The Russian Church and our Catholic Church

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Joseph,

Though, I have read my fair share over my lifetime from NON-Catholic sources that this is what papal infallibility means, I’ve never read a single magisterial Catholic source that that is what it actually means. In short, I think we can stand on common ground with your statement.

Maybe you can. Somehow I doubt your Latin friends would agree.

Assuming we’re speaking of the bishop of Rome, I adhere to St. Bellarmine’s view that if the Pope were found to be doing that, we are obligated to oppose and correct him.

In your view perhaps. Yet again I imagine many Latins would disagree.

Interesting. I think this bears some discussion, but not in this thread. One of the most solid and biblical justifications for the notion of collegial episcopal infallibility is Christ’s promise to the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth. It is the basis for the teaching office of the bishop, a specific charism not given to all, as St. Paul specifically taught us. It just sounds really, really strange to me when I read or hear of Orthodox Christians denying that our bishops did not inherit this promise of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic succession.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where did I say our bishops did not inherit Apostolic Succession?

It’s quite a leap from believing our bishops have Apostolic Succession to believing they possess inherit infallibility either individually or as a group. In fact history testifies to the fact that no single bishop or group of bishops posses inherit infallibility. There have been heretical popes and patriarchs and various robber councils.

Councils can only be said to be infallible after they have been received by the Church as a whole; and as Michael has pointed out that acceptance is often expressed by a subsequent council. The acts of the Ecumenical Councils themselves reflect that model. Why do you think they felt the need to ratify and accept previous councils if the previous council had inherit infallibility?

In Christ
Joe

 

[SimonDodd]

I think Pope Benedict is ready to renounce Papal infallibility, Universal jurisdiction and filioque, as far as the Immaculate conception if you actually read the services for the feast of the conception of St. Ann the Orthodox already believe in it.

I thought that the fundamental controversy re the filioque was a Rome’s authority to add it, not the substance of the change itself, and that it simply touched off a crisis that had brewing in ecclesiology for some time. Are you saying that the orthodox actually object to the substance of the change? If that’s the case, then truly, it is rare in history that so many have been divided for so long by so little. Think about what we believe about the trinity! To split the Church of God over the question of how to split the hair of whether the third person (who is all three persons) proceeds from the first person (who is all three persons) or the first and second persons (who are individually and jointly all three persons) strikes me as somewhere between tragedy and farce.

 

[5Loaves]

P.S. This is all beyond the purpose of the OP, so I hope you don’t mind my suggestion that if you want to continue this discussion, we should do it in .

Thank you.

 

[5Loaves]

P.S. This is all beyond the purpose of the OP, so I hope you don’t mind my suggestion that if you want to continue this discussion, we should do it in a new thread.

Thank you.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends …

… i believe russia still needs to e consecrated to the immaculate heart of mary , i think on 26-1-08 when the new russian patriarch was elected , after the last that was very hostile to the catholic church , this marked the triumph of the immaculate heart of mary , now we need the consecration asap , and i think the sign of conversion will just be when many catholic churches open / reopen in russia , we need to do the first saturday devotions to achieve this too …

… god bless all …

… john …

 

[Catholic87]

Oh…so to my Roman Catholic Brethren why do we say the Filioque…didn’t the Holy Father recite it without it at one point during a meeting with one of the patriarchs???

 

[mardukm]

For all you filioque controversialists D), I’ve started a new thread on the issue (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=493246). Let’s not derail this thread any further, please.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I think the idea is a conversion to Catholicism not a conversion to Christianity. I was Russian Orthodox for 20 years and I think I can safely say that the reason there would be bad feelings about this from the RO is simply because it implies that Orthodoxy is somehow lacking and not complete. Well sorry about that but Orthodoxy is NOT complete, not until they return to an acceptance of the roll that Rome has in the universal Church. Of course the RO are fellow Christians and they come alot closer to being Catholic then most groups. And if close, why would unity need to be far off?

 

[JohnVIII]

-May I add a little more-

My Russian Godfather taught me alot of things. And, when it came to talk of Rome, he made it clear that the Russian Orthodox already accept the primacy of Rome in principle. And, the only reason they are not subject to Rome is because they believe that Rome cannot function right now as Chief Hierarch of the universal Church because they are in heresy. Well, the Russian Church Abroad was for years not subject to the Moscow Patriarchate because they said that it was in heresy. But after a few short talks and a hand full of simple agreements, all of the sudden, almost as if by magic, Moscow was no longer in heresy! Now there is union between the Russian Church Abroad and the Russian Church in Russia. Union with Rome can be just as simple and easy as this! A few short talks, some minor simple agreements, and ‘poof’, Rome is no longer in heresy (of course they never were, nor was Moscow for that matter), and we see union between Rome and Moscow. Actually a very easy thing indeed.

