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

[Ridgerunner]

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

Sort of, but not in the same way. The Russians, of course, claim the “Third Rome” is now Moscow.

 

[SeraficLeo]

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.

To this it should be remembered that the Popes vouchsafed the Church’s spiritual independence under the Christian emperors by being represented by delegates at ecumenical councils who required ultimate ratification of any conciliar canons by the Holy Father in Rome.

 

[steve-b]

new Rome or Constantinople?

Re: the Orthodox claiming after the schism the seat went to new Rome or Constantinople, The secular empire, the emperor, is what people are talking about, NOT the Pope of the Church.

And

As we know new Rome or Constantinople doesn’t exist anymore. That system that emperor / empire system, fell apart.

 

[SeraficLeo]

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.

Even some Catholics think that every conceivable heresy was squashed during the age of the Church Fathers. I’m not sure why people think that, given Saint Paul said there will literally always be heresies until the consummation of the world:

there have to be factions among you in order that (also) those who are approved among you may become known.[*]>(http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011019-1)

 

[Isaac14]

Even some Catholics think that every conceivable heresy was squashed during the age of the Church Fathers. I’m not sure why people think that, given Saint Paul said there will literally always be heresies until the consummation of the world:

I think the point, though, is that the heresies we see today are repackaged versions of age-old heresies. For example, the Jehovahs Witnesses are at root Arians.

 

[Isaac14]

To this it should be remembered that the Popes vouchsafed the Church’s spiritual independence under the Christian emperors by being represented by delegates at ecumenical councils who required ultimate ratification of any conciliar canons by the Holy Father in Rome.

The East has never subscribed to such a requirement. The Chieti Statement alludes to this as well.

 

[SeraficLeo]

The East has never subscribed to such a requirement.

Do you mean modern East? All I mean to say is that one practical form for the guarantee of the Apostolicity and Catholicity of an ecumenical council during the time of the Christian Roman emperors was the representation by delegates sent by the Holy See, who’s very presence affirmed that a council could only have authority over the universal church if received and ratified by the bishop of Rome: none of the seven ancient ecumenical councils objected to this procedure.

 

[Isaac14]

Do you mean modern East? All I mean to say is that one practical form for the guarantee of the Apostolicity and Catholicity of an ecumenical council during the time of the Christian Roman emperors was the representation by delegates sent by the Holy See, who’s very presence affirmed that a council could only have authority over the universal church if received and ratified by the bishop of Rome: none of the seven ancient ecumenical councils objected to this procedure.

No - I mean the East in general. Paragraph 18 of the Chieti Statement is most relevant in describing this. The East certainly accorded great respect to Rome and the Pope; acceptance by the Pope is A factor in assessing the validity of an Ecumenical Council, but not the only factor.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I just find this profoundly ad hoc. The Church existed and was one before any ecumenical council occurred. Constantinople and Jerusalem had to be positively elevated to higher status: the ecumenical councils caused that; before that, the only principal Sees were Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, all of which had their significance by reference to Saint Peter. Trying to use Ecumenical Councils as a launching point for ecclesiology ends up begging the same question as using the Bible as the sole foundation for Christianity: who or what determined what books originally belonged in the bible in the first place? The bishops at Nicea didn’t spontaneously come out of nowhere and neither did the major Sees: they already belonged to a communion that obviously also already had principles of unity and government that could not possibly pressuppose an ecumenical council.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

No I’m Catholic but I also study Church history and honestly I think both are true as in you can be Orthodox and be just as true in the faith as if you are Catholic.
The historical record shows that both sides were at fault and both completely go back to the Apostles. And the Church fathers speak about the bishop of Rome being authoratative but infallible? That’s up to interpretation. I could take the Orthodox view that it was just a seat of honor and the first among equals just as well honestly.

 

[Isaac14]

I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not arguing the church wasn’t one; it was. But being One doesn’t necessitate the Pope of Rome as having the definitive say on everything.

Are saying the Chieti Statement is wrong in its description of the church of the first millennium?

 

[Isaac14]

I could take the Orthodox view that it was just a seat of honor and the first among equals just as well honestly.

For sake of clarity, I’ll add this:

Although we Orthodox like to proclaim the seat of honor/first among equals but as if the primatial bishop means nothing beyond a regular bishop, that’s not really true either.

For example, take a look at this listing of duties and responsibilities for the Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in America. While we obviously still work with the “first among equals” principle, the Metropolitan has duties and responsibilities over and above that of diocesan bishops.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

In some ways the Pope had nothing to do with it.
The papal delegate was lead by that hot head Horus.
And the crusade of 1204 was called by what’s his name Dondolo from Venice.

 

[SeraficLeo]

Are saying the Chieti Statement is wrong in its description of the church of the first millennium

I think trying to use ecumenical councils as a basis for ecclesiology is absurd for the simple fact that ecumenical councils presuppose the Church. It can’t even in principle be a basis for the actual organization and constitution of the Church in the first millenium of the Church as the first ecumenical council happened 250+ years after Pentecost.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

First Vatican Council Orthodox had no say in so it may not be complete.
In ecumenical discussions that point must be taken seriously if communion will ever be reestablished.

 

[Isaac14]

The Chieti document speaks to more than Ecumenical Councils. I don’t understand how you’re getting that. Bishops and church organization obviously preceded the Councils.

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Does the Catholic Church in turn have to accept the Council of Trullo or the Synod of Jerusalem in that case?
I’m just not getting why the Orthodox have to be the ones to completely submit when in their eyes the Bishop of Rome would be coming back into communion with them.
I see it more as finally the Great Church is fully in communion and we should let go of certain things from the centuries to create that again when we need it more than ever. Have a Council that starts off where the seventh left off and create the Church it should have been before the breach. It would be beautiful.

 

[Wandile]

The Catholic Church does not have to accept Trullo because Rome rejected Trullo before the schism.
Pope Sergius said he would rather die than accept its innovations and Venerable Bede called it a reprobate Synod.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Does the Catholic Church in turn have to accept the Council of Trullo or the Synod of Jerusalem in that case?
I’m just not getting why the Orthodox have to be the ones to completely submit when in their eyes the Bishop of Rome would be coming back into communion with them.
I see it more as finally the Great Church is fully in communion and we should let go of certain things from the centuries to create that again when we need it more than ever. Have a Council that starts off where the seventh left off and create the Church it should have been before the breach. It would be beautiful.

Do you accept the Catholic Church’s teachings on its own infallibility and that of the Pope? If so, you should agree that the Orthodox should be the ones to bend because the Catholic Church’s teachings are necessarily true.

If you don’t accept that teaching, why be Catholic instead of Orthodox?

 

[Isaac14]

I’m just not getting why the Orthodox have to be the ones to completely submit when in their eyes the Bishop of Rome would be coming back into communion with them.

Indeed. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I believe that restoration of communion between our churches that is “built” on either “orthodox, submit yourselves to the Pope” or “Catholics, repent of your papist heresies” is built on sand and will not succeed.

Rather we both need to humbly realize that we each contributed to the break and will need to figure out a balance that preserves each while each will also have to be humble and figure out new ways to express ourselves. Honestly even this is hard to figure out what I want to say here…