Why is Papal Infallibility such a big deal?

[Hesychios]

One question: I do have a question, other than Luther, who else [of the Protestant Reformers] was a Catholic priest? Just wondering…

Not being a Protestant myself, I didn’t have much interest in this topic until I wrote that. I had to scamper around for information.

Here is a short list, there are others (especially if one considers the many hundreds of priests and monks who became local Protestant pastors following the initial disruption). I included the name of the diocese or religious order, if I could find out, and the approximate date of ordination:

Father Ulrich Zwingli
Zürich1506

Father John Knox
St Andrews 1540

Father Menno Simons
Utrecht 1515

Father William Tyndale
Worcester 1515

Father Justus Jonas
Erfurt 1518

Father Wolfgang Capito
Basel 1512

Father Andreas Karlstadt

Father Martin Bucer
Dominican 1516

Father Peter Martyr
Augustinian
Interestingly, John Calvin was not a priest, he was a lawyer.

 

[Sunflower15]

Not being a Protestant myself, I didn’t have much interest in this topic until I wrote that. I had to scamper around for information.

Here is a short list, there are others (especially if one considers the many hundreds of priests and monks who became local Protestant pastors following the initial disruption). I included the name of the diocese or religious order, if I could find out, and the approximate date of ordination:

Father Ulrich Zwingli
Zürich1506

Father John Knox
St Andrews 1540

Father Menno Simons maybe mennonites
Utrecht 1515

Father William Tyndale
Worcester 1515

Father Justus Jonas
Erfurt 1518

Father Wolfgang Capito
Basel 1512

Father Andreas Karlstadt

Father Martin Bucer
Dominican 1516

Father Peter Martyr
Augustinian

  Interestingly, John Calvin was not a priest, he was a lawyer.

Interesting! Do you know what church they founded?

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting! Do you know what church they founded?

Zwingli preceded Calvin and so he was the seminal figure in the “Swiss Reformed” tradition, which we think of as Calvinist today. After Calvin the movement centered in Geneva, not Zurich.

John Knox followed the Geneva reform tradition and brought it to Scotland, this was the precursor of the Presbyterian church.

William Tyndale was in the English church, he was persecuted when the church there was still in the Catholic camp. I think Anglicans would claim him as a precursor, but he cannot be said to have founded the Anglican church, it already existed as a Catholic institution under the Pope.

Menno Simons did indeed found the group we know as Mennonites.

The rest are important leaders, but not sole founders of movements (Lutheran or Reformed). I don’t have the material handy for a quick answer, so I am working from memory.

Michael

 

[JanetF]

Where in the bible does it say a pope is infallible and godly in any way?

Luke 10:16. Jesus promises the apostles…“he who hears you hears me”, and “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” from MATT 18:18.

From Lumen Gentium 25:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (cf. Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (cf Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or marals. Therefore, his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Sirit, an assistance promised him in blessed Peter” (LG 25).

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from his teachings (cf. Matt 16:18; I Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

1870 may be the first time the Church formally spoke about Papal infallibility siimply becuase it hadn’t been questioned before. However, if you go back to the fifth Centure, Augustine succeinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.” (Sermons 131, 10).

I found the above information in the book, “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide” put together by none other than the staff of Catholic Answers.

 

[JonNC]

One observation: I have to say that even though it is obvious that neither of you [nor I!] can undo the centuries after the schism, [or the disagreements and misunderstandings], I enjoy reading your interesting and respectful posts! Very informative…though, frankly, as none of us were there, it’s a matter of whom are we going to believe, isn’t it?

One question: I do have a question, other than Luther, who else [of the Protestant Reformers] was a Catholic priest? Just wondering…

**One comment: ** I can’t help thinking about the passage when the disciples [not sure if it was the Apostles themselves] came to Jesus complaining that others, [who were not part of their group], were teaching and “expelling demons” in His name. Should they be stopped?

Now, these people were the direct disciples of Jesus, they saw Him performing miracles, they heard His teachings firsthand …and YES, they are STILL incredibly human…bickering about who should have the “rights” to Jesus’ power!

