Official stance of the RCC on orthodoxy

[Peter J]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

[J Michael]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

Good question.  As a (former?) Catholic, what's your take on it?

Most of the Catholics (especially those secure in their faith) I know don't really give Orthodoxy a second thought.  Many don't even give it a *first* thought. 

[username!]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

Most of the Roman Catholics perhaps.  But Orthodoxy can be tempting for Greek Catholics especially if they have family in both.
Good question.  As a (former?) Catholic, what's your take on it?

Most of the Catholics (especially those secure in their faith) I know don't really give Orthodoxy a second thought.  Many don't even give it a *first* thought. 

[J Michael]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

Most of the Roman Catholics perhaps.  But Orthodoxy can be tempting for Greek Catholics especially if they have family in both.
Good question.  As a (former?) Catholic, what's your take on it?

Most of the Catholics (especially those secure in their faith) I know don't really give Orthodoxy a second thought.  Many don't even give it a *first* thought. 

 

[Peter J]

From my experience -- largely on the Catholic Answers Forum, but also my experience off-net -- I would say that, yes, those 2 articles are pretty typical of the Roman attitude towards Orthodoxy.

[J Michael]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

Most of the Roman Catholics perhaps.  But Orthodoxy can be tempting for Greek Catholics especially if they have family in both.
Good question.  As a (former?) Catholic, what's your take on it?

Most of the Catholics (especially those secure in their faith) I know don't really give Orthodoxy a second thought.  Many don't even give it a *first* thought. 

Took me awhile, but I finally noticed your comment above mine, as though it was my comment  .  I agree that it could be tempting for those Greek Eastern Catholics with Orthodox in their family--especially if they are insecure in *Catholic* part of their Eastern Catholicism.

[Peter J]

Took me awhile,

Well, not as long as it took me.  I didn't get it until you explained it.

[Papist]

"I love you too much to be married to you"

A truly ignorant, stupid and, in essence, meaningless statement. I've read the article in the blog, and the above statement fits it like a glove.

What about, I love my kid, I just don't agree with some of his decisions? You see, this argument by analogy thing is silly.

[J Michael]

"I love you too much to be married to you"

A truly ignorant, stupid and, in essence, meaningless statement. I've read the article in the blog, and the above statement fits it like a glove.

What about, I love my kid, I just don't agree with some of his decisions? You see, this argument by analogy thing is silly.

+1

[witega]

"I love you too much to be married to you"

A truly ignorant, stupid and, in essence, meaningless statement. I've read the article in the blog, and the above statement fits it like a glove.

What about, I love my kid, I just don't agree with some of his decisions? You see, this argument by analogy thing is silly.

Since that would be an entirely reasonable (and commonplace) thing to say, and it's analogue, "I love the Orthodox Church, but I don't agree with some its decisions" would also be a reasonable thing to say, I don't see how you've demonstrated 'argument by analogy is silly' at all.

[biro]

If you are looking to find something negative, then you will. I don't know that you possibly could survey all the RCC people and all the Orthodox people in the world and find out what they think of each other. Since the RCC is still engaging in talks in hopes a possible future 'reunion' with the Orthodox, there must be something to it. Or, you can think what you want. 

[Peter J]

If you are looking to find something negative, then you will.

Reverend Ford: [reading] When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will. Abraham Lincoln?
Pollyanna Whittier: He was President.
Reverend Ford: Yes, I know.

[Peter J]

"I love you too much to be married to you"

A truly ignorant, stupid and, in essence, meaningless statement. I've read the article in the blog, and the above statement fits it like a glove.

What about, I love my kid, I just don't agree with some of his decisions? You see, this argument by analogy thing is silly.

Since that would be an entirely reasonable (and commonplace) thing to say, and it's analogue, "I love the Orthodox Church, but I don't agree with some its decisions" would also be a reasonable thing to say, I don't see how you've demonstrated 'argument by analogy is silly' at all.

