OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Peter J on June 12, 2011, 09:40:02 AM

Title: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 12, 2011, 09:40:02 AM
To rescue them from the likes of Frank Schaeffer and Alexey Young!

What happened to Franky Schaeffer? (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509drag.asp)

Not, of course, that Schaeffer and Young would see it that way. In fact ...

Quote
He [Young] issues this warning to his fellow believers: "Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians--all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion's den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 12, 2011, 10:22:38 AM
Dear Peter J,

While the words of Fr Alexei Young (now an elderly hiero schema monk named Ambrose and a spiritual father to many people in a small Ohio monastery) may appear dreadful and extreme, we have to remember that they are not a peripheral stream of opinion within the Church.  In fact they are probably tending to the majority.  But in the West people tend to meet with much more ecumenical-friendly Orthodox but......

Nobody who is reasonably acquainted with the history of the contact between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will doubt that the desire of Catholicism for centuries past has been the extinction of Orthodoxy.   You have had a mere 40 years since Vatican II when you have adopted a different tack, but is 40 years enough to convince the Orthodox that the leopard has changed its spots?  It did not convince Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, 30 years after Vatican II..

Yes, we partake of the doubt and suspicion described by Metropolitan Anthony in his summation of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.   What he said is worth noting since he was a Russian hierarch who had actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue in Western Europe between the Orthodox and Catholics.  

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

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

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


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


What you will find is that what Metropolitan Anthony and Fr Ambrose Young write is the "default position" for many Orthodox but in actual intercourse with Catholics they will present a much more friendly and polite position.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 12, 2011, 11:46:31 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 12, 2011, 12:40:30 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy. 

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Kasatkin fan on June 12, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Sorry Peter, but are you saying that the Orthodox need Rome, to save us from people who dislike Rome?

I think talks would be a lot more fruitful if Catholics decided what their perspective on these issues is, and allowed us to decide what our perspective is. It certainly doesn't help when Catholics go out of their way to demonize certain individuals and then tell us to listen to another individual.

The majority position in Orthodoxy is that we do not need Rome. If Rome wishes to return to the fold, that is theirs to do, we shall leave the door open, but we have no need to search for you.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 12, 2011, 04:50:37 PM
Nobody who is reasonably acquainted with the history of the contact between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will doubt that the desire of Catholicism for centuries past has been the extinction of Orthodoxy.   You have had a mere 40 years since Vatican II when you have adopted a different tack, but is 40 years enough to convince the Orthodox that the leopard has changed its spots?  It did not convince Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, 30 years after Vatican II..

Let me preface my response by saying that I think the phrase "extinction of Orthodoxy" is unnecessarily bleak, but I quite agree with you that 40 years is a very short time -- also, I'm not unaware of the fact that the Balamand Agreement "Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion" wasn't even 20 years ago.

But to get to the heart of the paragraph quoted above, I think the question of whether "the leopard has changed its spots" ought to be broken down further (not withstanding the tendency of many neo-conservative Catholics to present their view as the only Catholic view on the matter): If, indeed, changes are/were called for (and I believe they are/were) then it doesn't necessarily follow that there can only be one view about what those changes should be.

I recently commented (as you may have seen) that I am in no way opposed to every single change that has happened in the last century, but I certainly find it troubling that many of the things that were discarded were the very things that Catholics and Orthodox agreed on.

I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of Vatican II or a "neo-conservative vs. traditionalist" debate, so I'll just say that ultimately I can't blame you for being skeptical of whether "the leopard has changed its spots".
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: 88Devin12 on June 12, 2011, 04:54:56 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Orthodoc on June 12, 2011, 05:22:56 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.



BRAVO!  Well said my Orthodox Catholic brother in Christ!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 12, 2011, 05:27:48 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me...

I don't know how you can see much at all with that plank in your eye.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Punch on June 12, 2011, 05:48:16 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.



BRAVO!  Well said my Orthodox Catholic brother in Christ!

Orthodoc

Yes.  One of the best written confessions of the Truth that I have seen in a while.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 12, 2011, 06:15:29 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!

It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power. I'm sorry, but it is clear to me...

I don't know how you can see much at all with that plank in your eye.

If there is any plank, it is certainly looming large in the eye of Fr Ambrose Young.  What he is quoted as saying in the OP would bring any dialogue to a halt.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 12, 2011, 07:54:09 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

But of course:

The Catholic Church does indeed equal Orthodoxy.  

When the Eastern Orthodox figure that out, it will be quite clear that we can no longer remain out of communion.

Blessed Pentecost!!

The Glory of the Body of Christ is with us, and in us, and of us!!
We, who confess the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church.

Out East, where Pentecost occured and the Spirit came down, the Eastern Orthodox figured that out about 1990 years ago, and so have remained in communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, successor of St. James the Brother of God, who sits on the Throne of David in the City of Sion, where the Spirit came down.

The Orthodox having held fast to that Catholic Faith, what help could the Vatican, who has wandered from it, offer to Christ's Body to ward off any alleged errors of Schaeffer, Fr. Young or anyone else?

Quote
Young makes other mistakes. One example: He misunderstands what Pope Gregory the Great was saying whe n he rejected the title "Universal Bishop." Young thinks he meant that a pope is no more than the patriarch of the West, equal in all ways to the other patriarchs, while what Gregory really meant was that the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome does not eviscerate the real episcopal powers and authority of the bishops scattered throughout the world.
Yeah, it does.  Or would, if it were true.  What was the name of the Melkite Patriarch at Vatican I?
Btw
Quote
Speaking of papal infallibility, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has affirmed that the Church's teaching that ordination is reserved to males is an infallible teaching. The confirmation, which refers to the teaching contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, states:

"This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Lumen Gentium], 25:2).

"Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of faith.

"The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith], and ordered it to be published."

The document was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, who is the Secretary of the Congregation.

So what does this mean? It means that the doctrine that women cannot be ordained is infallible and unchangeable. The doctrine "has been set forth infallibly in the ordinary and universal magisterium," as that is explained in Lumen Gentium.
And why couldn't his supreme pontiff John Paul II say this?  Would his successor as "supreme pontiff" Benedict XVI say this now?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 12, 2011, 08:01:07 PM
To rescue them from the likes of Frank Schaeffer and Alexey Young!

What happened to Franky Schaeffer? (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509drag.asp)

Not, of course, that Schaeffer and Young would see it that way. In fact ...

Quote
He [Young] issues this warning to his fellow believers: "Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, priests, and theologians--all you who actively pursue a policy of rapprochement with Rome: Beware. You are trying to bring the Orthodox Church into a lion's den of unbelievable malignancy. You cannot save the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church can and will contaminate and then destroy you."

Correct me if I am wrong, but that article is hardly new news, it is well over ten years old.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 12, 2011, 08:40:54 PM
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 12, 2011, 08:44:14 PM
The Spirit is descended!
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.
Quote
That folks like Frank Schaeffer and Father Alexey Young do not follow the lead of a trailblazer hardly puts them at the fringe of Orthodoxy, and This Rock was wrong so to dismiss them.



Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e#ixzz288DxGImS
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: IXOYE on June 12, 2011, 09:06:43 PM
ialmisry said:

"Out East, where Pentecost occured and the Spirit came down, the Eastern Orthodox figured that out about 1990 years ago, and so have remained in communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem, successor of St. James the Brother of God, who sits on the Throne of David in the City of Sion, where the Spirit came down."

Great post!!!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 02:08:49 AM
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 02:36:44 AM
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 02:41:46 AM
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve. 

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 04:44:04 AM
There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 05:09:27 AM
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 13, 2011, 05:24:59 AM
The Spirit has descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.

They didn't: it was widely reported here when HAH said it at Georgetown.  In fact, one of these recent threads which cited some Orthodox enthusiast whose name escapes me (it was in some collection of essays.  IIRC Father you noted that he seemed to have swallowed a thesaurus) quotes the speech.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 05:42:52 AM
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 13, 2011, 05:58:28 AM
The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 06:05:12 AM
The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 06:05:46 AM
"Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10)."
Encyclical of the Eastern [Orthodox] Patriarchs, 1848

"the Orthodox Church has never ceased to intimate to the Papal Church, having clearly and explicitly set forth that so long as the latter perseveres in her innovations, and the orthodox Church adheres to the divine and apostolic traditions of Christianity, during which the Western Churches were of the same mind and were united with the Churches of the East, so long is it a vain and empty thing to talk of union."
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895 [of Constantinople]

"to any sound-thinking Orthodox person the idea could not occur to receive communion in a Protestant or Catholic church, and this because with all his being, organically, he knows with an inner intelligible knowledge that there is no holy Communion anywhere but in the Church of Christ ... . There is God, there is His One, only Holy, Apostolic Church, and there is the whole human race, all called to God through His holy Church. All other religions, so-called Christian, monotheistic or pagan, all without the slightest exception, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam or Buddhism—all are obstacles placed by the devil as his traps between the Church of Christ and the whole human race."
Ecumenism
A Report to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada
1967

"We believe that our holy Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, which possesses the fulness of grace and truth and, in consequence thereof, unbroken apostolic succession.
On the contrary, the "churches" and "confessions" of the West, having in many ways perverted the Faith of the Gospel, the apostles and the fathers, are deprived of sanctifying grace, of real mysteries and apostolic succession.
The Holy Mountain is convinced, not without great anxiety, that although the Orthodox are making many concessions and compromises to the Roman Catholics, the latter antithetically continue to adhere to their own errors which have served as the cause of their schism from the Orthodox Church and later led to the Protestant split. Thus, the Pope, during his visit to the center of Orthodoxy in the patriarchal cathedral, did not in the least hesitate to proclaim that he was coming to Constantinople as the successor of Peter, "who as the ultimate authority has the responsibility of superintending the unity of all, to guarantee the agreement of the Church of God in fidelity and in the 'faith which was once delivered unto the saints' (Jude 3)" (Episkepsis, ibid., p. 9). In other words, the Pope defended (papal) infallibility and primacy; and there are many other actions and manifestations which the Pope has effected on behalf of uniatism. We remember the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Greek Government and the Vatican which, even though it may justify papism, is unjust and strikes out at the Mother and Nourisher of our [Greek] nation, the Orthodox Church."
The Announcement of the Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mount Athos
1980

" ... the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as “most holy” and “His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome”. Furthermore, all of the Pope’s officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord’s Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy; on the contrary, the Pope is in fact visibly promoting and trying to reinforce Unia along with the Papist dogmas on primacy and infallibility, and is going even further, with inter-faith common prayers and the pan-religious hegemony of the Pope of Rome that is discerned therein."
The Official Statement from Mt. Athos on the Pope's Visit to the Phanar (2006)

The Orthodox don't 'need'
 the Catholics ... Catholics need Orthodoxy!





Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 06:10:03 AM
So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.

Thank heavens you noticed the link was out of date and I had the opportunity to provide another site where it is archived.  It's a significant speech by the Patriarch.  I'll archive it myself as a Word.doc in case it disappears from all websites.

Quote
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum,


I see that it first appears on the Forum in rudimentary form (it's a work in process)  on 1st December 2007
See message 3
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13626.msg190516.html#msg190516

Quote
Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

I have to say I have never celebrated anniversaries of my posts on the Forum, but if we did it would be the 1st December.    :)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 06:15:26 AM
Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.

What's the beef with three years?!!

This entire thread is based on the posting  by Peter of something from 1995 - that's sixteen years!   :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 06:21:10 AM
So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.

Thank heavens you noticed the link was out of date and I had the opportunity to provide another site where it is archived.  It's a significant speech by the Patriarch.  I'll archive it myself as a Word.doc in case it disappears from all websites.

Quote
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum,


I see that it first appears on the Forum in rudimentary form (it's a work in process)  on 1st December 2007
See message 3
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13626.msg190516.html#msg190516

Quote
Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

I have to say I have never celebrated anniversaries of my posts on the Forum, but if we did it would be the 1st December.    :)
Ah but the post you copied and pasted to this thread (without telling us it was a copy and paste) is your 17th June 2009 post on Irenikon where you had your fantastic idea of completing the development of your thoughts by adding yet another inane "title" to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Perhaps the birth of that ingenious thought is the anniversary you are celebrating?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 13, 2011, 06:21:50 AM
The Spirit is descended!
And by the way the link no longer works.

The Wayback Machine has archived the Patriarch's speech.  Click "Impatient?" at bottom right.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090904035040/http://geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Quote
I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.

I don't imagine that geocities would have altered or falsified the Patriarch's speech.


So you posted a link which we need the Wayback Machine to view.
See, Irish Hermit, my issue is nothing more than the fact that you simply copied and posted a three year old post of yours which you posted three years ago on a different discussion forum, and did so without even bothering to check whether the links in it still work (and they didn't, which kind of suggests the post is not timeless wisdom and should have been reviewed before reposting). Also I notice that it's almost 3 years to the day that you posted this. Are we coming up to the anniversary of something?

There was a very even-handed article (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=09-01-007-e) in Touchstone which dealt with, in particular, This Rock's assertion that

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto.

The most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.   Other Orthodox posit our divisions
in doctrines and in matters of authority.  These are externals which we can discuss and resolve.  

But Patriarch Bartholomew places our estrangement in our very ontology and this will be much much harder
to remove, if it is possible at all!


You really should get into the habit of sourcing your cut and paste posts. Here is the source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Irenikon/message/23809

Why should I have to source it?  I WROTE that message.   :laugh:

Please take a look at the signature on it.   ;D

Well Duh. And by the way the link no longer works.
And by the way by the way: I can't believe you put any value on a geocities website.
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Fabulous. At least you didn't copy and paste a three year old post of yours to provide that.
Too much work. the search function here doesn't work like it used to.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 06:32:44 AM
I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: wayseer on June 13, 2011, 06:33:27 AM
It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, that was founded by Christ himself, that received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this same Church, that the Church of Rome willingly broke away from out of her own pride and lust for power.

That I think does something of an injustice to the situation.

Rome was faced with many social and cultural problems bought about by the invasions of the Franks.  From my understanding of the history, it was the various waring kings (small 'k') that resulted in an unstable social and economic situation across the West.  Rome under Papal leadership became engrossed in surviving in a sea of barbarian invaders. The Pope and the Western Church was the only universal social order with a bureaucracy that could actually manage the changing situation.  It was almost as if the Pope was thrown into taking over running the place.

I am not necessarily on the side of Rome here - just adding some balance to the discussion.

What I am suggesting is that the Western Church was faced with a situation that did not have to be face by Constantinople - well not at this period.  

The situation deteriorated over time but there many any number of attempts to restore relationships.

There were other 'incidents' which did not harbour well for any reconciliation and the final nail went into the coffin when Rome sent the Crusaders into Constantinople.      

Quote
I'm sorry, but it is clear to me that while both the Apostolic Church, and the Church of Rome received wounds during the Great Schism, it is only the Church of Rome whose wounds still fester and decay. She has tried to nurse those wounds, and even cover them up with all sorts of sweet smelling ointments. But her wounds cannot, and will not ever heal unless she reunites herself to the Body of Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Church has been the father waiting for his prodigal son to return. But as of yet, that prodigal son still lays in the pig pen, delusional and enjoying his voracious life.

Colourfully put - but I take your point.

Quote
Ecumenism, when probably done, is intended to show the Church of Rome the error of her ways, and to light the way back home. We will continue calling, showing the way home like a lighthouse calling ships home. But we will not, cannot ever go out to join the Church of Rome outside of the walls of our sacred and holy Church.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Romophobe. I believe the Roman Catholic Church is probably the only church other than the EO or OO that can help defeat many of the evils of today. I also enjoy learning about the Roman Catholic Church, and seeing how she still retains some bit of orthodoxy within her. But that still doesn't mean we are ever going to compromise our own faith to meet the Church of Rome halfway. We cannot, and will not ever compromise on our faith. We will talk, we will discuss, we will learn, but we cannot compromise or change.

Again I tend to agree.

Quote
The answer the OP... We don't need the Roman Catholic Church. We are simply calling out to a long-lost brother who has been living in the world, as a part of the world for a long time.

Yes, but in the attempt I suggest one needs to mindful that one does not fall into the trap of the 'other' brother.  It was the 'other' brother who got into something of a tizzy fit claiming that he was the one who carried the weight of working the farm in his brother's absence.  
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: wayseer on June 13, 2011, 06:34:58 AM
I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I have the pounds - thank you.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 06:40:24 AM
I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.


I have the pounds - thank you.
Disclaimer- I meant Irish Hermit's next post.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 07:02:12 AM

I would be interested in any insights into Fr Alexey (Ambrose) Young's comments in the article referenced by the OP.

In 1990 Fr Alexey left the Russian Church Abroad and entered the Antiochian Church in order to work as a Western Rite priest. Later he returned to the Russian Church but later again he has become a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.    Interesting to know if he wrote what he wrote as a Greek Orthodox priest?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 13, 2011, 07:08:07 AM
Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?   How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2011, 08:34:37 AM
"to any sound-thinking Orthodox person the idea could not occur to receive communion in a Protestant or Catholic church, and this because with all his being, organically, he knows with an inner intelligible knowledge that there is no holy Communion anywhere but in the Church of Christ ... . There is God, there is His One, only Holy, Apostolic Church, and there is the whole human race, all called to God through His holy Church. All other religions, so-called Christian, monotheistic or pagan, all without the slightest exception, whether it be Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam or Buddhism—all are obstacles placed by the devil as his traps between the Church of Christ and the whole human race."
Ecumenism
A Report to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada
1967

Two things: 1. Yikes! 2. I notice the report says that "All other religions ... are obstacles placed by the devil ... ", and then in the list of examples it mentions Catholicism and Protestantism but not Oriental Orthodoxy. Should I take it that Oriental Orthodoxy is included anyhow, since it says "all other religions"?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2011, 08:42:29 AM
Although His All-Holiness certainly often appears with all the trappings of an enthusiastic ecumenist,
in fact his own assessment is much more dour than other Orthodox.

Interesting ... I've often thought much of the same thing regarding Pope John Paul II.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: mwoerl on June 13, 2011, 04:20:19 PM
I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.



I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ... and, uh, no 'disclaimers' after the bet ... where i comes from, that could get you a couple ounces of lead ...
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2011, 07:10:18 PM
I bet pounds to pennies that the next post will be an "exegesis" by Irish Hermit of his "titles" for the Patriarch of Constantinople.



I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ... and, uh, no 'disclaimers' after the bet ... where i comes from, that could get you a couple ounces of lead ...


The atmosphere here is starting to make me nervous. I expect John Wayne to walk in any time.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 07:27:33 PM
I put up a buck .. thats 'one hundred english pounds' you owe me ...
You really need to check the exchange rates. In fact, you should be asking for Australian Dollars if you have any sense. :)

The atmosphere here is starting to make me nervous. I expect John Wayne to walk in any time.
LOL!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: wayseer on June 13, 2011, 07:47:30 PM
Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?

Yes.  Reality is a social construct and that construct is culturally informed.

Quote
How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

Would love the reference for his speech.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2011, 08:13:15 PM
Would love the reference for his speech.

http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16

Btw, nice to see another non-Orthodox.  :)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 13, 2011, 09:19:48 PM
The Spirit is descended!
Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."


Does anybody here agree with the Patriarch that it is our ontological difference which makes unity impossible?

Yes.  Reality is a social construct and that construct is culturally informed.
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.

Quote
How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

Would love the reference for his speech.
The Spirit is descended!
btw, the whole speech is here (as of June 13, 2011 the link works)
http://evlogeite.com/?page_id=16
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2011, 09:48:35 PM
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 13, 2011, 10:57:09 PM
The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ, which is based on the Rock, not social constructs (which it does, however, incorporate).
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: HabteSelassie on June 13, 2011, 11:45:34 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Patriarch Bartholomew:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

 How do you understand the meaning of ontology in the context of His Holiness' speech?

I think Ontology is a better description than Theology or Christology, as essentially we have all been arguing the same points in differing languages and terms.  Just as the 5th century Fathers interpreted "Nature" in more elaborate terms than the 4th century Fathers, so to are there these ontological differences between Rome and Orthodox.  Vatican II may very well have made the breach more irreparable as any other time, because now we literally live different lives.  The Orthodox is a fasting, liturgical, calendar driven culture where as Rome is more political, celebratory, and popular reform oriented culture. The day to day lives in a Roman Catholic parish are radically different and unrecognizable as that of an Orthodox parish.  Our theology and Christology could be reconciled easily through dialogue, as we share far more than we diverge on, and realistically in these regards we have been more so misunderstanding each other then genuinely disagreeing.  However, the ontological, that is reality based differences are many.  We share different histories, different political ideologies, different geopolitical viewpoints, different calendars and even and entirely different approach to the calendar (for example not just the obvious New vs Old shift,  Rome has also been frequently moving holidays officially rather then trying to reanimate the original days which reflects a more flexible mindset then is usual in Orthodox in regards to the calendar, it seems that in Orthodox the calendar moves us, whereas in Rome the people move around the calendar), different styles of chanting and liturgical prayer, different views in regards to morality etc etc etc..This does not even begin to delve into the deeper aspects of Ontology such as metaphysical and existentialist philosophical differences.