They were NOT thinking…“oh, great, at least we have some help with all the healing & exorcisms that need to be done to help all these people in need…wonderful!”

So, from the VERY beginning, Jesus has had to work with the Church leaders acting with a little bit of an “ego trip”…[so to speak]

Why would it be ANY different 1000 yrs later? or 2000 yrs later?

One wish: Even if all Christians cannot agree on the past, that we will be able to agree about the future…even if new solutions have to be created so that no one feels overpowered… That all Church leaders will notice the needs of humanity and be moved to compassion with a spirit of service, not minding whether the helpers are from the same “group”… as Jesus said “if they are not against us, they are for us” [paraphrasing…I don’t recall the actual words]

Thankfully,
Maria

Thank you, Maria, so much for your charity and insight.
JOn

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

One observation: I have to say that even though it is obvious that neither of you [nor I!] can undo the centuries after the schism, [or the disagreements and misunderstandings], I enjoy reading your interesting and respectful posts! Very informative…though, frankly, as none of us were there, it’s a matter of whom are we going to believe, isn’t it?

One question: I do have a question, other than Luther, who else [of the Protestant Reformers] was a Catholic priest? Just wondering…

Let’s see:​

• Luther (an Augustinian friar)
• Bucer (a Dominican friar)
• Cranmer
• Hugh Latimer
• Knox
• Matthew Parker
• Zwingli
• Calvin was not in orders, but was beneficed
• Guillaume Farel (?)
• Bernardino Ochino (vicar-general of the Capuchins)

Quite a lot of them.

**One comment: **I can’t help thinking about the passage when the disciples [not sure if it was the Apostles themselves] came to Jesus complaining that others, [who were not part of their group], were teaching and “expelling demons” in His name. Should they be stopped?

Now, these people were the direct disciples of Jesus, they saw Him performing miracles, they heard His teachings firsthand …and YES, they are STILL incredibly human…bickering about who should have the “rights” to Jesus’ power!

They were NOT thinking…“oh, great, at least we have some help with all the healing & exorcisms that need to be done to help all these people in need…wonderful!”

So, from the VERY beginning, Jesus has had to work with the Church leaders acting with a little bit of an “ego trip”…[so to speak]

Why would it be ANY different 1000 yrs later? or 2000 yrs later?

One wish: Even if all Christians cannot agree on the past, that we will be able to agree about the future…even if new solutions have to be created so that no one feels overpowered… That all Church leaders will notice the needs of humanity and be moved to compassion with a spirit of service, not minding whether the helpers are from the same “group”… as Jesus said “if they are not against us, they are for us” [paraphrasing…I don’t recall the actual words]

Thankfully,
Maria

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Let’s see:​

• Luther (an Augustinian friar)
• Bucer (a Dominican friar)
• Cranmer
• Hugh Latimer
• Knox
• Matthew Parker
• Zwingli
• Calvin was not in orders, but was beneficed
• Guillaume Farel (?)
• Bernardino Ochino (vicar-general of the Capuchins)

Quite a lot of them.

nice work … sounds like more of a schism than a rebellion huh?

 

[Sunflower15]

nice work … sounds like more of a schism than a rebellion huh?

I guess what makes it a “protest” rather than a schism is mainly two things:

1. they changed theologically [not over time, but immediately]; it was the reason for their “protest”
2. they did not do a “clean break” as in a nice split into two halves; rather, they kept disagreeing and splintering off, and repeating again & again…hundreds of times

I’m not saying whether it was justifiable or not, just noticing the difference between a “schism” and the eternal splintering off that Protestants seem to thrive in. However, most of the Protestants I know are people of deep faith…so if it works for them…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Essentially, Peter belongs to everyone.

Gabriel of 12;

“AMEN” This is True; What is interesting from the first century; we have Jesus, the apostles themselves who were not individual communities but One body of believers. You speak of James in Jersualem an apostles to his Jewish community, Paul an apostle to the Gentiles, Peter is who united the two communities as one, being a Jew himself, and Jesus revealed to him in a vision to accept the Gentiles into his body from what he makes clean remains clean.

