Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches?

[Harpazo]

You will not get confirmation. Harpazo is just wrong. Maybe after some years practicing Orthodoxy he will know better.

Your uncharitable comments do not advance this discussion whatsoever. Do you have a bone to pick with the Orthodox and I just seemed like an easy target?

I didn’t know that you were an Orthodox Bishop and could speak on behalf of us. My apologies, Your Grace! :bowdown2:

I am sorry, but you dvdjs, are wrong. The Orthodox do not accept abortion and contraception. The only way contraception would be permitted, would be for the same reasons that a Catholic priest would permit it. You know this.

As for the official statement, you too, know that the Orthodox do not have a Pope (we have done just fine without one). However, ask any Orthodox Bishop, and you will get the Orthodox position. It’s what they do.

If in the future, you feel like making fantastical claims like this, dvdjs, please spare us.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Louie1983]

Your uncharitable comments do not advance this discussion whatsoever. Do you have a bone to pick with the Orthodox and I just seemed like an easy target?

I didn’t know that you were an Orthodox Bishop and could speak on behalf of us. My apologies, Your Grace! :bowdown2:

I am sorry, but you dvdjs, are wrong. The Orthodox do not accept abortion and contraception. The only way contraception would be permitted, would be for the same reasons that a Catholic priest would permit it. You know this.

In Christ,
Andrew

In what cases would a catholic priest permit it?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I found this article on contraception:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

I don’t know whether their description of the EO position is accurate or not. What’s written about the Catholic position, seems accurate to me.

 

[Peter_J]

Your uncharitable comments do not advance this discussion whatsoever. Do you have a bone to pick with the Orthodox and I just seemed like an easy target?

I didn’t know that you were an Orthodox Bishop and could speak on behalf of us. My apologies, Your Grace! :bowdown2:

I am sorry, but you dvdjs, are wrong. The Orthodox do not accept abortion and contraception. The only way contraception would be permitted, would be for the same reasons that a Catholic priest would permit it. You know this.

As for the official statement, you too, know that the Orthodox do not have a Pope (we have done just fine without one). However, ask any Orthodox Bishop, and you will get the Orthodox position. It’s what they do.

If in the future, you feel like making fantastical claims like this, dvdjs, please spare us.

In Christ,
Andrew

I have to agree with you that the tone of dvdjs’ post was needlessly provocative; but at the same I would like to suggest that the topic of contraception (artificial birth control) is too big to be properly discussed in this thread.

 

[Louie1983]

I have to agree with you that the tone of dvdjs’ post was needlessly provocative; but at the same I would like to suggest that the topic of contraception (artificial birth control) is too big to be properly discussed in this thread.

So back to the quesion i asked you before, What’s your opinion on the re-unification of the orthodox and catholic church?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The original topic was Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches and it seems we’ve gotten off topic into “you’re not Catholic enough” or “you’re not a real****Catholic like me!” topics. Let’s refocus! We should all take what each poster puts up on the top right as being legit. If I put “Catholic” on my profile, just take my word for it and assume I have some integrity and don’t challenge that. If I put “Lutheran” just accept it. Nobody should call someone out and expect them to prove their Catholicity. I don’t like that. Unless the person says something blasphemous and outrageous or way off in left-field about the RCC, let’s cool off. I think PeterJ’s profile up there says “Christian” and then under “location” it says “Roman Catholic.” I think “Location” is meant to be understood as a physical locale in which to live, not a denominational location. So, maybe some think he’s a protestant? He’s not, trust me.

With regard to this reunification situation, I’m pessimistic about it. Reconciliation usually entails some eating crow and willingness to budge on both sides. Rome will demand that the Orthodox add the filioque, accept infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction as well as purgatory and the rest. The Orthodox will demand the reverse: a dropping of the filioque, the papacy must admit itself the primate of the west or primus inter pares but not universal jurisdiction and infallible supremacy over the Christian world, and so forth. I don’t think either will budge on those issues. I know I sound like a cranky cynic but I can’t help it.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Ref 40 in the wikipedia article had a link to OCA’s website:

oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19

Married couples may express their love in sexual union without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a foetus already conceived.

Married couples may use medical means to enhance conception of their common children, but the use of semen or ova other than that of the married couple who both take responsibility for their offspring is forbidden.

This is different from the Catholic position, because apparently OCA permits the use of physical barrier and surgical methods that prevent fertilization. With the use of condoms, purely mechanical intrauterine devices, vasectomy, and tubal ligation, the goal is to prevent conception and these methods apparently do not fall under OCA’s ban. Hormonal methods (birth control pills, intrauterine devices that release hormones) can also kill a foetus after conception, and I take it from the text that only these hormonal methods are banned by OCA.