 

[Nine_Two]

-May I add a little more-

My Russian Godfather taught me alot of things. And, when it came to talk of Rome, he made it clear that the Russian Orthodox already accept the primacy of Rome in principle. And, the only reason they are not subject to Rome is because they believe that Rome cannot function right now as Chief Hierarch of the universal Church because they are in heresy. Well, the Russian Church Abroad was for years not subject to the Moscow Patriarchate because they said that it was in heresy. But after a few short talks and a hand full of simple agreements, all of the sudden, almost as if by magic, Moscow was no longer in heresy! Now there is union between the Russian Church Abroad and the Russian Church in Russia. Union with Rome can be just as simple and easy as this! A few short talks, some minor simple agreements, and ‘poof’, Rome is no longer in heresy (of course they never were, nor was Moscow for that matter), and we see union between Rome and Moscow. Actually a very easy thing indeed.

You’re right, ROCOR reunited with the MP shortly after the MP was freed from Soviet interference, the very thing ROCOR had said was disfiguring the MP.

If one side gives in to the others demands completely, you’re right, reunification will follow quickly.

 

[JohnVIII]

You’re right, ROCOR reunited with the MP shortly after the MP was freed from Soviet interference, the very thing ROCOR had said was disfiguring the MP.

If one side gives in to the others demands completely, you’re right, reunification will follow quickly.

Actually, when the Patriarch out-ranked the President within the KGB, just exactly when was Soviet interference ended? The current head of “ROCOR”, Met. Hilarion, was once KGB also. That’s why he was banished to Australia by former Met. Vitaly.

When re-union between ROCOR & the MP took place both sides were already of the same mind. One side really didn’t give in to the other, the demands were all for show, to help keep most of the faithful at peace with it. And it worked! So you see, Russia has already had some practice in this area of re-union.

Russia would like to have the Ukraine back. Imagine how this might all work out if Russia unites with Rome. Perhaps the Ukrainian Eastern Catholics would be under Moscow.

At one time The Russian Orthodox gave communion to Catholics within Russia. They would, of course, do that again after re-union since everyone would be Catholic.

Since alot of Orthodox jurisdictions have already talked to Rome about re-union, the most notable one being Constantinople, after Russia unites Constantinople probably will as well. The rest of the Orthodox jurisdictions will have to decide what they will do. If any of them decide to brake communion with Russia (and probably Constantinople too) they will have to at least recognize (by economia) most, if not all, of their sacraments, due to the fact that this pro-Rome movement would be so very large. There will be no doubt a few that will wall themselves off from everyone who has anything to do with Rome, but not only will these be very few in number, but because they will be acting in such extremes they will also be unable to be united among themselves. So, in short, if Russia unites, most all of Orthodoxy will unite as well.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

Maybe you can. Somehow I doubt your Latin friends would agree.

I would agree with your statement here because I’ve debated my fair share of Latins over the matter. But if you care to discuss the matter in the Apologetics forum, I think you’d be surprised to find that there are also many Latin Catholics who will agree with us on this issue.

In your view perhaps. Yet again I imagine many Latins would disagree.

Yes, many Latins would disagree, but many Latins will also agree (indeed, St. Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church!). I would note that, according to St. Bellarmine, opposing and correcting a Pope if he teaches error is distinct from judging him. I agree with St. Bellarmine simply because there is nothing in the Tradition of the united Church of the first millenium that could justify such an action. (I wonder if this topic deserves its own thread – we’ll let the OP or moderator decide).

Where did I say our bishops did not inherit Apostolic Succession?

Where did I say your bishops did not inherit Apostolic Succession?

It’s quite a leap from believing our bishops have Apostolic Succession to believing they possess inherit infallibility either individually or as a group.

• So what would be your interpretation of Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles to all Truth?
• Do you think that promise refers to infallibility (why or why not)?
• Do you think that this promise did not extend to the Apostles’ successors?
• Do you feel the Holy Spirit was not with the Ecumenical Councils?

In fact history testifies to the fact that no single bishop or group of bishops posses inherit infallibility. There have been heretical popes and patriarchs.

First of all, the personal beliefs of popes/patriarchs/bishops has nothing to do with the charism of infallibility. The charism of infallibility has nothing to do with what a bishop(s) believes - it has to do with what a bishop(s) teaches. Secondly, the charism of infallibility is a charism first and foremost of the Church and for the Church, not of any one individual for any one individual. If you think the latter is what papal infallibility means, then you would be mistaken.

and various robber councils.

