[POLL] Would you rather (1) Orthodox Constantinople (only) OR (2) ALL Lutheran denominations re-unite with the Catholic Church?

[AlNg]

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ .

Here is another quote of St. Cyprian directed towards Pope Stephen:

“No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein’ (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
and
“Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.” (St Cyprian of Carthage De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5).
and from Father Meyendorff:
“Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. "(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

 

[catholic1seeks]

“Cyprian’s view of Peter’s ‘chair’ was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. "(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

Yes, and yet he believed in a single chair in Peter – in Rome – for the sake of the entire (universal) church’s unity. An individual bishop represents the source of unity in the particular church, but there is a reason for the “single chair,” as Cyprian says. And that single chair’s function, at the “principal church” in Rome, is for the sake of “sacerdotal unity.”

 

[UltimateChikorita]

St. Cyprian of Carthage

In practice Cyprian contradicted his own teaching about the independence of each bishop. When Marcion, bishop of Arles, left the Church’s communion and joined the schismatic Novatians, the bishops of the province wrote to the pope asking him to take action. (If they were independent of Rome, why did they not take action themselves?) The action required was for the pope to excommunicate Marcion and appoint a replacement. For unknown reasons, the pope delayed his response. Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, wrote to Cyprian about the matter, seeking his advice.
Cyprian thereupon wrote to the pope, urging him to take action. His letter implies that the pope was the one—the only one—to set matters straight in Arles. He urged the pope to write “letters of plenary authority [literally ‘most full letters’] by means of which, Marcion being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place.”
Regardless of what Cyprian may have written about the independence of each bishop, here he clearly recognized the authority of the pope to remove and install bishops (for good cause) anywhere in the world.

 

[AlNg]

Filioque is literally a meme issue. Proceeds from the Father and the Son means the same as Father through the Son in Latin. This is why it isn’t heretical in Latin but is in Greek. The Church Fathers even back this up. The meaning of the creed isn’t changed.

Since it is no change, why did the Vatican excommunicate the Orthodox Church giving as one reason for the excommunication that the Orthodox would not include the filioque in their creed?

 

[UltimateChikorita]

why did the Vatican excommunicate the Orthodox Church giving as one reason for the excommunication that the Orthodox would not include the filioque in their creed?

gib citation pls

The Latin Church still is the only part of the Catholic Church that uses filioque. It wasn’t forced on any other part of the church. For example, Maronites don’t use it.
The schism happened because the Patriarch of Constantinople was being edgy. He was power hungry. However, Constantinople’s patriarchs were usually puppets for the emperor. It had no root in apostolic tradition (before it was a patriarchate it was a suffragan of Heraclea). It was merely the emperor’s personal bishopric. Unlike the original 3 patriarchates, its authority did not derive from St. Peter. But enough about that.
The Vatican never forced filioque in Greek. In fact, due to language differences, the filioque in Greek would be heretical. It would denote that the source of the Spirit was also the Son, unlike in Latin where it means the source is the Father and the Spirit goes through the Son.

 

[AlNg]

The Vatican never forced filioque in Greek.

In the papal bull of excommunication 1054, there were many issues of concern raised. But among the various issues raised, the omission of the filioque from the creed was one of the reasons given to excommunicate Michael Cerularius and all of his followers. Specifically mentioned was:
“Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;”
another reason for the excommunication was a married clergy:
“Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;”
And as mentioned there were several other points of dispute brought up in the papal bull. In sum, the papal bull announced:
“For these errors and many others committed by them, Michael himself, although admonished by the letters of our lord Pope Leo, contemptuously refused to repent.”
Supposing that the Eastern Orthodox Church decided to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church. What is to prevent the Roman Catholic Church from anathematizing all the Orthodox for the error of not including the filioque in their creed or for the error of allowing married priests? As the papal bull of 1054 declared for Michael Cerularius and all of his followers: “Let them be anathema Maranatha with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, Nazarenes, and all the heretics — nay, with the devil himself and his angels, unless they should repent. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.”
If the Vatican never forced the filioque in Greek, why was it mentioned in the papal bull of excommunication 1054 ?

 

[catholic1seeks]

So it’s about 70% to 30%. If the difference had been much greater, I would think that my question was too obvious. But it seems there is a legitimate range of opinion.

