www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Because he does not follow us" in the Book of Mark

It's all very amusing to watch the Greeks argue about what isn't or is dogma, defined, necessary, et cetera. How Roman of you.

This just shows how the argument between the Greeks and Romans can repeat the old history from 2000+ years ago in terms of what to agree upon in all this.

The Latin argument regarding Papal supremacy (as distinct from primacy) is and must remain tautological because it lacks historical foundation. The Pope is supreme.. Says who? The Pope. Why? Because he is supreme. Says who? . .

Also, "Chuich" is a bi-polar condition, like pregnancy: one either is or isn't. Just as one cannot be "a little pregnant", one cannot be a true Church and be lacking in the fullness of the Church. To be a true Church is to have the fullness of the Church of God--it's definitional. That's why, in the Balamand Statement, the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Churches are "fully sufficient" to ensure the salvation of their adherents. It's why the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Orthodox. If the Orthodox did not have the fullness of the Church of God because they are not in communion with the Pope of Rome, then the Pope would be committing a grave sin by NOT proselytizing them (at least the SSPX are consistent in their position).

In the end, Dominus Iesus will be seen as the ham-fisted, face-saving double-speak that it is, both wrong and misguided, and will be consigned to the same shelf as other mistakes such as Unam Sanctam.

I remember when Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy discussed Dominus Iesus at Orientale Lumen. His face turned the same bright magenta as his sash, and he had to tread very lightly to avoid condemning the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith outright. It was fun to watch, sad that it was necessary.

"...and must remain tautological because it lacks historical foundation"

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

"Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox Churches are "fully sufficient" to ensure the salvation of their adherents. It's why the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Orthodox."

???

For example, I am an Orthodox and want to become Catholic, what then, Catholic Church will say to me: "Stay Orthodox, their Churches are `fully sufficient´ to ensure your salvation"?

The same for opposite situation.

That is indeed what Catholics should say, if they wish to obey Vatican II and later guidelines.

Whether the Orthodox should say the converse is a different question. The Orthodox are clearly not bound by Catholic documents, which is as well considering that they have contradicted themselves so often (as demonstrated by various documents here). As with most things in the east, it becomes a much more individual question upon which it is impossible to give a generic answer, or refer to a single guiding document, as it would depend on many factors, which should be discussed with a competent spiritual father.

Regarding your scriptural links, you can see from Stuart's original post, that nobody is debating Peter's primacy (which your links refer to). They are debating Papal Supremacy, and what role (if any) the Pope has in our salvation. The idea that the Roman Pope has a role in our salvation is not in Scripture, or in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Your links therefore don't address Stuart's point. Primacy and Infallibility, Supremacy etc are distinct concepts.

Otshelnyk,

Christ established One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If it is the Orthodox Church, what particular Church would you suggest me, as an Croatian, to become member if I would like to be an Eastern Orthodox?

What is the *real* role of bishop of Constantinople in excercising his primacy in Orthodox Church (-es) in real, modern time, not on paper?

Who is the teaching authority in Orthodox Church to tell obliged teaching for all faithfuls, in modern world with many "open questions"?

Otsheylnik,

if Orthodox Church really recognize primacy (of Pope or bishop of Consantinople), how does bishop of Constantinople exercize his primacy in Orthodox Church in *real*, modern world, not on paper?

There is much overlap here with my position outlined above, such that there is a normative answer to the "Rome question," but the application of that answer has a personalist dimension known only to God, and sometimes with His grace, also known to one's spiritual father.

It sounds like you and I disagree on the norm, but agree on the personalism.

It seems to me that one church or the other may " more fully participate in the Form of Church," so to speak.

And we know that the disposition of the soul, or the circumstances of life, (or other items that escape me right now,) may make certain things that are lawful for most persons to be sinful for others.


Even if my answers to the problems are different, I appreciate your frustration with the incoherence. Much prayer and fasting is needed.

Since "the Eucharist makes the Church", how much more is there to full participation in the "form of the Church"?

Five answers:

1: Beats me.

2: I've never heard that slogan before. A quick googling seems to show that it originates in the 20th century. Now, while I'm not saying that the idea is totally without merit, I wouldn't ascribe to it the same authority as more ancient Catholic aphorisms. I do not immediately bow to its authority the way I would to, say, "lex orandi, lex credendi." More straightforwardly, I'd have to explore the idea further.

3: Perhaps it is a matter of degree and not kind.

4: Looking at it another way, by means of comparison, there is an infinite number of numbers, and there is an infinite number of even numbers ... they are both infinite, but one is in some sense missing half of what the other has. Similarly, two churches could both be complete churches and yet one has more "fullness" than the other.

5: Beats me.

You're asking the wrong question, going by the documents of the Roman Catholic Church such as Domnius Jesus, as well as documents of the Orthodox Church, including the canons of the Council of Arles and Carthage on the validity of Baptism by Donatists. As we have seen, the Roman Catholic Church recognises that the one Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church subsists in the Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Church. It's not a matter of it subsisting in the Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Catholic Churches) OR the Orthodox Church. It subsists in both, according to the documents of your own church. Your premise is wrong, based on the teaching of your own church.



The primacy of Constantinople is recognised in the same way that the primacy of Rome was recognised in the first millennium. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the most senior hierarch, and might be appealed to for decisions under some circumstances, but does not exercise any decision making or administrative power in other Churches, such as the Russian, Antiochian, Alexandrianian, etc.

All Churches are equal, but some are more equal than others?

The real problem, of course, is Vatican II issued certain statements, the full import of which only occurred to Rome long after the fact, leading to a certain degree of discontinuity between what the Church says and what it teaches.

Dominus Iesus clearly states: "that only this single church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church.

The Orthdox, while apostolic and having many elements of sanctification and truth, are still deficient. 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."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html