The Universal Church

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wait a minute

That’s your answer to this?

I said I’m not answering your questions until you stop dodging mine.

The question I had asked is why something from 800 years ago should determine how we view the current dialogue.

All I showed you was,

dialogue to end schism has been going on in the Catholic Church, with the Orthodox, at the ecumenical council level, since the 1200’s. Way earlier than Vat II that you eluded to.

 

[Isaac14]

All I showed you was,

dialogue to end schism has been going on in the Catholic Church, with the Orthodox, at the ecumenical council level, since the 1200’s . Way earlier than Vat II that you eluded to.

Fair enough - there have been attempts of reunion in the past, but that doesn’t negate my question of what relevance do these long ago efforts bear on today’s dialogue?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

All I showed you was,

dialogue to end schism has been going on in the Catholic Church, with the Orthodox, at the ecumenical council level, since the 1200’s . Way earlier than Vat II that you eluded to.

Fair enough - there have been attempts of reunion in the past, but that doesn’t negate my question of what relevance do these long ago efforts bear on today’s dialogue?

Point being, while I showed you dialogue efforts to end schism, occurring at the ecumenical council level from 746 yrs ago, however, at the local levels, that effort has been going on for 1000 yrs.

SO

Has schism ended after all that discussion?

No

 

[steve-b]

Not sure what your getting at but honestly, I don’t care.

I know you don’t. That’s obvious

 

[Isaac14]

Point being, while I showed you dialogue efforts to end schism, occurring at the ecumenical council level from 746 yrs ago, however, at the local levels, that effort has been going on for 1000 yrs.

Can you provide properly referenced sources that indicate the dialogue that took place between Ferrara-Florence and the current post-VaticanII dialogue?

And that still doesn’t negate the question of the relevance or validity of the current dialogue. Unless, that is, you’re just not happy that it is making progress and is making statements that you happen to disagree with.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Point being, while I showed you dialogue efforts to end schism, occurring at the ecumenical council level from 746 yrs ago, however, at the local levels, that effort has been going on for 1000 yrs.

Can you provide properly referenced sources that indicate the dialogue that took place between Ferrara-Florence and the current post-VaticanII dialogue?

Check out Greeks, Copts, etc from the docs and canons from the Council of Florence

That took place from 1438-1461

We’ve talked about the post Vat II dialogues. I even gave a link to those discussions. I’ll have to look it up again

Isaac14:

And that still doesn’t negate the question of the relevance or validity of the current dialogue. Unless, that is, you’re just not happy that it is making progress and is making statements that you happen to disagree with.

Look,

Don’t put this on me.

I’m not in schism from Peter. I’m in perfect communion with Peter

AND

For those who are in schism from Peter, that is on THEM. I don’t make the decisions concerning that.

AND

As anyone can read

1. Schism is NOT over between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
2. Schism has even taken on a whole new dynamic with the Russians, within your own system.

 

[Isaac14]

Look,

Don’t put this on me.

I’m not in schism from Peter. I’m in perfect communion with Peter

AND

For those who are in schism from Peter, that is on THEM. I don’t make the decisions concerning that.

AND

As anyone can read

1. Schism is NOT over between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church es .
2. Schism has even taken on a whole new dynamic with the Russians, within your own system.

All of which is the long way of saying you would rather dodge the question. Gotcha.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Look,

Don’t put this on me.

I’m not in schism from Peter. I’m in perfect communion with Peter

AND

For those who are in schism from Peter, that is on THEM. I don’t make the decisions concerning that.

AND

As anyone can read

1. Schism is NOT over between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church es .
2. Schism has even taken on a whole new dynamic with the Russians, within your own system.

All of which is the long way of saying you would rather dodge the question. Gotcha.

You are the definition of the dodge.

 

[Isaac14]

You are the definition of the dodge

:crazy_face:

 

[Isaac14]

You are the definition of the dodge.

But seriously, you still haven’t answered how century’s old reunion attempts are relevant to the current ongoing dialogue.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You are the definition of the dodge.

But seriously, you still haven’t answered how century’s old reunion attempts are relevant to the current ongoing dialogue.

Just that nothing is settled. If it was settled, schism would be over.

 

[Isaac14]

Just that nothing is settled. If it was settled, schism would be over.

I’ve never said anything was settled.

Is there value in the current dialogue being held under the auspices of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Just that nothing is settled. If it was settled, schism would be over.

I’ve never said anything was settled.

Is there value in the current dialogue being held under the auspices of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

As much value now as it was back 1000 yrs ago.

 

[Isaac14]

As much value now as it was back 1000 yrs ago.

I wonder if your Bishops and theologians that are currently a part of that dialogue share your opinion?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As much value now as it was back 1000 yrs ago.

I wonder if your Bishops and theologians share your opinion?

That’s who I go by.

 

[Isaac14]

That’s who I go by.

Sorry. - I had to edit. Do you think the Bishops and theologians involved in the dialogue see it as having no value?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That’s who I go by.

Sorry. - I had to edit. Do you think the Bishops and theologians involved in the dialogue see it as having no value?

they don’t ask me

 

[Isaac14]

they don’t ask me

Thank God for that!

 

[ziapueblo]

Selective quoting recognized

To some extent, yes, because the matter we are discussing. No where in these resent documents; Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement, does the Catholic Church even elude to the Orthodox as:

What happened in the East long after Ignatius wrote what you quoted, are those bishops who got sifted by SATAN and remained sifted to this day . THOSE are the ones who are called Orthodox .

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Selective quoting recognized

To some extent, yes, because the matter we are discussing. No where in these resent documents; Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, as well as the Balamand Statement, does the Catholic Church even elude to the Orthodox as:

What happened in the East long after Ignatius wrote what you quoted, are those bishops who got sifted by SATAN and remained sifted to this day . THOSE are the ones who are called Orthodox .

ZP

Schism is schism.

AND

I’ll post it again,

Re: the Pope and 1st among equals

then Card Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI) addressed this issue which was (approved by Pope John Paul II in the Audience of June 9, 2000. )

The whole idea of Pentarchy, and 1st among equals, started in the East. No pope ever accepted that.

3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West. As is well known, the divergences between Rome and Constantinople led, in later centuries, to mutual excommunications with «consequences which, as far as we can judge, went beyond what was intended and foreseen by their authors, whose censures concerned the persons mentioned and not the Churches, and who did not intend to break the ecclesial communion between the sees of Rome and Constantinople.»[1]
The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority. In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

From: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

AND

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms:

(all emphasis mine )

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”
(Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches )