Union with Rome. What Would it Take?

[MilesVitae]

I don't think that position would be as problematic, but when you read stuff by Pius X who said that even if you knew that the Pope is Satan himself, you should listen to him, I think that shows that the Pope can supersede a council.

I'm not familiar with this quotation, but that doesn't seem to contradict what I'm saying - the Pope's ex cathedra statements are infallible, that is, they are protected from error, no matter who or how sinful the Pope may be. Since ecumenical councils are infallible too, they can't contradict (in theory....).

I know that is not what many teach now, but it seems it is what was at least once taught, and leaves the door open for that interpretation to come back again.

Where do you see this being taught?

Here's an excerpt from the official Relatio by Fr. Vincent Gasser, who had the task of explaining the meaning of Pastor Aeternus at Vatican I so the Bishops understood what they were voting on:

"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is
either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to
him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church
will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is
not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"

and while they do say this (I think because they have to), whenever the councils contradict the Pope, Rome usually sides with the Pope (ie the filioque).

Probably so.

 

[MilesVitae]

Probably so.

well, maybe... If a new papal definition came out that seemed to contradict the teachings of one of the ecumenical councils, yes, Catholics would probably be trying for the most part to figure out how to interpret the council in light of the new teaching. But, on the other hand, if a new ecumenical council put forth a definition which seemed to contradict a past papal ex cathedra teaching, I think the situation would be the same the most part - the old teaching being reinterpreted in terms of the new (in both cases, of course, the claim being that there is no actual contradiction).

A question, as to the filioque - was there a point at which the Pope issued a declaration of the truth of the filioque? My impression was acceptance of the filioque spread in the west over time, to the point where any statement on the part of the Pope would have pretty much been a confirmation of what the west already believed, not some new dazzling teaching overriding the past. I only know of the conciliar definitions regarding the filioque (Lyons, Florence, etc.), but my history's a little hazy, and I may be forgetting something.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not familiar with this quotation, but that doesn't seem to contradict what I'm saying - the Pope's ex cathedra statements are infallible, that is, they are protected from error, no matter who or how sinful the Pope may be. Since ecumenical councils are infallible too, they can't contradict (in theory....).

yes, but the father of lies can never tell the truth. so saying IF the Pope is the father of lies that all Christians should still listen to him is very problematic, even if hyperbole

Where do you see this being taught?

well, Pius X was not the only one who said this. there was some female RC saint who said something similar to him. and a statement like that I am sure Francis would openly reject.

"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"

if that is the case, how does one get heretical Popes? if the consent of the Church is never lacking to him, how does Vigilius get excommunicated and Honorius anathematized?

well, maybe... If a new papal definition came out that seemed to contradict the teachings of one of the ecumenical councils, yes, Catholics would probably be trying for the most part to figure out how to interpret the council in light of the new teaching. But, on the other hand, if a new ecumenical council put forth a definition which seemed to contradict a past papal ex cathedra teaching, I think the situation would be the same the most part - the old teaching being reinterpreted in terms of the new (in both cases, of course, the claim being that there is no actual contradiction).

but that cannot happen. see above, if the consent of the Church is never lacking to him, there would be no new teaching.

A question, as to the filioque - was there a point at which the Pope issued a declaration of the truth of the filioque? My impression was acceptance of the filioque spread in the west over time, to the point where any statement on the part of the Pope would have pretty much been a confirmation of what the west already believed, not some new dazzling teaching overriding the past. I only know of the conciliar definitions regarding the filioque (Lyons, Florence, etc.), but my history's a little hazy, and I may be forgetting something.

well it was. initially it was accepted by the Franks and openly rejected by Rome (Pope John X even agreed to a local council that excommunicated anyone who added it, and one of his predecessors made those silver tablets of the Creed that are still in the Vatican that do not have the filioque in them). and we know at 1054 this was one of the issues that was the Schism, and I think at one of the Lateran councils it says that anyone who rejects the filioque is condemned.

 

[E.C.]

I get the feeling that Roman Catholics define unity principally as being in communion with the Pope, whereas we define unity as believing the Orthodox faith. (I am dramatically simplifying, I know). I think most Catholics would be fine with Orthodox not changing their beliefs, as long as we submitted to the Pope.

Actually, having been in both Churches, that is accurate. 100% true.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Let me preface by saying that, having studied church history, and being Catholic, I can readily accept the fact that the Orthodox Church is valid in terms of Apostolic succession. In fact I really hate that there is a separate between the See of Rome and the Eastern Bishops, and I'm sure it pains Christ as well.

I've learned about many of the historical situations that have created and exacerbated the divisions between us, yet I also see a great deal of Ecumenicalism taking place between the two churches. So I would like to ask my EO brothers and sisters one simple question. In your humble opinion, what would it take, specifically on the part of the Bishop of Rome, to restore the unity of the Apostolic church, to unite east and west together as one?

It doesn't matter really as long as our eastern brethrens hostility towards everything western exists at the level it does today ( Not to say that they dont have their reasons).

Besides for a reunification to happen there must be a underlying desire for such on both parts which there is not.

I think that it's beneficial however especially for Rome to befriend the Orthodox Patriarchs as I think eastern influence on the Holy See is far better than the venomous influence protestantism has had on our church ever since Ignatius of Loyola and his counter reformation infected the church.

If any contact with the eastern Orthodoks communion may reverse the modernism and protestantic display in our church I'll glady applaude it and embrace it.

No to uniformity, yes to unity.
We can have a closer relationship and even a kind of unity despite communing separately IMHO.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It doesn't matter really as long as our eastern brethrens hostility towards everything western exists at the level it does today ( Not to say that they dont have their reasons).

there is no hostility, for 1000 years Orthodoxy flowered in the West. when the West leaves their heresy, NOT what makes them culturally Western, then we can talk.

Besides for a reunification to happen there must be a underlying desire for such on both parts which there is not.

well no, we want unity with the West, just not on the West's terms.

I think that it's beneficial however especially for Rome to befriend the Orthodox Patriarchs as I think eastern influence on the Holy See is far better than the venomous influence protestantism has had on our church ever since Ignatius of Loyola and his counter reformation infected the church.

If any contact with the eastern Orthodoks communion may reverse the modernism and protestantic display in our church I'll glady applaude it and embrace it.

I can agree with that.

No to uniformity, yes to unity.

totally agree, but we must be united in faith FIRST, then we can talk about communion. and we agree, Western Christianity should have a uniquely Western flavor.

We can have a closer relationship and even a kind of unity despite communing separately IMHO.

we can, but we don't. Rome is actually much closer in their approach to Christ as the Protestants than they are with us.

 

[MilesVitae]

yes, but the father of lies can never tell the truth. so saying IF the Pope is the father of lies that all Christians should still listen to him is very problematic, even if hyperbole

Matt, it really seems like you're jumping through a lot of hoops to interpret Catholic documents into a distorted view of what Catholicism actually teaches. I think there are some good reasons to question Catholic teaching regarding the papacy, but these are not good reasons. Maybe Satan was a poor hyperbolic image on Pius' part - oh well. The Church teaches ex cathedra statements are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

well, Pius X was not the only one who said this. there was some female RC saint who said something similar to him. and a statement like that I am sure Francis would openly reject.

This isn't evidence for what you're claiming, and bad hyperbole on the part of one saint in the history of the Catholic Church isn't all that relevant.... especially when we consider some of the Fathers contradicted each other. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope's ex cathedra statements are able to supersede the dogmatic definitions of a prior ecumenical council. What I meant was, have you read somewhere in Catholic teaching that they can?

if that is the case, how does one get heretical Popes? if the consent of the Church is never lacking to him, how does Vigilius get excommunicated and Honorius anathematized?

Matt, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone here that Catholicism is true. I'm not claiming historical evidence doesn't disprove Catholic teaching (though I'm skeptical Honorius and Vigilius do). I'm saying you are misinterpreting Catholic teaching, and "not from the consent of the Church" in the one sentence from Pastor Aeternus does not mean what you think it means, a point made all the clearer when you look at the rest of the body of Catholic teaching and documents from the proceedings of the Vatican I Council itself clarifying the meaning of those words. So, Vatican I document does not say or mean that an ecumenical council can be contradicted by a papal ex cathedra statement.

but that cannot happen. see above, if the consent of the Church is never lacking to him, there would be no new teaching.

Yes, you are correct - there can be no new teaching contradicting what the Church has already taught, according to Catholicism. I guess I wasn't being as clear as I could have been that I was merely describing the hypothetical situation in which there did appear to be (per impossibile, according to Catholicism) a contradiction.

well it was. initially it was accepted by the Franks and openly rejected by Rome (Pope John X even agreed to a local council that excommunicated anyone who added it, and one of his predecessors made those silver tablets of the Creed that are still in the Vatican that do not have the filioque in them). and we know at 1054 this was one of the issues that was the Schism, and I think at one of the Lateran councils it says that anyone who rejects the filioque is condemned.