If I read the text correctly, OCA also permits the use of in vitro fertilization methods for conceiving children. In these methods, the married couple’s ovum and semen are harvested, fertilization is done in a test tube, and the foetus (zygote) is implanted into the wife’s womb, or alternatively, it is implanted into another woman’s womb (surrogate mother, “uterus for hire”). The quoted text seems to permit in vitro fertilization, and perhaps even the use of a surrogate mother for carrying out the pregnancy.

The CC, on the other hand, forbids married couples to dissociate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. The use of condoms, intrauterine devices, vasectomy, and tubal ligation represent an attempt to have union without procreation, and are forbidden. In vitro fertilization represents an attempt to have procreation without union, and it is also forbidden by the CC.

 

[Peter_J]

The original topic was Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches

Good point. Personally I plan to go back and check what was being discussed before I got into the discussion about whether I’m Catholic or not. Not tonight, though – it’s getting a little too late for this here east-coast poster. If you west-coast posters want to continue the discussion tonight, just try not to be too loud, eh?

 

[Louie1983]

The original topic was Reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches and it seems we’ve gotten off topic into “you’re not Catholic enough” or “you’re not a real****Catholic like me!” topics. Let’s refocus! We should all take what each poster puts up on the top right as being legit. If I put “Catholic” on my profile, just take my word for it and assume I have some integrity and don’t challenge that. If I put “Lutheran” just accept it. Nobody should call someone out and expect them to prove their Catholicity. I don’t like that. Unless the person says something blasphemous and outrageous or way off in left-field about the RCC, let’s cool off. I think PeterJ’s profile up there says “Christian” and then under “location” it says “Roman Catholic.” I think “Location” is meant to be understood as a physical locale in which to live, not a denominational location. So, maybe some think he’s a protestant? He’s not, trust me.

With regard to this reunification situation, I’m pessimistic about it. Reconciliation usually entails some eating crow and willingness to budge on both sides. Rome will demand that the Orthodox add the filioque, accept infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction as well as purgatory and the rest. The Orthodox will demand the reverse: a dropping of the filioque, the papacy must admit itself the primate of the west or primus inter pares but not universal jurisdiction and infallible supremacy over the Christian world, and so forth. I don’t think either will budge on those issues. I know I sound like a cranky cynic but I can’t help it.

I agree i apologised to peterj for my misunderstanding. then tried to bring the discussion back to the topic. No luck unfortunately.

Yeah i agree that both sides will not budge on any teachings or obstacles. I pray that it does happen but it’s very very difficult.

 

[narrowpath]

This might have been answered before, but how do catholics respond to this epistle written by Pope St. Gregory.

*St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside [he means the bishops], but even in the
number of such as stand [he means the faithful].
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” *

(Book VII, Epistle XL)

This letter seems to me to say that all three bishops are successors to Peter, and bear the keys, and sit on the Petrine Throne, the Sees being equal.

BTW I love the fact one ocnet forum poster pointed out, that today Cephas bar Jonah would be known as Rocky Johnson

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Sorry for going into so much detail about artificial birth control, I didn’t mean to derail the thread. I only brought it up as an illustration that not everybody who confesses Christ as Lord and Messiah can be regarded “Rock” and the foundation on which the Church is built, and key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven. When two Bishops both confess Christ, but one of them says that ABC is gravely evil and a mortal sin, while the other says that ABC is permissible if it doesn’t harm a foetus, we have a contradiction on our hand. Both Bishops cannot be right at the same time. If we want to re-unite the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, we will have to come to a common understanding of who or what is that rocksolid foundation of the Church, where is the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail, and who has the final say when two Bishops disagree. I just wanted to make the point that one can confess Christ and still be in grave error at the same time.

In accord with the CC’s teaching, I still insist that the “Rock” in Mt16,17-19 is the person who was originally called Simon, and not simply anyone who confesses Christ. Then, it follows that Christ builds his Church upon this person, Peter aka Cephas aka Simon the son of John, and this particular person received the authority to bind and loosen with no strings attached (read: he doesn’t need the approval of other Bishops, Synods, or Ecumenical Councils). Also, this particular person received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and it is not correct that some abstract “confession” or group of people confessing Christ received the keys.

First, in John1,42, Jesus meets Simon and tells him that he will be named Rock. Later, in Mt16,17-19, Jesus tells Simon that he is Rock, and he (Jesus) will build his Church on this Rock. Thus, when I need reliable teaching, teaching that comes from Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail, I go to that Rock on which the Church is built, and that Rock is Simon Peter as well as his successors the Popes (Bishops of Rome).

