the same thing

[steve_b]

You seem to be coming in at two angles here. One is you’re saying that we should do everything possible, and the other is the opposite. But* if the path of one person is to go somewhere else where the Catholic Church herself has stated is equally valid*, why should we despair? Again, how much division can be there if Jesus Christ is in their Eucharist? Unless you are suggesting that there is a Catholic Jesus and an Orthodox Jesus, then there is only one Jesus and thus, where is the division there?

I don’t recall the CC teaching it is equally valid for someone to leave the CC for an Orthodox Church?
C:

Well, what makes you think that it isn’t the Catholic Church who separated?

Peter isn’t divided against himself, nor are his successors. And history shows, the popes have made yoman’s efforts to try for reunification, as successors to Peter would naturally try and do.
C:

And yet Jesus says that anyone who performs miracles in His name is not against us but is for us.

And what greater miracle there is than the Eucharist. So if the Orthodox have the Eucharist on their altars, as the Catholic Church has so declared to be valid, how can they be against us?

Jesus also said

Mt 5: 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

No one can deny the popes over that last 1000 years have taken extraordinary measures to consistantly initiate reunion efforts. One example of this effort was Florence. Some Churches as a result of that council, returned to union… Many other examples of popes initiating efforts at reunion can be given as well.

What efforts in this area have the Orthodox initiated?

One of the problems the CC finds in initiating these efforts today, is this

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
C:

But if it is still Jesus in the Eucharist, how is it disunity? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus is showing up on opposite sides of the fence.

Jesus told us what He wants.

Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

That’s zero tolerance for any disunity. Being united to Peter gurantees one is following Jesus prayer thus the will of God.
C:

If you ask some in the Roman Catholic circles, there have been bad Popes the last 50 years or so.

which one(s)?

1. 
   *]Pius XII (1939-58)
   *]Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
   *]Paul VI (1963-78)
   *]John Paul I (1978)
   *]John Paul II (1978-2005)
   *]Benedict XVI (2005—)

 

[dcointin]

I found the answer to my question. The word used is “convenire”. The sentence reads:

“Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio.”

earlychurchtexts.com/main/irenaeus/01_tradition_01.shtml

Convenio: to come together, meet, assemble, gather, come in a body
Convenire: verb pres inf act

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=convenire&la=la

 

[Filii_Dei]

ConstantineTG;9347800:

If you ask some in the Roman Catholic circles, there have been bad Popes the last 50 years or so.

which one(s)?

1. 
   *]Pius XII (1939-58)
   *]Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
   *]Paul VI (1963-78)
   *]John Paul I (1978)
   *]John Paul II (1978-2005)
   *]Benedict XVI (2005—)

1. 
   I believe our brother is referring to certain radical traditionalists and sedevacantists, who consider all Popes after the Second Vatican Council to be corrupt and invalid.

 

[dcointin]

I don’t recall the CC teaching it is equally valid for someone to leave the CC for an Orthodox Church?

Peter isn’t divided against himself, nor are his successors. And history shows, the popes have made yoman’s efforts to try for reunification, as successors to Peter would naturally try and do.

Jesus also said

Mt 5: 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

No one can deny the popes over that last 1000 years have taken extraordinary measures to consistantly initiate reunion efforts. One example of this effort was Florence. Some Churches as a result of that council, returned to union… Many other examples of popes initiating efforts at reunion can be given as well.

What efforts in this area have the Orthodox initiated?

One of the problems the CC finds in initiating these efforts today, is this

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

Jesus told us what He wants.

*Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, *Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

That’s zero tolerance for any disunity. Being united to Peter gurantees one is following Jesus prayer thus the will of God.

which one(s)?

