Which church is more open to reuniting??

[dzheremi]

I feel pretty confident saying (or rather, repeating what I've heard EO priests say) that if the West were to return to its pre-Great Schism understanding of itself and its Bishop, the vast majority of the world's EO would be very happy to receive you as fellow believers of one and the same church, as it was before the schism. No conversion is really necessary.

[biro]

What will we do, though, if the other church adopts the Orthodox date of Pascha, and we don't get to reap the benefits anymore of having two candy sales in one month?

[ICXCNIKA]

In my experience both sides are open but the Roman Church is more interested. It is difficult since the Vatican does not have a person or persons with which they can work with on the Orthodox side due to a good deal of conflict and internal chaos on our part. It also doesn't help that the Patriarch of Moscow refuses to meet with the pope. That is just my opinion. I know that Cardinal Kasper (I could be wrong) was unsure how to proceed because the Orthodox Church has no central authority. The Vatican would need to convince 15 Autocephalous Churches that union would be beneficial and desireable.

[Papist]

^ I suppose ya'll could call an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

[Asteriktos]

^ I suppose ya'll could an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

Would need a byzantine emperor first...

[Papist]

^ I suppose ya'll could an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

Would need a byzantine emperor first...

Well let's get with it. The time to re-establish the Roman Empire is nigh... You see, it's really the Trukish government that is preventing our reunion.

[Shanghaiski]

^ I suppose ya'll could an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

Would need a byzantine emperor first...

Well let's get with it. The time to re-establish the Roman Empire is nigh... You see, it's really the Trukish government that is preventing our reunion.

Ironic.

[Wyatt]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

[William]

Well, from what I've seen the RCC is willing to airbrush over most legitimate differences in theology as an "Eastern understanding of the same thing," so I guess you could call that more openness.

[xariskai]

^ I suppose ya'll could an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

Would need a byzantine emperor first...

I nominate orthonorm.

[Asteriktos]

^ I suppose ya'll could an ecumenical council to detemine if it's Ok to talk to Roman Catholics.

Would need a byzantine emperor first...

I nominate orthonorm.

Let your voice be heard!

[JamesRottnek]

What about the idea that rather than one church being right or wrong, theyre just different?  I mean, over time as they spread into different regions of the world, isnt it natural that the Church would operate a little differently in different areas based on the different cultures?

Every time I talk to Catholic friends, Anglican friends or any non-protestant friend who leans 'western', my brain starts thinking.  Forgive me.  However, I do appreciate the discussion. 

Hi.
It contradicts Tradition, canons, saints etc. If we accept it, then we can throw everything in the garbage and become protestants.

If you are referring to the way the Church operates, then I guess the Church ceased to exist, what with how even in the Moscow Patriarchate alone, there have been a variety of modes of governance (even discounting the whole "Let's not have a Patriarch" thing, the Russian Church has waxed and waned in its centralization).

[Samson4ll]

What about the idea that rather than one church being right or wrong, theyre just different?  I mean, over time as they spread into different regions of the world, isnt it natural that the Church would operate a little differently in different areas based on the different cultures?

Every time I talk to Catholic friends, Anglican friends or any non-protestant friend who leans 'western', my brain starts thinking.  Forgive me.  However, I do appreciate the discussion.  

Hi.
It contradicts Tradition, canons, saints etc. If we accept it, then we can throw everything in the garbage and become protestants.

If you are referring to the way the Church operates, then I guess the Church ceased to exist, what with how even in the Moscow Patriarchate alone, there have been a variety of modes of governance (even discounting the whole "Let's not have a Patriarch" thing, the Russian Church has waxed and waned in its centralization).

I'm not refering to that. I'm refering to your point that in the end, every church ir right and has some truth, none has the fullness of the truth, and we are just different. Well that goes against the canons, saints etc. It is not only a mode of governance.