The analogy is strange when you use "wife". I had been thinking about changing it, in a slightly different way than Papist did: making it about a family rather than a wife. As in "I love the Jones family so much that I could never be a Jones."

[biro]

If you are looking to find something negative, then you will.

Reverend Ford: [reading] When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will. Abraham Lincoln?
Pollyanna Whittier: He was President.
Reverend Ford: Yes, I know.

What?

 

[Peter J]

If you are looking to find something negative, then you will.

Reverend Ford: [reading] When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will. Abraham Lincoln?
Pollyanna Whittier: He was President.
Reverend Ford: Yes, I know.

What?

 

What, you don't like movies?

[biro]

Sorry. Guess I missed it. 

[Peter J]

Sorry. Guess I missed it. 

Well that's understandable -- it was 50 years ago after all. 

[orthonorm]

Sorry. Guess I missed it. 

You are blessed among women!

Oddly though, if I wudda guessed anyone on this board had seen Pollyanna . .

[orthonorm]

Sorry. Guess I missed it. 

Well that's understandable -- it was 50 years ago after all. 

Oh, you are a young fogey . . . I was going Pickford route. Sheesh, 90+ years?

[Shanghaiski]

From a Catholic POV, there are no barriers to intercommunion. From an Orthodox POV, however, Orthodox generally cannot (and would have no reason to) partake of Catholic sacraments, nor are Catholics permitted to partake of Orthodox Sacraments (the only exception I know being that Catholics can be communed by an Orthodox priest if they are near death).

Can an Orthodox be communed by an RC priest on their death bed if there is no EO one available?

No. Acceptance of RC communion means leaving the Orthodox Church.

[Shanghaiski]

There are those on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide who actually agree with the pope of Rome who notes that there is, of course, material schism but not formal or heretical schism between Orthodox and Catholics.    I am suggesting that we might discover that they have the right of it, which would render the material schism meaningless...both now and then.

EM, all the wistful musings in the world don't matter a hill of beans if the Orthodox diptychs exclude the hierarchy of Rome. This is the reality, and it is not random or accidental. Playing wordgames by saying things like "formal" and "material" schism is meaningless, just as being a little bit pregnant is.

The RCC Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch ended the excommunications of one another in 1965.

I don't care if anybody likes that or not: it really happened.

Every shiny new copy of the Daily Roman Missal says that the RCC permits Orthodox to take Communion in their churches. When the door will be opened the other way, I don't know.

Except that the "Excommunications of 1054" never happened.

[Shanghaiski]

There are those on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide who actually agree with the pope of Rome who notes that there is, of course, material schism but not formal or heretical schism between Orthodox and Catholics.    I am suggesting that we might discover that they have the right of it, which would render the material schism meaningless...both now and then.

EM, all the wistful musings in the world don't matter a hill of beans if the Orthodox diptychs exclude the hierarchy of Rome. This is the reality, and it is not random or accidental. Playing wordgames by saying things like "formal" and "material" schism is meaningless, just as being a little bit pregnant is.

Rome wasn't on the diptychs in 1015 (and part of 1014) either. Does that mean that Rome's status is the same now as it was in 1015? (You can make RCs very very happy by saying yes.)

It's worse. Now with 85% more heresy.

[J Michael]

From a Catholic POV, there are no barriers to intercommunion. From an Orthodox POV, however, Orthodox generally cannot (and would have no reason to) partake of Catholic sacraments, nor are Catholics permitted to partake of Orthodox Sacraments (the only exception I know being that Catholics can be communed by an Orthodox priest if they are near death).

Can an Orthodox be communed by an RC priest on their death bed if there is no EO one available?

No. Acceptance of RC communion means leaving the Orthodox Church.

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

Btw, I've heard at least 2 Orthodox priests (one of them Antiochian, btw) say that it's perfectly alright for an RC priest to commune an Orthodox Christian on their deathbed with no OC priest available.  I'm sure I've read it in a couple places, too, but don't remember where.