1. 
   *]Pius XII (1939-58)
   *]Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
   *]Paul VI (1963-78)
   *]John Paul I (1978)
   *]John Paul II (1978-2005)
   *]Benedict XVI (2005—)

1. 
   I agree with you that reestablishing communion should be something we continue to work towards, and I applaud the Catholic Church for taking the initiative in these efforts. In particular I admire it’s willingness to apologize for past mistakes, which it didn’t need to do (for many reasons), but did so anyhow. My criticism of these efforts however is that they don’t merely seek communion, but subjugation of the Orthodox churches under the authority of the Pope. This was never our relationship in the past, and we have good reason not to desire it for the future (e.g. the treatement of the Eastern Catholic Churches). I am very pessimistic that any such reunion would be accepted by Rome without this.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I agree with you that reestablishing communion should be something we continue to work towards, and I applaud the Catholic Church for taking the initiative in these efforts. In particular I admire it’s willingness to apologize for past mistakes, which it didn’t need to do (for many reasons), but did so anyhow. My criticism of these efforts however is that they don’t merely seek communion, but subjugation of the Orthodox churches under the authority of the Pope. This was never our relationship in the past, and we have good reason not to desire it for the future (e.g. the treatement of the Eastern Catholic Churches). I am very pessimistic that any such reunion would be accepted by Rome without this.

With absolute due respect of this opinion and conclusion, one would also hope that we can openly acknowledge that the current and prior Pontiff both have knowingly expressed willingness to re-evaluate the role of the Papacy, as part of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. This presumably is the next major agenda item for the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. I can think of no other Pope, including Blessed JPII, who is more committed to the reunification of the Apostolic Churches than the current Pontiff, Benedict XVI.

However, as we certainly would concede (at least on the Eastern Catholic side), not everyone in the Curia “seems to have gotten the memo”. I for one, despite fervent and regular prayer for reconciliation, cannot suggest that the reluctance on the part of Orthodox to believe that a unified Church would not mean subjugation to Rome is somehow unfounded or even remotely paranoid. Perhaps we need to focus some more on the dynamic of the current Catholic Communion, in order to alter this opinion …

 

[steve_b]

What is the Latin word used for “agree” in this selection? Irenaeus originally wrote in Greek but only Latin translations have survived.

Re: the clause " For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,[Book III, Ch 3, paragraph 2-3]

here’s the footnote from Schaff, a protrstant, on that clause. I bring it up because he has a real problem with this text of Irenaeus. He can’t change the text and introduce bias that way, so he wrote a footnote and introduced his bias that way…

Re: footnote 3313, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html#fna_ix.iv.iv-p2.4

(emphasis mine)

“The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original* “potiorem principalitatem***” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be seen in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome”

Irenaeus is writing “Against Heresies” and Schaff is feeling the heat.

How does he put Protestant spin to this without looking like the Protestant with an agenda? He finds known liberal dissident Catholics to quote (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252). By quoting un orthodox “Catholic” authors who agree with him, Schaff then, doesn’t look like the Protestant with a bias even though his disception is sooooo obvious.

 

[Vico]

But having absolute authority, he can just anathematize everyone who opposes him.

The Pope cannot define over and against the entire Church and tradition. Also due process must be followed, today, for one excommunicated for heresy, apostasy, or schism.

 

[Trebor135]

The Pope cannot define over and against the entire Church and tradition.

But what mechanism exists to stop him from doing so? The U.S. president is by law forbidden to commit treason; the legislative branch can put him on trial and remove the miscreant from office if he is found guilty.

Also due process must be followed, today, for one excommunicated for heresy, apostasy, or schism.

What “due process” is involved?

 

[Vico]

But what mechanism exists to stop him from doing so? The U.S. president is by law forbidden to commit treason; the legislative branch can put him on trial and remove the miscreant from office if he is found guilty.

What “due process” is involved?

Were you expecting use of physical force?

See CIC Canons 1341 and 1314 for the Latin Church. The eastern code has different items.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe our brother is referring to certain radical traditionalists and sedevacantists, who consider all Popes after the Second Vatican Council to be corrupt and invalid.

I don’t recall the CC teaching it is equally valid for someone to leave the CC for an Orthodox Church?

Does she teach the contrary?

Peter isn’t divided against himself, nor are his successors. And history shows, the popes have made yoman’s efforts to try for reunification, as successors to Peter would naturally try and do.

