OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: GregoryLA on January 13, 2010, 05:39:10 PM

Title: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 13, 2010, 05:39:10 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 13, 2010, 05:44:00 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

The Roman See has affirmed all of these except for citing a 'defect' in her recognition of the Primacy of the See of Rome.

As for your last question. I don't know.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: mike on January 13, 2010, 06:19:49 PM

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Yes, Catholics are allowed by Vatican (of course not by us) to take Eucharist where there isn't any Catholic Church available.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 13, 2010, 10:55:43 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Iconodule on January 13, 2010, 11:55:47 PM
The Catholics have a very mechanical understanding of apostolic succession which allows heretics to have valid sacraments.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 14, 2010, 12:36:35 AM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Papist!  ;D Thanks!

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage.  Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"?  Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct?  If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I know these are difficult questions, so thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 12:41:33 AM

Quote
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

Hi, hope I can help as well.

Quote
1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

Not full communion is yet achieved, anathemas have been taken out but Catholic Church reamins itself as the One coming by apostles from Our Lord Jesus, The main and the real issue between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is The Pope. We Catholics believe that St Peter see remains in Rome as well as Orthodox believed before 1054 AD.

Quote
2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

Dominus Iesus,  signed by John Paul II and prepared by the then Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (Now His Hollyness Pope Benedict XVI) say it this way:

Quote
IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH
16.  The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5).  Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50
Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52
The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54  With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

Hope this document gives you a bit of more light.

Quote
3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?


We have not yet reached full communion.

Quote
Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?

Orthodox believe that Rome should not be able to interfere in the life of particular churches, though it sounds great, as an act of Independency, it also has brought many problems of canonical territories between Constantinople, the so called New Rome, and Moscow, the so called the third and definitive Rome. The play of power of Patriarchs over the church has caused many injuries to orthodoxy.

In Catholicism the one of the Eternal Rome, we have churches with internal order and fairly independent life, but we all feel united and ultimately ordered by The Bishop of Rome, the real and truth successor of St Peter and St Paul. We love orthodox lads, but we don´t follow them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 14, 2010, 12:52:26 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church? 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 01:07:39 AM
Quote
I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Papist!   Thanks!

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage.  Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"?  Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct?  If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I know these are difficult questions, so thanks in advance!
This is my absolutely particular point of view.
Much of scholasticism has divided more that keep united Christianity, and yet scholasticism has never been the way our Lord Jesuschrist comanded us to call for conversion to him to all nations. From my particular prospective, much of scholasticism is rather speculation than reveled data, and to reach agreements about certain points of scholasticism it is necessary to create councils or to be defined as dogma by St Peter succesor
Yet scholasticism is an attempt to understand God and his ways, but to my particular point of view that sound very pretentious. And yet it is very necessary to define specific points of the teaching of the Church and defend the truth faith from contamination.
There are many commands that Our Lord Jesus gives to us quite clear, one of them is His desire for us to be united in order to the world to believe in him. He appointed one to be rock and to lead His sheep until he comes back. But he never referred to set divisions through scholasticism. 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 01:08:58 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church? 

Yes, the Church of Our Lord Jesus is present, but not fully. Only in the Catholic Church You can see the real communion of all nations around God’s Son, believing him, following St Peter’s successor as he commanded us.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Michał on January 14, 2010, 06:08:20 AM
I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives. . .

I don't think "sympathetic" is a good word.
Quote
No bishop in Orthodoxy has ever issued a formal pro-contraception statement or pastoral letter. Every Orthodox jurisdiction that officially says anything about contraception teaches that contraception is sinful or imperfect.
Source: http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/orthodoxy-and-contraception-part-i.html

I highly recommend this 5-part essay (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="Orthodoxy+and+contraception%2C+part"+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fochlophobist.blogspot.com).
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 06:37:06 AM
The Orthodox Churches don't tend to put out statements such as the Vatican does -papal encyclicals, bulls, curial statements, etc. But in the year 2000 the Russian Orthodox Church felt the need to proclaim some basic Christian principles for the guidance of the Russian people after the country's depressing 70 years of repression by the atheistic powers. A Millennial Synod which gathered all of Russia' bishops was held in Moscow and it promulgated a major statement on the Church and modern society "Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church."

The Russian Orthodox Church allows non-abortive contraception and speaks of it in the Millennial Statement from the Synod of Bishops.

BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.

Section XII.3 of the 2000 Synodal document

"BASES OF THE SOCIAL CONCEPT
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH"
http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/
also here
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/the-orthodox-church-and-society/introduction

-oOo-

The Orthodox Churches allow contraception when

1.  it is non-abortive

2.  it is for grave and justifiable reasons

3.  it is for a limited time
.........(although health consideration may influence this)

4  it is used with the blessing of the parish priest or spiritual father or mother
.........(although this is not strictly necessary)

Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:27:05 AM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread, Papist!  ;D Thanks!

I mean this as an honest question, but how can the RC consider the EO to be deficient when the Eastern Catholics aren't expected to change anything about their Orthodox heritage.  Is my understanding of Eastern Catholics incorrect, i.e. are there certain things which they are supposed to change about their beliefs and practices or can they continue "in their EOness"?  Now that I think of it, I suppose the Eastern Catholics would have to accept certain Catholic dogmas not found in Orthodox, am I correct?  If not, would it be fair to say that from a Catholic perspective, the only thing deficient about the EO is their lack of communion with the Pope of Rome?

Also, from a Catholic perspective, is being out of communion with the Pope of Rome the dividing line between who's in or out of the Church?

I know these are difficult questions, so thanks in advance!
Its much more complicated than this actually. The Eastern Catholics are expected to accept certain doctrines that differ from the EO Church. For example, they are at least expected to accept the idea that the Immaculate Conception is a valid expression of teh same faith that they hold. They need not formulated the concept of Mary's uniqueness and holiness in the same way but they must accpet that it is not heretical. The same can be said for ideas such as Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, etc. Finally, they must also accept that communion with the See of Rome is essential to full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ. However, this is not the only thing that is essential to communion with the Catholic Church. One must accept the entirety of the Apostolic Faith, and be baptized into the Church.
Thanks for asking.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:28:22 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on January 14, 2010, 10:38:52 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic? 

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Michał on January 14, 2010, 10:42:46 AM
However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church.

You mean such Catholics like Louis Bouyer?
Quote from: Louis Bouyer
[T]he Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, though dreadfully tempted by the spirit of division remain one Church, in fact and by right, despite contrary appearances. This is verified by the most thorough historical investigation of this problem, however painful it may be. In fact, neither the conflict and reciprocal excommunications of the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert, nor the scandalous Crusade, redirected toward Constantinople, and its consequences, nor even the fruitless attempts at reconciliation at Lyon and Florence, which merely embittered the oppositions, suspended all communion between the Church the East and the Church of the West. To the end of the eighteenth century, limited incidents of intercommunion between the two Churches are innumerable. Not only (as a general rule) were all baptized and communicating members of one received in the other on the same basis, without abjuration, but priests and even bishops passed from one to the other or, more exactly, occasionally 'moved through' both, without encountering major difficulties.
Source: http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:43:11 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?  

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc
This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I. :)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:45:27 AM
However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church.

You mean such Catholics like Louis Bouyer?
Quote from: Louis Bouyer
[T]he Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, though dreadfully tempted by the spirit of division remain one Church, in fact and by right, despite contrary appearances. This is verified by the most thorough historical investigation of this problem, however painful it may be. In fact, neither the conflict and reciprocal excommunications of the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert, nor the scandalous Crusade, redirected toward Constantinople, and its consequences, nor even the fruitless attempts at reconciliation at Lyon and Florence, which merely embittered the oppositions, suspended all communion between the Church the East and the Church of the West. To the end of the eighteenth century, limited incidents of intercommunion between the two Churches are innumerable. Not only (as a general rule) were all baptized and communicating members of one received in the other on the same basis, without abjuration, but priests and even bishops passed from one to the other or, more exactly, occasionally 'moved through' both, without encountering major difficulties.
Source: http://occidentalis.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html
Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 10:47:02 AM

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic? 

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

I am bowled over by the clarity and accuracy of your brief post.  You've put it in a nutshell.  This post should be nominated for Post of the month.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 10:49:45 AM
Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course.  The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage.  In neither case was the Church rendered defective.  The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 10:50:42 AM

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic? 

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

I am bowled over by the clarity and accuracy of your brief post.  You've put it in a nutshell.  This post should be nominated for Post of the month.
Second.

I was rather amused once by watching a priest on EWTN try to make the case that "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" really meant "Roman."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:52:23 AM
Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course.  The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage.  In neither case was the Church rendered defective.  The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)


The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 10:52:45 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?  

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc
This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I. :)

LOL. Took nearly a millenium to do it.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 10:54:10 AM
Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.
I am out.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 10:54:36 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed.

Or the Toledo Creed?

Quote
However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 11:08:11 AM
Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course.  The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage.  In neither case was the Church rendered defective.  The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)


The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.

What the Catholic Church has believed for centuries????!!    How about Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence which declared us schismatics who are going to hell?   That's a little bit more than just "wounded."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 11:09:30 AM
Louis is presenting a view point that is at odds with the Magisterium. Pope Benedict, in one of his first major documents as Pope, has pointed out that the Catholic Church holds the EO Church to be defective because of her lack of communion with Rome. Again, I am not defending this position, I am only pointing out what the Catholic Church teaches.

Absolutely no defect of course.  The loss of the Church of Rome was tragic, but so was the earlier loss of the Church of Carthage.  In neither case was the Church rendered defective.  The argument that the Orthodox Church is "wounded" by the absence of Rome is an idiosyncratic one promoted by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict.)


The Catholic Church has always viewed it as such. I don't know how that would be called idiosyncratic. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is only expressing what the Catholic Church has believed for centuries.

What the Catholic Church has believed for centuries????!!    How about Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence which declared us schismatics who are going to hell?   That's a little bit more than just "wounded."
Its certainly a wound.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: akimel on January 14, 2010, 11:18:41 AM
May I recommend to you Richard Neuhaus's articles "Reconciling East and West" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14)) and "The One True Church" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35)).  They should give you a pretty good view of a typical Catholic ecclesiological understanding of the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 11:34:59 AM
To GregoryLA

The wound of schism is real as you can see, But we Catholics are devoted to reach a point that would enable Orthodoxy to come in full comunion with Catholic Church, once again, we can se two king of eastern chrsitians, those who are schismatics and those who are orthodox, the first ones denies any aproach any discusion of the Papacy as an element necesary for the full communion of the universal church. the second ones recognices to certain point the need of a Primus with certain exceptions to what catholicism practices now a days.

Some steps are being taken from both side to arpoach, not mater the many oponents, for example Moscow Patriarchate has recently published a book with teachings from Pope Benedict XVI, pope recitates the Credo in greek without filioque clause, side by side to Patriarch of Constantinople. His beatitud Bartolomew I has visited Guadalupe sanctuary and has called it the House of Mary in America.

To me it is clear that Patriarchs are working harder to reach communion.

(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7470/patriarcaecumnicoenguad.png)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 11:36:56 AM
May I recommend to you Richard Neuhaus's articles "Reconciling East and West" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14)) and "The One True Church" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35)).  They should give you a pretty good view of a typical Catholic ecclesiological understanding of the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. 

And yet, Father, the common Orthodox response to Neuhaus' articles, particularly the first, will partake of the doubt and suspicion described by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London in his summation of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.   What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics. 

He was unable to attend the annual Synod in Moscow in 1997 and he made a written report to the Patriarch and Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and in part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 11:45:24 AM
May I recommend to you Richard Neuhaus's articles "Reconciling East and West" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/002-reconciling-east-and-west-14)) and "The One True Church" (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35 (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-one-true-church-35)).  They should give you a pretty good view of a typical Catholic ecclesiological understanding of the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. 

I like his law:"Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed."

And that Apocatastasis (universalism) is a hope, not an article of Faith.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
To GregoryLA

The wound of schism is real as you can see, But we Catholics are devoted to reach a point that would enable Orthodoxy to come in full comunion with Catholic Church, once again, we can se two king of eastern chrsitians, those who are schismatics and those who are orthodox, the first ones denies any aproach any discusion of the Papacy as an element necesary for the full communion of the universal church. the second ones recognices to certain point the need of a Primus with certain exceptions to what catholicism practices now a days.

You already have those (largely forced into) submission to the Vatican, and left to make their own peace with the Vatican's innovations in the Faith.

Quote
Some steps are being taken from both side to arpoach, not mater the many oponents, for example Moscow Patriarchate has recently published a book with teachings from Pope Benedict XVI, pope recitates the Credo in greek without filioque clause, side by side to Patriarch of Constantinople. His beatitud Bartolomew I has visited Guadalupe sanctuary and has called it the House of Mary in America.

To me it is clear that Patriarchs are working harder to reach communion.

(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7470/patriarcaecumnicoenguad.png)
Florence II?  Then it will go the way of Ravenna.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on January 14, 2010, 11:53:48 AM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?  

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc
This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I. :)

You come into an Orthodox Catholic site and try and tell us what we are!  And make insulting remarks that only uneducated (Roman) Catholics consider us Catholic and expect me (us) not to defend our faith?  We are very well aware of what and who we are.  Our identity is defined in the Nicene Creed not a local Roman Catholic Vatican I council.  Or the average person on the street for that matter who would probably tell you Mormons are Christians too.

I am the way I am because I happen to love the Orthodox Catholic faith God gave me and will defend it whenever it is insulted or misleading information is given.  I have been kicked off Roman Catholic sites and even suspended from this site in its early years for defending the Catholicity of my Church and will continue to do so.

The problem I have with Roman Catholics like yourself who come in here spouting unity, ecumenism, love, and 'sister church'  theories and then begin to talk down to us as if we were somehow the dim witted wayward sister.  We know who we are and have 2000+ years of theological truths to back it up.  Everyting we believe was believed by your chuch at one time.  We have neither added, changed, or deleted from the doctrinal truths handed down to us when the church was still basically one.

Orthodoc

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 12:10:08 PM
So, am I to gather that official Catholic doctrine is that while the Orthodox Church is not part of the Church, the Church is present within the Orthodox Church?  
To some degree yes. We see the Catholic Church as "present" in your church through your valid Sacraments, Apostolic Succession, and adhereance to the Nicene Creed. However, what is meant by "present" is still very unclear. And yet, this presence does not mean that we see the EO as part of the Church. However, you will find some Catholics who are not very educated on this point who will claim that the EO Church is part of the Catholic Church. They are mistaken but I don't think that they are necessarily culpable for this mistake. There is alot of miscommunication out there.

Can you please explain to us when we Orthodox left the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed formulated in the east?  Can you quote the canon or council which states one must hold allegiance to the Pope in order to be identified as a Catholic?  

My friend, we are now, and always have been, the Catholic Church in its original and unchanged form.  I would have to disagree with your statement that some UNEDUCATED Roman Catholics recognize our Catholicity.  It's just the opposite since they seem better informed on the subject than you.

Orthodoc
This may infact be the most ridiculous post I have read this week. Not because you express your view that the EO Church is Catholic. But only because you are trying to pick a fight in a thread that had nothing to do with debate. I am simply expressing the actual Catholic position on where the EO church stands as opposed to what the man on the street my think the Catholic Church teaches. I am not defending the Catholic Church's view. I am not attacking the EO church's view. All I am saying is that a Catholic who is educated in what the Catholic Church teaches, will know that the Catholic Church does not view the EO church as being in communion with Christ's Church. So those who think the Catholic Church teaches that the EO church is Catholic are not better informed than me because they don't know what their church teaches. Why must you always be like this?

And yes, I can point to a council: Vatican I. :)

You come into an Orthodox Catholic site and try and tell us what we are!  And make insulting remarks that only uneducated (Roman) Catholics consider us Catholic and expect me (us) not to defend our faith?  We are very well aware of what and who we are.  Our identity is defined in the Nicene Creed not a local Roman Catholic Vatican I council.  Or the average person on the street for that matter who would probably tell you Mormons are Christians too.

I am the way I am because I happen to love the Orthodox Catholic faith God gave me and will defend it whenever it is insulted or misleading information is given.  I have been kicked off Roman Catholic sites and even suspended from this site in its early years for defending the Catholicity of my Church and will continue to do so.

The problem I have with Roman Catholics like yourself who come in here spouting unity, ecumenism, love, and 'sister church'  theories and then begin to talk down to us as if we were somehow the dim witted wayward sister.  We know who we are and have 2000+ years of theological truths to back it up.  Everyting we believe was believed by your chuch at one time.  We have neither added, changed, or deleted from the doctrinal truths handed down to us when the church was still basicall one.

Orthodoc


Goodness, you are most ridiculous. You simply love to fight. I am not telling you what you are. I am telling you how the Catholic Church views the EO Church. Why was I doing this? Because some one asked about the Catholic view. I didn't come here to defend that view. I didn't come here to insult your Church. I was only answering a quesition from and EO poster about how my Church views yours. If I was the jerk you make me out to be I would be telling you that your "Church is in schism" and that it is "separated from the Body of Christ" and that you "need repent from your vile heresies". But I did no such thing. First, because I think that does nothing to improve relations with you and the other EOs who I consider my  Christian brothers. Second, because there are many here who are more educated in Church history than I am and there are many here who are much holier than I am. I no authority to be judge of your spiritual or ecclesial status. Third, this is an Eastern Orthodox forum. I am a guest and it would be  profoundly rude of me to speak down to your Church and its teachings and Structure. No, instead of being a jerk like that, I am only pointing out how my Communion views yours. I did not even say that my communion is right because that be me challenging you all to a debate on the matter which I don't want to do for several reasons. First, because this is your home court and I would be outnumbered in such a debate. Second, although I have studied enough Patrology to be convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, I have not read as much as some of you have and so I am not prepared for such a debate. Second, I find debating about who's Church is the true Church be most fruitless. Third, I find that such debates often bring out the worst in me and I am trying to avoid that.  I want you to consider the following:
1. I did not challenge anyone to a debate
2. I did not assert the truth of or falsehood of my Church's view of  your Church.
3. I did not speak negatively about your Church
4. All I did was answer a question form an EO postern concerning my communion's view of your communiuon.
5. I never asserted that you are or are not Catholic.
6. I never asserted whether or not your Church or mine is the true Church.
And finally, I am not one of those hippie Catholics spouting ecumenism. I think that at this point in history there are some very serious differences between our Churches (although I do not believe that that was always the case) and that those difference need to be overcome before we can enter into communion with one another. I don't claim to be right... God knows that the issues between our Churches are extermely complex and perhaps beyond my ability to unravel, but I won't  have you slandering me like you have in last post.


When I fist came to this forum, I have to admitt that my behavior was not the best. I would like to think that I have grown alot since I have been here. My real purpose here is, first and foremost to learn. But secondary reason is to clarify what the Catholic Church teaches for those who want to know and to clear up mistaken ideas about what the Catholic Church teaches. I am not really here to argue or convert anyone. This may be different from my initial purpose, but I feel that I have changed a great deal in this respect. If you want to argue with some one or you have an ax to grind, please find some one else with whom to do this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 12:16:01 PM
It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."[/b][/color]



True, but its only our secondary goal. Our primary goal is to take over the United States using the weapons we have hidden underground in Washington D.C. and to impose papism as the official religion of our country. Then we want to brand everyone with the mark of the beast.  ::)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 14, 2010, 12:17:13 PM
Thank you, Papist, for answering my questions!  And I agree that I did not think you were trying to attack Orthodoxy or anything like that. I asked an honest question about how the EO was viewed from the official Catholic perspective and you sought to answer that as best you understood it.  I appreciate that and think that you've been wrongly confronted.  Thank you again and sorry to have started something. ;)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: yitbsal on January 14, 2010, 12:38:26 PM
I would like to add Father Neuhaus' speech at St. Vladimir’s Seminary for the conference entitled, “Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury. Mother Churches?”

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/reconciliation_between_east_and_west

There may have been a time when wanted to 'extinguish' Orthodoxy, but I certainly think that's not the case today. I do think that Pope Benedict understands very well, and has understood for a long time, the spiritual damage resulting from the schism and wants badly to do God's will and reconcile.

Perhaps in the past, when the Catholic Church was more powerful, in the secular sense, it was content to ignore the spiritual damage. After all, when the belly is full, the mind becomes sinful. But now, with the evident problems with modernity and secularism, its leaders like Benedict have woken up.

And I think the same is the case with many in the Orthodox Church, which is why we have the fruitful dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Vatican.

As Father Neuhaus said, the route to unity cannot be what many think, a simplified give and take ecumenism. It has to begin with a joint historical walk through the past, through all the Councils, leaving aside all human frailties and errors.

Let me give one example: Consider the Christological differences between EO and OO. For centuries, perhaps, the popular wisdom among EO was that OO are monophysite. Whereas OO are actually miaphysite. This misunderstanding or mislabeling was human error. Or the devil's work. Some of it was done innocently. Some of it one purpose.

There has been much of this in the past. The first step towards unity would be to clean all this junk up out of the past and then examine the faith with clear glasses.

By the way, on a lighter note, I would bet a lot of what I have that Pope Benedict would be much much more comfortable in an Orthodox church than many of his modern (and dying) churches!
 

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 01:06:16 PM
Thank you, Papist, for answering my questions!  And I agree that I did not think you were trying to attack Orthodoxy or anything like that. I asked an honest question about how the EO was viewed from the official Catholic perspective and you sought to answer that as best you understood it.  I appreciate that and think that you've been wrongly confronted.  Thank you again and sorry to have started something. ;)
Thank you for your kind words. It was most certainly not  your fault that the conversation went the direction it did.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 02:48:39 PM
It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."[/b][/color]



True, but its only our secondary goal. Our primary goal is to take over the United States using the weapons we have hidden underground in Washington D.C. and to impose papism as the official religion of our country. Then we want to brand everyone with the mark of the beast.  ::)

Lol, I just can't stop laughind,  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: akimel on January 14, 2010, 02:50:15 PM

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II.  Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

But I do think that the accusation may be legitimately advanced against contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy.  During the past 100 years we have seen the development of an Orthodox polemic that may be fairly described as fiercely anti-Western.   Lossky, Romanides, and Seraphim Rose immediately come to mind, but there are many others.  The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."  Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.  

And what does becoming Orthodox mean in this context?  It means becoming "Eastern," and not just Eastern but specifically Byzantine Eastern.  When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.  Even if the Catholic Church were to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (which I agree it must do), that in itself would not be sufficient.  The Catholic Church, we are told, must formally renounce the Augustinian and Thomistic construals of the Trinity.  We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.  In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque.  They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=25857971&CFTOKEN=71766001)).  A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists.  Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!  

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma.  Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies.  Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

It would be easy to cite other examples.

So who wants to extinguish who?  

I do not raise any of this to be controversial.  In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens.  But fair is fair.  Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium.  Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.    
  
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 14, 2010, 03:04:27 PM
Grace and Peace Father akimel,

Father Bless.

Unfortunately Father you don't understand the mindset of a zealot. it's everything or nothing. :angel:
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 03:35:33 PM

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II.  Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

But I do think that the accusation may be legitimately advanced against contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy.  During the past 100 years we have seen the development of an Orthodox polemic that may be fairly described as fiercely anti-Western.   Lossky, Romanides, and Seraphim Rose immediately come to mind, but there are many others.  The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."  Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.  

And what does becoming Orthodox mean in this context?  It means becoming "Eastern," and not just Eastern but specifically Byzantine Eastern.  When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.  Even if the Catholic Church were to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (which I agree it must do), that in itself would not be sufficient.  The Catholic Church, we are told, must formally renounce the Augustinian and Thomistic construals of the Trinity.  We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.  In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque.  They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=25857971&CFTOKEN=71766001)).  A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists.  Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!  

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma.  Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies.  Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

It would be easy to cite other examples.

So who wants to extinguish who?  

I do not raise any of this to be controversial.  In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens.  But fair is fair.  Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium.  Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.    
  
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel


Thank for this Father. It was very insightful. And though it may be shocking to some here, but even as a Thomist I sometimes see certiain concept through Eastern eyes.  :o I know, shocking.
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Pravoslavbob on January 14, 2010, 04:39:43 PM

"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.

No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II.  Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

He had a definite anti-Catholic bias, and there is much inexcusable paranoia in the Orthodox Church today concerning Catholicism, but you are extremely naive if you honestly believe that there are no influential factions present in the Catholic Church today that would like nothing better than to absorb Orthodoxy.  Of course, the situation is much more complex than illustrated by Irish Hermit, as there are also many Catholics who have nothing but good intentions and good will when it comes to the Orthodox, and this is laudable. However, the Vatican bureaucracy is so vast, with so many different players involved, pushing for so many different points of view, that I don't know how you could make the statement that you have made and honestly believe that no one would take you to task for it.

Quote
... Lossky...

I've noticed that Lossky is a favourite whipping boy for those who would simply like to dismiss the controversy involving the filioque as being unimportant.  As far as I know, no Catholic apologist has as yet responded in a serious way to Lossky's very substantial claims concerning the procession of the Spirit.  The best that Cardinal Congar could come up with, despite his considerable scholarly output concerning the Spirit, seems to have been something to the effect that "Lossky is clearly wrong about this."  Surely his very eloquent writing on the filioque controversy deserves more of a response than this.

Quote
... Seraphim Rose...

He also had some very positive things to say about St. Augustine that not all Orthodox would agree with.  In any event, he is not recognized as being a serious scholar, so I don't know why you include him  here.

Quote
The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."

By some Orthodox, yes, but certainly not by all.

Quote
Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.

It depends what you mean by this.  Really, this is quite over the top.  

Quote
 When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.

