www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Sister Churches?

The answer to this question is simple and many of the ecumenists seem to have been perceptive to acknowledge it. The rift is fundamentally ecclesiological, individual doctrines are of secondary importance.

That may seem like a pretty bold statement but actually it would be illogical to give any other answer. Why? Because the rest only becomes debateable if the claims of the Papacy can be disproved.

If the Bishop of Rome really does have the powers he claims then the faith of the Roman Church is guaranteed. If the successors of St Peter truly hold his keys to bind and loose then nothing which they have bound can be errenous. If they were it would mean that Christ would be implicated in their errors since He promised Peter to bind as He binds and loose and He looses. This again is logically impossible since Christ is truth itself and to Him can no error be attributed.

Thus if one accepts the claims of the Papacy to the Petrine powers then all further doctrinal disputes become irrelevant because the Petrine powers would mean all points of Catholic teaching were confirmed by Christ Himself.

Ecumencial dialogue about any issues beside ecclesiology is for no purpose besides that of fostering trust and understanding.

Myles,

I am in complete agreement.

Dear Myles and John,

And actually I don't agree since the issues that divide East and West are based on misunderstandings in the first instance.

The USE of the Filioque in the Creed has never been proclaimed an infallible doctrine, even though it was used at the various Latin Councils since 1054 AD.

Both East and West agree on the phrase "From the Father Through the Son" while the East sees in the Filioque, for various reasons, either overt heresy or else a phrase that can lead to heresy.

It would not be the first time that Churches have been divided over misunderstandings.

Papal infallibility doesn't cover the ways in which dogma and doctrines are communicated - they can alter and change over generations and indeed need to be.

Besides, the Popes of the early centuries of the Church held to the Creed without the Filioque, as an example.

There is no reason why a Pope today cannot return the Church to the earlier Creed and, yes, for the sake of unity between East and West.

Alex

Dear John Russell,

We're not talking about infidels or pagans etc.

I don't see how anyone can see Catholics and Orthodox as being members of different "religions."

That they are not united, yet, is something that will hopefully come in God's good time.

Such reunion will involve openness and change from both sides as both sides are responsible for the break in unity.

If you really believe that Orthodox are somehow in a similar category with other faiths, then we truly are miles away from unity.

But 'return to her bosom' really! Papal triumphalism or what?

Can you or any RC show that the Eastern Churches were EVER under Rome jurisdictionally?

Can you show that the Church of Rome is somehow older than the Eastern Churches?

Can you show that the Eastern Churches ever acknowledged the jurisdictional primacy of the Pope of Rome or his teaching authority ABOVE that of an Ecumenical Council in the first centuries of a united Christian Church?

Is not your position the position of the later Papacy and not something that belongs to the shared patrimony of the Church of Christ of the Seven Ecumenical Councils where the Bishop of Rome presided in love and primacy of honour?

Alex

Without going off topic, as I understand it, the Bishop of Rome was not present at any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Brad

Dear Brad,

But his reps were and the Bishop of Rome gave his full approbation to them and they are, of course, affirmed by the RC Church to this day.

Alex

Dear Brad:

If you mean by the Bishop of Rome was "not present" IN PERSON during the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, you are absolutely right.

From the Caholic account of those councils, however, there were LEGATES of the Popes present at the first 7 presiding over the proceedings or in assistance.

An example of the overriding presence of the Pope in Ecumenical Councils was during the 4th at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. where all the Bishops in attendance exclaimed: "Peter has spoken through Leo!" upon hearing the "Tome" of Pope St. Leo the Great read to the Council. He was writing from Rome.

The following is a short historical account of each of the first 7 by the Catholic side, courtesy of the Catholic Encyclopedia (under revision):

First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)

The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).

Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381)

The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431)

The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451)

The Council of Chalcedon -- 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian -- defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.

Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553)

The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787)

The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.

Amado

Dear Amado,

Don't worry, no one is questioning Rome's primacy of honour during the Seven Councils . . .

Not that you're sensitive or anything like that . . .

What did you think of Fr. George Maloney becoming Orthodox, by the way?

If even a Jesuit is susceptible . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

I was shocked, to say the least!

Now, if that OTHER Eastern Jesuit takes the plunge then I, myself, will surrender my obedience to you, Sir!

Amado

Dear Amado,

Who is the other Eastern Jesuit?

If it is who I think it is, there's no way he'll ever "Dox."

Alex

Dear Alex:

Are you sure?

When he said: "To ---- with the Russians (or with Moscow, whatever) in defense of the UGCC's desire to be a Patriarchate, I thought he was ready to accept his new role as your Patriarch's house theologian!

Amado

Dear Amado,

The day that fellow starts to actually curse like a Russian is the day we'll all be in trouble!

Alex

Dear Alex:

One of these days, he might!

Having been elevated to the dignity of a Mitred Archimandrite in 1998? by His Excellency, The Most Rev. Stephen Sulyk, Archbishop of Philadelphia of the Ukrainians and Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church in the United States, Fr. Taft, S.J. must have learned by now some Ukie epithets directed at the Russians or a few favored Russian epithets themselves!

Amado

Dear Amado,

No one curses like the Russians curse!

Ukrainians are simply not in the same league when it comes to that!

Alex

In another fora where I participate (I found out about this one because of Irish Melkite's presence there), a similar sentiment came up in a different context recently.

The idea of returning to the "mother church" has been a common theme as well in my experience. It's odd, because the same people will then turn around and shake their head that the "instransigent Easterns" don't seem to want to come back to the table and talk.

I wonder why...

Anyway, I don't think it matters. I also now stay out of the Catholic area.

Andrew