Places where Catholics and Orthodox share Communion

[sasg]

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.

What particular Orthodox say about our faith is not relevant to this discussion. We care only about what we say about the Orthodox faith.

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.'

Unam Sanctam a statement that failure to submit completely and utterly to the Pope on earth is a guarantee of damnation. And the part you quoted, incidentally, is not dogmatic. I freely concede that this has been taught in the past; but it is not dogma, and fortunately leveler heads prevailed. But really that is irrelevant–it says absolutely nothing about the faith of the Orthodox, only their hope of eternal salvation solely on account of their refusal to submit to the Pope, a non-dogmatic opinion that has been reconsidered. Indeed, looking at the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest, not to mention later developments with the Syro-Malabar Church and the Chaldeans, none of which demanded the Orthodox repudiate any part of their faith, it is clear that their faith is not the sumbling block to reunion. It is only their acceptance of the exercise of the Roman Primacy.

To show the Orthodox do not share our faith, you are going to have to show something other than the present refusal to submit to Roman authority. Nobody doubts that the Orthodox do not submit to Papal authority. In fact, you could say that is a defining feature (from the Catholic perspective) of the Orthodox church–they have the same faith as our Eastern Catholic brothers, but do not submit to the Holy Father. They are not heretics, they are schismatics. There is a HUGE difference.

 

[sasg]

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.

The Qunisext Council of 692 is a non-issue. The fact that the churches were still in union for another 350 years is proof positive of that.

I do not purport to explain any Orthodox beliefs or any Orthodox believer’s understanding of the Catholic faith.

 

[jmj1984]

What particular Orthodox say about our faith is not relevant to this discussion. We care only about what we say about the Orthodox faith.

Unam Sanctam a statement that failure to submit completely and utterly to the Pope on earth is a guarantee of damnation. And the part you quoted, incidentally, is not dogmatic. I freely concede that this has been taught in the past; but it is not dogma, and fortunately leveler heads prevailed. But really that is irrelevant–it says absolutely nothing about the faith of the Orthodox, only their hope of eternal salvation solely on account of their refusal to submit to the Pope, a non-dogmatic opinion that has been reconsidered. Indeed, looking at the Council of Florence and the Union of Brest, not to mention later developments with the Syro-Malabar Church and the Chaldeans, none of which demanded the Orthodox repudiate any part of their faith, it is clear that their faith is not the sumbling block to reunion. It is only their acceptance of the exercise of the Roman Primacy.

To show the Orthodox do not share our faith, you are going to have to show something other than the present refusal to submit to Roman authority. Nobody doubts that the Orthodox do not submit to Papal authority. In fact, you could say that is a defining feature (from the Catholic perspective) of the Orthodox church–they have the same faith as our Eastern Catholic brothers, but do not submit to the Holy Father. They are not heretics, they are schismatics. There is a HUGE difference.

This reply doesnt actually address any of the issues at hand or the teaching of the church. It merely expresses your opinion, an opinion unsubstantiated from the facts. The difference between the orthodox churches and the eastern catholic churches is more than just the former do not submit to the pope and the latter do, there are also dogmatic problems as has been extant by both the orthodox themselves and numerous popes over the ages. You have presented absolutely no evidence to show otherwise bar one statement from the catechism and the private opinion of a theologian. **The simple fact is that the Church is rather clear on this matter and has been since shortly after the schism right up until the time of Mortalium Animos, the Orthodox churches do not have the same faith as the Catholic church. **

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:

This is a one-time reminder about the forum’s charity expectation for the benefit of any who didn’t see my warning in this thread’s predecessors. **Anyone who posts uncharitably going forward will face immediate suspension or banning. **This expectation will be applied strictly for all conversations driven by disagreement or debate.

Care should be taken by all posters that their choice of words foster an environment in which it is possible to discuss, dialogue, question, dissent, and even debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism without causing offense or acrimony between posters. Please review our Charity guidelines first, and if you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
*
Examples of Uncharitable Statements:*
-That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Anyone who would believe that is immature at best and a heretic at worst.
-That statement is uncharitable and ineffective in enlightened debate. I’m reporting you.
-Any idiot with a computer can get on the internet and verify that I’m right.
-You’re misunderstanding the author and your interpretation is wrong.