Hesychios;
In the west there is one Apostolic See, in the east there are very many. What Jesus established is a church, not a Roman church, nor a Greek church. Just church.

Gabriel of 12;
True Jesus built a Church, and according to scripture not the Pope, Jesus built his church upon Peter. True we have in Christendom many nations, tongues, peoples, culturals and tribes but only one Catholic faith. This is the question? what makes up the Catholic church, the body of Jesus Christ? First Apostles themselves, then comes the Successors to the apostles. But which bishops belong to which apostle? It is all Bishops unified in one professed Apostolic faith that make up the successors to the apostles, one individual Bishop cannot isolate himself in one community, if he does so his Catholicity crumbles, for he makes up the successors to the apostles unified as one with the other Bishops. Now this unity of one body of Bishops elect from among their brethern a Bishop of Rome who succeeds to the Chair of Peter, for the Pope is only a Bishop of Rome, but in the Episcopal body each Bishop today unifies his diocese to the whole of the Catholic faith never excluding each other.

Hesychios;
Peter and all of the Apostles left many successors, the entire church is derived from the entire first apostolate. The city of Rome was known, in the beginning, as a center of Orthodoxy. And it had the bones of Peter and Paul, so it became a center of pilgrimage, especially for people from the far west. Naturally the church of that city had influence.

But the church was noted for it’s Orthodoxy, it had the Faith of Peter and Saint Peter was taken to be it’s Patron. When this changed, when it abandoned the faith of Peter, it lost it’s importance to the church.

Gabriel of 12;

My point is; all the Bishops are united as one to continue in the successors of the Apostles, this is clear from the second century on. For example recall the trial of the heretic Bishop of Antioch Paul of Samosata in the year 268 was excommunicated. The Antiochene synod of bishops wrote letters to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and through these to other bishops in the Catholic church, gave notice that they have appointed a new bishop in the Catholic family “Domnus”, requesting these bishops to accept and approve him. This implied that a synod cannot act this excommunication and legitimize Domnus alone.

What is fascinating and revealing next, compliments my comment; of what I posted earllier of what is Ceasars and what belongs to God. When the excommunicated bishop Paul of Samosata refused to return buildings dedicated to worship. The bishops addressed the Pagan Emperor “Aurelian”. This worldly secular pagan “Ceasar” declared The buildings are to be handed over to “whomever the bishops of Italy and the city of Rome would acknowledge as lawful”. This act from the outside secular ruler looking in recognized that in the Catholic church there were no local churches but One Catholic Church that was guranteed by the unity of Bishops. Remember when the Catholic church was persecuted first the apostles, then the successor of Peter the Pope was always sought after as leader to destroy Christianity, in summary even the secular powers of the world recognized the Bishop of Rome as successor to Peter the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

Peace

 

[DennisTate]

I was wondering why is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility such a big deal with Protestants when it has been used so seldom?

I only know of a very few instances: the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception and the Crowning of Mary in Heaven [as Queen of the Angels].

It isn’t as if the Pope regularly issues new doctrine “out of the blue” abusing this infallibility.

Just wondering why is it so scary to non-Catholics?

Years ago I could not comprehend this doctrine at all but recently a series of scriptures in the OT jumped at me as being related to this question.

blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=14&v=43&t=KJV#43

“And the men of Israel were distressed that day: for Saul had adjured the people, saying, Cursed [be] the man that eateth [any] food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So none of the people tasted [any] food.”

“And when the people were come into the wood, behold, the honey dropped; but no man put his hand to his mouth: for the people feared the oath.”

“Then said Jonathan, My father hath troubled the land: see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of this honey.”

Although putting a curse on the people if they tasted food until evening was obviously an error, God honored this pronouncement from the man who he had anointed as king over Israel. In one sense this error by King Saul has value for all of us today and for millions of people throughout history who have read about these events and learned to be very careful what you say or do once you have been given a certain amount of authority or power.

