So in the end it comes down to who is in charge, right? Is it the patriarch of your oriental church or the Pope? The person in the pews is submitting to authority either way so its a matter of the patriarch wanting to maintain some level of autonomy, isn’t it?
I would think so, more or less while sticking to a Petrine formula…Another way of looking at union is to start from the bottom up; go to the Eucharistic Churches and participate in their respective masses; understand their messages and specificities. This will not make you less Christian or less RC.
Do your priest and bishop allow this?
I understand that Copts aren’t permitted to commune in other churches.If one believes that Catholicism has the fullness of truth–particularly that Vatican I constitutes divine teaching–is not one morally obliged to enter into communion with the bishop of Rome?
Truly a tragic catastrophe. Lord have mercy.
In light of Vatican I dogmatizing not just the universal ordinary jurisdiction but also the doctrinal infallibility of the pope, how can any compromises be made in your view from the Catholic side on this issue now?
This in some sense seems to be more of a popular myth. A whole host of factors led to the Arab’s successful early campaigns. If anything, it was the highly costly war between the Persians and the Romans in the early 7th century which allowed the Arabs to take territories from the Romans and completely destroy the Sassanid Empire. The sporadic Roman persecutions of the non-Chalcedonians seemed to contribute very little, and as Fr. John Meyendorff pointed out, there was really no nationalism as we would know it today amongst the Copts and the Syrians, who although sometimes persecuted for their non-Chalcedonian faith largely remained faithful subjects of the Empire during the Arab invasions.
First of all: we must redefine the role or the authority of the bishop of Rome and see how it was in the first centuries of Christianity Vis a vis the others Patriarchs. That would be a first. Second, a patriarch’s rank is higher than that of a cardinal; we need to define those too. Decades ago, the head of the Uniate Syriac Church (Cardinal and Patriarch Tabbouni- I think the first cardinal in the levant) was the maternal cousin of the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church (Mor Afram). It was rumored at least jockingly that the ‘elevation’ of the uniate Patriarch to a cardinal actually demoted him in rank vis a vis his cousin.Do your priest and bishop allow this?
We can receive communion in the RC church- I believe an agreement was reached years ago with the Vatican-. our bishops (ok maybe not all of them) have been telling the faithful that if we are in a foreign land and in the absence of a Syriac church to go to Eucharistic churches (except the Protestant ones). Besides what I do is also a personal choice. For instance, I see Ethiopian Orthodox ladies attending mass at the RC church- they remain Orthodox while inside-. Show me one instance where you or any RC would attend mass at different Eucharistic denominations. When Pope John Paul II visited the Syriac orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus, I remember watching TV as my Orthodox bishops kissed the Pope’s hand, one by one; show me one instance where any RC bishop would reciprocate something similar to other Patriarchs at the every very least out of Christian humility and deference.
If one believes that Catholicism has the fullness of truth–particularly that Vatican I constitutes divine teaching–is not one morally obliged to enter into communion with the bishop of Rome?
Unity starts with you and me; you seem to want it as a Merger/Acquisition process which will never happen. We should love and respect each other if we have almost the same teachings, sacraments etc; lift the anathemas (we used to excommunicate Pope Leo and others; just like the Latins and Greeks used to excommunicate Dioscoros and Severus)- those have now been lifted. A few years ago we reconciled ‘theologically’ with the Middle Eastern Eastern Orthodox Church- a first since Chalcedon-; but while that is valid for us in the Middle East, the Greek Orthodox Church refused to join in while the Russian Orthodox church remained silent. So much more work needs to be done especially with the stubborn and arrogant Greeks (I hated the way they received and welcomed John Paul II when he visited them).
Truly a tragic catastrophe. Lord have mercy.
How did the local Christians at first help Islam?
They simply opened the gates of the Syrian cities and sided with the invaders against the Romans. Moreover many Syriacs were ‘Ghassanids’ and ‘Munzers’ with direct Arabic ethnic lineage which facilitated the ‘initial’ cultural bondage. But Syriac and Egyptian records do indicate that persecution existed at the hands of the Chalcedonians. So a rejection of Chalcedon + the ethnic bondage constituted a form of nationalism.
In light of Vatican I dogmatizing not just the universal ordinary jurisdiction but also the doctrinal infallibility of the pope, how can any compromises be made in your view from the Catholic side on this issue now?
Great, thanks!
Wow, that’s very interesting! I wonder why the Coptic Orthodox seem to be an outlier…?
Actually, since becoming an Eastern Orthodox catechumen last fall (after deciding not to revert to my status years ago of a Catholic layperson), I’ve attended Coptic and Catholic liturgies. I don’t receive communion there though, since Eastern Orthodox aren’t ecclesiastically allowed to do so and I haven’t received any sacraments from the Eastern Orthodox yet anyway. We “apostolic Christians” have to stick together in the face of attacks from (Evangelical) Protestantism, secularism, and Islam; attending each other’s services can be, and is, mutually beneficial and edifying.
Wow, I would never have expected such a thing. I hope my Eastern Orthodox hierarches do similar for their counterparts in other Churches.
It’s a nice idea, and in fact I’m not against going to Catholic and Oriental Orthodox liturgies, as indicated above. ACROD (American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese) hierarches aren’t strict like their Russian Orthodox counterparts, who forbid their faithful to pray even with Catholics.
Haha, I understand where you’re coming from. But individuals aren’t equipped by themselves to resolve the theological problems that block reunion.
