Roman/Orthodox Catholic: Unity (Jesus Christ, priests, ritual, testimony, reject)

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Sorry for the delay in answering, but I was celebrating Pascha this weekend and didn't spend much time on the web.

Hope you had a blessed time.... HE IS RISEN!

I read your last reply with some sadness as it now appears to me that reunion is as far away as at any time in the last millennium.

... and I was hoping that you and I could work out this Schism "stuff".... hehe.... I'm sad to hear you feel that way.

I truly fail to understand how even Roman Catholics can consider the Pope to be infallible given that at least one was anathematised for heresy. It simply makes no sense and is not something I could ever accept.

Well.... to be clear, the "anathema" was for not stamping out another heresy in a timely fashion... the Pope never taught heresy... and the "censure" by the council (which I agree with) really holds little weight with me.

Your talk of us not needing to be agreed on dogma makes me think that your idea of union and mine are very different. For me unity, at least one that I would accept, would require that we agree on all dogmas as they are the fundamentals of the faith. I could accept the Assumption as a theologoumenon but not as dogma.

Sorry to put you on the spot, but I've gotta ask:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
I have been Baptised.

If I came up for Communion at your Church, would you deny me?

Scott

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
I have been Baptised.

If I came up for Communion at your Church, would you deny me?

No, but my priest would. I feel, though, that that is not what you meant. I guess you're asking, if I were a priest (which I hope one day I will be) would I refuse you the Eucharist if you visited my Church. The answer is, yes, I would.

I would refuse the Eucharist to any heterodox Christian who asked for it, because the Eucharist is the central mystery of the Church and you are not, or at least not visibly - only God knows otherwise, a member of Her. The only exception I can think of to this would be if I were to practice economy because you were, for instance, dying and unable to receive the Eucharist from a Roman Catholic priest. This is the consequence of Orthodox ecclesiology. Until Rome is truly reunified with Orthodoxy this will not change.

As for your last point, on baptism, the Orthodox view would be that currently you have only the form and not the grace of baptism - your baptism would not be considered to be completed until you received the grace of Chrismation in an Orthodox Church. From our point of view, then, you are unbaptised and cannot receive the Eucharist. We simply do not believe that heterodox sacraments are valid in and of themselves.

You are right that you have put me on the spot here. I do not wish to seem unfriendly, but nor will I bend from the central tenets of my faith. I hope you understand. Now if you were an RC priest and I came to you for the Eucharist would you deny me, knowing that:

I deny that the Pope is the successor to Peter or infallible.
I deny the Immaculate Conception and the dogma of the Assumption.
I believe the filoque is heresy.
etc.?

I suspect that, in such a hypothetical case, the response of an RC priest would be no different than the response of an Orthodox priest in your case.

James

[James the Persian]

Scott,

One thing which I didn't previously add because I wanted to check my facts first. Are you referring to Pope Honorius I also? If so, I fail to see how you can read anything other than his condemnation as a heretic into the words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. He was condemned not for failing to stamp out monothelitism but because he was seen to agree with and follow Sergius and the others in their heresy - in other words, the Pope was condemned as a monothelite heretic. This condemnation was accepted by his successor in Rome.

I can understand why this would be embarrassing to some Roman Catholics, but I don't believe you can get around it by attempting to rewrite history. After all, anyone can go to the findings of the Council and read them for themselves - I just did before coming back to you on this.

In any case, the idea that anyone was anathematised for simply being a little too lax in rooting out heresy sounds ludicrous to me. I know of no such example from any council whether ecumenical or local. Sorry, but your assertion just doesn't wash with me. If you aren't referring to Honorius, then I apologise for my inaccurately aimed words, though the point remains that at least one Pope was a condemned heretic.

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

if I were a priest (which I hope one day I will be)

That is wonderful! You'll be in my prayers.

You are right that you have put me on the spot here. I do not wish to seem unfriendly, but nor will I bend from the central tenets of my faith.

I do apologize for that.... but sometimes it is the only way to "cut to the quick".... and it has done so.

You don't seem unfriendly (far from it) and I never doubted for a second what your answer would be.

I will never be a Priest (I am married) so I will never be in a position to deny you the Eucharist.... and you are correct that a RCC Priest would also deny you..... but , I WOULDN'T. That's kinda my point..... and I don't think St. Peter or St. Paul would deny either of us either. I know you don't agree, but that is my "mission" in life: to gather all God's children at the Table of the Lord. The simplicity of the early Church has been replaced by an ecclesiology of "knowlege". A simple faith in Jesus Christ is no longer "sufficient" for salvation it seems.... you must "learn enough" to be worthy of reception.

Anywho... thanks for the chat.... I'd be happy to continue if you have any other instruction for me.... I'd love to learn more about the EO faith.

As far as Honorius, I must plead ignorance.... I have not read very much about this, so I may be wrong with my conclusion.... maybe we'll start a thread about that someday.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

You don't seem unfriendly (far from it) and I never doubted for a second what your answer would be.

I'm glad I didn't come across as unfriendly. I truly would love to be able to take the Eucharist in the same church as you, but unity of faith must come first. I'm actually quite surprised that you don't seem to feel the same way. Why, if this doesn't sound rude, did you decide to covert to Roman Catholicism? I'm intrigued, because Orthodox converts such as myself often seem to be greater sticklers for the faith than cradle Orthodox - sometimes pharisaically so, though I hope I'm not in that group - and I would have expected the same of RC converts. This doesn't seem to be the case with you, though.

