The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByzCathCantor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Couldn’t the RCC simply maintain papal supremacy over the rites under its jurisdiction already, and the Orthodox maintain their way of leading their Church’s, yet acknowledging an equality among brothers, or am I missing something here? I am not very learned on this topic.
That is not a bad suggestion at all, but that would not be acceptable to the RCC. The RCC requires a subscription in principle at least to papal supremacy and jurisdiction over the whole church. That was defined as a dogma at Vatican I. There is no room for a “to each their own” approach.
 
Couldn’t the RCC simply maintain papal supremacy over the rites under its jurisdiction already, and the Orthodox maintain their way of leading their Church’s, yet acknowledging an equality among brothers, or am I missing something here? I am not very learned on this topic.
This is very much how things were before the Great Schism.

Insofar as church leadership is the question, that is the only real solution. There are some issues that need to be worked out within that solution, but generally it is what we accept.
 
This is very much how things were before the Great Schism.
And to some extent we’re getting back to that – at least insofar as each side has agreed not to engage in proselytism or uniatism against the other.
 
That is not a bad suggestion at all, but that would not be acceptable to the RCC. The RCC requires a subscription in principle at least to papal supremacy and jurisdiction over the whole church. That was defined as a dogma at Vatican I. There is no room for a “to each their own” approach.
The Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches normally function as their Orthodox counterparts anyway. The prerogatives of papal primacy and universal jurisdiction are only exercised in extenuating circumstances, normally upon appeal. I don’t know why one has to interpret Pastor Aeternus according to the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations. Besides, I’m not aware of a single instance of “papal interference” in the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches (arguably :D).

The interference of the papal curia is another thing altogether. Their power (or pretensions to power) has to be curtailed.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
As a reasonably informed average Catholic I hope I have a reasonable grasp of the teachings of the Catholic Church. At the moment I’m reading a book about the Orthodox churches. It seems to me there are so many differences that any prospect of unity is poor and if it’s going to happen it won’t be in my lifetime. I think the main differences would be papal supremacy, filioque, infallibility and differences in ecclesiology.
 
As a reasonably informed average Catholic I hope I have a reasonable grasp of the teachings of the Catholic Church. At the moment I’m reading a book about the Orthodox churches. It seems to me there are so many differences that any prospect of unity is poor and if it’s going to happen it won’t be in my lifetime. I think the main differences would be papal supremacy, filioque, infallibility and differences in ecclesiology.
I won’t say it’s going to be easy, but numbers 2 and 4 can likely be dealt with without too much hassle. The real problem lies in #s 1 and 3 which (despite despite what some will say), are essentially the same issue. And the difficulty there is mainly from the Roman side. 🤷
 
I won’t say it’s going to be easy, but numbers 2 and 4 can likely be dealt with without too much hassle. The real problem lies in #s 1 and 3 which (despite despite what some will say), are essentially the same issue. And the difficulty there is mainly from the Roman side. 🤷
Your answer is very interesting. I wonder if you would expand on the solutions.

Although you say 2 is easy I thought the Orthodox found filioque to be a serious heresy. The book I’m reading written by an Orthodox bishop suggests that’s the case on their side. The Creed was originally agreed in ecumenical council. They believe the Roman patriarchate changed it unilaterally. I thought the Orthodox believed only another ecumenical council could change this.

I don’t know how ecclesiology could be easily resolved. As a Roman I know we have a very centralised church. My understanding is the Orthodox believe in local churches. They believe patriarchs and metropolitans are required out of expediency rather than being divinely instituted. (I will confess to being very in tune with this ecclesiology.)

I’m not sure how you equate papal supremacy and infallibility - but that could be my fault because I didn’t make clear what I meant in my last post. I wasn’t so much referring to papal infallibility but the infallibility of the Church. Again it might be my flawed understanding but I think the Orthodox belive infallibility resides solely in ecumenical councils. As they only accept the first seven don’t the Orthodox state there’s no source of infallibility in the Church at the present time?
 