Oh that one’s easy. No robber council has ever been confirmed by the Pope.

Councils can only be said to be infallible after they have been received by the Church as a whole; and as Michael has pointed out that acceptance is often expressed by a subsequent council. The acts of the Ecumenical Councils themselves reflect that model. Why do you think they felt the need to ratify and accept previous councils if the previous council had inherit infallibility?

The following is from my post in another thread in the Apologetics Forum:
**I think this is the most insidious and serious error about the idea of infallibility that exists today - the idea that a teaching is made infallible.

A teaching can never be made infallible. If a teaching is infallible, it has always been infallible, because Truth is eternal.

The criteria for infallibility that the Church has given us does not tell us that something has become infallible. It merely allows us to recognize that the teaching is infallible.

This is the most insidious error because it comes about through carelessness in our language which is a very common, and often unnoticed, occurrence. And it is the most serious error because it unwittingly supports the modernist principle that Truth is arbitrary and determined by consensus - the very thing that the notion of infallibility is intended to refute.

This has great relevance for me coming from an Orthodox background because many Orthodox (and Catholics) regularly equate the concept of the ecumenicity of a Council with the concept of its infallibility. Many will say “this Council and its teachings are not infallible because not all the Churches accept it.” But the fact that all Churches accept a Council is not a gauge of its infallibility - that is only a gauge of its ecumenicity. The infallibility of a Council is guaranteed because of the promise of Christ to the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all Truth, a promise handed down in the Apostolic succession - irrespective of whether everyone accepts the Council or not.**

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother Joe,

I would agree with your statement here because I’ve debated my fair share of Latins over the matter. But if you care to discuss the matter in the Apologetics forum, I think you’d be surprised to find that there are also many Latin Catholics who will agree with us on this issue.

Yes, many Latins would disagree, but many Latins will also agree (indeed, St. Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church!). I would note that, according to St. Bellarmine, opposing and correcting a Pope if he teaches error is distinct from judging him. I agree with St. Bellarmine simply because there is nothing in the Tradition of the united Church of the first millenium that could justify such an action. (I wonder if this topic deserves its own thread – we’ll let the OP or moderator decide).

Does it ever come to a point where we have to say that perception is reality? If what you say is true apparently a very large number of Catholics have erroneous beliefs about this subject. What does it say about the Magisterium if it can’t convey these truths to everyday Catholics?

Where did I say your bishops did not inherit Apostolic Succession?

It just sounds really, really strange to me when I read or hear of Orthodox Christians denying that our bishops did not inherit this promise of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic succession.:shrug

Did I misunderstand what you said?

• So what would be your interpretation of Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles to all Truth?

It means precisely what it says.

• Do you think that promise refers to infallibility (why or why not)?

The Church will never err.

• Do you think that this promise did not extend to the Apostles’ successors?

It extends to the entire Church.

• Do you feel the Holy Spirit was not with the Ecumenical Councils?

Seriously?

Oh that one’s easy. No robber council has ever been confirmed by the Pope.

Constantinople 869. Of course that’s begging the question as to all of the post schism councils.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Does it ever come to a point where we have to say that perception is reality? If what you say is true apparently a very large number of Catholics have erroneous beliefs about this subject.

I’d agree with you, and I think we can work together to convince them to realize the errors of the Absolutist Petrine mindset. But that requires an equivalent effort on the part of non-Catholics to understand that the Catholic position need not be equated with the Absolutist Petrine position. Instead of lumping all Catholics together into the Absolutist Petrine camp, and exhorting us to reject the papal dogmas completely (based on an Absolutist Petrine misunderstanding), we can find common ground and magnify our common efforts from there.

What does it say about the Magisterium if it can’t convey these truths to everyday Catholics?

Nothing. The Magisterium has done its job. The information is out there to combat the Absolutist Petrine errors. I’ve personally tried my best to bring that information forth, and I daresay I’ve managed to convince a few Latins to come over to the High Petrine position from the Absolutist Petrine camp. I think most Latins are really not interested in, and local parish catechetics are not prepared to deal with, the somewhat esoteric subjects that we discuss here in the ECF. Questions on papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility are not common topics because parish catechetics are focused on building a person’s relationship with Christ and the Church, not with whether the Pope has the authority to change doctrine or abolish an Eastern liturgy.

The Magisterium has given us all the tools and the information. To repeat, it has done its job. I believe it is in good part the layperson’s responsibility to learn and convey the teaching of the Church to others. I’m sure you understand that given the EO focus on the responsibility of the laity for the Faith.

Did I misunderstand what you said?

