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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasbradley312
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
40.png
DerKreuzritter:
Peter’s see was in Rome.
Click to expand...
I thought that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome? Did he not establish a see at Antioch before he went to Rome?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. He passed the See of Antioch onto someone else. St Peter was NOT Bishop of Antioch when he died.

The Keys of the Kingdom were passed on to the person who replaced him upon his death (

The 2nd Bishop of Antioch was appointed long before Peter died and he was never granted the Keys.

Peter and Paul (according to St Irenaeus) May have hand selected St Linus to hold the Keys after the martyrdom of St Peter.

According to St Irenaeus, St Pope Linus is the same Linus who is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm
 
Last edited:
Can you provide a source to the effect that the original and official decrees of Nicea I were written in Greek? I only question this because Latin was typically the language of authority for the Roman Empire so it wouldn’t surprise me if in the first place the official documents were made in Latin to lend to it, so to speak, Rome’s imperial authority.
 
Last edited:
SeraficLeo said:
Can you provide a source to the effect that the original and official decrees of Nicea I were written in Greek? I only question this because Latin was typically the language of authority for the Roman Empire so it wouldn’t surprise me if in the first place the official documents were made in Latin to lend to it, so to speak, Rome’s imperial authority.
Click to expand...
I’ve read it multiple times (but don’t have a specific source for you at the moment). However, you can dig it up pretty easily. It’s not hard to find.

At that time Greek was the language of science, philosophy and art throughout the Roman Empire.

The same role Latin eventually had in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.
 
Last edited:
I agree. But would you be surprised if the Council’s decrees were originally issued in Latin to lend it the authority and character or majesty of Roman law and official imperial documents? I could see an argument either way. I could even see two official sets of documents, one in Greek and one in Latin being issued. But as Roman emperors usually wanted Councils to settle controversies authoritatively, I could also see them preferring decrees being made in Latin to lend it the ‘umph’ of full Roman authority.
 
Last edited:
So hypothetically if Peter died in a shipwreck heading for Rome or anywhere for that matter, the Church would have to have its seat on a boat in the water since that’s where he died?
I never really understood the whole argument that just because he died there it means it is better than everyone else.
 
phil19034 said:
So once again… this is a translation issue.
Click to expand...
Why do some expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is:
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son but
other expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
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.
Click to expand...
40.png
Isaac14:
Why should the statement of one Ukrainian “Archbishop” from a schismatic church
Click to expand...
You make my point about unity and authority issues plague Orthodoxy,

AND

Haven’t you been arguing schism doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy?

What makes THEIR (Ukrainian) intent on being autocepholous, any different from all the others of whatever stripe in Orthodoxy , who wanted the same independence … and got it? Why are THEY (Ukrainians) the only ones who are schismatics in your mind, but not all the others?
40.png
Isaac14:
(The so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - Kievan Patriarchate) be what determines whether I am to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
And you make my point again. Every group in Orthodoxy makes up their own rules . NO ONE speaks nor can speak, for ALL. That is what the links I posted draw attention to.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
So once again… this is a translation issue.
Click to expand...
Why do some expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is:
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son but
other expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?
Click to expand...
The answer is simple for those who want to see it.

Dual procession is correct, dual source is heretical.
Dual procession ≠ dual source
JPII explains Greek vs Latin expression of proceeds http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

“Deum de Deo, Lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero” (God from God, Light from Light, true God of true God).

The filioque is NOT saying dual source
 
Last edited:
No form of Christianity believes there can be multiple legitimate office-holders of the same single ecclesiastical office. Everyone understood - even Non-Catholics - that there was and could only be one actual and legitimate bishop of Rome among the three claimants.

I find it depressing that people will feign not to grasp something so basic and obvious just to avoid the even more obvious problem of having a system where you can in principle have multiple legitimate authorities, each equal in rank or authority, all legitimately contradicting each other and imagining God Himself arranged for such a state of affairs. People of average intelligence can see the absurdity of such an arrangement and avoid it in human systems of structure or hierarchy but apparently God just isn’t so bright, I guess.
 
It’s not about objecting it it’s the rejection of adding things to the creed without a Council.
 
SeraficLeo said:
In my own personal reflections this is one of the reasons I can’t understand the objection to the filioque.
Click to expand...
I’m Byzantine Catholic, we don’t sing/chant the filioque in the Creed. Are you ok with that?

ZP
 
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
So once again… this is a translation issue.
Click to expand...
Why do some expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is:
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son but
other expert Catholic translators say the correct translation to English is
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if any Catholic experts who say one is more correct than the other in English.

The reason why the Filioque is used in English in the Roman Rite and not used in English in the Byzantine Rite is because there are no Catholic Rites written in English. The Mass and Divine Liturgy are both translates into English and are to be translated as literally as possible from Latin for the Roman Rite and Greek for the Byzantine Rite.

God Bless
 
steve-b said:
You make my point about unity and authority issues plague Orthodoxy,
Click to expand...
I don’t see how I do. Up until the unilateral action of the Ecumenical Patriarchate late last fall, there were two schismatic churches in Ukraine (UOC-KP & UAOC) that were/are recognized by all the Orthodox Churches as being schismatic through rebellion to legitimate authority. There is one church in Ukraine recognized as canonical by all Orthodox Churches - the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. The EP in their unilateral actions to receive the two schismatic churches and create a new “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” without regard to the canonical church is what prompted Russia to break communion with the EP. But this break is not a rebelling against authority so much as being a very serious call that a breach in good order needs to be dealt with. That this is how the Orthodox have called attention to and worked through issues, is it seems, foreign to Catholics, but it is nevertheless how we have done things. And that is why I emphatically say that despite this rough-and-tumble nature, not unlike siblings, we have remained remarkably united in faith.
steve-b said:
What makes THEIR (Ukrainian) intent on being autocepholous, any different from all the others of whatever stripe in Orthodoxy , who wanted the same independence … and got it? Why are THEY (Ukrainians) the only ones who are schismatics in your mind, but not all the others?
Click to expand...
I think the Ukrainians very much deserve their own autocephalous church. Frankly, with regard to Moscow and Constantinople, I’m very much in a mindset of “a pox on both houses”. Moscow did nothing to bring back their schismatic brethren, nor did they grant autocephaly to their Ukrainian church. While I think a case can be made that with such an impasse Constantinople as first among equals, should step in to resolve the dispute, I believe they overplayed their position by unilaterally creating a new church from the previously schismatic bodies over the protests of nearly every other Orthodox Church.
steve-b said:
And you make my point again. Every group in Orthodoxy makes up their own rules . NO ONE speaks nor can speak, for ALL. That is what the links I posted draw attention to.
Click to expand...
Not really. The current tension in Orthodoxy is precisely because one church did presume to make up their own rules in unilaterally rehabilitating two previously schismatic groups. It’s true, we don’t have “one” spokesman, but as I’ve repeatedly said, despite the sometimes fractious relationships, we remain remarkably united in Faith. We don’t need one spokesman. How operate is very different than the top-down nature of the Catholic Church, but I can’t reiterate enough how despite the sometimes unfortunate rivalries, we Orthodox would never argue we profess anything but one faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top