I strongly suspect that this chapter tells us a lot about how to understand the scriptural basis for “infallibility.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios
If we look at scripture it is fairly obvious Saint Peter was not exercising universal jurisdiction.

• He did not assign the other Apostles their jobs.
• He did not control the entire church. In the Council of Jerusalem he had one vote, and there is no indication that he could veto anything.
• In Antioch Saint Peter was not only challenged by Saint Paul, but he seemed to be very reticent to challenge the legates from the Jerusalem church. In that respect, Saint James was more of a Pope than Saint Peter was.
• He did not unilaterally proclaim new dogmas. In fact, the very idea was anathema to the early church, the only people who would dare proclaim dogmas upon their authority alone were all heretics. The Orthodox Faith was a common Faith, a received Faith. It still is.

The church just did not have a Pope in Saint Peter. Jesus honored Simon for his exclamation of faith. Without that, Simon would not be Peter.

Besides which, Peter, along with James, John, Andrew, Thomas and the others belong to the entire church. It is their Faith we proclaim.

Gabriel of 12;
Today we cannot relive this first century as Orthodoxy may claim too, the world has aged. I too can place Peter in sacred scripture walking on water, raising the dead, healing the sick, first to coucil the apostles in electing the successor to Judas the betrayer, preaching at pentecost, from his vision removing the enmity of Gentile and Jew, recieving the keys of the Kingdom of God personally from Jesus himself etc.

But this is not my train of thought here. What have we today in the One Holy Aposotlic church? We have the college of Bishops who make up the successors to the apostles who act as one unified, but only the Bishop of Rome is the successor to Peter in communion with the college of Bishops. The Apostles appointed overseers “Bishops” who in themselves lived out the last revelations and prophecies of Jesus, today we cannot and dont invent new doctrines or teachings, only reveal this apostolic “Truths” to every age and generation of peoples.

Truly this Apostolic faith is proclaimed and proffessed today unchanged in the Catholic church. Not even death can limit this what God has built in his Catholic church thus succsessors to Peter and the apostles.

May God bless you, and have a blessed Holy Week

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I guess what makes it a “protest” rather than a schism is mainly two things:

1. they changed theologically [not over time, but immediately]; it was the reason for their “protest”
2. they did not do a “clean break” as in a nice split into two halves; rather, they kept disagreeing and splintering off, and repeating again & again…hundreds of times

I’m not saying whether it was justifiable or not, just noticing the difference between a “schism” and the eternal splintering off that Protestants seem to thrive in. However, most of the Protestants I know are people of deep faith…so if it works for them…

Most of those I listed are on the Reformed wing of magisterial Protestantism - & Parker was Cranmer’s first Protestant successor as Abp. of Canterbury. What all or most do have in common is their having been ordained Catholic priests; Calvin & one other perhaps excepted, as noted. Theologically, they were pretty much agreed. The really severe differences are between magisterial Protestantism & folk like the Anabaptists, as well as the less theocratically-minded folk such as the Familists. Early Protestantism is lively & variegated, but it’s not unintelligible. Any more than the variety within Catholicism is.​

There are other priests who became Reformers - quite a few Christian humanists seem to have done so. Erasmus, who was a friar & priest, was sympathetic to Luther at first. Melanchthon is a Christian humanist & Protestant who was never in orders; likewise Stephanus, who is best rememembered for his editions of the Greek NT.

Church history is packed with interesting people

 

[Hesychios]

1870 may be the first time the Church formally spoke about Papal infallibility simply because it hadn’t been questioned before. However, if you go back to the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.” (Sermons 131, 10).

I found the above information in the book, “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide” put together by none other than the staff of Catholic Answers.

I decided to be a cut and paste specialist today I am too tired to compose anything right now.
From *Thou Art Peter…
*

The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).
Gregory Diologos “The Great” Bishop of Roma

It is illuminating to understand that even some very illustrious Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits, “…throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70).

Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200).