Examples of Charitable Statements:
-The belief that ___ is inconsistent with Dr. X’s statement that the church believes ____.
-I was taught that the Church’s teachings on ___ are ____.
-The statement that ____ is true appears to be inconsistent with your earlier statement that ___ is true. Will you please explain how these are consistent beliefs?
-When you say ____, do you mean ___?
-I come to a different conclusion because ___.

*Examples of Uncharitable Actions: *
-Respond to an uncharitable statement with an uncharitable statement of one’s own.
-Go complain about a poster in another thread.
-Criticize the education, experiences, intelligence or sanctity of fellow posters.
-Post a criticism of the way a poster asks a question or shares information.

Examples of Charitable Actions:
-Place a Bad Post Report after someone posts a statement that isn’t charitable.
-Don’t respond to an uncharitable statement.
-Post a charitable on-topic statement that ignores any uncharitable statements.

 

[sasg]

This reply doesnt actually address any of the issues at hand or the teaching of the church. It merely expresses your opinion, an opinion unsubstantiated from the facts.

I disagree with this – I think I have presented much evidence to the contrary. Not only the Catechism (which should not be discounted!) but also the various reunion Councils, in addition to the lack of any condemnation of the Orthodox faith as ‘heretical’, and the consistent labeling of the Orthodox as schismatic–even St Pius X referred to them as schismatics. The Church makes a clear distinction between Protestant faiths–which it repeatedly labels as heretical–and the Orthodox faith, which it regards as schismatic. If the Orthodox did not share our faith, why would they be called schismatics instead of heretics?

The difference between the orthodox churches and the eastern catholic churches is more than just the former do not submit to the pope and the latter do, there are also dogmatic problems as has been extant by both the orthodox themselves and numerous popes over the ages.

There are some Eastern Catholics who agree with this and others who don’t. And I would surmise it varies by particular Church as well. I won’t speak on behalf of Easterners as I am not one myself, but I know there are many–bishops and theologians included–who support the “Zoghby Initiative” or the equivalent, which is essentially exactly what I said–Orthodox faith, in communion with Rome. Maybe their beliefs are heterodox, as they are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but nor have they been declared heretical, i.e. contrary to established dogma of the Catholic Church. They are free to believe them–which is to say, they are free to believe “everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches”–and still be in communion with Rome.

You have presented absolutely no evidence to show otherwise bar one statement from the catechism and the private opinion of a theologian. **The simple fact is that the Church is rather clear on this matter and has been since shortly after the schism right up until the time of Mortalium Animos, the Orthodox churches do not have the same faith as the Catholic church. **

But how can you explain the Council of Lyons? Florence? Union of Brest? Reunion with Syro-Malabar Church? The Armenians? The Bulgarians? The Copts? Etc.They were not asked to change their faith when they rejoined the Church. They were not told “You must end this belief; it is anathema” or “You must cease denying this belief; it is dogma” or similar. All of these Councils and reunions are themselves evidence that the Church did not condemn them as heretics, or claim they had a different faith. And not only do they share the same faith, we declare their sacraments are valid–which is further evidence that they share the same faith. How could heretics, who deny the faith given to us by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, ordain a proper Bishop, or confect a valid Eucharist?

I think the Church is clear that the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church with Rome as its head, but to my knowledge it has not condemned Orthodoxy as heretical. I am asking for evidence to the contrary–where has the Church declared Orthodox beliefs or practices anathema? When has the Orthodox Church been condemned as heretical? I can find places where individual Orthodox–even Patriarchs–have been condemned as heretics, or expressed heretical beliefs. But despite all my searching, I cannot find anything that condemns the Orthodox faith, their beliefs, their practices as being contrary to the Catholic faith. The texts you have presented do not do so; they only reiterate the importance of being in communion with Rome.