And the Orthodox isn’t working to reunite with the Catholic Church? I think the Orthodox has made their position very clear on what the Catholic Church has to do to reunify.

Jesus also said

Mt 5: 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

No one can deny the popes over that last 1000 years have taken extraordinary measures to consistantly initiate reunion efforts. One example of this effort was Florence. Some Churches as a result of that council, returned to union… Many other examples of popes initiating efforts at reunion can be given as well.

Does the extraordinary measure include putting his foot on top of an Eastern patriarch’s head?

What efforts in this area have the Orthodox initiated?

Maybe you should ask them.

One of the problems the CC finds in initiating these efforts today, is this

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

There is such a lot of wrong things in that statement. It seems that they are looking for a leader of the Churches akin to the Pope. I mean, even as a lay person with no theological or ecclesiastical education, I know that the Orthodox Church doesn’t operate that way.

Jesus told us what He wants.

*Jn 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, *Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

That’s zero tolerance for any disunity. Being united to Peter gurantees one is following Jesus prayer thus the will of God.

I think you are overselling it. There is nothing in Scripture that says we are to be united through Peter. While Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, there is no evidence that Christian unity rests on him. I think you have essentially replaced Christ as the head of the body here with Peter.

which one(s)?

1. 
   *]Pius XII (1939-58)
   *]Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
   *]Paul VI (1963-78)
   *]John Paul I (1978)
   *]John Paul II (1978-2005)
   *]Benedict XVI (2005—)

1. 
   See above

 

[Trebor135]

Does the extraordinary measure include putting his foot on top of an Eastern patriarch’s head?

Are you alluding to a particular instance in history of such a bizarre spectacle taking place?

 

[Trebor135]

Were you expecting use of physical force?

Well, I’ve seen mention on the forum of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox bishops being deposed. I’d like to know the process by which a hierarch can be removed in these communions–if any Eastern/Oriental Orthodox are reading, please chime in. It would put this searcher greatly at ease if a similar series of measures is available in the Catholic Church and/or is not ruled out by some provisions of canon law.

See CIC Canons 1341 and 1314 for the Latin Church. The eastern code has different items.

Thanks for the references.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you alluding to a particular instance in history of such a bizarre spectacle taking place?

Yes. But steve b is saying that the Popes has a track record of over 1000 years of initiating unity. I wonder how that instance promotes unity.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, I’ve seen mention on the forum of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox bishops being deposed. I’d like to know the process by which a hierarch can be removed in these communions–if any Eastern/Oriental Orthodox are reading, please chime in. It would put this searcher greatly at ease if a similar series of measures is available in the Catholic Church and/or is not ruled out by some provisions of canon law.

Can’t speak for the EO, but the removal of a Pope in the Coptic Orthodox Church is by synod, as in days of Proterius (451-457), who had been installed by the Chalcedonians following their deposition of Pope St. Dioscoros, but was subsequently deposed himself by a synod under Timothy II (who then was elected Pope by the non-Chalcedonians). The last time this happened, with Yusab II (1946-1956; the Pope before beloved Pope Kyrillos VI), it was likewise by synod. I don’t know much about his removal (allegations of corruption, apparently, but what little I’ve read about him seems to suggest that he might’ve become too old to govern effectively, rather than showing malicious intent), but interestingly Wikipedia claims that his removal from office was not accepted by the Ethiopians; as he was the first Coptic Pope to appoint a native-born Ethiopian archbishop for their church, I guess they weren’t willing to give up on him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can’t speak for the EO, but the removal of a Pope in the Coptic Orthodox Church is by synod, as in days of Proterius (451-457), who had been installed by the Chalcedonians following their deposition of Pope St. Dioscoros, but was subsequently deposed himself by a synod under Timothy II (who then was elected Pope by the non-Chalcedonians). The last time this happened, with Yusab II (1946-1956; the Pope before beloved Pope Kyrillos VI), it was likewise by synod. I don’t know much about his removal (allegations of corruption, apparently, but what little I’ve read about him seems to suggest that he might’ve become too old to govern effectively, rather than showing malicious intent), but interestingly Wikipedia claims that his removal from office was not accepted by the Ethiopians; as he was the first Coptic Pope to appoint a native-born Ethiopian archbishop for their church, I guess they weren’t willing to give up on him.