[Peter J]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

[podkarpatska]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

And I might add that a slight variation of this phrase of 'neither Rome nor Moscow' as being a basis for either unity or protection was why this phrase was the rallying cry of many 20th century former Greek Catholics who sought reception into canonical Orthodoxy through the Phanar rather than by way of Moscow.

[primuspilus]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

Then its up to Antioch!

[Papist]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

Then its up to Antioch!

Cool. We Catholics have several Patriarchs of Antioch.

[primuspilus]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

Then its up to Antioch!

Cool. We Catholics have several Patriarchs of Antioch.

Dont worry, we'll set them straight too.

PP

[Papist]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

The sin of pride is alive and well on both sides.

Definitely. I'm reminded of this oft-quoted statement: "neither Moscow nor Rome will give us unity."

(I suppose we might also add "nor Alexandria".)

Then its up to Antioch!

Cool. We Catholics have several Patriarchs of Antioch.

Dont worry, we'll set them straight too.

PP

[JoeS2]

I have always thought that any discussion on unity needs to review and study the church in the early 1st millenium.  I like to refer to this time as the "default" position.  This default position being a time when there was relative unity even though there were small t traditional differences.  The distances involved, the lack of proper communications, etc. can all be dispelled today with our modern state of the art means of keeping in touch.  Why isnt there a study done to look at who we were back then and begin to discuss why things changed?  Or, has this already been done?  If so, then we are both in trouble.

[Papist]

I have always thought that any discussion on unity needs to review and study the church in the early 1st millenium.  I like to refer to this time as the "default" position.  This default position being a time when there was relative unity even though there were small t traditional differences.  The distances involved, the lack of proper communications, etc. can all be dispelled today with our modern state of the art means of keeping in touch.  Why isnt there a study done to look at who we were back then and begin to discuss why things changed?  Or, has this already been done?  If so, then we are both in trouble.

I think that the Revanna study was meant to do that very thing with regard to the Papacy. But no consensus was reached. Contrary to what EOs think, the matter is not so clear cut.

[Samson4ll]

Or, has this already been done?  If so, then we are both in trouble.

I guess you already answered 

[JoeS2]

I have always thought that any discussion on unity needs to review and study the church in the early 1st millenium.  I like to refer to this time as the "default" position.  This default position being a time when there was relative unity even though there were small t traditional differences.  The distances involved, the lack of proper communications, etc. can all be dispelled today with our modern state of the art means of keeping in touch.  Why isnt there a study done to look at who we were back then and begin to discuss why things changed?  Or, has this already been done?  If so, then we are both in trouble.

I think that the Revanna study was meant to do that very thing with regard to the Papacy. But no consensus was reached. Contrary to what EOs think, the matter is not so clear cut.

I was referring to MODERN studies as opposed to studies during the Revanna meetings.

[Papist]

I have always thought that any discussion on unity needs to review and study the church in the early 1st millenium.  I like to refer to this time as the "default" position.  This default position being a time when there was relative unity even though there were small t traditional differences.  The distances involved, the lack of proper communications, etc. can all be dispelled today with our modern state of the art means of keeping in touch.  Why isnt there a study done to look at who we were back then and begin to discuss why things changed?  Or, has this already been done?  If so, then we are both in trouble.

I think that the Revanna study was meant to do that very thing with regard to the Papacy. But no consensus was reached. Contrary to what EOs think, the matter is not so clear cut.

I was referring to MODERN studies as opposed to studies during the Revanna meetings.

Fair enough. But do you think that such a study would really do any good? I think most Catholics would see the study through "Papal-colored glasses" and most Orthodox would view the study through "anti-papal colored glasses". Honestly, the only way I can see unity happening is by means of a miracle of the Holy Spirit.... Or by means of persecution. If there were to be a substantial world-wide persecution of Christians, many would simply choose not to participate in the schism (as is the case in some places in the middle east were intercommunion is the norm).