 

[jmj1984]

I disagree with this – I think I have presented much evidence to the contrary. Not only the Catechism (which should not be discounted!) but also the various reunion Councils, in addition to the lack of any condemnation of the Orthodox faith as ‘heretical’, and the consistent labeling of the Orthodox as schismatic–even St Pius X referred to them as schismatics. The Church makes a clear distinction between Protestant faiths–which it repeatedly labels as heretical–and the Orthodox faith, which it regards as schismatic. If the Orthodox did not share our faith, why would they be called schismatics instead of heretics?

There are some Eastern Catholics who agree with this and others who don’t. And I would surmise it varies by particular Church as well. I won’t speak on behalf of Easterners as I am not one myself, but I know there are many–bishops and theologians included–who support the “Zoghby Initiative” or the equivalent, which is essentially exactly what I said–Orthodox faith, in communion with Rome. Maybe their beliefs are heterodox, as they are not official teaching of the Catholic Church, but nor have they been declared heretical, i.e. contrary to established dogma of the Catholic Church. They are free to believe them–which is to say, they are free to believe “everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches”–and still be in communion with Rome.

But how can you explain the Council of Lyons? Florence? Union of Brest? Reunion with Syro-Malabar Church? The Armenians? The Bulgarians? The Copts? Etc.They were not asked to change their faith when they rejoined the Church. They were not told “You must end this belief; it is anathema” or “You must cease denying this belief; it is dogma” or similar. All of these Councils and reunions are themselves evidence that the Church did not condemn them as heretics, or claim they had a different faith. And not only do they share the same faith, we declare their sacraments are valid–which is further evidence that they share the same faith. How could heretics, who deny the faith given to us by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, ordain a proper Bishop, or confect a valid Eucharist?

I think the Church is clear that the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church with Rome as its head, but to my knowledge it has not condemned Orthodoxy as heretical. I am asking for evidence to the contrary–where has the Church declared Orthodox beliefs or practices anathema? When has the Orthodox Church been condemned as heretical? I can find places where individual Orthodox–even Patriarchs–have been condemned as heretics, or expressed heretical beliefs. But despite all my searching, I cannot find anything that condemns the Orthodox faith, their beliefs, their practices as being contrary to the Catholic faith. The texts you have presented do not do so; they only reiterate the importance of being in communion with Rome.

All those councils you have cited and the councils which dealt with re-union required those being reconciled to accept certain statements of faith which had not previously accepted by said churches. I accept that the 'true faith’ of the east is not heretical but I do not necessarily believe that the faith of the church since schism and before schism is the same.

 

[DL82]

To try to bring this back on topic, do those who believe there are differences of teachings, and those who think it is only a difference of authority, still see some merit to being able to gain some access, in situations where no other option exists, to receive sacramental grace from one another, in a spirit of accommodation/indult /oekonomia, rather than being stuck at home with no access to a Christian community at all?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

All those councils you have cited and the councils which dealt with re-union required those being reconciled to accept certain statements of faith which had not previously accepted by said churches. I accept that the 'true faith’ of the east is not heretical but I do not necessarily believe that the faith of the church since schism and before schism is the same.

What statements of faith were they required to accept? To my knowledge they only accepted that there is an orthodox way to understand the filioque. The majority of Eastern/Byzantine Catholics to this day do not recite the filioque in the Creed. The Union of Brest declared that they would not argue about purgatory, hardly an acceptance of it. Papal infallibility had not yet been defined. And the extent of Papal authority has never been clearly defined, hence the Pope’s of today can call for a reformation of the Papacy and Papal authority along the lines of the first Millennium.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

To try to bring this back on topic, do those who believe there are differences of teachings, and those who think it is only a difference of authority, still see some merit to being able to gain some access, in situations where no other option exists, to receive sacramental grace from one another, in a spirit of accommodation/indult /oekonomia, rather than being stuck at home with no access to a Christian community at all?