These differences manifest an almost entirely separate understanding of how reality exists and operates between Orthodox and Rome.  This should not necessarily belittle or disregard Rome, rather just to point out we have differences.  I would not want to assess any kind of value judgment to these differences, because in truth there are some ontological aspects of the Catholic Church I agree with and some within Orthodox that I disagree with.  This may not necessarily be what His Holiness had in mind, this is just how I personally interpret the idea of ontological differences between Orthodox and Rome. I drew this especially from this aspect

Quote
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance,

In Orthodox we have different models of being and living our day to day realities from Rome, both in form and substance.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 14, 2011, 07:41:00 AM
The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ,

Is that like an error-loves-company kind of thing?

 :angel:
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 15, 2011, 10:49:33 AM
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.

OR that TWO of those ONE really ARE ONE and refuse to accept it.

Everyone always leaves that one out but it is still a possibility and it is the very possibility that drives Orthodox/Catholic dialogue.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 15, 2011, 10:53:57 AM
  Vatican II may very well have made the breach more irreparable as any other time, because now we literally live different lives.  The Orthodox is a fasting, liturgical, calendar driven culture where as Rome is more political, celebratory, and popular reform oriented culture. The day to day lives in a Roman Catholic parish are radically different and unrecognizable as that of an Orthodox parish. 

You are right that there are different cultures of piety and practice, but I really don't think you know much about the daily spiritual lives of Catholics...many of them...many more of them than are in Orthodoxy, simply because there are more of us.   But you cannot tell me that each and every Orthodox person or family lives the life.   I have spent too much time in parishes on both sides to accept any such claim as true.  You really cannot know us until you have lived with and around us, any more than I could have come to know you without spending years among you to the best of my ability, living the life, if not the sacraments.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 15, 2011, 10:59:47 AM

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2011, 11:56:13 AM
The Spirit is descended!
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.
Indeed!  And I believe that you, I, Father Ambrose and the Ecumenical Patriarch are agreed on the correct identity of which Church is Christ,

Is that like an error-loves-company kind of thing?

 :angel:
No, that "when two or three are gathered in My Name lo! There I am in the midst of them" thing.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2011, 12:21:57 PM
The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West.  Catholic means "according to the whole."  He is a bishop in the West in the Orthdodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.(http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/images/Bp-Jerome-in-W-vestments-with-clergy2.jpg)
As for "the west" including the Vatican, Augustinianism does seem to be a common patrimony of the west.  Not moderated by Orthodoxy, it can yield some pretty extreme stuff.  This one, total depravity, also being the case, developed in its most extreme form perhaps by John Calvin, whose father raised him for the Vatican's priesthood. Wasn't the Council of Orange in the West?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 15, 2011, 12:29:17 PM
The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West. 

When one speaks of the so-called "errors" of the west, it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, and here I am not making reference to your co-religionists at all...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
The Spirit is descended!

It would seem the Patriarch is indicating that there are difference theological constructs of our existence.  For instance, from an Orthodoxy perspective we are made in the image of God, an image which needs repair while the West sees humanity as made of totally depraved and only through God's justice one might, might, obtain something of God's mercy.

It is an extreme error to presume that "the west" includes the Catholic Church.  In most cases, and in this one also, that is not the case.  This kind of sloppy analysis comes from all kinds of folks...clergy and hierarchs as well as scholars and laypeople.   It does a great deal of damage to Orthodox-Catholic relations.

M.
Of course the Catholic Church includes the West. 

When one speaks of the so-called "errors" of the west, it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church,
Of course it doesn't, something I remind Orthodox occidentophobes.
and here I am not making reference to your co-religionists at all
You said "the Catholic Church." That is my co-religionists.
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 15, 2011, 01:09:12 PM

...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not.
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."
[/quote]

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 15, 2011, 01:15:51 PM
The Spirit is descended!
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Indeed!  New Rome has too often been keen on repeating the errors of Old Rome.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 15, 2011, 01:19:27 PM
The Spirit is descended!
...whether they are a part of the Orthodox Unia/western rite, or not
Since neither force nor duplicity has been used in the Western Rite Orthodox jurisdictions, they don't qualify as a "Unia."

I agree, but I pray that regardless of how the Western Rite came into being, that we treat it with the respect that Rome never afforded the peoples under the Unias. Many of us here are well aware of that from the oral histories of our parents and grandparents!
Indeed!  New Rome has too often been keen on repeating the errors of Old Rome.

All of the cities and their religious leaders proclaimed to be a New Rome seem to suffer from this affliction from time to time!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: vasily on June 23, 2011, 08:38:05 AM
Glory to Jesus Christ,

 It is the Roman Church that needs the Orthodox.  While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it received from Christ and the Apostles, the Roman Church dares to add or change it. Metropolitan Athanasios of Cyprus has stated," He (the Pope) has been outside of the church for ten centuries now, he is not a canonical bishop, and he has no relation whatsoever to the reality of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is one thing to receive him as a canonical bishop and quite another to speak to him as being a heterodox in order to reveal to him the truth of the Orthodox Faith and Tradition. Dialogue is not a bad thing when it is carried out based on correct presuppositions. However, it is wrong to say to these people that we recognize the Pope as a bishop, as our brother in Christ in the priesthood and in the faith. I cannot accept this, because we are lying when we say this, since all of the Holy Fathers teach exactly the opposite. Papism is a heresy and the source of many other heresies that trouble the entire world today."

 The Latin Church, along with all the other branches that have separated from Rome, the Anglicans and Protestants, have departed from the early Church, separated themselves from the True Faith and Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 06:32:06 PM

All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 23, 2011, 07:20:42 PM

All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 07:35:04 PM

All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.

We look at the way the Pope and the Vatican treat the Eastern Catholic Churches and we pray:  Dear Lord, may the schism last forever!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 23, 2011, 07:41:17 PM

All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.

We look at the way the Pope and the Vatican treat the Eastern Catholic Churches and we pray:  Dear Lord, may the schism last forever!

Oh don't be so silly!!...Things are getting better there and frankly, they carry a great deal of responsibility for their own fates.  Some are doing much better than others.

Besides there will never be that kind of "union" again.

That's why the focus on primatial power now...

And you had better not pray for schism...But then again you cannot imagine anything but heaven for everyone.

What a shock it may be to find out you were a tad "off" in your estimations...not for yourself but for those who genuinely do pray for evil.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 07:47:35 PM
...But then again you cannot imagine anything but heaven for everyone.

What a shock it may be to find out you were a tad "off" in your estimations...not for yourself but for those who genuinely do pray for evil.

Tell me, is there even a single soul which Catholics believe and proclaim to be in hell?  Names...?  Nero?  Hitler?  Saddam?  Father Marcial Maciel?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 07:53:38 PM

Oh don't be so silly!!...Things are getting better there and frankly, they carry a great deal of responsibility for their own fates.  Some are doing much better than others.



Hrrmm... which Catholic Church (clue... headquarters on the Hill of Sorcerers :-) has recently banned married clergy in Italy to serve the needs of Eastern Catholic Ukrainians?  And in Poland?

So, what's changed?  You and your Eastern brethren are still second class citizens in Rome's eyes.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 07:57:46 PM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 23, 2011, 09:12:16 PM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.

However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: LBK on June 23, 2011, 09:21:03 PM
Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 23, 2011, 09:27:47 PM
Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.

Not at all.  As I said, it is a fact of our existence that somewhere in the world, through out the years of schism, there have always been times and places of shared communion between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.

I think you are deluding yourself for not recognizing the full import of this fact.

Also your respective Churches continue dialogue in good faith, and if you were correct, they really ought to be proselytizing, and clearly they are not.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 23, 2011, 09:32:32 PM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 23, 2011, 10:11:26 PM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.   

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.  There will be time for the forging of mutual understanding.  There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.  It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.

All the rest of it Father has not even been placed on the table for discussion.  I believe the dialogue is being held in good faith, so there will be no sucker punches in the end.

M.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: LBK on June 23, 2011, 10:52:02 PM
Quote
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 


Relinquishing erroneous teachings by the RCC is a non-negotiable criterion for the Orthodox Church to accept Rome. Get used to it.

Quote
There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.  It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.

The Pope of Rome in a unified Church can only be on an equal level to his brother patriarchs, not as a supreme leader over all. And, given a thousand years of separation, cannot automatically reclaim the "first among equals" place the office once had.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 23, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

Is not.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 23, 2011, 11:52:55 PM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.  We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.  Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.  

You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.


When it all boils down, the Orthodox Church views herself as the Una Sancta and free to make whatever demands she thinks are God-pleasing on any other Christian body entering into union with her.  As we know there will be minimal demands on the Pope and Roman Catholics and I would expect that everything will be smothered in lavish amounts of ekonomia.     The concept of "papacy" will have to be demolished and this will be the hardest thing for Rome.  But as someone was explaining yesterday there is a solid and healthy understanding of suffering as a synergistic process which is ultimately most beneficial.  Rome will gain far far more than she looses.

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.
 
No, we will not.
Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.
 
Yes, when it comes to their heretical teachings, we will.
There will be time for the forging of mutual understanding.  There will be no change in teaching concerning the papacy.
No, there won't: we will condemn the Ultramontanist teaching of the Vatican.
It will be adjusted for primatial power/jurisdiction of particular primatial Churches, and that will be that.
Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)

All the rest of it Father has not even been placed on the table for discussion.

That's right, because repudiating the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church is not on the table nor in the cards.

I believe the dialogue is being held in good faith, so there will be no sucker punches in the end.
That's right. Gehen wir nicht nach Canossa.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 23, 2011, 11:58:00 PM
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings. 
I don't think that this is true.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her preVatican II teaching that very strict conditions are necessary before a marriage annulment can take place.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her teaching on the use of profane music, clapping, dancing, swaying to and fro, hugging and kissing at Catholic Masses. Before Vatican II, the teaching was that only music of a sacred nature, such as the Gregorian chant, could take place at Mass.
The Catholic Church has relinquished her teaching on altar girls.
etc.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 12:07:36 AM

All that you write is a valid Orthodox position but just to balance it...... one needs to point out that the Russian Orthodox Church has recognised the authenticity of Roman Catholic and non-Chalcedonian Sacraments/Mysteries for many centuries. 

