S
steve_b
Guest
For clarity,
while the Orthodox are Churches, schism is not legitimate. Schism is an activity condemned in scripture. We can’t downplay or side step that, for everyone’s good…
"Orthodox in communion with Rome"? How do Eastern Catholics define themselves?
- Status
while the Orthodox are Churches, schism is not legitimate. Schism is an activity condemned in scripture. We can’t downplay or side step that, for everyone’s good…
P
poche
Guest
That is correct, but in the interest of promoting an end of the schism a recognition of what is legitimate, the Divine Liturgy, the sacraments, the Blessed Virgin, the Sacred Scripture.If the only thing we can say is you are in schism therefore you are something bad then we can stay in a bad place forever.
S
steve_b
Guest
Dialogue has been going on for 1000 years.
What’s this schism over? Authority that Jesus established.
The CCC says
2089 *schism *“is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
That’s what we are dealing with.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:
orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1990_code_of_canons_of_the_eastern_churches.pdf
orthocath.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/1990_code_of_canons_of_the_eastern_churches.pdf
W
wynd
Guest
Which, interestingly, was written by Rome to be followed by the Eastern Catholic churches.
W
wynd
Guest
Not sure what you mean by the Orthodox don’t like RC converts, unless you mean former Orthodox who converted to Roman Catholicism?
S
steve_b
Guest
of course. That’s what unity is. We’re ONE.Even though
No pope ever accepted an equalization of sees.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
in a desire to dialogue with the Orthodox in a bold way,
The CC suggested looking at authority in the first millennium prior to the schism. Sounds pretty bold…right?
But apparently it brought no comment by the Orthodox, who BTW, didn’t exist as a “Church” in the 1st millennium.
Unless of course, you can provide where the name “Orthodox Church”, first appeared, in writing, properly referenced in the first millenium…
That said,
Jesus already settled this argument over authority, by the apostles, started by Satan, and Satan keeps the argument going…
Where?
the apostles had an argument over this very issue in the upper room. Who is the greatest among THEM
Luke 22: 24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader ἡγέομαι hēgeomai ] as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 "You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
As one can see, this context was an argument over primacy of authority, not honor. Who was behind the argument? Satan. How did Jesus settle this argument?
- Jesus validated “one” of THEM would be the greatest among them.
- Jesus validated “one” of THEM would be the leader over them
- And Jesus named him. It’s Simon. Jesus prays especially for Simon that his faith won’t fail through the sifting of Satan. Which means the other apostles get sifted too but it’s Jesus prayers for Peter, that Peter will be the one to strengthen and confirm THEM through their sifting
- Does Satan ever stop sifting? No! Therefore Peter’s position is always needed
the Greek word above for leader ὁ ἡγούμενος *, hēgeomai *
Definition
1) to lead a) to go before
b) to be a leader
2) to rule, command
3) to have authority over
4) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
5) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
6) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
To summarize
- Jesus didn’t deny one of them would be over the others. He confirms it.
- Jesus gave Peter the position he has. It wasn’t by vote, or council, and since the Church lasts forever, so does Peter’s position.
- Adding that up, ὁ ἡγούμενος ] Peter is to
- lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, control in counsels, oversee all the churches, make stable his brothers, strengthen them, confirm them, is their chief spokesman… and Peter’s office is here till the end of time.
- :coffeeread:Gee,
Peter is the leader of the Church on earth, and THATS how Jesus set it up. Anybody who divides from that is going against what Jesus established.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Great posts steve b.
I am learning much from them.
Keep up the great work.
God bless.
Cathoholic
I am learning much from them.
Keep up the great work.
God bless.
Cathoholic
A
Augustine
Guest
Of course, Rome is conflated into the Latin Church and, in practice, it acs as if it were the Church and every other Church is effectively an appendix or ornament.
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
I think there is a lot of history on how divorce became accepted in the east
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
The orthodox church does keep a lot of the Apostolic traditions. No one denies that.