The original topic asked if there are places where Catholics and Orthodox already share communion. The simple answer is yes. This is done on a limited basis primarily out of necessity (e.g. Christians in the Middle East facing annihilation).

 

[louis91766]

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.

The teaching for example, that the Pope is the Head of the Church and has privileges superior to the Patriarch of Constantinople. the Catholic Church does not accpet canon 36 of the Quinisext Council because it says:“Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome…”
One Church (EO) accepts this teaching, the other (RC) does not.

 

[louis91766]

I accept that the 'true faith’ of the east is not heretical but I do not necessarily believe that the faith of the church since schism and before schism is the same.

However, the EO do not agree and say that the RCC is heretical. They point to the filioque, papal infallibility and indulgences and a refusal to follow the canons of the Quinisext Council of 692.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The teaching for example, that the Pope is the Head of the Church and has privileges superior to the Patriarch of Constantinople. the Catholic Church does not accpet canon 36 of the Quinisext Council because it says:“Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome…”
One Church (EO) accepts this teaching, the other (RC) does not.

Ok, but is that teaching a matter of faith, or a matter of authority? In general, I wouldn’t say that adhering to different canons (even ones pertaining to Church structure) denotes a difference in faith.

 

[louis91766]

Ok, but is that teaching a matter of faith, or a matter of authority? In general, I wouldn’t say that adhering to different canons (even ones pertaining to Church structure) denotes a difference in faith.

I believe that this may also be a difference between EO and RC, namely that EO may interpret it as in some sense a matter of faith. But I am not sure about that.

 

[jmj1984]

What statements of faith were they required to accept? To my knowledge they only accepted that there is an orthodox way to understand the filioque. The majority of Eastern/Byzantine Catholics to this day do not recite the filioque in the Creed. The Union of Brest declared that they would not argue about purgatory, hardly an acceptance of it. Papal infallibility had not yet been defined. And the extent of Papal authority has never been clearly defined, hence the Pope’s of today can call for a reformation of the Papacy and Papal authority along the lines of the first Millennium.

The Council of Florence, dealing with the Armenians states '**So, after many debates, conferences and disputations, after a thorough examination of the written authorities which were produced from fathers and doctors of the church, and after discussion of the questions at issue, at length, so that in future there could be no doubt about the truth of the faith of the Armenians and that they should think in every way like the apostolic see and that the union should be stable and lasting with no cause for hesitation whatsoever we judged it advantageous, with the approval of this sacred council of Florence and the agreement of the said envoys, to give in this decree a summary of the truth of the orthodox faith that the Roman church professes about the above.

In the first place, then, we give them the holy creed issued by the hundred and fifty bishops in the ecumenical council of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, which for the sake of declaring the truth and from urgent necessity was licitly and reasonably added to that creed, which runs as follows: I believe . . . I We decree that this holy creed should be sung or read within the mass at least on Sundays and greater feasts, as is the Latin custom, in all Armenian churches.

In the second place, we give them the definition of the fourth council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one person of Christ, which was later renewed in the fifth and sixth universal councils. It runs as follows: This wise and saving creed … Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and two principles of action of Christ promulgated in the above-mentioned sixth council, the tenor of which is This pious and orthodox creed, and the rest which follows in the above-mentioned definition of the council of Chalcedon until the end, after which it continues thus: And we proclaim

Fourth, apart from the three synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of Ephesus, the Armenians have accepted no other later universal synods nor the most blessed Leo, bishop of this holy see, by whose authority the council of Chalcedon met. For they claim that it was proposed to them that both the synod of Chalcedon and the said Leo had made the definition in accordance with the condemned heresy of Nestorius. So we instructed them and declared that such a suggestion was false and that the synod of Chalcedon and blessed Leo holily and rightly defined the truth of two natures in the one person of Christ, described above, against the impious tenets of Nestorius and Eutyches. We commanded that for the future they should hold and venerate the most blessed Leo, who was a veritable pillar of the faith and replete with all sanctity and doctrine, as a saint deservedly inscribed in the calendar of the saints; and that they should reverence and respect, like the rest of the faithful, not only the three above-mentioned synods but also all other universal synods legitimately celebrated by the authority of the Roman pontiff.