Here are some reasons why some people would rather see one over the other — whether or not the reasons are valid is a different subject:

(1) Orthodox Constantinople
*Orthodox have more in common with Catholics
*It would effectively suggest that the schism is over
*It would end the scandal of division, as some are confused whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is more legitimate
*It’s about time. Been 1,000 years. We have too much in common not to be united.

*Virtually impossible for all Lutheran groups to reunite
*Lutheran re-communion won’t solve Protestantism
*Lutherans today are too different and diverse

(2) ALL Lutheran bodies
*“Sort out your own house first” — Let’s get the West settled first
*Could be a wake-up call to other Protestant groups
*Signifies that the original Reformation is now over
*Familiarity with Lutherans in America (not many Orthodox here)
*Lutherans, as individual Christians, would now have access to more means of grace – apostolic succession and Eucharist

*Orthodoxy is too diverse for Constantinople to matter
*Russia would just become in charge
*There would be rebellion from some Orthodox — Constantinople Orthodox would still exist, even if the patriarch and a great majority came with him.

Am I missing anything?

 

[UltimateChikorita]

Like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;”

The Spirit has always been Father through Son. The patriarch denied the Spirit proceeds through the Son with the source being the Father.

Gregory the Wonderworker
“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

“Like Nicolaitists, they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar;”

The quote is referring to priests marrying and not married men becoming priests. Otherwise the pope would have excommunicated the Maronites, who let married men become priests

we derailed the thread yay

 

[RyanBlack]

The quote is referring to priests marrying and not married men becoming priests. Otherwise the pope would have excommunicated the Maronites, who let married men become priests

I am extremely skeptical about this claim. The Maronites were off the grid, so to speak, for centuries, and it has always been agreed that once ordained, marriage is forbidden.

 

[UltimateChikorita]

The Maronites were off the grid, so to speak, for centuries

True I forgot about this, but the only one excommunicated was Constantinople’s Patriarch. Rome was fine with priests who were ordained after marriage. Otherwise they would have excommunicated the entire Eastern Church long ago.

 

[RyanBlack]

True I forgot about this, but the only one excommunicated was Constantinople’s Patriarch. Rome was fine with priests who were ordained after marriage. Otherwise they would have excommunicated the entire Eastern Church long ago.

I still think your interpretation isn’t correct. In 1054, much of the East wasn’t in communion with Rome, and hadn’t been since the time of Chalcedon.

 

[UltimateChikorita]

In 1054, much of the East wasn’t in communion with Rome, and hadn’t been since the time of Chalcedon.

Chalcedonians in the East were in communion with Rome. The only Chalcedonian at the schism excommunicated, if I’m right, was Michael Ceraulius.

 

[RyanBlack]

Chalcedonians in the East were in communion with Rome. The only Chalcedonian at the schism excommunicated, if I’m right, was Michael Ceraulius.

I’m aware of that. However, in 1054, much of the East wasn’t Chalcedonian. Constantinople was. Alexandria was not. Antioch had essentially been split, with some Syrian Christians being Chalcedonian, while others were not.

 

[UltimateChikorita]

Despite the East being non-Chalcedonian, there still were some that were in communion with Rome.

On a side note, let’s try to find some common ground to make this discussion more fruitful. We can communicate better that way.

 

[AlNg]

The quote is referring to priests marrying and not married men becoming priests.

I am sorry to tell you this, but if the wife of a Russian Orthodox priest dies and he has several children, allowance may be made for him to go to the countryside and remarry.
Further, the Orthodox have made an exception for a Roman Catholic priest in India to get married and remain a priest.
So, if you think that the Orthodox should be anathematized because of this allowance, then you can forget about any reunion between Catholics and Orthodox.
With regard for the filioque, its omission, or the cutting off of the Holy Spirit from the Son, was listed as one of the reasons for the anathemas.
Further, the anathemas were quite strong bringing in the devil.

 

[AlNg]

The only Chalcedonian at the schism excommunicated, if I’m right, was Michael Ceraulius.

