Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
It is similar to some extent.
The question concerned the papal bull unam sanctam and its extreme statement:" Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I believe that the Catholic sedevacantists such as Most Holy Family Monastery adhere to the literal interpretation of this extreme statement, but I don't know anyone else who takes it literally today. That's why I brought up the calendar question, since there are those "uncanonical" Orthodox who say that it is heretical to embrace the New Calendar, and I would put this in the same folder with the literal interpretation of unam sanctam. 
But, that's just my personal opinion on it, and i don;t know what the official RC interpretation of unam sanctam is today and I am not sure how they officially  resolve the apparent contradiction of unam sanctam with the push toward ecumenical reconciliation. When i tried to discuss something like this at CAF, they gave me a warning of  a couple of points saying that I had some "agenda."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
It is similar to some extent.
The question concerned the papal bull unam sanctam and its extreme statement:" Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I believe that the Catholic sedevacantists such as Most Holy Family Monastery adhere to the literal interpretation of this extreme statement, but I don't know anyone else who takes it literally today. That's why I brought up the calendar question, since there are those "uncanonical" Orthodox who say that it is heretical to embrace the New Calendar, and I would put this in the same folder with the literal interpretation of unam sanctam.   
Since Vatican I, not quite.
But, that's just my personal opinion on it, and i don;t know what the official RC interpretation of unam sanctam is today and I am not sure how they officially  resolve the apparent contradiction of unam sanctam with the push toward ecumenical reconciliation. When i tried to discuss something like this at CAF, they gave me a warning of  a couple of points saying that I had some "agenda."
LOL. Yes, a sensitive bunch.  Quite thick skinned compared to Fish Easters, though.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wyatt said:
Has there ever been definitive proof that the "two lung theory" refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and not Eastern Catholicism. I've heard some say it refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and heard others say the other lung is just Eastern Catholicism, and I've heard still others say it refers to both.
Wyatt,

I'm glad you pointed this out.

No, I do not think that there is proof that its intention in its original usage was to refer to anything beyond Eastern Catholics.

Unfortunately, if that was the case, the doctrine has been perverted by many, the poster right above you as evidence of this.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.



 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
We all remember that Pope Benedict XIV issued a Statement in which he said that the Orthodox Church, although a "true" Church, suffers from defects.  Moscow praised this document for its honesty and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.  So I think that for us the ecumenical dialogue means "speaking the truth in love" so that a process of healing may begin in the Western Churches.

Here are a few words from the recently glorified Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Primate of the Russian Church.  He could almost be seen as holding a "two lung" image of the Church since he see Catholicism as the ailing other half of Christianity.

You expect now that I should give judgement concerning the other half of present Christianity,' the Metropolitan said in the concluding conversation, 'but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death' (ibid., p.135).

These statements of Metropolitan Philaret are a beginning only. Not everything in them is clearly and fully expressed. But the question is truly put. There are many bonds, still not broken, whereby the schisms are held together in a certain unity with the Church. The whole of our attention and our will must be concentrated and directed towards removing the stubbornness of dissension. 'We seek not conquest,' says St Gregory of Nazianzen, 'but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart.'
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
We all remember that Pope Benedict XIV issued a Statement in which he said that the Orthodox Church, although a "true" Church, suffers from defects.  Moscow praised this document for its honesty and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.  So I think that for us the ecumenical dialogue means "speaking the truth in love" so that a process of healing may begin in the Western Churches.
Thank you, Father.  Because if you read what was said about the woundedness in Orthodoxy, there is also text there that indicates that the west is wounded by being separated from you.

There are no real specifics there beyond being out of communion but it was clear to me when I read the actual text and not just reading what people were saying about the text that it was intended to indicate that we were both wounded.

I believe that has been the clear position of the last four Catholic popes of the 20th and 21st centuries.  It is very clear in the journal writings of Blessed John the Twenty-third, who is more dear to my heart in many ways, than John Paul the Second.  But knowing the writings of Pope Benedict the Sixteenth as I do, I would never hesitate to say that he is deeply aware of what the wounds of schism are upon the Catholic Church.

Mary
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.
But we don't recognize it as a "'true' church".
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
Because the Trunk and Root Stock would be the Mother Church and the Branches would be the Baby Churches... :laugh:

Thought that was obvious.

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Wyatt said:
I read over an interesting article today that sheds some light on the Catholic view of Orthodoxy:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html

Aidan Nichols is an extremely nice fellow and he writes out of an old-fashioned Anglican ethos which scarcely exists today.  That means that he looks for convergences and he searches for ways to pour water on troubled water and to maintain unity against all odds.  This is part of the Anglican "genius."

It is probably only in the concluding section that he comes to what will forever separate us - the papacy.  And while he sees a universal primacy as a fundamental need for the Church the Orthodox believe that the institution of the papacy is a major aberration in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, something which Christ never called into existence. 

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
Because the Trunk and Root Stock would be the Mother Church and the Branches would be the Baby Churches... :laugh:

Thought that was obvious.

M.
How is that different? Are you thinking of Branch Theory as meaning that all ("Apostolic") Christian groups are branches of the tree?
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
deusveritasest said:
How is that different? Are you thinking of Branch Theory as meaning that all ("Apostolic") Christian groups are branches of the tree?
I think at least to an extent the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to such a belief, although I don't think it does to the extent that the Anglicans do. The fact that the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East looks to be a sort of branch theory. Personally, what I specifically like about Catholicism is the fact that it acknowledges that even those who are canonically outside of the visible Church may still be a part of the Church, even if it is to a lesser degree. I think this is why the Catholic Church uses the term "full communion" to differentiate between other levels of communion. Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church, but in our view this does not necessarily mean that all who are outside the canonical boundaries of the visible Church are automatically damned.

I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the Catholic Church considers anyone who is baptized using the Trinitarian formula (In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) to be a part of the Catholic Church, albeit not in full communion.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.
How would you destroy the Vatican papacy? I read that some Orthodox would agree to a Western or Roman Patriarch, first among equals, so you would still have the Roman Pope under such a scheme. 
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wyatt said:
Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,
Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.
 
Top