Fifthly, for the easier instruction of the Armenians of today and in the future we reduce the truth about the sacraments of the church to the following brief scheme. There are seven sacraments of the new Law, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony, which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them. The first five of these are directed to the spiritual perfection of each person in himself, the last two to the regulation and increase of the whole church.

For, by baptism we are reborn spiritually; by confirmation we grow in grace and are strengthened in faith. Once reborn and strengthened, we are nourished by the food of the divine eucharist. But if through sin we incur an illness of the soul, we are cured spiritually by penance. Spiritually also and bodily as suits the soul, by extreme unction. By orders the church is governed and spiritually multiplied; by matrimony it grows bodily.

. **’

 

[jmj1984]

**All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected.

Three of the sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation and orders, imprint indelibly on the soul a character, that is a kind of stamp which distinguishes it from the rest. Hence they are not repeated in the same person. The other four, however, do not imprint a character and can be repeated.

Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church. Since death came into the world through one person, unless we are born again of water and the spirit, we cannot, as Truth says, enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of this sacrament is true and natural water, either hot or cold. The form is: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. But we do not deny that true baptism is conferred by the following words: May this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit; or, This person is baptized by my hands in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. Since the holy Trinity is the principle cause from which baptism has its power and the minister is the instrumental cause who exteriorly bestows the sacrament, the sacrament is conferred if the action is performed by the minister with the invocation of the holy Trinity. The minister of this sacrament is a priest, who is empowered to baptize in virtue of his office. But in case of necessity not only a priest or a deacon, but even a lay man or a woman, even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize provided he or she uses the form of the church and intends to do what the church does. The effect of this sacrament is the remission of all original and actual guilt, also of all penalty that is owed for that guilt. Hence no satisfaction for past sins is to be imposed on the baptized, but those who die before they incur any guilt go straight to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God.

The second sacrament is confirmation. Its matter is chrism made from oil and balsam blessed by a bishop, the oil symbolizing the gleaming brightness of conscience and balsam symbolizing the odour of a good reputation. The form is: I sign you with the sign of the cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The ordinary minister is a bishop. Whereas a simple priest can use other unctions, only a bishop ought to confer this one, because it is said only of the apostles, whose place is held by bishops, that they gave the holy Spirit by the imposition of hands, as this text from the Acts of the Apostles shows: Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the holy Spirit; for it had not yet come down upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the holy Spirit’. In place of this imposition of hands confirmation is given in the church. We read that sometimes for a reasonable and really urgent cause, by dispensation of the apostolic see, a simple priest has conferred this sacrament of confirmation with chrism prepared by a bishop. The effect of this sacrament is that a Christian should boldly confess the name of Christ, since the holy Spirit is given in this sacrament for strengthening just as he was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost. Therefore the candidate is enjoined on the forehead, which is the seat of shame, not to shrink from confessing the name of Christ and especially his cross, which is a stumbling block for Jews and a folly for gentiles, according to the Apostle, and for this reason he is signed with the sign of the cross. The third is the sacrament of the eucharist. Its matter is wheat bread and wine from the vine, to which a very little water is added before the consecration. Water is added thus because it is believed, in accordance with the testimony of holy fathers and doctors of the church manifested long ago in disputation, that the Lord himself instituted this sacrament in wine mixed with water, and because it befits the representation of the Lord’s passion. For the blessed pope Alexander, fifth after blessed Peter, says: "In the oblations of the sacraments which are offered to the Lord within the solemnities of masses, only bread and wine mixed with water are to be offered in sacrifice. There should not be offered in the chalice of the Lord either wine only or water only but both mixed together, because both blood and water are said to have flowed from Christ’s side’; also because it is fitting to signify the effect of this sacrament, which is the union of the christian people with Christ. For, water signifies the people according to those words of the Apocalypse: many waters, many peoples. And Pope Julius, second after blessed Silvester, said: The chalice of the Lord, by a precept of the canons, should be offered mixed of wine and water, because we see that the people is understood in the water and the blood of Christ is manifested in the wine; hence when wine and water are mingled in the chalice, the people are made one with Christ and the mass of the faithful are linked and joined together with him in whom they believe. **