This might be because Saint Augustine, with his vast corpus of writings, has had such a profound influence on the West; one might even say to the exclusion of other Fathers.    Some Orthodox are very concerned about some of the things that St. Augustine wrote.  Many of us think that some of these things are quite problematic.  

Quote
We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.

Really?  I was not aware of that.

Quote
 In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque. They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=25857971&CFTOKEN=71766001)).  A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists.  Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!

That's right, because the Catholic Church, in its present form, is incapable of admitting that it was ever wrong.  Instead, it comes up with all kinds of written acrobatics like this "clarification" that you site above, which is really just the opposite of a clarification.  

Quote
Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma.  Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies.  Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

There's nothing "Byzantine" about Palamite doctrine at all.  It is Orthodox.   We have specially commemorated St. Gregory Palamas liturgically in Lent for hundreds of years; it is not a question of something becoming "increasingly popular."  So you are quite wrong about this.   Eventually we might be able to come to an agreement on this point, but at this time I don't know how.  For now, we are divided on this issue.

Why would the Fathers write in support of St. Gregory Palamas, when the last Father died a couple of hundred years before St. Gregory was born?  The Orthodox believe that St. Gregory unpacked, expanded, and clarified what some Fathers had already said and clarified Orthodox belief on the nature of God, not that he somehow added to Orthodox doctrine.  

Quote
I do not raise any of this to be controversial.

Really?  

Quote
 In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens.  But fair is fair.  Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium.   Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.    

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.

Obviously, a kind of doctrinal "drift" occurred at times in the first millennium when the East and West were either unable or unwilling to understand each other, marked by frequent ruptures in communion.  This marked the beginning of our estrangement, without it being on any official level.  This estrangement begins quite early in the first millennium and continues on into the second, becoming more marked and radical as time goes on.  I do not accept your implicit contention that we had unity in the first millennium even though we had doctrinal difference.
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 04:42:05 PM

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 14, 2010, 05:29:22 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 14, 2010, 05:35:05 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Iconodule on January 14, 2010, 05:35:59 PM
What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 14, 2010, 05:48:07 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 14, 2010, 05:49:45 PM
This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

In Christ,     Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on January 14, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc



Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 07:10:33 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 07:10:59 PM
What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
]
Deacon Lance is simply wrong on this matter.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 07:11:39 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
No we don't accuse them of being heretics but they do not want to be in communion with us so they can't be part of the same Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 07:13:49 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 07:36:47 PM

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 07:37:43 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 ::)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 07:39:46 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on January 14, 2010, 07:52:10 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc



Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:25:59 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc




1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc




Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:26:54 PM

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.

Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:27:55 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 ::)
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:29:22 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 14, 2010, 08:34:38 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 08:35:09 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:37:37 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

1054 AD

You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
He canceled an invalid excommunication. Maybe he did it because it was invalid in the first place. LOL.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 14, 2010, 08:39:05 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 14, 2010, 08:56:08 PM
Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.  I am out.

Why didn't this pan out?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 14, 2010, 09:03:27 PM
This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

In Christ,     Alex

I like your points.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 14, 2010, 09:10:45 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.   I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 09:12:52 PM

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.

Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".


I believe that Aquinas explained that our senses will be transformed by "the light of glory" and that through our transformed senses we will perceive the Essence of God. Seeing as how the Essence of God is infinite and we are finite, I cannot see how this is anything less than blasphemy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 09:14:48 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

 ::)
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL

Well it's probably clear to the both of us that lack of ecclesiastical union with the Bishop of Rome is not the only deficit of the EO tradition from the legitimate Roman POV.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 14, 2010, 09:16:21 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.

So be it. I'm sure you expect that I don't agree. But at least you recognize the divergence in dogmatic traditions and come up with a reasonable explanation as to why that exists.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Melodist on January 14, 2010, 09:47:38 PM
I have two observations that I have made in the past that might have something to do with this thread.

As far as ecclesiology goes. If Rome acknowledges a valid priesthood and sacraments in the Orthodox Church, wouldn't that imply that both partake of the same Body and Blood of the same Jesus Christ, from a RC point of view? And if this is the case, then wouldn't the problem be that both receive the same sacrament but refuse to share with each other what they already have in common, from a RC point of view? Is this why par. 1399 of the CCC says:

Quote
A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."

As far as the filioque, shouldn't the Creed be understood in terms of the original intentions of the greek word "ekporeusis"? While the literal meaning of the latin "procedit" may be used to apply to being of the same essence as the Father and the Son, you would have to change your understanding of the original intentions and context of the Creed for it to make sense in the Creed.

Just a couple of thoughts.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 14, 2010, 10:32:52 PM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.

From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 14, 2010, 10:39:18 PM
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.

Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc





When speaking of US I am refering to the Communion of Churches known as the Catholic Church, made up of the Latin Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. 

As to your Catholicity, the Orthodox Church has never given up its right to proclaim it.  In fact, I was defending your Catholicity in the post preceding.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 14, 2010, 10:53:40 PM


From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.

Again, I have been Vindicated!!!!  8)

Don't mess with the Deacon!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 14, 2010, 11:17:34 PM

Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.

Yes, but was it not Cardinal Frederic that became pope of Rome some years later and could have reversed the "illegal" decision? Sounds like Rome was stuck in its own world.  :-[

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: MarkosC on January 14, 2010, 11:39:56 PM
GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 14, 2010, 11:53:45 PM
GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  

Unfortunately, it seems in America, the average Orthodox appear to take it's faith far more seriously than the average Catholic Parish... very little spirituality.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: MarkosC on January 14, 2010, 11:57:58 PM
ignatius,

Beyond the very few cases which I was referring to in my post, I agree with you 100%.  :(
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 15, 2010, 12:36:21 AM
GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  

Thank you for the info.  That was very enlightening!  :)

I have two questions, which either you or anyone else who knows could answer perhaps. 

1) Is there really no conversion process necessary to go from Orthodox to Catholic?  No chrismation, confirmation, etc.?  Is there not even supposed to be?

2) What is AFAIC an acronym for?  Haha.  I've seen it many times but never bothered to ask.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 15, 2010, 12:40:26 AM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.   I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.

Hello, Father Ambrose!  Father bless!

Oh, and please be nice to our friend Papist! :laugh:

Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 15, 2010, 12:42:56 AM
Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.  I am out.

Why didn't this pan out?

I, for one, am glad Papist has stayed around.  Haha.  I hope he wasn't finally run off!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 12:53:36 AM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 15, 2010, 12:57:22 AM
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.

Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.

I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.

From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.

So it seems that Papist and Deacon Lance are reading the same thing but coming to different conclusions.  Perhaps the official position of the Vatican is not so clear? (And I don't mean that as an accusation or anything).  

It appears that for Papist what makes the EO not part of the Church (from the Catholic point of view) is the fact that the EO are not in communion with the RC.  But for Deacon Lance, that doesn't seem to matter because the EO have a valid priesthood and Eucharist and are (thus?) "true particular Churches".  So, I suppose it comes down to- do the EO have to be in full communion with Rome to be considered part of the Church?

Papist or Deacon Lance, thanks a lot already but can you post or direct me to anything else that would clarify things further?

Also, out of curiosity, the Eastern Catholics aren't allowed to/supposed venerate "anti-Catholic" Eastern Orthodox saints are they?  So EC wouldn't venerate say, St. Mark of Ephesus?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 15, 2010, 01:00:32 AM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


Wow!  And by the way, you sure were quick with that!  Haha.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 15, 2010, 01:09:01 AM
Well, considering that I was considered before 1994 a "heretic" what can I say. The idea that people should be cutoff and delivered to the secular court (ie: that the church not harbour sinners) comes from scripture though. See the letters to the Corinthians.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: akimel on January 15, 2010, 01:10:52 AM
Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics (http://"http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html")."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 15, 2010, 01:12:09 AM
I agree Arius should have been put to death before spreading his heresy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 01:14:11 AM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


What you think Aquinas is meaning by "heretics" and what he actually meant by it are not necessarily one and the same. I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics. Thus, all denominations that have already become asunder from it are not heretics in this sense.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 01:19:16 AM
Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics (http://"http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html")."

Why should we buy that excuse for Aquinas?    The Lord Jesus Christ lived in even harsher times but never recommended murdering heretics or dissidents.  No matter what excuses are brought forth to justify Aquinas he has, as a theologian, shown a singular failure to apprehend the teaching of Christ.  He is far from the spirit of the Gospels.

What would you say if harsher times return?  Russia takes a very hardline on its religious dissidents, Catholic and Protestants - is it time to start exterminating them?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 01:37:40 AM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


What you think Aquinas is meaning by "heretics" and what he actually meant by it are not necessarily one and the same. I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics. Thus, all denominations that have already become asunder from it are not heretics in this sense.

How Aquinas views heresy...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm
This is rather frightening in some respects; he teaches that even repentant heretics should be put to death as a lesson to others!

If we could find a copy of his "Contra errores Graecorum" we would discover in his own words how he viewed the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 01:40:22 AM
I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics.

This Trad Catholic needs to learn the important distinction between formal and material heretics.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 01:55:19 AM
I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics.

This Trad Catholic needs to learn the important distinction between formal and material heretics.

Actually, he's the only person I've previously heard of this distinction. He explained that material heretics are those within the Church who hold opinions contrary to orthodoxy but who have not been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church, whereas formal heretics are also those within the Church who have been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church and have refused.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 02:45:57 AM
I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics.

This Trad Catholic needs to learn the important distinction between formal and material heretics.

Actually, he's the only person I've previously heard of this distinction. He explained that material heretics are those within the Church who hold opinions contrary to orthodoxy but who have not been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church, whereas formal heretics are also those within the Church who have been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church and have refused.

Interesting that by his definition nobody outside the Catholic Church may be deemed a heretic, whereas I would have called the Baptist minister a material heretic.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 02:58:36 AM
I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics.

This Trad Catholic needs to learn the important distinction between formal and material heretics.

Actually, he's the only person I've previously heard of this distinction. He explained that material heretics are those within the Church who hold opinions contrary to orthodoxy but who have not been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church, whereas formal heretics are also those within the Church who have been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church and have refused.

Interesting that by his definition nobody outside the Catholic Church may be deemed a heretic, whereas I would have called the Baptist minister a material heretic.

Well, it sort of makes sense. If heresy is a "choice", particularly a choice against the judgment of the Church, that choice can really only be made in the same sense if one is under the judgment of the Church in the first place.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on January 15, 2010, 04:01:53 AM
Well, it sort of makes sense. If heresy is a "choice", particularly a choice against the judgment of the Church, that choice can really only be made in the same sense if one is under the judgment of the Church in the first place.

Yes, but then even many in the Roman Catholic communion are believing heretical ideas, which means that there has to be some level of awareness when committing a heresy to formally be considered a heretic.  When combining these realities, then almost no one is ever culpable for committing heresy, at least formally.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 04:43:42 AM

Well, it sort of makes sense. If heresy is a "choice", particularly a choice against the judgment of the Church, that choice can really only be made in the same sense if one is under the judgment of the Church in the first place.

Yes, but then even many in the Roman Catholic communion are believing heretical ideas, which means that there has to be some level of awareness when committing a heresy to formally be considered a heretic.  When combining these realities, then almost no one is ever culpable for committing heresy, at least formally.

I think it would be a better idea to refer to them as the heterodox, as such.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on January 15, 2010, 10:14:46 AM
GregoryLA:  Also, out of curiosity, the Eastern Catholics aren't allowed to/supposed venerate "anti-Catholic" Eastern Orthodox saints are they?  So EC wouldn't venerate say, St. Mark of Ephesus?
   
   
St Job of Pochaev spent his life fighting the Unia by forming Orthodox brotherhoods for that purpose.  Yet he is venerated by many within the Eastern Rite sui juris Byzantine churches.  I know many  within this same eastern rite here in the U.S. who venerate St Alexis Toth who led thousands back into the Orthodox Catholic Church from the Unia.  These are but two examples.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 10:24:40 AM
Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics (http://"http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html")."

Why should we buy that excuse for Aquinas?    The Lord Jesus Christ lived in even harsher times but never recommended murdering heretics or dissidents.  No matter what excuses are brought forth to justify Aquinas he has, as a theologian, shown a singular failure to apprehend the teaching of Christ.  He is far from the spirit of the Gospels.

What would you say if harsher times return?  Russia takes a very hardline on its religious dissidents, Catholic and Protestants - is it time to start exterminating them?

Father, are the Orthodox using a double standard? In lectures on the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, I find several Emperors who did the same thing and yet they are called Pious... perhaps some are recognized as saints? I'm not sure about that but are we using a double standard here?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on January 15, 2010, 10:35:24 AM
GregoryLA:  Also, out of curiosity, the Eastern Catholics aren't allowed to/supposed venerate "anti-Catholic" Eastern Orthodox saints are they?  So EC wouldn't venerate say, St. Mark of Ephesus?
   
   
St Job of Pochaev spent his life fighting the Unia by forming Orthodox brotherhoods for that purpose.  Yet he is venerated by many within the Eastern Rite sui juris Byzantine churches.  I know many  within this same eastern rite here in the U.S. who venerate St Alexis Toth who led thousands back into the Orthodox Catholic Church from the Unia.  These are but two examples.

Orthodoc

Orthodoc, in my experience, there is a broad spectrum of Byzantine Catholics in terms of their theology and praxis. At one end, there are those who retain the church architecture, clerical vestments and "bells and smells" of Orthodoxy, but who are almost or completely Roman Catholic in their liturgical veneration (i.e. which saints are venerated in their churches) and adherence to RC doctrine. At the other end of the scale are those ByzCaths whose only concession to Rome is the western lPaschalion, the filioque (and that, not always), and practically little else.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 11:15:51 AM
Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics (http://"http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html")."

Why should we buy that excuse for Aquinas?    The Lord Jesus Christ lived in even harsher times but never recommended murdering heretics or dissidents.  No matter what excuses are brought forth to justify Aquinas he has, as a theologian, shown a singular failure to apprehend the teaching of Christ.  He is far from the spirit of the Gospels.

What would you say if harsher times return?  Russia takes a very hardline on its religious dissidents, Catholic and Protestants - is it time to start exterminating them?
Who is making excuses for Aquinas?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 11:17:04 AM
I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics.

This Trad Catholic needs to learn the important distinction between formal and material heretics.

Actually, he's the only person I've previously heard of this distinction. He explained that material heretics are those within the Church who hold opinions contrary to orthodoxy but who have not been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church, whereas formal heretics are also those within the Church who have been challenged to relinquish their opinions by the judgment of the Church and have refused.

Interesting that by his definition nobody outside the Catholic Church may be deemed a heretic, whereas I would have called the Baptist minister a material heretic.
I agree. The baptist minister would be a material heretic. Now is he culpable for his heresy? That is a different story.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 11:22:26 AM

Well, it sort of makes sense. If heresy is a "choice", particularly a choice against the judgment of the Church, that choice can really only be made in the same sense if one is under the judgment of the Church in the first place.

Yes, but then even many in the Roman Catholic communion are believing heretical ideas, which means that there has to be some level of awareness when committing a heresy to formally be considered a heretic.  When combining these realities, then almost no one is ever culpable for committing heresy, at least formally.

I think it would be a better idea to refer to them as the heterodox, as such.
What is the difference between being a heretic and being heterodox?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 11:24:54 AM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


What you think Aquinas is meaning by "heretics" and what he actually meant by it are not necessarily one and the same. I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics. Thus, all denominations that have already become asunder from it are not heretics in this sense.
It has always been my understanding that when Aquinas was referring to the heretics that should be recieve capital punishment, he is talking about men like Arius who where spreading and teaching heresy among the faithful, not your average material heretic.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 11:45:14 AM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 11:57:06 AM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 12:24:50 PM

They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,

The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.

I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.   I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.

I am not sure about what you are saying of Aquinas. But I think you are missing that old testament condemns rebelliousness and heresy with death.

Deuteronomii

XVII:12
12 Qui autem superbierit nolens oboedire sacerdotis imperio, qui eo tempore ministrat Domino Deo tuo, aut decreto iudicis, morietur homo ille, et auferes malum de Israel;

XVIII:20
20 Propheta autem qui, arrogantia depravatus, voluerit loqui in nomine meo, quae ego non praecepi illi ut diceret, aut ex nomine alienorum deorum, interficietur”.

In new testament Paul calls to apart those who are heretics. And he affirms that those have found their damnation.

Titum III: 10-11

10 Haereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita,
11 sciens quia subversus est, qui eiusmodi est, et delinquit, proprio iudicio condemnatus.

In the time of Aquinas (1225 -1274) Catholics and Bizantines were very confronted after The Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) and after the Massacre of Latins in Constantinople, (1182), he was very aware of that.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 12:27:24 PM
Aquinas's view of heresy as capital crime was typical for his day.  We may find this position harsh and offensive, but we live in a different time.  See Michael Novak's "Aquinas and the Heretics (http://"http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html")."

Why should we buy that excuse for Aquinas?    The Lord Jesus Christ lived in even harsher times but never recommended murdering heretics or dissidents.  No matter what excuses are brought forth to justify Aquinas he has, as a theologian, shown a singular failure to apprehend the teaching of Christ.  He is far from the spirit of the Gospels.

What would you say if harsher times return?  Russia takes a very hardline on its religious dissidents, Catholic and Protestants - is it time to start exterminating them?

Your words are disputable, Our Lord Jesus, in fact spoke of that who knowing the truth, betrais it.

Mathaeum XXVI:24

24 Filius quidem hominis vadit, sicut scriptum est de illo; vae autem homini illi, per quem Filius hominis traditur! Bonum erat ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille ”.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 01:18:09 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 01:47:53 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 01:52:30 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, I think it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

You only find that attitude 'after' the Church became Imperial. Not before.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 01:54:47 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, I think it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

You only find that attitude 'after' the Church became Imperial. Not before.
I am aware of that but I have to think that because men like Arius and Martin Luther put people's souls at stake their crime is more grievous than murder.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 02:15:27 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, I think it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

You only find that attitude 'after' the Church became Imperial. Not before.
I am aware of that but I have to think that because men like Arius and Martin Luther put people's souls at stake their crime is more grievous than murder.

James III:14-18

14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.
15 Wisdom of this kind does not come down from above but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.
16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice.
17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without inconstancy or insincerity.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace.

Remember Catholic Brothers in Christ, we are called to be light.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 02:22:25 PM

I am aware of that but I have to think that because men like Arius and Martin Luther put people's souls at stake their crime is more grievous than murder.

And the Pharisees did any less? How did Our Lord deal with them?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 15, 2010, 03:18:04 PM
This is an odd matter. Nobody discusses the sanctity of John Chrysostom despite his horrible words against the Jews, but we're all ready to condemn Thomas Aquinas. He lived in a time and context of state religion: crime against the Church meant crime against the Empire, so it was ordinary that heretics had to be considered as rebels and enemies of the State. The same vehemence was shared even by other saints worthy of veneration such as Cyril of Alexandria who used hard words against heretics. Don't look at the Church Fathers in the same eyes as we do in our days - first millennium Christians were even favourable to slavery, would you restore it in the name of the Church Fathers? Of course, not! Were they heretics or evil? NO! That was the condition the Church was living in those times, and it was valid in those days to have slavery, as well as putting heretics at the stake. The Church, while founded once and for all by God, is a work in progress as for what regards her power to transform the world - the secular world, I mean - according to the Gospel. And sometimes even the saints, being children of their times, thought according to the culture of their days. I don't see any reason to diminish the value of a saint for those reasons.

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 03:22:30 PM
This is an odd matter. Nobody discusses the sanctity of John Chrysostom despite his horrible words against the Jews, but we're all ready to condemn Thomas Aquinas. He lived in a time and context of state religion: crime against the Church meant crime against the Empire, so it was ordinary that heretics had to be considered as rebels and enemies of the State. The same vehemence was shared even by other saints worthy of veneration such as Cyril of Alexandria who used hard words against heretics. Don't look at the Church Fathers in the same eyes as we do in our days - first millennium Christians were even favourable to slavery, would you restore it in the name of the Church Fathers? Of course, not! Were they heretics or evil? NO! That was the condition the Church was living in those times, and it was valid in those days to have slavery, as well as putting heretics at the stake. The Church, while founded once and for all by God, is a work in progress as for what regards her power to transform the world - the secular world, I mean - according to the Gospel. And sometimes even the saints, being children of their times, thought according to the culture of their days. I don't see any reason to diminish the value of a saint for those reasons.

In Christ,   Alex

Did St. John Chrysostom actually suggest we should 'kill' all the Jews?

I'm not condemning St. Thomas Aquinas, I'm just asking a question... Are Saints to be imitated? Is so then we have a problem... even today.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Asteriktos on January 15, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 03:37:39 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky". When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf". Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. ~ St. John Chrysostom
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Asteriktos on January 15, 2010, 03:42:28 PM
 :o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 03:43:31 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

But what is the source of this hardness? It come from gluttony and drunkenness. Who say so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky". When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf". Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. ~ St. John Chrysostom
I think that genocide against the Jews would be a terrible crime. That being said, I think, but could be wrong, that executing a heretic like Arius or Luther would not necessarily be a crime.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 03:52:39 PM
:o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...

Actually, I am taking his statement 'out of context'... if you read the whole piece, he's not actually saying that anyone should 'kill the Jews'... what I think he's pointing out is that God did at different times to chasten them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 03:53:12 PM
:o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...

Actually, I am taking his statement 'out of context'... if you read the whole piece, he's not actually saying that anyone should 'kill the Jews'... what I think he's pointing out is that God did at different times to chasten them.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 03:58:36 PM
:o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...

Actually, I am taking his statement 'out of context'... if you read the whole piece, he's not actually saying that anyone should 'kill the Jews'... what I think he's pointing out is that God did at different times to chasten them.
Fair enough.

Our churches are not like that; they are truly frightening and filled with fear. God's presence makes a place frightening because he has power over life and death. In our churches we hear countless homilies on eternal punishments, on rivers of fire, on the venomous worm, on bonds that cannot be burst, or exterior darkness. But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers. ~ St. John Chrysostom


You know you won't find many Orthodox, or modern Catholics for that matter, speaking about their Parishes as being "truly frightening and filled with fear....".

Perhaps we don't have as much in common with the early Church as you might like to think?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2010, 04:01:48 PM
:o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...

Actually, I am taking his statement 'out of context'... if you read the whole piece, he's not actually saying that anyone should 'kill the Jews'... what I think he's pointing out is that God did at different times to chasten them.
Fair enough.

Our churches are not like that; they are truly frightening and filled with fear. God's presence makes a place frightening because he has power over life and death. In our churches we hear countless homilies on eternal punishments, on rivers of fire, on the venomous worm, on bonds that cannot be burst, or exterior darkness. But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers. ~ St. John Chrysostom


You know you won't find many Orthodox, or modern Catholics for that matter, speaking about their Parishes as being "truly frightening and filled with fear....".

Perhaps we don't have as much in common with the early Church as you might like to think?
That is very true, especially when I hear talk only of God's love but never of his justice to those who reject his love.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 15, 2010, 04:23:21 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

Even in that case, we shouldn't imitate him on this. "Love your enemies" says the Gospel. John Chrysostom was in error in being filled with hatred for the Jews. So, I think that this is the case to remember that saints were sinners. And yes, they were weak and fallible.
We must imitate Christ. St. Paul is using a correct wording in this: "Be my imitators, as I am of Christ". We must imitate the saints only when they truly imitate Christ. During their lifespans, saints have erred and even sinned (even st. Peter did, according to legend, on the Quo vadis episode!)... and we should separate those moments of weakness from the moments when they truly followed Christ - and in this it's the Church (whatever Church we might belong) to define when a person was judged a saint.
I wouldn't put too much attention on the weaknesses of our ancestors in the faith: how can we judge them, when we make even worse sins? We are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, yet we insist that we're taller then giants! This is not how the Gospel works... "Don't judge, if you don't want to be judged".

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 04:32:27 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

Even in that case, we shouldn't imitate him on this. "Love your enemies" says the Gospel. John Chrysostom was in error in being filled with hatred for the Jews. So, I think that this is the case to remember that saints were sinners. And yes, they were weak and fallible.
We must imitate Christ. St. Paul is using a correct wording in this: "Be my imitators, as I am of Christ". We must imitate the saints only when they truly imitate Christ. During their lifespans, saints have erred and even sinned (even st. Peter did, according to legend, on the Quo vadis episode!)... and we should separate those moments of weakness from the moments when they truly followed Christ - and in this it's the Church (whatever Church we might belong) to define when a person was judged a saint.
I wouldn't put too much attention on the weaknesses of our ancestors in the faith: how can we judge them, when we make even worse sins? We are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, yet we insist that we're taller then giants! This is not how the Gospel works... "Don't judge, if you don't want to be judged".

In Christ,   Alex

If we don't make judgments, how are we to discern when a Saint is truly imitating Christ? You exercise discernment (i.e. make a judgment) and then right after say "Don't judge....".

That appears to be hypocritical.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 05:43:23 PM
:o Well that's interesting. I've read over that part a couple times, now that you pointed it out, and I don't really see that St. John is saying that the government should kill Jews or something of that sort. But it's a striking thing to say, whatever the case may be...

Actually, I am taking his statement 'out of context'... if you read the whole piece, he's not actually saying that anyone should 'kill the Jews'... what I think he's pointing out is that God did at different times to chasten them.
Fair enough.

Our churches are not like that; they are truly frightening and filled with fear. God's presence makes a place frightening because he has power over life and death. In our churches we hear countless homilies on eternal punishments, on rivers of fire, on the venomous worm, on bonds that cannot be burst, or exterior darkness. But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers. ~ St. John Chrysostom


You know you won't find many Orthodox, or modern Catholics for that matter, speaking about their Parishes as being "truly frightening and filled with fear....".