[JoeS2]

[/quote]
Fair enough. But do you think that such a study would really do any good? I think most Catholics would see the study through "Papal-colored glasses" and most Orthodox would view the study through "anti-papal colored glasses". Honestly, the only way I can see unity happening is by means of a miracle of the Holy Spirit.... Or by means of persecution. If there were to be a substantial world-wide persecution of Christians, many would simply choose not to participate in the schism (as is the case in some places in the middle east were intercommunion is the norm).
[/quote]

Then this whole excercise in unity is mute and only good for discussing over the occassional coffee.   

[Papist]

Fair enough. But do you think that such a study would really do any good? I think most Catholics would see the study through "Papal-colored glasses" and most Orthodox would view the study through "anti-papal colored glasses". Honestly, the only way I can see unity happening is by means of a miracle of the Holy Spirit.... Or by means of persecution. If there were to be a substantial world-wide persecution of Christians, many would simply choose not to participate in the schism (as is the case in some places in the middle east were intercommunion is the norm).
[/quote]

Then this whole excercise in unity is mute and only good for discussing over the occassional coffee.   
[/quote]
To which part of my post are you responding? The fact that we can't seem to come to Fathers without our preconceived ideas or the fact that some middle-eastern Christians choose not to participate in the schism?

[JoeS2]

To which part of my post are you responding? The fact that we can't seem to come to Fathers without our preconceived ideas or the fact that some middle-eastern Christians choose not to participate in the schism?
[/quote]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

[Peter J]

Then this whole excercise in unity is mute

Many discussions are, since the invention of internet forums.

 

[Peter J]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

[Samson4ll]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

[Peter J]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

He is, but that fact should not have been dogmatized -- at least that's what Newman thought.

[Samson4ll]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

He is, but that fact should not have been dogmatized -- at least that's what Newman thought.

It had to e dogmatized to end the debates among the faithfull of the Church.

[Peter J]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

He is, but that fact should not have been dogmatized -- at least that's what Newman thought.

It had to e dogmatized to end the debates among the faithfull of the Church.

Saying it need to be dogmatized to end the debate isn't presenting an argument. That's like if I said I need to go to the store, and you asked why, and I replied "In order to get there."

[podkarpatska]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

[elijahmaria]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

[J Michael]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

Dare I suggest that if podkarpatska believed in papal doctrine and that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope, he *might* have to start thinking about changing his allegiance from Orthodoxy to Catholicism    ?  Heck, I'd welcome him with open arms!! 

[primuspilus]

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

[Papist]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

Dare I suggest that if podkarpatska believed in papal doctrine and that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope, he *might* have to start thinking about changing his allegiance from Orthodoxy to Catholicism    ?  Heck, I'd welcome him with open arms!! 

Podkarpatska is Eastern Orthodox through and through. No reason to suspect a converstion. But he is also very charitable towards Roman Catholics and, while he may disagree with us on several points, he recognizes us as brothers and sisters in Christ.

[J Michael]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

Dare I suggest that if podkarpatska believed in papal doctrine and that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope, he *might* have to start thinking about changing his allegiance from Orthodoxy to Catholicism    ?  Heck, I'd welcome him with open arms!! 

Podkarpatska is Eastern Orthodox through and through. No reason to suspect a converstion. But he is also very charitable towards Roman Catholics and, while he may disagree with us on several points, he recognizes us as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes, I know.  I was, after all, kidding!  Guess I didn't use the right emoticons  .  He happens to be one of the Orthodox here that I most highly respect, fwiw.  I consider him truly a brother in Christ.  As for him converting, it is highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened  .

[Papist]

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

Dare I suggest that if podkarpatska believed in papal doctrine and that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope, he *might* have to start thinking about changing his allegiance from Orthodoxy to Catholicism    ?  Heck, I'd welcome him with open arms!! 

Podkarpatska is Eastern Orthodox through and through. No reason to suspect a converstion. But he is also very charitable towards Roman Catholics and, while he may disagree with us on several points, he recognizes us as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yes, I know.  I was, after all, kidding!  Guess I didn't use the right emoticons  .  He happens to be one of the Orthodox here that I most highly respect, fwiw.  I consider him truly a brother in Christ.  As for him converting, it is highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened  .