[J Michael]

There are those on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide who actually agree with the pope of Rome who notes that there is, of course, material schism but not formal or heretical schism between Orthodox and Catholics.    I am suggesting that we might discover that they have the right of it, which would render the material schism meaningless...both now and then.

EM, all the wistful musings in the world don't matter a hill of beans if the Orthodox diptychs exclude the hierarchy of Rome. This is the reality, and it is not random or accidental. Playing wordgames by saying things like "formal" and "material" schism is meaningless, just as being a little bit pregnant is.

Rome wasn't on the diptychs in 1015 (and part of 1014) either. Does that mean that Rome's status is the same now as it was in 1015? (You can make RCs very very happy by saying yes.)

It's worse. Now with 85% more heresy.

Oh boy....here we go, again!!! 

[Shanghaiski]

From a Catholic POV, there are no barriers to intercommunion. From an Orthodox POV, however, Orthodox generally cannot (and would have no reason to) partake of Catholic sacraments, nor are Catholics permitted to partake of Orthodox Sacraments (the only exception I know being that Catholics can be communed by an Orthodox priest if they are near death).

Can an Orthodox be communed by an RC priest on their death bed if there is no EO one available?

No. Acceptance of RC communion means leaving the Orthodox Church.

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

Btw, I've heard at least 2 Orthodox priests (one of them Antiochian, btw) say that it's perfectly alright for an RC priest to commune an Orthodox Christian on their deathbed with no OC priest available.  I'm sure I've read it in a couple places, too, but don't remember where.

Absolutely not. Membership in the Church continues into eternity.

The priests are wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

[J Michael]

From a Catholic POV, there are no barriers to intercommunion. From an Orthodox POV, however, Orthodox generally cannot (and would have no reason to) partake of Catholic sacraments, nor are Catholics permitted to partake of Orthodox Sacraments (the only exception I know being that Catholics can be communed by an Orthodox priest if they are near death).

Can an Orthodox be communed by an RC priest on their death bed if there is no EO one available?

No. Acceptance of RC communion means leaving the Orthodox Church.

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

Btw, I've heard at least 2 Orthodox priests (one of them Antiochian, btw) say that it's perfectly alright for an RC priest to commune an Orthodox Christian on their deathbed with no OC priest available.  I'm sure I've read it in a couple places, too, but don't remember where.

Absolutely not. Membership in the Church continues into eternity.

The priests are wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Whatever.......

[witega]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

[J Michael]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

[witega]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

No. That's why I included the caveat about disagreement over what constitutes the earthly manifestation of the One Church. For Orthodox Christians, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church, whether we are talking about here or in eternity. My point is that a Western "Catholic" (whether Roman Catholic or continuing Anglican Catholic, etc) should understand that reasoning--and know what answer they are going to get from Orthodox--even if they disagree with Orthodoxy's self-identification.

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

I saw the smiley and understood you were trying to lighten a comment about death, but I still took it as expressive of your actual beliefs. (but I'm no expert at interpreting emoticons--feel free to consider me emoticon-challenged)

[J Michael]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

No. That's why I included the caveat about disagreement over what constitutes the earthly manifestation of the One Church. For Orthodox Christians, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church, whether we are talking about here or in eternity. My point is that a Western "Catholic" (whether Roman Catholic or continuing Anglican Catholic, etc) should understand that reasoning--and know what answer they are going to get from Orthodox--even if they disagree with Orthodoxy's self-identification.

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

I saw the smiley and understood you were trying to lighten a comment about death, but I still took it as expressive of your actual beliefs. (but I'm no expert at interpreting emoticons--feel free to consider me emoticon-challenged)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from.  I don't agree with you, but I understand you p.o.v.