Perhaps we don't have as much in common with the early Church as you might like to think?
That is very true, especially when I hear talk only of God's love but never of his justice to those who reject his love.


The problem to speak of the justice of the Lord, is that if you start to speak of it, you probably will be qualified as fundamentalist, and people will stop to hear you.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 15, 2010, 05:46:37 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

Even in that case, we shouldn't imitate him on this. "Love your enemies" says the Gospel. John Chrysostom was in error in being filled with hatred for the Jews. So, I think that this is the case to remember that saints were sinners. And yes, they were weak and fallible.
We must imitate Christ. St. Paul is using a correct wording in this: "Be my imitators, as I am of Christ". We must imitate the saints only when they truly imitate Christ. During their lifespans, saints have erred and even sinned (even st. Peter did, according to legend, on the Quo vadis episode!)... and we should separate those moments of weakness from the moments when they truly followed Christ - and in this it's the Church (whatever Church we might belong) to define when a person was judged a saint.
I wouldn't put too much attention on the weaknesses of our ancestors in the faith: how can we judge them, when we make even worse sins? We are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, yet we insist that we're taller then giants! This is not how the Gospel works... "Don't judge, if you don't want to be judged".

In Christ,   Alex

If we don't make judgments, how are we to discern when a Saint is truly imitating Christ? You exercise discernment (i.e. make a judgment) and then right after say "Don't judge....".

That appears to be hypocritical.


"Judge the sin, don't judge the sinner".
There's no hypocricy in this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 05:47:26 PM

The problem to speak of the justice of the Lord, is that if you start to speak of it, you probably will be qualified as fundamentalist, and people will stop to hear you.


So are you then saying that we should change the Gospel because of the hardness of men's hearts?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
Fwiw, the Homilies Against the Jews (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html) by St. John Chrysostom are online. It's been some years since I read them, but I don't remember him saying anything close to the idea that they should be killed. The most extreme that I remember him getting was saying that he hated them.

Even in that case, we shouldn't imitate him on this. "Love your enemies" says the Gospel. John Chrysostom was in error in being filled with hatred for the Jews. So, I think that this is the case to remember that saints were sinners. And yes, they were weak and fallible.
We must imitate Christ. St. Paul is using a correct wording in this: "Be my imitators, as I am of Christ". We must imitate the saints only when they truly imitate Christ. During their lifespans, saints have erred and even sinned (even st. Peter did, according to legend, on the Quo vadis episode!)... and we should separate those moments of weakness from the moments when they truly followed Christ - and in this it's the Church (whatever Church we might belong) to define when a person was judged a saint.
I wouldn't put too much attention on the weaknesses of our ancestors in the faith: how can we judge them, when we make even worse sins? We are just dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, yet we insist that we're taller then giants! This is not how the Gospel works... "Don't judge, if you don't want to be judged".

In Christ,   Alex

If we don't make judgments, how are we to discern when a Saint is truly imitating Christ? You exercise discernment (i.e. make a judgment) and then right after say "Don't judge....".

That appears to be hypocritical.


"Judge the sin, don't judge the sinner".
There's no hypocricy in this.

You appear to conflate... judgment, discernment and condemnation. What do you think Judgment is? Define what you mean by it?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on January 15, 2010, 05:54:32 PM
In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 15, 2010, 05:57:48 PM
Quote
You appear to conflate... judgment, discernment and condemnation. What do you think Judgment is? Define what you mean by it?
Judgment means to condemn somebody as sinner. Discernment, means to distinguish the good from the evil, even in the same person. Condemnation, is judgment for the wicked as inacted by God. This is my understanding, but that's linked to the fact that I translate in Italian "judgment" as "giudizio" and some words in English might sound differently in your language as it does in mine.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 05:58:15 PM

The problem to speak of the justice of the Lord, is that if you start to speak of it, you probably will be qualified as fundamentalist, and people will stop to hear you.


So are you then saying that we should change the Gospel because of the hardness of men's hearts?


No, I am saying that first, people should be helped to love Our Lord Jesus, and then we have to show them that in love He has commanded us to behave properly, elsewhere there will be not justification and we can fall away from God eternally.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 15, 2010, 06:00:58 PM
In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.
It seems to be true, and this thread seems to prove it. Of course, the problem lies in the Catholic church too. The ancient aggressivity towards Orthodoxy since 1000 years ago has left too much scars in the memories of the Orthodox. That's very sad, because the open attitude of Catholicism in our days is really a good occasion for dialogue and eventually reunion.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 06:04:02 PM
In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.

Mathew 5:43-48

43  "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 15, 2010, 06:05:34 PM
Quote
You appear to conflate... judgment, discernment and condemnation. What do you think Judgment is? Define what you mean by it?
Judgment means to condemn somebody as sinner. Discernment, means to distinguish the good from the evil, even in the same person. Condemnation, is judgment for the wicked as inacted by God. This is my understanding, but that's linked to the fact that I translate in Italian "judgment" as "giudizio" and some words in English might sound differently in your language as it does in mine.

Good, we both agree that as Christians we are to exercise 'discernment' and that such does not 'judge' or 'condemn' but it does allow one to 'know' error in others and to avoid it in our own lives. This is good.

Far too many Christians in our own day think that when we are instructed 'not to judge' that we are actually not to exercise any discernment of other's error. Well that is clearly not the case.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:19:39 PM

Well, it sort of makes sense. If heresy is a "choice", particularly a choice against the judgment of the Church, that choice can really only be made in the same sense if one is under the judgment of the Church in the first place.

Yes, but then even many in the Roman Catholic communion are believing heretical ideas, which means that there has to be some level of awareness when committing a heresy to formally be considered a heretic.  When combining these realities, then almost no one is ever culpable for committing heresy, at least formally.

I think it would be a better idea to refer to them as the heterodox, as such.
What is the difference between being a heretic and being heterodox?

Like I said, "heretic" refers to choosing to reject the judgment of the Church on doctrinal matters, heterodox simply refers to those who are not consistent with the Church's dogmatic definitions.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:21:14 PM
Do you remember where Aquinas recommended killing non-Catholics?  I don't mean any disrespect by asking for sources, Father, and I know you're not the sort to say things without being able to back them up- that's just really shocking and I'd like to see where he said it.

Herre are the passges from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."


What you think Aquinas is meaning by "heretics" and what he actually meant by it are not necessarily one and the same. I had the matter explained to me once by a Trad Cath who said that only those who are actually part of the Church and then choosing to pervert its teachings are actually heretics. Thus, all denominations that have already become asunder from it are not heretics in this sense.
It has always been my understanding that when Aquinas was referring to the heretics that should be recieve capital punishment, he is talking about men like Arius who where spreading and teaching heresy among the faithful, not your average material heretic.

Yes, that is my understanding as well.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:22:51 PM

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?

I highly doubt all of the Saints are worthy of imitation in all respects of what they did or thought. But I also don't think that means that the values that informed their glorification are askew.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:30:08 PM

In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.

That may even be a bit of a understatement.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 06:31:04 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

Precisely.  And in modern Russia it would be quite possible to get a bill through the Duma mandating the death penalty for the Roman Catholic bishops who are promulgating heresy in the country.   Possibly for priests as well.   
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:32:21 PM
In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.
It seems to be true, and this thread seems to prove it. Of course, the problem lies in the Catholic church too. The ancient aggressivity towards Orthodoxy since 1000 years ago has left too much scars in the memories of the Orthodox. That's very sad, because the open attitude of Catholicism in our days is really a good occasion for dialogue and eventually reunion.

I wouldn't say so. The Romanists seem only interested in a false union of Communion amidst divergent "theological traditions".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:33:34 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

Precisely.  And in modern Russia it would be quite possible to get a bill through the Duma mandating the death penalty for the Roman Catholic bishops who are promulgating heresy in the country.   Possibly for priests as well.   

No, there's a moratorium on capital punishment right now.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 06:43:36 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

Precisely.  And in modern Russia it would be quite possible to get a bill through the Duma mandating the death penalty for the Roman Catholic bishops who are promulgating heresy in the country.   Possibly for priests as well.   

No, there's a moratorium on capital punishment right now.

I feel sure that the influence of the Patriarch and Holy Synod could deal with that in the specific case of the Catholic bishops and priests spreading heresy and sedition.   They are waging war upon the soul of Russia.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 06:57:18 PM
It seems that you're being sarcastic anyway.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 07:24:17 PM
It seems that you're being sarcastic anyway.

I am following through with the comments of Papist about the extermination of heretics which he sees as a future possibility and not something in the remote past.  If the Russian State is twitchy about imposing the death penalty becasus of the EU, I am sure the Brown Shirts could be asked to take care of removing heretics.  Putin has a good relationship with them and they are dedicated to the purity of Russia, freeing it from Western influences.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 07:36:45 PM
It seems that you're being sarcastic anyway.

I am following through with the comments of Papist about the extermination of heretics which he sees as a future possibility and not something in the remote past.  If the Russian State is twitchy about imposing the death penalty becasus of the EU, I am sure the Brown Shirts could be asked to take care of removing heretics.  Putin has a good relationship with them and they are dedicated to the purity of Russia, freeing it from Western influences.

And yet I am expecting that you are doing so in a sarcastic manner, because I doubt you really have any interest in any such executions.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2010, 07:49:45 PM
And yet I am expecting that you are doing so in a sarcastic manner, because I doubt you really have any interest in any such executions.

Sarcasm is such a nasty word.  It is almost always delivered with insults and scorn which is not something I would wish to do.   I remember that previous attempts at irony have fallen flat on their faces on the Forum.  A British sense of irony doesn't translate well into America.  Not to worry.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Alonso_castillo on January 15, 2010, 08:30:52 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

Precisely.  And in modern Russia it would be quite possible to get a bill through the Duma mandating the death penalty for the Roman Catholic bishops who are promulgating heresy in the country.   Possibly for priests as well.   

No, there's a moratorium on capital punishment right now.

I feel sure that the influence of the Patriarch and Holy Synod could deal with that in the specific case of the Catholic bishops and priests spreading heresy and sedition.   They are waging war upon the soul of Russia.

Lol, in Mexico we have a said:

La Zorra no se ve la cola (fox don't see its tail)

¿What is doing orthodoxy in America? the same that Catholics are doing in Russia.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 08:49:58 PM

¿What is doing orthodoxy in America? the same that Catholics are doing in Russia.

At best they are not wholly comparable. America is not a traditionally Romanist country.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 15, 2010, 10:20:08 PM
In reading through some of these posts, my impression is that the Catholic view of the Orthodox Church is a bit softer than the Orthodox view of the Catholic Church.
It seems to be true, and this thread seems to prove it. Of course, the problem lies in the Catholic church too. The ancient aggressivity towards Orthodoxy since 1000 years ago has left too much scars in the memories of the Orthodox. That's very sad, because the open attitude of Catholicism in our days is really a good occasion for dialogue and eventually reunion.

I wouldn't say so. The Romanists seem only interested in a false union of Communion amidst divergent "theological traditions".

What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political. All apostolic churches have basically the same doctrine in a different cultural mindset. The COE agrees with this, the Vatican agrees with this. Surely you think the apostles would know how to choose their successor right? Anathematize individuals not apostolic churches. I was shocked when I heard the orthodox church considers people who take communion in the RCC as supreme heretics non-christians cultist outside the church. What a joke, you guys were the same church before 1054. "Oh I need to get re-chrismated because I went in the catholic church and saw THEIR icon instead of mine". Please...
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodox11 on January 15, 2010, 10:25:12 PM
What a joke, you guys were the same church before 1054.

And then we became two churches, while each continued confessing a belief in ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Asteriktos on January 15, 2010, 10:28:21 PM
"Oh I need to get re-chrismated because I went in the catholic church and saw THEIR icon instead of mine". Please...

::)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 11:22:23 PM

The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.

The ACE seems almost as interested in false union. If you actually cared to look at all the theological variances, I'm sure it would become clear that it is not simply politics.


All apostolic churches have basically the same doctrine in a different cultural mindset.

Sounds like Roman ecumenist garbage to me. The variations between the Eastern churches and the ecclesia of Rome on matters of dogma are pretty obvious to me.


Surely you think the apostles would know how to choose their successor right?

Of course they did. And that's pretty much why there no huge dogmatic variation in the Church for almost the first 300 years. But that doesn't mean that their successors will all be as competent.


Anathematize individuals not apostolic churches.

Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathematized; I see no reason to regard those who follow him as outside of the Church.


What a joke, you guys were the same church before 1054.

Not I. The OO division from Rome was formalized in 451.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 11:31:46 PM

All apostolic churches have basically the same doctrine in a different cultural mindset.

Besides, I don't even like the term "Apostolic churches". It's quite a misnomer. It assumes the Romanist mechanical idea that if an ecclesiastical body merely continue the historic succession through the episcopate by laying on of hands through from the Apostles that this is enough to qualify Apostolic Succession and thus for the body in question to be legitimately called an "Apostolic church". I don't buy that idea though. Traditional Eastern conception of Apostolic Succession requires a greater imitation of the Apostles, such as holding to their doctrine, to maintain the substance of what it means to be their successor. As such, I don't think all the "Apostolic churches" actually have Apostolic Succession.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 15, 2010, 11:44:42 PM
What revisionism.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2010, 11:47:08 PM

What revisionism.

Oh please.  ::)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 15, 2010, 11:48:43 PM
Quote
Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathematized; I see no reason to regard those who follow him as outside of the Church.

So is Cyril and Dioscorus. Your own EO pals call Dioscorus a cursed heretic who beat a patriarch to death!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ignatius on January 16, 2010, 12:04:56 AM
Grace and Peace,

I honestly believe that these kinds of things need to be worked out with our Patriarchs and not necessarily those of us with biases against one another.

Personally, I've learned a great deal from my exposure to Orthodoxy and I am well pleased. I hope to one day enter Holy Orthodoxy but I will never don the 'orthodox team shirt' and sit around and blast the West or the Western Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 12:16:53 AM

Quote
Theodore of Mopsuestia is anathematized; I see no reason to regard those who follow him as outside of the Church.

So is Cyril and Dioscorus. Your own EO pals call Dioscorus a cursed heretic who beat a patriarch to death!

How is Cyril anathematized?

I don't recognize the EOC's decisions against Dioscorus.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 12:17:49 AM

Personally, I've learned a great deal from my exposure to Orthodoxy and I am well pleased. I hope to one day enter Holy Orthodoxy but I will never don the 'orthodox team shirt' and sit around and blast the West or the Western Church.

Just as long as you understand the dogmatic divergences, there is no necessity to attack them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on January 16, 2010, 12:22:13 AM
What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.
Unfortunately, though, from what we are reading on this thread, the Orthodox do not see things that way.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 12:23:02 AM
What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.
Unfortunately, though, from what we are reading on this thread, the Orthodox do not see things that way.

Neither the EO nor the OO for that matter.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 16, 2010, 12:23:47 AM
What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.
Unfortunately, though, from what we are reading on this thread, the Orthodox do not see things that way.

Neither the EO nor the OO for that matter.

Who cares, my church which is older or founded at the same time and reads the New Testament in Jesus's language says its so.

Oriental Orthodox= founded by the Oriental Orthodox emperors of Byzantium. So who cares what the sees the Greeks control have to say. The true oriental Church of the East says everything is ok.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 12:30:18 AM
What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.
Unfortunately, though, from what we are reading on this thread, the Orthodox do not see things that way.

Neither the EO nor the OO for that matter.

Who cares, my church which is older or founded at the same time and reads the New Testament in Jesus's language says its so.

Oriental Orthodox= founded by the Oriental Orthodox emperors of Byzantium. So who cares what the sees the Greeks control have to say. The true oriental Church of the East says everything is ok.

You actually think anyone else here cares anywhere near as much as you what the ACE has to say?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 16, 2010, 12:34:20 AM
What sectarian garbage. The COE views orthodoxy and RCC differences as merely political.
Unfortunately, though, from what we are reading on this thread, the Orthodox do not see things that way.

Neither the EO nor the OO for that matter.

Who cares, my church which is older or founded at the same time and reads the New Testament in Jesus's language says its so.
Are you trotting out this old canard AGAIN? ???  You keep on saying this as if it somehow proves the correctness of whatever point of view you want to advance, but you have yet to counter the evidence others have brought out to refute this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Rafa999 on January 16, 2010, 12:36:54 AM
Quote
You actually think anyone else here cares anywhere near as much as you what the ACE has to say?

Yes, I absolutely do since everybody on this board knows the ACE is the only Apostolic church outside the pentarchy created by Justinian "Epiphanes". The Church with the oldest liturgy, which was once called the Nazarenes (that should tell you something), the church which according to the papacy has true jurisdiction over the entire East, the church which reads Aramaic (Jesus's language), the Church which did not participate in robber synods and allow non-Chalcedonians to tamper with scripture introducing heresies, the church which has always held to a strict rules in interpretation of scripture (plain scripture first), the church which never made anybody convert using force, and the church with the most martyrs (because it never had a Constantine to save it).


MODERATION:  Forbidden "m" word replaced with more acceptable alternative  - PtA
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/default/images/warnwarn.gif) You've been warned before (see http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg388515.html#msg388515) that if you use the epithet "Monophysite" again on the public boards without clarifying whom you mean to call monophysite, the forbidden term would be removed from your post and you would be given a formal warning.  Consider this your warning, which will last for the next three weeks.  Continued disregard for our policy forbidding the use of the label "Monophysite" in reference to the Oriental Orthodox on the public boards will land you on Post Moderation, a status where every one of your posts will need to be reviewed by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.

If you think this warning unfair, feel free to appeal it to Veniamin, the Global Moderator in charge of overseeing this section.  If you wish to have access to the Private Forum, where such polemical language is permitted, please send Fr. Chris a private message to request this access.

- PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: MarkosC on January 16, 2010, 12:53:55 AM

Thank you for the info.  That was very enlightening!  :)

I have two questions, which either you or anyone else who knows could answer perhaps. 

1) Is there really no conversion process necessary to go from Orthodox to Catholic?  No chrismation, confirmation, etc.?  Is there not even supposed to be?

2) What is AFAIC an acronym for?  Haha.  I've seen it many times but never bothered to ask.

Thanks again!

GregoryLA,

You're quite welcome.  AFAIC stands for "As Far As I'm Concerned".  As for the first question you asked in the post quoted above.......well let's step back a little bit.  From the point of view of the churches in union with Rome:

1. The liturgical life of those churches in the communion called Orthodox is as venerable as anyone else's, and through their ecclesial life expressed in the Holy Mysteries they authentically bring the God into the lives of their church (i.e. their sacraments "valid").

2. each local church (i.e. the bishop) in the communion called Orthodox is an "authentic" local church because they have established by and maintain unity with sees which can unambiguously trace their origin back to authentic churches.  Though there are other local churches the fullness of the Church is expressed in each union of bishop-clergy-people.   (i.e. they have "apostolic succession").   

3. those who are part of a church in the communion called Orthodox may freely come and participate in the full ecclesiastical life of a church in union with Rome. 

Given the above, what would anyone need to "covert" to?   Protestants need to be chrismated because they either deny "non-biblical" sacraments or because their ecclesial communities (note I didn't call the churches) generally deny them.  The only "defect" in Orthodox churches is, as repeated in Vatican statements, they're not in union with Rome. [I happen to disagree with that view - such a statement doesn't take into account that they have IMO reasonable doubts about Rome's orthodoxy - but that's a separate issue].   

[and sorry for this long-winded "communion called Orthodox" and "church in union with Rome" stuff.   I'm writing it out longwindedly because I hope that this will make a bit more sense to you.  I don't mean, with any of these words, to question the orthodoxy of the Orthodox Church]




To give my opinion on your other question below, it would depend on what you mean by "anti-Catholic" saints.  One example: Saint Photius died in communion with Rome and I believe he was canonized when Constantinople was in union with Rome.  If the second is true, then AFAIC there's no way anyone in union with Rome can argue against his sanctity [at the time, there was no formal centralized process to discern whether someone was a saint or not the way they do it today, and the canonization process took place in the local church.  And either way, note that God and the saint always makes the saint.  The present centralization of this process in Rome is supposed to only meant to ensure that due diligence is done during the discernment process.].

Moreover, whether one is pro- or anti-Rome has no bearing on whether or not one is a saint.  A saint is merely one who after death is among the elect (i.e. someone who has "gone to heaven").  Since one can always (privately) pray to someone who you believe is in heaven, there's nothing "wrong" with praying to "anti-Catholic" saints.  And I do know of Catholics who venerate Saint Mark of Ephesus - speaking personally, I'm open to it since again one "becomes a saint" by being faithful to one's initiation into Christianity (baptism, chrismation) and struggle to live an orthodox life.  But it's not a high priority and I would prefer to do original source research on the topic, using an academically sound edition of his complete writings, before I do so. 

[side note: I don't view St. Gregory Palamas as "anti-Catholic".  Even though Barlaam, an Italo-Greek like myself, became bishop of one or another Italo-Greek see when he returned to Italy, plenty of people who could be considered heretics or nonreligious were made bishop among those churches in union with Rome back then because of the way medieval western Church-state relations were. 

The way I understand it, Barlaam -like many other intellectuals back then - argued essentially that no one can have any experience of God beyond simple factual knowledge because God's essence is unknowable.  This implies that the sacraments are meaningless, and that God cannot/will not reveal himself to you. 

I cannot swallow that idea, and I have to stand with Saint Gregory on this: God can directly reveal himself to us, not only in this sacraments but also directly to us through his "energies", his "acts", or whatever you want to call them.  I stand with the Hagioritic Tome when I say that I couldn't have communion with someone who holds the opposite position.  The Melkite Greek Catholic Church stopped venerating him in the mid-1800s, basically because of the ultramontanist tendencies which were popping up all over the Catholic Church in response to contemporary challenges, as well as because his theology were not generally understood.   Today, he's back on the 2nd Sunday in Lent (with Vatican approval for those who are concerned about such things).  I consider that to be an essential part of "Byzantine" spiritual life, and if he was kicked out the door again I'd follow him]
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 01:03:21 AM
Quote
You actually think anyone else here cares anywhere near as much as you what the ACE has to say?

Yes, I absolutely do since everybody on this board knows the ACE is the only Apostolic church outside the pentarchy created by Justinian "Epiphanes". The Church with the oldest liturgy, which was once called the Nazarenes (that should tell you something), the church which according to the papacy has true jurisdiction over the entire East, the church which reads Aramaic (Jesus's language), the Church which did not participate in robber synods and allow non-Chalcedonians to tamper with scripture introducing heresies, the church which has always held to a strict rules in interpretation of scripture (plain scripture first), the church which never made anybody convert using force, and the church with the most martyrs (because it never had a Constantine to save it).


MODERATION:  Forbidden "m" word replaced with more acceptable alternative  - PtA

That didn't really answer my question.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 16, 2010, 06:27:53 AM
Dear deusveritasest,
the attitude you show on this thread proves what I wrote before: that Roman Catholics are more disposed to dialogue then many Easteners (except for minor cases--- Papist shows to be more vehement then many other Catholics on this thread, but I forgive him as too zealous, as st. Peter and the Boanerges were in life). You also show too much hatred for too many Christians of different apostolic confessions. We should battle the true heresies with that zeal - and by that I mean Protestantism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and all forms of cafeteria religion and new-age relativistic hyppie pseudoreligions. Don't you see the similarities between Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church? don't you see that your reasonings are boomerangs against you? You attack our brother Rafa999 for his belief in the supremacy of the Aramaic language in faith, yet you do the same in discriminating Latin in favour of Greek. God speaks to the hearts of men, and not to our ears - the barriers of language don't mean anything to God! All of us are tempted to do EXACTLY what happened at the Tower of Babel: building a common empire under one language - ours. No, God wants us to share the same faith and to proclaim it according to our languages and cultures, agreeing on what is common. We all believe in the Trinity; we all preserve the sacraments and male-only priesthood; we all acknowledge Tradition as our guide in reading the Bible; we all pray for the dead in hope for their delivery from the prison of hades (whatever we might mean by that word); we all hope in our sanctification and theosis; we all know God is our creator and bless His name even in the glory of the saints, and especially the Most Blessed Mother of our Lord, God in the flesh; we all battle in defence of life against abortion and euthanasia; we all struggle for a world purified of sexual immorality based on the sanctified Mystery of Matrimony!!! Our reciprocal battles won't help in solving the problems of this world. The more we battle each other, the more the Gospel is suffocated by the power of Satan. We should be lamps shining in darkness, but we behave like Satan in an egotistic fashion. All this destructive hatred makes me feel disgusted.

I'm sorry for this assault. You aren't the only one this critic is addressed. I have so often been a victim of this hatred myself in the past (and even now, at times, but I manage to calm myself) that I can't stand this anymore.

Forgive me for my attack, I didn't mean to offend anybody. Pray for me, the king of sinners.

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 16, 2010, 06:36:14 AM
Quote
You appear to conflate... judgment, discernment and condemnation. What do you think Judgment is? Define what you mean by it?
Judgment means to condemn somebody as sinner. Discernment, means to distinguish the good from the evil, even in the same person. Condemnation, is judgment for the wicked as inacted by God. This is my understanding, but that's linked to the fact that I translate in Italian "judgment" as "giudizio" and some words in English might sound differently in your language as it does in mine.

Good, we both agree that as Christians we are to exercise 'discernment' and that such does not 'judge' or 'condemn' but it does allow one to 'know' error in others and to avoid it in our own lives. This is good.

Far too many Christians in our own day think that when we are instructed 'not to judge' that we are actually not to exercise any discernment of other's error. Well that is clearly not the case.