Okay, so it seems like it was less of papal authority thing then. Also, just to clarify, since I've seen those tablets come up before and they seemed to be misunderstood - from what I understand, the tablets were meant as a rejection of the addition to the creed, not of the orthodoxy of the filioque.

 

[GregConstantine]

Acknowledging, pointing out, explaining the real differences between Roman Catholics and Orthodox, and not glossing over them or pretending they don't exist, is not "hostility" to everything Western by the Orthodox.

 

[CelticRebel]

If I was Orthodox, I would never be in favor of union with Rome, as I think they have significantly departed the faith.

 

[GregConstantine]

To our Roman Catholic friends, I am sorry to say this, but your clergy and lay teachers are and have been lying to you about what your own church believes and teaches, and that there is no substantive difference between you guys and us. It will hurt to hear that, but it is the truth. The Roman Catholicsm my parents and great grand parents and their ancestors grew up with is a very different Roman Catholicsm from what is being presented now.

Why am I saying that? Well, listening to you guys both online and in person, it sounds like you guys are reciting something out of a play book. You guys say almost the same exact words and phrase things almost the same exact way especially when it comes to what are the basic doctrines of the RC church, and that there is no substantive difference between you and the Orthodox.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

there is no hostility, for 1000 years Orthodoxy flowered in the West. when the West leaves their heresy, NOT what makes them culturally Western, then we can talk.

An important distinction, thanks for enlightenment

well no, we want unity with the West, just not on the West's terms.

Rightly so.

I can agree with that.

totally agree, but we must be united in faith FIRST, then we can talk about communion. and we agree, Western Christianity should have a uniquely Western flavor.

But don't you think some sort of union can be achieved despite not being in full communion?
A sort of "shoulder by shoulder" in subjects where we're better off united than separated such as condemnation of SSM for instance?

So to act like one church in matters where we share a common goal.
But of course stay very clear that we're in schism and not in full communion, or do you think this will look way to blurry from an outside and in perspective?

we can, but we don't. Rome is actually much closer in their approach to Christ as the Protestants than they are with us.

Sadly you speak of the truth Matt.
Hopefully this will change as we draw closer to the Orthodox Church (at least it appears like we do).

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

To our Roman Catholic friends, I am sorry to say this, but your clergy and lay teachers are and have been lying to you about what your own church believes and teaches, and that there is no substantive difference between you guys and us. It will hurt to hear that, but it is the truth. The Roman Catholicsm my parents and great grand parents and their ancestors grew up with is a very different Roman Catholicsm from what is being presented now.

Why am I saying that? Well, listening to you guys both online and in person, it sounds like you guys are reciting something out of a play book. You guys say almost the same exact words and phrase things almost the same exact way especially when it comes to what are the basic doctrines of the RC church, and that there is no substantive difference between you and the Orthodox.

I have no illusions Greg.
Of course I cannot speak on the behalf of others than myself, but this Roman Catholic is well aware of the differences between our two communions.

As for the grandparents part of your post, are you blaming it all on the V2?
If so exactly what tick you of except the Novus Ordo mass?

 

[buzuxi02]

But don't you think some sort of union can be achieved despite not being in full communion?
A sort of "shoulder by shoulder" in subjects where we're better off united than separated such as condemnation of SSM for instance?

So to act like one church in matters where we share a common goal.
But of course stay very clear that we're in schism and not in full communion, or do you think this will look way to blurry from an outside and in perspective?

This already happens in many areas. Of course this doesnt even have to be limited to us only. Ive pointed out in the past how Rome has stood with the muslim world in opposing certain agendas pushed by the WHO and United Nations.

Obviously in areas of traditional morality muslims make good allies. But overall i consider ecumenism to be a waste (and a heresy). There was many decades ago an Orthodox ecumenism with the Anglicans, a complete waste of time that has in the process harmed our ecclesiology. It may have also been the very reason anglicans went off the deep end soon after!


Little did we know that the Anglos have been fighting a gender culture war since the time of the victorian era. Their culture's disfunction between their men and women has harmed many, with the propagation the british myth of christian patriarchalism which is nothing more than a cover-up of their disfunctional anglican culture. Today this natural outcome has this sect obsessed with an obscured womens rights agenda, while christian women from every other part of the world find them bizarre. I remember in another forum where a greek woman who first migrated to Australia found the british attitudes between men and women as truly disfunctional and unhealthy. This byproduct of the victorian/puritanical culture has resulted in women's ordinations and openly homosexual clergy in that sect, and has direct bearing of the mess in Rotherdam itself.