Please message 57
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555625.html#msg555625

Not only that but there has always been de facto communion, somewhere in the world, between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics throughout the history of the schism.  There have always been unionists and anti-unionists in both Churches throughout the time of the schism.

These things alone should signify that we are wrong to keep the schism going as we do.
(http://media2.gruprc.ro/photo/thumbs/450_500/052008/bbf7a7a257e3186948a3820b686d3bbd.jpg)
We should all follow the excellent example of the Holy Synod of Romania.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 12:28:24 AM

And you had better not pray for schism...



I pray that there will be union when the Pope and Catholic faithful have adopted the fullness of Orthodoxy.  Then the union will be true and pleasing to God.  I suppose that that is tantamount to praying for a continuation of the schism?

No it is not.  If it were that is what we would be hearing from the bilateral discussions.
You seem very good at hearing what you want, even if it means hearing things.

We are not hearing any kind of proselytism at all.
Then you are not listening. Remember a few meetings back when we refused to state that the Vatican had a "valid" baptism?

Rather the pope, when he is received in Orthodox venues, is received with all due respect as the pope of the Catholic Church.
You mean your supreme pontiff Benedict XVI?  No, he is not because he is not: in contrast to Pope Theodore of Alexandria, he is not commemorated in the diptychs, nor invited to concelebrate much less preside, and especially he is not given communion.

Don't get so happy if someone calls him Pope of Rome.  They call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury.  In fact, the Vatican calls him that too, though it believes he is a layman.

There is no need to make these kinds of demands of the papal Church.  No need at all.
   
The Truth of Christ demands it.
You don't want them made for Orthodoxy, so don't expect it from the papal Church.
What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?  The standards of Truth are not on a par with the demands of falsehood.

However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.
The Homoiousians said the same thing: what's in an "i"?  Athanasius contra mundi.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 12:36:45 AM
Quote
However much we are different, the substance of the shared faith does not call for schism.

This is simply delusional.

Not at all.  As I said, it is a fact of our existence that somewhere in the world, through out the years of schism, there have always been times and places of shared communion between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.
Yeah, and murders have been occuring since Cain, but that doesn't void the Sixth Commandment.

I think you are deluding yourself for not recognizing the full import of this fact.
...Eateth and drinketh unto damnation...

Also your respective Churches continue dialogue in good faith, and if you were correct, they really ought to be proselytizing, and clearly they are not.
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are.  They need not take up the sword.  Given your ecclesiastical community's history, I can see why you find that so novel.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 12:37:05 AM

You seem very good at hearing what you want, even if it means hearing things.


My "hearing" is fine.   Better than your distortions of history to suit.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 12:41:34 AM
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 04:54:41 AM
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 08:05:30 AM
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 08:18:32 AM
Since they have been witnessing to the Orthodox Truth of the Catholic Church, clearly they are. 

Then they dialogue in bad faith.  Would not be the first time.

Or perhaps your own "hearing" isn't all that you think it is.
Dialogue doesn't mean babbling senselessly. which is what refusing to tell it like it is entails.  It is not bad faith to witness to the True Faith, but hiding it under a bushel would be.

And the Orthodox never spoke in bad faith: the emperors dragged them into talks by force, just as the Vatican (ever selective in its condemnation of Caesaropapism) wanted.  You can't complain when you get what you ask for.

I do seem to rememeber hearing about the more "ecumenically" minded being talked to recently.  They should listen.  You should listen.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Yes.  There is too much open access to lines of near-instant communication any more to have it be anything else.  If some of the anti-unionists on this forum are indeed correct then all papal Catholic bishops need to be notified that there is no bilateral dialogue any longer and that they need to give up their heresy and go home or face a formal excommunication from Orthodoxy.  That would be honest, according to what I hear from the anti-unionists.   Short of that they are playing games with the faith.

IF we were operating in a venue such as the WCC competing in a global market for souls...then it might be a different sort of situation, but the bilateral dialogue is more intimate and more personal...and ought to be conducted with the utmost honesty.

But if a cluster of related Churches cannot even figure out the diptychs...then I am not sure how honest one can actually be at the table of dialogue.

M.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 08:43:48 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

4.1. The Russian Orthodox Church has carried on theological dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians for over two centuries. This dialogue has been characterised by the combination of a principled dogmatic approach and a fraternal love. This principle was formulated in the “Response to the Letter of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate” [?] (1903) as a method of theological dialogue with the Anglicans and the Old Catholics. With regard to non-Orthodox confessions, it was said, ]“there must be fraternal readiness to help them by explanations, normal consideration for their best wishes, all possible forbearance towards their natural perplexities, given the age-old division, but at the same time the firm confession of the truth of our Universal Church as a sole guardian of Christ’s heritage and a sole saving ark of divine grace: Our task with regard to them should be: without putting before them unnecessary obstacle for union by being inappropriately intolerant and suspicious: to interpret for them our faith and unchangeable conviction that it is only our Eastern Orthodox Church, which has preserved intact the entire pledge of Christ, that is at present the Universal Church, and thus to show them in fact what they should consider and decide upon if they really believe that salvation is bound up with life in the Church and sincerely wish to be united with her:”

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 09:04:43 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 09:31:32 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 09:43:03 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 09:50:46 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?

Maybe you and Mary could expatiate on what you had in mind by the Orthodox dialoguing in bad faith?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 10:26:01 AM
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 10:32:34 AM
Dear Peter and Mary,

There are statements from various Orthodox Churches going back decades, laying out the ground rules and understanding of the Orthodox in the ecumenical encounter.  In all these statements it is stressed that the Orthodox are not there to engage in a bilateral dialogue of equals hoping to create theological points of agreement which will permit eventual union.  They state plainly that they are dialoguing in order to give voice to the orthodox faith, to help others to understand it and to eventually accept it and come into the fullness of the Church.

The Orthodox engagement in ecumenical dialogue has never had any other basis nor any other purpose.

There has been no deceit nor any bad-faith dealing.

Hi Father Ambrose.

First, regarding my last post, I want to make clear that the This Rock article didn't bring up (much less answer) the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question. I was just speculating on where their assertions might lead one.

Having gotten that out of the way, I don't understand why you and everyone else seem to assume that the Vatican does not take a similar view to what you just described (but in reverse of course). (Does that make me "one of those traditionalist Catholics"?)

Perhaps you'll quote me this:

The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own.

or something similar from This Rock, Dave Armstrong, etc?

Maybe you and Mary could expatiate on what you had in mind by the Orthodox dialoguing in bad faith?

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 10:38:29 AM
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 10:40:46 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Schultz on June 24, 2011, 10:47:18 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 10:55:11 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Schultz on June 24, 2011, 11:03:55 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 11:18:34 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
The Catholic Church will not relinquish her teachings.  Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own. 

Are you saying that she won't demand that as a condition for full communion?

What "that" are you referring to...if "that" is a long history of schism?...well that would have to be relinquished.

What I mean is, when you say "Nor will she demand others to relinquish their own" are you saying that the Catholic Church will not require others to relinquish their own (teachings) as a condition for full communion?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 11:27:02 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

Quote
While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto

can be said to represent the thinking of many-but-not-all Catholics.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 11:28:48 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 11:48:20 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 11:50:22 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Schultz on June 24, 2011, 11:56:39 AM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.


And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 12:02:13 PM

And you're missing my point.  What do you expect from the Orthodox Church when the Roman Catholic Church basically says, "YEs, yes, that's nice.  Now be a good little boy and let daddy tell you what we're going to do..."?

I know a futile conversation when I'm a part of one and I do my best to extricate myself from the situation before I get upset and say things I don't really mean.


I see what you mean.  Clarity and honesty are tough stands to take on both sides.  I pray we do well these next few rounds and perhaps we'll be able to see more clearly in a couple more cycles.  I really don't see that either side is operating in bad faith yet...could happen based on a number of factors, but I hope and pray not.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 12:13:13 PM
Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:

I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

I'll admit that I'm a little bit prone to seeing This Rock, Catholic Answers, and the like as being a bit more significant than they really are.

Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop" etc.

What's more, I think my comment about different Catholics having "different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory" also applies to Catholic bishops -- albeit to a lesser degree.

There are, at least initially, pretty tight channels for our formal engagement with Orthodoxy, and their's with the Catholic Church.

I don't disagree with what you are saying to a point,  but none of the layers of people who are watching the process are in any kind of real position to make the call of "good faith" or not.  Only those who are agreeing formally to and through the dialogue with respect to why they are there and what they hope to accomplish can do that fairly.  There is a line of authority in all of it.

After that we are dependent on what they tell us.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 12:25:35 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 01:00:26 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 01:12:14 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 01:25:32 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 01:33:16 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Orthodoc on June 24, 2011, 02:04:49 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 02:52:28 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

With regard to the official dialogues, I strongly doubt that we are going to withdraw. But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Not only was it shut down but Orthodox Catholics like Fr Ambrose and myself, as well as others who post here, were banned for life and all our previous posts were deleted which counted in the thousands!

Orthodoc

That was a terrible waste and it was wrong to do...very wrong.  But these are not the dialogues that will resolve the schism.  Some of the most bitter words are Orthodox against Orthodox, Catholic against Catholic.  We dare not predicate the unity of the Church on the frailty of mankind.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2011, 02:57:49 PM
Knowing Metropolitan Maximos and other members of the Orthodox representatives on the North American Dialog as I do, I can assure you that they would be grievously insulted if you were to claim that they were acting in bad faith. The Catholic representatives on that commission would be the first and the loudest to defend their Orthodox colleagues from such nonsensical rhetoric.  :(
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2011, 03:02:29 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

For many good reasons, most having to do with the geopolitics of the 15th century, we would be well advised to forget much of that ill-fated 'council.'

As I have said over and over again, to no response I might add, the world in which we live in precludes a 'sneak' attack reunion agreed upon by either 'side' in any hypothetical council of reunion. Any such council would NEVER be convened in our modern age of Facebook, Twitter, 24 hour cable news, blogs, etc... UNLESS the terms of union were preagreed upon after years of public scrutiny. The Bishops of neither of our churches are crazy men who act out of emotion and they would assure the outcome before they tried. That's why there has been fifty years of dialog and probably fifty or more to come before we approach that point.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 24, 2011, 03:06:14 PM
Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)

This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 04:05:38 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue, and that the actual purpose should be related back to those documents explicitly, and when that happens, we should withdraw.

