OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on March 13, 2010, 12:41:07 AM

Title: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on March 13, 2010, 12:41:07 AM
I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church?  when I was still very confused on whether to go the Roman Catholic route or the Eastern Orthodox route, I was advised on fisheaters (triditional catholic forum) to attend an Eastern Catholic church. 

(just so you all know, I am not active on that forum any longer, and am now known by them as the resident "Ortho-troll".)

but what REALLY is the difference?  I know they believe in the papacy, but what else?  I viewed this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYk5gMmET4  and there are a few things that are firmilliar.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: SolEX01 on March 13, 2010, 01:17:20 AM
I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church?  when I was still very confused on whether to go the Roman Catholic route or the Eastern Orthodox route, I was advised on fisheaters (triditional catholic forum) to attend an Eastern Catholic church. 

(just so you all know, I am not active on that forum any longer, and am now known by them as the resident "Ortho-troll".)

but what REALLY is the difference?  I know they believe in the papacy, but what else?  I viewed this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGYk5gMmET4  and there are a few things that are firmilliar.

Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.  Others can expound on the differences as needed.   :)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Andrew21091 on March 13, 2010, 01:20:19 AM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: SolEX01 on March 13, 2010, 01:32:37 AM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

100% of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?   ???
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on March 13, 2010, 01:41:06 AM
100% of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?   ???

Some, like the Melkites, try to weasel out of it, but they are bound to.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: basilthefool on March 13, 2010, 08:56:15 AM
In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference. This is the shocking truth. (I refuse to fight battles that occurred two hundred years ago or more.)

The sermon might reference some comment or document from the Vatican, but I suspect that is rare. As to commemorating the Pope, many Orthodox Churches commemorate a Patriarch (or other 'ruling Bishop') as well as a their local Bishop. Neither case demands 100% agreement with what the Pope or the Patriarch in question teaches or particularly believes. The issue is 'being in communion with', and this is the principle difference.

To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy. Oddly enough, if one reads the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils it is obvious that Rome showed pretensions to primacy even during the first millennium; these claims were simply and politely ignored by the Fathers of the Councils. I seem to recall at least one incident in which a message from the Pope was 'edited' by his representatives to exclude reference to papal supremacy. Thus, most of the comments that "they [must] submit to the Pope", are simply hogwash.

The real problem for Eastern Catholics is administrative. Outside the "traditional territories" the decisions as to episcopal assignments must be approved by the Congregation for Eastern Churches. Even revisions of the Divine Services are supposed to go through the Vatican. This is where the real betrayal occurs. Even if it is a matter as simple as a rubber stamp, Rome has no business approving or disapproving of these other Churches' internal matters. The Roman Church proclaims that each Church is equal and all the Rites of the Churches are equal; however, it insists on a "look see" to make sure the other Churches aren't getting off track. That does not show equality; it betrays an unhealthy paternalism ("maternalism"?) over the other Churches.

As to doctrinal oversight, Rome seems content to let the Eastern Churches believe what they want, so long as Rome can find a way to make it jibe with their views - witness the filioque in the Catechism. No, the issue is purely administrative. If Rome were serious about rapprochement with the Orthodox Churches it would close the Congregation for Eastern Churches  and truly let the Eastern Churches mind their own business, while Rome minded its own business.

This would entail, or course, a recognition that papal infallibility extends no further than the infallibility of any Patriarch who, following the teachings of the Church Fathers, sets forth a matter of Faith and/or morals as official teaching. The ontological claims have to go.

Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on March 13, 2010, 10:53:44 AM
In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference.

Unless he cares about having a genuine Eucharist. Also, many Byzantine Catholic churches, in the US at least, have suffered from the "spirit of Vatican II" in a similar way to the Latin churches, so a noticeable difference in rubrics/ aesthetics is also present.

Quote
To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy.


That's because Rome makes these claims herself, and has solemnly dogmatized them. True, Rome had pretensions prior to the schism, but had not yet anathematized anyone who didn't indulge them.

Quote
Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?

It would just make the RCC appear more incoherent than it already is. How can Papal infallibility be "local"?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on March 13, 2010, 02:27:49 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not.  Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: basilthefool on March 13, 2010, 02:40:40 PM
To the Orthodox, as comments above show, the very idea of being in communion with the Pope indicates acceptance of the papal claims to primacy.


That's because Rome makes these claims herself, and has solemnly dogmatized them. True, Rome had pretensions prior to the schism, but had not yet anathematized anyone who didn't indulge them.

I think you're missing the point, that the average Eastern Catholic worshipper doesn't give hoot, or even have much knowledge at all about these things. Now, I will admit that I interpreted the original question from the "worshipper in the Nave" perspective. And most of these people simply go to worship. The question of a 'genuine Eucharist' is a topic that doesn't enter their minds. It is also a question that is complicated by certain Orthodox groups speaking with differing voices on the topic.


Quote
Some years back both Pope Paul IV and John Paul II referred to a couple of the Roman recognized Councils as "Council of the West". if this view were truly put forth, what effect would it have on Catholic-Orthoodox relations?


It would just make the RCC appear more incoherent than it already is. How can Papal infallibility be "local"?
[/quote]

There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism.  Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

My point regarding the "Councils of the West" is that in terming these synods in such manner, Rome is making a gesture to reinterpret the scope, authority, and historical significance of them. It is fairly clear, if one reviews the Councils after Nicaea II”, as recognized by the Romans, that for the most part these synods dealt with matters specifically related to the Western Church and its troubles. Certainly we can agree that there were synods in the East whose scope of influence extends little further than the particular circumstances that led to their convening. 

By taking such a stance we can even agree that certain synods (East or West) failed in their capacity to maintain and/or defend the Faith. For example, I have come to conclude that the synod of Vatopedi which recognized the revised calendar in 1930, although various groups had already adopted it independently and without counsel or concord with the rest of the Church, was a such a robbers synod.  I have no doubt that such latrociniae could be equally exposed on the Western side.

We are drifting off point, but I believe the Orthodox should take Rome at its word and seriously sit down to re-examine the role of the Papacy as Rome offers. But don't just let bureaucratic middle men handle things. Get the best and most spiritual and intellectual Bishops and Archimandrites on one side and an equal number from Rome on the other. Have the Patriarchs attend, including Rome. Who knows? Perhaps the whole doctrine of papal infallibility was an act of the Spirit to lead the Romans to accept a return to true Orthodoxy as proposed and resulting from just such a synod. The Pope could proclaim ex cathedra, “I infallibly state that we will conform our liturgical practices according to x, y, and z according to P; we will now understand doctrines a, b, and c, in light of and accordance with Q. Further, these changes will be made in the government of the Roman Church to bring it into conformity with the Eastern Church (perhaps a few Eastern concessions would follow as well?), and henceforth all infallible authority in the One Church of Christ will be defined, proclaimed and defended by Ecumenical Council, etc., etc., etc.”

You may say, I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

On the other hand, I have been convinced in the Spirit that True Orthodoxy offers the only sure and safe hope for salvation for humanity.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on March 13, 2010, 02:45:47 PM
In regard to the Divine Liturgy, for the worshipper in the Nave today, there is no difference.
Unless he cares about having a genuine Eucharist. Also, many Byzantine Catholic churches, in the US at least, have suffered from the "spirit of Vatican II" in a similar way to the Latin churches, so a noticeable difference in rubrics/ aesthetics is also present.

I don't know about the "spirit of Vatican II".  The new translation has some horizontal inclusive language and some silent prayers are now said aloud.  There are rubrical difference and between the Russian and Ruthenian Recensions that ACROD shares with the Byzantine Catholic Church and both make use of the same abbreviations and congregational chanting of Prostopinje.  That said the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chysostom is essentially the same.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on March 13, 2010, 02:53:42 PM
basilthefool,

You are a breath of fresh air my friend.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on March 13, 2010, 04:02:40 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.


Exactly!  Though many of them will not admit it.  There's an old saying - "It's not what's on the outside that counts, it's what in the inside'.  That is so true in this case.  Their faith should be   based on their theology which is, or should be Roman Catholic, since they acknowledge both the Supremacy and Infallibity of the Pope.  Otherwise, as I have said before, they are stating they are knowingly and willinging under the authority of a heretical bishop in denying their theology is 100 Roman Catholic (with the exception of the Filioque)! That's why some of them claim to be 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'  doesn't make sense unless they base what and who they are purely by how they worship!

It's hard to discuss theology with them because most have no idea what they are required to believe as part of the Catholic Church under the Pope.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: basilthefool on March 13, 2010, 04:34:16 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.


It's hard to discuss theology with them because most have no idea what they are required to believe as part of the Catholic Church under the Pope.


You set the mark they must cross and argue that if they see a different mark and aim for that they must turn to your assessment. It's hard to argue theology with them because lex orandi, lex credendi.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on March 13, 2010, 06:09:13 PM
This is an interesting discussion, but if you were fifteen and found yourself in the middle of this, you would run for the hills.

My answer to Trevor is that generally speaking, your are correct in your observation that the Eastern Catholic churches are visually similar to their Orthodox counterparts both physically and liturgically.(The Youtube video you saw is from a Byzantine Catholic Church in Ohio. In the Orthodox world you would find similar singing and practices in a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox parish. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYzVwnF48No )   However, Eastern Catholics profess to be Catholic Churches in union with the Roman Catholic Church, and hence the Pope of Rome. This fundamental difference separates them from their Orthodox counterparts. Unlike Orthodox Churches, they are not independent in the sense of being part of a local or national Church (like the Orthodox Church of Russia, the Orthodox Church of Greece, Serbia, Romania,  etc....) and the selection of their Bishops must be approved by the Pope. As Catholics in union with Rome, they are required to believe some doctrines which are not accepted by the Orthodox Church. As you can see from the discussion here, exactly what this means is subject to a great deal of debate among well intentioned men and women. You might want to contact an Antiochian, Ukrainian, Romanian or Carpatho-Russian Orthodox priest in your area for his insight on this question since each of those groups have direct Eastern Catholic counterparts in the United States. He would be better able to take the time to give you a thorough explanation and defense of Orthodoxy! Good luck!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Andrew21091 on March 13, 2010, 07:19:07 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not.  Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on March 13, 2010, 07:23:13 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not.  Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.

I agree!  If they have the fredom to believe what they want then they are Protesstant!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: SolEX01 on March 13, 2010, 08:51:42 PM
I neglected to include the Filoque in my initial answer.  Please forgive me.   :angel:

Perhaps a third difference is that Eastern Catholic Churches can commemorate both Catholic and Orthodox Saints post-schism of 1054 (e.g. they can commemorate St. Francis of Assisi and St. Gregory Palamas - both are post-schism Saints).

Example, if one Church was Orthodox between 1054 and 1654 and became Eastern Catholic overnight - would they throw out the Saints they were commemorating for six Centuries after the schism?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orual on March 13, 2010, 11:13:05 PM
Quote
Eastern Catholics commemorate the Roman Catholic Pope as their Bishop and subscribe to some (but not all) doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  To me, commemoration of the Pope is the sole difference.

They submit to the Pope so they also submit to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Either one believes something or they do not.  Now one may say since Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope of Rome and the Latin Catholic Church they are supposed to believe everything they teach but that is not even true of all Latin Catholics.

Whether the individual Latin or Eastern Catholic believes something or not is irrelevant. They are in communion with Rome so they have to accept the teachings. When the Eastern Rite Catholics entered communion with Rome, they accepted its teachings and rejected Orthodox teachings.

That's why the "Profession of Faith" from the 1995 Melkite synod is sheer madness.  

Quote from: 1995 Melkite Synod
1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.

2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium before the separation.

Believing in first negates the second, and vice versa.  If you believe "everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches", then communion with a person who is essentially a vagante bishop is out of the question.  If you're in communion with the so-called "'Bishop' of Rome", you have to at least acknowledge the RC innovations since the schism as legitimate theologoumena, which conflicts with believing in Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy does not permit the innovations as theologoumena, but condemns them instead.  

The most exasperating part is the line about the "first millennium before the separation" - brushing off a millennium of dangerous dogmatic innovations on the part of the organization in Rome that purports to have succeeded the last Orthodox patriarch of Rome.  

What Rome was prior to the innovations was at one point part of Orthodoxy, but Eastern-rite Catholics, including Melkites, are in communion with Rome today, and how they do not recognize what a different light that colors things in, is beyond me.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: username! on March 14, 2010, 12:18:56 AM
An issue ismarriage.  In the roman catholic church the couple performs the sacrament with the deacon or priest as a witness. Hence if an annulment happens the vatican says the couple never performed the sacrament.  Eastern catholic churches say they are the same as us and the priest performs the marriage. But greek catholics have to get an annulment.  So how can a sacrament performed by a prist not have happened?  Why use roman marriage contract in eastern churches?  If they weren't so roman bound they would have divorce like we do and not annulments like the latins.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on March 14, 2010, 01:10:59 AM
An issue ismarriage.  In the roman catholic church the couple performs the sacrament with the deacon or priest as a witness. Hence if an annulment happens the vatican says the couple never performed the sacrament.  Eastern catholic churches say they are the same as us and the priest performs the marriage. But greek catholics have to get an annulment.  So how can a sacrament performed by a prist not have happened?  Why use roman marriage contract in eastern churches?  If they weren't so roman bound they would have divorce like we do and not annulments like the latins.

Good observation.  I know many within the Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic sui juris churches who complin that they are not invited to participate in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Catholic dialogue.  This is an example of why.  It shows that the forced union that created this church has been anything but a success.  Issues like these are bound to be brought up.  There are many more.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: shailyhutson on June 28, 2010, 02:50:54 AM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches reject the teaching of the surplus merits of the saints and the doctrine of indulgences whereas Eastern Catholic Church all beneficed clergy must be celibate, whether they are in monastic order or not.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: stashko on June 28, 2010, 05:56:45 AM
From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....
A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is.... :angel:
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on June 29, 2010, 10:16:46 AM
From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....
A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is.... :angel:

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on July 02, 2010, 08:02:01 PM
I was just wondering, what is the difference between Eastern Orthodox church and the Eastern Catholic church?

Seeing as how not everyone in the Roman communion is of an Eastern rite and not every Eastern Catholic church is of the same jurisdiction, I think it's safe to say that there is no such thing as one "Eastern Catholic church". There is one Roman communion. There are 22 Eastern Catholic particular churches within it.

With that out of the way, technically any Eastern Catholic with any shred of integrity in their faith has to believe in all of the dogmatic definitions of Rome. Unfortunately, in this day and age, there seem to be many Eastern Catholics lacking such integrity.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Melodist on July 02, 2010, 10:28:31 PM
Maybe instead of asking what the difference between Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic churches, maybe answering the question "What is the difference between Eastern and Roman Catholicism?" would help you see the issue from a different perspective. Are you thinking of a body of faith or of a ritual tradition? I know you have already made your choice on which direction to go, but it's something to take into consideration when asking these questions. It's similar to asking "What's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Western Rite Orthodoxy?".

Just thoughts.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: stashko on July 03, 2010, 05:16:49 AM
From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....
A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is.... :angel:

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....

Forgot to mention in my post above they had  [Gasp] A confession Booth.... ;D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on July 03, 2010, 07:54:36 AM
Maybe instead of asking what the difference between Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic churches, maybe answering the question "What is the difference between Eastern and Roman Catholicism?" would help you see the issue from a different perspective. Are you thinking of a body of faith or of a ritual tradition? I know you have already made your choice on which direction to go, but it's something to take into consideration when asking these questions. It's similar to asking "What's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Western Rite Orthodoxy?".

Just thoughts.

Theologically there should be no difference between all churches that accept the Pope as the head of the earthly churches.  This includes those who use the ritual and traditions of their Orthodox Catholic ancestors.  Otherwise if this were true, these churches are saying that they are knowingly and willingly under the ultimate authority of a hierach that proclaims, upholds, and protects doctrine they themselves do not believe.  Which can be also intreputed to mean that they accept as the religious leader a bishop who believes and teaches heresy.  Many of them will go to extremes to try and justify their position when confronted with RC doctrine they do not accept as classifying it as being a theologumen, or just a westrn expression.

It is the doctrine that one believes, practices, and upholds that proclaims one's faith.  Not the type of ritual one practices.  This misconception is why some of them believe in the oxymoron that they are in fact, 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'.  There is no such thing!

I always have to smile when they accuse us of disunity.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on July 06, 2010, 12:13:49 PM
From my experience of The Eastern Catholic Ukrainian Church, in chicago ,the one i was in had assembly line liturgy one after another, No veneration of the Holy Cross or the blessed bread given out...

The Church looked Orthodox, but it lacked the Orthodox ethos, Spirit....
A pale Imitation of what Holy Orthodoxy Truly is.... :angel:

From my experiences, the practices within Eastern Catholic Churches vary widely from parish to parish, evenwithin the same Diocese. A counterpoint to Stashko's observation (which I, too, have seen in other areas) can be found at St. Elias Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Brampton, Ont. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/index.php These widely divergent practices must be confusing for the faithful, I would think.....

Forgot to mention in my post above they had  [Gasp] A confession Booth.... ;D
Not at the Eastern Catholic Church that I used to attend.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: The young fogey on July 27, 2010, 11:05:27 PM
Oh, me, oh, my, one of the perennial topics of online theological warriors.

Byzantine Catholics (called Greek Catholics in Europe and sometimes in America; Byzantine Rite = 'Greek Rite') and other Eastern-rite Catholics have the same doctrines as the Roman Catholic Church of course. Rome claims it's the one true church (as Orthodoxy claims of itself) and with that comes the power to define doctrine. That means if you know of the doctrine, you must accept it.

That said, IMO you can finesse every Roman Catholic doctrine into Byzantine theology except the one about the scope of the Pope (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/an-ecumenical-reality-check/#comment-3115).

Liturgical practice among Greek Catholics (I'm old-fashioned so I use the old term) varies a lot, from just like the Orthodox (Melkites and the tiny Russian Catholic Church, consisting of non-Russian born RCs and converts from Protestantism in America) to something nice like the old Latin Mass in a different language to, in lots of places, something with a very Vatican II feel to it only not nearly as liberal as your local RC parish. (A very few places even have some lay people giving Communion and altar girls.)

Rome wants them to be just like the Orthodox in church and again holding all RC doctrines but expressed in Byzantine terms. If you believe as Rome does about the Pope, it's a perfectly sensible and honourable position.

Over the centuries a lot of them disobeyed that and imitated the Roman Rite in varying degrees, sometimes to try to please the suspicious local Roman Riters, sometimes to spite the local Orthodox. (Ukrainian nationalism, part of the territory of Galicia, not the whole Ukraine: the Ukrainian Catholic Church is a big part of that. A few Russianisms - onion dome, a few icons, married priest, Cyrillic alphabet - to show they're not Polish, but lots of Polishisms - clean-shaven priest, RC devotions, even no iconostasis - to show they're not Russian.) As most here know, that's called latinisation.

(A certain amount of crossover is normal even with the Orthodox, from certain devotions - the icon of Mary with seven daggers around where her heart would be comes from the Poles - and Russian baroque architecture, Russians' Westernised choral music and icons that look like Western paintings... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds... to the American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church, former Ruthenian Greek Catholics who for years after converting in the 1930s kept many of their traditional latinised practices* - the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't try to change them - and in the hollows of Pennsylvania and Ohio some still do.) *Such as First Communion for the 7-year-olds, priests in Latin cassocks, monsignori and bination (a priest celebrating two Liturgies in one day on the same altar).

Your rank-and-file ethnic Greek Catholic is essentially a Roman Catholic with a different, rather better Mass. Most are fine with being called Roman Catholic, Ukrainian (Ruthenian etc.) Catholic, even Uniate (now a no-no in ecumenical talks); just don't call them Orthodox.

A good number of people in Greek Catholic parishes are Roman Riters who rightly hate what Vatican II did to their rite and found a sturdy refuge while remaining under Rome. Fine folk.

The 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' are a tiny minority of Greek Catholics, mostly converts from the Roman Rite or elsewhere and mostly online. Externally they're what Rome wants but they deny the RC doctrines the Orthodox do, yet they're where they are, which doesn't make sense. A lot of them get fed up after a few years and become Orthodox.

All Eastern Catholics are about only 2% of the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Father H on July 30, 2010, 06:21:29 PM
^ I would agree with what you said except the following:

Quote
That said, IMO you can finesse every Roman Catholic doctrine into Byzantine theology except the one about the scope of the Pope.

If what you meant by this is that you can finesse every RC doctrine into Byzantine theological terminology (as opposed to Byzantine theology) I would agree. 
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 01:54:27 PM
The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: augustin717 on November 23, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?


Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 02:21:37 PM
Quote
... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on November 23, 2010, 02:34:58 PM


Quote
Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.

I should have made that a small-o orthodox. Apologies
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Samn! on November 23, 2010, 02:41:14 PM
augustin717,


There are basically three discourses in Byzantine Catholicism-- Ruthenian, Ukranian, and Melkite. The Ruthenian discourse is defined largely by the context of its American emigration and the experience of a return of a large proportion of its people to Orthodoxy in the early 20th century. The Ukranian discourse is absorbed entirely with not being Russian, and so I've very rarely seen it discuss anything theological, only perceived grievances against the Russians.

The Melkite discourse, on the other hand, because of the lack of a serious political context behind it (Robert Haddad has a good study showing that most ordinary conversions to Catholicism among the Orthodox were because of looser cousin-marriage and fasting canons) is the most prone to being theological and the most prone to talking about being "Orthodox in communion with Rome", though this seems to have been a discourse much more favored by some of its more educated hierarchs rather than the rank-and-file in the Middle East. Among those hierarchs, there's a strong tendency to not exactly be sure why they're Catholic and not Orthoodox, while among the laity there's a strong tendency to not be exactly sure why they're Greek Catholics and not Latins. With some notable exceptions (Deir Mar Mukhallis, the Church of St. Paul at Harissa), Greek Catholic liturgies in the Middle East are Latinized beyond all recognition.  

So my point is, I guess, that there's not much point for Orthodox engaging with "Eastern Catholicism" as a whole, as though it were one thing. Some elements of Greek Catholicism have too much political and cultural baggage to be engaged with on the level of churches, while in other cases, especially the Melkites, the Orthodox should be trying to model to them how to properly live their tradition so that they will return to it, and ultimately to the Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on November 23, 2010, 02:45:12 PM
^ I have a very soft spot in my heart for the Ruthenian Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: augustin717 on November 23, 2010, 02:52:27 PM
Samn,
That's fair. To which I might add that Romanian Greek-Catholic discourse is quite close to the Ukrainian one, mutatis mutandis, of course: anti-slavic/Eastern, pro-Western Catholic, always stressing the idea of our Latinity, our natural connection to Rome, brutally interrupted by the Bulgarian Church .
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 03:57:16 PM
Quote
... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Under the old Metropolia, First Communion was replaced over the years by First Confession, a ritual that has for the most part faded away in the OCA but still remains in ACROD. In the early days, pictures of the First Confession classes of the Metropolia were indistinguishable from First Communion Classes of the Greek Catholics. (My mother in law grew up in a Metropolia parish in Frackville, PA and we have her class picture from around 1929 and the OCA parish in Binghamton maintained the custom through the 1960's.) This can be confirmed by referencing the Journals published in the mid 20th century, usually called the Viestnik/Messenger, be they of Metropolia or Greek Catholic or  ACROD origin. (Same name, different publishers and audiences!)

