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

[dochawk]

I’m a cafeteria Catholic?

I rather thought that that was overboard and offensive.

Silly you, followng the teachings of +Benedict rather than older documents.



What does he know about the issue, anyway?

 

[Dovekin]

What is your point?

On the one hand, we have the central point of a declaration by Paul VI and Athenagoras (and his synod) that was read to the bishops of the world gathered for Vatican II.

Otoh, we have something from a formal condemnation that is not central to the condemnation and is only remembered because it was no.38 on a compiled list appended to an encyclical.

I know which one I believe is more authoritative. I do not even understand how anyone could think the other is.

 

[AlNg]

The Greek Orthodox accept through the Son, but not from the Son.

The filioque is needed in Latin but would be heresy in Greek because of the translation issue.

What about in the Church Slavonic or in the English language? The Orthodox do not accept the filioque in many different languages, not just Greek.

The filioque is needed in Latin

If the filioque is needed in Latin, was the infallible Roman Catholic Church wrong for hundreds of years when it said the creed without the filioque hundreds of years before the filioque was introduced into the creed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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?

Russia has only broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate due to the situation in Ukraine. Russian has not broken communion with “everyone in union with them.” If they had done this, Russian would be out of communion with all of Orthodoxy as no one else has broken communion with the EP.

Seems the news out there is different

Russia, while singley the biggest of all the other Orthodox Churches put together, was accompanied in their (schism see note from the Archbishop following) from the EP, by the Bulgarian Orthodox , Georgian Orthodox, & Antioch .

AND

“Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, based in Damascus Syria, which has been embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute with the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The two churches have broken communion.”

The following challenge identifies schism in the Archbishop’s mind

"According to the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Press Service, Archbishop Yevstratiy claimed that Orthodox Christians must choose whether to follow the Russian Orthodox “into schism” or “remain in unity with the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bartholomew I of Constantinople) through the Local Ukrainian Church.” from: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

 

[Isaac14]

Seems the news out there is different

Seems you don’t want to read what I wrote.

You asserted Russia broke communion with Constantinople and, "everyone in union with them.’’ your assertion is wrong as no other church has broken with either Russia or Constantinople, regardless what Abp. Yevsrtatiy has said should happen.

How can I take you seriously when you don’t get the facts straight, even with your supposedly properly referenced references?

 

[AlNg]

Anglicanism, well High Church Anglicans anyways, and Lutherans are probably the most likely from the Protestant side to have a chance of reconciliation.

How would that work with women “priests” and with clergy in SS marriage?

 

[babochka]

I would say, in the face of apparent contradiction from documents of similar authority, the faithful are free to choose either approach. The more recent one would more accurately reflect the present mind of the Church in such matters.

 

[GKMotley]

IMO, it would be more obstacles, for those Anglicans who are involved in such things…

Remembering that Anglicans are maximally motley.

 

[Isaac14]

On the one hand, we have the central point of a declaration by Paul VI and Athenagoras (and his synod) that was read to the bishops of the world gathered for Vatican II.

Otoh, we have something from a formal condemnation that is not central to the condemnation and is only remembered because it was no.38 on a compiled list appended to an encyclical.

I know which one I believe is more authoritative. I do not even understand how anyone could think the other is.

Not to mention…how destructive would it be to the dialogue between the Catholic & Orthodox churches that the actual in-person joint statements by Paul VI and Athenagoras could be ignored in favor of older documents?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Seems the news out there is different

Seems you don’t want to read what I wrote.

You asserted Russia broke communion with Constantinople and, "everyone in union with them.’’ your assertion is wrong as no other church has broken with either Russia or Constantinople, regardless what App. Yevsrtatiy has said should happen.

How can I take you seriously when you don’t get the facts straight, even with your supposedly properly referenced references?

Before lecturing me, think about your objections to what is posted. At least I quote references and properly reference them.

Look, if you want to discount an Orthodox Archbishop, go ahead. But ya gotta do so with more than YOUR personal pinions if YOU want to be taken seriously.

.

 

[AlNg]

I was disappointed in Horn for making it seem like in 1054 the patriarchs themselves just formed their own church. It wasn’t like that

Yes… According to the Orthodox, the Orthodox Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054 citing such things as a married priesthood practiced by the Orthodox Catholic Church. But Jesus himself choose a married man to be first Pope and many of the apostles were married. So it was the Roman Church which disagreed with the norms set down by Jesus on the acceptability of a married clergy. The Orthodox Catholic Church has always accepted the norms of Jesus in this regard and remained faithful to these norms.

 

[Isaac14]

Look, if you want to discount an Orthodox Archbishop, go ahead. But ya gotta do so with more than YOUR personal pinions if YOU want to be taken seriously.

Why should the statement of one Ukrainian “Archbishop” from a schismatic church (The so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - Kievan Patriarchate) be what determines whether I am to be taken seriously?