An alternative point of view is that the Orthodox are the ones being misled and are, as it were, screaming at a wall.  The Orthodox are being quite up front in what they expect out of the dialogue while the Catholic Church goes on baldly ignoring these statements.



It is historically factual to say that Orthodox Churches have never had any difficulties with walking out on meetings of all kinds, so I am not going to give your suggestion here too much weight at this point.

the many statements issued by those who stay justifying that to the rest of us are not a secret and quite available (Fr. Ambrose IIRC has posted many, I've posted those issued in relation to the those who stay in the WCC and why), in which they assert that they are bearing witness to Orthodoxy. How much weight you place on those episcopal statements don't concern us.

I don't believe that we are hearing quite the same kinds of things coming out of the most recent Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

Mary
You have a link to their latest statement?

For the past couple of years the problems all seem to be coming from intra-Orthodox difficulties.  Nothing has come out indicating that the goals are different on the Orthodox side from the ones we hear on the Catholic side.  So if you are all busy trying to recruit us, there's no memo to be found for it....

Unless you have a link to the memo....
http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 04:08:36 PM

http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 04:13:48 PM
Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)

This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?
It's a silly question which you have asked before and have received the answer:
The bishops of the Episcopal Council in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)
I notice some statues in the background? I thought that the Orthodox Church did not allow statues as according to Orthodox teaching this would be against the Commandment forbidding  *graven* or 3D images? Why would these Orthodox bishops choose to ignore this commandment ?

No problem with secular statues outside of a liturgical setting.   Russia is awash in statues of many important and historical personages.

These statues run around all four sides of the newly rebuild Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.  The statues depict important historical figures in Russian history, both laymen and bishops.  They are not intended for veneration.

(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/462436/462436,1268729800,1/stock-photo-christ-the-savior-cathedral-moscow-russia-48807718.jpg)
They are also the only original part of the building: Stalin housed them in a museum and IIRC a subway station instead of destroying them like the icons.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 24, 2011, 04:14:16 PM
Dear Peter and Mary,

We can look at a recent Russian statement issued by all the bishops of the Russian Church at their Millennial 2000 Synod.  I am sure the Vatican is thoroughly familiar with what the bishops proclaim..There is no dealing in bad faith.  Everything is upfront.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/

The bishops of the Episcopal Synod in 2000, about 220 of them
(http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/2033/russiancouncilbishops20.jpg)

This is kind of a silly question to some extent, but concerning the picture with Orthodox bishops and the visible statues in the background.  Are these statues of religious or secular people? It seems like they are of  a religious nature, but I am not sure. I thought that the Orthodox Church favored icons over statues?

They are probably 'bas relief' rather than true statues.  Besides, we're not like the Romans, everything with us isn't always what it seems!  :)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 04:15:07 PM

http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.

IIRC, the council of Ravenna didn't go off well, and that was only a few years ago.

The last time they met was in Vienna, no?  Didn't go anywhere
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 04:17:55 PM
Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:


Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 04:30:26 PM

http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.


What I don't have is a retraction.


You don't have a reiteration either, nor do you have a contradiction and there was plenty of opportunity to contradict this:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=37156

    * 6/29/2010
    * Asia News (www.asianews.it/)

Benedict XVI met with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Rome for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul. He affirmed his hopes for continuation on the path undertaken in ongoing work of the Joint Commission that is addressing the crucial topic of the 'Role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of the Church during the first millennium'.

VATICAN CITY (AsiaNews) - Relations between Catholics and Orthodox are " characterized by sentiments of mutual trust, esteem and fraternity", an essential foundation for dialogue to reach "significant progress".

In meeting with the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, in Rome on the occasion of the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the importance that the Catholic Church gives to the work of the Joint Commission for Dialogue and the trust that he places in the fruits of said commitment.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 04:37:21 PM

http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.

Here's a much more recent memo and I don't see anything here that talks about proselytizing papal Catholics:
His "Very Rev." doesn't outrank His Eminence.

Your eyes must be dim.  Let me help you.

Primacy theme of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
The Very Rev. Leonid Kishkovsky

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=186&SID=12

"The Orthodox Church" News Magazine
Editorial of Nativity/Theophany 2007
Volume 43

In the aftermath of a high-level and official Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue held in Ravenna, Italy, October 8-14, 2007, news reports and commentaries described the results of the meeting as a common agreement that the bishop of Rome has primacy in the universal Church, both East and West. This led some to conclude that the Orthodox participants in the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had agreed that the Orthodox Churches had submitted to the rule of the Pope.

The reality is different - at the same time simpler and more complicated. There is, and always has been, an Orthodox consensus that the bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor among all the patriarchs and bishops of the Christian West and the Christian East - when there is no schism between Rome and the Orthodox Churches. When the unity of the Christian West and the Christian East was lost (approximately in the 11th century), the primacy of honor among the Orthodox Churches passed on to Constantinople, where it remains.

Thus, from the Orthodox point of view, the primacy which the bishop of Rome has depends on the full unity of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  For the Orthodox, unity comes before primacy.

Another dimension of the discussion of primacy is the understanding and definition of the nature of primacy. During the centuries preceding the separation of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches, there was not much clarity about the nature and content of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. This lack of definition and clarity was evident both in the Christian East and in the Christian West. One of the causes of the separation between Rome and the Eastern Churches was the emergence of in-creasingly precise claims and teachings about the authority of the bishop of Rome. The more definite the claims for papal authority became, the less inclined were the Eastern Churches to accept these claims. The depth and extent of the claims of papal powers and authority continued to increase after the schism of the 11th century, making the restoration of unity more and more difficult.

The title of the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission's statement at Ravenna is "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority." It is a good and meaningful development that theologians representing the Catholic and Orthodox churches are reflecting together on the nature of the Church. Two points have been rightly made about the Ravenna meeting. The first point - it is a good and hopeful sign that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are able today to affirm together the principle of universal primacy. The second point - the Ravenna statement is a modest step, and much remains to be done.

At Ravenna, a dispute between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow led to the withdrawal of the Moscow delegation from the Ravenna meeting. The occasion for the dispute was the presence of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is associated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. There is a larger Orthodox Church in Estonia which is associated with the Patriarchate of Moscow. Before the Russian Revolution and after the end of World War II, the Orthodox Church in Estonia was fully within the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. The acute dispute over Orthodoxy in Estonia emerged in the 1990s, when part of the Orthodox community in Estonia was accepted by Constantinople. For a relatively short time, the Patriarchate of Moscow stopped commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch, signaling a temporary break in communion. What emerged eventually was a tacit peace, with two Orthodox Churches in Estonia existing in parallel. From the Moscow point of view, Constantinople's invitation to one of the Churches in Estonia transgressed against the status quo.

The withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Catholic-Orthodox meeting in Ravenna causes awkward complications for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue process. On the one hand, the procedures of this dialogue have acknowledged that the absence of one or several Orthodox Churches does not stop the process or invalidate its results. On the other hand, the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate - the largest Orthodox Church, with many millions of adherents - puts into question the effectiveness and practical results of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Another dimension of the withdrawal of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Ravenna meeting - ironically - shows again that there are significant unresolved questions within the Orthodox Church. Even as the Catholic-Orthodox statement on "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority" was being composed at Ravenna, the dispute between Constantinople and Moscow demonstrated that the balance between conciliarity and primacy articulated in the Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church is not easily found in practice.
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.  and contrary to the spin here, Moscow was just demonstrating that primacy is a privelege, not a right, and it does not come with the authority to act outside conciliarity. The Churches had fashioned a solution to the situation in Estonia, and the Phanar has decided to renig on it, although it lacks the authority.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 24, 2011, 05:16:20 PM
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 06:46:45 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Shlomlokh on June 24, 2011, 06:49:10 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.
High Petrine? Did Marduk climb into your brain? :p

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 06:59:18 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie. [/size

The Orthodox are dialoguing in accordance with the principles which you are able to study in message 83
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493

Other Orthodox Churches have made more or less identical statements.

You will note that the position of the Russian Church in its 2000 statement is in fact simply a re-presentation of the Church of Constaninople's.  This evidences that Orthodoxy's two most influential Churches are in agreement and presenting  their position openly.  You may all read it freely.

Accusations from Roman Catholics, openly or by implication, that the Orthodox may be acting deceitfully will be sure to kill the dialogue.  Your choice.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 07:07:56 PM
I wouldn't say "never". Don't forget the Council of Florence.

LOL...that seems to me to be the Ultimate in Bad Faith/Walking Out...


Mary,

Since I know you are aware of the events at Florence, I would say your statement is a great example of disinformation and bad faith. >:(

The much vaunted Roman Catholic propaganda that a reunion was achieved at Florence and ratified by the Orthodox but then repudiated by the "perfidious Greeks" is so much balderdash, a Western propaganda item which should be laid to rest...! The acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance by an Eastern Council.

"However, after Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople died only two days later [at Florence], the Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern synod.

"Upon their return, the Eastern bishops found their agreement with the West broadly rejected by the populace and by civil authorities (with the notable exception of the Emperors of the East who remained committed to union until the fall of the Byzantine Empire two decades later). The union signed at Florence, even down to the present, has never been accepted by the Eastern churches."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 07:12:34 PM

I'll give it some thought, but I don't know if I can say very much. That the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith would be a very hefty accusation, and in fact I'm not aware of anyone who makes it (even though I do think the This Rock article relates to it).

If the Orthodox are dialoguing without letting the Catholic Church know the real purpose of the dialogue then that is "in bad faith" however "hefty" that might be.

If the Orthodox are dialoguing to proselytize and not admitting to that...I expect one could even call that a lie.

One could say that the many statements the various Orthodox Churches have released in the past a) let the Catholic Church (and everyone) know the real purpose of their dialogue and, b) admit that they are "proselytizing".  To say otherwise is to have one's head buried firmly under the sand or, at best, be a little hard of hearing.



Then I think the Catholic Church is being misled in the bilateral dialogue,

Different Catholics have different impressions of the Orthodox trajectory. For example, this:



I hate to be dismissive of any member of the Body of Christ, but at the level that we are talking about the only impressions that really matter are those of bishop to bishop, primate to primate, either directly or through formal emissaries.

To that the response of any Orthodox Christian would be:  Remember Saint Maximus the Confessor.