Just out of curiosity, other matters aside, if an Orthodox Christian is on his deathbed, there is no Orthodox priest available at all, death is imminent, and a Catholic priest *is* available to commune and anoint him, what happened to the Orthodox concept of oikonomia?

I'm wondering if one of you Orthodox asked your bishop about this what they would say.  And I'm just guessing that some bishops would say one thing, and some would say the opposite.

As for the smiley, and the comment preceding it, I did not mean it to be expressive of my actual beliefs.  However, I must add the caveat that I really *don't* know *what* happens after death.

[witega]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from.  I don't agree with you, but I understand you p.o.v.

Well, obviously. If you agreed with me, you'd be Orthodox 

Just out of curiosity, other matters aside, if an Orthodox Christian is on his deathbed, there is no Orthodox priest available at all, death is imminent, and a Catholic priest *is* available to commune and anoint him, what happened to the Orthodox concept of oikonomia?

I'm wondering if one of you Orthodox asked your bishop about this what they would say.  And I'm just guessing that some bishops would say one thing, and some would say the opposite.

I suspect you're right. I know the strict answer and it's what I heard from my bishop, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that other bishops take an economic view of the matter.

[Cavaradossi]

There are those on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox divide who actually agree with the pope of Rome who notes that there is, of course, material schism but not formal or heretical schism between Orthodox and Catholics.    I am suggesting that we might discover that they have the right of it, which would render the material schism meaningless...both now and then.

EM, all the wistful musings in the world don't matter a hill of beans if the Orthodox diptychs exclude the hierarchy of Rome. This is the reality, and it is not random or accidental. Playing wordgames by saying things like "formal" and "material" schism is meaningless, just as being a little bit pregnant is.

Rome wasn't on the diptychs in 1015 (and part of 1014) either. Does that mean that Rome's status is the same now as it was in 1015? (You can make RCs very very happy by saying yes.)

It's worse. Now with 85% more heresy.

Sounds like New Coke.

[Cavaradossi]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

I think so. The assumption that most Catholics seem to run on is that refusal to go into communion with the Pope stems from pride, anger, resentment, bitterness, etc.. You will see many Catholics say this about both the Orthodox (sometimes with comically histrionic woe and sadness for the state of our separation; they will almost always follow such statements up with a counterbalancing statement like, "I hope for the day when we can all be one again," or "it must agonize Jesus to see these divisions within Christianity") and the Protestants (usually with a tone of superiority, as if they are condescending themselves to explain such a basic concept to the Protestants). It doesn't even seem to occur to many of them that the Orthodox disagree with the papacy because from our perspective, the popes have claimed more and more powers for themselves until we get to the papacy of the late middle ages (from which there is no true turning back). One rather intelligent and observant Orthodox poster I have corresponded with once compared the development of the papacy to the paradox of Theseus' Ship. I am inclined to agree.

[orthonorm]

If I tell most Catholics I am Orthodox, they are going to are probably going to show surprise that I am Jewish.

If I then say, no, Christian Orthodox, they will probably ask me when they can roll by the annual pangyrofest and car raffle.

At least in these parts.

[Peter J]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

No. That's why I included the caveat about disagreement over what constitutes the earthly manifestation of the One Church. For Orthodox Christians, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Orthodox Church, whether we are talking about here or in eternity. My point is that a Western "Catholic" (whether Roman Catholic or continuing Anglican Catholic, etc) should understand that reasoning--and know what answer they are going to get from Orthodox--even if they disagree with Orthodoxy's self-identification.

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

I saw the smiley and understood you were trying to lighten a comment about death, but I still took it as expressive of your actual beliefs. (but I'm no expert at interpreting emoticons--feel free to consider me emoticon-challenged)

To be fair, J Michael's statement was just the reversal of something an Orthodox said recently: that Catholics can get to heaven, but in heaven everyone will be Orthodox not Catholic.

[FatherHLL]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here. 

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.   

[J Michael]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church?  

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here.  