 

[babochka]

Thomasbradley312:

I was disappointed in Horn for making it seem like in 1054 the patriarchs themselves just formed their own church. It wasn’t like that

Yes… According to the Orthodox, the Orthodox Catholic Church was founded in 33 AD by Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox Catholic Church in 1054 citing such things as a married priesthood practiced by the Orthodox Catholic Church. But Jesus himself choose a married man to be first Pope and many of the apostles were married. So it was the Roman Church which disagreed with the norms set down by Jesus on the acceptability of a married clergy. The Orthodox Catholic Church has always accepted the norms of Jesus in this regard and remained faithful to these norms.

Yet the Orthodox Church does not today allow married bishops (and they did not at the time of the schism), so are they not also disregarding the accepted norms of Jesus in this matter? I mean, the Bible and history are both pretty clear about having had married bishops at one point in history.

 

[SeraficLeo]

I had stated the East has never accepted that approval by the Pope was the determinative factor in assessing the ecumenicity of a council.

The very manner in which ecumenical councils were conducted presupposed the active participation of the pope, represented by the presence of his delegates in the council and finally by his own personal assent. So the East had to have accepted it.

Further, the third bishop of Antioch likewise acknowledged the Roman Church’s primacy, singling out this Church alone as being named from Christ and the Father while presiding in love. The Gospel of Saint John also concludes with a clear portrait of the Church being lead by Christ with Saint Peter being given charge by the Lord with the pastoral care of His entire flock.

What I don’t like about the Chieti document is that it begins its reflections on the nature of the Universal Church (paragraph 15) by starting with consideration of ecumenical councils. The universal Church logically precedes any and every local Church as source, pattern and cause of the local Church, from which it then derives its own legitimacy and authority. By beginning with ecumenical councils as the pattern or form of the universal Church you end up with circular reasoning and confusion.

Finally, the document wrongly claims that the Church order of the ecumenical councils was Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem “in that order.” It was in fact first Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Constantinople didn’t even exist before the 4th century and no one believes the bishop of Byzantium had any siginifance in the Church. Edit: added: that’s rather unfair to the bishops of Byzantium. They of course would have been included in Church order and as bishops had importance significance as the representative of their local or particular Church. What I meant is that the Church of Byzantium was not reckoned as a primatial See.

 

[AlNg]

I can tell you from personal knowledge that the practice of conditional baptism of Orthodox converts did not definitively cease with Vatican II.

During WWII, Orthodox Serbs in Croatia were given a choice of being sent to the death camp at Jasenovac or converting to Roman Catholicism. There are photos of Catholic priests baptizing Orthodox Serbs in Croatia during WWII.

 

[AlNg]

Yet the Orthodox Church does not today allow married bishops

At the first Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Roman legates attempted to pass Canons requiring celibacy of all clergy, priests and bishops. These attempted amendments failed. According to the Rev. John Fulton: “ Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and bishops, Priests and Deacons, equally with other men, were forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of religion *.” p.365, Vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. Later on, the Church enforced celibate Bishops in order to stop Nepotism. But married priests were still allowed in the Orthodox Catholic Church. Acceptance of a married priesthood was cited in the papal bull of 1054 as one reason for the Roman Church to split off from the Orthodox Catholic Church at that time.

 

[AlNg]

Apparently you have not read the book: Infallibility on Trial by Father Luis M. Bermejo. It has the imprimatur and ecclesiastical approval of the Jesuit provincial of India. The book gives reasons why teachings of Vatican I may be reversible.

Do you then say that Father Luis M. Bermejo and the Jesuit provincial of India are not Catholic? BTW, who appointed you to decide who can be and who cannot be a Catholic ?

 

[SeraficLeo]

I think it can be confusing to call the first seven ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church the seven councils of the Undivided Church because e.g. the baptized followers and congregations of Simon Magus, the Gnostics, the Judaizers and those who received only the baptism of John but not of the Church/Christ were not recognized and included in Church Order and perhaps at best would have been allowed to participate as witnesses, not to mention any leaders or representatives of any other heretical or schismatic sects that might have popped up and still had adherents by the time of Nicea I.

All I mean is there likely were plenty of Christian sects that simply were not even invited to formally participate in Nicea I as they had no place/position in the Church’s Order on account of not being in full communion with the Church, though no doubt many were baptized Christians and some even perhaps may have once been included in the Church’s order, being once local or particular Churches (though I can’t think of any off the top of my head).

 

[SeraficLeo]

You can respectfully propose or argue just about any idea you please as a Catholic so long as it is done in the right form or manner. Saint Thomas Aquinas argued for almost every heresy under the Sun and often gave better and stronger arguments for them than any of their most impassioned and ingenius defenders ever did. So I’m not seeing what point could be made merely because someone argues for something widely seen as heterodox or even heretical just because it has an imprimatur.

 

[AlNg]

If so, you should agree that the Orthodox should be the ones to bend because the Catholic Church’s teachings are necessarily true

This is why there will not be any reunion soon. Catholics are demanding that the Orthodox bend to Roman Catholicism. I don’t see many Orthodox who want to bend their teachings and their liturgy to fit the tastes of Roman Catholics. Take a look at some of the Roman liturgical celebrations we have recently seen and compare that with the Orthodox liturgy.