I am 57 years old and the son of an ACROD priest and I have no idea what you mean by the Angelus as I never heard that term, either in NE Pennsylvania or the southern tier of NY. It is true that there were Rosary reciters in some ACROD parishes through the early 1990's but as the old women died off who were raised with that pious tradition, so did the Rosary.

Those of us from ACROD can attest that the wisdom and patience of the EP and her Archbishops in New York, particularly the late Archbishop Iakovos, allowed the shedding of Latin innovations over time, rather than a rapid decompression as was the case in the first wave of Rusyn returnees to Orthodoxy following St. Alexis.  It also should be noted that some of the alleged 'Latinate' forms that some in the former Metropolia objected to were in fact pre-Nikonian forms that the Rusyns, being isolated geographically from Moscow and spiritually from Constantinople after 1453, adhered to through the period of the unions.

I would also contest any assertion that the majority of the original Metropolia's founders were ethnic Russians, even as defined by the old Tsarist ethnographers prior to the revolution. Most of the parishes in the Mid Atlantic and North East US were founded by Rusyn immigrants from the old Austria-Hungary or Galician/Lemko immigrants from the old Poland and Imperial Russia. While many of these people came to assert that they were 'Russian' they most certainly were not. They spoke not the Russian language and the folk customs that they brought to the new country associated with their religious life, such as Svatyj Vecer/Holy Supper, Jaslickari/Bethlehem Caroling, Pysynky/Krasanky (decorative Paschal eggs), Christmas Carols, Marian hymns and the unique liturgical chant that was native to the Rusyns and Lemkos , folk dances and folk songs were definitively not of great Russian origin. Many a young man returned to America after the War to tell how surprised to learn that the Russian soldiers they met did not speak Russian! Of course, those young Americans spoke Rusyn (po nashemu) or Galician-Ukrainian.

It is true that by 1940 or so that these Metropolia parishes had become, for all intents and purposes, Russian in name and practice. It was the loss of those customs and practices (which most Rusyns and Galicians who were not Orthodox at that time were well aware of) that led the founders of ACROD to Constantinople's omophor, rather than Moscow's (through the Metropolia at that time) and Ukrainians returning to Orthodoxy to their own jurisdiction during the same historical period.

I am not disparaging anyone's history or background, but I offer this in hopes that Orthodox from both ACROD and the OCA understand that their histories are linked and, like it or not, they have a complex relationship with Eastern Catholics both within community and family.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 03:58:57 PM
augustin717,


There are basically three discourses in Byzantine Catholicism-- Ruthenian, Ukranian, and Melkite. The Ruthenian discourse is defined largely by the context of its American emigration and the experience of a return of a large proportion of its people to Orthodoxy in the early 20th century. The Ukranian discourse is absorbed entirely with not being Russian, and so I've very rarely seen it discuss anything theological, only perceived grievances against the Russians.

The Melkite discourse, on the other hand, because of the lack of a serious political context behind it (Robert Haddad has a good study showing that most ordinary conversions to Catholicism among the Orthodox were because of looser cousin-marriage and fasting canons) is the most prone to being theological and the most prone to talking about being "Orthodox in communion with Rome", though this seems to have been a discourse much more favored by some of its more educated hierarchs rather than the rank-and-file in the Middle East. Among those hierarchs, there's a strong tendency to not exactly be sure why they're Catholic and not Orthoodox, while among the laity there's a strong tendency to not be exactly sure why they're Greek Catholics and not Latins. With some notable exceptions (Deir Mar Mukhallis, the Church of St. Paul at Harissa), Greek Catholic liturgies in the Middle East are Latinized beyond all recognition.  

So my point is, I guess, that there's not much point for Orthodox engaging with "Eastern Catholicism" as a whole, as though it were one thing. Some elements of Greek Catholicism have too much political and cultural baggage to be engaged with on the level of churches, while in other cases, especially the Melkites, the Orthodox should be trying to model to them how to properly live their tradition so that they will return to it, and ultimately to the Church.

You offer a lot of insight to this issue and I agree with your analysis.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 04:01:57 PM
The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?


Real "Byzantine-rite Catholics" (ie those born there, not those that switched from the Roman rite or Protestants) I can assure you, they don't think or say one minute that they are Orthodox, especially after Communism.

Cardinal/Metropolitan Huzar of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics is fond of using the term 'Orthodox united with Rome.' However, I am not sure that the laity would join in that sentiment as for them unfortunately the term "Orthodox' is synonymous with Russian occupation and domination. This is also true in other countries of East Europe where there are pockets of Greek Catholics and Orthodox living in proximity to each other. Some have better relationships than others.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 04:04:58 PM
The only time I ever attended an Eastern-Rite liturgy I could tell immediately I wasn't in an Orthodox church, long before we ever got to the Flioque or the Hail Mary. Perhaps it's the feeling of a connection being broken.

I know Byzantine-Rite Catholics tend to think they are Orthodox, but it just felt different. Anyone else have that experience?



As someone stated above, there is no cohesive Eastern Catholicism. It differs from place to place. For example, I wouldn't say that to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics from Brampton, Ontario. http://www.saintelias.com/ca/home/
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on November 23, 2010, 04:07:57 PM
I don't know of any Eastern Catholic Churches that recite the Filioque in the Creed.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 04:21:26 PM
I don't know of any Eastern Catholic Churches that recite the Filioque in the Creed.

The Ruthenian Trebnik printed prior to the war under the auspices of the Greek Catholic ordinary of Presov, Slovakia did contain the filioque in the Creed. Some versions of Duchnovic's Chlib Duse prayerbook include it (Greek Catholic imprimatur) and some, under Orthodox imprint do not. I have seen both over the years.  I believe that is also the case in  liturgical and prayer books printed in both Uzhorod and L'viv under Greek Catholic imprimatur through Vatican 2, although for obvious reasons most such books were of pre-war origin.

We used to use some of those Slavonic texts when I was a boy with both the imprimatur's and filioque being 'whited out' or crossed off.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on November 23, 2010, 04:23:37 PM
At the Ruthenian Church that I occasionally attend, the old liturgical books had the Filioque crossed out. When we got new books, the Filioque was simply absent.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on November 23, 2010, 04:36:29 PM
At the Ruthenian Church that I occasionally attend, the old liturgical books had the Filioque crossed out. When we got new books, the Filioque was simply absent.

Well, as it says in the post-communion response in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "We have seen the true light...."  ;)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on November 23, 2010, 04:41:14 PM
At the Ruthenian Church that I occasionally attend, the old liturgical books had the Filioque crossed out. When we got new books, the Filioque was simply absent.

Well, as it says in the post-communion response in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "We have seen the true light...."  ;)

Lol. Well played.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 26, 2010, 01:23:42 PM
Quote
... to parishes of the now-OCA, most of which are descendants of Ruthenian Greek Catholics who switched to the Russians around 1900, having Solemn First Communion for 7-year-olds...

I don't believe this is the case. Nowadays, roughly half of OCA members are converts; but those who were born into the church that eventually became OCA are mostly Russian (mindful of what "Russian" meant before 1917), with a generous sampling of Ukrainians, and Carpathians/Czechs. The liturgical practice is definitely Slavic, not Carpatho-Russian. I've never heard of an OCA parish having first communion for seven-year-olds. Certainly, it is not the practice in my parish. Maybe the author is mixing up OCA and C-R?

As I understand it (my experience is limited, but this is what I was told by a C-R priest), the condition set by the Carpatho-Russian metropolis in coming under the jurisdiction of the EP was that they be allowed to keep all their liturgical practices not in conflict with Orthodox canons. So, for example, they say the Angelus and have some other recognizably Latinate forms, but (of course) use the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Under the old Metropolia, First Communion was replaced over the years by First Confession, a ritual that has for the most part faded away in the OCA but still remains in ACROD. In the early days, pictures of the First Confession classes of the Metropolia were indistinguishable from First Communion Classes of the Greek Catholics. (My mother in law grew up in a Metropolia parish in Frackville, PA and we have her class picture from around 1929 and the OCA parish in Binghamton maintained the custom through the 1960's.) This can be confirmed by referencing the Journals published in the mid 20th century, usually called the Viestnik/Messenger, be they of Metropolia or Greek Catholic or  ACROD origin. (Same name, different publishers and audiences!)

I am 57 years old and the son of an ACROD priest and I have no idea what you mean by the Angelus as I never heard that term, either in NE Pennsylvania or the southern tier of NY. It is true that there were Rosary reciters in some ACROD parishes through the early 1990's but as the old women died off who were raised with that pious tradition, so did the Rosary.

Those of us from ACROD can attest that the wisdom and patience of the EP and her Archbishops in New York, particularly the late Archbishop Iakovos, allowed the shedding of Latin innovations over time, rather than a rapid decompression as was the case in the first wave of Rusyn returnees to Orthodoxy following St. Alexis.  It also should be noted that some of the alleged 'Latinate' forms that some in the former Metropolia objected to were in fact pre-Nikonian forms that the Rusyns, being isolated geographically from Moscow and spiritually from Constantinople after 1453, adhered to through the period of the unions.

I would also contest any assertion that the majority of the original Metropolia's founders were ethnic Russians, even as defined by the old Tsarist ethnographers prior to the revolution. Most of the parishes in the Mid Atlantic and North East US were founded by Rusyn immigrants from the old Austria-Hungary or Galician/Lemko immigrants from the old Poland and Imperial Russia. While many of these people came to assert that they were 'Russian' they most certainly were not. They spoke not the Russian language and the folk customs that they brought to the new country associated with their religious life, such as Svatyj Vecer/Holy Supper, Jaslickari/Bethlehem Caroling, Pysynky/Krasanky (decorative Paschal eggs), Christmas Carols, Marian hymns and the unique liturgical chant that was native to the Rusyns and Lemkos , folk dances and folk songs were definitively not of great Russian origin. Many a young man returned to America after the War to tell how surprised to learn that the Russian soldiers they met did not speak Russian! Of course, those young Americans spoke Rusyn (po nashemu) or Galician-Ukrainian.

It is true that by 1940 or so that these Metropolia parishes had become, for all intents and purposes, Russian in name and practice. It was the loss of those customs and practices (which most Rusyns and Galicians who were not Orthodox at that time were well aware of) that led the founders of ACROD to Constantinople's omophor, rather than Moscow's (through the Metropolia at that time) and Ukrainians returning to Orthodoxy to their own jurisdiction during the same historical period.

I am not disparaging anyone's history or background, but I offer this in hopes that Orthodox from both ACROD and the OCA understand that their histories are linked and, like it or not, they have a complex relationship with Eastern Catholics both within community and family.

First Confession is done in my OCA parish.

The Angelus is a Catholic prayer said three times a day. "The angel of the Lord announced to Mary, and she conceived by the Holy Spirit. Hail Mary..." etc. Beautiful prayer, but definitely not Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 26, 2010, 11:06:21 PM
Quote from: basilthefool
There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism.  Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in any special semi-divinity for the Pope.

The teaching authority of the Church is infallible. The Pope is the Church's highest court of appeals. Thus, by transitive property, when the Pope makes an official ex cathedra statement of the teaching authority of the Church, this statement is one of infallible truth.

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.

In neither instance did the Papacy ever try to assert the kind of 'rulership' over the eastern Church that the Orthodox claimed it did. In the first, Pope Nicholas I merely stated what is true - that it is illegal to depose a Patriarch (Ignatios) without ecclesiastical trial. In the second case, the excommunication by Cardinal Humbert of Patriarch Cerularius was invalid, and even then, it had nothing to do with Roman attempts to assert primacy. Patriarch Cerularius had made himself the supreme political authority within Byzantium, and sought to create the schism in a premeditated manner so as to also set himself up as the supreme religious authority. It worked.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 27, 2010, 03:46:33 PM
Quote from: basilthefool
There is an infallibility that is tautological in simply reinforcing or restating what is already part of the Church Tradition. This does not entail the ontological semi-divinity that most conceive papal infallibility as requiring. The infallibility of which I speak is guided by the Spirit and available to any Christian on, shall we say, an ad hoc basis. Thus St Maximos spoke infallibly when he defended the Faith, as did St Mark of Ephesus, as did St Gregory the Dialogist, and as did possibly even Christian recognized by the Roman Church as Saints who were so declared after the schism.  Rome seems to have tacitly accepted the canonizations of all Orthodox Saints in a de facto manner (John Paul II referring to "St Seraphim of Sarov" and "St Nektarios of Aegina").

The Roman Catholic Church does not believe in any special semi-divinity for the Pope.

The teaching authority of the Church is infallible. The Pope is the Church's highest court of appeals. Thus, by transitive property, when the Pope makes an official ex cathedra statement of the teaching authority of the Church, this statement is one of infallible truth.

That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.

In neither instance did the Papacy ever try to assert the kind of 'rulership' over the eastern Church that the Orthodox claimed it did. In the first, Pope Nicholas I merely stated what is true - that it is illegal to depose a Patriarch (Ignatios) without ecclesiastical trial. In the second case, the excommunication by Cardinal Humbert of Patriarch Cerularius was invalid, and even then, it had nothing to do with Roman attempts to assert primacy. Patriarch Cerularius had made himself the supreme political authority within Byzantium, and sought to create the schism in a premeditated manner so as to also set himself up as the supreme religious authority. It worked.

I'm not an historian, but I believe the papacy also assumed a larger role because of the political instability and fragmentation in the West after the dissolution of Western imperial institutions. Britain, for example, which had been one political unit south of the wall, broke into half a dozen or more warring kingdoms. There was a huge vacuum over which a variety of secular forces were fighting (including the Eastern emperor), and the church was the only possible source of wide-spread stability. That the church was itself in the process of becoming, as it were, didn't make the situation any easier.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 27, 2010, 04:08:30 PM
Quote
That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

There are two major problems.

First, a Pope, in current Roman Catholic Theology cannot be deposed. This is not true to the understanding of Episcopal theology. The Pope is not an ultimate  bishop. Bishops are 'equal'. Christ attested this to the Apostles (who appointed Bishops to succeed them in specific places). Christ said that they would not have a power over each other like the power gentiles wield of others.

Second, a Pope is not required to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church. The Church is proof of that. We have maintained unity without the Pope of Rome.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 27, 2010, 04:11:54 PM
Quote
It's also not true that Rome went around anthematizing people for insufficiently respecting Papal primacy. The opposite is the case. Photios anthematized the western Church for its use of the Filioque in retalation for Pope Nicholas I declaring the deposition of Patriarch Ignatios without ecclesiastical trial to be invalid. Later, Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius personally (not the eastern church generally - and he didn't have proper authority to do even that much, as Pope Leo IX, for whom he was acting as legate, had died.) because Cerularius refused to meet with him after attacking Leo IX on the issue of unleavened bread. Cerularius' provocation was deliberate and premeditated for the purpose of creating a schism in order to serve the Patriarch's political (not religious) ambitions to usurp the Byzantine Emperor.
::)

The ironic thing is that the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils do not have in their number the council that reconciled St. Photios the Great which happened only ten years after the Sham council that deposed him. They even agreed to the council that recognized St. Photios!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 27, 2010, 06:46:59 PM
Quote
That is the view of the Catholic Church. It doesn't include any special semi-divinity for the Pope. It's the same tautological infallibility which applies to any Christian layman, priest, or bishop, the difference is merely that the Papacy is where the buck stops. As for the papal 'pretensions' of the first millenium, the fact of the matter is simply that if the buck doesn't stop anywhere, there is no church. Which is why in point of fact there is today no 'Orthodox Church' but rather a variety of independent Orthodox Churches, each headed by its own Patriarch, which are in communion with one another but which do not form a communion. The divinely ordained primacy of the Roman See is necessary to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church.

There are two major problems.

First, a Pope, in current Roman Catholic Theology cannot be deposed. This is not true to the understanding of Episcopal theology. The Pope is not an ultimate  bishop. Bishops are 'equal'. Christ attested this to the Apostles (who appointed Bishops to succeed them in specific places). Christ said that they would not have a power over each other like the power gentiles wield of others.

Second, a Pope is not required to maintain the divinely ordained unity of the Church. The Church is proof of that. We have maintained unity without the Pope of Rome.

I'm not sure I understand how you define "unity." I can't commune with my Coptic friends, nor they with me, so I think we're pretty far away from being able to use this word accurately, to say nothing of all the non-orthodox churches. At last count, we had five orthodox bishops or metropolitans in New York, for five different jurisdictions. Unity.

Second, whether theological sound or not, popes have been deposed all through history. (Some have also resigned.) It's been awhile since that happened, but it used to be one of the simple ways cardinals expressed their displeasure with the status quo. Along with poison.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 27, 2010, 08:25:15 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Alpo on December 27, 2010, 08:36:01 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

Thank you for this. You've just demonstrated how far Roman Catholicism has slipped away from Orthodoxy and how different is Orthodox and RC understanding of "Church" . Ecumenism (and Eastern Catholis) has still a lot to do to. It's actually a little depressing to realize how wide the gap between us is since I have a lot respect for RCC since I'm rather fond of Latin traditions. Kyrie eleison.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 27, 2010, 08:38:13 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.
The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 27, 2010, 08:39:42 PM
Sorry, but I refuse to consider two people who could conceivably live down the street from one another and yet never meet one another and each never realize the other is a member of their religion to be members of the same Church. 'One Church' does not mean a collection of churches that get along with one another. It means one church. This basic lie - that the One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church is in fact really Many Holy an Catholic Apostolic Churches - is the foundation of the Orthodox schism
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 28, 2010, 01:30:59 AM
 
Quote
In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

This sentence doesn't even make sense.

Quote
Thank you for this. You've just demonstrated how far Roman Catholicism has slipped away from Orthodoxy and how different is Orthodox and RC understanding of "Church" . Ecumenism (and Eastern Catholis) has still a lot to do to. It's actually a little depressing to realize how wide the gap between us is since I have a lot respect for RCC since I'm rather fond of Latin traditions. Kyrie eleison.

Spot on.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 28, 2010, 01:32:16 AM
Quote
The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 09:57:05 AM
Quote
The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.

Catholics and Anglicans are united by the same profession of faith, too. They are demonstrably not united. But if I were Roman Catholic, I could commune in any church anywhere in the world that was under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, including churches of the Eastern Rite. But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes. I've already mentioned the issue with the so-called Oriental churches. We simply aren't in communion with them at all, even though they are orthodox in every sense. (I bet I am gonna hear some rebukes about that.)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on December 28, 2010, 10:31:13 AM
But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.

What for?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 10:42:02 AM
But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.

What for?

I don't belong to their jurisdiction. If it's a parish where I'm known, then it's OK. My point is that I can't assume I can simply walk into another parish and receive communion. Do you have a different experience?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on December 28, 2010, 10:47:14 AM
I can count on one hand situations when I participated in DL in not my own jurisdiction but I hadn't asked for permission anyone.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 10:52:01 AM
I can count on one hand situations when I participated in DL in not my own jurisdiction but I hadn't asked for permission anyone.

I don't ask permission just to attend or participate.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on December 28, 2010, 11:04:45 AM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 11:09:14 AM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 03:33:27 PM
For the record, Catholics and Orthodox are also united by the same profession of faith. Apotheoun misrepresents that because he claims to be Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Church, which incurs excommunication. The Eastern Orthodox are also united with the Oriental Orthodox in a common profession of faith.

The Orthodox deny the authority of the Popes to see that canon law is enforced throughout the whole Church and to define what the teaching of the magisterium is and has been for the whole Church (to define the already established teaching of the magisterium, not to pronounce new dogmas). That is why they are in schism. As for the claim of the Filioque, the Churches were in communion for 200 years from the pontificate of John VIII to that of Leo IX with the west using the filioque and the east rejecting it, so it is clear that it does not constitute a substantial difference in profession of faith of such a degree that it prevents communion. If I were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass, I would have no problem singing the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and Rome would have no problem with my doing so.

Being united by a common profession of faith is not the same thing as being united as a single communion.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 03:59:31 PM
Quote
The Orthodox Churches are united in the common profession of the faith, which transcends the jurisdictional problems that exist in the United States and Canada.  It is rather funny when you think about it, because the Orthodox are united in their profession of the creed, while Roman Catholics in many places are united in a legal sense even when they do not believe the same things.

Golden! This is exactly the point.

Catholics and Anglicans are united by the same profession of faith, too. They are demonstrably not united. But if I were Roman Catholic, I could commune in any church anywhere in the world that was under the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, including churches of the Eastern Rite. But as an Orthodox, I have to ask permission of the priest anytime I want to commune outside my "home" OCA jurisdiction, even at ROCOR or MP parishes.
I don't see how that is such a bad thing.  I've been to Roman Catholic parishes where the priest gives communion to everyone, and in some of those cases the persons receiving are not even Catholic.  Is that a good thing?  I don't think it is, but perhaps you do.  I still remember when President Clinton was given communion in a Catholic Church in South Africa.

Personally, I would be happier if priests were more proactive in ensuring that those receiving communion were actually in communion with the Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 04:02:49 PM
Sorry, but I refuse to consider two people who could conceivably live down the street from one another and yet never meet one another and each never realize the other is a member of their religion to be members of the same Church. 'One Church' does not mean a collection of churches that get along with one another. It means one church. This basic lie - that the One Holy and Catholic Apostolic Church is in fact really Many Holy an Catholic Apostolic Churches - is the foundation of the Orthodox schism
When I was at Franciscan University the vast majority of students didn't even know that there were Eastern Catholic Churches.  That said, I do not see the jurisdictional problems of Orthodoxy in the United States as a huge problem, and my Orthodox friends have told me that steps are being taken, albeit slowly, to address this problem which is peculiar to areas of the world that have been more recently evangelized.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 04:12:38 PM
For the record, Catholics and Orthodox are also united by the same profession of faith. Apotheoun misrepresents that because he claims to be Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Church, which incurs excommunication. The Eastern Orthodox are also united with the Oriental Orthodox in a common profession of faith.
I simply refuse to elevate Western theological theories to dogmatic status, and in taking this approach I am merely following the lead of the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod.  Rome has not broken communion with the Melkite Catholic Church even though the Melkite Patriarch has publicly stated on several occasions that the Melkite Catholic Church only believes that there have been seven ecumenical councils.

The Orthodox deny the authority of the Popes to see that canon law is enforced throughout the whole Church and to define what the teaching of the magisterium is and has been for the whole Church (to define the already established teaching of the magisterium, not to pronounce new dogmas). That is why they are in schism. As for the claim of the Filioque, the Churches were in communion for 200 years from the pontificate of John VIII to that of Leo IX with the west using the filioque and the east rejecting it, so it is clear that it does not constitute a substantial difference in profession of faith of such a degree that it prevents communion. If I were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass, I would have no problem singing the Nicene Creed without the filioque, and Rome would have no problem with my doing so.
You aren't being consistent, because you on occasion say that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Catholics hold the same faith, but then you go on to say that they reject certain dogmas (e.g., papal infallibility, the filioque, etc.) of the faith.  It is not possible to profess the same faith while simultaneously not professing the same faith by rejecting supposed Western dogmas.

Being united by a common profession of faith is not the same thing as being united as a single communion.
It would also be nice if you stopped judging the Orthodox Church by what Westerners think about ecclesiology.  It must be evident to you by now that Eastern Christians approach ecclesiology differently than Western Christians.  Easterners are not set upon trying to dogmatize structures that only developed centuries after the completion of the composition of the New Testament.

The ecclesiological views of Eastern Orthodox Christians, even according to Cardinal Ratzinger in his book "Principles of Catholic Theology," are more ancient than those of the West.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 04:18:47 PM
The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 04:46:18 PM
The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 04:55:38 PM
The following quotation is taken from the book, "Principles of Catholic Theology," by Joseph Ratzinger:

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had."