I entirely agree with you. Your right. Well, we were both right XD
Anyway, in case you don't know, I've stepped back in the Roman Catholic Church, but as I made it clear, I'm the greatest appreciator of Orthodoxy and Oriental Christianity the Latin church has ever found. I don't feel both sides are so different... they should just look for a common theological language - not Greek, not Latin, not Aramaic, not Copt, not Ethiopian, not Hebrew, not any modern language, but the language of heart!

In Christ,    Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stashko on January 16, 2010, 09:20:31 AM
It seems that you're being sarcastic anyway.

I am following through with the comments of Papist about the extermination of heretics which he sees as a future possibility and not something in the remote past.  If the Russian State is twitchy about imposing the death penalty becasus of the EU, I am sure the Brown Shirts could be asked to take care of removing heretics.  Putin has a good relationship with them and they are dedicated to the purity of Russia, freeing it from Western influences.


Hello Fr.Ambrose  are you by any chance referring to the organization called Nashi in Russia....Id love to see a chapter of it in Serbia God willing....
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 04:22:53 PM

side note: I don't view St. Gregory Palamas as "anti-Catholic".  Even though Barlaam, an Italo-Greek like myself, became bishop of one or another Italo-Greek see when he returned to Italy, plenty of people who could be considered heretics or nonreligious were made bishop among those churches in union with Rome back then because of the way medieval western Church-state relations were. 

The way I understand it, Barlaam -like many other intellectuals back then - argued essentially that no one can have any experience of God beyond simple factual knowledge because God's essence is unknowable.  This implies that the sacraments are meaningless, and that God cannot/will not reveal himself to you. 

I cannot swallow that idea, and I have to stand with Saint Gregory on this: God can directly reveal himself to us, not only in this sacraments but also directly to us through his "energies", his "acts", or whatever you want to call them.  I stand with the Hagioritic Tome when I say that I couldn't have communion with someone who holds the opposite position.  The Melkite Greek Catholic Church stopped venerating him in the mid-1800s, basically because of the ultramontanist tendencies which were popping up all over the Catholic Church in response to contemporary challenges, as well as because his theology were not generally understood.   Today, he's back on the 2nd Sunday in Lent (with Vatican approval for those who are concerned about such things).  I consider that to be an essential part of "Byzantine" spiritual life, and if he was kicked out the door again I'd follow him]

Barlaam isn't that significant.

Palamas' theology contradicts Thomas Aquinas'. That fact more so establishes him as anti-Romanist.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 16, 2010, 04:34:33 PM

You also show too much hatred for too many Christians of different apostolic confessions.

Where have I showed hatred towards anyone?


We should battle the true heresies with that zeal - and by that I mean Protestantism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and all forms of cafeteria religion and new-age relativistic hyppie pseudoreligions.

Romanism/Thomism and Theodoreanism are true heresies. All of these should be battled.


Don't you see the similarities between Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church?

Yes, I do. But apparently my understanding of the similarities and their weight in comparison to their divergences is different from most Romanists.


don't you see that your reasonings are boomerangs against you?

I don't understand your figure of speech.


You attack our brother Rafa999 for his belief in the supremacy of the Aramaic language in faith, yet you do the same in discriminating Latin in favour of Greek.

No, I'm not a Hellenic supremacist. That reasoning doesn't even really work all that well for someone disposed to OOy rather than EOy.


God speaks to the hearts of men, and not to our ears - the barriers of language don't mean anything to God!

I don't think language creates any inherent barrier to theosis. But certain heresies appear to have developed in connection to a certain language. It's sort of a given that people of the same language group will be inclined to believe the teachings of their prominent leaders.


We all believe in the Trinity;

I don't know that I would go that far. The filioque has perverted the doctrine of the Trinity.


we all preserve the sacraments

Just because you preserve the same form of ordinance as in the original church doesn't necessarily mean that you have them as Sacraments/Sacred Mysteries.


and male-only priesthood;

Some EO/OO are not so convinced that the priesthood absolutely should be male-only. I'm among them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 17, 2010, 05:59:11 AM
I'd be interested in knowing official statements by the Oriental Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Church where it is said that priesthood should be female-inclusive. The fact that you, and some theologians, think of a possible inclusion of female priesthood, doesn't mean that this is the doctrine of your Church (considering that there are no women priests, and that the Church Fathers and Councils technically ruled out the possibility for 2000 years as a part of our Tradition).
When you say that filioque perverts the meaning of the Trinity, you support Hellenism implicitly. "to proceed" and "ekpourenai" are entirely different word. Would you excommunicate Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria for using it? Considering that in two subsequent chapters Thomas Aquinas defends both visions ("and" the Son and "through" the Son) I don't see how filioque and Thomism could be equated as heresies. Also, Thomism is NOT an official part of the Catholic doctrines, I mean that the category of created grace has found no place in the Councils of the Roman Church, and the fact that Eastern Catholics are free to venerate Gregory Palamas as a saint is a symptome of this openness. Now, the fact that some Catholics, such as Papist, regard Thomism as the only reading of the Catholic doctrine of grace DOESN'T mean that he is expressing infallible doctrine. Go and look to the recent thread on grace where a wonderful webpage discussing this topic will fade away all doubts: Palamism stresses on the origin of grace (grace as divine energy!) while Thomism stresses on the destination of grace (grace as a transformation of the habitus). If you have a bridge linking city A with city B, you could say "the bridge belongs to city A" and I could say "No, it belongs to city B", yet it is de facto of both. The intelligent observer would look from far enough to see the entire bridge and acknowledge it belongs to both, but divided as we are by our egotism, we tend to see only half of the bridge...
Unknowingly Thomas Aquinas might be saying that we see that part of God's Essence which is His energies. In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity; in Palamite theology, the risk of mingling God with the inferior created world implies the necessity to distinguish between the transcendental "core" of God (His essence) and His immanent "wrapping" (His energies). This is the same kind of dispute as for the two natures of Christ which has divided Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians... don't repeat the same error!

In Christ,   Alex

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 17, 2010, 06:25:34 AM
In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity

I just heard a recent Orthodox speaker talk about how divine simplicity is an import from Greek philosophy into Latin theology and not a part of Orthodoxy.  He also said this gave rise to the Latin heresy of created grace.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 17, 2010, 06:30:26 AM
In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity

I just heard a recent Orthodox speaker talk about how divine simplicity is an import from Greek philosophy into Latin theology and not a part of Orthodoxy.  He also said this gave rise to the Latin heresy of created grace.
As I've stepped backwards to Roman Catholicism for the very same reason (i.e. the idea that I feel both Latin and Greek theology to be partial theories and not definitive solutions, at least on the matter of Grace) I don't see how that could affect me personally. Exactly for this reason, I don't feel fool when I consider myself a person devoted specifically both to st. Thomas Aquinas and st. Gregory Palamas!

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2010, 07:04:38 AM
Some EO/OO are not so convinced that the priesthood absolutely should be male-only. I'm among them.

Dear Deus,

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) has expressed a wish to explore the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.   I think he stands alone in this among Eastern Orthodox bishops, very much the odd man out?

I see you are an enquirer into the Oriental Orthodox and about them I know very little.   Could you say something about them and how their bishops view a female priesthood and, presumably, episcopate?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2010, 07:33:01 AM
In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity

I just heard a recent Orthodox speaker talk about how divine simplicity is an import from Greek philosophy into Latin theology and not a part of Orthodoxy.  He also said this gave rise to the Latin heresy of created grace.

The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commenced in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.  He moved Catholicism away from its scholastic approach and closer to the patristic approach of earlier centuries. Rahner was the most noteworthy and influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century. His theology and his approach to theology had a decisive effect on the Second Vatican Council.

However as far as I am aware his ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Roman Catholic doctrine.

More recently we have the writings of the erstwhile Jesuit George Maloney in which he shows that uncreated grace is compatible with Latin theology.

Hesychasm only 'works' if we accept the distinction between God's Essence and God's Energies and the teaching that grace is uncreated. In the past Catholic theologians have not been willing to do this and have termed us heretical on this point. I am not sure if they now accept Orthodox theology on this point but without the theology hesychasm is a dead thing.

George Maloney has written a lot on this, and I think that his writings may be having an effect on Roman Catholic acceptance of the theology underpinning hesychasm but to be honest, I am not sure how 'mainstream' he is or if he is more like Anthony de Mello and his writings.Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries and presents a better understanding of Orthodox theology.  (Fr Maloney died a few years back, having been received into the Orthodox Church..)


"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

"Theology of Uncreated Energies of God"
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 17, 2010, 08:12:08 AM
In Latin theology, the risk of separating the simplicity of God's nature implies the necessity to strengthen its unity

I just heard a recent Orthodox speaker talk about how divine simplicity is an import from Greek philosophy into Latin theology and not a part of Orthodoxy.  He also said this gave rise to the Latin heresy of created grace.

The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commenced in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.  He moved Catholicism away from its scholastic approach and closer to the patristic approach of earlier centuries. Rahner was the most noteworthy and influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century. His theology and his approach to theology had a decisive effect on the Second Vatican Council.

However as far as I am aware his ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Roman Catholic doctrine.

More recently we have the writings of the erstwhile Jesuit George Maloney in which he shows that uncreated grace is compatible with Latin theology.

Hesychasm only 'works' if we accept the distinction between God's Essence and God's Energies and the teaching that grace is uncreated. In the past Catholic theologians have not been willing to do this and have termed us heretical on this point. I am not sure if they now accept Orthodox theology on this point but without the theology hesychasm is a dead thing.

George Maloney has written a lot on this, and I think that his writings may be having an effect on Roman Catholic acceptance of the theology underpinning hesychasm but to be honest, I am not sure how 'mainstream' he is or if he is more like Anthony de Mello and his writings.Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries and presents a better understanding of Orthodox theology.  (Fr Maloney died a few years back, having been received into the Orthodox Church..)


"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

"Theology of Uncreated Energies of God"
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165


Which proves that a Palamite reading of God's Essence has never been condemned, and is even allowed as a theological opinion in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think Maloney might be of any interest in the dispute, while I consider Rahner the best testimony in favour of the Essence-Energy relationship.
As for what regards the refusal of Scholasticism to embrace Palamism there's the explicit affirmation of the simplicity of the Divine Essence. Without an official Papal or Conciliar stand on the matter, supporting such a doctrine is risky, or better was risky in the days of Inquisition. Now that the doors of theology are more open in Catholicism, there's a greater approach to the Church Fathers as sources of the deposit of faith, and this is essential in solving the dispute. Rahner is but one example of this open dialogue with Eastern theology within the boundaries of Catholic theology. Whether one day the Catholic Church will discuss the matter directly, this is not a question I can answer... what I know, is that the Magisterium must find some kind of "balance" where Palamism is absorbed and at the same time divine simplicity is safeguarded. The latter is in fact a dogma of the Catholic Church since the Fourth Lateran Council. I find the study of Dr. Liccione a good way to face the matter without contradicting the deposit of faith (quote is from Wikipedia, but the sources can be verified):
Quote
Dr. Liccione says that Divine simplicity and the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies would be contradictory if Divine Essence is taken "to mean God as what He eternally is" because "God is actus purus, and thus has no unrealized potentialities." However, if we define God's essence as what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," then God's "essence is incommunicable" and communication would necessitate Divine actions, or Energies. Thus there is a real distinction between God's Essence, what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," and His Energies, "God as what He eternally does."

On the article on Tabor Light from Wikipedia we also have a reference to John Paul II having addressed in positive words to Eastern theology as an enrichment for the whole Church: http://rumkatkilise.org/byzpope.htm (http://rumkatkilise.org/byzpope.htm) this webpage will give you some hints on the matter. It is curious how God put on the chair of Peter a man suspended by birth between West and East, between the Latin and Slavic worlds, right in the time when the Roman Catholic Church and politically the world needed this the most.
Especially relevant to this discussion are this words of His Holiness:
Quote
The hesychast controversy marked another distinctive moment in Eastern theology. In the East, hesychasm means a method of prayer characterized by a deep tranquility of the spirit, which is engaged in constant contemplation of God by invoking the name of Jesus. There was no lack of tension with the Catholic viewpoint on certain aspects of this practice. However, we should acknowledge the good intentions which guided the defense of this spiritual method, that is, to emphasize the concrete possibility that man is given to unite himself with the Triune God in the intimacy of his heart, in that deep union of grace which Eastern theology likes to describe with the particularly powerful term of "theosis", "divinization".

I hope this might help to maintain a greater respect for each other, following the steps of John Paul II who so highly esteemed Eastern theology as complementary to Latin theology.

May God grant us unity and peace.

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2010, 11:41:00 AM
Some EO/OO are not so convinced that the priesthood absolutely should be male-only. I'm among them.

Dear Deus,

Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) has expressed a wish to explore the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.   I think he stands alone in this among Eastern Orthodox bishops, very much the odd man out?

There have been rumblings in Alexandria of all places.  IIRC Pope Parthenius made off hand remarks about it, and recently the Pope and Holy Synod had to issue a statement against a bishop in South Africa who raised the issue. We have a thread on that somewhere here.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 17, 2010, 07:32:34 PM

Dear Deus,

My birth name is Christopher. I'm usually called Chris. My (EO) Baptismal name is Cyril. Feel free to call me any of these names.


I see you are an enquirer into the Oriental Orthodox and about them I know very little.   Could you say something about them and how their bishops view a female priesthood and, presumably, episcopate?

Honestly, the only perspective on female ordination to the priesthood I can think of off the top of my head is Pope Shenouda III's, which is highly negative. Supposedly he even called the fellows at Nashota House heretics for allowing females to serve as acolytes.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on January 17, 2010, 07:50:52 PM

I'd be interested in knowing official statements by the Oriental Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Church where it is said that priesthood should be female-inclusive. The fact that you, and some theologians, think of a possible inclusion of female priesthood, doesn't mean that this is the doctrine of your Church (considering that there are no women priests, and that the Church Fathers and Councils technically ruled out the possibility for 2000 years as a part of our Tradition).

Who said that there were official "female-inclusive to the priesthood" statements?

And who said that this was clearly doctrine of the Church?

It doesn't appear that it was me.


When you say that filioque perverts the meaning of the Trinity, you support Hellenism implicitly. "to proceed" and "ekpourenai" are entirely different word. Would you excommunicate Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria for using it?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't necessarily suggest that the filioque as used by Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria was heretical. And while I regard the clause itself as a violation of the Creed, I don't necessarily view it as a violation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I certainly think that the Latins should come up with a better terminology to use in the Creed that better expresses the original Greek meaning such that the clause is naturally ruled out. What I was referring to was the filioque in so far as it concerns modern day Romanists. The phrasing "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is part of the current dogmatic tradition of Rome. This is where I see the doctrine of the Trinity being clearly violated.


Also, Thomism is NOT an official part of the Catholic doctrines, I mean that the category of created grace has found no place in the Councils of the Roman Church, and the fact that Eastern Catholics are free to venerate Gregory Palamas as a saint is a symptome of this openness. Now, the fact that some Catholics, such as Papist, regard Thomism as the only reading of the Catholic doctrine of grace DOESN'T mean that he is expressing infallible doctrine.

I've heard numerous Romanist sources claim that the Summa Theologica is the second most authoritative text in your tradition second only to the Bible. Also, I've been told that the Summa has been officially recognized by the Vatican. If this is true, I see some aspects of the Summa as inherently contradictory to Palamism.


This is the same kind of dispute as for the two natures of Christ which has divided Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians...

As someone who was formerly EO and is now exploring OOy out of a rejection of Chalcedon, I would suggest that we not even go there, at least not here.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: akimel on January 17, 2010, 09:00:03 PM
The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

A clarification and correction needs to be made here.  The Catholic Church has never rejected uncreated grace and cannot reject uncreated grace.  The Catholic Church has always taught that God communicates himself to the baptized.  In the Holy Spirit God indwells the souls of the faithful; through this indwelling the faithful partakes of the divine nature.  In its primary meaning the word grace signifies not a created reality but God in his self-donation to creature.  We love God only because the Spirit, who is Love, inhabits our hearts.  This is the teaching of St Augustine and is the foundation of all Latin theological reflection on divine grace. 

Scholastic theologians would later develop the notion of created grace to "explain" how it was possible for human creatures to participate in the divine being.  The whole point of the gift of created grace is to make possible the gift of uncreated grace and the inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, as is made clear even in Irish Hermit's favorite Catholic publication, the traditional Catholic Encyclopedia (http://"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm"). 

Irish Hermit:
Quote
The "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commenced in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of the eminent Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago.  He moved Catholicism away from its scholastic approach and closer to the patristic approach of earlier centuries. Rahner was the most noteworthy and influential Roman Catholic theologian of the 20th century. His theology and his approach to theology had a decisive effect on the Second Vatican Council.  However as far as I am aware his ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Roman Catholic doctrine.

Post-Tridentine scholasticism does appear to have so emphasized created grace that the gift of uncreated grace was pushed out of theological view.  But the fundamental understanding of grace as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was preserved in the writings of individual theologians (Petau, Scheeben, Newman) but most importantly in the teachings and experience of the mystics.  Thus the famous prayer of St Catherine of Siena:
Quote
"O unfathomable depth! O Deity eternal! O deep ocean! What more could You give me than to give me Yourself? You are an ever-burning Fire; You consume and are not consumed. By Your fire, you consume every trace of self-love in the soul. You are a Fire which drives away all coldness and illumines minds with its light, and with this light You have made known Your truth. Truly this light is a sea which feeds the soul until it is all immersed in You, O peaceful Sea, eternal Trinity! The water of this sea is never turbid; it never causes fear, but gives knowledge of the truth. This water is transparent and discloses hidden things; and a living faith gives such abundance of light that the soul almost attains to certitude in what it believes.

You are the supreme and infinite Good, good above all good; good which is joyful, incomprehensible, inestimable; beauty exceeding all other beauty; wisdom surpassing all wisdom, because You are Wisdom itself. Food of angels, giving Yourself with fire of love to men! You are the garment which covers our nakedness; You feed us, hungry as we are, with Your sweetness, because You are all sweetness, with no bitterness. Clothe me, O eternal Trinity, clothe me with Yourself, so that I may pass this mortal life in true obedience and in the light of the most holy faith with which You have inebriated my soul.

And again:
Quote
O inestimable charity! Even as You, true God and true Man, gave Yourself entirely to us, so also You left Yourself entirely for us, to be our food, so that during our earthly pilgrimage we would not faint with weariness, but would be strengthened by You, our celestial Bread. O man, what has your God left you? He has left you Himself, wholly God and wholly Man, concealed under the whiteness of bread. O fire of love! Was it not enough for You to have created us to Your image and likeness, and to have recreated us in grace through the Blood of Your Son, without giving Yourself wholly to us as our Food, O God, Divine Essence? What impelled You to do this? Your charity alone. It was not enough for You to send Your Word to us for our redemption; neither were You content to give Him us as our Food, but in the excess of Your love for Your creature, You gave to man the whole Divine essence.

Whatever the limitations of medieval and post-medieval scholastic theology may have been, these limitations do not ultimately limit and constrain the spiritual experience of the saints. 

Irish Hermit accurately observes that 20th century Catholic theologians have corrected the excessive theologial attention given to created grace and have restored the decisive centrality of the gift of uncreated gift.  As noted, Karl Rahner's contributions have been extremely influential but not only Rahner but many others (de Lubac, Balthasar, Congar).  I personally find Rahner difficult to understand and thus prefer other Catholic writers on this topic.  One of my favorite books is Robert W. Gleason, Grace (1962).       
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on January 18, 2010, 09:00:54 AM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

"For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice." -St. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood

I suppose one could argue though that restraining sinners and restraining heretics bent on corrupting the Church are two different balls of wax though?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: AlexanderOfBergamo on January 18, 2010, 09:05:50 AM
Dear Chris,
Quote
I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't necessarily suggest that the filioque as used by Ambrose of Milan or Cyril of Alexandria was heretical. And while I regard the clause itself as a violation of the Creed, I don't necessarily view it as a violation of the doctrine of the Trinity. I certainly think that the Latins should come up with a better terminology to use in the Creed that better expresses the original Greek meaning such that the clause is naturally ruled out. What I was referring to was the filioque in so far as it concerns modern day Romanists. The phrasing "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is part of the current dogmatic tradition of Rome. This is where I see the doctrine of the Trinity being clearly violated.
I suggest you read on the subject the many discussions of Pope John Paul II in his dialogue with Orthodoxy, specifically on the Filioque clause. Anyway, in what is eternal (God) it is impossible to have a temporary procession as you suppose. The "one spiration" source is the Father; the Holy Spirit abides in the Son and inherits (this always in eternity) a secondary procession from the Son. Augustine expresses this saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father principaliter" i.e. by principle. And in the Summa, the same Thomas Aquinas defends both definitions in two different chapters of his work:
Quote
Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.
and then he adds (and this is the difference you evidence in your post):
Quote
As the begetting of the Son is co-eternal with the begetter (and hence the Father does not exist before begetting the Son), so the procession of the Holy Ghost is co-eternal with His principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded; but each of the operations is eternal.
For the rest, I agree with you that the Catholic Church should find a new way to express this concepts, I hope for a day when all Catholics, both Western and Eastern, should sing together in their languages "who proceedth from the Father through the Son" overcoming all differences, but I don't think the form "from the Father" is complete enough for the Latin understanding of the Creed.

Yet, this is just a secondary part of the topic, so I'll pass to the second point. You wrote:
Quote
I've heard numerous Romanist sources claim that the Summa Theologica is the second most authoritative text in your tradition second only to the Bible. Also, I've been told that the Summa has been officially recognized by the Vatican. If this is true, I see some aspects of the Summa as inherently contradictory to Palamism.
First of all, authoritative isn't the same as infallible. Only the Magisterium, in Roman Catholic theology, can express infallible and unchangeable dogmas, and the Magisterium is made of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the "ex cathedra" of the Pope. A proof that the Summa can't be seen as dogmatic or entirely infallible and "official" is the explicit denial of the Immaculate Conception contained in it. Check it yourself if you want. St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, or better, he denied that Mary was immaculate since her conception, as he supported the hypothesis that Mary became Immaculate only at birth or after the 2nd month from conception, as many Scholastics held that the rational aspect of the soul developped only at that time, and that sin is a lack of justice (thus, a partially darkened rational soul). Anyway, this reflects the clear fact that the Summa, as good and profitable for Catholics might be, is still a work-in-progress in the theological growth of some doctrines by the Latin Church during the 12th and 13th century, and not a work endowed with infallibility despite its official recognition. If you want, you can compare its contents to the Synod of Jerusalem of 1666-1667 in the Orthodox Church, which is said to contain errors and thus being fallible despite its canons are perceived as useful instruments against Calvinism.
The only documents on the matter of grace being dogmatic are the necessity to preserve Divine Simplicity which is a dogma clearly sanctioned at the Lateran Councils and at Trent (a question which, it seems, can easily be safeguarded by saying that the distinction of Essence and Energies doesn't affect divine simplicity), and that grace - understood in the terms of the Council of Trent, i.e. as the individual "state of grace" of a faithful - is to be identified in LATIN theology with the transformation of the habitus of an individual and can thus be called "created grace". The voice of Pope John Paul II, as I have already said, opened a door to appreciation for Gregory Palamas who was explicitly called "Saint Gregory Palamas" by His Holiness during a conference with a mixed Orthodox-Catholic commission of theologians. You can verify it yourself on the book "How Not To Say Mass" by Father Dennis C. Smolarski. It is said, in the source I read (an official Melkite source) that this recognition came in the few months after Ali Agca's assassination attempt on the Pope's life. The entire matter is briefly mantioned on this webpage (which underlines the controversy on Palamas' figure and the way he was canonized and officially recognized in the Melkite Calendar): http://www.mliles.com/melkite/stgregorypalamas.shtml (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/stgregorypalamas.shtml)

On the matter of female priesthood, I must beg pardon. I evidently read too much in your affirmations. On the Chalcedonian/Non-Chalcedonian matter, I didn't mean to move the topic to that subject: I was just parallelling the two situations where different expressions in different languages can convey similar theologies despite all possible misunderstandings.

In Christ,   Alex
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Robb on January 20, 2010, 06:01:23 PM
"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 06:37:20 PM
"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

It is interesting that Chrysostom admits that there were Christians of his day who found his foul words against the Jews excessive.

"Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly
opinion."

Proof from Chrysostom himself that his opinions about the Jews were not universally held by Christians.



Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Asteriktos on January 20, 2010, 06:53:09 PM
"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

Fwiw, some would argue that St. John was exaggerating for the sake of making a point. If this was so, it wouldn't be proper to take his words at face value any more than you would someone engaging in satire, or someone who was "venting". That is not to say that I would ignore everything uncharitable that he says, only that I would think about whether he meant it to be taken in a woodenly literal way.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2010, 07:03:48 PM
"Homilies Against the Jews"

Wow!  Reading some of this made me realize that we truly do live in a different age then that of the Fathers.  Who then should we follow?  Modern society which calls us all to live in peace and brotherhood with our fellow men regardless of religion, or writings such as these?

After reading these disturbing homilies, I'm more inclined to favor the position of those theologians who want to re interpret the Fathers by the light of our modern understanding.

Fwiw, some would argue that St. John was exaggerating for the sake of making a point. If this was so, it wouldn't be proper to take his words at face value any more than you would someone engaging in satire, or someone who was "venting". That is not to say that I would ignore everything uncharitable that he says, only that I would think about whether he meant it to be taken in a woodenly literal way.

