The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
Dear Teen:

OK, let's accept your premise that the Catholic (big-C) Church teaches that the Orthodox (big-O) churches around the world are not truly Christ's Church becasue they do not recognize the Roman Pontiff as the only legimitate successor to Peter.

How, then, do you square this with the Chruch of Rome's official and published stance of valid apostolic succession in (for example) the Church of Constantinople? Better yet, what about the laws of the Latin church which state that those who have received the sacraments of initiation in (most of) the Orthodox chruches are welcome to participate in communion?

This is where I was going in my response to Mike's post: If we continue to excommunicate each other (yes, I use the present tense for a reason) and claim that the other is not truly Christ's church, how are we ever to find the commonalities between us which we hope and pray will lead to a true reunion of the spirit?

As Atanasios so elloquently points out, we may not need to lock ourselves into thinking that the only possible formulation for the Chair of Peter is with one person occupying the office of the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West.

Yours,

kl

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear KL:

I would like to quote the official stance of the Catholic Church on this matter, upon which Logos Teen based his statement that the Church established by Jesus Christ SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church:

Quote
16. x x x. The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63


For the full text of "Dominus Iesus," please see:

Link to "DOMINUS IESUS" [vatican.va]

Thanks for bearing with me.


AmdG

Modified by Admin to change the link to keep the page from being very wide. I recommend to participants that they make use of the "Instant UBB Code" feature for long links. It can be found just below the text box when composing a post. Just click on "URL" and you will be promted to enter the link, then you will prompted to enter the title of the link. Thanks!

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
Dear AmG:

So, in other words, the point made earlier that the Orthodox churches who are not "in perfect communion" with Rome (whatever that means) are not a part of Christ's Church was incorrect. Thank you. My point has been made.

While admitting to a bias here, I still cannot help but read the Church of Rome's position as somehwat contradictory. While in one breath it says that these estranged churches are "particular," in another breath it continues to preach the doctrine of Primacy which, as I humbly interpret it, states that we must all accept the Roman "Emperor" model of church governance.

Yours,

kl

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear KL:


I disagree with your assessment that the Papal system of Church governance mimics that of imperial Rome, as far as it may tend to characterize it as dictatorial and, therefore, abusive.

Rather, I think the Pope's exercise of his Petrine Ministry has resembled more that of a service to all of Christendom. (Personally, of all the Pope's titles, I like "Servant of the Servants of God" best.)

Not content with the current perception of his role, Pope John Paul II opened his papacy to suggestions, more specifically from the Orthodox, for a "definition" or "redefinition" of his role for the sake of Christian unity.

I happen to glance at the Zenit news bulletin a while ago and read, with a little trepidation, that theologians from around the world will participate tomorrow in a videocnference on "The Primacy of Peter."

The item is frightfully short on details but I hope someone in this Forum (paging the Administrator!!!) could confirm the participation of certain Orthodox theologians in this historic exercise.

AmdG

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Dear Anastasios,

All bishops are NOT the successor of St. Peter. To say that the Pope is just a bishop with only jurisdiction over his own diocese and Patriarchate is a heresy. He has jurisdiction over the whole world. By citing works of the Early Church Fathers you are merely giving theological opinions. Anyway Origen is taking the verse from Matthew and using it to correct something. A verse can be used to mean different things. You are Catholic correct? You as a Catholic are obligated to believe that the Papacy is necessary for the Church. For Christ Himself instituted the Papacy. The Church that Christ instituted SUBSIST IN the Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. That is what the Church teaches. That is what must be believed by all Catholics.

In Christ,
Michael

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Dear Michael,

May I ask you why, if that is the teaching of the Catholics, that the conferral of the office of the Papacy, however it is done, is not considered a sacrament? Someone once asked this question in another public forum, and it was a good question that I never heard answered. Certainly, by some of the things you have said in your post above, it would sound like the Papacy should be counted among the sacraments. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Thanks for your input, kl.

Quote
How, then, do you square this with the Chruch of Rome's official and published stance of valid apostolic succession in (for example) the Church of Constantinople? Better yet, what about the laws of the Latin church which state that those who have received the sacraments of initiation in (most of) the Orthodox chruches are welcome to participate in communion?
The Catholic Church has never stated that the Eastern Orthodox Churches to not have valid Orders/Apostolic Succession (validity of the sacraments falls under this).

Quote
This is where I was going in my response to Mike's post: If we continue to excommunicate each other (yes, I use the present tense for a reason) and claim that the other is not truly Christ's church, how are we ever to find the commonalities between us which we hope and pray will lead to a true reunion of the spirit?
We will find commonalities by expressing what we believe to be the Truth. True ecumenical dialogue can only be fueled by honesty. The Catholic Church has made abundantly clear that:

Quote
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.
In the above truth we see that the Church of Christ is defined as the Catholic Church "governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him." However much one wishes it weren't true, this quite obviously discludes the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

That said, this must be taken in light of the follwing:

Quote
58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
To me, this seems to be saying that the Apostolic Churches, although the Church of Christ does not subsist in them, have, by way of their Apostolic Succession and valid Eucharist, certain characteristics and operations of Christ's Church.
Of course, this is my private interpretation and to be sure I would have to consult a Catholic priest.

I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone. Please understand it is not my intention to do so. My intentions are only to regurgitate faithfully and truthfully what the Holy Catholic Church has iterated.

Pax Christi,
Logos Teen

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,075
Dear Michael,

We are going to have to agree to disagree because I refuse to do this anymore. It's not your fault but every month or two a Roman Catholic with preconceived notions about what "Catholics must believe" comes to this website and at first asks questions but then starts telling us how we're wrong when we disagree.

All bishops are Peter. That is a patristic teaching. If you want to accord the Pope primacy of honor and primacy of appeal, be my guest.

>>>To say that the Pope is just a bishop with only jurisdiction over his own diocese and Patriarchate is a heresy. He has jurisdiction over the whole world.

Byzantine Catholics generally accord the Pope a right to intervene in our Churches as a mediator but we reject the unilateral jurisdiction of the Popes over our Church in its every detail. Our Church simply doesn't work that way. Whenever Rome has tried to push the issue they lost great numbers of us to Orthodoxy, so they know better now. Rome gradually developed its ideas about the primacy within its own context without consulting the other Churches. An ecumenical Council between east and west has never solved the issue about the Papacy so the question is still open to debate. Your position is valid but so is mine. If you are thinking that Vatican I is an ecumenical council, no we don't count it as an ecumenical council in the sense of the first 7. We count 7 in our liturgy (which is the primary source of our dogmatic beliefs, over any catechism) and our catechism "the Mystery Believed" "the Mystery Celebrated" etc. (a 3 part series) accepts 7 councils and then the later Roman general synods. They aren't the same. Orthodox are part of the Church and Vatican I did not include them. Rome can't say when the schism actually occurred between east and west and it says in Dominus Iesus that Orthodox Churches are Particular Churches but lacking communion with the Pope, so it only follows that part of the Church was not present at Vatican I (or the other western synods) so it is not ecumenical.

>>>You are Catholic correct? You as a Catholic are obligated to believe that the Papacy is necessary for the Church.

I am a BYZANTINE CATHOLIC. Don't try and separate the two aspects, for they are one in our mind. Byzantine Catholics are not "obligated" to believe Latin understandings of the Church. We can admit that you have one approach while having our own approach which is different.

>>>For Christ Himself instituted the Papacy. The Church that Christ instituted SUBSIST IN the Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. That is what the Church teaches. That is what must be believed by all Catholics.

Byzantine Catholics do believe that Christ instituted the Papacy. But we disagree on what that means. Christ did not institute the Papacy as it developed at Vatican I, for sure. Since it is clearly then a development we can suggest it developed wrong and is open to change, although some Byzantine Catholics are happy to think the way you do.

I am not trying to be confrontational but please understand it's hard to deal with being told what I as a "generic" Catholic "have" to believe when I am NOT a generic Catholic but rather am Byzantine Catholic, and I don't live out what you are telling me I "have" to believe. I live out a different theological system and a different spiritual system than you do, and our Church comes from a different historical experience. Your stay here will be fruitful if we can learn from each other, not tell each other the other is wrong and believes a "heresy".