Agreed on all points. I wish that I could be as charitable towards ecumenical dialogue as Podkarpatska is. I'm working on it. 

[elijahmaria]

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

The Holy Spirit operates in all cases since Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Now you may not accept the teaching of either primacy or of infallibility but you'd be better off if you tried to reconcile the teaching as the Catholic Church intends it, rather than just shutting your eyes and saying "nononononononononono".....

Blessed Great and Holy Week!

I will be joining you in spirit and liturgically over the next few days.  It is a great privilege to be allowed to live in the space between two traditions.  

M.

[Papist]

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

The Holy Spirit operates in all cases since Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Now you may not accept the teaching of either primacy or of infallibility but you'd be better off if you tried to reconcile the teaching as the Catholic Church intends it, rather than just shutting your eyes and saying "nononononononononono".....

Blessed Great and Holy Week!

I will be joining you in spirit and liturgically over the next few days.  It is a great privilege to be allowed to live in the space between two traditions.  

M.

Actually, living in two traditions is most untenable this week. How can you be celebrating the resurrection/pascha this week, and also fasting for Holy Week? Feasting and Fasting at the same time? I think you are great Maria.  

BTW, this is all the more reason why we should work towards all Christians being on the same calendar.

[J Michael]

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

The Holy Spirit operates in all cases since Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Now you may not accept the teaching of either primacy or of infallibility but you'd be better off if you tried to reconcile the teaching as the Catholic Church intends it, rather than just shutting your eyes and saying "nononononononononono".....

Blessed Great and Holy Week!

I will be joining you in spirit and liturgically over the next few days.  It is a great privilege to be allowed to live in the space between two traditions.  

M.

Actually, living in two traditions is most untenable this week. How can you be celebrating the resurrection/pascha this week, and also fasting for Holy Week? Feasting and Fasting at the same time? I think you are great Maria. 

Maybe there's 2 of her  !

[podkarpatska]

I have no intention of 'converting' as the family has had some degree of experience sitting on that side of the fence and, well, it really didn't work out all that well. Besides, if they hadn't done what they did, I likely wouldn't be here to 'pontificate' on these matters! 

Seriously, on the matter of the Holy Spirit guiding the selection of Bishops. Of course we have to believe this to be the case - be we Roman or Orthodox. HOWEVER - men are subject to temptation and human failings - be they the most humble of monks or peasants or the most exalted of Kings and Princes. As Orthodox and Roman Catholics we each reject predestination and having been elected to the papal throne or elected Bishop of the most impoverished of sees in another continent - a man may succumb to temptation.

By vesting a man with the presumptive power and authority that Rome has placed in the persona of a Pope, it seems to me (and to history for that matter) that when (not if) a Pope succumbs to the temptations of power or the flesh there is a problem in reconciling Roman dogma post Vatican 1 with the reality of the aftermath of such a hypothetical fall from grace. I say this not with some gleeful anticipation of a papal fall from grace - far from that as the damage to Faith (not The Faith) as a whole would be too much for many Christians to bear in our secular times.

[elijahmaria]

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....

It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

The Holy Spirit operates in all cases since Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Now you may not accept the teaching of either primacy or of infallibility but you'd be better off if you tried to reconcile the teaching as the Catholic Church intends it, rather than just shutting your eyes and saying "nononononononononono".....

Blessed Great and Holy Week!

I will be joining you in spirit and liturgically over the next few days.  It is a great privilege to be allowed to live in the space between two traditions.  

M.

Actually, living in two traditions is most untenable this week. How can you be celebrating the resurrection/pascha this week, and also fasting for Holy Week? Feasting and Fasting at the same time? I think you are great Maria.  

BTW, this is all the more reason why we should work towards all Christians being on the same calendar.

I've been keeping the Pasch with Orthodoxy for nearly 15 years.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??