I believe that the future Saint wrote these eight homilies Against the Jews, deplorable and hatefilled pieces of psogogical rhetoric calling for the slaughter of the Jews while he was still a young man and not ordained and he was very angry about the role played by the Jews in the persecution of Christians throughout the Roman Empire.  In other words the homilies against the Jews do not represent the mature theologian and saintly bishop which Chrysostom later became.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: KingClovis on June 05, 2010, 08:30:00 PM

I feel sure that the influence of the Patriarch and Holy Synod could deal with that in the specific case of the Catholic bishops and priests spreading heresy and sedition.   They are waging war upon the soul of Russia.

In what exact way our they spreading sedition?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 07, 2010, 05:57:26 AM
Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 07, 2010, 11:06:43 AM
Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Yes, it is a valid sacrament but a Catholic can only confess to an EO priest if there is no Catholic priest available.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 07, 2010, 02:56:49 PM
Grace and Peace,

This line of thinking really raises the question with regards to Saints... are 'all' our Saints truly worthy of imitation or have we allowed cultural and historical biases to enter into the values of the Church?
I think Aquinas is certainly worthy of veneration.

But is he worth imitation? We don't veneration Saints other than they are worth imitation as they were imitators of Christ. Would Christ say we should kill the Pharisees? I don't think so. So we must ask ourselves if he is truly worthy of imitation. I feel the same way about many of the 'Pious' Emperors of the Eastern Empire. Eastern Imperial Culture was not necessarily 'worthy' of imitation from a Christian perspective. The acts of those Emperors were not necessarily 'worthy' of Christian imitation either. So we have the ask the question... why are they venerated as Saints? Was it simply 'cultural' pride of the times?
I think that if we were living in a Christian country with Catholicism as the state Church, and we had due process, it would be appropriate to execute men like Arius.

"For Christians above all men are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion. We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners, nor, if it were, should we know how to use it, since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil, not by force, but by choice." -St. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood

I suppose one could argue though that restraining sinners and restraining heretics bent on corrupting the Church are two different balls of wax though?

How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Fr. George on June 07, 2010, 03:04:15 PM
How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?

Do you think that the destruction of temples is akin to physically correcting the stumbling of sinners?  Destroying a pagan temple does not end paganism, you know; it just prevents public space (as it was at that time) from being used for that end.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 07, 2010, 03:16:29 PM
How is that consistent with Chrysostom's seeming involvement in the destruction of a number of pagan temples?

Do you think that the destruction of temples is akin to physically correcting the stumbling of sinners?  Destroying a pagan temple does not end paganism, you know; it just prevents public space (as it was at that time) from being used for that end.

Lacking public space for worship would probably lead a number of people to abandon their religion. It seems at least to be a form of coercion, if not "force".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 07, 2010, 11:47:40 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
Yes, it is a valid sacrament but a Catholic can only confess to an EO priest if there is no Catholic priest available.

There is one other condition to which the Church almost always yields:

"For the salvation of my soul."

IF, in idealized circumstances, a Catholic found an Orthodox confessor who was a perfect fit for their spiritual health and well being and appealed to both a Catholic and an Orthodox bishop for permission to confess regularly to the Orthodox priest "For the salvation of my soul"   I would bet Kansas that both bishops would give that long hard consideration...maybe even now....

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 07, 2010, 11:51:03 PM
Does the Roman Catholic Church view Eastern Orthodox confession as valid?  In other words, if someone confesses to an Eastern Orthodox priest does the RC consider his sins absolved?  Are RCs allowed to confess to EO priests?
My understanding of it is that first of all the Catholic must tell the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Once he is given permission by the priest to confess, then the confession is valid and the sins do not have to be reconfessed to a Catholic priest.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 17, 2010, 11:47:14 PM
Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 17, 2010, 11:52:07 PM
Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 17, 2010, 11:57:40 PM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 18, 2010, 12:24:15 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

If they did so in the context of the ability to instead go to a church in union with Rome, yes, I would imagine that would be recognized as a sin, and probably unto judgment. I don't know how severe it would be understood to be.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 18, 2010, 01:13:40 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 18, 2010, 01:18:51 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

Do you know if this is a majority opinion?  Is there any official teaching on this subject?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 18, 2010, 01:31:30 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 18, 2010, 03:57:23 AM
Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.
It depends on the view within Catholicism. The view of the more ultramontanist faction is that any sacraments performed without the permission of the Bishop of Rome are automatically illicit. Because the Orthodox are in formal schism, this would render all their sacraments illicit.

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 18, 2010, 05:22:38 AM
Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???::) ::)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 18, 2010, 06:35:59 AM
Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???::) ::)

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53 (http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53)

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 18, 2010, 07:06:03 AM
Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???::) ::)

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53 (http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53)

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 18, 2010, 09:43:33 AM

^^
Like I said ...
Quote
it's possible to be a little bit pregnant.

R-i-i-ight.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 18, 2010, 10:56:39 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 18, 2010, 11:17:13 AM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 18, 2010, 02:52:56 PM
Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???::) ::)

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53 (http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53)

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert. I think that sometimes, the Orthodox read too much into the term validity.

By accepting the ordination of priests from the Catholic Church, it indicates that the form of the sacrament has taken place and does not need to be repeated. To the Latin, this indicates validity. The nature of the priesthood specifically imparted by the Latin bishop would be viewed not to have its full meaning unless the priest is recognized by the Orthodox Church as a priest. The situation with baptisms and confessions seems to be the same.

The Eucharist is different, and most Orthodox I've spoken to on the internet would seem to believe that the Holy Spirit ignores the prayer of the Latin priest and refuses to transform the gifts, although the agnostic view is also prevalent.

I heard one analogy recently that compared Orthodox and Catholic sacraments by comparing two glasses, one empty, and one full. The full one is the sacrament in the Orthodox Church. I understood that analogy to mean that the form of the sacrament and its celebration was equivalent, hence valid (with the exception of the Eucharist). However, the sacrament loses its full meaning and wholeness outside of Orthodoxy. Priests do not have to be reordained because they already have the glass. However, there's something essential which is missing (the liquid). I don't quite understand what the liquid is suppose to represent, because except for some extremists, the Orthodox I've communicated with typically acknowledge some degree of grace outside of the Orthodox Church, but not necessarily sacramental grace.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Michael L on June 18, 2010, 03:17:05 PM
Quote
Vatican ambassador to Russia urges Catholic priests to periodically attend Orthodox divine services

Moscow, June 18, Interfax – The Holy See ambassador to the Russian Federation Archbishop Antonio Mennini suggested that Catholic priests every now and then attend divine services in Russian Orthodox churches.

The nuncio said it addressing participants in a regular session of Russia's Conference of Catholic Bishops in Sochi, its general secretary Rev. Igor Kovalevsky told Interfax-Religion on Friday.

According to Fr. Igor, Archbishop Mennini pointed out that Orthodox-Catholic relations had significantly improved and urged to develop "fraternal relations between Catholic and Orthodox clerics."

The nuncio also stated that state-church relations improved after establishing diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level between Russia and Vatican.

The Conference of Catholic Bishops made a statement regarding abolishing religious symbols in public schools of Europe and pointed out that the cross is one of most important elements of European identity. The bishops mentioned Russia's tragic experience when struggle against religious symbols resulted in prosecutions of believers and moral decay of the society.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7377
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 18, 2010, 04:03:57 PM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 :)  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 18, 2010, 05:29:46 PM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 :)  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 18, 2010, 06:08:29 PM
Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?
A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 :)  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary
Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.

It may not be regular in raw numbers, and there's more than one who does,  but if you count the blind eyes as well, it is not all that uncommon.  And I wonder if those priests and bishops who would allow inter-communion are less Orthodox than those who would not?  In your understanding of "not regular"...does that mean "not Orthodox" or does it indicate more than one or even more than two different approaches to the Catholic Church within Orthodoxy?

Mary

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 18, 2010, 07:50:48 PM
Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 18, 2010, 08:42:56 PM
Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose

This proves no rule.  It simply indicates that Orthodoxy is divided when it comes to understanding the nature of the Catholic/Orthodox schism.   Even here on the Internet the laity is divided in terms of what they think is heresy or not or what disturbs them about Catholic teaching and what does not.  I am always surprised...sometimes pleasantly.  But since the time of the schism there's never been any solid, absolute and final wholesale condemnation of the Catholic Church.  There's always been ambivalence and there's always been unionists.  Some of the unionists resumed communion, some have not but would like to do so sooner rather than later.

At any rate that does not address the question of how the Catholic Church views Orthodoxy.

Mary

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 18, 2010, 09:01:41 PM
Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose
Father Ambrose;

I am honored that you have responded to my post. You are certainly infinitely more educated in Orthodoxy than I am. However, I've heard more often the view that Catholic baptism is devoid of sacramental grace, but the form is still accepted and filled with grace by Orthodoxy upon conversion. While the Orthodox have been rebaptizing Catholics baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity since well before His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Cærularius was excommunicated, there are still the numerous examples of the form of Catholic baptism being accepted, to be filled by Orthodoxy.

Are you saying that every instance of a Catholic convert being received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation or confession only, and of clergymen being received by vesting only, is an instance of economy?

From where I stand, and I say this only as how I see it, and not to be condemnatory, that there is a streak of Donatism in Orthodoxy. In the thread you linked, there was a catechumen who was anticipating a third Trinitarian baptism. Orthodoxy seems, as Mary said, terribly divided on the issue. You yourself have posted evidence of the MP accepting the validity of Catholic orders and baptisms.

I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 12:01:25 AM

I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.


There are two issues today on which the Orthodox will give you varying answers - ecumenism (our relationship with heterodox Churches) and the calendar.  It is not that you are not getting a starlight answer.  It is simply that Orthodoxy has varying answers.  This may be resolved, if only for a while, if the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council addresses the issue of heterodox baptism.   I say "if only for a while" because you will find that there will be some Orthodox who will return to earlier practices and ones which can be quite justifiably based on tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.  I would not count on the diversity of Orthoox practices being done away with.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 12:52:00 AM
and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP.

I don't see how...?

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

These seem to be inconsistent realities. How can a church that is overall illicit perform licit ordinances?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 12:56:44 AM
The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53 (http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53)

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome.

Seeing as how episcopos means "overseer", I don't know that calling someone a bishop necessarily means that one recognizes them as having Holy Orders.

The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term.

No, the standard teachings differ. Typical Roman teaching is that rites outside of union with Rome can be valid and efficacious but not licit. On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 12:58:36 AM
Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???::) ::)

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Quote from: His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53 (http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53)

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.

No, there are really three commonly cited properties: validity, efficacy, and licitness. What all rites outside of the Orthodox Church are is possibly inefficacious, while some are certainly recognized as being valid. "Validity" referring to the form of Sacraments; "efficacy" referring to their sanctifying substance.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 01:05:45 AM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 01:19:24 AM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 04:33:13 AM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.
So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: scamandrius on June 19, 2010, 02:44:49 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 03:07:27 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 19, 2010, 04:19:36 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

 ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 19, 2010, 06:27:31 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

I'm not quite sure DeusEstVeritas qualifies as an OO poster. He hasn't been received into any OO church and his opinions as pertains the EO are often not shared by OO posters on this forum. He has also criticized OO hierarchs of been too liberal when it comes to the EO.

But why should it be surprising or confusing that both the EO and OO should consider themselves correct? 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 08:13:35 PM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective. The actual problem is that you are confusing validity with efficacy. Validity commonly refers to the rite having proper form, which the Latins theorized necessitates it being efficacious. EO Christians disagree, generally thinking that rites outside of the Church are not efficacious, though they may be valid in the sense of having proper ritual form. The properties that you are seeing as interconnected are actually efficacy and licitness, not validity and licitness.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 08:13:54 PM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

The OO Church to the exclusion of the EO.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 08:14:17 PM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.
So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?

Yes.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 08:17:59 PM
Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?

Not really. What qualifies the OO or EO as the Church of Christ is not a simple matter.

One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated.

We're essentially both saying that rites outside of the Church are liable to not be efficacious.

This is getting to be confusing.

I don't see what's so confusing. You say the Roman church is the Church. Why is it so confusing if other historical faith communities make similar claims about their own?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on June 19, 2010, 08:19:50 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

 ;D

It depends on what they mean by "Catholic". If they mean the standard watered down meaning of it being equivalent to Romanist, I would point out the nearest Romanist church. If they really meant "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic", however, I would most certainly point them to the nearest OO church. So that quotes not applicable.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 08:41:15 PM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective.

In that case you are not correct.  Do some reading on the Orthodox refusal to employ the Roman Catholic distinction of validity and liceity, even a refusal to use the words themselves.

Quote
The actual problem is that you are confusing validity with efficacy. Validity commonly refers to the rite having proper form, which the Latins theorized necessitates it being efficacious. EO Christians disagree, generally thinking that rites outside of the Church are not efficacious, though they may be valid in the sense of having proper ritual form. The properties that you are seeing as interconnected are actually efficacy and licitness, not validity and licitness.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 08:49:03 PM
On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.
BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective.

What of the OO perspective which presumably you are more knowledgeable about?

Coptic Orthodox baptize Roman Catholics, and it is not because they consider their RC baptism invalid but because they consider the form unacceptable - in other words they refuse to accept a form of baptism which is not by triple immersion.

Now the weird (to me) thing is that they accept the validity of RC baptism.  In rebaptizing Roman Catholics Copts are simply administering the correct form.  No actual baptism takes place with the Coptic ceremony.  No grace is conferred since the RC baptism was already valid.

Could you say something about this?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 09:01:50 PM

So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?

^No, it's the EO, of course!

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

The OO Church to the exclusion of the EO.
I don't see what's so confusing. You say the Roman church is the Church. Why is it so confusing if other historical faith communities make similar claims about their own?
Because the claims are different.
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the EO and OO as valid and helpful to salvation.
The OO Church, being the true Church of Christ does not recognize the Sacraments of the EO or RC as being efficacious?
The EO Church, being the true Church of Christ according to a poster here, does not recognize even the Baptism outside of the EO Church and demands that it be repeated on entry into the EO Church.
Now shouldn’t a person concerned about his eternal salvation  be able to determine which is the Church of Christ and which Church has the efficacious Sacraments?  But when I ask you how we are going to determine this, you say:
What qualifies the OO or EO as the Church of Christ is not a simple matter.
[/quote]
Why would God make it so difficult for a person who is concerned about his eternal salvation and who is concerned about receiving valid, efficacious and true Sacraments from his Church? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set it up  like this so that it is impossible to determine which Church has the true Sacraments ?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 09:39:28 PM

[Why would God make it so difficult for a person who is concerned about his eternal salvation and who is concerned about receiving valid, efficacious and true Sacraments from his Church? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set it up  like this so that it is impossible to determine which Church has the true Sacraments ?


When two of our new immigrant children, Lebanese boys, were taken by their parents to be enrolled at one of the Catholic parochial schools, the parish priest (who has to approve non-Catholic enrolments) refused to allow their enrolment even thought they had baptismal certificates from Lebanon.   Before he would allow them to enroll at school he re-baptized them.

These boys now have a full immersion Orthodox baptism and a Catholic baptism by sprinkling.

Seems to me that Catholics get a bit fluffy minded about who has and who does not have true Sacraments.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 10:11:12 PM

[Why would God make it so difficult for a person who is concerned about his eternal salvation and who is concerned about receiving valid, efficacious and true Sacraments from his Church? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set it up  like this so that it is impossible to determine which Church has the true Sacraments ?


When two of our new immigrant children, Lebanese boys, were taken by their parents to be enrolled at one of the Catholic parochial schools, the parish priest (who has to approve non-Catholic enrolments) refused to allow their enrolment even thought they had baptismal certificates from Lebanon.   Before he would allow them to enroll at school he re-baptized them.

These boys now have a full immersion Orthodox baptism and a Catholic baptism by sprinkling.

Seems to me that Catholics get a bit fluffy minded about who has and who does not have true Sacraments.
As you have described it this is not right of course.

But it does raise a few questions:
1.   Why would an Eastern Orthodox want to go to a Catholic school? I thought that all of the Catholic Sacraments were invalid anyway, and Catholics are heretics. So why endanger the eternal salvation of an Eastern Orthodox by sending him to a school run by heretics?
2.   As I know it to be,  non-Catholics are admitted freely into Catholic schools. In fact I know of a case where a Jewish student, enrolled in Catholic schools, went on to become a rabbi. There was no question of his having to convert to Roman Catholicism. However, there is a catch here. And that is that Catholics students pay a lower tuition rate than do non-Catholics. The  reason for this is that Catholic students are subsidized by the Church, since they are already making weekly contributions to the RCC. 
3.   Anyway, I know in our local area, of several  Orthodox families whose children  were allowed to attend Catholic elementary schools with no problem at all, except that they were asked to pay the non-Catholic rate of tuition.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 10:31:51 PM

1. Why would an Eastern Orthodox want to go to a Catholic school?

Catholic schools are perceived as having a better quality of education and of fostering good morality.  This was most certainly true when I was there in the 1950s but not so true these days, the surrounding culture of permissiveness has penetrated.

Quote
2. As I know it to be,  non-Catholics are admitted freely into Catholic schools.

In New Zealand the Catholic School system was extremely well developed, parallel to the state system.  There seemed to be a surfeit of nuns willing to enter the teaching orders and educate young Catholics.  But in the 1950s and 1960s it became impossible for the Catholic Church to maintain the system financially any longer.  The burden was too great.  It received NO financial assistance from the Government and depended on Catholic parents and school fees.

To continue operating Catholics reluctantly accepted integration into the State system (1975, IIRC.)  Their expenses were taken over by the State but they were allowed to retain the Catholic character of their schools.  But the Government insisted that they also had to accept a certain percentage of non-Catholic students.    In the cities where the majority of Orthodox live, the Catholic schools were quite happy to make up this mandatory percentage of non-Catholics with Orthodox students.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 19, 2010, 11:10:15 PM

1. Why would an Eastern Orthodox want to go to a Catholic school?

Catholic schools are perceived as having a better quality of education and of fostering good morality.  This was most certainly true when I was there in the 1950s but not so true these days, the surrounding culture of permissiveness has penetrated.

Quote
2. As I know it to be,  non-Catholics are admitted freely into Catholic schools.

In New Zealand the Catholic School system was extremely well developed, parallel to the state system.  There seemed to be a surfeit of nuns willing to enter the teaching orders and educate young Catholics.  But in the 1950s and 1960s it became impossible for the Catholic Church to maintain the system financially any longer.  The burden was too great.  It received NO financial assistance from the Government and depended on Catholic parents and school fees.

To continue operating Catholics reluctantly accepted integration into the State system (1975, IIRC.)  Their expenses were taken over by the State but they were allowed to retain the Catholic character of their schools.  But the Government insisted that they also had to accept a certain percentage of non-Catholic students.    In the cities where the majority of Orthodox live, the Catholic schools were quite happy to make up this mandatory percentage of non-Catholics with Orthodox students.
I don’t see how the Catholic schools can foster good morality if they are run by heretics and if all of their Sacraments are invalid and inefficacious.  Why wouldn’t it be detrimental to the eternal salvation of an Eastern Orthodox Christian to attend a school run by heretics? There is a proximate danger that he might become infected with the dangerous heresy of Romanism and partake of invalid and inefficacious Sacraments and thereby place his eternal salvation in serious jeapordy?
Also,  does not God want each one of us to be able to partake of valid, true and efficacious Sacraments. Now we see that a poster here effectively indicates that it is impossible to determine which Church has the valid, true, and efficacious Sacraments. Why would God want to set it up in such a way as to make it impossible for the average person to determine which of the churches, EO or OO is the true Church of Christ, with the true Sacraments?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 11:19:12 PM
I don’t see how the Catholic schools can foster good morality if they are run by heretics


Hold on to your hat, Stan.  Some Orthodox parents realise that the standards in Roman Catholic schools have slipped over the last few decades and I can think of three families who are sending their children to the Jewish school.  Two families have opted for Montesorri.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 19, 2010, 11:26:54 PM

There is a proximate danger that he might become infected with the dangerous heresy of Romanism

To be quite honest, the danger could be that the student will pick up on the prevailing cynical approach to religion by some of the teachers.

Quote
and partake of invalid and inefficacious Sacraments

Unlikely.  The Catholic bishops have published a small booklet for the guidance of Catholic schools which have Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox pupils.  In the case of the latter it is forbidden to administer Catholic sacraments to them.  When one school started to disregard this instruction and give commnion to Orthodox students, the Greek bishop visited the Cardinal and the practice was stopped by written directive of the Cardinal.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 19, 2010, 11:55:21 PM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

 ;D

It depends on what they mean by "Catholic". If they mean the standard watered down meaning of it being equivalent to Romanist, I would point out the nearest Romanist church. If they really meant "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic", however, I would most certainly point them to the nearest OO church. So that quotes not applicable.

So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 20, 2010, 07:49:02 AM
I don’t see how the Catholic schools can foster good morality if they are run by heretics and if all of their Sacraments are invalid and inefficacious.  Why wouldn’t it be detrimental to the eternal salvation of an Eastern Orthodox Christian to attend a school run by heretics? There is a proximate danger that he might become infected with the dangerous heresy of Romanism and partake of invalid and inefficacious Sacraments and thereby place his eternal salvation in serious jeapordy?
Also,  does not God want each one of us to be able to partake of valid, true and efficacious Sacraments. Now we see that a poster here effectively indicates that it is impossible to determine which Church has the valid, true, and efficacious Sacraments. Why would God want to set it up in such a way as to make it impossible for the average person to determine which of the churches, EO or OO is the true Church of Christ, with the true Sacraments?

My dear stanley123, where I live, for close to 40 years, schools which are nominally denominational (RC, Lutheran, Anglican) have, at the very least, not insisted that their students not of that denomination attend chapel, or receive religious instruction. Most have, in fact, completely respected the religious background of their students who are not of the religious tradition of the school, and won't push their denomination's beliefs and doctrines on the students not of the same faith.

The most common reason for folks to wish to enrol their children in religious schools is that, in many cases, there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that such schools are more likely to have higher academic standards, better teachers, a more diligent approach to proper behavioral standards for students, compared to the local state-funded school.

Let's not forget that nominally Orthodox schools which cover all school grades are still somewhat thin on the ground.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on June 20, 2010, 08:48:25 AM
^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D
One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

 ;D

It depends on what they mean by "Catholic". If they mean the standard watered down meaning of it being equivalent to Romanist, I would point out the nearest Romanist church. If they really meant "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic", however, I would most certainly point them to the nearest OO church. So that quotes not applicable.

So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.

This isn't something shared by all languages.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Melodist on June 20, 2010, 02:31:41 PM
So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: 88Devin12 on June 20, 2010, 06:37:49 PM
So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 20, 2010, 07:21:28 PM

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Yes, exactly.

The Russian theologian Khomiakov has a small explanation of the meaning of the word "catholic" (from Greek kata holou - according to the whole.) 

He divides Christianity into three strands...


1. Catholic - kata holou - according to the whole - Orthodoxy

2. Kata-monou - according to one man - the Pope

3. Kata-ekastou - according to every individual - Protestantism (kind of an omni-papism, every man in the role of his own Pope.)


"The Apostolic Church is not the Church kath'hekastou (according to the understanding of each individual) as the Protestants teach,

"It is not the Church kata tou episkopou tes Romes (according to the understanding of the bishop of Rome) as the Latins preach;

"Orthodoxy is the Apostolic Church.  She is the Church kath'holou (according to the understanding of all within her unity), the Church as it was before the Western schism and as it is now for all whom the Lord has preserved from schism..."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 20, 2010, 08:59:47 PM
I don’t see how the Catholic schools can foster good morality if they are run by heretics and if all of their Sacraments are invalid and inefficacious.  Why wouldn’t it be detrimental to the eternal salvation of an Eastern Orthodox Christian to attend a school run by heretics? There is a proximate danger that he might become infected with the dangerous heresy of Romanism and partake of invalid and inefficacious Sacraments and thereby place his eternal salvation in serious jeapordy?
Also,  does not God want each one of us to be able to partake of valid, true and efficacious Sacraments. Now we see that a poster here effectively indicates that it is impossible to determine which Church has the valid, true, and efficacious Sacraments. Why would God want to set it up in such a way as to make it impossible for the average person to determine which of the churches, EO or OO is the true Church of Christ, with the true Sacraments?

My dear stanley123, where I live, for close to 40 years, schools which are nominally denominational (RC, Lutheran, Anglican) have, at the very least, not insisted that their students not of that denomination attend chapel, or receive religious instruction. Most have, in fact, completely respected the religious background of their students who are not of the religious tradition of the school, and won't push their denomination's beliefs and doctrines on the students not of the same faith.

The most common reason for folks to wish to enrol their children in religious schools is that, in many cases, there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that such schools are more likely to have higher academic standards, better teachers, a more diligent approach to proper behavioral standards for students, compared to the local state-funded school.

Let's not forget that nominally Orthodox schools which cover all school grades are still somewhat thin on the ground.
It looks like some of the good Eastern Orthodox Christian people here might be taking a step toward embracing the philosophy of ecumenism by sending their children to heretical Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican schools.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 20, 2010, 09:46:35 PM
Quote
It looks like some of the good Eastern Orthodox Christian people here might be taking a step toward embracing the philosophy of ecumenism by sending their children to heretical Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican schools.

stanley123, it seems you haven't bothered to read my post. The religious schools I referred to have a policy of not pushing their faith on their students not of their faith. What is taught in the classroom is overwhelmingly academic, with any religious component taught as separate subjects or modules, if, indeed, religion is taught at all. And, as I said before, there is no compulsory requirement of attendance of chapel in those schools which have a chapel on campus. If anything, the students not of the school's denomination are asked to check with their parents first if they approve of their child attending chapel.

