According to St. Cyprian, only Rome is the sine qua non of the Christian Church:Maybe that will make it easier for Catolics to return to Orthodoxy and Orthodox to welcome Catolic believers.
So, while Catholics accurately wish to welcome the Orthodox into the embrace of Mother Church, when the Orthodox speak this way, it is being provocative.“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
Of course this mis interpretation of the fourth chapter of St. Kyprian’s About Unity of Church stems from mis understanding and lack of reading perhaps entire book where we also find him writing: “By time of His resurrection He (Christ) gave equal power to all apostles (Ioan 20:21-23); nevertheless in order to show unity of church, it was pleasing to Him to begin with one (Peter) to show this unity. Of course, the other apostles were like Peter and had equal with him value and power, but in the beginning he was chosen as one to signify the single church.”According to St. Cyprian, only Rome is the sine qua non of the Christian Church
After a little investigation, I learned that the text in Cyprian is disputed. We have each quoted the same portion in two disputed versions.Of course this mis interpretation of the fourth chapter of St. Kyprian’s About Unity of Church stems from mis understanding and lack of reading perhaps entire book where we also find him writing: “By time of His resurrection He (Christ) gave equal power to all apostles (Ioan 20:21-23); nevertheless in order to show unity of church, it was pleasing to Him to begin with one (Peter) to show this unity. Of course, the other apostles were like Peter and had equal with him value and power, but in the beginning he was chosen as one to signify the single church.”
Further this overly narrow interpretation by Vatican Council I of St. Kyprian was never believed by Christians even Catolics previously. Such a view ignores the famous argument of St. Kyprian with Bishop of Rome Stefan and Kyprians reproach of him which would have been impossible if Kyprian really believed that Bishop of Rome was the “sine qua non” of the Church. Kyprian saw himself as “sine qua non” of Cafolic Church in Karfogen - and able to rebuke Bishop of rome for error.
Regarding the much talked of fragmentation of Orthodoxy. This is the nature of the church as seen by St. Kyprian - where is the Church there is the Bishop, every bishop. The Bishop of Kharkiv is the head of my Church. This is difficult to understand for Catolics who are only accustomed to centralized monarchy where individual bishops are little but messengers of Bishop of Rome (by Vatican I interpretation - he is only true Bishop). This is the kind of “fragmentation” to which Catolics will return with church reunification. This was how church existed for 1,054 years.
Code:We do put to confusion all those [heretics] by indicating that tradition [of doctrine] derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...for it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful from everywhere...
C’est merveilleux, mon ami, que les eglises chretienne de Montreal ont des bonnes relations. C’est aussi presque la meme en France ou les orthodoxes and les catoliques travaillent ensemble pour la defense de la chretienete en Europe. Mais ce n’est pas deja le temps de celebration - c’est pour nous dans les pays de l’ancienne URSS - le temps de evangelization. La resurection de l’eglise ici a seulement commencee. Priez pour nous!!!Volodymyr you are sounding much like 1Cor 1:11-14
For the moment we must not bicker about articles of faith, and focus only on what we have in common. Here in Montreal, the orthodox right and the roman rite get along swimmingly and there is much co-operation. Orthodox Catholics are welcome to mass at our parish.
It is the season of peace and the time of celebration!
I don’t know of any. Probably because it is you need us not us that need you.When has an Eastern hierarch “urged the faithful to long for unity?”
This is not entirely true, although idea is correct. Orthodox pray for constantly Unity of Christ’s Churches. What most Orthodox bishops are calling for with increased urgency is more basic and first step - “cooperation” between Orthodox and Catholic church. Bishop Ilarion Vienna and Austria and Mitropolit Kirill Smolenskij Kaliningradskij are most vocal about this. Bishop Ilarion has written that cooperation on moral defense of society must begin now - because 40 years from now will be too late.I don’t know of any Eastern hierarch’s calling for longing for union. Probably because it is Catholics need us not Orthodox that need you.
Praise God that the Pope is following the will of the Father to strive for unity. Much unlike the pride displayed in this post.I don’t know of any. Probably because it is you need us not us that need you.
HiI have a greater sense of joy when sharing with people different to myself.
You have made my point beautifully. Never mind the will of Christ expressed in John 17. There is something very very wrong here.I don’t know of any. Probably because it is you need us not us that need you.
It is for me a confirmation of my Catholic faith that the pope is the servant of unity. Would that all would heed the words of Christ in John 17 so whole heartedly. But, then, the pope’s unique mission and purpose is the supreme bridgebuilder, the agent of communion.WELL when the Pope says faithful I’m sure he means true to the universal Church. I t will be intersting to see his report this next January. Considering the OP was last January.
The source of unity must be the eucharist, as it alone is “the source and sumit of Christian life.”It is for me a confirmation of my Catholic faith that the pope is the servant of unity. Would that all would heed the words of Christ in John 17 so whole heartedly. But, then, the pope’s unique mission and purpose is the supreme bridgebuilder, the agent of communion.
If the pope were as autocratic as you say, perhaps the Melkites would not be in communion with Rome. Throwing around terms like autocratic paints Rome as petty and self serving. I assure you that the pope suffers daily in his person from the constant pettiness and anti-Catholicism of others.The source of unity must be the eucharist, as it alone is “the source and sumit of Christian life.”
If only the pope saw himself as the supreme bridgebuilder and not “Vicar of Christ”. Even this term would not be offensive to the Orthodox if it was understood as Catholics understood “persona Christi.” It is the almost autocratic stance that he takes that is offensive. It is that idea that the pope alone speaks for God that is seen as novel and heretical.
If that is true, then how can Catholics expect unity with Orthodox, when the teachings are different and Catholics won’t bend any of their teachings to the Orthodox rule.Unity cannot be made visible by plurality such as a bunch of disagreeing bishops.
Ah, but the Catholics have bent on purgatory. What have the Orthodox done? nothing.If that is true, then how can Catholics expect unity with Orthodox, when the teachings are different and Catholics won’t bend any of their teachings to the Orthodox rule.
I haven’t been keeping up with the latest news on this. Would you be willing to expand this and explain how the Catholic view on Purgatory has been changed to coincide with what the Orthodox teach about it.Ah, but the Catholics have bent on purgatory.
Spe Salvi which came out on of all days, Nov. 30, the feast of St. Andrew of this year proposes the Eastern view that the judgment of Christ itself is purgative. See para. 47. Nothing is defined, but the Eastern view is proposed. This is huge. And the Orthodox have been ignoring this entirely, even on this forum. Very, very sad. It is a truth that there is nothing that the pope can do for unity if unity is not desired by the Orthodox. One is left to wonder if this is not the case.I haven’t been keeping up with the latest news on this. Would you be willing to expand this and explain how the Catholic view on Purgatory has been changed to coincide with what the Orthodox teach about it.
In any case, there are about twenty or so other areas, where the Catholics do not want to bend or adjust their teachings to coincide with what the Orthodox teach.