I find it interesting that Ratzinger admits that the East has not changed its understanding of the nature of the Church, while the West has done just that.

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.
You may be right, but I have no way of judging Ratzinger's intention in saying what he did in the quotation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on December 28, 2010, 04:56:40 PM

Nonsensical double-talk.
Papal infallibility and papal supremacy are, by their nature, not local dogmas. It is impossible to accept these ideas as "orthodox and legitimate" without applying them to oneself.

I agree.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:00:08 PM
Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on December 28, 2010, 05:10:30 PM
Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.

So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:13:15 PM
Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.
So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?
As a Melkite Catholic I belong to the one Church, and I profess the one faith, but I do not confuse theoria, which can be right or wrong, with dogma.

I don't know why you asked me this question, since all I did was quote Joseph Ratzinger in the post above.  Perhaps you should ask him the question.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on December 28, 2010, 05:17:21 PM
Whatever Ratzinger's intention was in saying what he did, the point remains that according to him the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains the same form she has always possessed, that is, she has not altered her ecclesial self-understanding in the way that the West has changed hers.
So, you don't consider yourself one Church and united in faith then?
As a Melkite Catholic I belong to the one Church, and I profess the one faith, but I do not confuse theoria, which can be right or wrong, with dogma.

I don't know why you asked me this question, since all I did was quote Joseph Ratzinger in the post above.  Perhaps you should ask him the question.  :D

I'm not sure what the pope was thinking either. I asked you because, I too am mystified by the rejection of things in ECs that don't appear to be partially acceptable.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 05:23:02 PM
The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.

On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.

As far as ecclesiology goes, autocephaly is definitely not the ancient view of the Orthodox. The Churches that became the "Eastern Orthodox" were in ancient days those churches which were the state Churches of the Byzantine Empire, and they were legally answerable to the government thereof. That they were sometimes rebellious certainly does not mean they had any articulated notion of autocephaly the way the Orthodox do now. That grew gradually as the Empire shrank.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:37:54 PM
The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.
It is pretty clear that we will not agree on the second part of you comment. 

I see no need to accept Western theological formulas (e.g., the Tridentine views on the original sin, or created grace, or the idea that divinity is not present within icons and relics) as binding upon me as a Melkite Catholic.  I will stick with the theological tradition of my own self-governing Church when it comes to speaking about the Christian mystery, whether I am referring to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the doctrine of Theosis, or even the doctrine of the Divine Energies.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:39:26 PM
Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.
I suppose that anything is possible, but I think it is best not to try and guess at Joseph Ratzinger's subjective disposition.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 05:40:21 PM
You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.

I'm assuming Razinger is being diplomatic, granted. I can't imagine he'd really believe that it's possible to believe in a geographically limited Papal infallibility. Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:45:27 PM
On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.
A person is free to reject the Western filioque because it is not a dogma, but is instead just a Western theory that tries, in a linguistically impoverished manner, to speak of the communion of essence that exists between the three persons of the Trinity.

That said, I hold that the Holy Spirit as hypostasis proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father alone, for He alone (i.e., the Father) is the source, principle, and cause within the Godhead; but that the Holy Spirit as energy progresses (proeinai) from the Father through the Son into the world (see St. Gregory Palamas, Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, no 49).
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 05:46:40 PM
You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.
Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 05:50:17 PM
Has the Melkite Patriarch stated unequivocally that he does not accept Papal infallibility as defined by the two Vatican councils? If so, then Benedict XVI is failing in his duties as Pontiff by not excommunicating him, in much the same way that Honorius I failed in his duties as Pontiff by not excommunicating the monothelite eastern patriarchs. Either way, the excommunication is automatic, even if the Pope does not visibly break communion.

As for the east's post hoc application of pagan neo-platonist mysticism to the Nicene Creed, the west preferred to focus on saving souls from Arianism, but unlike the eastern patriarchs the Roman Pontiff never tried to impose his view on the whole Church, despite the east's howling about supposed Roman tyranny. The idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son is acceptable.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on December 28, 2010, 05:52:39 PM
The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.
It is pretty clear that we will not agree on the second part of you comment. 

I see no need to accept Western theological formulas (e.g., the Tridentine views on the original sin, or created grace, or the idea that divinity is not present within icons and relics) as binding upon me as a Melkite Catholic.  I will stick with the theological tradition of my own self-governing Church when it comes to speaking about the Christian mystery, whether I am referring to the Trinity, the Incarnation, the doctrine of Theosis, or even the doctrine of the Divine Energies.

-Created grace isn't a belief of the Roman Catholics, I'll try to find the threads we discussed this ad nauseum.

-I've never heard of heard of a denial of divinity within relics. Why else place them in the altar.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on December 28, 2010, 05:57:45 PM
You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.
Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.

Would you mind producing proof of his denial of R Catholic dogma?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 28, 2010, 05:58:43 PM
The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in unity in any but the most theoretical way. As has been pointed out, a Greek Orthodox and a Russian Orthodox might live in the same town, and yet attend different congregations with totally different liturgies and hierarchies, and be categorized in difference diocese. In theory they could each take communion at the other Church, but in reality the Orthodox Churches are parallel institutions, not a single body.

Well, the way you're saying this isn't really true, but even if it were the same criticism could be made of your church. In Eastern Orthodoxy, we actually all share a uniform liturgy with regional/cultural variations (although the church does serve different liturgies at certain times of the year, such as Presanctified Liturgy of St. Pope Gregory the Dialogist during Lent). In your church, you actually have multiple churches with multiple liturgies from Armenian to Syriac to Byzantine in your eastern churches, which here in the USA also have different bishops in the same cities. So your "parallel institutions" rather than a "single body" critique is irrelevant and absurd.

We only have this issue in nontraditional lands, and the goal is eventual merging of these churches in "diaspora" lands. The Latin overlords have no such intention. Besides the situation in lands abroad for the easterners, in the homelands there is better uniformity in ecclesiastical structure. How many Patriarchs does the Roman Catholic and various eastern Catholic churches have in the Near-East? A lot more than we do. There's one patriarch of Jerusalem, as to where you have at least several if not more.

Also, even within the Latin church itself the unity seems far more "theoretical" than in Eastern Orthodoxy, where we have uniform prayers, liturgy and piety. In your church, you can be a Pentecostal-Charismatic or a traditional Latin Mass junkie, or go to groovy hippy mass and it all amounts to the same thing. As another poster once put it, it has a "choose your own adventure" ring to it.

I'm not saying our church is so much WAYYY better than your church, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your critiques.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:07:39 PM
You can believe whatever you like, of course. But your beliefs put you outside the Catholic Church if you fail to assent to the dogmatic definition of any council.
Your opinion is not share by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch, nor - evidently - by the Pope who remains in communion with the Melkite Catholic Church in spite of the fact that the Melkite Patriarch and Synod accept only seven ecumenical councils.

Would you mind producing proof of his denial of R Catholic dogma?

He's misrepresenting. Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef initially refused to subscribe to the statement of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, but later assented, along with the rest of the Melkite Bishops, simply adding the addendum "All rights, privileges, and prerogatives of the Eastern Patriarchs be respected".

The fact that Rome has accepted this makes clear that she does not construe it as contradicting her dogmatic definitions.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:09:53 PM
He's misrepresenting. Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef initially refused to subscribe to the statement of Papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, but later assented, along with the rest of the Melkite Bishops, simply adding the Council of Florence's addendum "Excepting the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs".
I am talking about the current Melkite Patriarch, who in a speech in Connecticut rejected the ecumenicity of the later Latin councils.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:11:11 PM
They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:14:03 PM
They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:17:37 PM
I agree with the Melkite Patriarch who - in a speech in Connecticut - said: "We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ."

And I also agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"]
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 28, 2010, 06:17:48 PM
Quote
-Created grace isn't a belief of the Roman Catholics, I'll try to find the threads we discussed this ad nauseum.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This dead horse. Oh sure they don't believe in Created Grace. They just believe you have to explain and name that new situation of grace in you. Ooo, but wait, it's a distinct Grace than the grace we always have and never lost. However, it's not created, just created in us, but the grace created in us in not a created grace, even through we can't have uncreated grace in us... ??? ::)
 :laugh:
 
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:19:59 PM
They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.

Formulations that are not dogmatic definitions, perhaps. Nobody is permitted to reject the dogmatic definitions of the Church's 21 councils. The infallibility of the Pope is a dogmatic definition.

If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:20:54 PM
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 28, 2010, 06:22:17 PM
Apparently the Catholic Church is able, in wisdom, to accept that there are at least two, and actually more, lines of expression of the same core truths, necessary for salvation.  

With respect to filioque, the position would be that as long as Orthodoxy does not deny any non-heretical understanding of filioque, then they are not bound to profess it in the creed because it is not their tradition.

The same would apply to the teaching concerning the Immaculate Conception, in fact.  In a situation of resumed communion, it would not be wise for Catholics of the Roman rite to think that there would now be a Feast of the Immaculate Conception in Orthodoxy.  It would not be required at all.  It is not their tradition.  As long as they continued to celebrate the feast day of the Conception of St. Anne, and profess the absolute sinlessness of the Mother of God that would be sufficient.

That sort of thing is what the Pope refers two when he recognizes the truth contained in Orthodoxy.

M.

The Melkite Catholic Church is allowed to name the councils however they like. But every dogmatic definition of every council, 1 through 21, is entirely binding upon every Catholic, of any rite. To deny them is to be excommunicated.

Ratzinger is being diplomatic, probably to an unwise extent. In the first millenium Rome never brooked any dissent from any other Church once she had taken an official position on what the teaching of the magisterium was. Quite the opposite, regularly she threatened to excommunicate, or did, eastern patriarchs for continuing in error against her definitions of magisterial teaching or her rulings on matters of canon law.

On the issue of unity: The filioque is not a dogma both Churches must accept, unless the Orthodox take the view that to include the filioque is heresy. Their view on this has hemmed and hawed over the years. On the issue of the dogma of Papal infallibility it is true that the EO are outside of the faith, I will give you that one.

As far as ecclesiology goes, autocephaly is definitely not the ancient view of the Orthodox. The Churches that became the "Eastern Orthodox" were in ancient days those churches which were the state Churches of the Byzantine Empire, and they were legally answerable to the government thereof. That they were sometimes rebellious certainly does not mean they had any articulated notion of autocephaly the way the Orthodox do now. That grew gradually as the Empire shrank.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:27:02 PM
They can consider them ecumenical or not as they like, they are still bound to the dogmatic definitions.
Neither the Melkite Patriarch nor the head of the UGCC (Lubomyr Husar) accept the proposition that you are putting forward, because both have indicated that Eastern Catholics do not have to subscribe to Western theological formulations issued at the fourteen local synods of the Latin Church that took place during the second millennium.

I know that Roman Catholics have a hard time accepting this, because they have for centuries seen the Roman Church as the only Catholic Church, but those days are now over.  Eastern Catholics will no longer be bullied into accepting latinization as inevitable.

Formulations that are not dogmatic definitions, perhaps. Nobody is permitted to reject the dogmatic definitions of the Church's 21 councils. The infallibility of the Pope is a dogmatic definition.

If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
I apologize for confusing you, but what you call "dogmatic definitions" I call "theological formulations."  Thus, the decree of Trent on the original sin is not a dogma, but merely a theological formulation, and a formulation that is heavily influenced by the theories of St. Augustine, as such it cannot be seen as a dogma, but must be seen merely as an opinion, and one that Eastern Catholics do not accept.  

Another "dogma" which really is in fact merely a Western formulation, and one that is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Fathers is the false idea that divinity is not present in icons and relics (see Council of Trent, Decree on the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics, of Saints, and on Sacred Images).  As an Eastern Catholic I believe, in line with the teaching of the Holy Fathers - and in particular Sts. John Damascene and Theodore Studite - that divine energy (i.e., divinity) is present within icons and relics, and that is precisely why it is possible to give them veneration.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:30:16 PM
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.

Sorry, you'll have to point out to me where in that the Patriarch denies Vatican I's definition of Papal infallibility, I'm not seeing it. All I see him saying is that in order to have communion with the orthodox it is not necessary to believe the same on all theological points. Certainly since the Melkites subscribed to the definition of infallibility in official capacity, they would need to recant of them in official capacity. Answering a question at a conference is a pretty big stretch.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:31:56 PM
If you are saying that the Melkite Patriarch formally rejected a dogmatic definition, show evidence of it, please. If he did, he is excommunicated, whether Pope Benedict has failed in his duty to do so visibly or not.
Since you are mistaken about these formulations being dogmatic definitions it is non-sequitur, because Eastern Catholics have never believed in things like "created grace," or the idea that images are empty of divinity, and so the fact that these things have been proposed in the local councils of the Latin Church are - for Eastern Catholics - irrelevant.  These false ideas, i.e., in the case of the two examples I just gave, play no role at all in the spiritual and liturgical life of Eastern Catholics.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:34:01 PM
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Major Archbishop Lubomyr Husar, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.


Question: But the Orthodox are saying that you (i.e., the Ukrainian Catholics) were latinized in the 18th and 19th centuries. What are the guarantees in the 21st century that you will not lose freedom?

Major Archbishop Husar: It is true that we have been latinized. And this is the great merit of Metropolitan Sheptytsky at the beginning of the 20th century: that he tried to reverse this process. Personally, I consider myself a follower of Metropolitan Sheptytsky, together with many others who would like to get rid of all that has illegally entered into our spiritual, theological, liturgical, canonical heritage. We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it. And it is only with Metropolitan Sheptytsky that we could say: Dear brothers from Rome, one can be Catholic without being Latin. And we were attacked on two fronts, Catholic-Latin and Orthodox-Byzantine. And we said: No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another. So this is why neither the Latin Church nor the Orthodox Church is very happy with us.

Question: What are the conditions to have eucharistic communion between the believers of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church? Is it necessary to have the same theology of marriage, of the filioque, of purgatory?

Major Archbishop Husar: No. Our attitude practically is that between the Orthodox and ourselves there are no differences in faith. Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith. And they of course are very different, but they are ultimately complementary. So they do not represent a different faith. They represent a different understanding of the gift of faith. What is our practical stand on intercommunion? If a Catholic finds himself in a position where there is no Catholic church around, he can freely go to the Orthodox church and receive sacraments. The same thing when an Orthodox cannot find an Orthodox priest, we don't deny him the sacraments, especially confession and holy Communion. The only problem is the scandal that it means, not to give the impression that it doesn't make a difference what you are. You are what you are. But the circumstances are such that you are in need and we are open to help you or to being helped.

Sorry, you'll have to point out to me where in that the Patriarch denies Vatican I's definition of Papal infallibility, I'm not seeing it. All I see him saying is that in order to have communion with the orthodox it is not necessary to believe the same on all theological points. Certainly since the Melkites subscribed to the definition of infallibility in official capacity, they would need to recant of them in official capacity. Answering a question at a conference is a pretty big stretch.
The responses - as is evident to anyone who reads them - concern Western theories like the "immaculate conception," and "purgatory," two things that play no real role in the spiritual life of Eastern Catholics.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:35:55 PM
Thomist,
 
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.

I have, since becoming Eastern Catholic in 2005, run into many people like you, who mistakenly believe that being Catholic is identical with being Latin.  Such bigotry is something that is no longer acceptable to Eastern Catholics.  The funny thing in all this is that Rome began the process of de-latinization in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:39:01 PM
The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you misrepresenting essential doctrines of my religion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:43:06 PM
I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.
Oh, you might want to read St. John Damascene's "Three Treatises on the Divine Images," and St. Theodore Studite's book "On the Holy Icons."  The doctrine that divine energy is present in icons and relics is clearly enunciated in their writings.  If icons and relics were somehow empty of divinity to give them veneration would be a form of idolatry.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:45:06 PM
Well, I'll check it out, but in accidens does not mean divinity is not there. For example, I have red hair. I have red hair in accidens because it is not part of the substantial essence of any human being to have red hair: My red hair is an accidental feature of me.

A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:48:44 PM
The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you playing pretend with my religion.
Fr. Hardon said the following about created grace:  "Nature of Sanctifying Grace. What is sanctifying grace? It has been called the 'masterpiece of God's handicraft in this world … far more glorious than anything we can behold in the heavens above us or on the earth at our feet.' Is it just God's favor toward us, as Luther wanted? No, it is much more. Is it God's life or nature or God's love, as some have called it? No, for God's life and love and nature are uncreated, are God Himself. Sanctifying grace is not God, it is not the Holy Spirit, it is not just God's favor. It is something created, given to us by God out of love and mercy, which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life. It is a supernatural gift infused into our souls by God, a positive reality, spiritual, supernatural, and invisible."

I reject what Fr. Hardon says about sanctifying grace.  As an Eastern Catholic I believe that grace is the very uncreated energy of God, for nothing created can divinize a man.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:51:06 PM
So do I. Where was that said? I would be inclined to argue that Father Hardon inadequately understands the teachings of Saint Thomas on the issue, who was perhaps the most western of western catholics. Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:51:27 PM
A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:52:15 PM
So do I. Where was that said? I would be inclined to argue that Father Hardon inadequately understands the teachings of Saint Thomas on the issue, who was perhaps the most western of western catholics. Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
It is in his course on grace.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:53:19 PM
A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.

If you believed that the forearm of a saint was divine in essentia then you would believe that every human forearm is divine in essentia. There would be nothing unique or unusual about this particular Saint's forearm.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:53:38 PM
Created grace is only created in terms of the accidental feature of the one participating it, not the essential nature of itself.
I do not believe in "created grace" in any sense of the term; instead, I accept the doctrine of uncreated grace by participation in the divine energies.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 06:55:49 PM
A relic, say, the bone of a saint, would have divinity in accidens, according to the Aristotelico-Thomist vocabulary, because it is not part of the essentia of a bone to be divine.
That is a nice Scholastic take on the issue, but I reject it as contrary to the teachings of the Holy Fathers.  I hold that divine energy is infused into the relics of the saints, and into sacred icons, and that is precisely why they can be venerated by the faithful.

By the way, Aristotle is a pagan, a smart one perhaps, but a pagan nonetheless, and so I see no reason to follow his theories about metaphysics.

If you believed that the forearm of a saint was divine in essentia then you would believe that every human forearm is divine in essentia. There would be nothing unique or unusual about this particular Saint's forearm.
Have I mentioned essence (ousia) in any of my posts up to this point?  I don't believe that I have; instead, I have spoken of the infusion of the uncreated energies (energeiai) into icons and relics.  Essence and energy are not identical.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 06:58:18 PM
1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.

2.) On relics. That the relics, again for example the forearm of a saint, have divine energy flowing through them, is an accidental feature of them. It is not the case that all forearms have divine energy flowing through them, it is a feature of this particular forearm. Thus it is attributed to the forearm in accidens.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 07:01:15 PM
P.S: Thomas, again:

Quote
I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:02:19 PM
1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.
Nothing created can divinize a man.  Theosis, as taught in the East, concerns man's participation in the uncreated divine energies, which are distinct from the divine essence.  The East believes in a real distinction, without a separation, between essence and energy in God.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this teaching, but it is precisely this doctrinal distinction that makes "created grace" unnecessary.

2.) On relics. That the relics, again for example the forearm of a saint, have divine energy flowing through them, is an accidental feature of them. It is not the case that all forearms have divine energy flowing through them, it is a feature of this particular forearm. This it is attributed to the forearm in essentia.
The categories of substance and accidents, which you are trying to apply - as any good Aristotelian would - have no importance within the doctrine of energies as taught by the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
P.S: Thomas, again:

Quote
I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.
That may be what St. Thomas believed, but it is not what I believe. 

I agree instead with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  "According to the divine Maximos, the Logos of well-being, by grace is present unto the worthy, bearing God, Who is by nature above all beginning and end, Who makes those who by nature have a beginning and an end become by grace without beginning and without end, because the Great Paul also, no longer living the life in time, but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling Logos, became by grace without beginning and without end; and Melchisedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, not because of his created nature, according to which he began and ceased to exist, but because of the divine and uncreated and eternal grace which is above all nature and time, being from the eternal God. Paul, therefore, was created only as long as he lived the life created from non-being by the command of God. But when he no longer lived this life, but that which is present by the indwelling of God, he became uncreated by grace, as did also Melchisedek and everyone who comes to possess the Logos of God, alone living and acting within himself" [St. Gregory Palamas, Third Letter to Akindynos].
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 07:07:20 PM
1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.

2.) Thomas was a subtler and more of an academically philosophical thinker than any of the Church Fathers were.  I don't even know that what I've laid out is the teaching of the Church (I've yet to look in to it), but it is logically necessary that the divine energy in question is an accidental feature of the relic, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Thomistically worded definition from the west confused the east, which does not speak in the technical jargon of Aristotelico-Thomism.

Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:09:39 PM
1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

2.) Thomas was a subtler and more of an academically philosophical thinker than any of the Church Fathers were.  I don't even know that what I've laid out is the teaching of the Church (I've yet to look in to it), but it is logically necessary that the divine energy in question is an accidental feature of the relic, and I wouldn't be surprised if a Thomistically worded definition from the west confused the east, which does not speak in the technical jargon of Aristotelico-Thomism.
Alas, Thomas was too influenced by the pagan philosophy of Aristotle, which is why he proposed the quasi-Arian notion of "created grace."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:11:25 PM
Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
Because Palamas - unlike Aquinas - does not assert some kind of created likeness to God; instead, he says, and correctly so, that man becomes uncreated by his participation in the divine energy, that is, man takes on the eternal and uncreated theosis, which makes him a real, and not merely a virtual, icon of God.  To understand this better you should consult St. Gregory's "The Triads," and his treatise entitled, "The Capita Physica."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 28, 2010, 07:15:05 PM
Quote
1.) On created grace. Believing that human beings participate in grace is the same thing as believing in created grace in accidens. When they come to be participating in grace, an accidental feature of them, that they participate in grace, is created. Similarly, when my hair turns gray, an accidental feature of me, that my hair will have turned gray, will be created. This has nothing to do with the grace itself being created in essentia.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

God's Grace never 'left' us, neither purposely or accidentally.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 07:16:15 PM
Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:19:24 PM
Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?
But what does Thomas mean when he speaks of a "participated" likeness, according to the Summa Theologica, he means a "created light of glory" (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 7).

Alas, we have not even addressed the problems associated with Thomas' view that the vision of God involves a vision of the divine essence, which is something that the Eastern Fathers completely reject.  The divine essence is utterly transcendent, which is why the vision of God is a vision of the uncreated energies, and not the divine essence.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:21:16 PM
God's Grace never 'left' us, neither purposely or accidentally.
Nor did it do so substantively or accidentally.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on December 28, 2010, 07:22:45 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM
The Orthodox take 'created grace' refer to grace that is created in esse. The Catholic doctrine is only concerned with grace created in accidens. This is wholly relative to the possession of the grace being an accidental feature of the person who now possesses it, it has nothing to do with the substantial nature of grace. Thus, Thomas:

Quote
And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be inact with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

and:

Quote
thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

I am unfamiliar with the teaching on divinity inhering in relics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issue is also that the western Church teaches divinity to inhere in relics in accidens.