Interesting. The Chalcedonians deposing a non-Chalcedonian Pope. I always wondered why, if the dogma of Papal Supremacy is indeed Apostolic, did the Roman Church NOT depose the Patriarch of Constantinople and replaced him with one who is loyal to Rome. Granted that everyone else in the Eastern Orthodox Churches still would have left in schism, this would have validated a few things among which is that the current authority of the Pope is consistent with that of the understanding of his role in the First Millennium.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, I’ve seen mention on the forum of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox bishops being deposed. I’d like to know the process by which a hierarch can be removed in these communions–if any Eastern/Oriental Orthodox are reading, please chime in. It would put this searcher greatly at ease if a similar series of measures is available in the Catholic Church and/or is not ruled out by some provisions of canon law.

The power to depose hierarchs is held solely in the hands of the respective synods. There are some unfortunate examples of this in the past while.
Metropolitan Herman of the OCA was not officially deposed, but the Holy Synod did create a situation in which he was forced to retire his throne.
Irenaios was deposed from the Patriarchy of Jerusalem by his Holy Synod.

Just to make things complicated there is also the case of Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus, who was deposed by the other Cypriot bishops, on the grounds that he had taken secular power. This deposition was successfully appealed to the Ecumenical Patriarch who declared this was not uncanonical and that therefore they had no grounds on which to act.

 

[dzheremi]

Interesting. The Chalcedonians deposing a non-Chalcedonian Pope. I always wondered why, if the dogma of Papal Supremacy is indeed Apostolic, did the Roman Church NOT depose the Patriarch of Constantinople and replaced him with one who is loyal to Rome. Granted that everyone else in the Eastern Orthodox Churches still would have left in schism, this would have validated a few things among which is that the current authority of the Pope is consistent with that of the understanding of his role in the First Millennium.

I really don’t see how it would show anything of the sort. Obviously the Chalcedonians would have it that their deposition of St. Dioscoros at the Council somehow validates their authority to do that, but as it was not accepted by the majority of the people whom the new Chalcedonian bishop would be ruling over (who continued to recognize Dioscoros as the legitimate Pope of Alexandria), it did not have much effect other than outraging the people (to the point of murder, according to Evagrius Scholasticus). This is no trifling matter, of course, as adopting a mindset contrary to this reality whereby because something happened in a Council is automatically right would lead to troubling questions regarding, for instance, the Council of Florence. I can’t imagine that the EO would be too thrilled if the Eastern signatories at said Council were used as evidence of Eastern acceptance of the Roman Papacy and its prerogatives when that near-reunion so ticked off the people back home.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you alluding to a particular instance in history of such a bizarre spectacle taking place?

He’s likely alluding to the episode that occurred between Melkite Patriarch Gregory II and Pope Pius IX. The Melkites strongly objected to papal infallibility, knowing that it would basically present an enormous stumbling block between the East and West for any sort of union. He and his bishops voted against papal infallibility at Vatican I, and when they were forced to sign their approval, Patriarch Gregory II signed with the reservation “except for the rights of and privileges of Eastern patriarchs.” For this defiance, when he next visited the Vatican, Pope Leo IX had his guard throw Patriarch Gregory to the floor, and he placed his foot upon Patriarch Gregory’s head. Of course, things got better with Pope Leo XIII and Orientale Dignitas, but there was a definitely a time of tension with Pope Pius IX.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I really don’t see how it would show anything of the sort. Obviously the Chalcedonians would have it that their deposition of St. Dioscoros at the Council somehow validates their authority to do that, but as it was not accepted by the majority of the people whom the new Chalcedonian bishop would be ruling over (who continued to recognize Dioscoros as the legitimate Pope of Alexandria), it did not have much effect other than outraging the people (to the point of murder, according to Evagrius Scholasticus). This is no trifling matter, of course, as adopting a mindset contrary to this reality whereby because something happened in a Council is automatically right would lead to troubling questions regarding, for instance, the Council of Florence. I can’t imagine that the EO would be too thrilled if the Eastern signatories at said Council were used as evidence of Eastern acceptance of the Roman Papacy and its prerogatives when that near-reunion so ticked off the people back home.