 

[CelticRebel]

This already happens in many areas. Of course this doesnt even have to be limited to us only. Ive pointed out in the past how Rome has stood with the muslim world in opposing certain agendas pushed by the WHO and United Nations.

Obviously in areas of traditional morality muslims make good allies. But overall i consider ecumenism to be a waste (and a heresy). There was many decades ago an Orthodox ecumenism with the Anglicans, a complete waste of time that has in the process harmed our ecclesiology. It may have also been the very reason anglicans went off the deep end soon after!


Little did we know that the Anglos have been fighting a gender culture war since the time of the victorian era. Their culture's disfunction between their men and women has harmed many, with the propagation the british myth of christian patriarchalism which is nothing more than a cover-up of their disfunctional anglican culture. Today this natural outcome has this sect obsessed with an obscured womens rights agenda, while christian women from every other part of the world find them bizarre. I remember in another forum where a greek woman who first migrated to Australia found the british attitudes between men and women as truly disfunctional and unhealthy. This byproduct of the victorian/puritanical culture has resulted in women's ordinations and openly homosexual clergy in that sect, and has direct bearing of the mess in Rotherdam itself.

Considering what you said about Anglicans and homosexuality, why do you think the main body of Lutherans, Presbyterians, and others in the USA are endorsing and practicing homosexual ordination and marriage?

 

[buzuxi02]

Same reason, But its roots are from british influence. Just go to the anglican forum, they are obsessed with the gender wars that have pre occupied them from the time of the puritans and victorian era. It also shows how the gates of Hades have prevailed over them with such ease.

Then go ask greek women, arab women, italian women, egyptian women, they all laugh at the conclusions they come up with. These women despise the lies that anglicanism has invented about them. Anglicanism and their sex obsessed culture is an insult to christianity. And their conclusions have no resemblance to reality outside of that unhealthy culture. They should be ashamed of their insinuations and projecting their biases unto others.

 

[CelticRebel]

Same reason, But its roots are from british influence. Just go to the anglican forum, they are obsessed with the gender wars that have pre occupied them from the time of the puritans and victorian era. It also shows how the gates of Hades have prevailed over them with such ease.

Then go ask greek women, arab women, italian women, egyptian women, they all laugh at the conclusions they come up with. These women despise the lies that anglicanism has invented about them. Anglicanism and their sex obsessed culture is an insult to christianity. And their conclusions have no resemblance to reality outside of that unhealthy culture. They should be ashamed of their insinuations and projecting their biases unto others.

Do you think the roots of it in the Lutheran Church are from British influence? Lutheranism originated in Germany. Also, the Old Catholics originating from the original OC group in Utrecht, Holland are for it now, too. This is far more than a problem of British influence.

 

[buzuxi02]

This is what we know, this influence does not come fron China, not from Africa, not from Latin Ametica, not from the muslims. It does not originate from Russia, nor the Balkans. Not from the hindus of India, not from the buddhists of Sri Lanka. We can even say it does not originate from Italy.

We know it is exclusively the Anglicans that have come up with this patriarchalism heresy. Its their obsession simply peek into their forum for the past decade. We know they have been involved in the gender wars and older anglo men have complained about anglo women thinking their dirty or that sex is dirty, low self esteem etc. And this originates from the puritans and the victorian era. We also know those sects that espouse this are the closest to the Anglicans, both geographically, religiously and culturally.

 

[CelticRebel]

This is what we know, this influence does not come fron China, not from Africa, not from Latin Ametica, not from the muslims. It does not originate from Russia, nor the Balkans. Not from the hindus of India, not from the buddhists of Sri Lanka. We can even say it does not originate from Italy.

We know it is exclusively the Anglicans that have come up with this patriarchalism heresy. Its their obsession simply peek into their forum for the past decade. We know they have been involved in the gender wars and older anglo men have complained about anglo women thinking their dirty or that sex is dirty, low self esteem etc. And this originates from the puritans and the victorian era. We also know those sects that espouse this are the closest to the Anglicans, both geographically, religiously and culturally.

This is what we know, this influence does not come fron China, not from Africa, not from Latin Ametica, not from the muslims. It does not originate from Russia, nor the Balkans. Not from the hindus of India, not from the buddhists of Sri Lanka. We can even say it does not originate from Italy.

