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

[AlNg]

Even Rome admits that they did not have canonical authority over the Eastern Churches.

Correct. For example, as Met. Seraphim writes: Pope Zosimus of Rome referring to Canons 3, 4, and 5 of the Council of Sardica, tried to justify his right to be the supreme judge for the Church of North Africa and restore the priest Apiarius of Sicca who had been excommunicated by Bishop Urban. The African bishops rejected Pope Zosimus’ claims, with their rejection then being confirmed in the resolutions of the Council of Carthage.

“The undivided Church recognized that the Canons 3, 4, and 5 of the Council of Sardica, which Pope Zosimus relied on, gave the Pope of Rome the right to judge only over those bishops subordinated to him. Thus, the Church rejected the claims of the Pope’s right of supreme Church-wide arbitration,” according to Met. Seraphim of Piraeus.

 

[Wandile]

I can see that too. He will probably be the first. Russia will be the last hold out and only convert after the consecration of Fatima to the Immaculate heart of Mary.

 

[Wandile]

In all seriousness, I expect that that can be expected almost immediately once someone, anyone, figures out how to not shatter Orthodoxy in the wake of the hissy-fit that the MP will throw over that . . .

An entire Orthodox church seeking communion with Rome was turned away over this concern, it’s the only reason Rome doesn’t call the UCC Patriarch a Patriarch, and we could probably go on with the list

hawk

All it takes is a pope who doesn’t care much for Moscow.

 

[Wandile]

Simply put sister churches is applied to particular local churches. So the Church of Rome is the sister church of Constantinople. The church of Paris is the sister church of Athens for example. But the Catholic Church is mother church of all Eastern Orthodox Churches. The universal church has no sisters. It exists alone in and off itself.

The documents of Vatican II with their definitions make this very clear. Anything else is a misunderstanding.

Vatican II, in choosing the word Subsist, actually wanted a more concrete and explicit term to say “The church of Christ is the Catholic Church”. The word “subsist” can only be applied to the Catholic Church and nobody else. There is only one church of Christ and it is the Catholic Church. Outside of her there is no salvation. The elements referred to in Vatican II documents in separated churches are elements of the Catholic Church found in these communities. That’s why Protestant baptisms and weddings are valid. Not because the Protestants are also the true church and thus save but becaue those two sacraments , used by the Protestants, belong to the Catholic Church and thus those who are saved are only saved by and through the Catholic Church. Hence Vatican II did not deny but actually explicitly reiterated that outside the church there is no salvation. Then it went on to say that this church is only the Catholic Church by using the word subsist.

Pope Benedict XVI have a whole speech about this I think when he was CDF chief in a document.

 

[Gabika50]

What does orthodox mean in this context?

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

An entire Orthodox church seeking communion with Rome was turned away over this concern, it’s the only reason Rome doesn’t call the UCC Patriarch a Patriarch, and we could probably go on with the list

Out of curiosity which church was that and when did they petition Rome for reunion? In your estimation would any other particular churches follow Constantinople’s lead?

 

[Wandile]

Macedonian Orthodox Church.

 

[steve-b]

Simply put sister churches is applied to particular local churches. So the Church of Rome is the sister church of Constantinople. The church of Paris is the sister church of Athens for example. But the Catholic Church is mother church of all Eastern Orthodox Churches. The universal church has no sisters. It exists alone in and off itself.

The documents of Vatican II with their definitions make this very clear. Anything else is a misunderstanding.

Vatican II, in choosing the word Subsist, actually wanted a more concrete and explicit term to say “The church of Christ is the Catholic Church”. The word “subsist” can only be applied to the Catholic Church and nobody else. There is only one church of Christ and it is the Catholic Church. Outside of her there is no salvation. The elements referred to in Vatican II documents in separated churches are elements of the Catholic Church found in these communities. That’s why Protestant baptisms and weddings are valid. Not because the Protestants are also the true church and thus save but becaue those two sacraments , used by the Protestants, belong to the Catholic Church and thus those who are saved are only saved by and through the Catholic Church. Hence Vatican II did not deny but actually explicitly reiterated that outside the church there is no salvation. Then it went on to say that this church is only the Catholic Church by using the word subsist.

Pope Benedict XVI have a whole speech about this I think when he was CDF chief in a document.

Here’s the context to what you posted
Re: sister churches

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
2. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/05/02/sister-churches-a-clarification/ (clarification )
   “when it is a question of the principles on which to build unity, … the [Universal Catholic] Church [3] cannot be considered a sister [e.g. to the Orthodox Churches (2)], but rather the Mother of the local Churches.”

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

Thank you. Did their desire to join Rome have anything to do with their precarious autocephaly? As I understand it none of the Orthodox churches recognize the Macedonian church anyway.

 

[Wandile]

Yes that’s precisely it. They wanted recognition.

 

[dochawk]

Out of curiosity which church was that and when did they petition Rome for reunion?

As @Wandile noted while I was off driving for the Mecum auction for three days, the Macedonian church.

In your estimation would any other particular churches follow Constantinople’s lead?

At the moment, holding off on communion is actually following the Roman lead.

There are many church pairs that would happily merge for joint communion. Most of the Orthodox and Catholic churches aren’t “all in” on the schism the way some members here are. Just offhand, the Romanian churches get along quite well, to the point that their Patriarchs jointly blessed the river on Theophany a couple of years ago; the Melkites and AO now build all new churches jointly for both to use; outside of the russo-nationalists, the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic get along quite well (far better than anyone does with the UOC-MP folks); and there are others.

As I understand it none of the Orthodox churches recognize the Macedonian church anyway.

That’s rather normal for the calving of new national churches. If they were coming from any other mother church, they’d have been recognized long ago. Typically, the new church declares itself, the others deny it for decades or more, and then finally recognize it as canonical with retroactive effect . . .

hawk

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

As @Wandile noted while I was off driving for the Mecum auction for three days, the Macedonian church.

Dunno why, but I didn’t have you pegged as a car aficionado. What’d you buy?

In your estimation would any other particular churches follow Constantinople’s lead?

At the moment, holding off on communion is actually following the Roman lead.

There are many church pairs that would happily merge for joint communion. Most of the Orthodox and Catholic churches aren’t “all in” on the schism the way some members here are. Just offhand, the Romanian churches get along quite well, to the point that their Patriarchs jointly blessed the river on Theophany a couple of years ago; the Melkites and AO now build all new churches jointly for both to use; outside of the russo-nationalists, the Ukrainian Orthodox and Catholic get along quite well (far better than anyone does with the UOC-MP folks); and there are others.

My understanding of the Byzantine churches, while better than most Latins’, is still pretty superficial so I hope this doesn’t come off as too simplistic: In my (howbeit few) interactions with Eastern Orthodox individuals I’ve found that the Slavs tend to be the most antagonistic to Rome and even more so to Eastern Catholics. This is particularly the case with the Russian Orthodox. Would you say, generally speaking of course, that the Slavic Orthodox churches are against reunion while the Greeks and Arabs are in favor? I know sympathies can go either/both ways within a communion. I’m curious about generalizations that can be made.

 

[AlbertDerGrosse]

As I understand it none of the Orthodox churches recognize the Macedonian church anyway.

That makes sense, and I think we can even see a slightly similar tendency in the West with regards to Rome’s treatment of the recently schismatic versus the not so recently schismatic (though I understand we’re not talking about formal schism regarding the Orthodox). Consider how Rome treats the sacraments of the Old Catholic Church or the Polish National Catholics compared to those of the SSPX. This has softened a bit thanks to Pope Francis and I’d imagine that if the separation continues for a few more decades faculties will be extended even further, or a dramatic reinterpretation of “supplied jurisdiction” vis a vis. the SSPX and similar groups will occur.

Back to the Macedonians. I recall a thread here on CAF asking about the autonomy/autocephaly of that church a few years back (I’m having trouble finding it now), and the few Orthodox posters we hadn’t yet irritated enough to leave said that the issue of the Macedonians involved more than just a jurisdictional squabble. They at least implied that the Macedonians were viewed as heretics. Again, all I can do is take people’s word in this since I’m just an ill informed Latin, but would you say there’s some truth to the Macedonian issue being a bit more complicated than just a fledgling nascent church not being recognized by the established ones, or were these Orthodox posters arguing from an ad hoc justification for the effect you mentioned?

 

[dochawk]

Dunno why, but I didn’t have you pegged as a car aficionado. What’d you buy?

Absolutely nothing, although I had a bidder card too.

I was driving.

Last year, I was going nuts as I was in a car two back from the block when a '93 Cadillac Allante went cheap and I couldn’t bid . . . so this year, when a couple of the national clubs I belong to had free passes, I went with one. (but I have a '72 Eldorado convertible in my garage I’m working on, and a '97 Eldorado Touring Coupe . . .)

I think I was the only one who actually drove (instead of getting towed) a Model T, multiple Model A’s, a few 30s, a ‘35 Pierce-Arrow (towed only, as the starting motor failed after the prior day’'s rebuild ), an Eleanor mustang clone, and so many more . .

It depends on the individual Russia Orthodox in question.

Russian Nationalists will generally behave as you described.

On the other hand, on a construction site when my young son in law was bullied as a free-apprentice, a couple of Russian Orthodox stepped in seeing him as one of their own.

Another time, a RO client noticed my tri-bar cross lapel pin and asked if I was Orthodox. When I responded that I was EC, he shrugged and said, “same thing.”

We also have EO members of my byzantine parish.

So, no, my personal experience with slavs is that they’ve tended to be as dismissive of schism as I hae.

Consider how Rome treats the sacraments of the Old Catholic Church or the Polish National Catholics compared to those of the SSPX.

Both apparently past tense, as the “Old Catholics” have lost their understanding of orders and attempted to ordain female clergy. A priest on this forum responded to one of my posts explaining that the PNC has attempted female deacons, so they’re dicey at best now, too.

They at least implied that the Macedonians were viewed as heretics.

In such cases, “heresy” is more a scale than a binary situation. By not being accepted as orthodox, they must be heterodox, whether or not there is any disagreement other than the ecclesiological status of that particular church . . .

I truly don’t know if there is any doctrinal issue with the Macedonians, but their refusal to accept the church leadership of their seculars oppressors is enough for schism.

hawk (who will hopefully have his voice back tomorrow after the yelling and CO poisoning tomorrow . . .)

 

[ziapueblo]

On the other hand, on a construction site when my young son in law was bullied as a free-apprentice, a couple of Russian Orthodox stepped in seeing him as one of their own.

Another time, a RO client noticed my tri-bar cross lapel pin and asked if I was Orthodox. When I responded that I was EC, he shrugged and said, “same thing.”

We also have EO members of my byzantine parish.

This has always been my experience. The only exception has been a couple of EO converts from Protestantism who still hold on to their anti-Catholic baggage.

ZP