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Anywho... thanks for the chat.... I'd be happy to continue if you have any other instruction for me.... I'd love to learn more about the EO faith.

I don't have any further instruction for you, that makes me sound like I'm your catechist! I'll be happy to continue discussing Orthodoxy with you, though. If you have any further questions, ask away - either here or in a new thread - and I'll cheerfully answer them or discuss things with you. Finding that we still seem light years from a reconcilliation doesn't mean I want to turn my back on you or other RCs, I just feel that praying to God for a miracle will have better results than expecting either church's all too fallible heirarchs to come to agreement. Certainly if our layperson's perspective is any indication.

In Christ,

James

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by IacobPersul

Why, if this doesn't sound rude, did you decide to covert to Roman Catholicism?

Well....by the grace of God, my faith brought me to Christ... from there it was a study of history and ecclesiology that brought me to the RCC.
My faith moved me to believe that the fullness of ecclesial union with Christ "requires" (for me at least) participation in a church whose unity is expressed not only through the Bible, faith, or sacraments, but also through the ministry of the Petrine minister (the Papacy). A church without a "perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" seemed (again, too me) to be lacking direction.... lacking focus.... lacking leadership.

.... but, as you have seen, belief in the value (necessity) of the Petrine office and a heirarchal structure does not need to be exlcusivist. To me, the Church is a sacrament... a visible sign of the invisible Kingdom of God... and as such, should be available to all in its most "pure" form: the Eucharist. We would not hesitate to preach the Gospel to a "non-believer".... and I view the Eucharist as a Sacrament without equal... surely more effective than the fallible preaching of mere men, even as they use the word of God.

I'm intrigued, because Orthodox converts such as myself often seem to be greater sticklers for the faith than cradle Orthodox - sometimes pharisaically so, though I hope I'm not in that group - and I would have expected the same of RC converts. This doesn't seem to be the case with you, though.

I've had my moments..... I've gone from an argumentative apologist, to more of a theologian in two short years.... I'm happier this way... I could not stand the arguments and tension of apologetics. I do feel that apologists serve a wonderful purpose and I'm glad there are so many great ones around... but that is not for me.

If I can think of anything else, I'll be sure to post a question for ya.... you do the same.

Scott

[James the Persian]

Scott,

I find it interesting that your study of ecclesiology and history convinced you that the RC church was correct - mine had exactly the opposite effect. I did actually consider Roman Catholicism briefly because only the RC and Orthodox churches seemed to have any real claim to Apostolic succession, which I'd become convinced was absolutely necessary. (Since that time I'd extend this to the Oriental Orthodox also but I really knew little about them at the time).
I'd like to ask you, and I think it is relevant with regards to any possible reconciliation, exactly how you see Papal primacy and ecclesiology. I'm interested not just in the Papacy as it exists today, but how you think it developed, what its basis is, etc. As a starting point for discussion, I'll put down my thoughts on primacy and ecclesiology below, and on exactly what the Petrine See is.
Firstly, I don't believe that Peter was ever the head of the Apostles. Neither Scripture nor the majority of the Church Fathers seem to support this view, in my opinion, regarding him more as a type of all the Apostles. In this sense, then, I would regard all bishops as successors to Peter, even if their succession is not traced from him. However, even if I were to accept the RC understanding of Peter's position of authority over the Apostles, I would have difficulty accepting that the Pope has a similar authority for two reasons. Firstly, why is the Pope alone the successor to Peter? (Please don't say Peter was the first Pope because that really doesn't make sense to me - he was an Apostle, not a bishop). Peter founded one See directly, Antioch, and his disciple Mark founded Alexandria. You may dispute this next part to some degree, but my research into history leads me to the following conclusions regarding the See of Rome. Paul founded that See ordaining the first two Popes, Linus and Anancletus, at which time Peter had not yet travelled to Rome. Peter then ordained Clement as the third Pope. This means that, yes, Rome can claim succession from Peter but not that Peter was the first Pope. I'm sure your information must differ from mine on this, though. Regardless of details, however, we have three Petrine Sees here, in order of founding Antioch, Alexandria and Rome (and it's clear that St. Gregory the Great also considered the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria to be successors of Peter). Why, then, is Rome special?
My second problem is much simpler to explain. Even if Peter had authority, what makes Roman Catholics think that this authority would be inherited by his successor? I can find nothing in Scripture or Holy Tradition that would indicate that this should be the case.
In the early Church, prior to Constantine, I can see no hint of primacy of any kind anywhere in the Church, except in that Jerusalem was considered the Mother Church, and certainly no authority of one bishop over another. After Constantine, Rome was granted primacy, but it's obvious from the language used that this was a) a primacy of honour only and b) granted because Rome was the capital of the Empire and Peter and Paul were martyred there. Nowhere is the Pope mentioned as the successor of Peter.
Why, then, I must ask is the Papal primacy important to you? It makes no sense to me in either ecclesiological or historical terms. As a primacy of honour only, it does make sense, but only from an organisational point of view. Whoever is first among equals can act as a focal point for Church unity. This has certainly worked for us. We have remained extremely united throughout a history full of persecutions by different groups even though we have no head but Christ and even though the EP is nothing more than a focal point - we needn't even be in communion with him to be Orthodox and he is not, despite the misunderstandings of the western media, the 'spiritual leader' of the Orthodox Church. Our unity is one of shared faith and sacraments. What could a Pope add to this? I actually think that not having an earthly head is a strength of the Orthodox Church because the Church cannot stand or fall on the faith or teachings of any one man. Do you see our lack of a Pope as a weakness rather than a strength, and if so why?

James