While I was educated at State-funded schools, I have family members and close friends, who either teach at denominational schools (including Roman Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian), or who were schooled in them. In none of their cases was their Orthodox faith compromised in any way, either as students or as teachers. All have maintained their ties with their Orthodox parishes, whether as common parishioners, or as church singers, readers, etc; those who have children have, without exception, baptised them Orthodox.

If family and church life is strong, then there is nothing to fear from sending Orthodox children to a denominational school. May I ask, Stanley, how much religion is taught at denominational schools, particularly Roman Catholic, where you are these days?

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 20, 2010, 10:36:32 PM
Quote
It looks like some of the good Eastern Orthodox Christian people here might be taking a step toward embracing the philosophy of ecumenism by sending their children to heretical Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican schools.

stanley123, it seems you haven't bothered to read my post. The religious schools I referred to have a policy of not pushing their faith on their students not of their faith. What is taught in the classroom is overwhelmingly academic, with any religious component taught as separate subjects or modules, if, indeed, religion is taught at all. And, as I said before, there is no compulsory requirement of attendance of chapel in those schools which have a chapel on campus. If anything, the students not of the school's denomination are asked to check with their parents first if they approve of their child attending chapel.

While I was educated at State-funded schools, I have family members and close friends, who either teach at denominational schools (including Roman Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian), or who were schooled in them. In none of their cases was their Orthodox faith compromised in any way, either as students or as teachers. All have maintained their ties with their Orthodox parishes, whether as common parishioners, or as church singers, readers, etc; those who have children have, without exception, baptised them Orthodox.

If family and church life is strong, then there is nothing to fear from sending Orthodox children to a denominational school. May I ask, Stanley, how much religion is taught at denominational schools, particularly Roman Catholic, where you are these days?


If you send your children to Catholic schools, even though you may request and subsequently obtain permission to be absent from religion classes, nevertheless, there is still a certain amount of Catholic teaching and training which is unavoidable. For example, in the schools in our area, before each and every class, a Catholic prayer is said. Now as an Orthodox you would have to at least be present when these Catholic prayers are said, and as they are said before each and every class, and every day, you would gradually become accustomed to praying the Hail Mary in the Catholic form. I spoke to a Buddhist professor here, who went to Catholic schools in Hong Kong and he says that he still says the Hail Mary, even though he is not Catholic. And then there are the Catholic statues and crucifixes in each classroom. . The Roman crucifix is three dimensional and not an icon. Further there are the many statues of the Mother of God with the rosary in her hands and the expression: "I am the Immaculate Copnception." Oftentimes when Catholic students are praying the Hail Mary, they will turn to the Blessed Statue of Mary, the Mother of God. So there is the temptation to pray with the heretical Romans, as everyone else in the class is joining in at the beginning of the class. Of course, I personally don't see a problem with an Orthodox Christian doing this, but from what I have read on this board, many Orthodox believe that it is seriously and gravely wrong to pray with heretics.
This is why, I would say that it looks to me like many of the Orthodox Christians here might be seen as taking a step in the direction of the ecumenical movement, when they are sending their children to Catholic schools. BTW, if I were in an Orthodox country, such as Russia for example, and I had children to enroll in the schools there, I would not hesitate to have my children enrolled in the Orthodox religion classes in Russia. And I don't have any problem with praying with Orthodox Christians or attending their services in a respectful manner. I only mention this, because from what I read here, the feeling is not reciprocal.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 20, 2010, 11:36:19 PM
Like I said, if the child's family and church life is strong, then any non-Orthodox influences on the children would be quickly dealt with. Sending an Orthodox child to a non-Orthodox school has nothing to do with ecumenism, and everything to do with a perceived/actual higher academic and disciplinary standard. One small example: Of the Orthodox children I know (many of whom are now adults and parents) who attended denominational schools, how many cross themselves left-to-right? NONE.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 20, 2010, 11:50:35 PM
Like I said, if the child's family and church life is strong, then any non-Orthodox influences on the children would be quickly dealt with. Sending an Orthodox child to a non-Orthodox school has nothing to do with ecumenism, and everything to do with a perceived/actual higher academic and disciplinary standard. One small example: Of the Orthodox children I know (many of whom are now adults and parents) who attended denominational schools, how many cross themselves left-to-right? NONE.
It is noteworthy that anti-ecumenical Orthodox Christians would rely on heretics in a Roman Catholic school to teach their children.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 21, 2010, 12:10:53 AM
Like I said, if the child's family and church life is strong, then any non-Orthodox influences on the children would be quickly dealt with. Sending an Orthodox child to a non-Orthodox school has nothing to do with ecumenism, and everything to do with a perceived/actual higher academic and disciplinary standard. One small example: Of the Orthodox children I know (many of whom are now adults and parents) who attended denominational schools, how many cross themselves left-to-right? NONE.
It is noteworthy that anti-ecumenical Orthodox Christians would rely on heretics in a Roman Catholic school to teach their children.

He's got a point, LBK.  I remember how Greek parents became distressed when their daughter refused to join in prayers to the Mother of God, because she had been told at Catholic school that is not the proper way to pray!   :(
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: LBK on June 21, 2010, 12:40:42 AM
Like I said, if the child's family and church life is strong, then any non-Orthodox influences on the children would be quickly dealt with. Sending an Orthodox child to a non-Orthodox school has nothing to do with ecumenism, and everything to do with a perceived/actual higher academic and disciplinary standard. One small example: Of the Orthodox children I know (many of whom are now adults and parents) who attended denominational schools, how many cross themselves left-to-right? NONE.
It is noteworthy that anti-ecumenical Orthodox Christians would rely on heretics in a Roman Catholic school to teach their children.

He's got a point, LBK.  I remember how Greek parents became distressed when their daughter refused to join in prayers to the Mother of God, because she had been told at Catholic school that is not the proper way to pray!   :(

What I have written is from my own life experience, and I'm happy to stand by what I've written. None of the Orthodox friends and family who have attended RC, Anglican or Presbyterian schools (because these schools had a good academic reputation, compared with the local State school) has had their Orthodox faith compromised through attending such schools.

Quote
I remember how Greek parents became distressed when their daughter refused to join in prayers to the Mother of God, because she had been told at Catholic school that is not the proper way to pray!   


This is indeed sad. However, if the parents, priest(s) and Sunday school teachers are diligent, then this girl, and others like her, would soon be put to right.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 21, 2010, 02:06:38 AM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.

Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on June 21, 2010, 08:37:18 AM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 21, 2010, 11:08:55 AM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: 88Devin12 on June 21, 2010, 11:53:32 AM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.

Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

I wasn't aware it was supposed to be a joke.  ???
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2010, 02:12:49 PM
Like I said, if the child's family and church life is strong, then any non-Orthodox influences on the children would be quickly dealt with. Sending an Orthodox child to a non-Orthodox school has nothing to do with ecumenism, and everything to do with a perceived/actual higher academic and disciplinary standard. One small example: Of the Orthodox children I know (many of whom are now adults and parents) who attended denominational schools, how many cross themselves left-to-right? NONE.
It is noteworthy that anti-ecumenical Orthodox Christians would rely on heretics in a Roman Catholic school to teach their children.

He's got a point, LBK.  I remember how Greek parents became distressed when their daughter refused to join in prayers to the Mother of God, because she had been told at Catholic school that is not the proper way to pray!   :(
Unfortunately, some Roman Catholics are out of touch when it comes to Orthodox and even Eastern Catholics. At a local Church here, the R. Catholic priest invited a local  Orthodox priest to come and say a few words either in the Church or in the Church hall. However, he politely declined to do so. But at least after that, a Byzantine Catholic priest was invited and he said an Eastern Divine Liturgy for the Roman Catholics there. 
Title: Re: Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 21, 2010, 02:14:37 PM

Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?

Better to leave it as "scholastic"  It is more accurate in this context and does not necessarily have anything to do with the teachings of St. Thomas....There are few modern Thomists who illuminate St. Thomas.  Most self-professed Thomists follow down one scholastic trail or another trying to "improve" on what continues to be the unadulterated and classical position of the Angelic Doctor.  Some of the trails are simply in error.  Some of them follow errors that were interjected in Cardinal Cajetan, for example, that were never explicitly corrected in the 20th century.  But nobody is giving up their position to settle for the idea that their major premises or unspoken premises are in error, so you have scholastic error piled upon scholastic error and incorporated into all kinds of texts and sub-texts.

We are blessed that the Church carries on is spite of these ruminations.

Heaven help you if you simply say "That line of thought is in error."... :)

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on June 21, 2010, 02:21:33 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: FormerReformer on June 21, 2010, 02:23:03 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

But, to build on Orthodoc's analogy, the official name of the Mormon church starts with "Church of Jesus Christ" (of Latterday Saints).  Having the word in your name doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 21, 2010, 02:31:42 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.

Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

I wasn't aware it was supposed to be a joke.  ???

I know that I am not well known in this forum, but I would have that no one would believe that I would actually try to defend the Catholicity of my faith based upon what it is commonly called. Also, I thought I put the ;D smiley after I quoted St. Augustine.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2010, 02:36:15 PM
 We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  
Yes. the extent and number of changes in the Orthodox Churches is relatively miniscule, when compared with those which have taken place in the Roman Catholic Church over the past 60 years. But still, it
 looks to me like a few things have been modified in your Churches:
1. The calendar issue.
2. Women wearing headcovering in Church.
3. The question of artificial birth control.
4. The use of the organ in Church services.
5. The slavery question.
6. And of course, there is the question whether the Latin Sacraments are valid. Before 1054, they were. This teaching has since been changed.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2010, 02:44:29 PM
But, to build on Orthodoc's analogy, the official name of the Mormon church starts with "Church of Jesus Christ" (of Latterday Saints).  Having the word in your name doesn't make it so.
Is it a bit silly to debate about the name of a particular Church?
For example, there is the *first* Baptist Church. Is it right to call it the *first* since the Orthodox Church was baptising before the Protestant Baptist Church came into existence? So, when someone asks for directions to the First Baptist Church, shall we say, well these are the directions, but actually, this is the Second Baptist Chruch because my Church baptised before your Church did?  And by the way, since your baptism is invalid, the correct name should be the Invalid Baptist Church?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 21, 2010, 02:52:50 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc
I would be very confused, because I call my parish an orthodox Catholic Church because we believe what the Church teaches. However, the title of this forum is very telling. "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion".

I understand that there are Eastern Christians who are very insistent that the Romanist Church not be called the Catholic Church. This is a minority in my experience.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 21, 2010, 02:56:48 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc

Yes. Yes. We are all aware of your views on the matter and I have no problem with people using the word "Roman" to describe the particular sui juri Church to which I belong. But just so you know,
"Catholic" is part of our name or is our name and we are not going to change it. :)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on June 21, 2010, 02:59:40 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc

Actually, the term ROMAN Catholic was originally used as a perjorative in the English-speaking lands.  While certainly polemical in nature, the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm) gives a good over-view of its use among Anglophones.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on June 21, 2010, 03:53:19 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc

Yes. Yes. We are all aware of your views on the matter and I have no problem with people using the word "Roman" to describe the particular sui juri Church to which I belong. But just so you know,
"Catholic" is part of our name or is our name and we are not going to change it. :)

And no one here is asking you to.  We are just asking you to further define just what type of Catholic you are. And defending our tight to define ourselves as Catholic to keep your church from revising church history.  I thought I've already have made that quite clear.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 21, 2010, 04:31:55 PM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc

Yes. Yes. We are all aware of your views on the matter and I have no problem with people using the word "Roman" to describe the particular sui juri Church to which I belong. But just so you know,
"Catholic" is part of our name or is our name and we are not going to change it. :)

And no one here is asking you to.  We are just asking you to further define just what type of Catholic you are. And defending our tight to define ourselves as Catholic to keep your church from revising church history.  I thought I've already have made that quite clear.

Orthodoc

And all I am asking is that you stop making false accusations of the revision of Church history. You know your abrasive approach doesn't draw anyone in. It pushes faithful Catholics away from Eastern Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 21, 2010, 05:40:55 PM

So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.

What is interesting is that if you asked the man in the street for the Catholic Church he would point you to a Roman Catholic church.

But if you asked him for the Christian Church, then a Catholic church would be the last thing that would pop into his mind.

Why is it then that Catholics are not seen as Christian?


The thing with the modern term "Catholic" is that it is not seen in its ancient meaning  of "the true Church which holds the true Christian faith." 

It is now seen by your average Joe Blogs as the Church which worships the Virgin Mary, the Church which has horrible rules about contraception and horrible rules about getting remarried,  It is seen as a Church with a major problem with sexual abuse among its ministers.  These are the things which are in the mind of Joe Blogs when you ask him how to find the nearest Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 21, 2010, 05:47:15 PM
Actually, the term ROMAN Catholic was originally used as a perjorative in the English-speaking lands.  While certainly polemical in nature, the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm) gives a good over-view of its use among Anglophones.

I think this has become a bit of a canard among some Roman Catholics.  If you search the term "Roman Catholic" in various languages, Italian, French, Spanish and even Russian, we find that they are proudly and voluntarily terming themselves Roman Catholics.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on June 22, 2010, 09:34:10 AM
This isn't something shared by all languages.

Most people outside of either EO or OO (they also claim to be "catholic" as stated in the creed) who do not consider those particular churches to be "orthodox" still refer to them as "Orthodox" churches, including Roman Catholics.

Not to mention, "catholic" literally means "according to the whole".

Precisely, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. For us Eastern Orthodox, it is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

We refer to the Roman Catholics as Catholic because that is the title known around the world. Not because we believe the Roman Church is the true Catholic Church.

You are all are positing that your church is in fact the Catholic Church, but, if I ran up to you and asked you where the nearest Catholic Church was, none of you would point me to your own church.
Also, I think you all are taking my joke a little seriously.

It's nice to know that you think you know us better than we know ourselves?  When that question is asked of me (and it has been) my response is always the same.... Do you mean Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic?  I'm always amazed when you RC's give the analogy about asking the average man or woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and where they would direct you to.  Those of us who are Orthodox and know enough to defend the Catholicity of our faith, also know that our Catholic identity is not determined by the average person on the street but by the early church fathers and the ecumenical councils.  Ask those same people on the street if Mormons are Christians and they will most probably say yes.  That doesn't make it so.

Orthodoc

BUT, Catholic Church, is the name of our church. Even is some people don't like it.

One has to wonder why after centuries of usage the term ROMAN Catholic has become such no no for some RC's!  We Orthodox defend our Catholicity because the Church of Rome uses the term Catholic to revise history.  I've even read where claims are made that the land of Rus accepted Christianity from the Roman Catholics in 988 because it was 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church in 1054!  We never left the Catholic Church.  We are the original Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  We have not altered those teachings believed before the schism as Rome does.  If ya all want to call yourselves Catholic go right ahead but be ready for a challenge when you proclaim excluse rights to the word but not identifying just what type of Catholic you are.

Orthodoc

Yes. Yes. We are all aware of your views on the matter and I have no problem with people using the word "Roman" to describe the particular sui juri Church to which I belong. But just so you know,
"Catholic" is part of our name or is our name and we are not going to change it. :)

And no one here is asking you to.  We are just asking you to further define just what type of Catholic you are. And defending our tight to define ourselves as Catholic to keep your church from revising church history.  I thought I've already have made that quite clear.

Orthodoc

And all I am asking is that you stop making false accusations of the revision of Church history. You know your abrasive approach doesn't draw anyone in. It pushes faithful Catholics away from Eastern Orthodoxy.

What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.

As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Cathoilics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 

In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.

Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 22, 2010, 11:07:36 AM


What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.

You did leave the Catholic Church.

As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 22, 2010, 12:17:23 PM


What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.

You did leave the Catholic Church.

As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.

I use papal Church all the time to distinguish between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.  As an Eastern Catholic, and by using Roman Catholic to distinguish, I simply write my own Church out of the picture.  Now I am sure some would love to see that happen, I am not one of them.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: WetCatechumen on June 22, 2010, 03:45:52 PM

So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.

What is interesting is that if you asked the man in the street for the Catholic Church he would point you to a Roman Catholic church.

But if you asked him for the Christian Church, then a Catholic church would be the last thing that would pop into his mind.

Why is it then that Catholics are not seen as Christian?


The thing with the modern term "Catholic" is that it is not seen in its ancient meaning  of "the true Church which holds the true Christian faith." 

It is now seen by your average Joe Blogs as the Church which worships the Virgin Mary, the Church which has horrible rules about contraception and horrible rules about getting remarried,  It is seen as a Church with a major problem with sexual abuse among its ministers.  These are the things which are in the mind of Joe Blogs when you ask him how to find the nearest Catholic Church.
As for your first point, that is totally fair. I would guess that most Protestants I know, when asked where the nearest Christian Church is, would point to the nearest trinitarian non-Catholic/non-Orthodox church. I personally would point to the nearest church and specify denomination. If the nearest church were Orthodox, I would say it was "[Jurisidiction] Orthodox", if it were Catholic, I'd specify that. If it were Kingdom Hall, I'd say they were Jehovah's Witnesses (I'm not saying that I believe that they are Christians, just that they claim to be). However, you're right, there are many Catholics in the United States who perceive "Christian" as meaning "American Evangelical Protestant Christian".

As for the problems within our church, you are correct about the problems. I humbly ask for your prayers, Father. It is sad that the meaning of Catholic is associated with an institution, and not with right belief.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on June 22, 2010, 04:18:52 PM
Why is it then that Catholics are not seen as Christian?
It is a similar situation with the Protestant view of Orthodox isn't it?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on June 22, 2010, 04:33:59 PM


What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.

You did leave the Catholic Church.

As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.

I use papal Church all the time to distinguish between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.  As an Eastern Catholic, and by using Roman Catholic to distinguish, I simply write my own Church out of the picture.  Now I am sure some would love to see that happen, I am not one of them.

M.
Hmmm. I see the use of the term Papal Catholic as a problem because the center of our faith is Jesus and not the Pope. And yes, I agree with you about the problem with writing out the Byzantines and Orientals. That's why I think it's best to refer to Latins as "Roman Catholics" but the entire Church as simply "Catholic".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on June 22, 2010, 05:51:04 PM


What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.

You did leave the Catholic Church.

As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.

I use papal Church all the time to distinguish between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.  As an Eastern Catholic, and by using Roman Catholic to distinguish, I simply write my own Church out of the picture.  Now I am sure some would love to see that happen, I am not one of them.

M.
Hmmm. I see the use of the term Papal Catholic as a problem because the center of our faith is Jesus and not the Pope. And yes, I agree with you about the problem with writing out the Byzantines and Orientals. That's why I think it's best to refer to Latins as "Roman Catholics" but the entire Church as simply "Catholic".

The use of papal Catholic vis a vis Orthodox Catholic does not "write" Jesus out of the equation any more than simply referring to the Catholic Church writes Jesus out of the equation. 

It's not Jesus's Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ,
or the Church of Jesus Christ Centered Catholics, or the Church of Catholics For Jesus Christ...

if you get my drift here...

The point is, in context, to be able to distinguish Orthodox Conciliar Catholics from Orthodox Papal Catholics...I don' t care how you load the names. 

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: akimel on July 22, 2010, 10:57:38 PM
The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I would like to see documentation that Fortescue rejected uncreated grace.  I deem this unlikely, though of course not impossible.  To reject uncreated grace is to reject multiple doctors of the Church, including Sts. Augustine, Thomas, and Bonaventure.  What is much more likely, confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia article on hesychasm, is that Fortescue rejected the Byzantine essence/energies distinction.  That is a very different kettle of fish.   

Karl Rahner did not invent uncreated grace; but he, and others such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Piet Fransen, did redress an unbalanced emphasis on the created dimension of grace that had developed in post-Tridentine theology.   

Perhaps this passage from Fransen may be helpful:

Quote
Created grace is not something standing in between God and us; it is no path to approach God, no ladder to climb up to God, no means to God—at least not primarily…. Created grace does not act as a screen between God and us since it comes into being only because of and within the gesture by which God unites us immediately to himself. He gives Himself without an intervening medium; He comes to dwell in us and take us back to Himself…. Created grace is at once the fruit and the bond of the indwelling, originating in the indwelling and sustained by the indwelling; it raises us into an ever-deepening actualization of the indwelling on earth and in heaven. Latin expresses it more tersely: ex unione, in unione, et ad unionem—arising from our immediate union with God, granted in that union and urging us to that union. (The New Life of Grace [1969], pp 102-103)

Statements such as these are common and uncontroversial in Catholic theology.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 22, 2010, 11:09:12 PM
The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I would like to see documentation that Fortescue rejected uncreated grace.  I deem this unlikely, though of course not impossible.  To reject uncreated grace is to reject multiple doctors of the Church, including Sts. Augustine, Thomas, and Bonaventure.  What is much more likely, confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia article on hesychasm, is that Fortescue rejected the Byzantine essence/energies distinction.  That is a very different kettle of fish.   

Karl Rahner did not invent uncreated grace; but he, and others such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Piet Fransen, did redress an unbalanced emphasis on the created dimension of grace that had developed in post-Tridentine theology.   

Perhaps this passage from Fransen may be helpful:

Quote
Created grace is not something standing in between God and us; it is no path to approach God, no ladder to climb up to God, no means to God—at least not primarily…. Created grace does not act as a screen between God and us since it comes into being only because of and within the gesture by which God unites us immediately to himself. He gives Himself without an intervening medium; He comes to dwell in us and take us back to Himself…. Created grace is at once the fruit and the bond of the indwelling, originating in the indwelling and sustained by the indwelling; it raises us into an ever-deepening actualization of the indwelling on earth and in heaven. Latin expresses it more tersely: ex unione, in unione, et ad unionem—arising from our immediate union with God, granted in that union and urging us to that union. (The New Life of Grace [1969], pp 102-103)

Statements such as these are common and uncontroversial in Catholic theology.



Not even the smallest mention of uncreated grace in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Is the teaching only for initiates?

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: GregoryLA on July 22, 2010, 11:23:29 PM
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.


I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.

1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.

I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 23, 2010, 11:14:43 AM
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.


I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.

1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.

I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!

In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Shlomlokh on July 24, 2010, 09:51:52 PM
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.


I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.

1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.

I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!

In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.

This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 24, 2010, 11:28:26 PM
This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???
Yes. This has puzzled me also since today, no one actually takes this literally, with the possible exception of the sedevacantists at MHFM (the Dimond brothers at most holy family monastery, who say that Pope Benedict is not the Pope). Anyway, I would put this type of a statement in a folder with those where an O. Orthodox bishop was quoted as saying that all Catholics are going to hell, without exception (as was posted on this forum). As well, we read many posts which claim that the Catholic Sacraments are invalid from the Orthodox point of view and in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 25, 2010, 03:18:59 AM

...in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.

Stan, sorry to pick out only your last statement but can you tell us which Orthodox Church has proclaimed that those not using the Julian Calendar are heretics?   

All of our Churches, whether Gregorian Calendar or Julian, are in full communion with one another and there is full concelebration of all our bishops and priests. 

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2010, 01:49:39 PM

...in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.

Stan, sorry to pick out only your last statement but can you tell us which Orthodox Church has proclaimed that those not using the Julian Calendar are heretics?   

All of our Churches, whether Gregorian Calendar or Julian, are in full communion with one another and there is full concelebration of all our bishops and priests. 


OK.
I had a question though about the "non-canonical" Orthodox Churches. Would they be in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Churches?  For example, I thought that there are some Old Calendar Orthodox Churches which do not go along with the ecumenical Patriarch on a few issues.
This would relate for example, to the Catholic side, where there is the schismatic Most Holy Family Monastery group which takes the Unam Sanctam letter literally, while the mainstream Catholics have softened this and I guess, under the teaching of development of doctrine, this is no longer held literally.
Let us see what wikipedia says:
" Many have argued that even the calendar is a matter of dogma since it has historically manifested the unity and catholicity of the Church and that the reformation of the Church Calendar in 1924 was unilaterally adopted and was connected with the beginning of Orthodox participation in the modern ecumenical movement. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar has been anathematized by three Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century. Some Old Calendarists maintain that they have "walled themselves off" from larger Orthodox jurisdictions to protect Orthodoxy from heretical innovations in practices and doctrine."
Also according to the article: "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism"
the New Calendar is "a condemnable innovation."
and The heresy of Ecumenism is dervied from "the heretical innovation of the
New Calendar"
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf
According to this article, "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism" then, the New Calendar is a heretical innovation.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 03:05:05 PM
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.


I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.

1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.

I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!

In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.

This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew

Unam Sanctam would not negate the principle of invincible ignorance simply because it asserts other ecclesiastical principles in the positive.

Unam Sanctam was the product of a local synod called in response to a local secular challenge to the Church by Philippe the Fair of France.  It was meant to be a strong statement of the two swords...the sword of spiritual warfare and the sword of earthly warfare and the teaching was that just as the soul rules the body, so the Church rules every human creature. 

I think we might be better served if that had remained some part of people's consciousness, rather than the melange of secular ethics and moral theologies that vie for attention today, along with free and easy everything else.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 03:05:06 PM
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.


I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.

1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.

I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!

In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.

This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew

By the way, look up Gallican Liberties when you have a chance...The French clergy learned the hard way what it meant to throw their lot with earthly rather than heavenly powers.  It is a fascinating part of the history of Catholicism in the west and explains much of what came later, reformation, enlightenment, revolution...the works!

