www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The "Mother Church"?

Brethern
The Holy Father has spoken on this point saying that the East cannot even be considered to be in Schism.
To me the best phrase is "imperfect communion"
The Orthodox are just as much "Catholic" as the Catholic Church is "Orthodox"
If we can aggree on that we are most of the way home and home is were we belong.
Let us truly be united in a bond of fraternal koinonia and charity.

Siochain Chriost,
Stephanos I

PS I for one refuse to perpetuate or admit division between us. I receive any Orthodox as a true believer.

Dear Stephanos, the language used in Unitatis Redintegratio that I quoted earlier in this thread is very clear in Paragraph 17, i.e. that Orthodoxy
May we indeed dwell in a spirit of love, charity, and koinonia as you and I both pray.

Dear Mikey:

Actually, it's time for the Church of Kyiv to stand up and be counted. No Unions that can in any way imply that it is subservient to anyone.

Yours,

kl

The Kyivan Church is a church sui iuris. To paraphrase a movie line, Unions? We don't need no stinkin' Unions...

Slava Isusu Christu!

KL and Diak,

Of course, I was joking. :p Nothing would make me happier than the Kiyvan Church standing up and being counted.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Friends,

Yes, and I don't know if the term "Imperfect Union" can be applied in terms of "imperfect union with the CHurch of Christ."

The Orthodox can ONLY really be said to be in "imperfect union" with the Roman Communion.

The Roman Communion believes itself to be the "ultimate" in terms of what Christ wills for His Church - the Orthodox believe the same about their Church.

When members of either Church go to Holy Communion, they are truly and perfectly united to Christ, are they not?

Would anyone dare say otherwise?

The fact that there is a division between these two great Orthodox and Catholic ecclesial families has NO impact on the work of the Holy Spirit within them and their members.

Saints are produced in both of them, nevertheless.

Alex

That was a very good observation Dr Alex,
Thanks

Michael

Thanks, Two Lungs.

Logos Teen

Diak, brother, you have misquoted here. The document does not say that "Orthodoxy" belongs to "the full Catholic and Apostolic character of the Church", but that the valid sacraments and elementa ecclesiae *within* Orthodoxy "belong to the full Catholic and Apostolic Character of the Church."

LatinTrad

Leave it to a Roman to make a distinction when there is none. I'll refresh your memory from Unitatis Redintegratio: "this entire heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in their various traditions, belongs to the full catholic and apostolic character of the Church".
That's more than just "valid sacraments".

Dear LatinTrad,

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

But has the Roman Catholic Church ever denied that Orthodoxy has the Apostolic Faith?

Has it ever denied its Apostolic ecclesial character as part of the True Church, although, from Rome's point of view, it is "in rebellion?"

If Orthodoxy believes what the RC Church holds about the Apostolic faith, has valid Apostolic succession and the Mysteries/Sacraments - how can it be said NOT to be the True Church of Christ?

I know what you'll say - papacy and the doctrines defined after the schism.

But it is really for Rome to show how its later doctrines are a valid development of the faith and order of the undivided Church of the first millennium.

Until it can to everyone's satisfaction (perhaps within the context of a union Council in future?), it is really Rome, not Orthodoxy, who is the "odd man out" when it comes to consistency of Apostolic doctrine of the first millennium of the Church.

Alex

Not if you accept the teaching of the Orthodox Father St. Maximos the Confessor:
"implore the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."
(Maximos, letter to Peter, in Mansi X, 692 AD)

Consistency with Apostolic doctrine? The Church founded by Christ upon St. Peter the Rock is the guardian of Apostolic Doctrine. That is what Holy Tradition teaches us. That is what the orthodox fathers teach us. That is what Scripture teaches us. Granted that premise, it is absurd to speak of the Apostolic See being the "odd man out".

Diak, I was trying to draw a distinction between the Orthodox tradition and the fact that they have taken that tradition outside the context of the Church's visible structure.

I am sorry to all that I have offended--just presenting what I know to be true.

LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad,

To speak of St Peter's Keys being ONLY locked into the See of Rome and nowhere is what is being TRULY absurd.

No one is questioning Peter's Keys.

He founded the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria through his assistant, St Mark - and also many, many other Churches in the East in villages and towns.

That Rome was given a primacy among equals was owed more to the Fourth Ecumenical Council and to Rome's secular status as the capital of the Roman Empire than to St Peter.

As a matter of fact, Peter's presence in Rome is NOWHERE mentioned in the Council's decision to defer to Rome as the Elder See.

St Maximos' quote is taken out of context here - even Roman Catholic theologians today admit that.

What he said of the Roman See are things he would not deny of the four main Eastern Sees.

He was under attack and called on Rome to act as arbiter in the Monothelite controversy.

The same controversy that later made the Church, including the Roman Church, condemn Pope Honorius for being complicit in that heresy.

Rome's primacy was only guaranteed as long as it remained orthodox from the Eastern Church's perspective.

A Council even criticized the Church of Rome for breaking with the ancient tradition of fasting on Wednesdays and moving the fast to Saturday.

The Ecumenical Council was the ultimate arbiter of faith and morals in the first millennium of the Church with the pope acting as first among equals at such Councils.

Alex

Yes, Alex, I would disagree with this assessment. For example, those in a state of mortal sin only "drink judgment upon themselves" when they partake of the Eucharist. For many believers in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches this specifically means all of those outside of visible communion with their church.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

Congratulations - you are absolutely right!

But I was talking about the very Sacrament of the Eucharist itself.

It is the same in both Churches and It generates holiness in both as well.

Have you become Catholic yet?

What's holding you up?

Alex