A
Augustine
Guest
Nay, she keeps all of them. And so does the Catholic Church. The disagreement is that the former considers what the latter calls development of doctrine as innovations that are not part of the deposit of the apostolic faith.
W
wynd
Guest
If that’s how you define unity, why have separate EC hierarchies at all?
S
spina1953
Guest
I have been following the discussions between Catholic and Orthodox and from what I see is that there are those in the orthodox who don’t like Eastern Catholic’s or Latin Rite Catholic’s and think them heretic’s of one kind or another. However , that was on other sites and threads on the subject not this thread. This doe snot mean that all think that way only that some do but on the other hand there are Latin Rite Catholic’s who think the same of the Orthodox and even of Eastern Rite Catholic’s.
That is so sad to say the least but happy that not everyone feels that way about the others and seek union between the two One think I have heard is that the Orthodox do not permit a Latin Rite Catholic to receive Communion in their Churches, while I understand that Orthodox can receive in Latin Rite Churches although i do not know if that same is true that they can in a Eastern Rite Catholic Church so those who know more about it can answer that one.
I think its very important that Latin Rite Catholic’s know and understand Eastern Rite Churches and its traditions. I also think the Orthodox need to understand that while many lay people have their opinions about reunion, The Latin Rite Church is not going to try and change everything that Orthodox believe or their traditions but that’s my opinion I could be wrong but that’s how i see at this time.
That is so sad to say the least but happy that not everyone feels that way about the others and seek union between the two One think I have heard is that the Orthodox do not permit a Latin Rite Catholic to receive Communion in their Churches, while I understand that Orthodox can receive in Latin Rite Churches although i do not know if that same is true that they can in a Eastern Rite Catholic Church so those who know more about it can answer that one.
I think its very important that Latin Rite Catholic’s know and understand Eastern Rite Churches and its traditions. I also think the Orthodox need to understand that while many lay people have their opinions about reunion, The Latin Rite Church is not going to try and change everything that Orthodox believe or their traditions but that’s my opinion I could be wrong but that’s how i see at this time.
S
steve_b
Guest
Thank you, but you give me too much credit. I didn’t come up with any of that, I merely quoted, and in particular quoted Jesus. He gets all the credit. I’m nothing.
Blessings Cathoholic
S
steve_b
Guest
Eastern Catholics have their traditions as well. But we are ONE Catholic Church because we are completely united
Maybe you didn’t see this post. I’ll let an Eastern Catholic bishop (retired) speak to this question
Retired Bishop John Alya, Melkite Bishop, answered the following Q/A
First claim: **We are the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome!” **
“When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
(source: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome)
I’ll add here, the following
Claim 2: The encyclicals from the Pope of Rome is not binding upon the Catholic East.
“When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety.
We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;”
but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”
There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.”
This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.
Here are two relevant canons from OUR Eastern Catholic Church Law: c. 597 CCEO: “The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”
c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”
Source: melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites
P
PluniaZ
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
P
prodromos
Guest
Then of course there is the history of how it used to be accepted in the West.
R
Rohzek
Guest
The plot thickens!
W
Wandile
Guest
On rare occasions which were more exceptions to the rule than the norm. And these people changed their practice to have a uniform practice in the west. Whereas there was a similar situation in the east up until Justinian where the emperor imposed the novelty as secular rule and the Eastern bishops as usual obliged to the emporers wishes.
Most instances and “evidence” provided are very limited and other quotes provided by certain EO don’t even support divorce and remarriage but teach against it. They force the texts to say what they don’t say despite the plain reading of those quotes teaching against remarriage, they twist and obfuscate in order to try give the texts a meaning which the texts just simply don’t convey at all. It’s almost an act of desperation to find any validity for the novelty of the Eastern practice which began in the reign of Justinian (as standard practice amongst the Greeks).
All prominent studies on this matter all accept the fact that In the west the practice was almost uniform and there is so much evidence for this. Secondly that the east changed its practice during the reign of Justinian
- Status