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on July 25, 2010, 04:23:22 PM
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2010, 04:34:31 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on July 25, 2010, 04:46:38 PM
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2010, 04:57:25 PM
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
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.
According to this article: "The Servant of God John Paul II, wrote regularly of the two Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, as being the “two lungs” of Christianity which must breathe together again in the Third Millennium."
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28291
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 25, 2010, 07:45:33 PM

I had a question though about the "non-canonical" Orthodox Churches. Would they be in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Churches?  For example, I thought that there are some Old Calendar Orthodox Churches which do not go along with the ecumenical Patriarch on a few issues.

No.  The number of these Churches fluctuates a little and increases as they continue to argue and divide.  A rough estimate would be about 20 or a bit higher. 

With very few exceptions they have decreed that the ancient Patriarchates and all the Churches in communion with them (in other words, ALL of Orthodoxy around the world) are without grace.  They teach that we are unbaptized, that what we receive from the holy Chalice is simply soggy bread and wine.  Our priests are not ordained, but simply laymen.

If you search out the messages of Jonathan Gress you will see that he says his Greek Old Calendarist Church holds this position.

Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 25, 2010, 07:49:48 PM

Let us see what wikipedia says:

" Many have argued that even the calendar is a matter of dogma since it has historically manifested the unity and catholicity of the Church and that the reformation of the Church Calendar in 1924 was unilaterally adopted and was connected with the beginning of Orthodox participation in the modern ecumenical movement. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar has been anathematized by three Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century. Some Old Calendarists maintain that they have "walled themselves off" from larger Orthodox jurisdictions to protect Orthodoxy from heretical innovations in practices and doctrine."

Also according to the article: "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism"
the New Calendar is "a condemnable innovation."
and The heresy of Ecumenism is dervied from "the heretical innovation of the
New Calendar"
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf
According to this article, "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism" then, the New Calendar is a heretical innovation.

You must remember that you are reading the words of those who have left the Church and gone into one of the numerous schismatic groups.  It would be rather like accepting the words of the Sede Vacantists as representative of Roman Catholicism.

At the Pan-Orthodox Summit at Thessaloniki in May 1998 the Churches took the opportunity to make an official statement on schismatic Old Calendarist and True Orthodox groups

The delegates unanimously denounced those groups of schismatics, as well as certain extremist groups within the local Orthodox Churches themselves, that are using the theme of ecumenism in order to criticize the Church’s leadership and to undermine its authority, thus attempting to create divisions and schisms within the Church. They also use non-factual material and misinformation in order to support their unjust criticism.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thessaloniki_roc.aspx
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 25, 2010, 08:48:08 PM
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."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ialmisry on July 25, 2010, 10:11:27 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on July 26, 2010, 05:34:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on July 26, 2010, 05:36:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on July 26, 2010, 06:40:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on July 26, 2010, 10:34:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 11:57:37 PM
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.



Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 27, 2010, 12:45:03 AM
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.'
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 27, 2010, 11:10:41 AM
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
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on July 27, 2010, 07:40:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on July 27, 2010, 07:42:58 PM
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".
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on July 27, 2010, 08:55:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 04, 2010, 03:03:45 PM
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 (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 04, 2010, 04:19:17 PM
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 (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
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 04, 2010, 07:39:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 04, 2010, 09:32:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 04, 2010, 09:47:38 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stashko on August 04, 2010, 09:53:32 PM
Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 04, 2010, 09:56:38 PM
Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/popcorn.gif)

The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, dahlinks.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 04, 2010, 09:57:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 04, 2010, 09:58:16 PM
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.  

Even if that would be possible, I agree with IrishHermit, that in some sense that would have to involve a destruction of the Vatican papacy as it currently exists, because what we mean by "first among equals" is so radically different from the definition of Vatican I.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 04, 2010, 09:59:51 PM
Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......(http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/popcorn.gif)

The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, dahlinks.

M.

What good is telling a conservative "Eastern Orthodox Christian" that the gates of hell will not prevail against a group that he/she most likely does not recognize as the Church?  :-\
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 04, 2010, 10:01:12 PM
although I don't think it does to the extent that the Anglicans do.

What I have been wondering all along is in response to this statement: "How so?"

The answer that you do not recognize the Orders of Anglicans doesn't seem like a fundamentally substantial difference, so I'm looking for a different one.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 04, 2010, 10:04:37 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 04, 2010, 10:10:40 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.
I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 04, 2010, 10:48:01 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.
I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.
Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 12:29:16 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.
I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.
Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.
You have brought up the thief on the cross. Since this topic is on the RC view of EO, and one of the dividing issues is Purgatory, why would not a thief have to spend some time in Purgatory before entering paradise?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Papist on August 05, 2010, 12:41:43 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, though no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.
I think the confusing thing about this is what is meant by the expression: no salvation outside the Church? I don;t think it means that you have to be an officially registered at a Roman Catholic rectory.
Exactly. In her wisdom, the Church recognizes other extraordinary means of salvation. The thief on the cross next to Christ had no way of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, yet Christ nonetheless told him that he would be in Paradise with Him. This was a Baptism by desire because, had he been able to, the thief would have desired to follow Christ and thus be baptized.
You have brought up the thief on the cross. Since this topic is on the RC view of EO, and one of the dividing issues is Purgatory, why would not a thief have to spend some time in Purgatory before entering paradise?
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 12:53:45 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 01:14:42 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.
I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 04:56:28 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 10:49:33 AM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?

Consistency is the occupation of fools...or some such thing.... :laugh:
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 11:32:53 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 11:37:43 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.

Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory.


That raises an interesting point.  I thought Catholics teach that the Good Thief was baptized in his own blood?

Does this mean that baptism is incapable of removing the temporal punishment due to sin and the baptised still have to atone for all their sins committed prior to baptism?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 11:45:48 AM
That raises an interesting point.  I thought Catholics teach that the Good Thief was baptized in his own blood?
If you could get me a source for this I would love to read more about this, as I have honestly never heard that before. Of course, just because I have never heard it doesn't mean it isn't true. I have only been Catholic since 2007. To me, this doesn't make sense because Baptism of Blood has always meant martyrdom, and the thief on the cross was not being crucified for standing up for the Faith, so I'm not sure how that could actually be Baptism of Blood in that instance.

Does this mean that baptism is incapable of removing the temporal punishment due to sin and the baptised still have to atone for all their sins committed prior to baptism?
I believe that at least regular water Baptism remits all temporal punishment due to sin (not sure if Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood work the same way). In fact, I am almost positive of this fact because a friend of mine who is an inquirer of the Catholic faith will be a catechumen if he continues on with the classes. Since he will be Baptized when he enters the Catholic Church, he will not have to make a first confession before receiving the Eucharist. This suggests to me that everything is wiped clean because otherwise it would be advantageous to go to confession if for no other reason than for Sacramental Grace and to be assigned a penance.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 12:02:14 PM
/\  "As far back as the third century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage gave the explanation that the "good thief" was baptized in his own blood as a martyr, an opinion shared by Saint Jerome, while Saint Augustine of Hippo said that "the thief received the baptism of substitution ... through the faith and conversion of the heart, taking into account that circumstances made it impossible for him to celebrate the sacrament".[13]

"Augustine's explanation corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the existence of baptism by desire for those who would partake of the Sacrament if they could and experience a perfect desire to do all that pertains to salvation, but are prevented from receiving baptism by circumstances beyond their control, while Cyprian's corresponds to the same Church's teaching on baptism of blood for martyrs.[14]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 01:06:44 PM
/\  "As far back as the third century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage gave the explanation that the "good thief" was baptized in his own blood as a martyr, an opinion shared by Saint Jerome, while Saint Augustine of Hippo said that "the thief received the baptism of substitution ... through the faith and conversion of the heart, taking into account that circumstances made it impossible for him to celebrate the sacrament".[13]

"Augustine's explanation corresponds to the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the existence of baptism by desire for those who would partake of the Sacrament if they could and experience a perfect desire to do all that pertains to salvation, but are prevented from receiving baptism by circumstances beyond their control, while Cyprian's corresponds to the same Church's teaching on baptism of blood for martyrs.[14]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration

The thief being saved by Baptism of Desire makes perfect sense since he desired to follow Christ and would have been Baptized had he had the chance. The Baptism of Blood theory doesn't make sense to me because martyrdom implies someone is explicitly dying because of their faith. The good thief wasn't being crucified because he was a Christian so how could that be martyrdom?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 03:42:31 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 04:06:17 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 04:27:27 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.

How is any of this addressing the actual topic of the thread? 

Just curious...

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 04:32:03 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Do you forget that nothing other than grace purifies.  Whatever we say about purity it is grace that purifies us and nothing else.  All the metaphors in the world pale in the face of the reality.  If Christ chose to sanctify the good thief, who are we to jump through all these hoops trying to justify it.

There is a reason He told us the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 

We are not all treated equally.  Some struggle all their lives and never seem to make progress in sanctity.  Some visibly progress in sanctity while making it look easy.

This is precisely why one of the strongest monastic rules in practice is "Never compare."  If my spiritual father catches me comparing...there's hell t'pay!!...and I don't do that again for a long long time.

M.

How is any of this addressing the actual topic of the thread? 

Just curious...

M.
The question of Purgatory.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 06:57:29 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.
I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.

Given that you believe that there are some outside the visible confines of the Church who have all the Sacraments and even numerous others that do not but do have Baptism and Matrimony, even though they are not in union with the rock upon which the Church was founded, I don't really believe that you believe "there is no salvation outside the Church" as we understand it.

we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church

I don't see why not. Those of us who have maintained a conservative Cyprian ecclesiology do so, but doing so does not necessitate for us that those in this life who are without the Sacraments will necessarily be eternally damned.

To me, it makes a lot of sense.

Well, the idea of a legitimate Baptism outside the visible confines of the Church very much does not make sense to me.

This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

You are confusing the issues of ultimate fate and immediate legitimacy of Sacraments. We do not do that. We do not think that those who are outside the Church are certainly on their way to damnation, as if assuming that their journey is not leading them to union with the Church. However, we do not believe that there are Sacraments outside the Church. And believing the latter does not require us to believe that those without the Sacraments will surely eventually be damned.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 07:02:03 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.

I find Roman Catholic theology on sacraments outside their own Church inconsistent.

For example, they do not accept the validity of Anglican ordinations because the intention of the ordaining ministers is not in accord with the intention of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yet, they will accept the baptism of such as Baptists whose understanding of baptism and intention with baptism is even more askew and way outside Catholic understanding and intention.

If Anglicans lost ordination because of faulty and inadequate intention, why have Baptists not lost baptism?

*shrugs*

I think the whole system is logically inconsistent. They believe that the Church is founded on Peter as the Rock with the Roman bishop succeeding him in this role, and yet somehow there can be Sacraments outside of union with the Rock. That doesn't seem very "extra ecclesium nulla sallus" to me.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 07:03:41 PM
I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.

 ???

What in the blazes?

Protestants do not even believe in an intermediate state, usually.

That is something I normally hear from Byzantines.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 07:06:01 PM
The good thief wasn't being crucified because he was a Christian so how could that be martyrdom?

Perhaps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_bearer

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Passion-bearer
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 07:57:00 PM
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.
I'm not sure what you mean here. There is the visible confines of the Church, yet from the Catholic view, we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching is referred to as the "Baptism of Desire." To me, it makes a lot of sense. This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

That's sort of tangential. Your church does not recognize all other sects as merely Baptized, but rather recognizes certain others as having all of the Sacraments.
I think that the RCC recognises the Sacraments of the EO, OO, and some of the Old Catholic and Polish National Catholic Churches. Also, the RCC allows EO, OO to receive Holy Communion in the RCC.

Given that you believe that there are some outside the visible confines of the Church who have all the Sacraments and even numerous others that do not but do have Baptism and Matrimony, even though they are not in union with the rock upon which the Church was founded, I don't really believe that you believe "there is no salvation outside the Church" as we understand it.

we cannot exclude those who sincerely seek Christ yet, through no fault of their own, do not seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church

I don't see why not. Those of us who have maintained a conservative Cyprian ecclesiology do so, but doing so does not necessitate for us that those in this life who are without the Sacraments will necessarily be eternally damned.

To me, it makes a lot of sense.

Well, the idea of a legitimate Baptism outside the visible confines of the Church very much does not make sense to me.

This was one of the things that really drew me into the Catholic Church is that they do not take the normal hardline view that most Christian sects take that if you do not belong to our group you are certainly on your way to hell. Such a teaching always sickened me before I found the Catholic Church.

You are confusing the issues of ultimate fate and immediate legitimacy of Sacraments. We do not do that. We do not think that those who are outside the Church are certainly on their way to damnation, as if assuming that their journey is not leading them to union with the Church. However, we do not believe that there are Sacraments outside the Church. And believing the latter does not require us to believe that those without the Sacraments will surely eventually be damned.
I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 08:16:46 PM
I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.

Ah, so you affirm that there are legitimate Sacraments outside the visible confines of the Roman communion but not that there is salvation outside of it.

To me, the latter just seems to be a necessary logical implication of the former.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 08:28:22 PM
I don't think that the RC teaching concerns whether or not there is salvation outside the VISIBLE CONFINES of the (RC) Church.

Ah, so you affirm that there are legitimate Sacraments outside the visible confines of the Roman communion but not that there is salvation outside of it.

To me, the latter just seems to be a necessary logical implication of the former.
This is my understanding of it:
1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.
2.Yes, the EO, and the OO are outside the visible confines of the RCC.
3. There is salvation for those who are not officially registered at a local RCC. 
4. The tricky part is where the RCC says that the RCC is somehow involved (but not necessarily explicitly or visibly) in the salvation of everyone. I don't quite understand all of the nuances of this myself, except that I know that a Catholic priest, Father Feeney, was excommunicated when he said that the teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church must be taken literally.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 05, 2010, 08:31:51 PM
1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 08:46:17 PM
1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?
I am not a theologian, just someone trying to learn about my religion and Eastern Christianity.
But, if you want my opinion on it, then yes: "filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?" Yes.
The EO and the OO are considered by the RCC to be in an imperfect, somewhat schismatic union with the RCC, but all of their Sacraments are still valid because of Apostolic Succession and the EO and OO teaching on the Sacraments is a correct one.
BTW, the link to the article that Wyatt had posted above on the RC view of the EO Church is pretty good (here I am speaking from the RC POV). Maybe the article will be a help to understand the RC POV on it.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 06, 2010, 12:56:18 AM
1. As I already said, the Sacraments of the EO, OO, are valid, according to the RCC.

And you mean by that filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?
I am not a theologian, just someone trying to learn about my religion and Eastern Christianity.
But, if you want my opinion on it, then yes: "filled with sanctifying grace and efficacious for redemption?" Yes.
The EO and the OO are considered by the RCC to be in an imperfect, somewhat schismatic union with the RCC, but all of their Sacraments are still valid because of Apostolic Succession and the EO and OO teaching on the Sacraments is a correct one.
BTW, the link to the article that Wyatt had posted above on the RC view of the EO Church is pretty good (here I am speaking from the RC POV). Maybe the article will be a help to understand the RC POV on it.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html


Then it is as I said. That there is redemption outside of the visible confines of the Roman communion is a logical implication of the belief you just described.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 02:32:31 AM
Then it is as I said. That there is redemption outside of the visible confines of the Roman communion is a logical implication of the belief you just described.
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC. According to the RC decree on ecumenism: "...many and excellent things can exist
outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church: The written Word of God,
the life of grace, faith, hope and love, and other interior gifts of the
Holy Spirit and visible elements: all these things, which come from Christ
and lead to Him, belong to the one-only Church of Christ. Even not a few
sacred actions of the Christian religion are carried out among the brothers
separated from us. . . which beyond doubt can really generate the life of
grace, and are to be said to be apt to open the entry into the community of
salvation."
EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on August 06, 2010, 07:27:24 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 08:06:16 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?





Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 09:26:21 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.   

Some of them are even accurate.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 09:41:47 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 09:56:08 AM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:15:30 AM

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...


Starting with the sack of Constantinople and continuing with the creation of the Unia in various Orthodox countries which was intended to destroy Orthodoxy internally, the Orthodox have been aware of nothing but hatred from the Roman Popes.   They would have never expected the Popes to act justly towards them.  Their whole history of contact with the Popes and the Vatican was always detrimental for the Orthodox.

Quote
were taken to the west for safe keeping...

This is one of Catholicism's oft-repeated lies.

"Yes, we held a Crusade and sacked your Churches and looted all your precious things.  But we did it to keep them safe...  Yes, we did this in the year 1204 AD.... Yes, the Turks did not attack your city until 1453.  Yes, we know that was a whole 250 years later.  But we are all clairvoyant in Rome and knew that 250 years down the track the Turks would conquer your city."

Utter piffle!


Today's scenario..... "Yes, Your Holiness," says Vladimir Putin to Benedict XVI, "we are sending our Russian troops to Rome to take away all your religious and artistic treasures and bring them to Russia.  You don't realise it, but we know that in 250 years, in 2260, Italy will be conquered by the Muslims.  So we are doing this to keep your treasures and holy things safe."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 10:24:06 AM

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...


Starting with the sack of Constantinople and continuing with the creation of the Unia in various Orthodox countries which was intended to destroy Orthodoxy internally, the Orthodox have been aware of nothing but hatred from the Roman Popes.   They would have never expected the Popes to act justly towards them.  Their whole history of contact with the Popes and the Vatican was always detrimental for the Orthodox.

Quote
were taken to the west for safe keeping...

This is one of Catholicism's oft-repeated lies.

"Yes, we held a Crusade and sacked your Churches and looted all your precious things.  But we did it to keep them safe...  Yes, we did this in the year 1204 AD.... Yes, the Turks did not attack your city until 1453.  Yes, we know that was a whole 250 years later.  But we are all clairvoyant in Rome and knew that 250 years down the track the Turks would conquer your city."

Utter piffle!


Today's scenario..... "Yes, Your Holiness," says Vladimir Putin to Benedict XVI, "we are sending our Russian troops to Rome to take away all your religious and artistic treasures and bring them to Russia.  You don't realise it, but we know that in 250 years, in 2260, Italy will be conquered by the Muslims.  So we are doing this to keep your treasures and holy things safe."

The record shows that there are artifacts in the west that were taken to the west by eastern clergy sent by bishops and secular heads of state.  These are verifiable facts.

Perhaps you need to revise your "Piffle"

And you have not addressed the issues that prompted the sack of Constantinople in the first place.

There are actual histories of the Crusades, written from the documentary evidences.

Byzantium was not a babe in the woods, there to be taken advantage of.  The actual histories tell a very interesting story.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:43:59 AM


The record shows that there are artifacts in the west that were taken to the west by eastern clergy sent by bishops and secular heads of state.  These are verifiable facts.


I will not argue with you about that.  A small number of sacred objects and relics were indeed sent to the West.  For example there is the Sanctum Prepucium.  It was sent to Charlemagne as a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irena.  Once a year it was carried in worship through the streets of the Italian town of Calcata.  This unfortunately came to an end in 1983 when thieves stole the precious relic, most certainly because of the great value of the reliquary which held it.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 06, 2010, 11:13:44 AM
I'm sorry, elijahmaria, but are you really blaming the victim?  You might as well say that the woman who was wearing suggestive clothing was asking be violated and gang raped.

There were certainly viable political and martial reasons why Constantinople was attacked, but the looting that followed and subsequent denial to return artifacts and relics are no better than Mel Gibson's recent rant to the mother of his youngest child about her suggestive clothing and what is going to happen to her.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 11:39:50 AM
I'm sorry, elijahmaria, but are you really blaming the victim?  You might as well say that the woman who was wearing suggestive clothing was asking be violated and gang raped.

There were certainly viable political and martial reasons why Constantinople was attacked, but the looting that followed and subsequent denial to return artifacts and relics are no better than Mel Gibson's recent rant to the mother of his youngest child about her suggestive clothing and what is going to happen to her.

You are right.  The western armies went well beyond the lines of just warfare.  But the idea that they barbarously attacked for no good reason seems to have far more currency in some circles, than does the telling of the whole story.

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Character witnesses are indeed useful and necessary to both the prosecution and the defense.  Otherwise there is no guilt or innocence...just partisanship.  People don't work that way in this fallen world.

The history of Byzantium is not the history of a poor defenseless holy land beset upon by all and sundry...especially the evil west.

Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on August 06, 2010, 12:06:06 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 12:10:38 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purifications of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo purgation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Orthodoc on August 06, 2010, 01:52:03 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purification of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo legation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary

And will you also leave to the members and a good library how the Greek Orthodox Icon now known in the west as 'Our Lady Of perpetual Help'  miraculously (according to the husband and wife team on EWTN) appeared in Rome after it was STOLEN from a Greek Orthodox Church on one of the Greek islands?  This Icon had nothing to do with  the sack of Constantinople. 

And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 01:56:57 PM


And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc

Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world, where there is, of course, no acceptable satisfaction...only the claim of spotless innocence.

Well...have at it and enjoy yourself while you are able.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 06:41:18 PM
Perhaps the thief had no need for the purification of Purgatory because his ordeal on the cross and properly prepared him for heaven. Or perhaps the experience of the cross was so severe that his time in purgatory was so short that he would still enter into heaven on that very day. Perhaps Christ himself decided to allow the thief to bypass purgatory, as is the case with full indulgences. Who knows? I am not Christ.
Amen. It seems quite plausible that the cross would have been the thief's Purgatory. I can't picture him still having to endure anything after death after going through that. However, as you said, we can't know for sure. Since we don't know the mind and heart of God we can only speculate. Also though, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that Christ did not say "heaven" but rather "paradise." To say that the thief did not undergo legation would be to interpret the word "paradise" to absolutely mean heaven, yet did Christ mean heaven when he said paradise? I have even heard Protestants say that when terms like "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" are used in Scripture it is referring to an intermediate state.
It raises a question about restitution. Generally, if someone steals $1000 and confesses it, you are still obligated to give restitution. Suppose you had confessed, but did not give restitution, and then you had died while engaging in some charitable work, still because there was no restitution, you would have to undergo purgatory for a while, wouldn't you, because the person you stole from is still out the $1000 ?

Kind of like the RCC and the 4th Crusade!

Orthodoc

It's an interesting point.

This article by Nicholas Cooke "The Sack of Constantinople" http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html will give Catholics an idea of the enormous amount of sacred things stolen from the Church of Constantinople and now held in various major cathedrals around the Roman Catholic Church in mainly Italy and France.

If Stan's position is right then the Popes and other high Catholic clergy holding on to stolen property are in Purgatory and presumably will remain there until such time as full restitution is made.  This would include even Pope John Paul since he followed the example of his predecessors and refused to return the property.  He did return some of the relics of Saint John Chrysostiom and Saint Basil but compared to what he held on to this is a pittance.

An interesting point, and thanks to Stan for bringing it up.

Maybe Catholics have an expiry date for restitution?  Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?


There are any number of histories of the Crusades.    

Some of them are even accurate.


You cannot brush aside the accuracy of the article on the Sack of Constantinople with such a glib statement.

It lists the sacred relics and other items stolen from Constantinople.

It tells you precisely in what Roman Catholic Church they may be seen today.

You can check the accuracy of what is reported simply by, for example, visiting La Sainte Chapelle in Paris to venerate the Crown of Thorns stolen from Constantinople by Roman Catholics.

You can visit the cathedral at Venice and gaze upon the numerous wonderful things stolen from Constantinople.  It is overflowing with them.

You can wander the Vatican museums and see Orthodoxy's sacred things on display.

No inaccuracy, Mary.  You can go and check these things for yourself.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html

However horrific the sack, the article says nothing about what prompted the sack does it?

Best to get whole stories and not parts of them.

The question I have in return is why have not the Orthodox demanded back those items and artifacts that were taken to the west for safe keeping...and how do Orthodox article writers tell the difference?
Mary

Mary, Mary, Mary!  Surely you jest!  It's amazing to what lengths some Roman Catholics will go to justify the misdeeds of their church!  It was greed that prompted the sack.  If not, how about giving us your version?  I'd love to hear it.

Orthodoc

That I'll leave to the members and a good library. 

And no.  I never jest about such serious matters.

Mary

And will you also leave to the members and a good library how the Greek Orthodox Icon now known in the west as 'Our Lady Of perpetual Help'  miraculously (according to the husband and wife team on EWTN) appeared in Rome after it was STOLEN from a Greek Orthodox Church on one of the Greek islands?  This Icon had nothing to do with  the sack of Constantinople. 

And, has the RCC degenerated to such a degree that it no longer is aware that the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal' is one of the ten given gto us by God?  Or has the RCC changed the definition of what theft is to justify this as well as the deeds done against Orthodoxy in the fourth crusade?  Does it have to be reminded by we Orthodox that it is wrong to steal and restitution is not necessary?  Just empty meaningless apologies.

Orthodoc
I agree that restitution is necessary. I have brought this up on other forums, such as CAF, and from time to time, but not always, I get a message from the moderator, that I have received a warning for violating the policy of the forum against having an agenda.
One of the responses mentioned something about a problem determining who has the title to the property at the present time.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 06:54:17 PM

 Or maybe the Popes are exempt and avoid Purgatory?

No. No one is exempt. And isn't there a book by Dante implying that there may be some Popes in hell?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 06, 2010, 07:08:30 PM
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 07:35:25 PM
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 06, 2010, 07:41:44 PM
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 08:34:40 PM
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Because the OP concerns the RC view of EO.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 06, 2010, 08:49:33 PM
I think that a RCC theologian might say that non-Catholics can be saved as individuals who make use of the means of sanctification that they are able to find outside the visible confines of the RCC.

Yes, and again, that confirms what I said. If there even are "means of sanctification" outside of the visible confines of the Church then there is salvation outside the visible confines of the Church.

Someone with a more traditional Cyprian ecclesiology, on the contrary, would say that there are no "means of sanctification" outside the visible confines of the Church.