Yes. I didn’t say that EO are claiming their bishops did not have apostolic succession; I said that EO are claiming that their bishops did not inherit the promise of the Holy Spirit (that’s how I interpret your statement that bishops don’t have infallibility, even collectively).

- So what would be your interpretation of Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles to all Truth?

It means precisely what it says.

Next question. When you say “precisely,” do you mean that the promise of the Holy Spirit was given only to the Apostles, but not their successors?

- Do you think that promise refers to infallibility (why or why not)?

The Church will never err.

So we are agreed that the Church is infallible. Next quesion - do you attach any relevance to the fact that Jesus conferred the promise that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth privately to the Apostles, and not to a general audience?

- Do you think that this promise did not extend to the Apostles’ successors?

It extends to the entire Church.

Next questions

• Do you think the Church has a particular office of teaching?
• If yes, who are the holders of this office of teaching?
• If yes, do you think this office of teaching has a particular Grace from the Holy Spirit to teach and teach correctly? (NOTE: I did not ask if the holder of the office has a particular Grace to teach and teach correctly, but if the office of teaching has that particular Grace)

- Do you feel the Holy Spirit was not with the Ecumenical Councils?

Seriously?

Well, you stated that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible (i.e., not preserved from error by the Holy Spirit). If the Ecumenical Council is not being led to the Truth as Jesus promised the Apostles, then either the Holy Spirit is not doing His job, or He simply isn’t there. So I think my question is a fair one.

Constantinople 869. Of course that’s begging the question as to all of the post schism councils.

Oh stop!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

By way of my two kopecks’ worth, church union between Orthodoxy and Latin Catholicism will only have the chance of occurring if the new paradigms often discussed by theologians are approved by the respective Churches.

This will, however, require that both Churches move towards each other, together, while facing the challenge of mutual self-transformation. I think that this can occur. It won’t occur by bringing up the historical context as somehow having a continuing impact on the Church today. The context of the Church today is decidedly different.

Rome’s role in the Orthodox East, if it is ever to have a role, would be a largely invisible one where the Orthodox Patriarchs continue to do what they’ve always done. Only in the extreme circumstance of an internal church impasse would Rome be asked to intervene - and then ONLY if it were asked OR if an Orthodox Church broke a specific Canon on which the entire (reunited) Church agrees is a universally applicable one.

In a reunited Church, the Orthodox Churches, I surmise, would notice no difference except that their Patriarchs would commemorate the Pope during the Liturgy. The Pope would not be commemorated at the local parish level, as per tradition in this regard in the East. Perhaps also the Orthodox would, for a long time after reunion is achieved, consider that the RC Church had itself returned to the truth and vice-versa. That is inevitable. Even in 1596, when the Union of Brest occurred and the Pope was being commemorated in formerly Orthodox parishes, when asked why this was so, the answer was always given, “Well, the Pope must have joined the Orthodox Church then!”

The main challenge is to overcome centuries of mistrust of one another. That is also the challenge between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches - they would be in communion with one another when they have spent many more centuries villifying each other’s Saints and Teachers.

That, more than the Filioque or papal authority, is the main obstacle, in my view.

alex

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yes. I didn’t say that EO are claiming their bishops did not have apostolic succession; I said that EO are claiming that their bishops did not inherit the promise of the Holy Spirit (that’s how I interpret your statement that bishops don’t have infallibility, even collectively).

Your mistake is equating the gift of the Holy Spirit with human infallibility. The Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, no human being is.

Next question. When you say “precisely,” do you mean that the promise of the Holy Spirit was given only to the Apostles, but not their successors?

The gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, not one group within the Church. In fact when I was chrismated, as the priest was anointing me he said “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So we are agreed that the Church is infallible. Next quesion - do you attach any relevance to the fact that Jesus conferred the promise that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth privately to the Apostles, and not to a general audience?

Yes of course. There would be no purpose for the hierarchy otherwise.

• Do you think the Church has a particular office of teaching?
  -If yes, who are the holders of this office of teaching?

The bishops define the truth, the priests proclaim it and the Church holds fast to it.

• If yes, do you think this office of teaching has a particular Grace from the Holy Spirit to teach and teach correctly? (NOTE: I did not ask if the holder of the office has a particular Grace to teach and teach correctly, but if the office of teaching has that particular Grace)

Of course. You can’t artificially separate the office from the holder. Regardless of what charism is attached to the office the holder is still a sinful, fallible human being.

Well, you stated that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible (i.e., not preserved from error by the Holy Spirit). If the Ecumenical Council is not being led to the Truth as Jesus promised the Apostles, then either the Holy Spirit is not doing His job, or He simply isn’t there. So I think my question is a fair one.