You can believe whatever you want, that's up to you. But you are misrepresenting yourself if you say that you are Catholic while denying dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not allow those who reject Papal infallibility to be in communion with it - see the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht. You say you don't appreciate what you call my bigotry. Well I don't appreciate you playing pretend with my religion.
Fr. Hardon said the following about created grace:  "Nature of Sanctifying Grace. What is sanctifying grace? It has been called the 'masterpiece of God's handicraft in this world … far more glorious than anything we can behold in the heavens above us or on the earth at our feet.' Is it just God's favor toward us, as Luther wanted? No, it is much more. Is it God's life or nature or God's love, as some have called it? No, for God's life and love and nature are uncreated, are God Himself. Sanctifying grace is not God, it is not the Holy Spirit, it is not just God's favor. It is something created, given to us by God out of love and mercy, which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life. It is a supernatural gift infused into our souls by God, a positive reality, spiritual, supernatural, and invisible."

I reject what Fr. Hardon says about sanctifying grace.  As an Eastern Catholic I believe that grace is the very uncreated energy of God, for nothing created can divinize a man.

Father Hardon was, and is, a very good man and priest.

That is not to say that he had the charism of infallibility in his local catechesis.  

This is not Thomistic teaching.  It is not even formal Catholic teaching.

To raise it is of local interest only...and local import only.

You, as a Catholic, never need to accept Father Hardon's teaching on sanctifying grace.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM
1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 28, 2010, 07:26:53 PM
Also I'd like you to explain why you think the quote you posted from Palamas contradicts the quote from Thomas.
Because Palamas - unlike Aquinas - does not assert some kind of created likeness to God; instead, he says, and correctly so, that man becomes uncreated by his participation in the divine energy, that is, man takes on the eternal and uncreated theosis, which makes him a real, and not merely a virtual, icon of God.  To understand this better you should consult St. Gregory's "The Triads," and his treatise entitled, "The Capita Physica."

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Excellent advisement for all concerned.

And a course on Thomas from traditional Dominicans is in order as well!!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 07:35:47 PM
1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.
What Roman Catholics think about their own theories is their own business.  It only becomes a concern for an Eastern Catholic when the Latin Catholic tries to enforce Western theories on Easterners.  It is sad to say but there are still a lot of Latin Catholics who equate being Catholic with being Latin.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 07:41:16 PM
Thomas said "Participated likeness" not "Created likeness". Do you understand the difference?
But what does Thomas mean when he speaks of a "participated" likeness, according to the Summa Theologica, he means a "created light of glory" (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 7).

Alas, we have not even addressed the problems associated with Thomas' view that the vision of God involves a vision of the divine essence, which is something that the Eastern Fathers completely reject.  The divine essence is utterly transcendent, which is why the vision of God is a vision of the uncreated energies, and not the divine essence.

Thomas does not treat of participated likeness vis a vis sanctifying grace in the question you cited.

Quote
I answer that, It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

Thomas does allow the object to see the essence of God if God by His grace should unite Himself to the created intellect.

As for the opinions of the fathers, I'll be straight and I say I consider Thomas a greater thinker any father was. If you want to have an argument between the opinions of Thomas and the opinions of the Fathers, I welcome that, but I do not share the Orthodox super-reverence for the opinions of the father.

As for your belief that Eastern Catholics are allowed to deny Papal infallibility without incurring excommunication, it's incorrect, I'm sorry. It is a matter of fact, not opinion. Though you still haven't produced any evidence that the Malakite Catholic Church has repudiated its earlier subscription to Papal Infallibility, and I haven't been able to find any myself.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on December 28, 2010, 07:48:34 PM
This topic should be renamed: Eastern Catholic vs. Eastern Catholic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 08:29:17 PM
Ah, you were referring to question 6, not question 7, 'Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?'

Quote
In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable. But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears---Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Q[7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Aquinas here refers to the 'created light of glory' which increases the mind's knowledge of God, but does not simply equate it with the participatory likeness that is salvific grace. Indeed, he makes no mention of salvific grace or participatory likeness at all.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 08:43:20 PM
Ah, you were referring to question 6, not question 7, 'Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?'

Quote
In proof of this we must consider that what is comprehended is perfectly known; and that is perfectly known which is known so far as it can be known. Thus, if anything which is capable of scientific demonstration is held only by an opinion resting on a probably proof, it is not comprehended; as, for instance, if anyone knows by scientific demonstration that a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles, he comprehends that truth; whereas if anyone accepts it as a probable opinion because wise men or most men teach it, he cannot be said to comprehend the thing itself, because he does not attain to that perfect mode of knowledge of which it is intrinsically capable. But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears---Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Q[7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Aquinas here refers to the 'created light of glory' which increases the mind's knowledge of God, but does not simply equate it with the participatory likeness that is salvific grace. Indeed, he makes no mention of salvific grace or participatory likeness at all.
Once again the problem remains, because Eastern Christians reject the idea that the light of glory is created.  Nothing created can bestow the vision of God upon man.  The light of glory is the uncreated light of Tabor.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 08:45:40 PM
As for the opinions of the fathers, I'll be straight and I say I consider Thomas a greater thinker any father was. If you want to have an argument between the opinions of Thomas and the opinions of the Fathers, I welcome that, but I do not share the Orthodox super-reverence for the opinions of the father.
I believe that Aquinas was a good Aristotelian philosopher but a very poor theologian.  :D

I will stick with the views of the Holy Fathers of the East.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ChristusDominus on December 28, 2010, 08:46:58 PM
This topic should be renamed: Eastern Catholic vs. Eastern Catholic.
You mean Eastern Catholic vs. Western Catholic?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 08:47:11 PM
Quote
Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but his personal views are exactly the views of the Catholic church if he chooses to make them so. I'm familiar with some of the nuances of the doctrine of infallibility, and any time the pope chooses to speak "from the magisterium," he is to be regarded as speaking "infallibly." That's the deal, like it or not.

We Orthodox don't like it, needless to say.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 08:50:52 PM
1.) The grace has not been created. The accidental feature of man, that he is participating the grace, has been created.
I agree, nothing about grace is created, which is why the use of the word "created" should be avoid entirely.  Grace is God as energy dwelling in man.

Unless of course you are a Roman rite Catholic, or speaking of Roman rite expressions of their tradition and then, of course, you may use it...and rightly and accurately so, in so far as it is true.
What Roman Catholics think about their own theories is their own business.  It only becomes a concern for an Eastern Catholic when the Latin Catholic tries to enforce Western theories on Easterners.  It is sad to say but there are still a lot of Latin Catholics who equate being Catholic with being Latin.

Even more than that, they equate being Latin Catholic with "the One True Faith." Despite for a thousand years espousing doctrines the Eastern church regards as heterodox or even heretical.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 08:51:36 PM
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.

Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 08:52:47 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 08:55:58 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 08:57:51 PM
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.

Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Titulus III, Canon 45, section 3 of the Canons of the Eastern Church says:
 § 3. Contra sententiam vel decretum Romani Pontificis non datur appellatio neque recursus.

So I guess we're clear what's expected of Eastern-Rite Catholics, too.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 09:00:18 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:02:18 PM
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.
I don't see my position as deceitful at all, I just simply do not take the exaggerated views of the Roman Church on some of its medieval theories as binding upon everyone.

The Roman Catholic delegates to the Joint International Commission for Dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church, all of whom were appointed by the pope, seemed to have no problem saying that there have been no ecumenical councils since the schism of the 11th century.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:03:53 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 09:13:18 PM
The 'created light of glory' Aquinas refers to there is the lumen gloriae. It does not inhere in God, but in the mind of man. Or at least, in God's action in the mind of man rather than in God simply. Thomas:

Quote
Nothing can receive a higher form unless it be disposed thereto by raising and enlarging its capacity, because every act is limited to its proper power. Now the divine essence is a higher form than any created intellect. Therefore, in order that the divine essence become the intelligible species for a created intellect, which is required in order that the divine substance be seen, the created intellect must be raised and enlatged for that purpose by some supernatural disposition. (16)

When any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary ... that the power of understanding should be aided by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect

On the issue of the Papal Infallibility, it is not held by the Catholic Church to be theoria which you are free to agree or not agree to. The First Council of the Vatican, in explicit language, places anathema on anyone who fails to assent to it.

Quote
Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but his personal views are exactly the views of the Catholic church if he chooses to make them so. I'm familiar with some of the nuances of the doctrine of infallibility, and any time the pope chooses to speak "from the magisterium," he is to be regarded as speaking "infallibly." That's the deal, like it or not.

We Orthodox don't like it, needless to say.

That statement wasn't made with reassuring any Orthodox in mind, it was a statement made by a Catholic about the Pope, made to another Catholic, self-identified. Anyways, no, the Pope can only define what has been taught by the magisterium. He has no authority to codify anything that doesn't fall under the teachings of the magisterium.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 09:15:42 PM
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.
I don't see my position as deceitful at all, I just simply do not take the exaggerated views of the Roman Church on some of its medieval theories as binding upon everyone.

Then you should not be in communion with those who do see these views as binding upon everyone. If Papal supremacy and papal infallibility are not true, then they are necessarily heresies since they were proclaimed as dogmas, with anathemas on anyone with the temerity to reject them. When a dogma is proclaimed, there can be no middle ground.

Quote
The Roman Catholic delegates to the Joint International Commission for Dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church, all of whom were appointed by the pope, seemed to have no problem saying that there have been no ecumenical councils since the schism of the 11th century.

Does the Joint International Commission have higher authority than a self-proclaimed ecumenical council and the dogmas it asserted for the whole church? You're looking for loopholes and that is not indicative of honesty.  
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:19:15 PM
On the issue of the Papal Infallibility, it is not held by the Latin Catholic Church to be theoria which you are free to agree or not agree to. The First Council of the Vatican, in explicit language, places anathema on anyone who fails to assent to it.
I took the liberty of adding the word that was missing from your comment.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:21:06 PM
Does the Joint International Commission have higher authority than a self-proclaimed ecumenical council and the dogmas it asserted for the whole church? You're looking for loopholes and that is not indicative of honesty.  
I do not think that I mentioned anything in particular about the authority of the commission.  All I said is that the Roman Catholic representatives to the commission were all appointed by the pope.  You would think that they would not put their names to something that would cause him problems later.  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 09:24:00 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 28, 2010, 09:25:35 PM
The 'created light of glory' Aquinas refers to there is the lumen gloriae. It does not inhere in God, but in the mind of man. Or at least, in God's action in the mind of man rather than in God simply. Thomas:

Quote
Nothing can receive a higher form unless it be disposed thereto by raising and enlarging its capacity, because every act is limited to its proper power. Now the divine essence is a higher form than any created intellect. Therefore, in order that the divine essence become the intelligible species for a created intellect, which is required in order that the divine substance be seen, the created intellect must be raised and enlatged for that purpose by some supernatural disposition. (16)

When any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary ... that the power of understanding should be aided by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect

On the issue of the Papal Infallibility, it is not held by the Catholic Church to be theoria which you are free to agree or not agree to. The First Council of the Vatican, in explicit language, places anathema on anyone who fails to assent to it.

Quote
Either way, his personal views on it aren't the views of the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but his personal views are exactly the views of the Catholic church if he chooses to make them so. I'm familiar with some of the nuances of the doctrine of infallibility, and any time the pope chooses to speak "from the magisterium," he is to be regarded as speaking "infallibly." That's the deal, like it or not.

We Orthodox don't like it, needless to say.

That statement wasn't made with reassuring any Orthodox in mind, it was a statement made by a Catholic about the Pope, made to another Catholic, self-identified. Anyways, no, the Pope can only define what has been taught by the magisterium. He has no authority to codify anything that doesn't fall under the teachings of the magisterium.

I don't believe this is correct, there are five specific conditions that are to be met for a statement to be held infallibly. And he can specifically refute anything previously taught by the magisterium, it's one of the provisions of the promulgation.

Anyway, this feels pretty far off whatever the beginning topic was! LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:29:46 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.
I get a rather positive sense - speaking as someone on the outside - that the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States are moving closer together, which is a good thing.  But I do not see the distinct jurisdictions as harming the over all unity of Orthodoxy in America, at least I do not get that impression from my Orthodox friends, some of whom are in the OCA while the others are in ROCOR.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 09:39:41 PM
On the issue of the Papal Infallibility, it is not held by the Latin Catholic Church to be theoria which you are free to agree or not agree to. The First Council of the Vatican, in explicit language, places anathema on anyone who fails to assent to it.
I took the liberty of adding the word that was missing from your comment.  :D

You are free to believe that the First Vatican Council was a regional synod of the west if you like, but you are not free to believe that those who reject Papal infallibility are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It is a point of fact and not opinion that they are not. The Bishop of Rome and the Churches in communion with him have solemnly pronounced anathema on anyone who rejects the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Whether or not the First Vatican Council was a regional synod of the west would do nothing to change the fact that the Western Church has pronounced anathema on all those who reject Papal Infallibility, and has certainly not made any special provision for the eastern rites. Indeed, there is a story that Pope Pius IX had Patriarch Gregory II Youssef thrown to the ground by the Swiss Guard and pressed his foot against his head for Youssef's reluctance to subscribe to the doctrine. That's a very distressing story if true (and a totally inappropriate action by the Pontiff, it goes without saying) but illustrative of whether or not Rome feels the non-latin churches are allowed to contradict Papal infallibility.

Quote from: Hermogenes
I don't believe this is correct, there are five specific conditions that are to be met for a statement to be held infallibly. And he can specifically refute anything previously taught by the magisterium, it's one of the provisions of the promulgation.

Anyway, this feels pretty far off whatever the beginning topic was! LOL

The promulgation says that the dogmatic definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable by themselves and not by the consent of the Church, is that what you're referring to?

The Roman Church at any time, first millenium or second millenium, has never been down with other Churches contradicting its understanding of magisterium. But the authority Rome sees itself as having is of defining the teaching of the magisterium, not of introducing new magisterial teachings. Rome still governs by summoning councils, not through decree.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:42:36 PM
On the issue of the Papal Infallibility, it is not held by the Latin Catholic Church to be theoria which you are free to agree or not agree to. The First Council of the Vatican, in explicit language, places anathema on anyone who fails to assent to it.
I took the liberty of adding the word that was missing from your comment.  :D

You are free to believe that the First Vatican Council was a regional synod of the west if you like, but you are not free to believe that those who reject Papal infallibility are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Lucky for me that you are not the Melkite Patriarch.  :D 

You have a right to your opinion, even if I do not accept its validity.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:45:38 PM
The promulgation says that the dogmatic definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable by themselves and not by the consent of the Church, is that what you're referring to?

The Roman Church at any time, first millenium or second millenium, has never been down with other Churches contradicting its understanding of magisterium. But the authority Rome sees itself as having is of defining the teaching of the magisterium, not of introducing new magisterial teachings. Rome still governs by summoning councils, not through decree.
I know you believe that, and I do not doubt your sincerity one bit, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not accept the teaching of Vatican I as dogma; as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby said:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 09:47:18 PM
Does the Joint International Commission have higher authority than a self-proclaimed ecumenical council and the dogmas it asserted for the whole church? You're looking for loopholes and that is not indicative of honesty.  
I do not think that I mentioned anything in particular about the authority of the commission.  All I said is that the Roman Catholic representatives to the commission were all appointed by the pope.  You would think that they would not put their names to something that would cause him problems later.  :D

So the Pope and/or his representatives are  A) confused or B) duplicitous. Doesn't improve your position. As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:48:47 PM
Does the Joint International Commission have higher authority than a self-proclaimed ecumenical council and the dogmas it asserted for the whole church? You're looking for loopholes and that is not indicative of honesty.  
I do not think that I mentioned anything in particular about the authority of the commission.  All I said is that the Roman Catholic representatives to the commission were all appointed by the pope.  You would think that they would not put their names to something that would cause him problems later.  :D

So the Pope and/or his representatives are  A) confused or B) duplicitous. Doesn't improve your position. As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
Your guess is as good as mine, but for the time being I will take them at their word.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 09:51:31 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 09:54:21 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 28, 2010, 10:00:22 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.
I agree, and that faith is found in scripture, tradition, and the seven ecumenical councils as interpreted by the consensus of the Holy Fathers.  As far as papal supremacy is concerned, since becoming a Melkite Catholic in 2005 I have been taught that that is not a dogma of the Church and that primacy must never be confused with supremacy.  Now, the Melkite Catholic Church's own catechetical materials, along with speeches and writings of the Melkite Patriarch, are the primary source for what I have been saying.  The Melkite Patriarch has not hidden these comments, and so I must assume that Rome is aware of what he has said, and yet the bishop of Rome has not broken communion with the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Church.  Go figure.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Patriarch Gregory II Youssef signed the First Vatican Council's declaration of Papal infallibility. If the Melkite Catholic Church has not formally repudiated this action since, it is doubtful that the Roman Curia is fully aware of the degree to which the Melkites have fallen away from the Catholic faith (Assuming of course that the Melkite faith is as you represent it - the evidence you have provided has been extremely sketchy. It didn't even contain any direct mention of the declaration of infallibility whatsoever). With a worldwide flock of 1.166 billion, it isn't all that hard to believe that Rome could lose track of the Melkites.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: stashko on December 28, 2010, 10:18:33 PM
Patriarch Gregory II Youssef signed the First Vatican Council's declaration of Papal infallibility. If the Melkite Catholic Church has not formally repudiated this action since, it is doubtful that the Roman Curia is fully aware of the degree to which the Melkites have fallen away from the Catholic faith (Assuming of course that the Melkite faith is as you represent it - the evidence you have provided has been extremely sketchy. It didn't even contain any direct mention of the declaration of infallibility whatsoever). With a worldwide flock of 1.166 billion, it isn't all that hard to believe that Rome could lose track of the Melkites.

1.166 billion
You Wish.... ;D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on December 28, 2010, 10:18:51 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.
I agree, and that faith is found in scripture, tradition, and the seven ecumenical councils as interpreted by the consensus of the Holy Fathers.  As far as papal supremacy is concerned, since becoming a Melkite Catholic in 2005 I have been taught that that is not a dogma of the Church and that primacy must never be confused with supremacy.  Now, the Melkite Catholic Church's own catechetical materials, along with speeches and writings of the Melkite Patriarch, are the primary source for what I have been saying.

And you are evidently happy with this deception and incoherence. All the same, some citations of these catechetical materials would be interesting.

Quote
The Melkite Patriarch has not hidden these comments, and so I must assume that Rome is aware of what he has said, and yet the bishop of Rome has not broken communion with the Melkite Catholic Patriarch or the Melkite Church.  Go figure.

Ah, yes: the basis of Rome's unity: "join us and we'll look the other way."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 10:21:55 PM
Quote
1.166 billion
You Wish.... Grin

Well, that's the number of "official" catholics in the world. Who knows what percentage of that are faithful. Though it's distressing to me that you say "you wish". I would hope the Orthodox would hope for people to be faithful Catholics rather than seculars who have fallen away from Christ in any form. That's certainly the way I feel about Orthodox who have.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: stashko on December 28, 2010, 10:24:42 PM
My Prayers Were Always That Islam Wipes Rome Vatican off the Face of the earth and takes its popes with it... ;D  Holy Orthodoxy will be better off without it ......All vatican did was sow pain and anguish in it's lust for power...

Quote
1.166 billion
You Wish.... Grin

Well, that's the number of "official" catholics in the world. Who knows what percentage of that are faithful. Though it's distressing to me that you say "you wish". I would hope the Orthodox would hope for people to be faithful Catholics rather than seculars who have fallen away from Christ in any form. That's certainly the way I feel about Orthodox who have.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 10:36:21 PM
Ah yes the good old insane genocidal serbian contingent. Always so pleasant.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Ionnis on December 28, 2010, 11:00:16 PM
Ah yes the good old insane genocidal serbian contingent. Always so pleasant.

Well if it is any consolation, St. Justin Popovich condemned his sort of orthodoxy. 
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: stashko on December 28, 2010, 11:03:13 PM
Ah yes the good old insane genocidal serbian contingent. Always so pleasant.


Not as Insane, As the Vatican backed Croatian Catholic Franciscan Ustasha Genocide against the Innocent srbs, gypsies, jews,and other minorities....Hopeful while I'm still alive ill witness that Glorious day,by the Grace of God,  God willing...and Hope beyond Hope... ;D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 11:07:31 PM
All you balkaners are crazy, whatever your religion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Ionnis on December 28, 2010, 11:17:37 PM
All you balkaners are crazy, whatever your religion.

How offensive.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on December 28, 2010, 11:32:54 PM
Yea that was an overstatement, I'm sorry. He did just express the desire that the Catholic Church be conquered by Muslims though.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Ionnis on December 28, 2010, 11:40:20 PM
Yea that was an overstatement, I'm sorry. He did just express the desire that the Catholic Church be conquered by Muslims though.

No, I understand.  I disagree with Stashko on many, many, many things.  :)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 28, 2010, 11:41:52 PM
What you seem to be unable to comprehend is that, since I - as an Eastern Catholic - do not accept the ecumenicity of the Western synods, it follows that I do not feel compelled to accept the formulations proposed at those local synods as somehow binding upon everyone.

Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.
Indeed!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 28, 2010, 11:46:42 PM
The promulgation says that the dogmatic definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable by themselves and not by the consent of the Church, is that what you're referring to?

The Roman Church at any time, first millenium or second millenium, has never been down with other Churches contradicting its understanding of magisterium. But the authority Rome sees itself as having is of defining the teaching of the magisterium, not of introducing new magisterial teachings. Rome still governs by summoning councils, not through decree.
I know you believe that, and I do not doubt your sincerity one bit, but as a Melkite Catholic I do not accept the teaching of Vatican I as dogma; as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby said:  ". . . Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, Ecumenical Reflections].
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 28, 2010, 11:49:26 PM
Thomist,
I am officially a fan of yours. LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 29, 2010, 03:46:56 AM
 :o

Why all the attacks on Apotheoun? Instead of questioning his faith, why not just answer and reply to his posts?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 29, 2010, 09:42:54 AM

Quote
I get a rather positive sense - speaking as someone on the outside - that the various Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States are moving closer together, which is a good thing.  But I do not see the distinct jurisdictions as harming the over all unity of Orthodoxy in America, at least I do not get that impression from my Orthodox friends, some of whom are in the OCA while the others are in ROCOR.

Depends on what the goal is. I'd say the current situation is neutral--we aren't harming each other, and there is cooperation at many levels. But if the goal--which many want--is of a single Orthodox church with a  single hierarchy (as was the case a hundred years ago), then we are quite a long way from that. At that time, Greeks, Antiochians, Russians, etc., were all governed in a single archdiocese. Of course, that archdiocese was under the Holy Synod, as was, in Moscow. So it wouldn't be workable under the same format now.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 29, 2010, 11:57:49 AM
:o

Why all the attacks on Apotheoun? Instead of questioning his faith, why not just answer and reply to his posts?
We're not attacking. We are just trying to understand why he calls himself Catholic when he rejects the Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 29, 2010, 12:00:07 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

You are not in communion with the Melkite Patriarch because he is in communion with Rome, but you are not due to your rejection of the Catholic faith. The funny thing is that you are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox either. You are a church unto yourself.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on December 29, 2010, 12:03:04 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

I am OCA and have received communion in Greek, Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn, MP, and ROCOR parishes when traveling.  My priest has no problem with it.  I've also have received comunion in the ROCOR Cathedral in San Frnacisco.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 29, 2010, 12:24:02 PM
:o

Why all the attacks on Apotheoun? Instead of questioning his faith, why not just answer and reply to his posts?

It is very difficult in this kind of interrupted multi-logue to actually refute half truths and manipulated whole truths.

It is kinder, more efficient and more accurate to just keep presenting the accurate position rather than try to untangle the mess.

M.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 29, 2010, 01:14:42 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

I am OCA and have received communion in Greek, Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn, MP, and ROCOR parishes when traveling.  My priest has no problem with it.  I've also have received comunion in the ROCOR Cathedral in San Frnacisco.

