Posted on 06/20/2008 4:48:31 AM PDT by tcg
Reports are circulating, in circles which are intensely attuned to the continued warming of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, of a statement and proposal allegedly made by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.
If they are confirmed, it may signal a major move toward communion between Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox Brethren.It may also open the path to dialogue on communion between the Churches even wider.
The Religious Information Service of the Ukraine, associated with the Ukranian Catholic University, was cited as one source for the articles. Another was a German Ecumenical Journal named after the great Bishops Cyril and Methodius.
Both of these sources allege that the Orthodox Patriarch made an unusual gesture toward Eastern Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome, proposing that the members of those Churches somehow “return to Orthodoxy without breaking unity with Rome”...
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
The pre 1054 Church was Synodal.
Catholic infant baptisms usually involve water being poured over the head three times, so I guess that would be valid.
A synod of all the bishops (i.e., an ecumenical council), yes. But when was it known to have a synod of only the patriarchs?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
No, all-Orthodox Synods dealt with issues regarding the Church, not things the Church never taught or believed. In other words, if someone began to teach Purgatory in the Orthodox Church, an all-Orthodox Synod would deal with that.
An all-Orthodox Synod was held in Jerusalem in the 17th century to combat a Calvinist mole in the rank of an Ecumenical Patriarch.
And if there has been no such all-orthodox synod and decision on one or more of these questions, and as only hypothetical as it might sound, might an Orthodox individual hold to them as a pious opinion in the absence of such an “all-orthodox” decision in a given instance?
No, unless he could show that this was what the Church believed everywhere and always.
Correct.
Really? What evidence do you have that the entire Church taught them everywhere and always?
The Orthodox Church does not consider spirnkling to be baptism in the strict sense of the meaning of the word baptiso.
These were the common teachings in the West. What evidence do you have that the entire Church everywhere and always held them to be heretical? At best all you can do is show that these are open questions, not heresy.
Purgatory was taught throughout the West in the undivided church and no synod/council ever condemned it.
The Synod of each Church involves the Patriarch and all the bishops of that particular Church (i.e. Russian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.); the Ecumenical Patriarch has his own Synod of bishops. An all-Orthodox Synod would consist of Patriarchs of all (14 or so) Orthodox Churches representing all the Synods through them, being that the Patriarchs are elected by the local Synods.
That would make it a theologoumenna, and not a doctrine of the (whole) Church. Just like the original sin, or the assumption of BEV Mary body and soul, it was never elevated to the level of dogma in the undivided Church, although the East professed it all along, the Church as a whole remained silent on these issues for a long time.
That may be the modern Orthodox practice but it was unknown in the Church before 1054. The undivided church knew only local synods or an ecumenical council to which all the bishops were invited. The patriarchs did not have any authority to meet separately as representing their respective patriarchates.
Thus to hold these opinions cannot be considered heretical nor reason to break communion.
I didn't say they were heresy. They are dogma of the Latin Church, but they were never dogma of the Church of the Seven Councils, i.e. the Orthodox Church. If we are going to speak of one Church, we can only do that up to that point, as it binding on both the East and the West.
They are elevated to the level of dogma in the West and yes, that is the reason for non-communion.
Correct. The same can be said of bishops and priests. Priests are an addition which became necessary when the Church grew. It would be impractical to send all the bishops to an all-Orthodox Synod. The point is that the ecclesial operating system remains unchanged in the East, with no bishop having jurisdiction of another bishop, and all decisions are made among apostolic successors through a synodal method, just as it was among the Holy Apostles.
I'm counting on some of the Orthodox to clarify the meaning of this.
“That would make it a theologoumenna, and not a doctrine of the (whole) Church. Just like the original sin, or the assumption of BEV Mary body and soul, it was never elevated to the level of dogma in the undivided Church, although the East professed it all along, the Church as a whole remained silent on these issues for a long time.”
I assume it would be correct to say that the difference between a theologoumenna and a dogma is significantly less than that between a heresy and a dogma?
Would it be correct to say from the EO p.o.v. that it is acceptable to believe in a theologoumenna as long as one does not hold it as a dogma?
“The Orthodox Church does not consider spirnkling to be baptism in the strict sense of the meaning of the word baptiso.”
I can understand that, although from a canonical point of view the water must “flow” over the person being baptized, so I have never heard or seen of Catholic baptisms which could be described as “sprinkling”. (We of course also baptise where there is any doubt as to validity in the form or matter of the sacrament.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.