 

[jmj1984]

** Since, therefore, both the holy Roman church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the other churches of Latins and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance.We decree, therefore, that the Armenians should conform themselves with the whole christian world and that their priests shall mix a little water with the wine in the oblation of the chalice, as has been said. The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ. The effect of this sacrament, which is produced in the soul of one who receives it worthily, is the union of him or her with Christ. Since by grace a person is incorporated in Christ and is united with his members, the consequence is that grace is increased by this sacrament in those who receive it worthily, and that every effect that material food and drink produce for corporal life – sustaining, increasing, repairing and delighting – this sacrament works for spiritual life. For in it, as Pope Urban said, we recall the gracious memory of our Saviour, we are withdrawn from evil, we are strengthened in good and we receive an increase of virtues and graces.

The fourth sacrament is penance. Its matter is the acts of the penitent, which are threefold. The first is contrition of heart, which includes sorrow for sin committed, with the resolve not to sin again. The second is oral confession, which implies integral confession to the priest of all sins that are remembered. The third is satisfaction for sins in accordance with the judgment of the priest which is ordinarily done by prayer, fasting and almsgiving. The form of this sacrament are the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: I absolve you. The minister of this sacrament is a priest with authority to absolve, which is either ordinary or by commission of a superior.

The fifth sacrament is extreme unction. Its matter is olive oil blessed by a priest. This sacrament should not be given to the sick unless death is expected. The person is to be anointed on the following places: on the eyes for sight, on the ears for hearing, on the nostrils for smell, on the mouth for taste or speech, on the hands for touch, on the feet for walking, on the loins for the pleasure that abides there. The form of this sacrament is: Through this anointing and his most pious mercy may the Lord pardon you whatever you have done wrong by sight, and similarly for the other members. The minister of the sacrament is a priest. Its effect is to cure the mind and, in so far as it helps the soul, also the body. Blessed James the apostle said of this sacrament: Any one of you who is sick should send for the elders of the church, and they shall pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person and the Lord will raise him up again: and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him.

The sixth is the sacrament of orders. Its matter is the object by whose handing over the order is conferred. So the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread; the diaconate by the giving of the book of the gospels; the subdiaconate by the handing over of an empty chalice with an empty paten on it; and similarly for the other orders by allotting things connected with their ministry. The form for a priest is: Receive the power of offering sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Spirit. The forms for the other orders are contained in full in the Roman pontifical. The ordinary minister of this sacrament is a bishop. The effect is an increase of grace to make the person a suitable minister of Christ.

The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.

**

 

[jmj1984]

**Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred ecumenical council of Florence and which is as follows: Let the heavens be glad . . . ’

Eighthly, there was discussion with the Armenians about, among other things, the days on which the following feasts should be kept: the annunciation of the blessed virgin Mary, the birth of blessed John the Baptist and, in consequence, the birth and the circumcision of our lord Jesus Christ and his presentation in the temple (or the purification of the blessed virgin Mary). The truth was made quite clear by the testimonies of fathers and by the custom of the Roman church and all other churches among Latins and Greeks. Therefore, lest the rites of Christians be at variance in such great celebrations, whence a threat to charity could arise, we decree that, as something consonant with truth and reason, the Armenians too should solemnly celebrate, according to the observance of the rest of the world, the following feasts on the following days: the annunciation of the blessed virgin Mary on 25 March, the birth of blessed John the Baptist on 24 June, the birth of our Saviour on 25 December, his circumcision on 1 January, the epiphany on 6 January, and the presentation of our Lord in the temple (or the purification of the mother of God) on 2 February.
**

 

[jmj1984]

**
After all these matters had been explained, the aforesaid Armenians, in their own name and in the name of their patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace this salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. They also accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed, they hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. They promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name as above, they will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of the apostolic see.