 

[Alethiaphile]

However, if you go back to the fifth Centure, Augustine succeinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.” (Sermons 131, 10).
I

St. Augustine never said “Roma locuta est, causa finita est”. What he said in Sermo 131 was was that two councils and Rome had ruled on the matter, and that “the issue is settled; would now that error would come to an end.” That’s a little different.

You need to separate fact from mythology. Joe

 

[JonNC]

I decided to be a cut and paste specialist today I am too tired to compose anything right now.
From Thou Art Peter…

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).
Gregory Diologos “The Great” Bishop of Roma

From the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

IX. Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood.

19] X. Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids that he be called universal bishop. And in the Records he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered to the bishop of Rome, but was not accepted.

The parallels are striking, Michael.
Jon

 

[Sunflower15]

Two questions:

1. Alethiaphile - What does Catholic - Orthodox mean? I thought these were mutually exclusive… I’m trying to learn, but every time that I think I understood something…someone proves me wrong!
   –
2. Is “Universal Bishop” a title of the Pope? I have never heard him called such title…I always hear “Bishop of Rome” even if he is leader of the Catholic [universal] church.

Also, it sounds to me as if the real point of the admonition quoted above was that no bishop could think of himself as “unique bishop” or as “separate from the other bishops”…neither of these concepts apply to the Pope, nor to the way the Latin Rite operates since it always acts in conjunction with the Magisterium / all the Cardinals worldwide.
Why would we have so many councils otherwise?

Why do I always get the impression that non-Latin Rite Christians speak as if the Pope were an Emperor of some sort?
Is that the impression non-Catholics get? [that the Pope is akin to an Emperor]

Note aside: I am really enjoying this thread! I am learning a lot.
Thanks to all!

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Maria,

Two questions:

1. Alethiaphile -

I will not speak for Alethiaphile, I’ll just poke my nose in for a bit

What does Catholic - Orthodox mean? I thought these were mutually exclusive… I’m trying to learn, but every time that I think I understood something…someone proves me wrong!

Hopefully not mutually exclusive.

Orthodox always think of themselves as Catholic. Many Eastern Catholics identify themselves as ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’. There are many who identify with both. We have simply not adjusted to the possibility yet.

It may be a good sign.
View attachment 5514

1. Is “Universal Bishop” a title of the Pope? I have never heard him called such title…I always hear “Bishop of Rome” even if he is leader of the Catholic [universal] church.

Also, it sounds to me as if the real point of the admonition quoted above was that no bishop could think of himself as “unique bishop” or as “separate from the other bishops”…neither of these concepts apply to the Pope, nor to the way the Latin Rite operates since it always acts in conjunction with the Magisterium / all the Cardinals worldwide.
Why would we have so many councils otherwise?

I read somewhere that some Roman Catholic Cardinals thought there may never be another Council after Vatican 1870. The fact Pope John XXIII called a Council shocked the world, and upset quite a few people inside the Curia.
View attachment 5515

Why do I always get the impression that non-Latin Rite Christians speak as if the Pope were an Emperor of some sort?
Is that the impression non-Catholics get? [that the Pope is akin to an Emperor]

Not an emperor, something else…

All I can do is refer to my post #37 above, which is a direct quotation from the decrees of Vatican I in 1870AD…

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the** full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church**, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

This is saying, if I read it right, that the Bishop of Rome has authority over every diocese and parish and every job from doorkeeper and gardener to Chancellor Abbot and Bishop everywhere in the world. And no one may intervene between this Bishop at Rome and his access to or control over anyone or any property in the church, regardless of ritual tradition, religious order or locality.

In theory, he not only appoints every bishop and supervises them, he is also co-bishop in every diocese, and co-pastor in every parish.

Note aside: I am really enjoying this thread! I am learning a lot.
Thanks to all!

I am greatly pleased the discussion has been so civil.

 

[Sunflower15]

Ok…so, the Orthodox are basically Catholics “not in communion with Rome”?
And then, there are Orthodox “in communion with Rome,” and those are called Eastern Catholics, right?
And, if I understand correctly, there are many, many different churches under each of the two above.
And, for the most part, there are similar churches corresponding to each of the above.

