What would it take for the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox to reunify?

[tafan2]

I was only responding to the one item of the previous poster’s list, papal primacy. I know there are other issues. However, I was not aware that the some Orthodox did not accept Catholic baptisms or Holy Orders. Why is this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because some of them don’t accept the entire structure of the CAtholic Church. The Pope is not a bishop to them. Bishops are not bishops. Priests are not priests. They claim because the bishops are, to them, invalid, they can’t validly ordain priests. Only the Patriarch can make a bishop and the Pope isn’t a Patriarch but a heretic and an imposter. To them, there is rightfully a bishop of Rome, but also to them, that seat is vacant and has been for a thousand years.

E.O. will waffle some on baptism. Some allow as how it might be valid due to the form. But others say not and believe Catholics will have to be baptized again as Orthodox in order to be anything but unbaptized heretics.

 

[steph03]

Well that is a very biased Catholic perspective (and I am Catholic). The Church was founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33 … Schism has hit the Church and there were mistakes on all sides.

I have no problem saying that the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East were founded by the apostles. It was one Church at the beginning. The fact that we are divided is more a reflection of our human imperfections.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Christ prayed that His disciples all be one as He and the Father are one. I am pretty sure that surpasses union on a human level. The Church was and is One and to argue it wasn’t is almost like saying the Eastern Orthodoxies were never Catholic.

 

[Mary888]

Restoration of Eucharistic Communion. The anathemas have been lifted but unity in Eucharist has not been restored.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Christ prayed that His disciples all be one as He and the Father are one. I am pretty sure that surpasses union on a human level. The Church was and is One and to argue it wasn’t is almost like saying the Eastern Orthodoxies were never Catholic.

I think you’re misunderstanding DocHawk.

The Church is a difficult concept to discuss clearly because the term refers to different levels of the Church. There’s The Church to which all baptized Christians belong. Then there’s the Church, the umbrella of the whole global Catholic Church, which consists of a bunch of Churches.

He is not suggesting that the Orthodox Churches were not part of the one Church. He’s saying that they have never been part of a single, seamless organization; they were, in the past, separate Churches bound together into the one Catholic Church by communion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Orthodox aren’t one. 60% + of Orthodoxy, (the Russians) are not in union with Constantinople / Istanbul and the other Orthodox churches in union with Istanbul…

I thought it was Constantinople they call it still.

They might do that in their official communication between themselves, but apparently If a letter is addressed to Constantinople, it won’t be delivered.

For a complete explanation scroll down to the explanation. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/mar28/istanbul-not-constantinople/

 

[steve-b]

so would it make more sense for the Catholic Church to discuss with Orthodoxes churches individualy? Could we achieve (just an example) full communion with the Albanian Orthodox church while continuing to talk to the other churches?

It’s probably being tried

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Orthodox are each individual autocephalous churches. They are all independent. There is no Orthodox Church. It’s Orthodox Churches. No ONE speaks for all of them. They all make their own decisions. Which is why they haven’t been able to have a “PAN” (everybody together) Orthodox council for over 900 yrs.

My goodness Steve. Do you not remember a few days ago in another thread where I pointed out a number of pan-orthodox synods in the timeframe you claim there have been no such things? You claimed I didn’t cite a source, then you pulled up a wiki article that made my point. I appreciate your zeal for the Catholic Church, but it would be a lot easier for me to take you seriously if you actually made an effort to understand the viewpoints of others.

Look, i understand we can split hairs on those synods, that not every single church was at each one, but that doesn’t change the fact that those synods were accepted by ALL the Orthodox Churches. As I have repeatedly told you, while the Orthodox Churches are independent in territory, they are remarkably united in faith.

“Pan” means all, not just “some”, but ALL churches attended, or were represented in attendance, correct? Are we redefining “PAN”?

Do you disagree with this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

 

[ziapueblo]

so would it make more sense for the Catholic Church to discuss with Orthodoxes churches individualy? Could we achieve (just an example) full communion with the Albanian Orthodox church while continuing to talk to the other churches?

This is Uniatism and is not what the Church has in mind for restoration of full communion. Check out the Balamand Statement which was put together by the Joint International Commission For The Theological Dialogue Between The Roman Catholic Church And The Orthodox Church.

ZP

 

[PatK63]

Every one of the persons of the Trinity always was and always will be. They had no beginning! So why do we get hung up on language that can’t describe it?