Orthodoc

I haven't been quite so peripatetic, but I've received communion across several jurisdictional lines. But where I am unknown I always try to contact the priest and clear it ahead of time. At least where I live, it's not always a foregone conclusion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 29, 2010, 01:22:29 PM
Here are some examples of attacks:

Quote
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Another:

Quote
If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.

Here:

Quote
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 29, 2010, 01:24:45 PM
Quote
I haven't been quite so peripatetic, but I've received communion across several jurisdictional lines. But where I am unknown I always try to contact the priest and clear it ahead of time. At least where I live, it's not always a foregone conclusion.

It is always a good idea to speak with the priest beforehand when visiting a parish not your own. Either by phone, during hours/matins or before Divine Liturgy.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 30, 2010, 03:00:52 AM
Here are some examples of attacks:

Quote
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Another:

Quote
If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.

Here:

Quote
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.


It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.




fixed quote tags, nothing more -Schultz
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 30, 2010, 08:20:30 AM
Quote
I haven't been quite so peripatetic, but I've received communion across several jurisdictional lines. But where I am unknown I always try to contact the priest and clear it ahead of time. At least where I live, it's not always a foregone conclusion.

It is always a good idea to speak with the priest beforehand when visiting a parish not your own. Either by phone, during hours/matins or before Divine Liturgy.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on December 30, 2010, 10:56:16 AM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on December 30, 2010, 11:40:31 AM
Here are some examples of attacks:

Quote
Since you are in communion with Rome and Rome has always considered those councils ecumenical, AND, since there is no way papal supremacy and papal infallibility can be "local" dogmas, it follows that you should either subscribe to those dogmas or break communion. Your present position is deceitful and unprincipled.

Another:

Quote
If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.

Here:

Quote
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.


It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Dear Papist,

The best that you, a layman, can say is that it APPEARS that Todd Kasters is no longer in communion with the papal Church/Catholic Church.    You cannot and seriously ought not assert that he has removed himself.  We cannot do that at all.  We can best and only speak of appearances.

Mary



fixed quote tags, nothing more -Schultz
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 30, 2010, 11:47:37 AM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 30, 2010, 01:13:17 PM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 



As I understand it, the agreements establishing relations between certain Byzantine jurisdictions and the See of Rome were based on political expediency more than on a detailed common belief. The Byzantines were until the moment of union with Rome fully Orthodox (as in their view they continued to be) and didn't suddenly turn around and subscribe whole-heartedly to doctrines that had divided the two halves of Christendom for half a millennium at that point. Inevitably, such an arrangement involves compromise and some turning of blind eyes. Priestly celibacy comes to mind. Words like "liar" or "deceitful and unprincipled" seem out of place and unhelpful here. (I was sanctioned for quite a bit less!)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on December 30, 2010, 05:55:32 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.

Just this past Monday for the feast of St Stephen's the Kursk Icon of the Mother of God was brought to our Cathedral by a ROCOR Bishop who served along side of our bishop (Tikhon).  There were priests from both jurisdictions attending and concelebrating.  Because of bad weather I was unable to attend.

It's wonderful to see the wounds are healing.  It is not theology that separates us (which seems to be a problem within the RCC, but politics).  As someone has already mentioned, it seems the RCC will accept unity pruely on the basis of papal allegiance rather than theological unity and interpretation.  How sad!



Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on December 30, 2010, 07:30:22 PM
From the other side: do you ask for permission before receiving Communion in an OCA Parish that is not your own?

No.

Sorry but I see completely no sense in this.

I wasn't defending any of this. I was lamenting it and how far we are from any real unity.
I have a friend who is a member of the OCA and he and his wife seemed to have no trouble going to confession and receiving communion at the ROCOR cathedral in San Francisco when they visited me last year.

That's good news.
Yes, it is, and if my memory serves me, an OCA priest from Marin County concelebrated the liturgy at the ROCOR cathedral that same morning.

Yeah, that's where the changes are happening, at the grass roots. Our priest, the local ROCOR, GOA, and Antiochian all concelebrate, which is very inspiring. Our Theophany celebrations nearly always include multiple jurisdictions.

Just this past Monday for the feast of St Stephen's the Kursk Icon of the Mother of God was brought to our Cathedral by a ROCOR Bishop who served along side of our bishop (Tikhon).  There were priests from both jurisdictions attending and concelebrating.  Because of bad weather I was unable to attend.

It's wonderful to see the wounds are healing.  It is not theology that separates us (which seems to be a problem within the RCC, but politics).  As someone has already mentioned, it seems the RCC will accept unity pruely on the basis of papal allegiance rather than theological unity and interpretation.  How sad!



Orthodoc

I had heard of His Grace serving with the ROCOR bishop who was gracious enough to bring the icon. Very encouraging!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on December 30, 2010, 09:32:15 PM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 


The canons of the First Vatican Council have not been repudiated.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on December 30, 2010, 09:42:13 PM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

Fr. Deacon Lance 


The canons of the First Vatican Council have not been repudiated.
What canons would those be?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on December 30, 2010, 11:09:29 PM
What canons would those be?
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#CANONS
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on December 30, 2010, 11:43:58 PM
What canons would those be?
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#CANONS
Quote
1. On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that
there exists nothing besides matter:
let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that
the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same:
let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says
that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or
that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally,
that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals:
let him be anathema.
5. If anyone
does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or
holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or
denies that the world was created for the glory of God:
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

2. On revelation
1. If anyone says that
the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty
from the things that have been made,
by the natural light of human reason:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that it is
impossible, or
not expedient,
that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about
God and
the worship that should be shown him :
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that a human being
cannot be divinely elevated to a
knowledge and
perfection
which exceeds the natural, but
of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all
truth and
goodness
by continual development:
let him be anathema.


4. If anyone
does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or
denies that they were divinely inspired :
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

3. On faith
1. If anyone says that
human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded by God:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that
divine faith is not to be distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral matters, and consequently that
for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth should be believed because of the authority of God who reveals it:
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that
divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore
men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or private inspiration:
let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that
all miracles are impossible, and that therefore
all reports of them, even those contained in sacred scripture, are to be set aside as fables or myths; or that
miracles can never be known with certainty,
nor can the divine origin of the christian religion be proved from them:
let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says that
the assent to christian faith is
not free, but is
necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that
the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity:
let him be anathema.
6. If anyone says that
the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Return to Table of Contents

4. On faith and reason
1. If anyone says that
in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:
let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says that
human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
they may not be forbidden by the church:
let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that
it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
What canons?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on December 31, 2010, 05:52:18 PM
What canons?
I have actually run into Latin Catholics on the internet - but never in person - who support Dictatus Papae (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html).
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 02, 2011, 10:23:51 PM
As Thomist says, you are in fact not in communion with Rome, as you do not share their faith.
I am in communion with the Melkite Patriarch, who happens to be in communion with Rome.  That said, neither you nor Thomist, at least as far as I can tell, are in a position to bring about a schism between the bishop of Rome and the Melkite Catholic Patriarch.

If the Melkite Patriarch is in communion with Rome, he must have the faith of Rome. So either you are lying to us when you say "I don't subscribe to Papal supremacy", or you are lying to your church when you take communion.
Or union with Rome is merely lipservice and external?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 02, 2011, 10:37:14 PM
What canons?

Everything you just posted was under the title canons:

CANONS
1. On God the creator of all things


Perhaps Anathemas would have been better.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Iconodule on January 03, 2011, 09:57:47 AM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

A conscious rejection of some stated dogma of the faith is self-excommunication, or, to put it in Western terms, excommunication latae sententiae. It is not like some other canonical infringement where the hierarch's discretion is relied upon. It follows that those who deny the Vatican's dogma of Papal infallibility fall under its anathema and are not part of their self-styled "Catholic Church." The fact that Rome doesn't act on this doesn't indicate that this isn't true, it just proves how feeble in reality the "Supreme Pontiff" and the Magisterium are, how desperate they are to boost their numbers, and what a sham the "unity" is which is supposed to be guaranteed by the "See of Peter." It also indicates that the Melkites have some superstitious, magical view o the Church of Rome, so that unity with them is absolutely essential irrespective of the faith they hold.

 I would say one of the clearest and easiest arguments today against the Papal claims is to just point at the Melkites. Either repeal the dogma or enforce it- this current regime of mushiness makes it impossible to take Vatican apologists seriously. LIkewise, the Melkites need to decide whether they are "Catholics" or Orthodox- at present, they are neither.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 03, 2011, 10:13:34 AM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 03, 2011, 10:15:59 AM
Which is why you are not Catholic. You pretend to be one, but that a does not make you one. That's all.

Papist,

Let's tone it done a bit.  In the East, excommunication must be imposed by one's hierarch.  By your definition the Melkite Synod isn't Catholic because I doubt you will find a one that agrees to any post schism council 100% and the Pope knows it.  So if the Pope has not deemed the Melkite's disagreement worthy of excommunication, I think you can stop throwing around excommunications your not entitled to make.

A conscious rejection of some stated dogma of the faith is self-excommunication, or, to put it in Western terms, excommunication latae sententiae. It is not like some other canonical infringement where the hierarch's discretion is relied upon. It follows that those who deny the Vatican's dogma of Papal infallibility fall under its anathema and are not part of their self-styled "Catholic Church." The fact that Rome doesn't act on this doesn't indicate that this isn't true, it just proves how feeble in reality the "Supreme Pontiff" and the Magisterium are, how desperate they are to boost their numbers, and what a sham the "unity" is which is supposed to be guaranteed by the "See of Peter." It also indicates that the Melkites have some superstitious, magical view o the Church of Rome, so that unity with them is absolutely essential irrespective of the faith they hold.

 I would say one of the clearest and easiest arguments today against the Papal claims is to just point at the Melkites. Either repeal the dogma or enforce it- this current regime of mushiness makes it impossible to take Vatican apologists seriously. LIkewise, the Melkites need to decide whether they are "Catholics" or Orthodox- at present, they are neither.


For the most part I agree with you. If the Melkites don't accept the teachings of Vatican I, then they should be excommunicated. But, from what I understand, this is not the case.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 03, 2011, 12:09:42 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 03, 2011, 12:12:06 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 03, 2011, 12:22:26 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 03, 2011, 12:40:08 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 09:29:27 AM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on January 04, 2011, 11:45:41 AM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 04, 2011, 04:33:58 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
::)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 05:32:03 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.


Actually you are an Orthodox Catholic which most of us who post here are.

Orthodoc
::)

The name of the OCA in 1962, when the cornerstone of my parish church was laid, was the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. (It had the same name in 1924, when the first cornerstone was laid for the first church.)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 05:32:56 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

An EO who believed in papal infallibility would probably be called a heretic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 04, 2011, 05:51:05 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

An EO who believed in papal infallibility would probably be called a heretic.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Only if he or she tells somebody.  I know many who have told me that they believe easily in the Immaculate Conception and who would be willing to accept papal primacy and also infallibility if it did not threaten the autonomy and existence of Orthodox conciliarity and sobornicity.  They simply do not see the great chasm that many Orthodox believers depend upon for their daily dose of certitude.

And as long as they keep their mouths shut and work on running the race, nobody is the wiser.  But they, or people like them,  will be the ones who will be the first to accept resumption of communion when it happens.

They are the ones that the Catholics who give a hoot will have to work to protect from the razor tongues of other Catholics who don't care so much.

There's going to be a great deal of work to be done eventually.  There are no souls that can simply be cast adrift simply because they are "difficult."

M.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 04, 2011, 07:15:14 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 07:48:26 PM

Quote

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?

What a very unusual viewpoint, coming from a Roman Catholic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 04, 2011, 07:56:35 PM
I was asking why from Orthodox logic. Of course that isn't my position.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 08:05:58 PM
I was asking why from Orthodox logic. Of course that isn't my position.

I'm not a theologian, so I invite replies from those who are. But I would imagine it is because the patriarchs are the direct successors of the apostles who founded their respective churches. So, Peter for the church of Antioch (and Rome); Andrew the First-Called for the See of Byzantium; Mark for Alexandria; etc. The patriarchs represent the apostolic succession. I'm sure there's a more profound answer than that.

Why the pope? Your arguments apply just as forcefully to him. And the hierarchy of the Western church aren't even considered equal, so why not do away with these bureaucratic intermediaries, these feudal remnants? What function do they actually serve?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 04, 2011, 08:12:54 PM
The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

As for why Rome, it is because the successors of the Roman See are the successors of Peter. It is sometimes argued that Antioch and perhaps Alexandria (Through Mark) could claim the same honor, but it is clear from the first millenium, even if you reject Petrine and/or Papal Supremacy, at the Roman See was seen as the Petrine See.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 04, 2011, 08:27:51 PM
The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

As for why Rome, it is because the successors of the Roman See are the successors of Peter. It is sometimes argued that Antioch and perhaps Alexandria (Through Mark) could claim the same honor, but it is clear from the first millenium, even if you reject Petrine and/or Papal Supremacy, at the Roman See was seen as the Petrine See.

The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc. And while some of the medieval popes were exceptional, an awful lot of papal politics were the politics of Italy. I'm not saying the Eastern church didn't have plenty of the same squalid materialism an partisanship, but the patriarchs weren't simultaneously claiming for themselves Christ's exclusive vice-regency or the right to speak on behalf of all the Apostles for and to the entire church. Even today. the Catholic church refers to itself arrogantly and grandiosely as "the universal church," when it is clearly no such thing. If such a title even made linguistic sense.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 04, 2011, 10:10:07 PM
The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc.

Incorrect.  The Pope' s titles in the Annuario Pontificio are: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  Patriarch of the West was used from 1863 to 2005.  Vicar of Peter was also used.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 12:26:58 AM
The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc.

Incorrect.  The Pope' s titles in the Annuario Pontificio are: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  Patriarch of the West was used from 1863 to 2005.  Vicar of Peter was also used.
Response of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the dropping of the ancient title "Patriarch of the West."

Announcement of the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod Regarding the Denouncement by Pope Benedict XVI of Rome of the title "Patriarch of the West" (http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/announcement-of-the-denoucement-by-pope-benedict-XVI-of-rome-2006)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 05, 2011, 01:23:16 AM
I agree dropping Patriarch of the West was dumb in relation to the Orthodox.  On the otherhand, Rome never viewed the title of patriarch as a big deal as witnessed by the creation of "minor patriarchs" in Venice, Lisbon, and the East and West Indies.  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 01:26:10 AM
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 05, 2011, 01:49:29 AM
I agree dropping Patriarch of the West was dumb in relation to the Orthodox.  On the otherhand, Rome never viewed the title of patriarch as a big deal as witnessed by the creation of "minor patriarchs" in Venice, Lisbon, and the East and West Indies.  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.

"Patriarch" didn't even have that much use before the 6th century and its introduction was much connected to the other innovation of the Pentarchy, which Rome also wasn't very fond of.

The common title before that time of a Bishop having authority over numerous metropolitical provinces, corresponding to the dioceses developed by Emperor Diocletian, was "Exarch".
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Deacon Lance on January 05, 2011, 02:07:08 AM
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 05, 2011, 02:07:12 AM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous? If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other? If there isn't to be a head of the Church, then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology. It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what? I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops, except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church, and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs. Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met. Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church. Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?

This is the elephant in the living room.  And it is acknowledged as such by those Orthodox who are engaged in the formal bilateral discussions. 
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 02:12:04 AM
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
That is not what I have read.  The popes originally held the title vicar of Peter as late as the 5th century (which they did not hold in a unique fashion), and the term vicar of Christ arose only after the 10th century.  As far as supreme pontiff is concerned, that pagan title was applied to the pope in the fourth century but was never accepted as legitimate in the East.

The title "pope" as exemplified in Alexandria is the equivalent of Patriarch.  The Roman bishop must drop his pretensions to glory and become a true servant.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 02:17:42 AM
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
That is not what I have read.  The popes originally held the title vicar of Peter as late as the 5th century (which they did not hold in a unique fashion), and the term vicar of Christ arose only after the 10th century.  As far as supreme pontiff is concerned, that pagan title was applied to the pope in the fourth century but was never accepted as legitimate in the East.

The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.

The title "pope" as exemplified in Alexandria, is the equivalent of Patriarch.  The Roman bishop must drop his pretensions to glory and become a true servant.

The ecclesiology of the Pope/Bishop is a higher Church mirror of the lower Church Bishop/Presbyter , i.e. where one is set over the others for unity of faith. The concept is not for "pretensions of glory". One I'm surprised a "Catholic" doesn't understand.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 02:23:22 AM
The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 02:25:51 AM
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ and Supreme Pontiff were always the titles Rome valued.
Those titles are of later origin and they will never be accepted by the Orthodox, which is why they should be dropped.
Supreme Pontiff dates from the late 300s and Vicar of Christ from the late 400s.  On the otherhand, Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, confirming the supra-metropolitan powers of the archbishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea called them exarchs, patriarch didn't become vogue till later.
One other point needs to be made, and that is that the East never accepted those titles as valid.

"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 05, 2011, 02:33:15 AM
Quote from: Apotheoun
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.


And "Pontifex" means "Bridge-builder" from "Pons" (Bridge) and "Faecere" (To do or to make). Thus "Pontifex Maximus" is Great (or Supreme) Bridge-Builder.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 02:35:44 AM
Quote from: Apotheoun
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.


And "Pontifex" means "Bridge-builder" from "Pons" (Bridge) and "Faecere" (To do or to make). Thus "Pontifex Maximus" is Great (or Supreme) Bridge-Builder.
Look up the etymology of the word "pontiff."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 05, 2011, 02:40:34 AM
I'm very well acquainted with both the Latin language and Roman history, thank you. I am well aware of what the Pontifex Maximus was.

The east's uneasiness with the western claims of dominance is not related to any airy doctrine of grace, but with the fact that from the Gothic War of A.D 535, the Byzantine Empire came to see western Europe generally and Italy specifically as alternatively a prospective target for military conquest or, after the rise of the Normans and the Holy Roman Empire, a threat to its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 02:41:10 AM
The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 02:45:30 AM
The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 03:00:55 AM
The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.

What's nonsensical? We know Latin and are therefore are nonsensical?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 05, 2011, 03:07:39 AM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 04:53:51 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 05, 2011, 05:08:35 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.
Maybe. I do know that the present Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow (in correct order, btw) believe everything in the Orthodox Creed of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  As long as they do, they are Catholic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 05:12:47 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 05, 2011, 05:15:31 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

An EO who believed in papal infallibility would probably be called a heretic.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Only if he or she tells somebody.  I know many who have told me that they believe easily in the Immaculate Conception and who would be willing to accept papal primacy and also infallibility if it did not threaten the autonomy and existence of Orthodox conciliarity and sobornicity.  They simply do not see the great chasm that many Orthodox believers depend upon for their daily dose of certitude.

I know many who have told me that they reject papal supremacy and infallibility, while still going to the Vatican's churches.  They simply do not see the great requirement on obeying the supreme pontiff that many "Catholic" believers depend upon for their daily dose of certitude.  In fact, a great many of the 90%+ of the Vatican's folllowers who practice birth control tell anybody these views.

Quote
And as long as they keep their mouths shut and work on running the race, nobody is the wiser.  But they, or people like them,  will be the ones who will be the first to accept resumption of communion when it happens.

and what are they going to do when it doesn't?

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 05, 2011, 05:32:35 PM
Quote
It's not attacks. We are just trying to stop some one from misrepresenting what the Church teaches. Further, under our own canons he is no longer in the unity of the Church.

Well, you know what they say, no one expects the Spanish inquisition.

But seriously, who died and made you (or any other member of this board) pope? Of course, you wouldn't be the first papist pope.  ;D
You are joking, right? What would you EOs be saying if one of your own was claiming to believe in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility?

I can't speak for others, but there's already a name for people who believe in papal infallibility. They're called Roman Catholics.
And their is a name for those who believe everything that Moscow and Constantinople believe. They are called Eastern Orthodox.

Not so. Neither the patriarch of the Russian church nor the Ecumenical Patriarch speak authoritatively for the church as a whole, and none of us follow them the way the Roman faithful are supposed to follow the pope. The patriarchs have much prestige and influence within their respective churches, but the churches themselves are governed by the principle of conciliarity, or sobornost.

Ironically, this was supposed to be one of the outcomes of Vatican II--greater conciliarity. Paul VI made some attempts at it, but John Paul II tossed it overboard.

Authority is irrelevant. If you only profess Orthodox faith, you're an Orthodox, not Catholic.

I don't really understand the point of this comment, which I would have thought was obvious. But I will say: I have rarely found authority to be irrelevant.

Azurestone was just pointing out that Papist wasn't making any claim about auctoritas inhering in those Patriarchs, but merely pointing out that if you believe what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes, and not what the Roman Catholic Church believes, then you are Eastern Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

Though that does raise a question that interests me: Why should there be any Patriarchs at all? If a bishop can be autocephalous, why shouldn't every parish priest be autocephalous?

Because he is not a member of the episcopate.  Since Vaticn I and II reduced your bishops to acolytes to the Supreme Pontiff, I can see how you are confused by the distinction.

Quote
If Constantinople ought not to interfere with Moscow, then why should any parish interfere with any other?

Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.

Quote
If there isn't to be a head of the Church,

The Church has a Head. The Head.

Quote
then it seems to me that the Protestants got it right on ecclesiology.

Since they are the other side of your coin, that doesn't come as a suprise.

Quote
It would be pointed out of course that it has been done this way in the past, but so what?

As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

Quote
I can't think of any reason you'd want to have Bishops,

Because Christ sent them.

Quote
except that you'd want there to be some unifying power of authority within the Church,

Yes. Your point?

Quote
and it certainly seems bizarre to me that this chain of authority would just arbitrarily stop at the Patriarchs.

It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Quote
Especially since that's a model that would so obviously end up creating a schism over the issue of, say, whether the Patriarch of Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople had authority in a place like Bulgaria where their Churches met.
(http://www.languageandconflict.info/images/other/great_schism.jpg)

Quote
Orthodox say that Christ is the only head of their Church.

Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Quote
Why can Christ be trusted to ensure unity without earthly authority on the level of various Patriarchates, but when you get down to the level of an individual Patriarchate or a Diocese, now we need man to step in?
What man is stepping in?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 05, 2011, 05:41:25 PM
The Catholic position is Subsidiarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
Your ecclesiastical community doesn't claim that a principle in your ecclesiology.

Quote
The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching.

The principle of subsidiarity was first developed by German theologian Oswald von Nell-Breuning.[2] His work shaped the social teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and holds that government should undertake only those initiatives which exceed the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.

So are you admiting that ecclesiastical order follows secular order?

Quote
As for why Rome, it is because the successors of the Roman See are the successors of Peter. It is sometimes argued that Antioch and perhaps Alexandria (Through Mark) could claim the same honor, but it is clear from the first millenium, even if you reject Petrine and/or Papal Supremacy, at the Roman See was seen as the Petrine See.
Pope St. Gregory of Rome argued that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were one Petrine see.

And that St. Peter was the founder of the Chair of Antioch is admited even by the Vatican, whose calendar on the Chair of St. Peter was originally the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch. Besides the fact that Scripture explicitly links St. Peter with Antioch.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 05, 2011, 05:51:10 PM
The Bishop of Rome was always accorded the prestige of his position as head of the church in the imperial capital. It started running of the rails when he started demanding a prestige very much in excess of that. Look at his titles: Christ's Vicar on Earth! Successor to the Apostles (all of them!)! etc.