The alternatives, such as the community of Bishops, or perhaps any individual who confesses Christ, as being the Rock and key-bearer, are not supported by the text of the Gospels, in my opinion. Christ could have said something like “you, the 12 Apostles, are the Rock”; or “you, the 70 disciples are the Rock”; or “all of you who confess that I am the Messiah, are the Rock” - but the fact remains that Jesus didn’t say anything like this. He addressed one individual called Simon; he renamed Simon to Rock (Cephas, Peter), and he gave to this individual a no-strings-attached authority to bind and loosen, he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and he told him that he will build his Church on him. When I read the text of the Gospel, this is how I understand it. This is how the CC understands it, but the EOC disagrees, and I think the disagreement is at the heart of the schism between the two churches.

Finally, the ABC debacle is a prime example of how the Pope of Rome (Paul VI) single-handedly kept the Catholic Church from falling into error at a time when some of the Protestant denominations and EO Churches have already fallen into error by allowing ABC. And the Pope did NOT seek the approval of a majority of Bishops, or the approval of an Ecumenical Council. He had the authority to act alone, even if everybody else disagreed with him, and he used that authority to preserve the Church from falling into error.

 

[Louie1983]

.*** This is how the CC understands it, but the EOC disagrees, and I think the disagreement is at the heart of the schism between the two churches.***

Agree.

 

[narrowpath]

Looking at the Fathers, there seems to be three main views: 1. that Peter is the rock 2. That Peter’s confession is the Rock, 3. that Christ is the rock. All these views were upheld by the Fathers (some upheld more than one, or sometimes changed their interpretation).

The feminine for rock in Aramaic is Kepha. What is the masculine (I’m wondering if it matches better Paul’s Greek transliteration “Cephas”.

 

[eOxy]

I do not believe it was meant to be insults nor is it insulting. what is insulting is your stance that any one would be demoted and subjugated to any one else.

Demotion in diptychs is quite different from being subjugated. It did happen several times in history. For the record, I don’t think Rome, or anyone else, could be subjugated. That would be in contradiction with the essence of Orthodoxy.

As for your statement of being last remember it is the words of Christ that said he that is last shall be first.

That’s the spirit and stance I would love to see. Once everyone is sure there is nobody in Rome with a different stance everyone would love Orthodox Rome to be promoted back to the first in diptychs. I just think it would take time.

I was also wondering on what authority you find yourself capable of make statements as to what the Rome must do? Pleas share with us are you a Bishop of the Orthodox faith?

I am not a bishop. It was emphasized by the abbreviation ‘IMHO’ in my sentence. My authority lies in the fact that I am personally responsible for my salvation.

 

[eOxy]

I agree that the filioque is wrong, but Rome believed in it as early as about 500 AD.

You are mistaken. Bishop of Rome professed it in 1014. Until that time he anathemized it several times, a notable example being exactly Pope JohnVIII at the council of 879 in Constantinopolis.

See geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html

Toledo and Achen are not Rome.

 

[narrowpath]

That is the Photian Council, correct? Dealing with St. Photius’ ascension to the Patriarchal throne and considered by some EO to be the eighth Ecumenical Council.

 

[Hesychios]

**A council that was headed by the pope! I think you might forget what a council is and was back then, It was the gathering of bishops who were in union with the pope! **

Actually none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were headed by bishops of Rome.

None of them were called by bishops of Rome, none of them were chaired by bishops of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m explaining the teachings of the catholic church. And to be frank you are orthodox and not a real catholic! To be catholic means to accept and acknowledge the authority of the pope and the hurch and it’s teachings.

I hate to break it to you like this, but there is very little or next to nothing you can teach Peter, so you can drop the pretense of explaining anything to him.

Yes, he is a Catholic in good standing. On CAF (and other websites) he very publicly and often reaffirms that he accepts all Catholic dogmas. He is also bluntly honest, he calls a cat a cat.

Most refreshing…

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, he is a Catholic in good standing. On CAF (and other websites) he very publicly and often reaffirms that he accepts all Catholic dogmas. He is also bluntly honest, he calls a cat a cat.

Most refreshing…

Why thank you Hesychios! And if I may say, I’ve always liked the way you present yourself here – i.e. clear and unequivocal about your own beliefs, while at the same time understanding and respecting that it’s a Catholic website.

 

[Peter_J]

You are mistaken. Bishop of Rome professed it in 1014.

In a sense you’re right, eOxy: the filioque wasn’t professed in the Creed at Rome until 1014.

But I think you’re really missing the point: the Popes clearly believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, well before 1014. This sentence sums it up nicely: “While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.” (quote taken from usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml ) That was in 810.