Will you be dismissive of him?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 07:19:21 PM
But it is sometimes a very different matter with regard to less official arenas. For example, some years ago there an forum called "Eastern Christianity" on catholic.com, which was pretty active for a while, then was unilaterally shut down by the Catholic moderators.

Read all about it!

catholic answers forum bars orthodox dicussion

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 07:27:03 PM

http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2011, 08:09:32 PM
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 08:18:09 PM
btw, the Vatican rejected Ravenna.
Do you have a link or specifically what was rejected by the Vatican? I read something about Moscow rejecting Ravenna.  Thanks.
Not readily available.  Fr. Ambrose IIRC posted the link a couple times. On Moscow, yes, it rejected it too, if any other Orthodox accepted it.

I recall a Zenit message which says it was rejected by the Vatican for promoting ecclesiology unacceptable to the Catholic Church.

This rejection is politely presented in the Vatican's introduction to the document, probable out of deference to Cardinal Kasper.

See
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 24, 2011, 09:38:30 PM
The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.

I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism.

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table and content themselves with the WCC.

Mary


http://www.reocities.com/Heartland/5654/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


My point was that we've come past this in the last decade.  

I didn't think you had any more recent memo.



Before we fall under the spell of Mary's spin doctoring let us look at what in
fact the Orthodox hierarchs have been saying during the 50 years of ecumenism.

I want to present a few official examples which show the consistency and
ultra-conservatism of the official Orthodox viewpoint throughout the years of
ecumenism... the unbending and inflexible insistence that Orthodoxy alone
constitutes the One Church. The Orthodox have not strayed from their own
reality and have not failed to present the authentic Orthodox point of view at
ecumenical meetings and in official statements with both Catholics and Protestants.



1. 1957.... The Statement of the Representatives of the Greek Orthodox
Church in the USA at the North American Faith and Order Study
Conference, Oberlin, Ohio, September 1957. This is quite unequivocal
about the uniqueness of Orthodoxy as the Church.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/gocamerica_faith_order_sept_1957.htm



2. 1980s.... The contretemps in the 1980s at the International Roman
Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue which saw a walk-out of the
Catholic participants when the Orthodox delegates declared that they
were unable to accept Catholic baptism per se. These were not fringy
palaeohiemerologhites but the most ecumenically minded bishops and
theologians of the canonical Orthodox Churches. This question has
never been revisited in the international dialogue but one day it will
need to be faced head on.


3. 1986.... Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar (WCC)
Conference, Chambesy, 1986:

"The Orthodox Church, however, faithful to her ecclesiology, to the
identity of her internal structure and to the teaching of the
undivided Church, while participating in the WCC, does not accept the
idea of the "equality of confessions" and cannot consider Church
unity as an inter-confessional adjustment. In this spirit, the unity
which is sought within the WCC cannot simply be the product of
theological agreements alone. God calls every Christian to the unity
of faith which is lived in the sacraments and the tradition, as
experienced in the Orthodox Church."

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

Section III, Paragraph 6
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/ecumenical-movement/chambesy-1986


4. 1997..... Even the most ecumenical Patriarch of Micklegarth His
Divine All-Holiness Bartholomew scandalised the Catholics with his
presentation at the Jesuit University of Georgetown in 1997 when he
declared:

"The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different.
Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one
common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in
substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible."

Full text at
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html


The Jesuits declared morosely that Patr. Bartholomew had set the
dialogue back 10 years.  Nobody else made a comment since they did
not have a clue what the Patriarch was talking about.   


5. 2000..... The important Statement on Orthodoxy and its ecumenical
relationships with non-Orthodox Churches issued by the 2000
Millennial Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church:

"Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the
Other Christian Confessions"

It basically repeats what the Greeks said at Oberlin Ohio in 1957
and even more emphatically - the boundaries of the Church are
the Orthodox Church herself.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/documents/attitude-to-the-non-orthodox/
and
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/roc_other_christian_confessions.htm



6. 2007..... The Agreed Statement ussued by the Catholic-Orthodox
International Theological Meeting in Ravenna, Sept 2007

"Note [1] Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that
the use of the terms "the Church", "the universal Church", "the
indivisible Church" and "the Body of Christ" in this document and in
similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way
undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one,
holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed
speaks."

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/130.aspx#2


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 10:43:14 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by that last paragraph, but the dialoguing-in-bad-faith question is an interesting one. Although the This Rock article doesn't actually bring it up, it could be seen as a spin-off of the article. More specifically, when it says in the conclusion that "While Patriarch Bartholomew may be ahead of many of his brethren in his openness to Rome, most of them are on the trail he is blazing, not the side route that Young and Schaeffer have strayed onto", that would seem to imply that if it turns out otherwise, then the dialogue was in bad faith.

Things I have seen from "This Rock" have indicated that it is a magazine with a "high Petrine" orientation much as the news source from Rome "Zenit."

Both adopt an overly optimistic attitude that the Orthodox are close to accepting the papacy and making our submission to the Pope.

This is so unrealistic that it is not surprising that they do not quite grasp the reality of the Orthodox dialogue with their Church, as the Orthodox understand it.   So when things do not go as "This Rock" naively expects,  accusations of dialogue in bad faith against the Orthodox would be easily levelled.

The only way for "This Rock" to correct itself is if its contributors make en effort to become better acquaniterd with Orthodoxy.

What you have to understand is that all of that is okay because it's This Rock. It wouldn't be all right, of course, if a traditional Catholic had said those things, because it would mean that he/she was un-ecumenical and maybe even intolerant.

Sorry if my bias is showing.   ;D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 11:02:34 PM

The issue is or was till the Doctor took over:  Is Orthodoxy only engaged in the current bilateral dialogue with Catholics so that they can proselytize the Catholic Church.



In some sense, yes.  For the Orthodox the prequisite for union is that the faith of the other Church coincides with the Orthodox faith.

Therefore dialogue is about coming to a mutual understanding of one another's faith and the search by the Orthodox to see how they may be drawn closer.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 11:16:10 PM

I have said and I believe that Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in the current rounds of dialogue in order to proselytize and that they are actually discussing the issue of primatial primacy and petrine primacy in good faith, in order to seek a path to the ending of the schism

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


The Russian delegates to the International Meetings have stated unequivocally and with 100% clarity that there is not and never will be a global primacy in the Church.  We have not been leading the Catholics astray.

There are many statements on this from our bishops and theologians in the Forum's archives.

Try a search with   primacy hilarion

Because of your repeated insistence on this "bad faith" issue I am starting to think you have a mental block about the Orthodox statements which perturb you.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 24, 2011, 11:23:39 PM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....


What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 25, 2011, 05:34:13 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 25, 2011, 07:59:05 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

We're picking up the pieces of this:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tkkjn54Lcxw/TNSvpiaOA1I/AAAAAAAAAH8/6ctCEoKK2oU/s1600/KISH219.jpg)(http://staff.jccc.net/jjackson/luthermap.jpg)(http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/map16rel.gif)
Humpty Dumpty isn't together again yet.

I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 25, 2011, 08:12:04 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 25, 2011, 08:15:48 PM
Ialmisry sure does love maps.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 25, 2011, 08:17:29 PM

I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?


(http://www.emotihost.com/nono/4.gif)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 25, 2011, 08:19:58 PM

I just posted something in the Private Fora on this, Father. Do you have access?


(http://www.emotihost.com/nono/4.gif)
You should message one of the mods for access to it. It's a jolly good time in there.  ;D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 25, 2011, 09:25:40 PM
Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: biro on June 25, 2011, 11:03:44 PM
Ialmisry sure does love maps.

Oh, yeah  :o
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 26, 2011, 01:30:50 AM
Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 26, 2011, 02:30:29 AM
Do you guys and gals ever, ever get tired of being on a merry-go-round? Same old barbs, same old arguments, never concede a point, never give the slightest indication that anyone is willing to consider that anything said or written by anyone from another point of view may offer something constructive to the discussion?

It is increasingly clear to me that no one here is particularly interested in learning anything or considering a point of view other than one which is already possessed  - it's like being back in first year law dorms thirty five years ago where everyone thought they knew it all.

Everyone speaks of spirituality, but it seems that triumphalism reigns online regardless of your church or jurisdiction within the Church. I'm taking a break until after the Apostle's Fast and I will see if I feel any different afterwards.


I think what you have described here is just the atmosphere of forums across the board. People go around and around and debate for the sake of debating but nothing ever really gets solved. This has been my experience with any forum I have ever been a member of. On any given forum, there is usually a member or a group of members that like to argue just because.
Although, from time to time, I find that I actually learn something that I did not know before.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2011, 09:47:39 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 26, 2011, 10:14:51 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 26, 2011, 10:15:22 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.  But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not?  If he is not then this is a cheval mort.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 26, 2011, 10:22:13 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2011, 11:14:00 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

I get it now.  The bishop of Rome and the Pope of Rome are two different men.
 
No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.

But I think this is some modern big-O idiocy.
It would have to be modern: until the Papal States fell in 1870, it would be impossible to have an Orthodox bishop in Rome. That is, btw, the source of the dispute on whether the EP or Romania would have jurisdiction in Italy: the Patriarch of Karlovci had the only Orthodox jurisdiction in what is now Italy, but I'm not sure what happened between 1866 (when part of the territories he had jurisdiction were annexed to Italy) and 1870 (when Italy annexed Rome).  Then there is what happened between 1870 and 1873 (when the Patriarch of Karlovci's jurisdiction in Italy was translated to the Metropolitanate of Bukowina/Bucovina).

Is Bishop Siluan installed as Bishop of Rome or not? 
Ever since 2009 (he was enthroned the previous year at Luca. When the statut for the Episcopate was approved in 2009, it mandated his see at Rome, a cathedral was set up and his grace was translated to it at Rome).
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/hotarare_statut.pdf
http://episcopia-italiei.it/media/statut_eori.pdf
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 26, 2011, 11:22:04 PM

No, Father.  The former office has been rived and the latter office, at least for the Orthodox, is defunct.


OK, I am impressed!  I had to look up "rive."   :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2011, 11:25:03 PM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.


Father, do you have the text of the original: it not being in the Pedalion, and IIRC the Syntagma (I don't have my copy readily to check). Btw, where did you get the translation?

since, however, the Vatican abandoned this council and embraced its antithesis, proclaiming it as its Eighth Ecumenical Council, including its anathematization of St. Photios and his deposition, amongst other problems, it would be another example of how the papacy of Rome self destructed and hence now is defunct, if not disestablished.

