What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[ComeHome2Rome]

Drop Pastor Aeternus

What does that even mean?

 

[Nine_Two]

What does that even mean?

He’s saying pretend Vatican I never happened, and the only dogmatic document that came out of it was never written.

This is undoubtedly the largest issue that stands between us, but not the only one.

 

[Hesychios]

… What would convince the Orthodox that the Pope is Orthodox?

I mean no offense, please remember that you did ask me, and if I am to be honest I will have to tell you.

I did not mention a Pope. Actually, I was referring to the church of the city of Rome, all of it. All of the priests and laity as well as the bishops associated with it. This is the ancient and venerable See established by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, nourished in the blood of martyrs and remembered fondly as a bulwark of orthodoxy in days long since passed.

But if you want to know what the bishop of Rome himself would have to do to convince Orthodox, this short list might give one an idea…

The bishop of Rome would have to admit that he does not possess (and never did possess) universal jurisdiction, that he does not hold a monopoly on the infallibility of the church, that he cannot declare a dogma on his own authority (and also acknowledge that purgatory as defined is a theological opinion).

As to discipline the bishop of Rome would admit he cannot codify (add to, edit or modify) the canons of the church on his authority alone (especially the ancient canons of prior Ecumenical Councils) and that he does not have the right to name, elevate, or transfer bishops outside of his own Metropolitan synod (and within the synod only in the agreement of the other bishops of his synod).

He would admit that he does not have the sole right to call a Council, nor to dismiss it nor to approve it for the rest of the church. He would not be able to control the agenda of a Council beforehand nor control the committee assignments. He would have one vote in a Council like any other bishop present and if he is not present he will not vote. (There are other things worth mentioning, but I lack the time, and these are some of the most important anyway.) These and similar changes would help convince Orthodox that the Church of the city of Rome has returned.

To be clear this is all hypothetical and I don’t expect any of this to actually happen, not one bit of it will come to pass, at least in our day. So the world will go on as it has been and no one need lose any sleep over it. It’s just that you asked …

In a future reconciled church the bishop of Rome and Orthodox bishops around the world would be able to sing praises together, commune one another, commemorate one another and concelebrate the divine liturgy for the Glory of God.

But there is no way that, in a future reconciled church, the present Orthodox particular churches will ever be ‘under’ a Pope of Rome. The churches of the east never have been.

Kind regards

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I have a lot of admiration for Orthodoxy, might become one myself. I find their take on birth control, and confession to be a lot more Biblically based than the RCC opinion, personally, no offense meant, just opinion given.

Contraception: The *official *Orthodox position condemns contraception too, you know. In practice, they do permit its use, but only as an exercise of economy, and on a case-by-case basis in consultation with one’s spiritual father.

I think you’d be in for a rude surprise if you joined expecting a free pass from their church on this issue.

Confession: I’m not aware of how it’s different from the Catholic view. Would you mind elaborating?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I mean no offense, please remember that you did ask me, and if I am to be honest I will have to tell you.

I did not mention a Pope. Actually, I was referring to the church of the city of Rome, all of it. All of the priests and laity as well as the bishops associated with it. This is the ancient and venerable See established by Saint Peter and Saint Paul, nourished in the blood of martyrs and remembered fondly as a bulwark of orthodoxy in days long since passed.

But if you want to know what the bishop of Rome himself would have to do to convince Orthodox, this short list might give one an idea…

The bishop of Rome would have to admit that he does not possess (and never did possess) universal jurisdiction, that he does not hold a monopoly on the infallibility of the church, that he cannot declare a dogma on his own authority (and also acknowledge that purgatory as defined is a theological opinion).

As to discipline the bishop of Rome would admit he cannot codify (add to, edit or modify) the canons of the church on his authority alone (especially the ancient canons of prior Ecumenical Councils) and that he does not have the right to name, elevate, or transfer bishops outside of his own Metropolitan synod (and within the synod only in the agreement of the other bishops of his synod).

He would admit that he does not have the sole right to call a Council, nor to dismiss it nor to approve it for the rest of the church. He would not be able to control the agenda of a Council beforehand nor control the committee assignments. He would have one vote in a Council like any other bishop present and if he is not present he will not vote. (There are other things worth mentioning, but I lack the time, and these are some of the most important anyway.) These and similar changes would help convince Orthodox that the Church of the city of Rome has returned.

To be clear this is all hypothetical and I don’t expect any of this to actually happen, not one bit of it will come to pass, at least in our day. So the world will go on as it has been and no one need lose any sleep over it. It’s just that you asked …

In a future reconciled church the bishop of Rome and Orthodox bishops around the world would be able to sing praises together, commune one another, commemorate one another and concelebrate the divine liturgy for the Glory of God.

But there is no way that, in a future reconciled church, the present Orthodox particular churches will ever be ‘under’ a Pope of Rome. The churches of the east never have been.

Kind regards

Would the Orthodox oppose the Pope exercising absolute authority over the Roman Church?

 

[Hesychios]

Would the Orthodox oppose the Pope exercising absolute authority over the Roman Church?

I cannot speak for ‘the Orthodox’ as if there is some plan in place, and as if this has been thought through to the last detail. I can tell you what I think though.

I think that if a synod wants to merge with another synod for practical resons, those should do so. One such synod should also have the right to organizationally separate later if it desires.

I think that if a synod of any size or location wants to put a lot of authority into the hands of one person, it can do so by holding a local Council and writing it’s own canons, and if it wants to change this later it should be able to do so. It’s a matter of sovereignty, and these are disciplines which each synod can adjust to it’s own particular needs.

So actually if the Latin churches want to be a conglomerate, they have a right to be. (In other words if the churches of Iberia and north Africa and Gaul want to organizationally merge with the church at Rome, they should be able to accomplish this.) If the Latin combined churches of the west want to have a strong centralized administration they have a right to assign that responsibility. This is a matter of church discipline and the church as a human institution can organize itself in that fashion.

Some problems Orthodox might typically have are:
-1- if one church synod wants to change the way it organizes internally, it does not automatically have the right to reorganize the neighbor synods of the communion nor interfere in their administration.
-2- in the process of conglomerating the western churches, and centralizing the administration, some people in the past made the case that God wants it that way. History does not support this claim, as we can see clearly from the earliest canons. These claimants have made a dogma out of a local discipline. Since we know that this is not Apostolic teaching it is not part of the original deposit of faith and cannot be taught with such certainty.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I cannot speak for ‘the Orthodox’ as if there is some plan in place, and as if this has been thought through to the last detail. I can tell you what I think though.

I think that if a synod wants to merge with another synod for practical resons, those should do so. One such synod should also have the right to organizationally separate later if it desires.

I think that if a synod of any size or location wants to put a lot of authority into the hands of one person, it can do so by holding a local Council and writing it’s own canons, and if it wants to change this later it should be able to do so. It’s a matter of sovereignty, and these are disciplines which each synod can adjust to it’s own particular needs.

So actually if the Latin churches want to be a conglomerate, they have a right to be. (In other words if the churches of Iberia and north Africa and Gaul want to organizationally merge with the church at Rome, they should be able to accomplish this.) If the Latin combined churches of the west want to have a strong centralized administration they have a right to assign that responsibility. This is a matter of church discipline and the church as a human institution can organize itself in that fashion.

Some problems Orthodox might typically have are:
-1- if one church synod wants to change the way it organizes internally, it does not automatically have the right to reorganize the neighbor synods of the communion nor interfere in their administration.
-2- in the process of conglomerating the western churches, and centralizing the administration, some people in the past made the case that God wants it that way. History does not support this claim, as we can see clearly from the earliest canons. These claimants have made a dogma out of a local discipline. Since we know that this is not Apostolic teaching it is not part of the original deposit of faith and cannot be taught with such certainty.

Since there is no way the Catholic Church can repeal Pastor Aeternus, do you think it would be acceptable to the Orthodox if the Pope says, “no, actually it only applies to the Latin Church”?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Since there is no way the Catholic Church can repeal Pastor Aeternus, do you think it would be acceptable to the Orthodox if the Pope says, “no, actually it only applies to the Latin Church”?

How can something be infallible for one part of the Church and not for the other part?

 

[ConstantineTG]

How can something be infallible for one part of the Church and not for the other part?

Well, there is no way the Orthodox will accept Pastor Aeternus. And there is no way the Catholic Church will repeal something declared ex cathedra. This is the only solution. If we can’t make it work this way, then let’s not waste time on talking about a unity that will never happen.

 

[jam070406]

Well, there is no way the Orthodox will accept Pastor Aeternus. And there is no way the Catholic Church will repeal something declared ex cathedra. This is the only solution. If we can’t make it work this way, then let’s not waste time on talking about a unity that will never happen.

Interesting how what is supposed to be a point of unity is a huge cause of disunity.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

If we can’t make it work this way, then let’s not waste time on talking about a unity that will never happen.

I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

Interesting how what is supposed to be a point of unity is a huge cause of disunity.

Did the fathers of Vatican I really think dogmatising the infallibility of the Pope would help reunion with the Orthodox?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting how what is supposed to be a point of unity is a huge cause of disunity.

I think the problem with all these dogmas that came out post-Reformation is that the Catholic Church was trying hard to put out the fires caused by the Reformation but forgot about the important task of reuniting with the other Apostolic Churches.

Did the fathers of Vatican I really think dogmatising the infallibility of the Pope would help reunion with the Orthodox?

I believe they didn’t consider that. It was more about asserting the role of the Pope and Magisterium over the heresy of sola scriptura.

 

[jam070406]

I think the problem with all these dogmas that came out post-Reformation is that the Catholic Church was trying hard to put out the fires caused by the Reformation but forgot about the important task of reuniting with the other Apostolic Churches.

I believe they didn’t consider that. It was more about asserting the role of the Pope and Magisterium over the heresy of sola scriptura.

You could be right. But… there is mention of the Eastern Apostolic Churches in the VI text.

Correction… it seems to be implied. While not directly naming them.

 

[jam070406]

I came to that conclusion a long time ago.

Did the fathers of Vatican I really think dogmatising the infallibility of the Pope would help reunion with the Orthodox?

They did throw this in there.

. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

They did throw this in there.

. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: “My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due.”

I have read it, but I wonder why Infallibility was dogmatised. Only two things, the IC and the Assumption, have been infallibly declared, and they could have been promulgated by Vatican I or II. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the immanent threat of protestantism, since it didn’t spread like wildfire as it did in the 16th and 17th century.

 

[gus]

I have read it, but I wonder why Infallibility was dogmatised. Only two things, the IC and the Assumption, have been infallibly declared, and they could have been promulgated by Vatican I or II. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the immanent threat of protestantism, since it didn’t spread like wildfire as it did in the 16th and 17th century.

The only way the Church’s will be unified is if Jesus returned and demanded it.
Even than there will be a few holdouts.

 

[Hesychios]

Since there is no way the Catholic Church can repeal Pastor Aeternus, do you think it would be acceptable to the Orthodox if the Pope says, “no, actually it only applies to the Latin Church”?

That is not conceivable for a dogma. .

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Since there is no way the Catholic Church can repeal Pastor Aeternus, do you think it would be acceptable to the Orthodox if the Pope says, “no, actually it only applies to the Latin Church”?

I don’t think that’s a feasible solution, Constantine. The text and context of Pastor Aeternus pretty clearly refers to the whole Church.

I know that’s not helpful to you; I’m sorry. I’m just being honest.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think that’s a feasible solution, Constantine. The text and context of Pastor Aeternus pretty clearly refers to the whole Church.

I know that’s not helpful to you; I’m sorry. I’m just being honest.

Hey, it’s my real-life job to propose solutions. No worries

The papacy really is the biggest issue between East and West. I can’t see any unification talks moving forward without any major change to that dogma. That is just the simple truth of the matter.

 

[Hesychios]

I have read it, but I wonder why Infallibility was dogmatised. Only two things, the IC and the Assumption, have been infallibly declared, and they could have been promulgated by Vatican I or II. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the immanent threat of protestantism, since it didn’t spread like wildfire as it did in the 16th and 17th century.

The key here may be in the timing.

If you notice, the first dogma of the two was declared in 1854AD, in the early part of the Pope’s reign. It was unprecedented, such a dogmatization by an individual’s fiat had never been done before, it had always ever before been done in Council. The retro-active recognition that he could have legitimately done such a thing on his own came toward the end of this same Pope’s long reign, in 1870AD, when he might have been thinking he would not be around much longer to defend it.