Possible Union of Churches

how does the belief of original sin, the inherent sinfulness in the human nature in catholic belief interact with the papal infallibility?


 

interesting read.

i never got to know the orthodox position in depth before, funny to find it on this website.

one quote on the matter i remember is

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

St. Cyril or someone.

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God interesting read. i never got to know the orthodox position in depth before, funny to find it on this website. one quote on the matter i remember is Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. St. Cyril or someone.

Edited by Akolouthos - 02-Aug-2007 at 10:40

1054 can never be undone. Those two Churches have remained apart from the better part of a millenia. They culturally, linguistically, ethnically and ideologically represent two different camps. There's no way that they can be brought together because, perhaps most importantly, religion is a cultural thing and the cultures which it represents also won't want to join their church to that of an alien people.

Edited by Akolouthos - 02-Aug-2007 at 19:18

celibacy of priests only applies to the Latin rite, not to any of the Eastern rites, unless so ordained by their chief prelates.

in other words, unification wouldn't change the Orthodox tradition of married clergy.

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator 1054 can never be undone. Those two Churches have remained apart from the better part of a millenia. They culturally, linguistically, ethnically and ideologically represent two different camps. There's no way that they can be brought together because, perhaps most importantly, religion is a cultural thing and the cultures which it represents also won't want to join their church to that of an alien people.

1054AD is overblown. The two churches were divided before that. That date intself is really something that became a big deal later by inexperienced scholars. Any serious medievalist will not find any importance in it, nor church scholars.

There was discord between the churches at the moment, the papal legate was sent to Constantinople to deal with the patriarch. The pope died in the meanwhile, thus the legate's power was nonexistent since they served throughout the appointment of one pope, and their post was not grandfathered in. The legate and the patriarch were both hard headed. Words were exchanged and they excommunicated with each other (he did not have the power lets remind ourselves). Nor did this do much, since this act was overblown.

There has been discord and disunity between the two since the eight century. Various disputes and the filioque were hard to reconcile as it is.

Nor was there a real union to begin with. The Roman curch was essentially a patriarchate that had not much control outside of Italy, nor had the idea of a univeral pappacy fully developed yet. That is more of a twelvth century idea.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Originally posted by es_bih 1054AD is overblown. The two churches were divided before that. That date intself is really something that became a big deal later by inexperienced scholars. Any serious medievalist will not find any importance in it, nor church scholars. There was discord between the churches at the moment, the papal legate was sent to Constantinople to deal with the patriarch. The pope died in the meanwhile, thus the legate's power was nonexistent since they served throughout the appointment of one pope, and their post was not grandfathered in. The legate and the patriarch were both hard headed. Words were exchanged and they excommunicated with each other (he did not have the power lets remind ourselves). Nor did this do much, since this act was overblown. There has been discord and disunity between the two since the eight century. Various disputes and the filioque were hard to reconcile as it is.   Nor was there a real union to begin with. The Roman curch was essentially a patriarchate that had not much control outside of Italy, nor had the idea of a univeral pappacy fully developed yet. That is more of a twelvth century idea.   True, 1054 is overblown. There was discord before 1054, centered on the gradual gravitation toward the filioque in the West, the brief triumph of iconoclasm in the East, and even earlier with Justinian's campaign against the Three Chapters (most of the western bishops believed that he should have been focusing on the Monophysites, not the Nestorians).   That said, it is important to remember that unity wasn't really even broken in 1054. The excommunications were directed at the interested parties (the papal legates and Cerularius), not their respective Churches. In addition, as you have noted, the legates didn't even have legatine authority, owing to the death of their bishop.   And their was real union, just not according to modern Roman ecclesiology -- it was reflected in the Eucharistic unity of the bishops of the oikoumene. The bishops of the East and the West were in communion with each other and met together in councils to govern the Church for most of the Ecumenical Period, and any breaks were temporary.   -Akolouthos