L
louis91766
Guest
Quinisext Council of 692 at Constantinople under Justinian II.
- Status
J
jmj1984
Guest
Are you suggesting that the authority the pope exercises over The Catholic Church and which he has done since its foundation, and this has repeatedly been shown by numerous popes in numerous encyclicals, is illegitimate? Or are you suggesting that the truths of the faith are subject to negotiation or change? The latter suggestion has been condemned by Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XI.
To prove that my claim is false you quote a catechism made in the last 20 years, when the church has a 2000 year history, how does this either disprove my claim or help yours?
I have cited my sources already as you would know if you had read my posts.
S
sasg
Guest
No, that is not at all what I am saying.
To clarity:
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html
The Orthodox accept the Primacy and the authority that follows therefrom; they reject the current exercise of that. (Obviously I do not reject the authority of the Pope, as currently understood by the Catholic Church, otherwise I would not be Catholic.)
Honestly this is a baffling thing to say… so the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not authoritatively teach the Catholic faith? Talk aboutTo prove that my claim is false you quote a catechism made in the last 20 years, when the church has a 2000 year history, how does this either disprove my claim or help yours?
… I would expect something like this from a sedevacantist, or an Old Catholic, maybe.But nothing you quoted claims, as you do, that:
You can quote Papal Encyclicals till your dying day, but if they don’t support this claim they are irrelevant for the purposes of this dispute.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Tell him what he won JimHonestly this is a baffling thing to say… so the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not authoritatively teach the Catholic faith? Talk about
F
Farmville
Guest
On the other hand your claim is based on a doctrine defined as dogma in 1854, so I think that in this case the dates are not as important as the ideas and their theological implications.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The truth of the matter is that while on an official level the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not celebrate the Eucharist together corporately, intercommunion of individuals (and often groups) does indeed happen and is in fact permitted (at least from a Catholic perspective). To my knowledge the Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox faithful are permitted to receive Communion and Confession in Catholic parishes. The Melkite Greek Catholic Church in particular opens Communion to the Orthodox faithful. Catholics are also permitted to receive Communion and Confession in an Orthodox parish in cases of necessity, and provided that the Orthodox parish priest will allow it.
The Orthodox don’t really seem to have an official stance on intercommunion, except perhaps here in the U.S. In the Middle-East, where Christians are struggling for survival, Catholics and Orthodox intercommune all the time, particularly Melkite Greek Catholics and Antiochian Greek Orthodox. I’ve heard stories of Melkite parishes that have an Orthodox pastor, and Orthodox parishes that have a Melkite pastor. I guess when the gun is pointed to our heads our minds tend to clear up and we realize our differences are, in fact, minimal and petty.
The Orthodox don’t really seem to have an official stance on intercommunion, except perhaps here in the U.S. In the Middle-East, where Christians are struggling for survival, Catholics and Orthodox intercommune all the time, particularly Melkite Greek Catholics and Antiochian Greek Orthodox. I’ve heard stories of Melkite parishes that have an Orthodox pastor, and Orthodox parishes that have a Melkite pastor. I guess when the gun is pointed to our heads our minds tend to clear up and we realize our differences are, in fact, minimal and petty.
J
jmj1984
Guest
The Orthodox church does not accept the infallibility or supremacy of the Pope, this is an indispensable part of the Primacy of the Pope, therefore the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of the Pope. Read Vatican I.
Did I say that… No. I said that quoting a recent document is not going to help your claim that 'the church has always taught…’, in order to support that claim you would have to cite several authorities over a significant time range. For that matter there are several catechisms of the Catholic church, the Baltimore Catchism, The St Pius X Catechism, The Douay Catechism and the Roman Catechism or as its also known The Catechism of the Council of Trent.Honestly this is a baffling thing to say… so the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not authoritatively teach the Catholic faith? Talk about
Actually they do, quite explicitly.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
This may be a tad off subject, but I keep seeing references to whether the Orthodox Catholics accept the authority of the Pope or not. This question does not have the most straight-forward answer. The answer you will get most of the time is “NO”. But, in theory, the Orthodox Church has always accepted the Pope of Rome as “Primer Inter Pares” (First among equals with the other Patriarchs). In the times when the Church was in full communion and Rome was still considered on our side as Orthodox, the Pope was referred to in all matters that could not be settled by the other Patriachtes themselves. This understanding was not because he was believed to be the Earthly Holder of the Keys to the Kingdom, or that he has universal authority, but because he was the Patriarch of the original capitol of the Roman Empire, and because his Cathedra was the older and therefore more respected. Today, with Papal Infallability, Universal Jurisdiction etc, etc. there has been a leaving-off of how the Eastern Church always understood the role of the Pope. We see the Episcopacy as more of a Democracy than a Monarchy. (Blame it on those darn greeks, lol) The problem that I see with us not being in full communion with one another is that when the schism happened, and the excommunications and anathemas set down, it was NOT the faithful laity or even the Priests and other Bishops that were excommunicated (GASP ) it was one Patriarch excommunicating the other. So when did the laity become so involved??? I don’t believe the Church was torn in two, I believe it was two old men who couldn’t get their pride out of the way, and love one another “that all men may know that you are My (Christ’s) disciples.” Somehow, someday, I believe that the union will be fulfilled as Christ means for it to be fulfilled; not as the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope in Rome want it fulfilled. Just my thoughts.
The Sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
) it was one Patriarch excommunicating the other. So when did the laity become so involved??? I don’t believe the Church was torn in two, I believe it was two old men who couldn’t get their pride out of the way, and love one another “that all men may know that you are My (Christ’s) disciples.” Somehow, someday, I believe that the union will be fulfilled as Christ means for it to be fulfilled; not as the Orthodox Patriarchs and the Pope in Rome want it fulfilled. Just my thoughts.The Sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
W
Warrenton
Guest
This was a really good post. Going further, it could have been that both the Pope and the Patriarch were not themselves prideful, but felt the responsibility of their office. We need to remember that the times they lived in were very confused and dangerous. Imagine if the cold war had broken out into a hot war, kind of like that. Both east and west were in a state of war, the Church was trying to operate in an inherently unsafe environment. Many of the problems arose from mutual misunderstanding, and their reactions were influenced by the prevailing habits of the time, which relied on the use of force.
Reunification will occur when a sufficient number of the faithful want it to occur. This is happening, and will continue. The barriers that divided the east and west are falling, which means that Orthodox and Catholics will need each other more for mutual support. It will not be crisis-free, but the result will be a great strengthening of the Church.
S
sasg
Guest
Your understanding of this is flawed, as I pointed out above; and you still have not shown any evidence for your claim that the Church teaches that the Orthodox and Catholic faith is “not the same”. You cannot do so, because the Church teaches no such thing. The Orthodox are (from a Catholic perspective) schismatic, not heretical. This has been the teaching of the Church since 1054, through the Councils of Lyons and Florence, the Union of Brest, to the present day. Nothing has changed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states nothing new, but teaches what the Church has always taught.
J
jmj1984
Guest
What you pointed out, amounted to nothing I’m afraid, a statement by a theologian acting in his private capacity is of itself of dubious authority. You then proceed to make a list of further claims that are sadly unsubstantiated.
Let us analyse what the Orthodox Churches have themselves said about the western faith and their faith.
'**V. But however that may be, for the practical realization of the pious longing for the union of the Churches, a common principle and basis must be settled first of all; and there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils. Reverting, then, to that teaching which was common to the Churches of the East and of the West until the separation, we ought, with a sincere desire to know the truth, to search what the one holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ, being then ‘of the same body,’ throughout the East and West believed, and to hold this fact, entire, and unaltered. But whatsoever has in later times been added or taken away, every one has a sacred and indispensable duty, if he sincerely seeks for the glory of God more than for his own glory, that in a spirit of piety he should correct it, considering that by arrogantly continuing in the perversion of the truth he is liable to a heavy account before the impartial judgment-seat of Christ. In saying this we do not at all refer to the differences regarding the ritual of the sacred services and the hymns, or the sacred vestments, and the like, which matters, even though they still vary, as they did of old, do not in the least injure the substance and unity of the faith; but we refer to those essential differences which have reference to the divinely transmitted doctrines of the faith, and the divinely instituted canonical constitution of the administration of the Churches. ‘In cases where the thing disregarded is not the faith (says also the holy Photius), [5] and is no falling away from any general and catholic decree, different rites and customs being observed among different people, a man who knows how to judge rightly would decide that neither do those who observe them act wrongly, nor do those who have not received them break the law.’ [6]
VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for ‘there is one body and one Spirit,’ it is said, ‘even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." [7]**’ Patriarchal encyclical of 1895
J
jmj1984
Guest
And from the same encyclical
'**VIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils baptized by three immersions in the water, and the Pope Pelagius speaks of the triple immersion as a command of the Lord, and in the thirteenth century baptism by immersions still prevailed in the West; and the sacred fonts themselves, preserved in the more ancient churches in Italy, are eloquent witnesses on this point; but in later times sprinkling or effusion, being privily brought in, came to be accepted by the Papal Church, which still holds fast the innovation, thus also widening the gulf which she has opened; but we Orthodox, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, ‘stand fast, contending for the common profession, the paternal treasure of the sound faith.’ [10]
IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.
X. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts are consecrated after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Ghost by the blessing of the priest, as the ancient rituals of Rome and Gaul testify; nevertheless afterwards the Papal Church made an innovation in this also, by arbitrarily accepting the consecration of the precious gifts as taking place along with the utterance of the Lord’s words: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’: and ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood.’ [11]
XI. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord’s command, ‘Drink ye all of it,’ [12] imparted also of the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord’s command and the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient orthodox bishops of Rome.
XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those ‘which have fallen asleep in the Lord’; [13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.
XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows.**’
'**VIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils baptized by three immersions in the water, and the Pope Pelagius speaks of the triple immersion as a command of the Lord, and in the thirteenth century baptism by immersions still prevailed in the West; and the sacred fonts themselves, preserved in the more ancient churches in Italy, are eloquent witnesses on this point; but in later times sprinkling or effusion, being privily brought in, came to be accepted by the Papal Church, which still holds fast the innovation, thus also widening the gulf which she has opened; but we Orthodox, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, ‘stand fast, contending for the common profession, the paternal treasure of the sound faith.’ [10]
IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.
X. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts are consecrated after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Ghost by the blessing of the priest, as the ancient rituals of Rome and Gaul testify; nevertheless afterwards the Papal Church made an innovation in this also, by arbitrarily accepting the consecration of the precious gifts as taking place along with the utterance of the Lord’s words: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’: and ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood.’ [11]
XI. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord’s command, ‘Drink ye all of it,’ [12] imparted also of the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord’s command and the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient orthodox bishops of Rome.
XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those ‘which have fallen asleep in the Lord’; [13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.
XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows.**’
J
jmj1984
Guest
Another encyclical, Encyclical of the eastern patriarchs states '**4. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).
- The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).11… For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single tradition, but not from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be “the most venerable of all the Churches in the world.” Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: “The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used.” We say then that the Apostolic Church of Antioch had no right of exemption from being judged according to divine Scripture and synodical declarations, though truly venerated for the throne of St. Peter. But what do we say? The blessed Peter, even in his own person, was judged before all for the truth of the Gospel, and, as Scripture declares, was found blamable and not walking uprightly. What opinion is to be formed of those who glory and pride themselves solely in the possession of his Throne, so great in their eyes? Nay, the sublime Basil the great, the Ecumenical teacher of Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, to whom the Bishops of Rome are obliged to refer us (p. 8, 1.31), has clearly and explicitly above ( 7) shown us what estimation we ought to have of the judgments of the inaccessible Vatican:—“They neither,” he says, “know the truth, nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy.” So that these our holy Fathers whom his Holiness the Pope, worthily admiring as lights and teachers even of the West, accounts as belonging to us, and advises us (p. 8) to follow, teach us not to judge Orthodoxy from the holy Throne, but the Throne itself and him that is on the Throne by the sacred Scriptures, by Synodical decrees and limitations, and by the Faith which has been preached, even the Orthodoxy of continuous teaching. Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. For if the abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place, why not innovation and heresy upon a holy Throne? Hence is exhibited in a brief compass the weakness and feebleness of the efforts in behalf of the despotism of the Pope of Rome. For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors.
- His Holiness the Pope says (p. viii. 1.12.) that our LORD said to Peter (Luke xxii. 32), I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Our LORD so prayed because Satan had sought to overthrow the faith of all the disciples, but the LORD allowed him Peter only, chiefly because he had uttered words of boasting, and justified himself above the rest (Matt. xxvi. 33): Though all shall be offended, because of thee, yet will I never be offended. The permission to Satan was but temporary. He began to curse and to swear: I know not the man. So weak is human nature, left to itself. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It was but temporary, that, coming again to himself by his return in tears of repentance, he might the rather strengthen his brethren who had neither perjured themselves nor denied. Oh! the wise judgment of the LORD! How divine and mysterious was the last night of our Savior upon earth! That sacred Supper is believed to be consecrated to this day in every Church: This do in remembrance of me (Luke xxii. 19), and As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the LORD’s death till he come (1 Cor. xi. 26). **
J
jmj1984
Guest
It is by their own words therefore that the Patriarchs openly profess that they do not have the same faith as rome, despising Rome and calling its faith heretical.