Having read a little bit on the life of Severus of Antioch, I’m not convinced that anybody ever thought that the deposition of Dioscoros (formally deposed only for failing to appear at his ecclesiastical trial, which the Romans culturally understood to be an admission of guilt) proved authority one way or another. It is safe to say that the situation after Chalcedon was a full blown mess, with some anti-Chalcedonians who would not remain in communion with anybody who was in communion with Chalcedonians and vice-versa, as well as moderates who attempted to maintain communion despite disagreements over Chalcedon (the failed Henotikon, of course, was just such an attempt to maintain peace between the two moderate parties).

The only reason why the Chalcedonians were able to depose the non-Chalcedonians was because they had the might of the empire on their side. This, of course, brings up a key problem: even though I see the claim that a universal primate will provide unity thrown around a lot, I am not sure that I find it to be believable, because it was secular power, in the end, not ecclesiastical primacy, which historically managed to cement or heal schisms (the Acacian schism between Rome and much of the East over the aforementioned Henotikon, for example, was only solved once a new emperor, Justin I, came into power).

 

[dzheremi]

Having read a little bit on the life of Severus of Antioch, I’m not convinced that anybody ever thought that the deposition of Dioscoros (formally deposed only for failing to appear at his ecclesiastical trial, which the Romans culturally understood to be an admission of guilt) proved authority one way or another.

Of course they would not have argued such a thing. It is a bit too circular (after all, the “proof” is in the acceptance of the orthodoxy of the council and its decrees, including the deposition of St. Pope Dioscoros; this is what makes Chalcedonians Chalcedonians, no? In other words, the EO answer to the fate of Dioscoros that I have most often encountered is something along the lines of “He was deposed by an Orthodox council, whatever other issues there may have been”), yet I felt it necessary to approach things from this vantage point, as Constantine’s post seemed to be geared toward proving this or that modern position with reference to what transpired at earlier councils. My only point is that doesn’t really work if the people themselves don’t accept it – as in the case of Chalcedon for the OO, or Florence for the EO. The people cannot be forced to accept particular doctrines at the hands of the Emperor, whether we’re talking about Chalcedon or even earlier impositions of the emperor that were rejected by all (e.g., the Arian Lucius who was installed by the Emperor in 373 but was not recognized; the people continued to recognize Peter II). [Please note: I am not trying equate Chalcedonians with Arians, that was just another anomaly in the history of the Coptic Papacy…though unfortunately this was not the only Arian the Emperor tried to install, so not quite anomalous enough!]

The only reason why the Chalcedonians were able to depose the non-Chalcedonians was because they had the might of the empire on their side. This, of course, brings up a key problem: even though I see the claim that a universal primate will provide unity thrown around a lot, I am not sure that I find it to be believable, because it was secular power, in the end, not ecclesiastical primacy, which historically managed to cement or heal schisms (the Acacian schism between Rome and much of the East over the aforementioned Henotikon, for example, was only solved once a new emperor, Justin I, came into power).

I agree. The Copts, you see, never really had too much luck with Emperors, so I can’t say I see much hope in a “universal primate”, either. Seems like there’s a lot that could (and has) gone wrong, and on a deeper level, it is deeply offensive to at least some strains of our idea of what the faith should be…and here I am not speaking as a three day old Copt, but recalling the sayings of Amma Syncletica and others who have had a healthy skepticism regarding the entanglement of Church and State…and with the violent oppression faced in Egypt both in the ancient world and today, who can blame them?