you referring to that specific book or something else?
Click to expand...
Referring to his work on on Photian Schism , Fr.Venance Grumel criticised Dvornik on a few things like how the Catholic 8th Ecumenical council was never abrogated Pope John VIII, which is something Dvornik all to easily accepts happened without much evidence other than eastern claims that it was abrogated.

That’s who first comes to mind honestly. I’ll try find more information when I get time
 
Vaseljen said:
Well if they were theological saints, most of them had strong critics, but they remain unknown to the west because they did not take part in Councils such as Florence. Relations with the west was not their focus.
Click to expand...
It also depends on whether their criticisms were material or formal , if the latter then the Holy Catholic Church cannot recognise them.
 
Vaseljen said:
In 2016 Orthodox Churches plan to hold the Great Synod.

Patriarch of Belgrade and the Serbs Irenaeus proposed two documents to the Great Synod, which will proclaim Council of Constantinople 880 (Photian) as Ecumenical, and the Council of Constantinople 1351 (Saint Gregory Palama’s Council) to be proclaimed for Ecumenical. Serbian Orthodox Church said that these two Councils proclaimed the truth and that their teachings are accepted by entire Orthodox Church and they fit to be praised as Ecumenical.

We know that Council of Constantinople 880 openly condemns Filioque and papal claim for universal jurisdiction. If these two Councils receive the honor of being Ecumenical in the Orthodox Church, that will be the step away from the unity between the West and the East.

Some bishops from the Church of Greece are already pleased with the Belgrade Patriarchate’s proposal and have already praised the Serbian Patriarch for his actions. Also among the Russian bishops there is also great support for these two documents.

johnsanidopoulos.com/2015/09/serbian-church-proposes-for-recognition.html
Click to expand...
Of course, then we’ll have to wait for another synod to say whether the 2016 one was really authoritative and therefore whether it’s declaration concerning those two past synods counts. And then we’ll need a synod after that to determine whether the one that judged the 2016 synod was authoritative. And on and on and on.

And why just those two in 880 and 1351? Other than neo-Palamite bias, why not, for example, the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 or the Councils of Constantinople in 1722, 1727, and 1838? 🤷

Anyway, this would be no big deal since part of EO praxis is the disavowing of Councils they later regretted (like the reunion Councils or some of the others I have mentioned that the Neo-Palamites don’t like anymore).
 
Jon_Mallory said:
How does the argument go?
Click to expand...
The questions against the authenticity of the passage go something like this :

• Can we find this work in Greek?
•If so, can we find the passages in question in Greek, so that we can validate their authenticity? As distrusting as this may seem, it would not be the first time that documents have been forged in the name of a great saint or passages have been interpolated into a work of a saint in order to support the papacy (think of the Donation of Constantine or the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore).
•If the passages are authentic, what is the context in which they are being written
Can
 
Wandile said:
Referring to his work on on Photian Schism , Fr.Venance Grumel criticised Dvornik on a few things like how the Catholic 8th Ecumenical council was never abrogated Pope John VIII, which is something Dvornik all to easily accepts happened without much evidence other than eastern claims that it was abrogated.

That’s who first comes to mind honestly. I’ll try find more information when I get time
Click to expand...
I look forward to it. As for the claim you listed above, Dvornik’s argument is actually much more substantiated and complex that Grumel lets on. Dvornik doesn’t claim that 869 was abrogated. His argument is the following: 1.) 869 did not address dogmatic issues; 2.) 879 did not address dogmatic issues either; 3.) 879 was accepted via papal decree of some sort in some fashion. He backs up each stage pretty well except for maybe #2. It is a matter of debate as to how Photius spoke against papal primacy, the filioque, etc. in 879. I think Dvornik was onto something. Dvornik’s position was that both 869 and 879 are ecumenical.
 