Incorrect.  The Pope' s titles in the Annuario Pontificio are: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.  Patriarch of the West was used from 1863 to 2005.  Vicar of Peter was also used.
Response of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the dropping of the ancient title "Patriarch of the West."

Announcement of the Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod Regarding the Denouncement by Pope Benedict XVI of Rome of the title "Patriarch of the West" (http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/announcement-of-the-denoucement-by-pope-benedict-XVI-of-rome-2006)

My mistake. Those are definitely much less flashy titles. Especially "Vicar of Jesus Christ" and "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church." Let's just ignore the half-billion-plus Christians who are not in any way associated with the so-called universal church and think the pope is just a kindly old German gentleman who's really, really smart.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 05, 2011, 07:17:23 PM
Quote from: Ialmisry
Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.

So what? Prove that in point of administrative fact Churches couldn't exist without earthly bishops. Protestants seem to do it alright. Indeed, there's a lot more Protestants than Orthodox in the world, so if anything their model is more effective than yours is.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

Quote from: ialmisry
As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

So what? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because Christ sent them.

No, that's appeal to authority again. Why did Christ send them?

Quote from: ialmisry
It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Be specific.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Appeal to authority, again.

Quote from: Ialmisry
What man is stepping in?

If Christ can be depended upon to ensure the earthly unity of the Church, no men are needed to provide any structure. Just depend on Christ.

Quote from: ialmisry
(http://www.languageandconflict.info/images/other/great_schism.jpg)

39 years vs 1000
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 05, 2011, 07:20:10 PM
The pagan title, that was later rejected, was Pontifix Maximus or "the Greatest Bridge-builder", not Supreme Pontiff. The title was originally given to the head of the pagan priests in Rome. The nature of a priest is to "build a bridge" between man and God. The name in and of itself is not heretical, however by association, is stiff-armed.
Pontifex Maximus means Great (or Supreme) Pontiff.

I studied Latin...

A pontifex, coming from "pons, pontis : bridge", used for a priest, but also literally a "bridge builder". Maximus, the superlative of magnus (large, great, big, etc), does not mean supreme, but greatest. Therefore, Supreme Pontiff is not only a partial translation, but a mistranslation.
The apologetic attempts of some of my Roman Catholic friends borders on the nonsensical.
This coming from the guy who attempts to provide apologetics for his own position of not professing the Catholic faith, while claiming to remain in communion with the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 07:33:18 PM
Let's just ignore the half-billion-plus Christians who are not in any way associated with the so-called universal church and think the pope is just a kindly old German gentleman who's really, really smart.


LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 05, 2011, 08:57:12 PM
Quote from: Ialmisry
Because parishes all depend on their existence on the one bishop.
So what? Prove that in point of administrative fact Churches couldn't exist without earthly bishops.
The antimens.

The corruption of the Vatican's priesthold into a personal possession of an "alter Christi," which can even be taken into heresy forever, would seem to lay at the source of your confusion.

Quote
Protestants seem to do it alright.
Well, as we say in Arabic, the pot has found its ladle.

Quote
Indeed, there's a lot more Protestants than Orthodox in the world,

Mat. 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Luke 12:32 "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."

Before 1517, Protestants (besides the Vatican, the original Protestant) were few and far between, whereas we been around since c. 27.

Quote
so if anything their model is more effective than yours is.

In proliferating heresy and schism, yes it is. Thousands of denominations in constant flux.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Quote from: ialmisry
As the Fathers often state "Do not move the ancient boundary Which your fathers have set." Prov. 22:28

So what? Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Care to square that with Pastor Aeternus?

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because Christ sent them.

No, that's appeal to authority again. Why did Christ send them?
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." John 20:21

Quote from: ialmisry
It doesn't, as the last Patriarch of Jerusalem found out the hard way.

Be specific.

The bishops of the Holy Synod deposed him.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Because the Scriptures and Fathers tell us so.

Appeal to authority, again.
Mat. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Odd, you ultramontanists are usually big fans of authority. Only Rome's, of course.

Quote from: Ialmisry
What man is stepping in?

If Christ can be depended upon to ensure the earthly unity of the Church, no men are needed to provide any structure. Just depend on Christ.

"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.

"Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples." John 4:2

Quote from: ialmisry
(http://www.languageandconflict.info/images/other/great_schism.jpg)

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 09:22:26 PM
Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems, much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level, but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches. The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 10:02:01 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 05, 2011, 10:14:03 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 05, 2011, 11:55:04 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
I am glad that you reject papal supremacy, because I also reject it, and that is why I never refer to the bishop of Rome as "supreme pontiff" or by any other title that would imply some sort of papal absolutism.  Finally, as far as assuming something about your own personal position in connection with the topic under consideration is concerned, I did nothing of the sort, I simply said you may believe whatever you wish. 

:D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Rafa999 on January 06, 2011, 12:19:45 AM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
I am glad that you reject papal supremacy, because I also reject it, and that is why I never refer to the bishop of Rome as "supreme pontiff" or by any other title that would imply some sort of papal absolutism.  Finally, as far as assuming something about your own personal position in connection with the topic under consideration is concerned, I did nothing of the sort, I simply said you may believe whatever you wish.  

:D

What's the point if you are still under the Bishop of Rome and your hierarchs all bow down to him and signed a bunch of papers saying he is such a thing  as a "supreme" bishop ? Join the Orthodox Church and be free of the unorthodox office of the pope.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 12:28:37 AM
Azurestone, Papal Supremacy is the Catholic position. The official title of the Pope is: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

Quote from: ialmisry
The antimens.

No, the antimens are not a logical necessity, they are an incidental fact of custom.

Quote from: ialmisry
In proliferating heresy and schism, yes it is. Thousands of denominations in constant flux.

Begging the question.

Quote from: ialmisry
Care to square that with Pastor Aeternus?

No need to. The argument in favor of Papal Infallibility is not itself an appeal to authority, except insofar as one accepts public reason (see Kant, Rawls, Habermas) as applicable to Christianity. We're not arguing about whether Bishops have authority, we're investigating the reasons for and nature of that authority.

Quote from: Ialmisry
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." John 20:21

Appeal to authority again. We aren't investigating whether bishops have authority, we're investigating why. Simply pointing out that Christ said so is not an argument, we are concerned with why Christ said so.

Quote from: ialmisry
Mat. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Odd, you ultramontanists are usually big fans of authority. Only Rome's, of course.

See above. I doubt that you simply fail to understand the concept of a thought experiment.

Quote from: ialmisry
"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." Luke 10:16.

"Jesus himself did not baptize, but His disciples." John 4:2

See above.

The Orthodox position is that the role of a Priest is to ensure that the sacraments are served, the faith preached, and the canons enforced in his parish. They hold that the role of a Bishop is to ensure that this is done in his diocese, that the role of a Metropolitan is to ensure that this is done in his Metropolis, and that the role of a Patriarch is to ensure that this is done in his Patriarchate. At this point they feel the chain should arbitrarily stop, and Christ should be called in to ensure unity through divine intervention. If Christ can be relied upon to ensure unity at this level, there is no reason to believe he should not be relied upon to ensure unity at any level. Every individual parish ought to be autocephalous by this logic, at the very most every individual diocese.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Presumably then you'd hold to the idea that using unleavened bread in the mass constitutes a schismatic practice because of its "Judaizing"? We won't be entertaining the general Orthodox obfuscation of the reason for the schism of 1054 here.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Rafa999 on January 06, 2011, 12:39:44 AM
Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ when St. John put it on the Master's side, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai. All of the ENTIRE Church (in East and West) founded by the Apostles according to patristics I read used this bread for the leaven being given by the Apostles to it.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 06, 2011, 12:39:59 AM
Azurestone, Papal Supremacy is the Catholic position. The official title of the Pope is: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

Yet, I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox.  :)

Besides, "papal supremacy", as the ultramontanist position describes, is not necessarily the "Catholic position", despite the similarities to the title. I can argue from history, especially first millennium, more for a "high Petrine" papacy, than the ultramontanist "papal supremacy" or the Orthodox "low Petrine". (to steal terms from the infamous Mardukm)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 06, 2011, 12:45:38 AM
Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a special type of leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?

They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

Despite history showing leavened bread as more likely the original practice (until unleaven's use in the eighth century), to argue validity of the Sacrament over "Wonderbread" or "Crackers" is assinine.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Rafa999 on January 06, 2011, 01:00:09 AM
Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread. The ACOE uses a special type of leavening containing the bread from the last supper which soaked the blood and water flowing from the side of Christ, this bread was used in the first Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) in Edessa and was given by Mar Addai.  A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Why is the RCC the only one to not leaven the bread...?

They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

Despite history showing leavened bread as more likely the original practice (until unleaven's use in the eighth century), to argue validity of the Sacrament over "Wonderbread" or "Crackers" is assinine.


In the ACOE leaven mantains continuity with the last supper because of the fact I told you (of the leaven being made from the remains of the first Eucharist being the bread from the last supper soaked with the blood of Christ and water by St. John, the Blood and Water which flowed from his side, and the bread was brought to Edessa by the disciple Mar Addai and elsewhere by other Apostles. Every Eucharist the leaven has been renewed from the remains of the previous Eucharist.) All Churches at one point leavened EXACTLY like the ACOE.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 01:28:34 AM
Nobody except the RCC uses unleavened bread.

Obviously all of the daughter groups of Rome also do.

Beyond that, you are wrong. The Armenian church uses unleavened bread.

A little bit of each Holy Qurbana (Eucharist) is left to make the Holy Leaven for the next Eucharist. This is a sacrament in the ACOE.

Interesting. I've never heard of this practice outside of the East Syrian tradition.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 01:31:04 AM
They aren't. Some OO churches do, as well.

I believe only the Armenian church does.

(until unleaven's use in the eighth century)

I've also been told that the Armenian church was observed using unleavened bread before that point.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
All Churches at one point leavened EXACTLY like the ACOE.

Including always making the qurban from the leaven from the last Eucharist? Like I said, I've never heard that being done outside the East Syrian church, so it would be interesting to see where you come up with the assertion that at one point everyone else did it.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 01:36:06 AM
The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.

Perhaps they were guilty of heretical Judaizing.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 01:39:02 AM
The Last Supper was a passover celebration

That's not really agreed upon here.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 06, 2011, 01:42:15 AM

The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.


This is not necessarily the case.  Scholars say that they do not expect to ever untangle the question as to whether the Last Supper used leavened or unleavened bread.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 01:52:48 AM
"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

I have no problem with the east's ritual of using leavened bread, but Cerularius' claim that the west using unleavened bread constituted "Judaizing" was an absurd pretext for a political manuever premeditated for the purpose of creating schism. Cerularius would later engineer the downfall of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos and his replacement with the puppet Isaac I Komnenos. His goal was to create schism with the west and reduce the Emperor to a puppet in order to centralize the political and religious rulership of the Empire under himself/
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 06, 2011, 02:27:16 AM
Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?
No, which why we have no need of a "supreme pontiff."

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

Quote
much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).
Like Sede Vacantism? Old Catholics? Polish National Catholics?....

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level,
That's the point.
but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches.

LOL Yes, like Rome.

The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Not sure of what point, if any, you are trying to make here.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 06, 2011, 02:32:16 AM
The Last Supper was a passover celebration, so it is with certainty that we can say Christ and the Twelve Apostles used unleavened bread.

Perhaps they were guilty of heretical Judaizing.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25677.msg413150/topicseen.html#msg413150
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 02:37:19 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 06, 2011, 06:17:58 AM
"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

Is the reason that you do not quote John that you know his timing disagrees with the synoptics?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 06, 2011, 06:27:36 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.


Rome (the Pope and the Diocese of Rome) was not using unleavened bread, although its usage was spreading through the rest of the Western Church under Norman influence.  Rome, conservative as ever, preserved the use of leavened bread long after much of the Western Church had changed to unleavened.  Whatever interpretation they placed on Matthew, Mark and Luke it did not prevent the use of leavened bread for many long centuries in the Church of Rome.


Read Jungman and Emminghaus.

And please peruse message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13375.msg185956.html#msg185956

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 06, 2011, 06:38:14 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread.......

..... The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.

No, it is not laughable when you know the flow of the history of it. The Church universally used leavened bread. 

The great problem with unleavened bread is that the Church first encountered it as a phenomenon of heresy.  It was adopted by the Armenians as a way to asssert that Christ has only one nature.  So when the Churches of the East come upon unleavened bread in the Eucharist ancient warning signals go off for them...

Something interesting from  Fr John H Erickson, Dean of Saint Vladimir's Seminary

http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/

"...... Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.  By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. 

"Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]   

"By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. 

"The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind.  The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11]   Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews...” (canon 11).  In any case, in subsequent  polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection. 

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: GregoryLA on January 06, 2011, 09:29:33 AM
"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

I have no problem with the east's ritual of using leavened bread, but Cerularius' claim that the west using unleavened bread constituted "Judaizing" was an absurd pretext for a political manuever premeditated for the purpose of creating schism. Cerularius would later engineer the downfall of Emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos and his replacement with the puppet Isaac I Komnenos. His goal was to create schism with the west and reduce the Emperor to a puppet in order to centralize the political and religious rulership of the Empire under himself/

I think you're assuming that the Eucharist is/was patterned upon the Last Supper. While that's a possibility, according to Paul Bradshaw (2002), it's debatable. If the early Church did not pattern their Eucharistic meal off of the Last Supper, or if they didn't feel bound to it in all it's detail, then it would proven nothing even if it could be established that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 07:16:40 PM
"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

Is the reason that you do not quote John that you know his timing disagrees with the synoptics?

John is the later source. When he disagrees with the other three on an issue such as historical timing, he should be disregarded.

The source you quoted from supports the notion that the Eastern attack on the west for using unleavened bread was nonsensical.

Quote
"So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 07:23:40 PM
It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

Such a generalization is not appropriate in this situation. OO by and large do not have a problem with unleavened bread, because of the Armenian use.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Thomist on January 06, 2011, 07:56:02 PM
It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

Such a generalization is not appropriate in this situation. OO by and large do not have a problem with unleavened bread, because of the Armenian use.

I'm referring to the dispute over the west's use of unleaveaned bread that lead to the schism between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox in 1054.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 06, 2011, 08:09:10 PM
Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?
No,

Exactly, and neither does a Pope.

which why we have no need of a "supreme pontiff."

? That doesn't match the question.

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

Quote
much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).
Like Sede Vacantism? Old Catholics? Polish National Catholics?....

Yep. You have your own. Whether it be local churches that are in communion alone, or in part.

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level,
That's the point.
but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches.

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Not sure of what point, if any, you are trying to make here.

The conditions of history and location produced different results for the severed heterodox/unrecognized churches. The west has had a better breeding ground, both through colonialism, as well as state acceptance if not outright sponsorship of heretical/heterodox churches (Church of England, Lutheran German states, Calvinistic Netherlands, etc). The same has not often been the case in the east.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 06, 2011, 08:30:24 PM
It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

Such a generalization is not appropriate in this situation. OO by and large do not have a problem with unleavened bread, because of the Armenian use.

I'm referring to the dispute over the west's use of unleaveaned bread that lead to the schism between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox in 1054.

Ah. Well, when you use the term "the East", it generally has a connotation of Eastern Christianity in general, rather than exclusively the Byzantines.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 06, 2011, 08:58:25 PM
Quote from: ialmisry
The Church has a Head. The Head.

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

It is not our fault your ecclassical body is severed from our Head, while we still have our Head on straight.

Does a bishop replace God?
No,

Exactly, and neither does a Pope.
No, but the Ultramontanists think he does, though that don't claim that.

which why we have no need of a "supreme pontiff."

? That doesn't match the question.
It does. Take off the Ultramontanist goggles.

39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

Quote
much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).
Like Sede Vacantism? Old Catholics? Polish National Catholics?....

Yep. You have your own. Whether it be local churches that are in communion alone, or in part.

We do not have local Churches in communion alone, nor have we ever.  We have had schismatics who have left who are in communion alone, but that's a different sort of "in part."

The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level,
That's the point.
but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches.

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

What rogue churches like the Vatican do is there business, and has nothing to do with us. That's what makes them rogue.

The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Not sure of what point, if any, you are trying to make here.

The conditions of history and location produced different results for the severed heterodox/unrecognized churches. The west has had a better breeding ground, both through colonialism, as well as state acceptance if not outright sponsorship of heretical/heterodox churches (Church of England, Lutheran German states, Calvinistic Netherlands, etc). The same has not often been the case in the east.
Oh, please. Ever here of the caliphs? The sultans? The shahs? The Mamluks? The Crusaders? The Tartars? The Varengians? The Pechengs?... Plenty of sponsorship of heterodox churches, but they did not prevail against the Orthodox Church.

Church of England, the one that first dedicated itself to the defense of the filioque and invented the IC?  The one whose head the Vatican entitled "Defender of the faith?"
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 06, 2011, 09:17:07 PM
which why we have no need of a "supreme pontiff."

? That doesn't match the question.
It does. Take off the Ultramontanist goggles.

I misplaced my pair.... Could you just rephrase it instead?


39 years vs 1000
Just that bout. It's not the only schism you guys had.

And it is vs. 0, as we have never experienced anything like your Great Schism, nor your Reformation.

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

Quote
much less bodies completely separated (e.g. True Orthodoxy).
Like Sede Vacantism? Old Catholics? Polish National Catholics?....

Yep. You have your own. Whether it be local churches that are in communion alone, or in part.

We do not have local Churches in communion alone, nor have we ever.  We have had schismatics who have left who are in communion alone, but that's a different sort of "in part."

Schismatic means they were once not schismatic. Let's not play word games.


The comparison is apples to oranges, as Orthodoxy doesn't have a primate bishop to signify the point of unity beyond the local level,
That's the point.
but Orthodoxy has had it's share of rogue Churches.

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

What rogue churches like the Vatican do is there business, and has nothing to do with us. That's what makes them rogue.

Yet, having rogue churches of your own (the point) makes things between you and Rome not so different.


The difference is the opportunity for these Churches to spread. Whether it be full state sponsorship or, like the US, countries  providing an environment fertile to relativist Bible interpretation.
Not sure of what point, if any, you are trying to make here.

The conditions of history and location produced different results for the severed heterodox/unrecognized churches. The west has had a better breeding ground, both through colonialism, as well as state acceptance if not outright sponsorship of heretical/heterodox churches (Church of England, Lutheran German states, Calvinistic Netherlands, etc). The same has not often been the case in the east.
Oh, please. Ever here of the caliphs? The sultans? The shahs? The Mamluks? The Crusaders? The Tartars? The Varengians? The Pechengs?... Plenty of sponsorship of heterodox churches, but they did not prevail against the Orthodox Church.

Church of England, the one that first dedicated itself to the defense of the filioque and invented the IC?  The one whose head the Vatican entitled "Defender of the faith?"

Prevail against the Orthodox? Who mentioned this?!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 09, 2011, 01:35:20 PM
I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

What the Pope claims is beside the point. I don't like arguments from false polemics (known or misconceived). It progresses nothing, but anger.

Greatest and Supreme mean similar things, but they are not perfect synonyms. They both have they're own type of baggage.
As I see it supremacy belongs to Christ alone, but you may think whatever you wish on the matter.

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

You appear to assUme many things about me. That's twice.
I am glad that you reject papal supremacy, because I also reject it, and that is why I never refer to the bishop of Rome as "supreme pontiff" or by any other title that would imply some sort of papal absolutism.  Finally, as far as assuming something about your own personal position in connection with the topic under consideration is concerned, I did nothing of the sort, I simply said you may believe whatever you wish. 

:D

Whether or not you accept papal supremacy, the Eastern Catholic churches do, according to the Canons for the Eastern Church. They also accept the title "supreme pontiff." I mean, these are both clearly defined and accepted in the laws of your church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: prodromos on January 09, 2011, 07:55:26 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 09, 2011, 08:17:29 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 09, 2011, 09:56:24 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 09, 2011, 10:17:49 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325

This is the only part I saw specifically reference the Latin practice.

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

I also noticed that the Latins use neither of those options, but unleavened bread and mingled wine. The only belief associated with the use I've ever heard is due to it's perceived "historical authenticity" to the Passover.

So I still don't understand how the Latin use is heretical. Additionally, I'm curious about this particular disagreement, as it is uncharacteristically legalistic for the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: prodromos on January 10, 2011, 01:54:17 AM

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.
I didn't say there was a change in theology. I said a change in the form of the bread suggests a change in the theology, given the Church's past experience with the azymite Armenians who did have a different theology.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 10, 2011, 10:42:31 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

Oh dear, we are really getting into the "greatest hits," eh?

Has anyone read Mother Maria Skobstova's article on Pharasaism? (She doesn't condemn it out of hand, I am just asking at this point. It's relevant to many of these discussions.)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 10:54:23 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325

This is the only part I saw specifically reference the Latin practice.

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

I also noticed that the Latins use neither of those options, but unleavened bread and mingled wine. The only belief associated with the use I've ever heard is due to it's perceived "historical authenticity" to the Passover.
Exactly. A Judaizing practice. Like using the Jewish OT instead of the Christian LXX.

So I still don't understand how the Latin use is heretical. Additionally, I'm curious about this particular disagreement, as it is uncharacteristically legalistic for the Orthodox.
It became important when the Normans forced the Orthodox to stop using leavened Eucharist.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 10, 2011, 11:00:16 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325

This is the only part I saw specifically reference the Latin practice.

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

I also noticed that the Latins use neither of those options, but unleavened bread and mingled wine. The only belief associated with the use I've ever heard is due to it's perceived "historical authenticity" to the Passover.
Exactly. A Judaizing practice. Like using the Jewish OT instead of the Christian LXX.

So I still don't understand how the Latin use is heretical. Additionally, I'm curious about this particular disagreement, as it is uncharacteristically legalistic for the Orthodox.
It became important when the Normans forced the Orthodox to stop using leavened Eucharist.


Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 10, 2011, 11:09:46 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325

This is the only part I saw specifically reference the Latin practice.

"Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"

I also noticed that the Latins use neither of those options, but unleavened bread and mingled wine. The only belief associated with the use I've ever heard is due to it's perceived "historical authenticity" to the Passover.
Exactly. A Judaizing practice. Like using the Jewish OT instead of the Christian LXX.

So I still don't understand how the Latin use is heretical. Additionally, I'm curious about this particular disagreement, as it is uncharacteristically legalistic for the Orthodox.
It became important when the Normans forced the Orthodox to stop using leavened Eucharist.


I'm sure I don't have to tell the story of the Nikonian changes in the Russian church and their aftermath, but I will do so anyway as a reminder. After these changes, which were supposedly enacted to bring the "corrupt" Russian church in line with the more ancient practices of Mt. Athos, hundreds of thousands of believers were executed, tortured, or exiled over such crucial points as whether we make the sign of the cross with two fingers, to indicate Christ's two-fold nature; or with three, to indicate the Triune God. It turns out, parenthetically, that the church of the ante-Nikonians had the older liturgical practices all along, however corrupt it may have been in other ways; but both symbols are beautiful. Why should we prefer one over the other? Why should we die for making the "wrong" choice between two truths? Why should we even be compelled to make such a choice?

And so with the bread. Surely THESE are not the most important topics we need to resolve in order "that we may be one"?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 11:10:11 AM
"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

"On the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked Him, 'Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the passover?'" (Mark 14:12-26)

"Then came the day of unleavened bread on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed." (Luke 22:7)

Is the reason that you do not quote John that you know his timing disagrees with the synoptics?

