Catholics and Orthodox

[Matt Black]

If Jesus effectively intended to establish a Church with a single teaching authority and, assuming that that authority resided in the Church whilst united as both Catholic and Orthodox, what implications does this have for the authority - both in doctrine and practice - of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches after 1054 (arguably earlier if one dates the disunity from Rome's unilateral addition of the [i]filioque[/i] )? (I partly ask this question because ISTM in some quarters that the Orthodox 'blame' Rome for the Reformation, viewing it as an inevitable consequence of Rome's 'unilateralism' in doctrine and practice post-1054).

Yours in Christ

Matt

[jasJis]

I'm not exactly sure what specifically you are asking. It is my understanding that the Catholics recognize the Authority of the Orthodox to teach their faithful. There is some specific disagreement over certain things. Look to the hierarchy of Truths (Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline), and evaluate from there. It is my understanding that the biggest split between the Roman and Orthodox is over Pope's Authority, and alot of that is muddled with the national politics of the era. One of the reasons why the Roman Church does not allow it's Faithful to receive Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, is because it feels a problem will never be resolved by pretending it's not there. We recognize their Sacraments (including Ordination) as valid, and in dire or extreme situations, we can receive Sacraments from them.

[Apotheoun]

Unity of faith and practice with the bishop of Rome is constitutive of true and full ecclesial communion. Thus, to be in the one Church founded by Christ our Lord, a man must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Sadly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are true Churches at the particular level, are presently in a state of schism from the one Catholic Church, but hopefully at some point in the future, they will return to full communion in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of St. Peter.

The following is the "Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas" which brought an end to the Acacian schism in AD 519. The document was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople and over 250 other Eastern bishops. It recognizes the primacy of the Roman See and the importance of being in communion with the Pope.

[quote name='The Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas - AD 519']The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.  For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified.  And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.  From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria.  We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.  This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith.  And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ["the Cat"] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything.  We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them.  Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs.  Furthermore, we condemn Peter ["the Fuller"] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

[i]Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion.  And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides.  I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.  But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned.  I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.[/i][/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

I'm not Orthodox for a few reasons.

One, I read an article by James Likoudis (convert from Orthodoxy) about the Council of Nicea and how it defines the Universal Church. It said the Church would be [b]visibly[/b] One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and the Catholic Church meets these criteria more than any other Church.

Two, a quote by GK Chesterton, of which I don't remember the exact wording, but it goes something like, "Once a thing has stopped growing, it has died." The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox pride themselves on their immutability. But while the Catholic Church has been immutable in "substance" (not sure what the the philosophical term is), and has maintained Traditional teachings that nearly every other Church has abandoned, arguably the Orthodox as well, the Orthodox are immutable in non-essentials. You don't have to look far to find an angry Orthodox who doesn't believe in the development of doctrine.

Three...I personally have received sooooo much Grace from the Catholic Church, I know the tree is good, and it bears good fruit. On the other hand, I've had some bad experiences with some Orthodox, and it makes me wonder if they can say the same, or say it to the same extent.

[Matt Black]

What about the argument that none of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were held in Rome or convened by a Pope? Surely that suggests that the Church is more than just the Roman See?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[theculturewarrior]

The Church has always upheld the authority of the Bishops. Look at the quotes from Lumen Gentium in that agonizingly long thread on ex cathedra statements.

[yiannii]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Mar 22 2005, 09:34 PM'] What about the argument that none of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were held in Rome or convened by a Pope? Surely that suggests that the Church is more than just the Roman See?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
[u]An example:[/u]
The Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.
Two Roman priesis were sent by Pope St. Silvester to represent him; Vitus and Vinventius. They were to be signatories to the council's official documents.

There are other councils which the pope sent representatives. I remember reading about them in the book "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" by Kenneth D. Whitehead.

[jeffpugh]

Wow. An oldie. But I have an agenda for bumping this thread. A couple of questions to start. Can an Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) be a Thomist? Or, does Aquinas say things that are contrary to the east. Also, original sin? Purgatory? These things have come up here and there in PM in relation with the Orthodox/Eastern Catholics, but, I want to see them all in one list. This bothers me a lot, 'cause I am convicted to the truth that the whole Church contains the fullness of truth. How can there be "contradictions" or elements from the other traditions that don't "jive" with each other. I decided to bump up an old thread so I don't get yelled at for flooding the board with the same old topics . What say ye? This is an important thing concerning my faith, and it's really "hurting" now. I guess we can even say it's "hard".

EDIT:

Oh, and in case I'm not clear, Apo! I'm calling you out. I want to turn to your knowledge (and wisdom) on this subject. It's killin' me now. In fact, you're the reason why I'm thinking this, cause you've revealed to me truth that I can't turn my back on.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Sacred Music Man

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='21 March 2005 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1111426890' post='551533']
Unity of faith and practice with the bishop of Rome is constitutive of true and full ecclesial communion. Thus, to be in the one Church founded by Christ our Lord, a man must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Sadly, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which are true Churches at the particular level, are presently in a state of schism from the one Catholic Church, but hopefully at some point in the future, they will return to full communion in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of St. Peter.
[/quote]

On this is really old. I guess this isn't your opinion now?

[OraProMe]

*Oh

Ugh, so tired I can't even type correctly.

[Nihil Obstat]

My personal theory ( ) Has always been that the most significant differences come from understanding certain truths differently, not necessarily believing different truths. I think a case in point would be original sin and the Immaculate Conception.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='08 October 2009 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1255005989' post='1980778']
On this is really old. I guess this isn't your opinion now?
[/quote]
It would seem (after my initial reading of that post) that his opinion has changed over the years, especially seeing some of his newer posts around here.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 October 2009 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1255007860' post='1980791']
My personal theory ( ) Has always been that the most significant differences come from understanding certain truths differently, not necessarily believing different truths. I think a case in point would be original sin and the Immaculate Conception.
[/quote]

Actually I think (in my personal theory ) that original sin is a perfect case of saying two opposite things. The West explicitly says we are guilty of Adam's sin and that Adam's sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation. The East rejects both of these. I personally don't see how we can be describing the same thing; either we are guilty of Adam's sin or we aren't.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' date='08 October 2009 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1255010219' post='1980808']
Actually I think (in my personal theory ) that original sin is a perfect case of saying two opposite things. The West explicitly says we are guilty of Adam's sin and that Adam's sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation. The East rejects both of these. I personally don't see how we can be describing the same thing; either we are guilty of Adam's sin or we aren't.
[/quote]
Well I'm simpleminded, so I have the luxury of living in complete ignorance.
Not even willful ignorance either, because I've tried to understand, and just don't.

So ha, easier for me to be a saint than you.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 October 2009 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1255023790' post='1980976']
Well I'm simpleminded, so I have the luxury of living in complete ignorance.
Not even willful ignorance either, because I've tried to understand, and just don't.

So ha, easier for me to be a saint than you.
[/quote]

haha I've actually thought that now and then... there are many times after wrestling with these ideas on phatmass I think of how many saints were worried far less with the "knowledge" of God and more about knowing Him and serving Him - thats the point right.