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.  

At the risk of getting in over my head (yet again  )----I'm not sure that the fact that the Catholic Church *used to* talk about 3 states of the ONE Church (most people no longer do, and they're not even specifically mentioned in the Catechism) is the reason why "the RCC needs two heads", as you say.  It doesn't need two heads.  The fact of the matter is that we have *one* head--Christ.  The pope is His visible representative on Earth, NOT the Head of the Church, who is.....Christ.  There is but One Church, and its head is Christ.  The Church Militant, Church Triumphant, and Church Suffering are not 3 Churches but 3 states of that One Church.

One could just as easily say that the OC has multiple heads, not all of whom always agree with each other--all the various  patriarchs or bishops who head national churches, etc.  If I were to claim that, you would say I'm wrong, and that you have but one head---Christ.

I'm not saying that there are no differences in ecclesiology between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, just that I think you're wrong about this.

Because I do not *know* (does *anybody*, really?) what happens after death, I'm going to speculate, like so many others far better than I, that in Heaven there will be no Catholics, no Orthodox, no Continuing Anglicans, no Jews, etc.--just Glorified souls.  And we'll all be getting along splendidly together  !

[Peter J]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here. 

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.   

Father, I think you're reading too much into the terms "Church militant", "Church suffering", and "Church triumphant". To me, the main point of those terms is just that all 3 are one church.

[Papist]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here. 

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.   

Actually, you guys have multiple heads, i.e. all the bishops.

[Peter J]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

I think so. The assumption that most Catholics seem to run on is that refusal to go into communion with the Pope stems from pride, anger, resentment, bitterness, etc.. You will see many Catholics say this about both the Orthodox (sometimes with comically histrionic woe and sadness for the state of our separation; they will almost always follow such statements up with a counterbalancing statement like, "I hope for the day when we can all be one again," or "it must agonize Jesus to see these divisions within Christianity") and the Protestants (usually with a tone of superiority, as if they are condescending themselves to explain such a basic concept to the Protestants). It doesn't even seem to occur to many of them that the Orthodox disagree with the papacy because from our perspective, the popes have claimed more and more powers for themselves until we get to the papacy of the late middle ages (from which there is no true turning back). One rather intelligent and observant Orthodox poster I have corresponded with once compared the development of the papacy to the paradox of Theseus' Ship. I am inclined to agree.

I have to be honest with you: I really don't know who Theseus was.

[FatherHLL]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here. 

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.   

Actually, you guys have multiple heads, i.e. all the bishops.

That's nonsense and a complete misrepresentation of Orthodox Theology.  There is only one Great Hierarch (Megas Archiereus) of the Church.  The rest are local Archieries under Him, and all brethren under a single Head.  They have local headship over their dioceses.  In Synod the one who sits as protos is bishop of the See first in honor in the eparchia for the provincial synod, or the dioikesis for the patriarchal synod.     

[J Michael]

I guess if someone were on their deathbed they'd be leaving the Orthodox Church anyway  .

?
There's one Church. One Church in Heaven, one on earth and they are the same thing. I thought that whatever disputes there may be about where that One Church is on earth, this was an understanding Western "Catholics" shared with Orthodoxy?

Well, if we "Catholics" (Western and Eastern) share this understanding with the OC about One Church in Heaven, one on earth, etc., does that not make us all part of the same One Church? 

The first part of my comment that generated your "?", was a joke.  Did you see the smiley  ?

Actually there is a difference in ecclesiology here. 

The Vatican views the "Church on earth" as "militant" and "the Church in heaven" as triumpant.  Orthodoxy views the one Church in heaven and earth before the general resurrection as the Church militant, and the entire Church in heaven and earth after the general resurrection as the Church triumphant.  That is why the RCC needs two heads, and the Orthodox Church needs one.   

Actually, you guys have multiple heads, i.e. all the bishops.