As for the opinion of Rome on these matters, the sources I have stated made it clear.
Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos states 'Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind and Pope Boniface VIII states in Unam Sanctam 'Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
As for the opinion of Rome on these matters, the sources I have stated made it clear.
Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos states 'Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind and Pope Boniface VIII states in Unam Sanctam 'Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
L
louis91766
Guest
How do you explain that the Eastern Orthodox accept all of the teachings of the Quinisext Council of 692 at Constantinople, but the Catholic Church does not?
How do you explain that the E. O. do not accept the following teachings:
filioque, immaculate conception, papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction of the pope, purgatory, indulgences, etc. Add to that the problem that many of the EO do not even accept the baptism of the Catholic Church.
O
OrthodoxJosh
Guest
'Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
Our lord does in fact speak these words in the Holy Gospel of St. John, but HE is the one Shepherd. Is the Pope Christ’s physical presence on earth? Or isn’t that the Holy Eucharist? There is “one sheepfold”, and that is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christ is it’s head, not any man. Christ it was who died, defeated death, and rose from the dead for us. Not the Pope. CHRIST IS THE SHEPHERD OF HIS SHEEPFOLD!
D
DL82
Guest
’ Patriarchal encyclical of 1895
So, in a sense, it comes down to the question of de facto and de jure authority. Does the Orthodox Church accept the possibility that, for example, the Bishop of Rome may have posessed forms of authority in the first 9 centuries which, for various reasons, were never used? Perhaps because a decision could easily be made collectively at an Ecumenical Council, or because the Patriarchs and Bishops chosen in those early days never needed to be disciplined or deposed directly by a Pope, or because the Pope, following Christ’s example, chose to be patient rather than severe in correcting those under his authority?
By the same measure, does the Orthodox Church accept that certain things may de facto have been done in the early Church, such as Emperors deposing Popes and Patriarchs, or Councils excommunicating Bishops, which ought not to have been done? Likewise, there were things done in the Catholic West in the past, such as inquisitions, the interference by Kings in the appointment of Bishops, the imposition of Latin traditions on the Eastern Churches, which ought not to have been done, and things done in the Orthodox East in the past, such as Patriarchs rejecting Orthodox teaching (e.g. Cyril Lukaris of Constantinople), which ought not to have been done. None of these errors necessarily implies that the marks of the true Church have been taken away, as in all these cases, the Church has been granted the grace to return to the fullness of the truth.
Bl. John Henry Newman wrote about the development of doctrine - the Church may develop authentic understandings of its doctrines, which were present as seeds in the teaching of the early Church, but which were not fully articulated until some crisis required them to be clarified. The West had such a crisis in the Reformation, and that required the definition of a great many doctrines, in precise legal language following the Roman law tradition. The East may not have had the same imperatives, but it still has development of doctrine, such as the distinction between the Divine Essence and Divine Energies, which was only required to refute certain heresies.
Is the practice of accepting/denying communion to one anothers’ members also one such area, where the historical evidence is not of a binary divide between pre-1054 intercommunion and post-1054 no shared communion, but where the practices have varied over time, and the de facto practice (either denying or accepting) need not imply the de jure appropriateness of it?
J
jmj1984
Guest
And who is Christ’s representative on earth? The Pope. On this matter Unam Sanctam states ‘We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].’
J
jmj1984
Guest
I’m afraid the Church does not accept that the Popes did not exercise this authority in the early church indeed almost every papal encyclical on this matter insists that they did, therefore that is a concession the church cannot give them. On the contrary the popes have always claimed this authority and exercised, albeit in a less explicit manner, since the very foundation of the church and it was explicitly exercised by the 5th or 6th centuries at the very latest.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
And can you tell me what those “teachings” are? I bet you can’t because the Quinisext Council doesn’t teach anything which had not already been taught in an earlier council. Mainly, the council was just establishing canons for the East. If having a differing set of canons means that we do not share the same faith, then I guess the Eastern Catholics who are are also governed by their own (non-Latin) canons are in false union with Rome.
- Status