When the aforesaid decree had been solemnly read out in our and the holy synod’s presence, straightaway our beloved son Narses, an Armenian, in the name of the said envoys, publicly recited the following in Armenian and thereupon our beloved son Basil of the order of friars Minor, the interpreter between us and the Armenians, publicly read it out in Latin as follows.

Most blessed father and most holy synod. Recently the whole of this holy decree, which has now been read out in Latin in your presence, was clearly explained and interpreted to us word by word in our language. It was and is completely acceptable to us. To disclose our understanding more fully, however, we repeat its contents in summary.

The following is contained in it. First, you give to our people of the Armenians the holy creed of Constantinople, with the added phrase and the Son, to be sung or read within the mass in our churches at least on Sundays and greater feasts. Secondly, the definition of the fourth universal council of Chalcedon about two natures in the one person of Christ. Thirdly, the definition about the two wills and principles of action of Christ which was promulgated in the sixth universal council.

Fourthly, you declare that the synod of Chalcedon and most blessed pope Leo rightly defined the truth about two natures in the one person of Christ against the impious doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches. You order that we should venerate most blessed Leo as holy and a pillar of the faith and that we should reverently accept not only the synods of Nicaea, Constantinople and the first of Ephesus, but also all other synods legitimately celebrated . . authority of the Roman pontiff.

Fifthly, a short scheme of the seven sacraments of the church, namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders and matrimony indicating the matter, the form and the minister of each; and that while the chalice is being offered in the sacrifice of the altar a little water should be mixed with the wine.

Sixthly, a compendious rule of the faith of most blessed Athanasius, which begins: Whoever wills to be saved etc.

Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred council, recording how the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, and that the phrase and the Son was licitly and reasonably added to the creed of Constantinople. Also that the body of the Lord is effected in leavened or unleavened wheat bread; and what is to be believed about the pains of purgatory and hell, about the life of the blessed and about suffrages offered for the dead. In addition, about the plenitude of power of the apostolic see given by Christ to blessed Peter and his successors, . . . . . about the order of the patriarchal sees.

Eighthly, you decree that the following feasts should be kept on the following days, in accordance with the custom of the universal church: the annunciation of the blessed virgin Mary on 25 March, the birth of blessed John the Baptist on 24 June, the birth of our Saviour on 25 December, his circumcision on I January, the epiphany on 6 January, and the presentation of the Lord in the temple (or the purification of blessed Mary) on 2 February.

Therefore we envoys, in our own name and in the name of our reverend patriarch and of all Armenians, with all devotion and obedience accept, admit and embrace, just as your holiness affirms in the decree, this most salutary synodal decree with all its chapters, declarations, definitions, traditions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained in it, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. We accept with reverence all those doctors and holy fathers approved by the Roman church. Indeed we hold as reprobated and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church reprobates and condemns. We promise that as true sons of obedience, in the name of the above, we will faithfully obey the ordinances and commands of this apostolic see**’

As you can see a rather large part of the Council of Florence required the Armenians to assent to the above declaration of faith and teachings.

I am confused regarding your statements about Papal infallibility and the limits of Papal power both were clearly defined at the First Vatican Council, notwithstanding the private opinions of two later popes, the clear teaching of all previous popes and the council itself make it clear that there is no uncertainty regarding the Popes infallibility and the limits of his power.

 

[jmj1984]

However, the EO do not agree and say that the RCC is heretical. They point to the filioque, papal infallibility and indulgences and a refusal to follow the canons of the Quinisext Council of 692.

That may well be so but the fact remains the faith of the eastern churches was entirely orthodox until several hundred years after the schism, although there were heterodox opinions among several patriarchs and theologians, however since then I believe amongst many doctrines have been changed and misinterpreted in order to support the continuing act of schism. As St Jerome says ‘Between heresy and schism there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church’ Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10

 

[Hesychios]

The Council of Florence, dealing with the Armenians states …

Do you have anything pertaining to the Maronites of Cyprus from that time?

Just curious.