 

[Isaac14]

“Pan” means all , not just “some”, but ALL churches attended, or were represented in attendance, correct? Are we redefining “PAN”?

Do you disagree with this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

Steve, I get that you think all Orthodox are guilty of the mortal sin of schism and that colors everything you think and say about us.

You claim “pan-orthodox” means all must attend and I’m telling you that regardless of whether all attended, ALL agree with and support the decisions. ALL have agreed the pronouncements from those synods are binding on all Orthodox Churches.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It has been my understanding, obtained from E.O. that they do not deem it possible to have an ecumenical council because, to them, the position of the Bishop of Rome is vacant, and has been vacant for 900 years or so. To them, no ecumenical council can occur without all the five Churches being represented. Since to them, there’s no bishop of Rome, no council can be had.

 

[Isaac14]

It has been my understanding, obtained from E.O. that they do not deem it possible to have an ecumenical council because, to them, the position of the Bishop of Rome is vacant, and has been vacant for 900 years or so. To them, no ecumenical council can occur without all the five Churches being represented. Since to them, there’s no bishop of Rome, no council can be had.

That’s one among many reasons I’ve heard.

One line of reasoning goes that the 7 Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor of the Roman Empire. Since there is no empire and no emperor, there are no authorities to call the Church to council.

Another is that the 7 Councils addressed all the major heresies. Today, we’re left to simply address various re-hashes of those heresies. No need to call the entire church together to speak to something that’s already been addressed.

Honestly, I suspect your suggestion, the two ideas I’ve brought up, the East/West schism as well as other factors all play into this question.

 

[babochka]

Because some of them don’t accept the entire structure of the CAtholic Church. The Pope is not a bishop to them. Bishops are not bishops. Priests are not priests. They claim because the bishops are, to them, invalid, they can’t validly ordain priests. Only the Patriarch can make a bishop and the Pope isn’t a Patriarch but a heretic and an imposter. To them, there is rightfully a bishop of Rome, but also to them, that seat is vacant and has been for a thousand years.

E.O. will waffle some on baptism. Some allow as how it might be valid due to the form. But others say not and believe Catholics will have to be baptized again as Orthodox in order to be anything but unbaptized heretics.

In the US, every Orthodox jurisdiction officially accepts Catholic baptism and Confirmation. That is not to say that rebaptism doesn’t happen (it is not uncommon), but the priests who do that are at odds with their own bishops.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“Pan” means all , not just “some”, but ALL churches attended, or were represented in attendance, correct? Are we redefining “PAN”?

Do you disagree with this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pan-orthodox-meltdown-ahead-of-great-council

Steve, I get that you think all Orthodox are guilty of the mortal sin of schism and that colors everything you think and say about us.

You claim “pan-orthodox” means all must attend and I’m telling you that regardless of whether all attended, ALL agree with and support the decisions. ALL have agreed the pronouncements from those synods are binding on all Orthodox Churches.

If what you say is true

why did 60%+ of the Orthodox (the Russians) not only boycott the 2016 council meeting, they now or claim to be , no longer in union with Constantinople now Istanbul, and everyone in union with them?

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Don’t the Orthodox claim after the schism the seat went to new Rome or Constantinople?

 

[SeraficLeo]

I think Apostolicity always meant acknowledging the primacy of the Apostolic See. Both Antioch and Alexandria had their roots in blessed Peter (Alexandria via Saint Mark by an ancient tradition). Constantinople only came much later. I can’t think of any ancient literature that depicted the Church as ultimately not following but one Lord and one Shepherd. The Gospel of Saint John vividly concludes with such a portrait of the Lord’s Church.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I think Apostolicity always meant acknowledging the primacy of the Apostolic See. Both Antioch and Alexandria had their roots in blessed Peter (Alexandria via Saint Mark by an ancient tradition). Constantinople only came much later. I can’t think of any ancient literature that depicted the Church as ultimately not following but one Lord and one Shepherd. The Gospel of Saint John vividly concludes with such a portrait of the Lord’s Church.

…ok? I’m not making an argument either way. I think you’re just misunderstanding what DocHawk said.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Honestly, I suspect your suggestion, the two ideas I’ve brought up, the East/West schism as well as other factors all play into this question.

I absolutely agree it’s complex, and to exacerbate the difficulty, not all Orthodox or even all EO have the exact same reasons.