I agree with you that the Eastern Orthodox bishops have to act collectively in a way that facilitates reunion with the Oriental Orthodox Church. It’s in this case that “we [truly] have almost the same teachings”. But this doesn’t hold true for the differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox on the one hand and Catholics on the other. Thorny, headache-inducing questions like the filioque and the Vatican I papacy are on the table; these constitute real, tangible disagreements. Either the filioque and Vatican I papacy are erroneous as the Orthodox say, or these doctrines are correct as the Catholics assert. There’s no way to meet in the middle.
Thanks for your perspective. I haven’t studied the relevant history in enough depth to be able to comment.
This just isn’t possible, though:
This might be possible.
Interesting–thanks for sharing this little-known info.
It seems to me that all the " unsolveable" theological issues can indeed be solved. If the Father and the son are indeed “one” as Jesus claimed, why is it so hard to understand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from that “one” creating the three persons in One God?Great, thanks!
Wow, that’s very interesting! I wonder why the Coptic Orthodox seem to be an outlier…?
Actually, since becoming an Eastern Orthodox catechumen last fall (after deciding not to revert to my status years ago of a Catholic layperson), I’ve attended Coptic and Catholic liturgies. I don’t receive communion there though, since Eastern Orthodox aren’t ecclesiastically allowed to do so and I haven’t received any sacraments from the Eastern Orthodox yet anyway. We “apostolic Christians” have to stick together in the face of attacks from (Evangelical) Protestantism, secularism, and Islam; attending each other’s services can be, and is, mutually beneficial and edifying.
Wow, I would never have expected such a thing. I hope my Eastern Orthodox hierarches do similar for their counterparts in other Churches.
It’s a nice idea, and in fact I’m not against going to Catholic and Oriental Orthodox liturgies, as indicated above. ACROD (American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese) hierarches aren’t strict like their Russian Orthodox counterparts, who forbid their faithful to pray even with Catholics.
Haha, I understand where you’re coming from. But individuals aren’t equipped by themselves to resolve the theological problems that block reunion.
I agree with you that the Eastern Orthodox bishops have to act collectively in a way that facilitates reunion with the Oriental Orthodox Church. It’s in this case that “we [truly] have almost the same teachings”. But this doesn’t hold true for the differences between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox on the one hand and Catholics on the other. Thorny, headache-inducing questions like the filioque and the Vatican I papacy are on the table; these constitute real, tangible disagreements. Either the filioque and Vatican I papacy are erroneous as the Orthodox say, or these doctrines are correct as the Catholics assert. There’s no way to meet in the middle.
Thanks for your perspective. I haven’t studied the relevant history in enough depth to be able to comment.
This just isn’t possible, though:
This might be possible.
- Vatican Council I solemnly and definitively declared that the pope enjoys charisms of universal ordinary jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility.
- The Catholic Church claims to be the visible body of Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit from officially declaring erroneous doctrine.
- To revisit and modify the papal dogmas declared at Vatican Council I would refute the Catholic Church’s claim–in the eyes of the faithful and the world–to being the visible body of Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit from officially declaring erroneous doctrine.
- Therefore, such a process can never take place, unless Catholic hierarches are prepared to discard previously-declared dogmatic teachings and lose all credibility.
Interesting–thanks for sharing this little-known info.
You don’t know how first among equals works?
So in the conclave, which is hte only place that matters, is the dean not in charge.
While the Dean (or in his absence or inability, the Subdean) presides over the College of Cardinals, he has* no power of governance over the other cardinals.** Instead he functions as primus inter pares in the college. There is no mandatory age of retirement for the position.
So what power does a patriarch have over his flock?
The same, the Patriarch only has power over his diocese.
So your hierarchy stops one level below the Catholic hierarchy. How do you explain matthew16: 16-19?
Short Answer: The Rock is Peter’s confession, Peter becomes Peter because of the confession, and everyone who also believes in the confession is a rock (i.e. The Shepard of Hermas). Some Fathers say that the Rock is Jesus Christ, and by accepting Him, we become rocks.
It really doesn’t make much sense that all the bishops are rocks, when that name was given distinctly to Peter (You are rock and on this rock I will build my church). And if you read John 21, you must realize that Peter is told to take care of the flock by the risen Jesus. and if you go through acts, you see it is Peter that carries out the Papal role: speaking for the apostles, interpreting scripture, setting doctrine (acts 2. acts 15), declaring Paul’s letters scripture (2Peter 3), replacing Judas, excomunicating Simon Magnus.
Peter is head of the Church.
I did read that link. It was quite long but not convincing. Actually, haven’t you divided the church into thousands of independently run diocese. The universal church is timeless and is not limited by diocesan boarders. It has one head, Jesus, and one vicar, currently Pope Benedict XVI. Just as it had one vicar at its inception: Peter.Peter is head of the Church.
The Bishop is head of the Church.
The problem you may perceive is that we don’t look at the Church as you do. For us the Church in its fullness is the Diocese. For you the Diocese is only a part of the “Universal Church”, not complete in herself.
For us the Church is the Eucharist, the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Christ’s Body is the Church. The same way we don’t divide the Trinity in parts, we don’t divide the Church in parts, and if divided, both “parts” are fully the Church, not half a church.
There’s no higher divinely instituted rank in the Church than the Bishop, successor of Peter. He is chief of the successor of the apostles, the presbyters.
Please read the link in my last post.