Genesis315 said:
Of course, then we’ll have to wait for another synod to say whether the 2016 one was really authoritative and therefore whether it’s declaration concerning those two past synods counts. And then we’ll need a synod after that to determine whether the one that judged the 2016 synod was authoritative. And on and on and on.

And why just those two in 880 and 1351? Other than neo-Palamite bias, why not, for example, the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 or the Councils of Constantinople in 1722, 1727, and 1838? 🤷

Anyway, this would be no big deal since part of EO praxis is the disavowing of Councils they later regretted (like the reunion Councils or some of the others I have mentioned that the Neo-Palamites don’t like anymore).
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: This nonsense again. Nobody has disavowed the faith of the Synod of Jerusalem. They have only criticized its manner of dogmatic expression.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
I pray you remain unscathed from the heat you’ll likely get from that opinion :D. I suspect folk will say that this opinion glosses over the theological differences between east and west, which predate NATO by a long shot.
Click to expand...
Although he mentioned NATO, I don’t believe he meant to imply that the origins of the interfaith dispute lie in Cold War 1, but rather that the political acrimony between east and west, which in modern times gave rise to Cold War 1, also existed centennially and gave rise to the church split.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Vaseljen said:
In 2016 Orthodox Churches plan to hold the Great Synod.

Patriarch of Belgrade and the Serbs Irenaeus proposed two documents to the Great Synod, which will proclaim Council of Constantinople 880 (Photian) as Ecumenical, and the Council of Constantinople 1351 (Saint Gregory Palama’s Council) to be proclaimed for Ecumenical. Serbian Orthodox Church said that these two Councils proclaimed the truth and that their teachings are accepted by entire Orthodox Church and they fit to be praised as Ecumenical.

We know that Council of Constantinople 880 openly condemns** Filioque and papal claim** for universal jurisdiction. If these two Councils receive the honor of being Ecumenical in the Orthodox Church, that will be the step away from the unity between the West and the East.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the rationale is for indirectly taking on these 2 issues in 2016. Is the lack of
proclamation of the councils as ecumenical hurting the Church in some way in 2015? Who would be the beneficiaries of such action next year? How would the Church, or individuals, suffer if those councils are not declared “ecumenical” for another 1000 years? I am trying to ascertain the status quo here, prior to assessing the impact of a proposed change.
 
commenter said:
I wonder what the rationale is for indirectly taking on these 2 issues in 2016. Is the lack of
proclamation of the councils as ecumenical hurting the Church in some way in 2015? Who would be the beneficiaries of such action next year? How would the Church, or individuals, suffer if those councils are not declared “ecumenical” for another 1000 years? I am trying to ascertain the status quo here, prior to assessing the impact of a proposed change.
Click to expand...
I have heard some polemics from Catholics that go after the Orthodox for their lack of post-schism ecumenical councils. I don’t think the Orthodox pay much attention to those polemics, so I admit that’s not much of an answer to your question, but I don’t think I’m qualified to give a better answer.
 
Peter_J said:
I have heard some polemics from Catholics that go after the Orthodox for their lack of post-schism ecumenical councils. I don’t think the Orthodox pay much attention to those polemics, so I admit that’s not much of an answer to your question, but I don’t think I’m qualified to give a better answer.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of fear in the Orthodox Church among many more conservative and reserved segments that the ecumenism embraced by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has gone too far. In short, they prefer having big and thick red lines to demarcate Orthodox and Catholics. So having these two councils declared ecumenical can help further their goals in helping to deepen the divide and make it more apparent. Perhaps they would prefer to put it another way, but this is my take on their actions and emphasis.
 
Rohzek said:
There’s a lot of fear in the Orthodox Church among many more conservative and reserved segments that the ecumenism embraced by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has gone too far. In short, they prefer having big and thick red lines to demarcate Orthodox and Catholics. So having these two councils declared ecumenical can help further their goals in helping to deepen the divide and make it more apparent. Perhaps they would prefer to put it another way, but this is my take on their actions and emphasis.
Click to expand...
Citation required.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top