Btw, Bishop Siluan AFAIK doesn't have a claim to the supreme pontiff title:since the Emperor gave that pagan title and office to the Pope of Rome, not the Church, it has no connection to the see of Rome as far as the Church is concerned.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 26, 2011, 11:54:07 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 26, 2011, 11:56:16 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 27, 2011, 12:01:47 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 08:42:22 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:03:14 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
Or to confuse them, as to the identity of which Church Patriarch St. Ignatius, the Creed and the Fathers of the rest of the Councils meant.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Orthodoc on June 27, 2011, 09:06:59 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:08:12 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.
The Fathers speak of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church, i.e. us. We are only following their usage.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 09:47:44 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us? 
I don't know. I think it is wonderful that Eastern Orthodox Christians want to be known as Catholics.

So do I.  Not only because the word is rightfully ours, but because it counteracts the papal Catholics from misleading it's people by teaching that we broke away from the Catholic Church mentioned in the Creed.  Remember there is only one piece of pie from the ORIGINAL pie that stands alone outside the pan,  and it isn't the Orthodox.  FatherHLL I'm with you.  I'm amazed that some of our own people cannot understand the importance of this issue.  They seem as brain washed as some papal Catholics when it comes to this.  I don't deny Rome it's right to the word Catholic.  I do deny it's claims to have exclusive rights to the ident to mislead people where Church history is concerned.

Orthodoc

Expressed in this way the Catholic Church would agree with you.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 09:53:41 AM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.  The Pope is not dealing fairly with the Orthodox on what position and authority he wants to hold in a reunited East and West.   Hmmm... 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 10:21:47 AM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 10:29:35 AM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.  The Pope is not dealing fairly with the Orthodox on what position and authority he wants to hold in a reunited East and West.   Hmmm... 

Mother is quite ill.  I am not posting much.  I am also not posting much because the biases are too dense in the currently active posts and I don't have time to spend clipping through the brambles.

In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."

 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:30:38 AM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 10:36:54 AM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.

I was not arguing that the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.

I am more clearly saying that IF you and others are correct in saying that the ONLY reason that the Orthodox dialogue with the Catholic Church is in order to proselytize, THEN the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.

However I don't think you and others are correct in your estimations of the dialogue and its purpose.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:39:54 AM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:43:28 AM

I am more clearly saying that IF you and others are correct in saying that the ONLY reason that the Orthodox dialogue with the Catholic Church is in order to proselytize, THEN the Orthodox are dialoguing in bad faith.


And  I am saying that if the Pope won't come clean and state what status and authority he wants to have in a reunified West and East then he is not dealing with us honestly.  And he isn't.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 10:45:15 AM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:52:34 AM

However I don't think you and others are correct in your estimations of the dialogue and its purpose.


Then you are wrong.  I invite you to go back to message 83
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493

There you will find the clear statement of 2000 of the postion of the Russian Orthodox Church as to its view of the dialogue and its purpose.

Note that in fact what the Russian Church is doing is re-presenting verbatim the position of the Church of Constantinople.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:57:02 AM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 27, 2011, 11:29:28 AM

Yes, its now a suffragan of Bucharest
(http://fantana.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ps-siluan.jpg)
If he is the Bishop of Rome shouldn't we be addressing him as Pope?  I think the two titles go together.
The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Italy, like the EP's Metropolitinate of Italy, are two healthy Orthodox bodies of the Catholic Church giving an organ transplant to Italy, not a regeneration of the corpses of the Patriarchate of the West and the Papacy of Rome.

So, although he is Bishop of Rome he is not the successor of the last Orthodox Pope of Rome?

Maybe he does not have the title "Bishop of Rome"?
For sake of argument, Father, let's say that a bishop being enthroned in Rome makes him the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and apply that principle elsewhere:Every act of the Russian Church 1811-1917 would be voidable, as the Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Church included the Exarch of Georgia who was de officio the autocephalous head of another Church.

Then again, there would be trouble with all the acts of the Russian church from 1448-1589/1593, and St. Jonah would be a schismatic, as the new Orthodox EP would have resumed jurisdiction over the Russias in 1454.

Archbishop Stefan of Ohrid would be autocephalous, with the Macedonian Church.  And all 15 primates would have to have him (along with Pope Siluan) in their diptychs.  And he would be joined by either Met. Amfilohije or Met. Mihailo as the autocephalous primate of Montenegro. 

The Romanian Patriarchate would have to give up Met. Laurentiu of Sibiu and Transylvania, and Met. Pimen of Suceava and Rădăuţi, both of whom would be autocephalous.  In fact Bishop Siluan would be under Met. Pimen, as his see is the canonical basis of Romania having any jurisdiction in Italy.  He would also have jurisdiction over Western Ukraine, the Czech Lands, and southern Poland.

Patriarch Ireniej would also be Patriarch of Hungary and Slovakia, as Metropolitan of Karlovci. As it is, Pat. Daniel's has canonical problems with his Western Dioceses:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/ROC.svg/250px-ROC.svg)

And we would not have to have the great and holy synod fix the diptychs, as either Pope Siluan or EP Bartholomew (who also has a good canonical argument as good as Romania's, for jurisdiction over Italy) would be firmly in place there.  There would be no case for Moscow moving up.

Or maybe Kiev: since it was the Metropolitan of Kiev resident at Moscow who was made autocephalous, either Met. Volodymyr would be Patriarch, or Patriarch Kiril would have to translate back to Kiev.

Circumstances change, however, and the Church takes that into account.  I don't even recall if the Pope of Rome is called as such in the canons.  In fact, aside from its autocephaly and jurisdiction over Italy, and its function as a court of appeal, I don't recall any papacy of Rome codified in the canons.  The papacy as an institution seems only to exist in the traditions and practice of the Church, and not vested in an office (as the Vatican claims), and as such, can be changed as the Church needs or sees fit.  Since 1593 Rome was removed as a patriarchate in the Catholic Church. There is no requirement that it be received back as one.  In fact, given that 7 autocephalous Churches now occupy parts of its former jurisdiction, it won't be.

FYI:  Canon 1 of the Council of Constantinople of 879:

1. This holy and ecumenical Council has decreed that so far as concerns any clerics, or laymen, or bishops from Italy that are staying in Asia, or Europe, or Africa, under bond, or deposition, or anathema imposed by the most holy Pope John, all such persons are to be held in the same condition of penalization also by the most holy Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. That is to say, either deposed, or anathematized, or excommunicated. All those persons, on the other hand, whom Photius our most holy Patriarch has condemned or may condemn to excommunication, or deposition, or anathematization, in any diocese whatsoever, whether clerics or laymen or any of the persons who are of prelatical or priestly rank, are to be treated likewise by most holy Pope John, and his holy Church of God of the Romans, and be held in the same category of penalization. Nothing, however, shall affect the priorities due to the most holy throne of the Church of the Romans, nor shall anything redound to the detriment of her president, as touching the sum-total of innovations, either now or at any time hereafter.


Father, do you have the text of the original: it not being in the Pedalion, and IIRC the Syntagma (I don't have my copy readily to check). Btw, where did you get the translation?

since, however, the Vatican abandoned this council and embraced its antithesis, proclaiming it as its Eighth Ecumenical Council, including its anathematization of St. Photios and his deposition, amongst other problems, it would be another example of how the papacy of Rome self destructed and hence now is defunct, if not disestablished.

Btw, Bishop Siluan AFAIK doesn't have a claim to the supreme pontiff title:since the Emperor gave that pagan title and office to the Pope of Rome, not the Church, it has no connection to the see of Rome as far as the Church is concerned.

Isa, yes, sorry for not giving a reference.  Actually it is in the Pedalion, and the translation here is from p. 477 of the English version.   It is interesting that the canon only speaks of the pope and patriarch currently in office, presumably because they are both confirmed as being, at the time of the issuing of the canon, orthodox holders of the thrones, but leaves opened the possibility of that not being the case in the future (as not referring generally to Old or New Rome, but to +John and +Photios in particular).   And of course the point is very true that "supreme pontiff" to any bishop including Rome is a title unknown in an ecclesiastical sense.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 11:33:43 AM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 11:51:45 AM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 12:00:52 PM
Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

I would say "similar" rather than "the same".

Or perhaps we should say that the Orthodox bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treated the Archbishop of Canterbury a few decades ago (before things started getting crazy in the Anglican Communion).
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 12:02:47 PM

IF Orthodoxy is NOT engaging in good faith then I think it is time to come clean and walk away from the table ....



What about your Pope coming clean?  Has he made a statement that after union he will have the status of a Patriarch, with no more authority than Moscow or Georgia?

Or has he made a statement that he will have superior authority to other Patriarchs?

I've never seen any come-clean statement from him.  Where's his good faith in the dialogue?

The silence from our Catholic members is answer enough.

Not necessarily. Personally, I view that question as part of a back-and-forth between you and elijahmaria.

You and Mary were playing tag on the bad faith accusation.   You speculated that a reading of "The Rock" article could lead to cries of bad faith against the Orthodox.

True, I did; but I can't predict what "This Rock" would say in answer to your question.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 12:05:10 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Indeed.  Only in conversion, with someone embracing Orthodoxy and entering the Cathlic Church, does any necessity arise to take a closer look between the Archbishop of Canterburty of the supreme pontiff of the Vatican.  Its sovereign Pope Benedict XVI hasn't fully renounced the filioque yet, or otherwise signaled that he is embracing Orthodoxy and entering the Catholic Church, so the status of his ecclesiastical community at present is a moot question.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 12:09:56 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 01:07:40 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 01:17:57 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?

Mary
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 27, 2011, 01:18:25 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.

There is no need to stop the dialogue. Are you telling me then that the Catholics do not intend to create a union through uniformity of faith? Such a false union would undoubtedly be unacceptable to the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 01:27:54 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.

There is no need to stop the dialogue. Are you telling me then that the Catholics do not intend to create a union through uniformity of faith? Such a false union would undoubtedly be unacceptable to the Orthodox.

Depends on what you envision by "uniformity" of faith...and really it depends on what is understood by "faith"...

Are you asking if the Catholic Church plans to "convert"...whatever that means to you...

The answer, most probably, given what I see around here is....No.  The Catholic Church is not in dialogue as preparation for conversion to Orthodoxy.  It has never been presented that way by either side, but apparently, according to Father Ambrose, that is what has been intended all along.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 01:42:08 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?
Your salvation.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 01:44:18 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?
Your salvation.