EO Bishop Kallistos Ware said this about the doctrine:

I've become less and less interested in what he has to say over the years.
One thing which may be worthwhile to keep in mind on this is that according to the RCC teaching, there is imperfect union between the RCC and EO (and OO) Churches.

How is that significant?
Because the OP concerns the RC view of EO.

So then it's not significant to the discussion about RC ecclesiology resembling Branch Theory?
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:11:50 PM

Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

Then call us uneducated, call us unintelligent and do not speak well of us.

I can imagine no history book which does not speak of the rape of Constantinople with great horror.  Nothing can justify it.

Our nuns were raped and killed.  Our clergy were killed.  The populace was killed.  It is said that the Bosphorus was red with the amount of blood.   Our churches were despoiled and violated.  The great palaces were looted.

The looting of Constantinople continued for SIXTY years!     It was a city such as the world had never seen before in its grandeur and riches.  It took the Italians sixty years to manage to loot everything they wanted.

Can you imagine if the Russians came into Rome today, raped and killed your nuns and priests and populace, and stayed there to loot for sixty years.... of course, only with the intention of rescuing the splendid things of Rome from a future attack by Muslims in 2260.

Read the history.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:18:07 PM

Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 11:57:54 PM

Black Hat-White Hat history in this dialogue of Catholic and Orthodox just won't hold water in the real world, and one simply does not see things being presented that way among educated men and women of both sides...You just don't see it because it would be wrong to do that and would not speak well of the intelligence of either party or both parties.

Then call us uneducated, call us unintelligent and do not speak well of us.

I can imagine no history book which does not speak of the rape of Constantinople with great horror.  Nothing can justify it.

Our nuns were raped and killed.  Our clergy were killed.  The populace was killed.  It is said that the Bosphorus was red with the amount of blood.   Our churches were despoiled and violated.  The great palaces were looted.

The looting of Constantinople continued for SIXTY years!     It was a city such as the world had never seen before in its grandeur and riches.  It took the Italians sixty years to manage to loot everything they wanted.

Can you imagine if the Russians came into Rome today, raped and killed your nuns and priests and populace, and stayed there to loot for sixty years.... of course, only with the intention of rescuing the splendid things of Rome from a future attack by Muslims in 2260.

Read the history.

"The Sack of Constantinople"
http://aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
Yes. It was horrific and totally wrong. Are there suggestions as to what the average Roman Catholic today could do to somehow make amends for the sins of the Fourth Crusade? And as well, for the sins of the Ustase in WWII?
BTW, from an Eastern Christian standpoint, is it considered that the massacre of the Latins in 1182 was justified, at least to some small extent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 12:16:51 AM
So then it's not significant to the discussion about RC ecclesiology resembling Branch Theory?
Maybe you are right on that point.
Anyway, with reference as to how the RCC views the EO, there is a citation from the CCC:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 12:26:50 AM
/\  /\  1182 -  riots and mayhem... Italians fighting Italians in Constantinople, Venetians against Pisans against Genoans, and then the Greeks taking up the fight.... all about big business and profits and greed.

It is not as if the Italians were unaccustomed to periodic slaughter in Constantinople.  It was always the Italian groups slaughtering other Italian groups in the city  - Italians from Pisa and Venice and Genoa slaughtering each other's colonies.  It was the Greek army which had to come in and put a halt to these slaughters.

So, no, it was not justified for the Greeks to slaughter Italians but there is no denying that such inter-Italian events were not uncommon.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 12:33:35 AM

Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886

Again I say it is a shame that any Pope has chosen to open the faithful to this kind of spit-in-the-eye!!

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 12:34:27 AM
/\  /\  1182 -  riots and mayhem... Italians fighting Italians in Constantinople, Venetians against Pisans against Genoans, and then the Greeks taking up the fight.... all about big business and profits and greed.

It is not as if the Italians were unaccustomed to periodic slaughter in Constantinople.  It was always the Italian groups slaughtering other Italian groups in the city  - Italians from Pisa and Venice and Genoa slaughtering each other's colonies.  It was the Greek army which had to come in and put a halt to these slaughters.

So, no, it was not justified for the Greeks to slaughter Italians but there is no denying that such inter-Italian events were not uncommon.


I think this attitude was turned around very nicely in the Balkans, don't you?

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 12:49:44 AM

Indeed.  There are times when I too am very sorry that any of our Popes have offered apologies to the Orthodox world...


The apologies are another great Roman Catholic work of deception foisted on the world.  If you go back and do the research at the time the apologies were made, you will see that the Orthodox were not taken in by them.

The pseudo-apologies of Pope John Paul II, carefully crafted by Cardinal Ratzinger.

See message 48 and others in this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27715.msg437886.html#msg437886

Again I say it is a shame that any Pope has chosen to open the faithful to this kind of spit-in-the-eye!!

M.

Those apologies are a mockery.

The Pope never said:  "Dear Orthodox, forgive the atrocities which members of  my Church have committed against you over the centuries."

Instead he prayed to God:  "Lord forgive the Catholic boys."

No apologies but just a request for God to forgive the Catholic guilty.

Do the research and especially look for the information where Ratzinger tells John Paul NOT to issue apologies such as the first example above.  Ratzinger saw it as weakening the moral authority of the Catholic Church and he took the wording of the apologies in hand and skillfully worded them to avoid any apology but to give the appearance of an apology.   The news media saw what they were expecting -apologies; the Orthodox were not fooled.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: John Larocque on August 07, 2010, 01:16:48 AM
Fr. Ambrose, methinks you are setting the bar too high. "Dear Orthodox, forgive the atrocities which members of my Church have committed against you over the centuries." If you are talking about offenses that have occurred with the living memory - say three or four generations - absolutely, apologies are fair game. Above and beyond that, real and concrete things would also include steps by the Vatican to reduce the doctrinal and liturgical dissonance between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and symbolic gestures (return of icons and relics, for example). But at some level it becomes a redundant exercise. Nobody is alive today who is in a position to forgive, centuries after the fact, offenses committed by people who died centuries ago. One cannot apologize for them or on their behalf, nor can one forgive their offenses. Only the dead can forgive them, and God.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 07:08:07 AM
. Nobody is alive today who is in a position to forgive, centuries after the fact, offenses committed by people who died centuries ago. One cannot apologize for them or on their behalf,

That would seem to be another facet of this trickery then- the Pope pretending he was able to apologise for the acts of those long dead men of blood and violence.

But I am not sure if you are right.  I have been the recipient of an apology from a family whose grandfather did a great wrong to my grandmother.   They offered the apology sincerely and I accepted it in the same spirit.  All of us being Irish, further details are unclear since the reconciliation was celebrated with many a toast.



Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: John Larocque on August 07, 2010, 10:55:03 AM
That would seem to be another facet of this trickery then- the Pope pretending he was able to apologise for the acts of those long dead men of blood and violence.

But I am not sure if you are right.  I have been the recipient of an apology from a family whose grandfather did a great wrong to my grandmother.   They offered the apology sincerely and I accepted it in the same spirit.  All of us being Irish, further details are unclear since the reconciliation was celebrated with many a toast.

Your family story falls within what I call "living memory" - withing three or four or even five generations . I think that once some offenses pass from living memory to ancient history, any apologies or remonstrations become academic.

The call to "reverse history" is often amusing. I read on one page about a movement to reverse 800-year old changes to the English language by avoiding the use of Latin words and treating them as "foreign" elements to be cleansed from the vocabulary.

 
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 07, 2010, 05:28:27 PM
If our Church still possessions items that we stole from the Orthodox during or shortly after the Schism then I definitely agree that they should be returned as an act of kindness, but it seems ridiculous to expect the modern day Pope or modern day Catholics to apologize for something we didn't do. The events and people we are talking about are long gone. That's as ridiculous to me as the idea of apologizing to the Native Americans for the Trail of Tears or apologizing to African Americans for slavery. That would be us apologizing for something we had no control of because it was before our time.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: John Larocque on August 07, 2010, 06:23:47 PM
This is not so much the  RC view of the Orthodox Church, but rather, the views of the current pontiff on the Pentarchy. Fr. Z's blog today discussed why he dropped the title "Patriarch of the West".

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/#comments

Quote
The title “patriarch” (in the form of “Patriarch of Rome”) was first employed in 642, by Pope Theodore I. Rome never accepted the Eastern theory of the “pentarchy,” and really, never has done so (except in the fairly minor sense of the “order of precedence” of the five major sees, and that only at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215); and it has formed no part of the “self-conceit” of the See of Rome. I have always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less.

Quote
William is completely right. Joseph Ratzinger wrote about this topic in Rahner/Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, Quaestiones disputatae 11 (Herder 1961), p. 55 s (my own translation): “The principle of patriarchy is post constantinian, it has an administrative sense. [...] The roman claim [Anspruch] undertands itself from the original theological motive of the sedes apostolica. [...] To the same extent the “New Rome” made unclear the old idea of sedes apostolica in favour of the notion of patriarchy, the “Old Rome” strenghened the reference to the totally different origin and character of its own authority. This authority is in fact totally different from a primacy of honour among patriarchs, because it is situated on a different level, which is completely independent from such administrative concepts.”

Quote
So if I understand William and Reflector correctly the Pope of Rome dropped the title Patriarch of the West because in his understanding the title Patriarch is below him and not part of Latin Christianity’s understanding of the Roman see’s jurisdiction? Was dropping this a way for him to try and assert Rome’s understanding of universal primacy?

Quote
Yes, it is an assertion of universal primacy, but not necessarily in a “juridical” (Ratzinger: “administrative”) sense. Ratzinger wrote (loc. cit. 56): “It (sc. the “sedes of Peter and Paul”) is the norm (“Norm”) of all apostolic succession. Therefore all bishops are referred to Rome (“auf Rom verwiesen”), only the conection with Rome creates for them the catholicity and that fullness of apostolicity, without which they are no true bishops. Without community with Rome one cannot be within the “Catholica”. [...] On the other hand, the see of Rome does not stand in itself without reference to others (“steht nicht beziehungslos in sich selbst”). It creates catholicity for the others, but just for this reason, it needs catholicity. [...] Just as it (the see of Rome) authenticates (“verbürgt”) catholicity, the (real) catholicity authenticates it. Just as the others, in order to be catholic, need its apostolic testimony, it (the Roman see) needs the testimony of real fullness, to remain true (“um wahr zu bleiben”). [...] A pope who excommunicates the whole episcopacy does not exist and cannot exist, because a church, which would only be roman, would not be catholic. [...] The correct meaning of catholicity includes both: the universal claim of the pope, and the inner limitation of this claim, which remains bound to the substantial norm of fullness (Wesensgesetz der Fülle”) and, by that, to the ius divinum of the bishops.”
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 07, 2010, 07:09:07 PM
but it seems ridiculous to expect the modern day Pope or modern day Catholics to apologize for something we didn't do.

As much as this puts me at odds with many fellow Eastern Christians, I do agree with you to some extent. I do think that they inappropriately hold onto grudges of the ancestors who committed these crimes and inappropriately apply their grudges to the descendants who now really had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, I do think that in some cases that descendants are capable of atoning for the sins of their ancestors to some extent. So perhaps neither party is really acting entirely appropriately. But I would actually say it is more so those who hold the grudges who are.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 07, 2010, 07:10:51 PM
This is not so much the  RC view of the Orthodox Church, but rather, the views of the current pontiff on the Pentarchy. Fr. Z's blog today discussed why he dropped the title "Patriarch of the West".

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/#comments

Quote
The title “patriarch” (in the form of “Patriarch of Rome”) was first employed in 642, by Pope Theodore I. Rome never accepted the Eastern theory of the “pentarchy,” and really, never has done so (except in the fairly minor sense of the “order of precedence” of the five major sees, and that only at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215); and it has formed no part of the “self-conceit” of the See of Rome. I have always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less.

Quote
William is completely right. Joseph Ratzinger wrote about this topic in Rahner/Ratzinger, Episkopat und Primat, Quaestiones disputatae 11 (Herder 1961), p. 55 s (my own translation): “The principle of patriarchy is post constantinian, it has an administrative sense. [...] The roman claim [Anspruch] undertands itself from the original theological motive of the sedes apostolica. [...] To the same extent the “New Rome” made unclear the old idea of sedes apostolica in favour of the notion of patriarchy, the “Old Rome” strenghened the reference to the totally different origin and character of its own authority. This authority is in fact totally different from a primacy of honour among patriarchs, because it is situated on a different level, which is completely independent from such administrative concepts.”

Quote
So if I understand William and Reflector correctly the Pope of Rome dropped the title Patriarch of the West because in his understanding the title Patriarch is below him and not part of Latin Christianity’s understanding of the Roman see’s jurisdiction? Was dropping this a way for him to try and assert Rome’s understanding of universal primacy?

Quote
Yes, it is an assertion of universal primacy, but not necessarily in a “juridical” (Ratzinger: “administrative”) sense. Ratzinger wrote (loc. cit. 56): “It (sc. the “sedes of Peter and Paul”) is the norm (“Norm”) of all apostolic succession. Therefore all bishops are referred to Rome (“auf Rom verwiesen”), only the conection with Rome creates for them the catholicity and that fullness of apostolicity, without which they are no true bishops. Without community with Rome one cannot be within the “Catholica”. [...] On the other hand, the see of Rome does not stand in itself without reference to others (“steht nicht beziehungslos in sich selbst”). It creates catholicity for the others, but just for this reason, it needs catholicity. [...] Just as it (the see of Rome) authenticates (“verbürgt”) catholicity, the (real) catholicity authenticates it. Just as the others, in order to be catholic, need its apostolic testimony, it (the Roman see) needs the testimony of real fullness, to remain true (“um wahr zu bleiben”). [...] A pope who excommunicates the whole episcopacy does not exist and cannot exist, because a church, which would only be roman, would not be catholic. [...] The correct meaning of catholicity includes both: the universal claim of the pope, and the inner limitation of this claim, which remains bound to the substantial norm of fullness (Wesensgesetz der Fülle”) and, by that, to the ius divinum of the bishops.”


As a side comment, I would say that the Pentarchy is equally if not more so foreign to Oriental Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: theistgal on August 08, 2010, 08:25:30 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

You do have this disturbing tendency, Mary, to blame the victim and excuse the criminals - in sexual matters as well as in matters involving our Church's unfortunate historical sins.

No woman deserves to be raped, and the people of Constantinople did not deserve to be be attacked.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 08, 2010, 08:52:34 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 09:11:43 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.

Absolutely!!  I have many friends who think I am a prude.  They tell me that women should be able to walk down the street naked and expect not to be touched...not even looked at!!

True.  That can happen.  In the societies that I've experienced where women spend a good part of the day partially dressed, the penalties for rape are death and dismemberment.  There are no long court trials and the judgment and penalties are very often meted out with the same hour or two of any given day.

So yes.  There surely are places in the world where a woman may walk unclothed without any qualms.

Are you ready for that here?  Does that suit your morality?

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 09:19:27 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 08, 2010, 09:33:39 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

This is indeed disturbing. The defining distinction in the matter of rape is whether there was consent or not; nothing else.

Absolutely!!  I have many friends who think I am a prude.  They tell me that women should be able to walk down the street naked and expect not to be touched...not even looked at!!

True.  That can happen.  In the societies that I've experienced where women spend a good part of the day partially dressed, the penalties for rape are death and dismemberment.  There are no long court trials and the judgment and penalties are very often meted out with the same hour or two of any given day.

So yes.  There surely are places in the world where a woman may walk unclothed without any qualms.

Are you ready for that here?  Does that suit your morality?

Mary

Obviously I would be ready for it. It would not rouse my passions in the slightest.

Does it suit my morality? It depends. If I were in a society where that was simply the norm and women did it because they had a natural liberty to do so and because it was comfortable, it would very much fit my morality. I believe that the (Post)Impressionist painter Paul Gauguin was put in a similar situation when he went to French Polynesia; many of his paintings include Polynesian women very casually depicted in half-nude attire. I don't see how this attitude would be incompatible with my morality.

If I was in a society like I am in right now, I don't really think most women who dress in a skimpy fashion do so for the same motivations. If they did it for the natural primitive motivations, I would think it quite awkward for women to dress in such an upfront, nude manner; I would be able to handle it probably, but I'm sure enough people wouldn't that it wouldn't work out. But like I said, that's not an issue of morality. If, on the other hand, women were to do it in a underhanded and provocative manner for very different motivations as is common in Western society, I will admit that that does not fit my morality. I don't want women to be dressing that way, though I certainly wouldn't attempt to force clothes on them, and I also would hope to still treat them with humane decency.

But I don't see how this is connected to the issue of rape, as it would seem you connected it in the above first quoted post. If a woman were to dress lightly in the natural primitive fashion, or even in the provocative modern Western fashion, in either case I don't see how that should in any way be viewed as a justification for raping that women. I don't see how it should at all change the ruling in a case where that woman is raped. The woman either gives consent or not. And if she does not, it is up to the other to choose whether to respect her denial or not; the crime is only in choosing not to respect her denial.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 08, 2010, 09:35:30 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 09:51:54 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: deusveritasest on August 08, 2010, 10:06:52 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far.  

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

No, we were referring to the second part of the sentence.

You said: "a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case."

And then you said: "And rightly so."

The most apparent meaning of that is that you think it is right for a jury to change its decision concerning whether or not a women was raped on the basis of whether she was wearing skimpy clothing or not.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: theistgal on August 08, 2010, 10:09:10 PM
Your own statements are what they are, Mary.  Others have seen the same things I have commented on.  If the moderator believes I have unfairly attacked you, I will of course apologize.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 08, 2010, 10:35:49 PM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

Um, no.  As deusveritasest point out, your own commentary, "And rightly so," leaves one with the impression that you agree with what judges and juries do with the information of what a woman was wearing when she was raped.

They are right quite right to question the intention behind the final sentence of your post. 

And it is plainly arrogant and conceited for you to accuse them of sin for merely asking you a question.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 12:14:05 AM
The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?


This is nearly sinful.  Don't you ever force words in my mouth like this again...not even suggestively.  You are a pushy woman and I don't like that kind of behavior in a man or a woman.  It is an emotional rape that you inflict without any qualms at all and you've done it to me several times in the last hour.   You can stop any time you choose.

Mary

I don't know that what she was asking was all that far off from what you actually seem to have suggested. You said yourself that you thought it was for changing the considering of a case of rape on the basis of whether the woman was wearing skimpy clothing or not. That just seems like madness to me.

Perhaps you've never sat in on rape cases in courts where the judges use the disposition of the woman in meeting out sentences...eh?

Besides I said it has impact...and that is ALL I have said so far. 

I have left the elaborations up to you and theistgal but when you attribute it to me, when I have said nothing like what you are saying I said, then I will tell you to back off...please.

M.

Um, no.  As deusveritasest point out, your own commentary, "And rightly so," leaves one with the impression that you agree with what judges and juries do with the information of what a woman was wearing when she was raped.

They are right quite right to question the intention behind the final sentence of your post. 

And it is plainly arrogant and conceited for you to accuse them of sin for merely asking you a question.

It is sinful to falsely attribute.  One can attribute with a ? just as easily as with a .

Are they actually sinners?  Who knows.  Above my paygrade.  But objectively false attribution is sin.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: theistgal on August 09, 2010, 12:19:45 AM
I attributed nothing to you that was "objectively false" - I quoted your own words.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 12:29:35 AM
I attributed nothing to you that was "objectively false" - I quoted your own words.

You attributed meaning to my words that went far above anything that I was trying to say and then mocked me about it again on another thread.

The least you could do is back off...but you feel emboldened now so I suppose even that is too much to expect.

What would make you happy?...eh?

What words would you like me to allow you now to put in my mouth?

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 09, 2010, 02:11:43 AM
No where in the USA, at least, can a judge or jury take into account what a woman was wearing as it is irrelavant. Consent is all that matters. She can be nude or even lead the man on, however, no is no and that is it. Men are not mindless animals if they decide to violate a woman, her lack of clothing is not considered a defense in an american court. Of course you may reside in a different country /culture.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 08:26:27 AM
No where in the USA, at least, can a judge or jury take into account what a woman was wearing as it is irrelavant. Consent is all that matters. She can be nude or even lead the man on, however, no is no and that is it. Men are not mindless animals if they decide to violate a woman, her lack of clothing is not considered a defense in an american court. Of course you may reside in a different country /culture.

LOL...I live in the good old USA and trust me, when it comes to punishment, mitigating circumstances still mean something in America.   Right or wrong, what one does or even what one is perceived to be doing, to have done....counts.

When mitigating circumstances stop counting then you can be pretty sure morality is dead here and it really is time to move.

Mary
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: theistgal on August 09, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Then please give us a specific, recent (i.e., within the last 20 years) of an actual court case in which an accused rapist in the U.S. was found "not guilty" by a judge or jury specifically based on what the victim was wearing at the time of the attack.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 10:02:53 AM
Then please give us a specific, recent (i.e., within the last 20 years) of an actual court case in which an accused rapist in the U.S. was found "not guilty" by a judge or jury specifically based on what the victim was wearing at the time of the attack.

I told you yesterday that is not what I am saying.  You are attributing things that are not said or intended.  In fact now I have been VERY specific about what I mean and you are continuing to extend what I am talking about into saying something that you want to talk about.

Ok.

So talk about it...but don't attribute it to me or try to use me to poke off on your own bunny trail. 

Here in the county where I live there are always character witnesses called in rape cases, particularly date rape.  And what those character witnesses have to say credibly has a direct bearing on SENTENCING...I have never spoken of guilt or innocence.  I have said here very distinctily AND I"LL SAY IT AGAIN...circumstances do have and I think should have an EFFECT ON CONSEQUENCES...not guilt, but I am aware of cases where they also affected guilt. 

Must be them rednecks and their durned Bibles, Guns and Beer!!

 :P

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 09, 2010, 10:09:01 AM
All this bickering could all be avoided if you would merely explain what you meant by your comment, "And rightly so."  That is the crux of our confusion.

We all apologize for being so far beneath you both intellectually and spiritually that we need such extra clarity.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 10:13:53 AM
All this bickering could all be avoided if you would merely explain what you meant by your comment, "And rightly so."  That is the crux of our confusion.

We all apologize for being so far beneath you both intellectually and spiritually that we need such extra clarity.

Thanks for asking in a pleasant way that did not accuse in any way or mock me or put me on the defensive or attribute some sort of strange morality to me.  I cannot tell you...more...how much I appreciated those responses as well as your principled defense of them.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 09, 2010, 10:18:32 AM
I think your own words are enough of an indictment against you in this thread at this point.  There's no point in attempting to discuss this issue with you further; your mind is made up.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 10:32:30 AM
I think your own words are enough of an indictment against you in this thread at this point.  There's no point in attempting to discuss this issue with you further; your mind is made up.



I'd be happy to discuss the substance of sexual morality any time.  But I won't be overridden and have ideas attributed to me that are not mine.  I have enough trouble with the ideas that ARE mine...thank you veddy much.

M.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 09, 2010, 10:38:08 AM
For those just joining us, how we got to the present:

Poster A: I said something.

Poster B:  Really?  When you said that, did you mean THIS?

Poster A: HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT I MEANT THIS!  

Poster C:  But, I think you might have meant THIS, too.  Is that what you meant?

Poster A:  YOUR WORDS ARE SINFUL!  I NEVER MEANT THIS!

Poster D:  But, what did you mean?

Poster A:  I AM NOT GOING TO ANSWER THESE SINFUL ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME!  

Poster D:  But if you told us what you meant by "something," all the confusion would cease.  We are thick.  Help us understand.

Poster A:  I DONT HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT MY OWN WORDS BUT WILL GLADLY TALK ABOUT OTHER TANGENTIAL THINGS.

Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 10:52:50 AM
This note from theistgal cannot really be considered an inquiry in good faith...can it?

I mean she tells me quite plainly about my disturbing tendency, not only to blame victims but to excuse criminals!!

You'd need to come up with some pretty clear texts of mine to make that accusation stick in any meaningful way.

Till then I will continue to say that there were words and ideas shoved into my mouth without just cause.

And I will thank you again, for supporting theistgal.

It let's me know how little you think of me...and how distorted the vision.

It is always good to be able to anticipate the best  :laugh:

Mary

The fact that there was indeed provocation does change the impact of the story just as a woman wearing highly suggestive clothing does change the judge or jury's decision in a rape or attempted rape case.  And rightly so.

Why "rightly"?  Do you believe that a woman wearing "highly suggestive clothing" deserves to be raped?

You do have this disturbing tendency, Mary, to blame the victim and excuse the criminals - in sexual matters as well as in matters involving our Church's unfortunate historical sins.

No woman deserves to be raped, and the people of Constantinople did not deserve to be be attacked.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Schultz on August 09, 2010, 10:57:42 AM
And yet, at least two posters have zeroed in on the "And rightly so" comment and only that comment. 

And you continue to ignore them.

It's quite nice to see how little your opinion is of the rest of us, as well.

Good day, madam.
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 11:02:45 AM
And yet, at least two posters have zeroed in on the "And rightly so" comment and only that comment. 

And you continue to ignore them.

It's quite nice to see how little your opinion is of the rest of us, as well.

Good day, madam.

I never ignore people who treat me kindly.  I do tend not to yield to those who do not.

Mary the Madam

 :angel:
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2010, 01:24:51 PM
So anyway....about the Roman Catholic view of the Orthodox Church........  :P
Title: Re: Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church
Post by: theistgal on August 09, 2010, 01:29:34 PM
Good question, Wyatt!  :)   I think basically the RC believes the EO is a true Church, or at least part of the true Church - i.e., they have Apostolic succession, valid orders & sacraments, etc.