That's nonsense and a complete misrepresentation of Orthodox Theology.  There is only one Great Hierarch (Megas Archiereus) of the Church.  The rest are local Archieries under Him, and all brethren under a single Head.  They have local headship over their dioceses.  In Synod the one who sits as protos is bishop of the See first in honor in the eparchia for the provincial synod, or the dioikesis for the patriarchal synod.     

See what I mean??  From my reply #171 above: "One could just as easily say that the OC has multiple heads, not all of whom always agree with each other--all the various  patriarchs or bishops who head national churches, etc.  If I were to claim that, you would say I'm wrong, and that you have but one head---Christ."  No more nonsensical and no more of a misrepresentation of Orthodox theology than your comments in your post above claiming the Catholic Church needs 2 heads.



(Now, Fahder, does this post qualify for the appellation of "strange", "semi-strange", or "just plain weird"  ?)

[J Michael]

Honestly, I'm a tad disappointed that the title of "I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox" didn't mean what I had in mind, i.e. "I'm not going to become Orthodox unless I first come to fully agree with Orthodoxy" -- which was, after all, the reason I brought it up.

But to try to tie it to what we were discussing before, I pose this question: is the attitude toward Orthodoxy expressed in that article (and the other one for that matter) typical of Catholics?

I think so. The assumption that most Catholics seem to run on is that refusal to go into communion with the Pope stems from pride, anger, resentment, bitterness, etc.. You will see many Catholics say this about both the Orthodox (sometimes with comically histrionic woe and sadness for the state of our separation; they will almost always follow such statements up with a counterbalancing statement like, "I hope for the day when we can all be one again," or "it must agonize Jesus to see these divisions within Christianity") and the Protestants (usually with a tone of superiority, as if they are condescending themselves to explain such a basic concept to the Protestants). It doesn't even seem to occur to many of them that the Orthodox disagree with the papacy because from our perspective, the popes have claimed more and more powers for themselves until we get to the papacy of the late middle ages (from which there is no true turning back). One rather intelligent and observant Orthodox poster I have corresponded with once compared the development of the papacy to the paradox of Theseus' Ship. I am inclined to agree.

I have to be honest with you: I really don't know who Theseus was.

Theseus--a character from Greek mythology.  See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus

[witega]

See what I mean??  From my reply #171 above: "One could just as easily say that the OC has multiple heads, not all of whom always agree with each other--all the various  patriarchs or bishops who head national churches, etc.  If I were to claim that, you would say I'm wrong, and that you have but one head---Christ."  No more nonsensical and no more of a misrepresentation of Orthodox theology than your comments in your post above claiming the Catholic Church needs 2 heads.

Genuine question: Is it not the Roman Catholic position that the Pope is the head of the Church (for example)?

[J Michael]

See what I mean??  From my reply #171 above: "One could just as easily say that the OC has multiple heads, not all of whom always agree with each other--all the various  patriarchs or bishops who head national churches, etc.  If I were to claim that, you would say I'm wrong, and that you have but one head---Christ."  No more nonsensical and no more of a misrepresentation of Orthodox theology than your comments in your post above claiming the Catholic Church needs 2 heads.

Genuine question: Is it not the Roman Catholic position that the Pope is the head of the Church (for example)?

A common misunderstanding, I'm afraid.  The Pope is the head of the Church on earth.  The ultimate and absolute Head of the Church, over and above and absolutely superior to all humans,  is Christ Himself.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  Christ the King.  Christ the Lord.  Christ is our Head, the Pope is His chief representative here on earth.

From the article you linked: "The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.".

From dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vicar: vicar--"a person who acts in place of another; substitute.

a person who is authorized to perform the functions of another; deputy: God's vicar on earth.

Origin:
1250–1300; Middle English  < Anglo-French vicare; Old French vicaire  < Latin vicārius  a substitute, noun use of adj.; see vicarious"

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Official stance of the RCC on orthodoxy