I did not state that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible. I am saying there is no way to know if a council is going to be ecumenical prior to the fact.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

By way of my two kopecks’ worth, church union between Orthodoxy and Latin Catholicism will only have the chance of occurring if the new paradigms often discussed by theologians are approved by the respective Churches.

This will, however, require that both Churches move towards each other, together, while facing the challenge of mutual self-transformation. I think that this can occur. It won’t occur by bringing up the historical context as somehow having a continuing impact on the Church today. The context of the Church today is decidedly different.

Rome’s role in the Orthodox East, if it is ever to have a role, would be a largely invisible one where the Orthodox Patriarchs continue to do what they’ve always done. Only in the extreme circumstance of an internal church impasse would Rome be asked to intervene - and then ONLY if it were asked OR if an Orthodox Church broke a specific Canon on which the entire (reunited) Church agrees is a universally applicable one.

In a reunited Church, the Orthodox Churches, I surmise, would notice no difference except that their Patriarchs would commemorate the Pope during the Liturgy. The Pope would not be commemorated at the local parish level, as per tradition in this regard in the East. Perhaps also the Orthodox would, for a long time after reunion is achieved, consider that the RC Church had itself returned to the truth and vice-versa. That is inevitable. Even in 1596, when the Union of Brest occurred and the Pope was being commemorated in formerly Orthodox parishes, when asked why this was so, the answer was always given, “Well, the Pope must have joined the Orthodox Church then!”

The main challenge is to overcome centuries of mistrust of one another. That is also the challenge between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches - they would be in communion with one another when they have spent many more centuries villifying each other’s Saints and Teachers.

That, more than the Filioque or papal authority, is the main obstacle, in my view.

:hug1:

Your statement highlighted in red above is the same position I have always held.

Your statement highlighted in blue above — what can I say. I’m ashamed to admit that
this is true. I find it ludicrous, but sadly realistic, that when reunion is achieved, we will actually STILL have groups debating heatedly about who was right or who really united with whom. Instead of the joyful proclamation, “THE SPIRITUAL FRUIT OF UNDERSTANDING HAS PREVAILED!!!” we will have mutual boasts “YOU HAVE CONVERTED!!!”:crying:

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

From my impression, we are closer than you might think. Though there are some issues that still need to be clarified.

Your mistake is equating the gift of the Holy Spirit with human infallibility. The Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, no human being is.

If you don’t mind, I am going to include this excerpt in the “Infallibility - revisited” thread, for it demonstrates another fallacy in the Orthodox understanding of the Catholic teaching on infallibility. I will explain the issue there.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, not one group within the Church. In fact when I was chrismated, as the priest was anointing me he said “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Yes, but, as St. Paul specifically teaches us, the gift of the Spirit manifests itself in many different ways in the Church. Teaching is one of those manifestations, a manifestation that more than one Apostle insists is not given to all. Would you agree to that?

Yes of course. There would be no purpose for the hierarchy otherwise.

The bishops define the truth, the priests proclaim it and the Church holds fast to it.

Of course. You can’t artificially separate the office from the holder. Regardless of what charism is attached to the office the holder is still a sinful, fallible human being.

I believe that you can indeed distinguish the office from the holder, because the holder of the office is not always exercising that office. For example, if a bishop has dinner at Burger King, or is watching TV, or goes out to a ballgame, do you think he is exercising his office?

I did not state that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible. I am saying there is no way to know if a council is going to be ecumenical prior to the fact.

Question: Do you understand and/or accept the difference between the concepts “making a Council infallible” and “recognizing a Council is infallible?”

Given the number of in my response, I think we are making good progress in understanding.:hug1:

Blessings

 

[SusTre]

I have read alot in different sites, and videos, that the union between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church is very close, so close that you could consider it partial-communion. What I want to know is is this true? And, really how are relations between us and the Russian Church?

Please don’t debate, that one little thing that I ask.
God Bless.

This is true.

 

[SusTre]

Your mistake is equating the gift of the Holy Spirit with human infallibility. The Holy Spirit is indeed infallible, no human being is.

The gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, not one group within the Church. In fact when I was chrismated, as the priest was anointing me he said “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Yes of course. There would be no purpose for the hierarchy otherwise.

The bishops define the truth, the priests proclaim it and the Church holds fast to it.

Of course. You can’t artificially separate the office from the holder. Regardless of what charism is attached to the office the holder is still a sinful, fallible human being.

I did not state that an Ecumenical Council is not infallible. I am saying there is no way to know if a council is going to be ecumenical prior to the fact.

In Christ
Joe

I see you enjoy in provoking argumentations… For a “supposed” priest… I’m unimpressed.