The Eastern bishops submitted to Rome only because Rome was very orthodox?

[theCardinalbird]

The Eastern Bishops submitted to Rome because of who the head of the Roman Church was (Peter and his successors).

In the words of Cyprian:

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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 [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [ A.D. 251 ]).

 

[steve-b]

Dude!

STEVE-B

Please start to act realistic!

It is really not that big a problem. .

Point and case. Point!

Actually it is a BIG problem for one’s soul who is separated

Schism is a Condemned act according to the apostle (Paul) 817

 

[steve-b]

So Easy!

Follow Newman! And not the one you were thought to follow but the actual history one! That will at least put us on some kind of same path. If that doesn’t work for you well then you need to study some more !!!@!!!

After you get to that point! Please contact me. Then maybe you are there!

My question was very simple. It’s obvious you join the ranks of those who don’t have an answer.

 

[ziapueblo]

Actually it is a BIG problem for one’s soul who is separated

True, but when it comes to the Orthodox, the Catholic Church recognizes that salvation is found within their Churches. The Irthidox have apostolic succession, therefore, they have the sacraments.

ZP

 

[Athrunzala]

Hmmm why do the Orthodox have divorce?

 

[ziapueblo]

Not sure if that is a fair question because, of course, so do we Catholics. Marriages are annulled and Catholics remarry. I know of a few myself.

From the Orthodox Church in America website, when asked about this questions:

"The Orthodox Church recognizes the sanctity of marriage and sees it as a life-long commitment. However, there are certain circumstances in which it becomes evident that there is no love or commitment in a relationship.

While the Church stands opposed to divorce, the Church, in its concern for the salvation of its people, does permit divorced individuals to marry a second and even a third time.

The Order of the Second or Third Marriage is somewhat different than that celebrated as a first marriage and it bears a penitential character. Second or third marriages are performed by “economy”—that is, out of concern for the spiritual well being of the parties involved and as an exception to the rule, so to speak."

Pastoral Guidelines on Divorce from St. George Greek Orthodox Church

From St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church on Divorce

As you will read, the Orthodox believe in the sanctity of marriage.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Annulments are NOT the same thing as divorce. Yes in the west particularly America annulments might be abused but that does not change what they are.

The reality of annulments in America and the west is not the reality elsewhere.

Divorce and remarriage flies in the face of the Our Lords words. Quoting that page from the OCA is like quoting someone who says “I know lying is wrong and I believe that… however I’m human and that’s why I’m okay with being a pathological lier.”

 

[Wandile]

The church does not ac

Actually it is a BIG problem for one’s soul who is separated

True, but when it comes to the Orthodox, the Catholic Church recognizes that salvation is found within their Churches. The Irthidox have apostolic succession, therefore, they have the sacraments.

ZP

That doesn’t mean they are equal to the Catholic Church. Salvation is not really found in their churches the way you are implying. Nobody is in heaven that isn’t in some way saved through the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is rightful owner for the sacraments. That’s why the church has always taught no salvation outside the church and why schism is such a bad thing. It’s how you get illicit sacraments. The Orthodox do not save. It’s the elements of Catholicism left in them that save. And only in cases where people are not guilty of their schism.

 

[ziapueblo]

That doesn’t mean they are equal to the Catholic Church. Salvation is not really found in their churches the way you are implying.

Really?

The Catholic Church is rightful owner for the sacraments.

From Dominus Iesus:

“17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60”

Even though the Orthodox “lack full communion with the Catholic Church” the “Church of Christ is present and operative.” Why? Because they have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist!

From Unitatis Redintegratio

“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common ( communicatio in sacris ), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.”

That’s why the church has always taught no salvation outside the church and why schism is such a bad thing.

I agree, schism is a bad thing, but that does not take away that salvation and the sacraments are found in the Orthodox Church.

It’s how you get illicit sacraments.

The Orthodox are “Sister Churches” and “true Churches” which means, as I showed above, they have apostolic succession and a “valid Eucharist”.

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Really?

Yew that’s straight from the councils of the church and the fathers

The Catholic Church is rightful owner for the sacraments.

This document is speaking about sacramental validity. Not licitness which is what I’m speaking about. Even heretics can have valid sacraments. The Anglicans had them for a while… the sacraments belong to the church and that’s why when they are celebrated outside the church they are valid but illicit.

EO don’t save. The elements of the Catholic Church in them save. That is the sacraments. A committed EO who understood the Roman church properly and all her dogmas and persisted in schism would not enter heaven. That’s in Dominus Iesus, Vatican II and the catechism.

Sister churches means they are valid. It does not mean they are licit. The only licit sacraments are those of the Catholic Church. I don’t think Dominus Iesus is the document you want to reference. It literally was unpopular as it reaffirmed the no salvation outside the Catholic Church teaching which offended the EO and Protestants.

 

[ziapueblo]

How are the Orthodox sacraments illicit?

ZP

 

[Wandile]

How are the Orthodox sacraments illicit?

ZP

The same way SSPX sacraments are. Sacraments are only licit if they are given accordance by Rome to be celebrated. That’s why schism is such a big deal. You celebrate the sacraments of the church of God while not being a part of her. They are objectively offensive to God.

 

[ziapueblo]

Ok. Where does Rome teach that the Orthodox sacraments are illicit?

ZP

 

[Wandile]

Rome teaches that schismatic sacraments are illicit. The EO are in schism. Thus their sacraments are illicit. This is why Pope Francis actually had to grant the SSPX the faculties to licitly perform marriages and hear confession. Until then their sacraments were illicit. It’s why Rome and the Catholic Church have always taught EO bishops are valid bishops but have no jurisdiction.

 

[ziapueblo]

I’m curious where Rome teaches this? Is there a document you can provide?

ZP

 

[Wandile]

It’s canon law. Its why Pope Francis had to specifically give the SSPX faculties to hear confession. Their sacraments are valid but lillict (illegal). For sacraments to be legal they need to have recognition from the ordinary. This ordinary must be in Union with Rome as it is where sacerdotal unity and jurisdiction takes its rise.

Think of it as stolen money being used (valid but illegal) vs counterfeit money. (Invalid and illegal). Schismatic sacraments are the former.

The Council of Florence infallibility decreed (a decree which was mainly directed against and EO who would refuse the union effected):

“ The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives ; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved , no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)

 

[ziapueblo]

Curious, have you read the Ravenna and Chieti Documents?

ZP

 

[twf]

This kind of leaves the three other Major Archepiscopal Churches in a sort of limbo, doesn’t it?

 

[twf]

There’s a difference between “illicit” and “invalid”. The SSPX confessions and marriages were, despite their protests to the contrary, presumed invalid prior to Pope Francis’ intervention. The Orthodox sacraments, on the other hand, have always been presumed valid.

 

[dochawk]

This kind of leaves the three other Major Archepiscopal Churches in a sort of limbo, doesn’t it?

Not really–the Ukrainians are significantly larger than any of the other EC, even the other (?) patriarchal churches. The only reason Rome didn’t name them that status long ago was to not annoy the ROC.

And in al seriousness, anything short of the “patriarchal” level of self governance is inconsistent with the term or manner in which pre-existing churches came into communion.

hawk