We know it is exclusively the Anglicans that have come up with this patriarchalism heresy. Its their obsession simply peek into their forum for the past decade. We know they have been involved in the gender wars and older anglo men have complained about anglo women thinking their dirty or that sex is dirty, low self esteem etc. And this originates from the puritans and the victorian era. We also know those sects that espouse this are the closest to the Anglicans, both geographically, religiously and culturally.

I don't think you are correct, in that I believe you overstate it. My examples are sufficient to make that point.

 

[Isaac32]

Father Silouan’s attitude towards those who differed from him was characterised by a sincere desire to see what was good in them, and not to offend them in anything they held sacred. He always remained himself, he was utterly Convinced that ‘salvation lies in Christ-like humility’, and by virtue of this humility he strove with his whole soul to interpret every man at his best. He found his way to the heart of everyone to his capacity for loving Christ.

I remember a conversation he had with a certain Archimandrite who was engaged in missionary work. This Archimandrite thought highly of the Staretz and many a time went to see him during his visits to the Holy Mountain. The Staretz asked him what sort of sermons he preached to people. The Archimandrite, who was still young and inexperienced gesticulated with his hands and swayed his whole body, and replied excitedly, ‘I tell them, Your faith is all wrong, perverted. There is nothing right, and if you don’t repent, there will be no salvation for you.’

The Staretz heard him out, then asked, ‘Tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?’

‘Yes, that they do believe.’

‘And do they revere the Mother of God?’

‘Yes, but they are not taught properly about her.’

‘And what of the Saints?’

‘Yes, they honour them but since they have fallen away from the Church, what saints can they have?’

‘Do they celebrate the Divine Office in their churches? Do they read the Gospels?’

‘Yes, they do have churches and services but if you were to compare their services with ours—how cold and lifeless theirs are!’

‘Father Archimandrite, people feel in their souls when they are doing the proper thing, believing in Jesus Christ, revering the Mother of God and the Saints, whom they call upon in prayer, so if you condemn their faith they will not listen to you ... But if you were to confirm that they were doing well to believe in God and honour the Mother of God and the Saints; that they are right to go to church, and say their prayers at home, read the Divine word, and so on; and then gently point out their mistakes and show them what they ought to amend, then they would listen to you, and the Lord would rejoice over them. And this way by God’s mercy we shall all find salvation ... God is love, and therefore the preaching of His word must always proceed from love. Then both preacher and listener will profit. But if you do nothing but condemn, the soul of the people will not heed you, and no good will come of it.’

-From Saint Silouan the Athonite, by Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) (Essex, England: Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, 1991), pp. 63-65.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt, it really seems like you're jumping through a lot of hoops to interpret Catholic documents into a distorted view of what Catholicism actually teaches. I think there are some good reasons to question Catholic teaching regarding the papacy, but these are not good reasons. Maybe Satan was a poor hyperbolic image on Pius' part - oh well. The Church teaches ex cathedra statements are protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

I think the issue is, again, a lot of what Rome teaches nowadays is not what seems to always be taught. I think the only reason the modern Catholic Church is chummy with the East is because Modern popes are as well. so I know what the Church teaches regarding the ex cathedra stuff. and Pius was not the only one who said that about the Pope.

This isn't evidence for what you're claiming, and bad hyperbole on the part of one saint in the history of the Catholic Church isn't all that relevant.... especially when we consider some of the Fathers contradicted each other. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope's ex cathedra statements are able to supersede the dogmatic definitions of a prior ecumenical council. What I meant was, have you read somewhere in Catholic teaching that they can?

no, and I know that modern Catholics will say that they don't contradict. the problem is many Roman statements, that Popes have fought for, do (such as the filioque).

Matt, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone here that Catholicism is true. I'm not claiming historical evidence doesn't disprove Catholic teaching (though I'm skeptical Honorius and Vigilius do). I'm saying you are misinterpreting Catholic teaching, and "not from the consent of the Church" in the one sentence from Pastor Aeternus does not mean what you think it means, a point made all the clearer when you look at the rest of the body of Catholic teaching and documents from the proceedings of the Vatican I Council itself clarifying the meaning of those words. So, Vatican I document does not say or mean that an ecumenical council can be contradicted by a papal ex cathedra statement.

right, which is what they say. they even say in the document that this teaching is in line with what has come before. the issue is that history shows otherwise, such as the filioque (which I know was not an ex cathedra statement, but it's being correct is certainly the practice of Rome).