John is the later source. When he disagrees with the other three on an issue such as historical timing, he should be disregarded.

LOL. He is an eyewitness, if you believe the Church, whose testimony is direct.

This issue is dealt at length here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25677.msg413150/topicseen.html#msg413150

The source you quoted from supports the notion that the Eastern attack on the west for using unleavened bread was nonsensical.
::)
Quote
"So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!"
[/quote]
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Melodist on January 10, 2011, 01:10:14 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 10, 2011, 01:25:25 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 10, 2011, 01:32:48 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
::)    ::)    ::)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 10, 2011, 01:45:39 PM
Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.

Here's one!
(http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/norm.jpg)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 10, 2011, 03:15:12 PM
Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.

Here's one!
(http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/norm.jpg)

In Christ,
Andrew

LOL!  :D
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 10, 2011, 03:55:08 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 11, 2011, 10:35:15 AM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.

Poli Sci seminars are much the same. Intellectual showing off. After the leavened vs. un debate, perhaps we'll be able to argue ad infinitum about which way we make the sign of the cross: the people who go left first (i.e., the "heretics"), or US. LOL
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 11, 2011, 10:47:33 AM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.

Poli Sci seminars are much the same. Intellectual showing off. After the leavened vs. un debate, perhaps we'll be able to argue ad infinitum about which way we make the sign of the cross: the people who go left first (i.e., the "heretics"), or US. LOL

Now that I think about it, I was a Poli Sci major also! hmmmmm......
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 12, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 12, 2011, 04:44:01 PM
Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 12, 2011, 05:40:40 PM
Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion!

I'm sorry--I meant to write that I understand those who are using the term are NOT intentionally using it in  a racist way, though it is a racist term.

Incidentally, the man who conspired to  kill the inquisitor was a magistrate and did so because the inquisitor had decided to go after all the prominent conversos of Zaragoza. He meant to burn them and confiscate all their families' goods and property, and they were scared. Not an excuse, but it wasn't just an idle murder. The inquisitor in question was canonized by the Roman church in the 19th century.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Asteriktos on January 12, 2011, 05:43:44 PM
Hermogenes

I was one of those who, sometime within the past few weeks, used the term judaizer. I used it when trying to point out how there had been divisions in Christianity early on (I was thinking, for example, of groups like the Ebionites). However, not really having thought about it before, I did not realise that the word would or could be taken as being very offensive, as you have explained, so for that I apologize, and will do my best to avoid using the term in the future.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 12, 2011, 05:53:57 PM
Hermogenes

I was one of those who, sometime within the past few weeks, used the term judaizer. I used it when trying to point out how there had been divisions in Christianity early on (I was thinking, for example, of groups like the Ebionites). However, not really having thought about it before, I did not realise that the word would or could be taken as being very offensive, as you have explained, so for that I apologize, and will do my best to avoid using the term in the future.

No problem. I understood how the word was being used and hadn't thought much about it myself until I came across some docs about the Roman and Spanish inquisitions and realized how they used the word; how for 800 years they committed the most appalling crimes under its heading. One of the very last cases wasn't closed until the middle of the 20th century!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 13, 2011, 05:00:13 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: prodromos on January 13, 2011, 06:35:16 PM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
I apologise if this isn't the case, but you seem to have completely missed the point in my post.

Some who taught heresy regarding the nature(s) of Christ used unleavened bread specifically as a symbol of their heretical understanding of Christ's nature, so when the Latins unilaterally changed their bread from leavened to unleavened it strongly suggested that their understanding of Christ's nature had changed, notwithstanding that this was not actually the case.

Personally, I believe that the Latins had simply lost an understanding of a great many symbols used in Orthodox worship, or the importance of those symbols in upholding theological truth. I see evidence of this in areas such as iconography and church architecture, though I can't comment beyond that as I am not familiar with any other aspects of the Latin Church
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 13, 2011, 06:51:13 PM
Given that the Latin church was historically further from Monophysitism than the Byzantine church itself, the idea that they changed to unleavened bread as a reflection of a similar theology to the Armenians seems pretty idiotic.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 14, 2011, 10:15:07 AM
I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
I apologise if this isn't the case, but you seem to have completely missed the point in my post.

Some who taught heresy regarding the nature(s) of Christ used unleavened bread specifically as a symbol of their heretical understanding of Christ's nature, so when the Latins unilaterally changed their bread from leavened to unleavened it strongly suggested that their understanding of Christ's nature had changed, notwithstanding that this was not actually the case.

Personally, I believe that the Latins had simply lost an understanding of a great many symbols used in Orthodox worship, or the importance of those symbols in upholding theological truth. I see evidence of this in areas such as iconography and church architecture, though I can't comment beyond that as I am not familiar with any other aspects of the Latin Church

I don't believe I've missed your point, but you appear to have missed mine. See Luke 22:19. What does Christ tell us to do in remembrance of Him?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 02:22:59 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2011, 02:24:55 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
The Netodox love attacking the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 15, 2011, 02:51:32 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 15, 2011, 03:07:19 PM
To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 15, 2011, 03:17:33 PM
To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 15, 2011, 03:44:37 PM
To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.

Some progress is being made on understanding the role of primacy in the pre-schism days, however it is not clear that the efforts of scholars have made any real impact on Rome herself.

I do agree with Fr. Ambrose's analysis, but I wonder if the evolution of National Catholic Bishop conferences will pressure the center of Catholicism as time goes by. That may force a change of attitude from within the center of the Vatican itself rather than as a reaction to any outside pressure we Orthodox may bring to bear.

As to doctrinal and theological differences, it is my belief that most are, as Hermogenes states, a result centuries of seperation, linguistic nuancing, distance and pride. However it is reaching an understanding of the term 'most' that is vexing.

As to Rome's 'Ecumenical Councils' that occurred post schism, she will have to recognize them as synods of her Church only - not universal expressions of a united Apostolic Church. There probably is a way that Orthodox scholars can work that out but it will be a tough nut for Catholic traditionalists to swallow.

In the end a future unity will require more than any one Pope, Patriarch or Patriarchs or group of Eastern Orthodox Bishops and western Catholic ones reaching an understanding. The people of both East and West will be challenged to lay down much of the history and 'mythology' we dearly hold about the other side before we can truly be united. Pride will be the most difficult of all to set aside. Much prayer and more education for all of us will be needed if this is to happen.

Finally, if it is God's will, it will happen when the time is right. In the meantime, I, for one, am not afraid to support those Bishops and Churches of Orthodoxy who are trying. While I understand those who can not support the same, I believe that they are mistakenly on the wrong side of history. Of each side's sincerity within our Orthodox world, I have little doubt and I hope that we can live together under one banner of Faith ( not jurisdiction ) as we all move along the journey of life.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on January 15, 2011, 03:54:18 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 15, 2011, 03:59:50 PM
To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.

Some progress is being made on understanding the role of primacy in the pre-schism days, however it is not clear that the efforts of scholars have made any real impact on Rome herself.

I do agree with Fr. Ambrose's analysis, but I wonder if the evolution of National Catholic Bishop conferences will pressure the center of Catholicism as time goes by. That may force a change of attitude from within the center of the Vatican itself rather than as a reaction to any outside pressure we Orthodox may bring to bear.

As to doctrinal and theological differences, it is my belief that most are, as Hermogenes states, a result centuries of seperation, linguistic nuancing, distance and pride. However it is reaching an understanding of the term 'most' that is vexing.

As to Rome's 'Ecumenical Councils' that occurred post schism, she will have to recognize them as synods of her Church only - not universal expressions of a united Apostolic Church. There probably is a way that Orthodox scholars can work that out but it will be a tough nut for Catholic traditionalists to swallow.

In the end a future unity will require more than any one Pope, Patriarch or Patriarchs or group of Eastern Orthodox Bishops and western Catholic ones reaching an understanding. The people of both East and West will be challenged to lay down much of the history and 'mythology' we dearly hold about the other side before we can truly be united. Pride will be the most difficult of all to set aside. Much prayer and more education for all of us will be needed if this is to happen.

Finally, if it is God's will, it will happen when the time is right. In the meantime, I, for one, am not afraid to support those Bishops and Churches of Orthodoxy who are trying. While I understand those who can not support the same, I believe that they are mistakenly on the wrong side of history. Of each side's sincerity within our Orthodox world, I have little doubt and I hope that we can live together under one banner of Faith ( not jurisdiction ) as we all move along the journey of life.

You know, every so often I have this image in my mind of the first thousand years of Christianity. Certainly, the church was frequently challenged by some incredibly thorny issues. But it was ONE church, mostly at peace within itself, a church that could accommodate Benedict and Pachomius; Chrysostomos and Gregory the Great; Iona and Athos. I find that idea very inspiring. Wherever Christ was worshipped, any Christian could commune with the local orthodox parish.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 04:34:53 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
Honestly and Truth.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 04:36:18 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
The Netodox love attacking the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox love of the Catholic Church, which moves not the boundary marks the Fathers set up.

That the Vatican temporarily has let those in submission to it reerect the boundary mark it kicked over doesn't fool us.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 04:53:31 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Orthodoc on January 15, 2011, 04:56:23 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity????  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 05:11:53 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity????  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist, whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 05:26:37 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on January 15, 2011, 05:29:12 PM
In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:

(http://www.kath.ch/quickpage/pub/GetBinary?typ=galeriebildnormal&id=24033)
http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 15, 2011, 05:30:53 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing. Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation". But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western. What a sad philosophical foundation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 05:34:41 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing. Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation". But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western. What a sad philosophical foundation.
Exactly. It is funny how, unknowingly, ialmisry came along and completely proved the point i made in this post:

The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist, whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 15, 2011, 06:01:15 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

The Nicene/Constantinopolitan is the only creed we recite, as far as I'm aware. None of my prayer or service books contain anything else. Anybody know of any use of the Apostle's Creed in the Orthodox church?

I would say the filioque is quite a bit more than a mere clarification, even to me as a non-theologian; but I know Rome hasn't always insisted on it for the ER churches under its dominion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 06:30:49 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity????  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
The filioque is a western tradition.
No, it is a western heresy.
You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches,
Yes, espeically the heretical ones.
so why force us
As you are not in the Church, we are not forcing you to do anything. You are free to do as you please. You are just not free to demand we approve.
to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity?
Many do, but I don't.
By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?
No.
In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality.
I wasn't aware you were Anglican.

The Vatican can't make the claim of operating outside its parochialism for even half of its millenium or so exsitence: it suppressed, for instance, the Eastern rite of the preaching of SS. Cyril and Methodius in 885, and wouldn't allow it until 1646, i.e. nearly a millenium later, and then mostly allowed in name only (or what escaped the King's men).

We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,
(http://www.melkite.org/LATIN-IN.jpg)
http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm

It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.

whereas it seems to me that the general attitude amongst many Eastern Orthodox seems to be "become eastern or be anathema."
I'll give you that, although the filioque is still anathema.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 06:34:40 PM
The Nicene/Constantinopolitan is the only creed we recite, as far as I'm aware. None of my prayer or service books contain anything else. Anybody know of any use of the Apostle's Creed in the Orthodox church?
Is there a reason why the other Creeds are never utilized within Eastern Orthodoxy other than the fact that they came out of the West as ialmisry points out?

I would say the filioque is quite a bit more than a mere clarification, even to me as a non-theologian; but I know Rome hasn't always insisted on it for the ER churches under its dominion.
To me, the filioque emphasizes the unity of the Three Persons of the Trinity. On the Feast of the Holy Trinity, I remember my Pastor explaining that the Trinity is like a family: there is Father and Son and the Holy Spirit is the love that exists between the Father and the Son, and the existence of the Holy Spirit within the Church makes that divine love accessible to us. Hearing it explained that way does not make the filioque sound heterodox, at least not to me, but of course I too am not a theologian.

The See of Rome does not currently require the Eastern Catholic Churches to use the filioque clause in the Creed. If you go to ByzCath.org and read the Nicene Creed on the site it is written without the filioque and that site represents Eastern Christians in full communion with Rome.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Alpo on January 15, 2011, 06:41:31 PM
Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

Actually a case can be made that it is indeed an alteration. I've understanded that the Greek Latin Catholics don't chant Filioque in Greek since that would constitute a heresy even by RC standards. For me that implies that the Latin Creed and it's translations has different meaning to the Greek version. If non-Greek RCs understanded the Creed in a Greek way Filioque would be impossibily throughout the RCC. But since the Creed with Filioque is an alteration from the original Greek version it's considered as a legitimate expression of Latin tradition.

Is there a reason why the other Creeds are never utilized within Eastern Orthodoxy other than the fact that they came out of the West as ialmisry points out?

The other Creeds are wholly legitimate expressions of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, since our churches are mostly Byzantine we don't use them since they are not part of Byzantine tradition. There's nothing wrong with them but they are not just our cup of tea since most of us follow Byzantine tradition.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 06:55:07 PM
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's).
LOL. Your Vatican centrism is showing. No, we do not have three, just one. During Divine Liturgy even the WRO use the One Orthodox Creed, although the Apostles Creed (itself only used in the West and unheard of in the East) is used at Vespers.  The Athanasian Creed is a Western invention, again unknown in the East, barely used by the Vatican and not used by the WRO at all.
LOL. Your Byzantian ethnocentricism is showing.
Since neither I nor my Church is "Byzantine" (that's another Vatican innovation), that would be rather hard.

Since the Fathers gathered at Constantinople to set their seal on the One, Ecumenical, Catholic and Orthodox Creed, "Constantinopolitan" and "Roman" is another matter.

Just because the Athanatian Creed arose in the west, does not make it an "innovation".
I didn't say innovation. I said invention. St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

But of course, your entire Byzantine thinking is built on the innovation of rejecting what is Western.
au contraire, I defend the WRO quite vigorously.

What a sad philosophical foundation.
What a sad, unfounded allegation.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 15, 2011, 07:05:43 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.  At that point of enlightenment, then it may be possible to see more similarities than differences between our two Churches.  As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church, and nurtures congregationalist aspirations, then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...

Mary

M.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2011, 07:12:13 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

Attempting to force us to use it is one thing. But beyond that, even if you don't, many of your practices are not tolerable to us (definitely the filioque more so than the unleavened bread, IMO).
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: deusveritasest on January 15, 2011, 07:16:37 PM
The filioque is a western tradition. You did not like it when some in the West were imposing latinizations on the Eastern Churches, so why force us to adopt easternizations for the sake of unity? By forcing the Western Rite to remove the filioque, adopt the practice of using leavened bread, and inserting an Eastern style epiclesis into the liturgy in order to be in communion with the other Eastern Orthodox Churches, are you not doing the exact same thing that many Eastern Orthodox have complained about the Latins doing to them in the centuries immediately after the schism?

Some of the Western particularities are not orthodox is the point. Only the ones that are necessarily heterodox should be required to be changed.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 15, 2011, 09:14:03 PM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.

LOL. So you use a platitude (and one devoid of truth at that) to accuse us of platitudes.

And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

We don't admit lies.

Let's make this easy: explain to us the differences between the 123 or so supreme pontiffs of the Vatican. Enlighten us.

At that point of enlightenment,

You first.

then it may be possible to see more similarities than differences between our two Churches.

That is not going to make the heresies the Vatican exposes to go away.

As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church,

Oh, what's your yardstick?

and nurtures congregationalist aspirations,

Haven't got those. Or other heretical ones either. Refusing to kiss the supreme pontiff's slippers doesn't make you a congregationalist.

then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...
LOL. That log is obscruring your view of the matter.  Ophthomologist, heal thyself.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 15, 2011, 09:29:39 PM
In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:

(http://www.kath.ch/quickpage/pub/GetBinary?typ=galeriebildnormal&id=24033)
http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Is that your church? The link is in German.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ChristusDominus on January 15, 2011, 09:42:46 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Schultz on January 15, 2011, 10:17:11 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 15, 2011, 11:19:40 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.

That quite true as far as I was taught and observed. My father's Greek Catholic parish in New Jersey had its iconostasis removed and western innovations including a rail as in Isa's picture during the period after the parish split and the Orthodox faction led by my grandfather left to build their own church. Sometime in the late 70's or 80's the Westernizations vanished and a new iconostasis was installed along with liturgical and sacramental changes more in line with Orthodox tradition.  I think that in the 'old country' such changes were not tolerated for the most part in that the Greek Catholics had no problem differentiating themselves from the Latins, in the States some were so willing to Americanize themselves that they allowed the changes or they were just too tired from all of the fighting that occurred over the property and celibacy disputes. One also has to remember that for many of the Slavic Greek Catholics the monolith to the East, i.e. the Russian Bear was more feared than the one from the West.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 15, 2011, 11:36:18 PM
The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 15, 2011, 11:45:22 PM
The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 15, 2011, 11:57:12 PM
The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 15, 2011, 11:57:43 PM
The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts, the filioque, and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox. Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
What do you know about the pre-schism West or perhaps the question is what do you think you know about the pre-schism West that makes you say such things?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2011, 12:01:30 AM
In all honesty, that is what is really appealing to me about my Church is its universality. We allow a variety of rites and traditions to coexist,

You know, it's not always a bad thing:

(http://www.kath.ch/quickpage/pub/GetBinary?typ=galeriebildnormal&id=24033)
http://www.kath.ch/oberkirch
Is that your church? The link is in German.
No, but this is. The link is in German.
KOKID (http://www.kokid.de/)
(http://www.dveri.bg/images/stories1/INAo4/IMAG0258.jpg)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2011, 12:06:24 AM

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Here are the words of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who is the doyen of Russian theologians and always heads our delegations to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.  I fear that you will assess it as providing the Archbishop of Rome with no more than a platitude.  :)

Metropolitan  Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 16, 2011, 12:06:58 AM
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Shlomlokh on January 16, 2011, 12:09:07 AM
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?

Have you no compassion, man?

The Latins claim that they had the entire 1,000 years of the pre-schism Church to "start with alternate rites." We don't see their blunders from the various "unia" then, do we?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Apotheoun on January 16, 2011, 12:14:53 AM
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
I simply want to be Melkite Catholic, which means holding to the traditions of the Byzantine Churches.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2011, 12:20:42 AM
The first photograph highlights the sad condition of the Melkite Church in America prior to Vatican II, while the second picture shows the degree of progress made since the close of that Western Synod.  That said, the process of de-Latinization is ongoing, and will no doubt continue for several generations, because Latinization has sadly been engrained into the thinking of many Melkite Catholics, and changing that way of thinking will take a very long time.
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts,

Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?

the filioque,

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

and the standard western epiclesis to Churches who decide to become Western Rite Orthodox.
The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.

Are Western Rite Orthodox parishes allowed to have statues or must they have Icons?
http://www.westernorthodox.com/walsingham.html
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2011, 12:26:04 AM

As long as Orthodoxy holds up the ideal of one bishop-one vote as the ONLY measure of real power in the Church, [size]

I fear you have misunderstood what is being said.  Nobody has stated that one-bishop-one-vote is the ONLY measure.  What has been stated is that this is a principle which must be accepted by Rome for its return to the Church and that so far, unfortunately,  Rome has shown no inclination at all to even consider this.

Quote
and nurtures congregationalist aspirations, then Orthodoxy will remain blind to her own internal realities...

This results from a misapprehension of Orthodoxy reality and ecclesiology and our understanding of the place of conciliarism.  It is in the nature of Cardinal Kasper's irritated remark "We are becoming increasingly aware that there is no such thing as the Orthodox Church."

Your trouble and Cardinal Kasper's is that you have an incorrect views of conciliarisim. Over the centuries as papal power has increased exponentially and reduced bishops to an inferior status, you cannot help but see conciliarism as a principle which extends only so far and then, wham,  it is negated by the overriding supreme power of the Pope.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 16, 2011, 12:29:32 AM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


There is real primatial power in Orthodoxy or there'd never have been need for Primates in the first place. 

It seems to me Orthodoxy needs to gain a bit of that back before we can really move forward. 

You are not in charge of that process... :)...BBG, BBHHN
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2011, 12:40:05 AM
And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

Mary , you could only say that if you are not acquainted with our ecclesiology ands our sacred canons.

Primacy on a regional/provincial level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. We have embedded it in our ecclesiology.  But primacy on a global level does not exist.

But, as Saint Justin the New says, these various manners of primacies must not impede the proper functioning and powers of the episcopate.  His words are here in message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.msg517455/topicseen.html#msg517455

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2011, 12:50:31 AM
Perhaps some day the Eastern Orthodox Churches will stop imposing easternizations upon the Western Rite and allow unleavened hosts,

This is not a byzantinization.  It is simply using the authentic customs of the Western Church of the first millennium when we were in communion.

Please see the article at message 21 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13141.msg272267.html#msg272267

CATHOLIC SCHOLARS SAY THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME USED LEAVENED BREAD
for the first 800 and more years.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 16, 2011, 01:10:41 AM
So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


There is real primatial power in Orthodoxy or there'd never have been need for Primates in the first place.


Primates we have. Supreme pontiffs we don't.

It seems to me Orthodoxy needs to gain a bit of that back


AFAIK, at present every local Church has a primate.  IIRC Serbia had the last vacancy to fill, and she did so a year or so ago.

before we can really move forward.
Who's "we"?

You are not in charge of that process

And you are?

Like I said, there is no problem for me to be in charge of solving.

... :)...
;D

BBG, BBHHN
Sorry, since I didn't drink the kool-aid, I didn't have the proof of purchases to send away for the decoder ring.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Asteriktos on January 16, 2011, 01:13:57 AM
Mary , you could only say that if you are not acquainted with our ecclesiology ands our sacred canons.

Primacy on a regional/provincial level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. We have embedded it in our ecclesiology.  But primacy on a global level does not exist.

But, as Saint Justin the New says, these various manners of primacies must not impede the proper functioning and powers of the episcopate.  His words are here in message 84 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.msg517455/topicseen.html#msg517455

One thing I found interesting about the ecclesiology of St. Justin is that he advocated not returning merely to the governmental forms of the later years of the undivided Church, but rather said that we should remember the principles that predated pentarchies and all such later administrative schemes:

Quote
"Moreover, is it correct, is it Orthodox to have such representations of the Orthodox Churches at various pan Orthodox gatherings on Rhodes or in Geneva? The representatives of Constantinople who began this system of representation of Orthodox Churches at the councils and those who accept this principle which, according to their theory, is in accord with the system of autocephalous and autonomous local Churches — they have forgotten that such a principle in fact contradicts the conciliar tradition of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately this principle of representation was accepted quickly and by all the other Orthodox: sometimes silently, sometimes with voted protests, but forgetting that the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred 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 organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, 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 conciliar 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." - On a Summoning of a Great Council of the Orthodox Church (http://www.atlantaserbs.com/learnmore/library/Summoning-Great-Council.html)

EDIT--Just wanted to say that I realised that I quote the same as you, but wanted to give a bit more context, though I'm not sure that I've done that or helped any...  :-\ well anyway...
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 16, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 16, 2011, 02:29:21 PM
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?

There is nothing 'amusing' about the actions listed above. They are similar to those imposed upon the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholics. They led to the revolts which occurred in various countries and were the root cause of the bitter division of parish, family abd community in case after case.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: mike on January 16, 2011, 02:30:22 PM
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox.