No “source” of infallibility? The Church itself the source. It, not any one bishop, is the pillar and ground of all truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

But ecclesiology might not be as easy to solve as recognizing that. To paraphrase the Ecumenical Patriarch, we all know and recognize that union must be achieved through the Church which is His body, but whose Church is another matter entirely. Sadly, Rome is simply not the same Church as the others anymore (and this is without even taking into account the OO like me, because let’s face it, nobody here does unless it’s to point out agreed statements and what they say we should think they mean).

But, yes, if the Roman Pope were to somehow go back to being the “Patriarch of the West” (only), and profess the Orthodox Christian faith, then ecclesiology could be much as it was in the first millennium, too. 😃
 
Your answer is very interesting. I wonder if you would expand on the solutions.

Although you say 2 is easy I thought the Orthodox found filioque to be a serious heresy. The book I’m reading written by an Orthodox bishop suggests that’s the case on their side. The Creed was originally agreed in ecumenical council. They believe the Roman patriarchate changed it unilaterally. I thought the Orthodox believed only another ecumenical council could change this.

I don’t know how ecclesiology could be easily resolved. As a Roman I know we have a very centralised church. My understanding is the Orthodox believe in local churches. They believe patriarchs and metropolitans are required out of expediency rather than being divinely instituted. (I will confess to being very in tune with this ecclesiology.)
Notice that I said it wouldn’t be easy, but if one looks at the First Millennium reality, numbers 2 and 4 can be dealt with.
I’m not sure how you equate papal supremacy and infallibility - but that could be my fault because I didn’t make clear what I meant in my last post. I wasn’t so much referring to papal infallibility but the infallibility of the Church. Again it might be my flawed understanding but I think the Orthodox belive infallibility resides solely in ecumenical councils. As they only accept the first seven don’t the Orthodox state there’s no source of infallibility in the Church at the present time?
That the infallibility of the Church is in her Oecumenical Council is not an issue. That’s a “given” as it were. And no, I won’t go further, except to reiterate that one must look at the First Millennium. 🙂
 
No “source” of infallibility? The Church itself the source.
The Church is the source of infallibility, agreed. Probably me not putting it across very well. If I understand what I’m reading no bishop can make an infallible statement. That, in my understanding, would be one reason why the Orthodox wouldn’t accept the Bishop of Rome being infallible.

From the Orthodox perspective (remember we’re relying here on my understanding of a book written by one man) infallibility can only come from an ecumenical council. The last one they accept was 1225 years ago.
 
The Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches normally function as their Orthodox counterparts anyway.
In theory, yes, As a matter of practicality? I don’t think so.
I don’t know why one has to interpret Pastor Aeternus according to the Absolutist Petrine exaggerations.
Because, as we have so often sparred in the past, it’s the reality on the ground.
Besides, I’m not aware of a single instance of “papal interference” in the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches (arguably :D).
I am.
The interference of the papal curia is another thing altogether. Their power (or pretensions to power) has to be curtailed.
Yes, but curtailed by whom? The “lawgiver” himself, who is the only one who could? Fat chance of that happening. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, I know. It’s what I addressed.
I can’t see anything fruitful in dancing in circles. May be you’re well versed in the Church in the first millenium. I’m not and it was a terribly long time ago so I don’t remember it.😃
 
No “source” of infallibility? The Church itself the source. It, not any one bishop, is the pillar and ground of all truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)
As a Catholic, I’ve never understood the Church to be the source of infallibility. Rather, it is God, and God alone. In the Catholic understanding (from my reading of documents of Vatican 1, including, and especially, the official Relatio of Bishop Gasser), infallibility is not possessed by the Church in the sense that she can grant it to others. There are three organs that exercise infallibility explicitly in the Catholic Church - the Ecumenical Council (extraordinary Magisterium), the College of Bishops (ordinary magisterium), and the Pope (extraordinary Magisterium). The sensus fidei is also regarded as being protected by infallibility. But an Ecumenical Council cannot grant infallibility to the Pope or the sensus fidei; the sensus fidei cannot grant infallibility to the College of Bishops or the Pope; the Pope cannot grant infallibility to an Ecumenical Council or the College of Bishops; etc; etc. It is only God Who grants infallibility through the Holy Spirit. He is the only Source of infallibility.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Alright, well, I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t really know what to say to any of that. Good, I guess. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top