In Christ,

anastasios

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Quote
Originally posted by MikeJG0185:
Dear Anastasios,

All bishops are NOT the successor of St. Peter. To say that the Pope is just a bishop with only jurisdiction over his own diocese and Patriarchate is a heresy. He has jurisdiction over the whole world. By citing works of the Early Church Fathers you are merely giving theological opinions. Anyway Origen is taking the verse from Matthew and using it to correct something. A verse can be used to mean different things. You are Catholic correct? You as a Catholic are obligated to believe that the Papacy is necessary for the Church. For Christ Himself instituted the Papacy. The Church that Christ instituted SUBSIST IN the Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ. That is what the Church teaches. That is what must be believed by all Catholics.

In Christ,
Michael
Dear Michael.

Might I suggest that your presentation of Catholic theology is a bit incomplete?

All bishops are successors of St. Peter and are certainly Peter in their own dioceses. This fact does not does not lessen the Bishop of Rome�s being Peter to the entire Church in a special way as first among equals. His primacy is one of authority, not one of power. His primacy is because he is the eldest brother of the college of bishops, not because he is the father of them. His primacy comes from the fact that he is the ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. This is not heresy but solid Catholic teaching. You seem to have latched onto the external authoritarian models of the papacy in the Church and missed the fact such models are rooted in a primacy of love. Without understanding the primacy of love one cannot understand the papacy. While there is some disagreement among Churches about this primacy a good study of the Trinity and the primacy of the Father will help you understand the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Please don�t reduce it to a simple chain of totalitarian command.

I think that the issue here is mainly one of communication. You have come into an Eastern Christian family. The theological language you speak (that of the Latin Church) is one that we do not use nor intend to use. You are equally unfamiliar with the theological language of the East. I suggest that you might take some time to familiarize yourself with the way we live out the life in Christ before you enter our house with guns blazing, shooting anything that deviates from your pre-conceived ideas on what it means to be Catholic.

Best wishes to you during this season of the Fast.

Admin

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Dear Mor Ephrem,

There are seven sacraments in the Church: 1.Baptism 2.Confirmation(Chrismation) 3.The Eucharist 4.Penance 5.Annointing of the Sick(Extreme Unction) 6.Matrimony 7.Holy Orders

All of these were instituted by Christ Himself. There can NEVER be anymore or anyless sacraments than these 7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christians's life of faith. There is thus certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.(1210) Sacraments are "powers that comes forth" from the Body of Christ, which is ever-living and life-giving. They actions of the Holy Spirit at work in his Body, the Church. They are "the masterworks of God" in the new and everlasting covenant."(1116)

The Papacy is NOT a sacrament nor could it ever be one. It is an office founded by Christ. An office that only one man at a time can hold. The man who holds the office of the papacy is the Vicar of Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Quote
Originally posted by MikeJG0185:
The Papacy is NOT a sacrament nor could it ever be one. It is an office founded by Christ. An office that only one man at a time can hold. The man who holds the office of the papacy is the Vicar of Christ.
Dear Michael,

If a sacrament is something instituted by Christ that confers grace upon the recipient, why wouldn't the Papacy fit? After all, you admit that the Papacy was instituted by Christ, and one could argue that the "grace", for lack of a better word, of papal infallibility is conferred by assuming this office (certainly, the current Pope did not have this grace when he was Archbishop of Krakow). Perhaps there is more to the Latin understanding of what a sacrament is? At any rate, it sounds to me like one could argue that the Papacy could be considered a sacrament based on what Catholics seem to believe about it, and the only thing that could put a stop to such an argument is the fact that the Latins say there are only seven sacraments, no more, no less. But then one should answer why the Papacy is what they say it is, and yet is not a sacrament. It's an interesting question, and to date (including your most recent reply), no one's been able to answer it for me. Perhaps next time... wink God bless.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Well, Mor, I know we just talked about this, but I'll put it up for everyon to see in case they're interested...

The Papacy is not considered a sacrament, for one, because it is reversible and and be resigned, such as with Pope Gregory XII and Pope St. Celestine V.

Logos Teen

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5