They are in schism, 500 years longer than you are.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: podkarpatska on January 16, 2011, 02:34:45 PM
Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Hermogenes on January 16, 2011, 03:41:13 PM
 
Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 16, 2011, 03:50:02 PM
Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Actually "schismatic" is not offensive because it only indicates disunity, not false teaching like "heretic" does. There has to be the right balance between honesty and charity, and I find many of ialmisry's posts less than charitable.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 16, 2011, 07:05:31 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 16, 2011, 11:19:12 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 16, 2011, 11:21:37 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.
Oh stop it.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 16, 2011, 11:22:22 PM
Other then communing with the Armenian Orthodox, why would we do that?  In particular as unleaven hosts are an innovation in the West, not even kept by most of the heteretic or heterodox West anymore?
If unleavened bread is not a stumbling block resulting in schism between the Armenian Orthodox and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox Church then why is it still brought up as one of the things Rome must change before full communion could ever resume?

Heretics are free to do what they want, but to commune in the Orthodox Catholic Church, you have to confess the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You are obviously free to believe we are heretics and free to state so since this is an Eastern Orthodox forum, but I would think if you wanted to be a more effective witness to Orthodoxy that you would try to use language which is less insulting. If you want to win over RCs, Protestants, and other non-Orthodox you probably will not have much luck insulting us repeatedly.

The lack of an epiclesis in the Roman rite is what prompted the issue to be sure.
"And so Father we bring You these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become for us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist." <---Epiclesis.

Even those within EO who do not call you heretics, myself included, do consider you at least to be schismatics. I doubt that soothes your ears any more than heretic upsets them. Call it what you want, the fact remains that we are divided and, as Fr. Ambrose aptly points out, the issue of the purported universal supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome is the primary stumbling block that looms betwen us. I would worry less about words and more about substance.
Actually "schismatic" is not offensive because it only indicates disunity, not false teaching like "heretic" does. There has to be the right balance between honesty and charity, and I find many of ialmisry's posts less than charitable.
You and everyone who has ever read anything he has ever posted.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 16, 2011, 11:23:43 PM
Alas, historically speaking, it is the Latin Church that has required that its theology and liturgical usages be adopted by others, and not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I have seen first hand the damage done to the Melkite Catholic Church in the United States, and Melkites are still struggling to overcome the Latinization that devastated our Churches, as the photographs posted above clearly show.  I have not seen comparable photographs of Western Rite Orthodox parishes that show the same degree of damage.

The Melkite website, from which the photographs were taken, also provides a handy list (albeit incomplete) of the Latinizations that have affected our Churches:


Latinizations

1. Unmarried priesthood (Still generally true of Melkite clergy)

2. Statues

3. Altar rails

4. Confessional boxes

5. Stations of the Cross hanging on walls

6. 3-D Crucifixes on walls

7. Western-style paintings

8. Suppression of liturgical hours

9. Suppression of Presanctified in favour of Divine Liturgy

10. Use of Western style Mass instead of the Liturgies of St. John Crystsostom or St. Basil

11. Introduction of Western prayers: the Rosary, etc.

12. Introduction of Western music and songs

13. Use of musical instruments

14. Emphasizing the words of Institution and silencing the Epiklesis prayers

15. Truncation of prayers, esp. psalms in liturgies

16. Reduction of prostrations and reverences

17. Use of Genuflections, Kneeling

18. Combining Divine Liturgy with other services: marriage, funeral

19. Not distributing the antidoron

20. Elimination of using hot water during Consecration (using cold?)

21. Not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors

23. First Communion and Chrismation separated from Baptism

Source:  List of Latinizations (http://www.melkite.org/latin.htm#List)

Some of these "Latinizations" are amusing. Oh, the agony!

Of course, considering the Latins have a few hundred years head start with alternate rites, they've had more time to make mistakes. Its pretty easy to be critical when comparing apples to oranges.

P.S.  You really hate being Catholic don't you?
I simply want to be Melkite Catholic, which means holding to the traditions of the Byzantine Churches.
Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 17, 2011, 12:13:08 AM
You and everyone who has ever read anything he has ever posted.
I don't know. I think the fact he is allowed to continue on his tirades indicates that some in authority are at least tolerant of his views (and his ways of expressing them) if not outright sympathetic to them.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) Wyatt, you have been warned in the past to not comment on moderatorial decisions (or lack thereof, in this case) in the public fora.  If you find a post offensive, you know to use the Report to moderator function.  For your continued whining about the moderation of this board, you are hereby put on post moderation for 30 days.  If you find this to be in error, please PM Fr. George or FrChris to appeal.  - Schultz, Orthodox-Catholic moderator
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: LakaYaRabb on January 17, 2011, 01:03:46 AM
Dearest Papist and azurestone,

Do you ever stop and think that perhaps your words might be an obstacle in someone's decisions concerning their faith?

Papist, how would it make you feel if your verbal assaults on Apotheoun led to him leaving the Catholic Church? Horrible I hope.

Azurestone, the comments you make about Apotheoun's decision to remain Melkite Catholic are uncharitable. Stop badgering him.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2011, 01:30:20 AM

Papist, how would it make you feel if your verbal assaults on Apotheoun led to him leaving the Catholic Church? Horrible I hope.

Azurestone, the comments you make about Apotheoun's decision to remain Melkite Catholic are uncharitable. Stop badgering him.

It really puzzles me that the most loquacious Eastern Catholics on the forum Mary and Father Lance, never say anything about the messages and views of their brother Eastern Catholic Apotheoun.  Why? Surely if Apotheoun were way out of bounds with Eastern Catholic theology they would be correcting him?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2011, 01:36:23 AM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.
because obviously persuasive argument and moral example isn't enough....
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ozgeorge on January 17, 2011, 01:36:41 AM
Surely if Apotheoun were way out of bounds with Eastern Catholic theology they would be correcting him?

Why?
Is what is said on this forum really that important?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2011, 01:49:12 AM
Surely if Apotheoun were way out of bounds with Eastern Catholic theology they would be correcting him?

Why?
Is what is said on this forum really that important?


Seems to be.  The Orthodox got bent out of shape when Mary was saying that they permit abortion.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ozgeorge on January 17, 2011, 01:54:13 AM
Surely if Apotheoun were way out of bounds with Eastern Catholic theology they would be correcting him?

Why?
Is what is said on this forum really that important?


Seems to be.  The Orthodox got bent out of shape when Mary was saying that they permit abortion.
You mean the Orthodox on this forum?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2011, 02:01:21 AM
Surely if Apotheoun were way out of bounds with Eastern Catholic theology they would be correcting him?

Why?
Is what is said on this forum really that important?


Seems to be.  The Orthodox got bent out of shape when Mary was saying that they permit abortion.
You mean the Orthodox on this forum?
I am not aware of any reactions from Orthodox not on this forum.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ozgeorge on January 17, 2011, 02:03:16 AM
I am not aware of any reactions from Orthodox not on this forum.
OK
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 17, 2011, 01:46:18 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Fr. George on January 17, 2011, 03:43:41 PM
I don't know. I think the fact he is allowed to continue on his tirades indicates that some in authority are at least tolerant of his views (and his ways of expressing them) if not outright sympathetic to them.

You seem to have a difficult time with the concept that, *gasp!*, this is a discussion forum, where we allow people to have discussion.  In true "discussion forum" form, if he says something untrue then you should dispute the point, provide evidence if necessary, etc.  If he violates the forum rules, then click the "Report to moderator" link in the lower-right corner of the offending post, and he will be warned.  If not, then he, you, and anyone else is free to post what you think.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 17, 2011, 04:01:46 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.

What is this primatial power?

No primate of any Orthodox Church may exercise more than one vote at all meetings of the Synod.

No primate may enter the diocese of another bishop without obtaining that bishop's blessing.

No primate may issue Church-wide directives without obtaining the approval of the Synod of bishops.  But of course he may issue decrees for his own diocese.

No primate may elevate or defrock or discipline another bishop.  That belongs to the Synod of bishops.

Primates may be disciplined by the Synod of bishops.

If you look at Church-wide decrees, they will state "The Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops" or words to that effect.

Priimatial authority resides in the Synod.


Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2011, 04:17:06 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?
And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

Let's make this easy: explain to us the differences between the 123 or so supreme pontiffs of the Vatican. Enlighten us.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 17, 2011, 04:18:24 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.

What is this primatial power?

No primate of any Orthodox Church may exercise more than one vote at all meetings of the Synod.

No primate may enter the diocese of another bishop without obtaining that bishop's blessing.

No primate may issue Church-wide directives without obtaining the approval of the Synod of bishops.  But of course he may issue decrees for his own diocese.

No primate may elevate or defrock or discipline another bishop.  That belongs to the Synod of bishops.

Primates may be disciplined by the Synod of bishops.

If you look at Church-wide decrees, they will state "The Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops" or words to that effect.

Priimatial authority resides in the Synod.
as a recent primate of Jerusalem found out, much to his sorrow.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Wyatt on January 17, 2011, 06:29:39 PM
You seem to have a difficult time with the concept that, *gasp!*, this is a discussion forum, where we allow people to have discussion.  In true "discussion forum" form, if he says something untrue then you should dispute the point, provide evidence if necessary, etc.  If he violates the forum rules, then click the "Report to moderator" link in the lower-right corner of the offending post, and he will be warned.  If not, then he, you, and anyone else is free to post what you think.
It's not what he says so much as how he says it.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Fr. George on January 17, 2011, 06:31:35 PM
You seem to have a difficult time with the concept that, *gasp!*, this is a discussion forum, where we allow people to have discussion.  In true "discussion forum" form, if he says something untrue then you should dispute the point, provide evidence if necessary, etc.  If he violates the forum rules, then click the "Report to moderator" link in the lower-right corner of the offending post, and he will be warned.  If not, then he, you, and anyone else is free to post what you think.
It's not what he says so much as how he says it.

I've been critical of his tone in other places here; but as long as he's not breaking rules, we have no reason to warn him, just as we have no reason to warn you as long as you're not breaking rules.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 17, 2011, 10:39:15 PM
Then all Patriarchs are very very very expensive tree toppers.



Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.

What is this primatial power?

No primate of any Orthodox Church may exercise more than one vote at all meetings of the Synod.

No primate may enter the diocese of another bishop without obtaining that bishop's blessing.

No primate may issue Church-wide directives without obtaining the approval of the Synod of bishops.  But of course he may issue decrees for his own diocese.

No primate may elevate or defrock or discipline another bishop.  That belongs to the Synod of bishops.

Primates may be disciplined by the Synod of bishops.

If you look at Church-wide decrees, they will state "The Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops" or words to that effect.

Priimatial authority resides in the Synod.



Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 17, 2011, 10:39:15 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.

What is this primatial power?

No primate of any Orthodox Church may exercise more than one vote at all meetings of the Synod.

No primate may enter the diocese of another bishop without obtaining that bishop's blessing.

No primate may issue Church-wide directives without obtaining the approval of the Synod of bishops.  But of course he may issue decrees for his own diocese.

No primate may elevate or defrock or discipline another bishop.  That belongs to the Synod of bishops.

Primates may be disciplined by the Synod of bishops.

If you look at Church-wide decrees, they will state "The Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops" or words to that effect.

Priimatial authority resides in the Synod.
as a recent primate of Jerusalem found out, much to his sorrow.

He's the one who is imprisoned, right?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 17, 2011, 10:39:15 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 02:06:01 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
It seems some of the Vatican's followers hanker after the good ol' days:
Two possibilities.
1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Aindriú on January 20, 2011, 02:29:50 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
It seems some of the Vatican's followers hanker after the good ol' days:
Two possibilities.
1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

What does this have to do with this thread?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Papist on January 20, 2011, 03:26:12 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
It seems some of the Vatican's followers hanker after the good ol' days:
Two possibilities.
1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

What does this have to do with this thread?
Nothing. Isa is just being Isa.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2011, 06:04:45 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

Power, Power, Power!  Notice how it always comes down to power for Catholics.

Yes, we are discussing it at ALL levels (thanks to the insistence of Met Zizioulas and Cardinal Kasper) and as you know the Orthodox Russians are vehemently denying it exists at the global level.  It exists only at the level for which the canons were formulated - regional, provincial and national.  Nothing higher. 

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 06:19:43 PM

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.

No worse that it is today in Orthodoxy, I expect.  From real life experience I think if mutually established among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs, it might just work.  In fact I think that is the goal in the discussions...don't you?  I mean I don't hear any of the Patriarchs telling Benedetto the Wise that he "needs to come home"....Now THAT would be news!!
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2011, 07:08:06 PM

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.

No worse that it is today in Orthodoxy, I expect.  From real life experience I think if mutually established among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs, it might just work.

May we enquire what "real life experience"?  Have there been occasions you have experienced when the Orthodox have changed their age old praxis or doctrine in agreement with Roman Catholic bishops?  Could you be specific?

Quote
I mean I don't hear any of the Patriarchs telling Benedetto the Wise that he "needs to come home"....Now THAT would be news!!

To date the Patriarchs have taken little interest in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and, as we know it has been left in the hands of a few enthusiasts.  As we also know that has changed dramatically after Ravenna 2007 when the Patriarchs realised almost overnight, thanks to the actions of the Greek Church, that a theology and an ecclesiology was being developed by Cardinal Kasper and Met Zizioulas (through the medium of the bilateral dialogue) which was foreign to Orthodoxy.   As we also know the result was that the participants at the bilateral dialogue are now forbidden from the Orthodox side from signing and issuing statements which have not been examined and approved by the synods of the Local Churches. Hence no statements from Crete 2008 nor Vienna 2010. 

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 08:09:51 PM

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.

No worse that it is today in Orthodoxy, I expect.  From real life experience I think if mutually established among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs, it might just work.

May we enquire what "real life experience"?  Have there been occasions you have experienced when the Orthodox have changed their age old praxis or doctrine in agreement with Roman Catholic bishops?  Could you be specific?

Quote
I mean I don't hear any of the Patriarchs telling Benedetto the Wise that he "needs to come home"....Now THAT would be news!!

To date the Patriarchs have taken little interest in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and, as we know it has been left in the hands of a few enthusiasts.  As we also know that has changed dramatically after Ravenna 2007 when the Patriarchs realised almost overnight, thanks to the actions of the Greek Church, that a theology and an ecclesiology was being developed by Cardinal Kasper and Met Zizioulas (through the medium of the bilateral dialogue) which was foreign to Orthodoxy.   As we also know the result was that the participants at the bilateral dialogue are now forbidden from the Orthodox side from signing and issuing statements which have not been examined and approved by the synods of the Local Churches. Hence no statements from Crete 2008 nor Vienna 2010. 

Oh...well you obviously have not contributed greatly to my real life experience  :)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 08:19:45 PM
Before:
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3261/latinin.jpg) (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/latinin.jpg/)

After:

(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7762/stgeorge.jpg) (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/stgeorge.jpg/)
At least tell the whole story. Half-truths are no better than lies.
http://www.melkite.org/parishinfo.html

He did, or did you miss this very important comment from Isa which is incredibly appropriate given your response:

Quote
It never ceases to amuse me how so many of the Vatican's followers, who otherwise claim that Christ founded their ecclesiastical community, act as if the Vatican started in 1962 when it comes to this issue.
It seems some of the Vatican's followers hanker after the good ol' days:
Two possibilities.
1. He did in fact invoke his Papal teaching authority, BUT, did he invoke Papal Infallibility? Not certain that he did.

2. Heresey can be an even graver crime than murder because it can cause the eternal death of the soul. So, would it be wrong to put to death an arch-heretic like Martin Luther or Arius, if we are living in a Christian country? I am not certain that such would be wrong. It might be necessary to protect the faithful from spiritual death. I am not saying that I am certain on this point, just thinking outloud.

What does this have to do with this thread?
Nothing. Isa is just being Isa.
And Ultramontanists being Ultramontanists, picking up that sword that St. Peter put down.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 08:21:28 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.

What is this primatial power?

No primate of any Orthodox Church may exercise more than one vote at all meetings of the Synod.

No primate may enter the diocese of another bishop without obtaining that bishop's blessing.

No primate may issue Church-wide directives without obtaining the approval of the Synod of bishops.  But of course he may issue decrees for his own diocese.

No primate may elevate or defrock or discipline another bishop.  That belongs to the Synod of bishops.

Primates may be disciplined by the Synod of bishops.

If you look at Church-wide decrees, they will state "The Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops" or words to that effect.

Priimatial authority resides in the Synod.
as a recent primate of Jerusalem found out, much to his sorrow.

He's the one who is imprisoned, right?
Yes.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2011, 08:24:53 PM

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.

No worse that it is today in Orthodoxy, I expect.  From real life experience I think if mutually established among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs, it might just work.

May we enquire what "real life experience"?  Have there been occasions you have experienced when the Orthodox have changed their age old praxis or doctrine in agreement with Roman Catholic bishops?  Could you be specific?

Quote
I mean I don't hear any of the Patriarchs telling Benedetto the Wise that he "needs to come home"....Now THAT would be news!!

To date the Patriarchs have taken little interest in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and, as we know it has been left in the hands of a few enthusiasts.  As we also know that has changed dramatically after Ravenna 2007 when the Patriarchs realised almost overnight, thanks to the actions of the Greek Church, that a theology and an ecclesiology was being developed by Cardinal Kasper and Met Zizioulas (through the medium of the bilateral dialogue) which was foreign to Orthodoxy.   As we also know the result was that the participants at the bilateral dialogue are now forbidden from the Orthodox side from signing and issuing statements which have not been examined and approved by the synods of the Local Churches. Hence no statements from Crete 2008 nor Vienna 2010. 

Oh...well you obviously have not contributed greatly to my real life experience  :)

You are such a disappointment because you never reply to questions.

You are also a disappointment because you think not like an Eastern Catholic but a Roman Catholic.  Eastern Catholics would know that the importance of "mutually established [change] among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs" must be counterbalanced by the more important question of whether the pleroma of the Church will be in agreement.

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 08:26:35 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

With Apostolic Canon 34, his is all the Orthodox have to say on the meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 08:50:52 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

With Apostolic Canon 34, his is all the Orthodox have to say on the meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Irish Hermit on January 20, 2011, 08:57:31 PM

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?

(http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2009-10/photo_verybig_109405.jpg)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 09:10:22 PM
They serve no more purpose than the pope and are not needed at all.   Get rid of them and you might force the Catholic Church to think again....


When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?

(http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2009-10/photo_verybig_109405.jpg)
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 09:54:31 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

With Apostolic Canon 34, his is all the Orthodox have to say on the meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?
Ah, displaying the usual lack of discernment I see.

We never have a problem dumping heretical primates.  You make yours infallible.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 10:02:14 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is. 

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

With Apostolic Canon 34, his is all the Orthodox have to say on the meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?
Ah, displaying the usual lack of discernment I see.

We never have a problem dumping heretical primates.  You make yours infallible.

Morse Code for Help
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 10:05:36 PM

Like it or not but Orthodoxy has no mechanism capable of adding a global level.  It could call an Ecumenical Council to consider the matter but after 2000 years of tradition and canon law it is highly unlikely that the Council would innovate about this and add a global level and formulate canons for its regulation.   Apart from the horror of a break with tradition the Church would be facing an even greater horror - widespread schism from the faithful who would refuse to accept the creation of a global primacy.

No worse that it is today in Orthodoxy, I expect.  From real life experience I think if mutually established among Orthodox and Catholic hierarchs, it might just work.

May we enquire what "real life experience"?  Have there been occasions you have experienced when the Orthodox have changed their age old praxis or doctrine in agreement with Roman Catholic bishops?  Could you be specific?

Quote
I mean I don't hear any of the Patriarchs telling Benedetto the Wise that he "needs to come home"....Now THAT would be news!!

To date the Patriarchs have taken little interest in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and, as we know it has been left in the hands of a few enthusiasts.  As we also know that has changed dramatically after Ravenna 2007 when the Patriarchs realised almost overnight, thanks to the actions of the Greek Church, that a theology and an ecclesiology was being developed by Cardinal Kasper and Met Zizioulas (through the medium of the bilateral dialogue) which was foreign to Orthodoxy.   As we also know the result was that the participants at the bilateral dialogue are now forbidden from the Orthodox side from signing and issuing statements which have not been examined and approved by the synods of the Local Churches. Hence no statements from Crete 2008 nor Vienna 2010. 

Oh...well you obviously have not contributed greatly to my real life experience  :)

You are such a disappointment because you never reply to questions.
Well, if you don't have the answers....
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 10:06:31 PM

Quote

Supremacy is no more than FIRST among Equals where FIRST actually means something more than a platitude.


Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

Not at all.   It is what it is.  

There is no primatial power without the means to access and utilize that power.

Just another example of the Catholic obsession with power and authority.   It pervades everything that a Catholic apologist writes.

There is primatial power in Orthodoxy and I've been around too long for you to tell me that it doesn't exist....The comparison is one of power and its exercise...but both Churches have and use their fair share and BOTH Churches are a clear hierarchy.

So you are another example of avoiding the elephant in the Orthodox living room.
Mind explaining this parade of elephants stampeding through the Vatican's living room?

Not to those who mock and deride...here that means you and Father A. from NZ

But it is what your bishops and their representatives are speaking about with my bishops and their representatives.

The meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

St. Cyprian invented/coined the pharses "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole," and episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus "The episcopate is one, diffused through a harmonious multitude of many bishops." He did not, however, innovate in the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, which is why we hold to his words.

With Apostolic Canon 34, his is all the Orthodox have to say on the meaning of primatial power...at ALL levels.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?
Ah, displaying the usual lack of discernment I see.

We never have a problem dumping heretical primates.  You make yours infallible.

Morse Code for Help
Ah, very cryptic. Btw, did you answer:
And as I said before, one of the things Orthodoxy really needs to admit to herself is that some bishops are more equal than others, and perhaps rightly so for the good health of the body.

Let's make this easy: explain to us the differences between the 123 or so supreme pontiffs of the Vatican. Enlighten us.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 10:14:45 PM


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?

I think this is an excellent answer. 

Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: ialmisry on January 20, 2011, 10:43:10 PM


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?

I think this is an excellent answer.  

Autocentric as ever.  

So Your supreme pontiffs John Paul II and Benedict XVI are just the same as Pope Honrius I, Pope Stephen (VI) VII (LOL, notice the confusion on numbers) and Pope Alexander VI, eh?  Nice to know.

It's rather odd than anyone claiming to be "Eastern Catholic" be perplexed on this matter: except for the dependence on the pallium, the sui juris ecclesiology even in the Vatican scheme of things reflects Orthodox ecclesiology on primates rather well.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: elijahmaria on January 20, 2011, 10:56:52 PM


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When you dump the Pretty Patriarchs then we'll dump the Prowling Pope...howzzat?

I think this is an excellent answer.  

Autocentric as ever.  

So Your supreme pontiffs John Paul II and Benedict XVI are just the same as Pope Honrius I, Pope Stephen (VI) VII (LOL, notice the confusion on numbers) and Pope Alexander VI, eh?  Nice to know.

It's rather odd than anyone claiming to be "Eastern Catholic" be perplexed on this matter: except for the dependence on the pallium, the sui juris ecclesiology even in the Vatican scheme of things reflects Orthodox ecclesiology on primates rather well.

I am not sure how I manage in Confession without you.

Have fun.
Title: Re: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic
Post by: Schultz on January 21, 2011, 10:57:44 AM

And with that final salvo, this thread is closed.  Please note, in the future, when the same three or four posters start (you know who you are) to resume their personal bickering and begin to retread the same, tired ground that they have chosen as their battlefield, I will close the thread as it is no longer a discussion but merely a forum for a small group of posters to show off and snipe at one another in a most despicable manner that should be beneath them as adults and, most especially, as Christians.

Do not bother PMing me about it, either, please.  I don't want to hear it anymore from any of you. 

-Schultz
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator