What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

An interesting theory, and it made me think that perhaps the “orthodox” solution may have been simply to have ratified the pronouncement via a declaration of the council.

On the theme of timing, perhaps more relevant a consideration is that Blessed Pope Pius IX reigned at the time that secular power of the Vatican collapsed - he was to be the last Sovereign of the Papal States - the Papacy was reduced to a spiritual office alone. It is feasible that Pastor Aeternus was more a reaction of the Curia to the marginalization of the Papacy in the secular world. The relevance of the Papacy needed to be redefined, reasserted and solidified. Blessed Pope Pius IX was viewed as a liberal even outside the Church, so it is hard to imagine that Pastor Aeternus was his idea alone.

Many in the Curia were shocked when Blessed John XXIII had called a second Vatican Council not only because he was viewed as a “transitional Pope”, but also because many had come to believe that councils were no longer necessary as a consequence of Pastor Aeternus. There seemed to be an expectation that infallibility would be freely exercised.

Yet, the successors to Blessed Pope Pius IX have used this power only once, and for a dogmatic declaration that even Orthodox might (as some have) think theologically unnecessary.

The most recent Pontiffs have expressed a true appreciation for the profound implications of Pastor Aeternus, and openly concluded that it should only be used rarely.

 

[TrueLight]

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 …

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

So basically, if this is what the Orthodox wants, the Orthodox wants to in fact diminish the Pope’s Role as the Vicar of Christ and make him just another Bishop.

That would change the very nature of the Catholic Church.

Heaven forbid!

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.

So then why should the Catholic Church reconcile? During a negotiation there are often concessions on both parts. Where are the Orthodox concessions?

The Orthodox gets what they want and the Catholic Church gets nothing, except the possibility to celebrate mass together with the Orthodox?

So no union until the Catholic Church becomes Orthodox, as defined by the Orthodox Church?

Seriously?

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding this.

 

[Trebor135]

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

A quip I came across recently at an Orthodox forum:

“No figure has been so divisive in Christianity as the Pope.”

Tragic, really. “Confirm your brethren” has somehow turned into “Cause disagreements with your brethren that will seem impossible to resolve apart from a miracle almost as spectacular as my resurrection”.

 

[Nine_Two]

So basically, if this is what the Orthodox wants, the Orthodox wants to in fact diminish the Pope’s Role as the Vicar of Christ and make him just another Bishop.

That would change the very nature of the Catholic Church.

Heaven forbid!

Bingo.

So then why should the Catholic Church reconcile? During a negotiation there are often concessions on both parts. Where are the Orthodox concessions?

The Orthodox gets what they want and the Catholic Church gets nothing, except the possibility to celebrate mass together with the Orthodox?

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding this.

We won’t compromise on our faith, and we won’t let anyone dictate practice. We’ve always been upfront about this.

Whether or not this is worth it for Catholics is a question the Catholic Church will need to answer for itself.

 

[TrueLight]

Bingo.

We won’t compromise on our faith, and we won’t let anyone dictate practice. We’ve always been upfront about this.

Forgive me. This is all new to me so I’m not that familiar with the conversation that has been going on except for the bits and pieces I’ve seen on the Eastern Forum.

Whether or not this is worth it for Catholics is a question the Catholic Church will need to answer for itself.

I appreciate the blunt answer. I always prefer bluntness. That goes for you too Hesychios. If this is really the answer, then why waste time?

My question is: Why does the Orthodox Church want to reconcile? Does the Orthodox Church want to reconcile or is it just the Catholic Church that is making overtures?

Eastern Catholics, are you okay with this?

If this is the general opinion of most Orthodox, I really don’t see the point of reconciliation, if it means the Catholic Church itself will have to compromise on its beliefs, dogmas, etc.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

“No figure has been so divisive in Christianity as the Pope.”

Perhaps better said that there has been no such subject as divisive in Christianity as the Papacy.

Let’s talk in the present and recent past. Did anyone ever think that Blessed Pope John Paul II had any desire to antagonize the Orthodox Churches and faithful?

Does anyone honestly believe that Pope Benedict XVI isn’t truly honest in his express commitment to fostering reunion with the Orthodox Churches?

If we were having this conversation in 1850, before Vatican I & II and before the lifting of the mutual excommunications, would we have some other rationale for remaining separated?

 

[Nine_Two]

I appreciate the blunt answer. I always prefer bluntness. That goes for you too Hesychios. If this is really the answer, then why waste time?

My question is: Why does the Orthodox Church want to reconcile? Does the Orthodox Church want to reconcile or is it just the Catholic Church that is making overtures?

Eastern Catholics, are you okay with this?

If this is the general opinion of most Orthodox, I really don’t see the point of reconciliation, if it means the Catholic Church itself will have to compromise on its beliefs, dogmas, etc.

Generally it has been the Catholic Church since Vatican II that has initiated reconciliation efforts with others. Although we are skeptical of actual union resulting (for the reasons you yourself mentioned), we support them, and have at times launched our own initiatives, because it helps us to understand each other (the very reason I’m a member of this forum). Just because we can’t celebrate the Eucharist with each other doesn’t mean we can’t have good relations, support each other, and generally just get along.

 

[TrueLight]

Generally it has been the Catholic Church since Vatican II that has initiated reconciliation efforts with others

Just in case, you didn’t know, I have a problem with the ecumenical approach of Vatican II. Ecumenism does not mean one should compromise one’s beliefs.

Just because we can’t celebrate the Eucharist with each other doesn’t mean we can’t have good relations, support each other, and generally just get along.

I agree. And I have no problem attending Orthodox DLs.

 

[Nine_Two]

Perhaps better said that there has been no such subject as divisive in Christianity as the Papacy.

Let’s talk in the present and recent past. Did anyone ever think that Blessed Pope John Paul II had any desire to antagonize the Orthodox Churches and faithful?

Does anyone honestly believe that Pope Benedict XVI isn’t truly honest in his express commitment to fostering reunion with the Orthodox Churches?

If we were having this conversation in 1850, before Vatican I & II and before the lifting of the mutual excommunications, would we have some other rationale for remaining separated?

If we were having this discussion before Vatican I, it would be much simpler for the Papacy to take a form acceptable to us.

 

[Trebor135]

So basically, if this is what the Orthodox wants, the Orthodox wants to in fact diminish the Pope’s Role as the Vicar of Christ and make him just another Bishop.

Until patristic testimony is produced demonstrating a Unanimous Consent of the Fathers on the bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ (whether in those precise terms or not isn’t important), they can do nothing else but to deny him this title and the authority it entails.

That would change the very nature of the Catholic Church.

If “the very nature of the Catholic Church” doesn’t reflect Sacred Tradition, why should we lament this outcome?

Heaven forbid!

Heaven help us!

So then why should the Catholic Church reconcile? During a negotiation there are often concessions on both parts. Where are the Orthodox concessions?

Apart from the essences-energies distinction, which the Catholic Church accepts, the Orthodox haven’t declared new dogmas since the Great Schism. So, what else are the two parties going to be negotiating over?

The Orthodox gets what they want and the Catholic Church gets nothing,

What does the Catholic Church want apart from the Orthodox to recognize and accept its post-Great Schism dogmas?

except the possibility to celebrate mass together with the Orthodox?

The Novus Ordo Mass is frequently so appalling that devout Latin Catholics should jump at the chance to participate fully in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

So no union until the Catholic Church becomes Orthodox, as defined by the Orthodox Church?

Apart from not accepting certain Latin Catholic doctrines, in what ways do you consider the Orthodox to be in error?

Seriously?

Yup. sigh

Please tell me if I am misunderstanding this.

Unfortunately, you aren’t.

 

[TrueLight]

The Novus Ordo Mass is frequently so appalling that devout Latin Catholics should jump at the chance to participate fully in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

I’m no great defender of the Novus Ordo.

They can attend an Eastern Catholic DL.

 

[Mark_Antony]

What…who…what?I went away just for 2 days and there are 300 more posts?

 

[Nine_Two]

What…who…what?I went away just for 2 days and there are 300 more posts?

That isn’t uncommon here.

I think this is the longest I’ve seen a Catholic-Orthodox thread go without it breaking down in petty insults and one-upsmanship.

 

[TrueLight]

What…who…what?I went away just for 2 days and there are 300 more posts?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Until patristic testimony is produced demonstrating a Unanimous Consent of the Fathers on the bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ

You’d be hard pressed to find *unanimous *patristic consent on anything.

 

[TrueLight]

Apart from not accepting certain Latin Catholic doctrines, in what ways do you consider the Orthodox to be in error?

I don’t want to start listing “errors”. I see some things that are incompatible with my belief system and some things that are not. But I’m no expert. I am just learning.

I think the greatest error is not being in communion with Peter.

I believe an Eastern Catholic would be better able to respond to that question since they understand the Orthodox faith (presumably) and still chose to be Catholic. Why?

 

[Trebor135]

I’m no great defender of the Novus Ordo.

They can attend an Eastern Catholic DL.

The ratio of Latin to Eastern Catholics worldwide is 98:2 or 99:1.

A lot more churches are going to have to be constructed and a lot more clergy are going to have to be ordained in order for Latin Catholic attendance at Eastern Catholic parishes to become feasible on a large scale.

I’d donate to support the cause, myself.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I’d donate to support the cause, myself.

No worries - we can always make more pierogis !

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The ratio of Latin to Eastern Catholics worldwide is 98:2 or 99:1.

A lot more churches are going to have to be constructed and a lot more clergy are going to have to be ordained in order for Latin Catholic attendance at Eastern Catholic parishes to become feasible on a large scale.

I’d donate to support the cause, myself.

In my country there are no Eastern Catholic Churches (like the Melkites, or the UGCC) and only in some cities small groups of Latins who do the DL in side chapels of some Latin churches, none where I live close to anyway. So TrueLights advice can’t always be followed.

 

[TrueLight]

The ratio of Latin to Eastern Catholics worldwide is 98:2 or 99:1.

A lot more churches are going to have to be constructed and a lot more clergy are going to have to be ordained in order for Latin Catholic attendance at Eastern Catholic parishes to become feasible on a large scale.

I’d donate to support the cause, myself.

Umm hello! There is the Extraordinary Form! So two options