Some day I’ll get this straightened out in my mind!

I am thankful for all of you trying to help me along

 

[Sunflower15]

I have another question… [yes, my mother says I never outgrew that “phase” that started when I first learned to talk…]

I remember during the funeral of JPII, *, that after the time of the cardinals going around him praying with incense, some priests/bishops [can’t tell because I don’t identify the Easter dress codes yet] dressed in black, also prayed going around him, with incense as well. They were chanting, not sure in what language.

I kept thinking, who are they? Obviously Eastern, but exactly which ones? How nice of them to be there…but I thought they didn’t particularly cared for any pope…[even if half the world seemed to like JPII – I was quite surprised by this during his funeral broadcasts; I didn’t expect that]

Now, maybe those were the ones “in communion with Rome”…which are a mystery to me…
If they are Orthodox, how come they are in communion with Rome?
or,
If they are in communion with Rome, why are they Orthodox?

They must be really interesting to talk to – such particular perspective!

 

[Hesychios]

Ok…so, the Orthodox are basically Catholics “not in communion with Rome”?

That is how all Orthodox regard themselves, as Catholics who are orthodox.

But actually, Rome is not on the Radar screen for Orthodox. It being considered heterodox, communion between us is not desirable at this time.

And then, there are Orthodox “in communion with Rome,” and those are called Eastern Catholics, right?

Many Eastern Catholics do not like the term (some do), and Orthodox will dispute it, for reasons I will give.

But there are those who desire to bridge this great gap between our two communions. It is an encouraging thought, really, but somehow reminds one of Don Quixote tilting at windmills . Very earnest and innocent, with a great big heap of idealism.

And, if I understand correctly, there are many, many different churches under each of the two above.

That really depends how one defines ‘church’. In one sense all the church is the same, but in Orthodox understanding it is not necessary for there to be a single corporate structure, just a common Faith. On that basis communion can be shared.

That is actually the expectation of Orthodoxy today, if there were some sort of reconciliation between the bishop of Rome and Holy Orthodoxy there would not be a corporate ‘merger’, as such, just a sharing of communion and concelebration of hierarchs.

What makes this so difficult is that the formal position of the Roman Catholic church is that the Bishop of Rome is supposed to have Universal Jurisdiction (as outlined in earlier posts). This has actually been transformed into a dogma (140 years ago), so now we see that the Roman Catholic church will have to reverse itself on a point of dogma before we can share communion. It does not seem likely.

I have another question… [yes, my mother says I never outgrew that “phase” that started when I first learned to talk…]

I remember during the funeral of JPII, *, that after the time of the cardinals going around him praying with incense, some priests/bishops [can’t tell because I don’t identify the Easter dress codes yet] dressed in black, also prayed going around him, with incense as well. They were chanting, not sure in what language.

*I kept thinking, who are they? Obviously Eastern, but exactly which ones? How nice of them to be there… I did not watch it, but I have read that there were Eastern Catholic bishops there. These are subject to the Pope, so they were eager to participate, I am sure.
Sunflower15;5036633:

If they are Orthodox, how come they are in communion with Rome?
or,
If they are in communion with Rome, why are they Orthodox?

That is the question Orthodox will ask. It is a fundamental principle with Holy Orthodoxy not to share communion with Christians which teach or believe error. Long ago, some Eastern Christians, for one reason or another, broke with that principle.

Thus they cut themselves off from Orthodoxy.

It seems that there are about 240 million Orthodox of the Byzantine Greek tradition, and about 7.5 million Catholics of the Byzantine Greek tradition. The numbers for Orthodox are very rough estimates.

It is a complicated set of stories, if you like history you may enjoy learning more about it. Usually, but not always, it comes down to politics.

They must be really interesting to talk to – such particular perspective!

You could spend some additional time in the Eastern Catholic section of CAF, or check into the Byzantine Forum.