No. It excommunicated Michael Cerularius, Leo called bishop of Achrida; Constantine, chaplain of Michael Cerularius, and all their followers.

let’s try to find some common ground

It is a little late for that. But if you insist. Why not agree to have a common creed with the filioque omitted as it is said in the Eastern Catholic Churches today. Even Popes have said the creed without the filioque. Why not find common ground and drop the filioque from the creed said at Mass?

*It’s about time. Been 1,000 years. We have too much in common not to be united.

On the contrary, the Churches have grown apart considerably in 1000 years. For example, the Roman Catholic Church allows rap music type of chanting, whereas the Orthodox church keeps to the more traditional forms of liturgy and chanting. Further the fasting in the Orthodox churches is much more emphasized than in the Catholic Churches. For example, I don’t think that Catholics keep the Fast of the Holy Apostles. Orthodox are asked to fast every Wednesday and Friday and the Communion fast is that and no food or drink from midnight.
http://www.abbamoses.com/fasting.html

 

[catholic1seeks]

Let’s get to 100 votes!!

 

[catholic1seeks]

On the contrary, the Churches have grown apart considerably in 1000 years. For example, the Roman Catholic Church allows rap music type of chanting, whereas the Orthodox church keeps to the more traditional forms of liturgy and chanting. Further the fasting in the Orthodox churches is much more emphasized than in the Catholic Churches. For example, I don’t think that Catholics keep the Fast of the Holy Apostles, Orthodox are asked to fast every Wednesday and Friday and the Communion fast is that and no food or drink from midnight.

So you think fasting and musical disciplines are essential to the Faith? Strange…

The Orthodox claim adherence to the apostolic faith, and they do, as Catholics do. But when this means a strict emphasis on the 4th-11th centuries — when the Byzantine style and spirituality flourished — I must disagree.

Eastern Orthodoxy feels different and ancient (and refreshingly so) because it mostly sticks to this time period. But it is wrong to equate this ancient time period with the essential faith and practice of the Apostles, which preceded the Byzantine mode by a few centuries.

The Catholic Church has continued to develop in relation to different cultures and ages, especially thanks to the teaching office (magisterium) and shepherding role centered in Rome.

Again, that is not to say the Orthodox approach is wrong. But people often get the wrong impression that the Orthodox distinctiveness means faithfulness to Apostolic Tradition, when really it just means adherence to a certain liturgical, artistic, and spiritual patrimony that really hasn’t developed since late antiquity.

For example, the Eastern style of icons is indeed ancient. But it would be wrong to think a certain artistic tradition equates to the faith of the Apostles. It is doubtful the first generation of Christians even venerated icons or used them in worship.

Or again, the liturgy of John Chrysostom is beautiful, but there was a time when even that liturgy wasn’t celebrated by Christians.

It is my view that we have grown closer in several respects, one of which is cease being petty about trivial things that shouldn’t divide us — like whether we use leavened or unleavened bread.

 

[AlNg]

So you think fasting and musical disciplines are essential to the Faith?

I didn’t say that exactly. But, it is a part of the reverence due to God. Personally, I don’t see Catholic rap music as reverential and spiritually uplifting as Orthodox chanting and liturgy. If there were intercommunion, that would mean that Orthodox would have to accept Catholic rap music and the more modernistic liturgical celebrations of the Catholic Church as legitimate. There are even Catholics who refuse to accept these type of novel liturgical expressions. Some of them have been excommunicated for consecrating more conservative or more traditional bishops without the approval of the Vatican. there are several other issues which work to prevent any reunion of the two churces. So, getting back to the topic of whether Catholics would want to have Orthodox or Lutherans reunite with the Church, you have to realize that this is a two way street. The way i see it, the Lutherans would not have all that many difficult objections to re-uniting with the Catholic Church. OTOH, the objections that the Orthodox have to any reunion are, I believe, insurmountable at this time and for a longtime into the foreseeable future.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Personally, I don’t see Catholic rap music as reverential and spiritually uplifting as Orthodox chanting and liturgy.

Count me in. But I have absolutely zero experience which “Catholic rap music.” It’s not good to make a rare occurrence the lens by which we examine things.

OTOH, the objections that the Orthodox have to any reunion are, I believe, insurmountable at this time and for a longtime into the foreseeable future.

I don’t agree, at least not on the objective level. Our doctrines are much more similar than that with the Lutherans.