Not even.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 01:45:00 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
You meant they haven't noticed that the Orthodox are not negotiating the surrender of the Catholic Church to the Vatican's claims?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 01:52:19 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
You meant they haven't noticed that the Orthodox are not negotiating the surrender of the Catholic Church to the Vatican's claims?

That's not what is happening, but why should the Catholic Church care what Orthodoxy thinks at all,  if all the Orthodox are interested in is proselytizing us?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 01:57:35 PM
Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Source?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 02:00:53 PM
There is no need to stop the dialogue. Are you telling me then that the Catholics do not intend to create a union through uniformity of faith? Such a false union would undoubtedly be unacceptable to the Orthodox.

Yes and no. I definitely think the Catholic Church is open to a new union, but we are not using the means we used at, e.g., Brest or Florence to achieve a union.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 02:13:11 PM
Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Source?

Isa and Father Ambrose and all other Orthodox who think as they do...which they claim are most all other Orthodox, especially bishops and patriarchs...
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 27, 2011, 02:55:36 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
You meant they haven't noticed that the Orthodox are not negotiating the surrender of the Catholic Church to the Vatican's claims?

That's not what is happening, but why should the Catholic Church care what Orthodoxy thinks at all,  if all the Orthodox are interested in is proselytizing us?

For the same reason why Orthodoxy should still care what Rome thinks even if Rome is interested in proselytizing us:  because it is the mandate of our Savior that the faithful of all nations comprise one Body.   There is no way that God wants those who are or will be truly His sheep among 2 billion Christians not to be in communion with each other in the unity of the Faith delivered once for all.   So what are we doing about it?  Hopefully finding agreement where there is agreement in the Apostolic Faith held in common for 1000 years, and otherwise patiently working through the areas of disagreement or apparent disagreement without compromise, but not letting a difference in language to obscure sameness in substance.   Sometimes we often have strong language.  We shouldn't allow this to "shut down" dialogue.   Things get heated sometimes.  We are human.  We sometimes need to give each other a break.   Sometimes we need to be firm, but in this firmness we need to reach a place of forebearance as dialogue goes on, as our brethren often bear heavy burdens that are unseen and not apparent from our limited observation. 
   
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: orthonorm on June 27, 2011, 03:06:11 PM
Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Source?

Really, gimme a break. You do realize there is no word in Greek for proselytize? //:=|
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 03:46:39 PM
Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Source?

Isa and Father Ambrose and all other Orthodox who think as they do...

That's all very good and well, except that I can't read their thoughts.

which they claim are most all other Orthodox, especially bishops and patriarchs...

I'm skeptical about that claim (as are you, I imagine).
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 27, 2011, 03:55:16 PM
Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Source?

Really, gimme a break. You do realize there is no word in Greek for proselytize? //:=|

Pretty much. We don't proselytize; we evangelize others by exposing them to the truth and hoping that they will be drawn to it. Proselytism is such a nasty word with such ugly connotations like giving incentives for conversion. We give no incentive other than telling others about the truth in which we believe. Whether they should wish to convert, that is up to them.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 27, 2011, 04:58:58 PM
In this case, I do believe that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and also Pope Benedict has been greeted and lauded by the Slavic Orthodox world, at least, and by the EP, as an exemplary representative of the papal Church.  So if there were a problem, I have NO doubt that we'd be hearing it loud and clear.

Also with respect to one of the other triumphal posts in line here over the last few days...IF the Catholic Church were not recognized by the bishops and patriarchs of Orthodoxy as a Church at all...we'd be hearing that as well...from something other than...what did Father Ambrose call it?...oh yes....the "lunatic fringe."


The thing is that I have never known any bishop, when asked if the Pope and the Catholic bishops are genuine and authentic and valid bishops to answer yes.   How many bishops will answer Yes? How many will answer No?  How many will avoid the question and change the subject?

Any Orthodox members have experience with this?  My impression is that our bishops treat the question of the episcopal Orders of the Pope with the same politeness that the Pope treats the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

The same thing happens with Catholic priests and bishops and questions concerning Orthodoxy.  They politely point to the statements coming from the highest levels.

There's no doubt in my mind that there are Catholic bishops who are repulsed by Orthodoxy.

But I wasn't talking about things at that level.

Heck...there are Orthodox bishops who are repulsed by other Orthodox bishops.

Resumption of Communion can never be predicated on fallen and venal humanity.

Nor can it be predicated on the refusal of every Orthodox Patriarch to acknowledge the validity of the Pope's episcopal Orders.  Mary, they simply won't do it.  They remember only two well the fate of their predecessors after Florence.  The faithful will not tolerate it.

Then y'all better write and let'em know the jig is up!!

Dear Mary,

The Patriarchs do not have to be told.  They already know.

Peruse the Statements which have been issued by the "Parliament" of monks of Mount Athos over the decades of the dialogue.  Not one Patriarch has sallied forth to say:  "Ignore the monks!  They are wrong.  Of course the Pope is a valid bishop."  Nor has any theologian stood against the monks.  They can't because in effect they would be denying the "Cyprianite" theology on sacraments outside the Church and in heresy which has been, by and large, the bedrock of Eastern teaching since the year dot.   To go against it would provoke schism and revolution in the Church.

Then, in good faith, the patriarchs need to stop the dialogue cold, and start the process of advertising to have the Papists become Orthodox. 

That needs to be done forthrightly.  At the moment it is too fuzzy and nobody is getting the message clearly.
You meant they haven't noticed that the Orthodox are not negotiating the surrender of the Catholic Church to the Vatican's claims?

That's not what is happening, but why should the Catholic Church care what Orthodoxy thinks at all,  if all the Orthodox are interested in is proselytizing us?

For the same reason why Orthodoxy should still care what Rome thinks even if Rome is interested in proselytizing us:  because it is the mandate of our Savior that the faithful of all nations comprise one Body.   There is no way that God wants those who are or will be truly His sheep among 2 billion Christians not to be in communion with each other in the unity of the Faith delivered once for all.   So what are we doing about it?  Hopefully finding agreement where there is agreement in the Apostolic Faith held in common for 1000 years, and otherwise patiently working through the areas of disagreement or apparent disagreement without compromise, but not letting a difference in language to obscure sameness in substance.   Sometimes we often have strong language.  We shouldn't allow this to "shut down" dialogue.   Things get heated sometimes.  We are human.  We sometimes need to give each other a break.   Sometimes we need to be firm, but in this firmness we need to reach a place of forebearance as dialogue goes on, as our brethren often bear heavy burdens that are unseen and not apparent from our limited observation. 
   
Yes. this sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Dart on June 27, 2011, 06:19:23 PM
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.

The other possibility is that neither of the two churches is Christ. Maybe Christ is not found in a Church but within each and everyone of us and the Church of Christ is made up of all its members regardles of what cultural construct they attend.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 06:53:32 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 07:47:31 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?


And what does the Pope want?  To subjugate and dominate the Orthodox.  Nowhere and never has he stated that he does not desire full and final authority over the Orthodox if we "return" to Rome.  He is far too artful to lay it it plainly.  He is acting in bad faith.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom:

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


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

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 07:50:37 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?


And what does the Pope want?  To subjugate and dominate the Orthodox.  Nowhere and never has he stated that he does not desire full and final authority over the Orthodox if we "return" to Rome.  He is fart too artful to lay it it plainly.  He is acting in bad faith.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom:

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


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


That sounds like paranoia.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 08:10:03 PM
The answer, most probably, given what I see around here is....No.  The Catholic Church is not in dialogue as preparation for conversion to Orthodoxy.  It has never been presented that way by either side, but apparently, according to Father Ambrose, that is what has been intended all along.

O ye who have ears but hear only what suits you!

Read the major millennial statement on relationships with the non-orthodox promulgated by the Holy Synod of the Russian orthodox Church.  It lays  out the basis and the purpose.  And the purpose?   To bring every Christian to the holy Orthodox faith.  To the Orthodox mind there is ONLY the Orthodox faith and a bastardised faith or a negotiated faith won't cut it. 

Read message 83
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590493.html#msg590493


Read also the various official statements spanning 50 tears, from Oberlin 1957 to Ravenna 2007

Message 130
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37062.msg590860.html#msg590860

So we see that the Church has tried mightily to interact with the non-Orthodox Christians and it has clearly and officially delineated its basis and purpose.  If such as Mary, well studied in many of these things, has no clue about the Orthodox view, then is there *anybody* listening to us from among the Catholics?  Or are we dialoguing with a deaf juggernaut which believes that in the end it will subdue us anyway?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:26:03 PM
Why can't the dialogue continue?

Apparently the only thing the Orthodox want to do is proselytize Catholics.

Unless you think that is a worthy reason to remain in bi-lateral dialogue, then why should we continue?


And what does the Pope want?  To subjugate and dominate the Orthodox.  Nowhere and never has he stated that he does not desire full and final authority over the Orthodox if we "return" to Rome.  He is fart too artful to lay it it plainly.  He is acting in bad faith.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom:

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


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


That sounds like paranoia.
Sounds like sound thinking based on the Vatican's track record.  Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:29:55 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:33:52 PM
The Church, however, is Christ as "I AM," and He is not socially contructed nor culturally informed.
But the question in this case would be "which Church is Christ?" Unless you subscribe to the idea that there can be more than one Church (eg "Branch Theory"), then only one of them can be Christ. The existence of two or more separate bodies claiming to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" seems to me to make them ontologically different. One of them is Christ as experienced in the Community which forms His Body, the Church (which cannot be said to be devoid of social constructs since it is both a Divine and Human entity), and the others are social constructs which are just that.

The other possibility is that neither of the two churches is Christ. Maybe Christ is not found in a Church but within each and everyone of us and the Church of Christ is made up of all its members regardles of what cultural construct they attend.
or maybe Christ isn't in any of us, but god is in us and the winds and the sun and the rocks, and if we love one another kumbaya.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 11:18:28 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."

I haven't had a lot of time for posting today, but I wanted to pop in here to mention something interesting I've heard (if I remember correctly) from Lutherans: they claimed that saying the creed with "Christian" in place of "Catholic" was already common in Germany before Martin Luther came along.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 11:19:56 PM
Or are we dialoguing with a deaf juggernaut which believes that in the end it will subdue us anyway?

So, in other words, are some Catholics similar to the liberal Protestants who "tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 11:25:42 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."

I haven't had a lot of time for posting today, but I wanted to pop in here to mention something interesting I've heard (if I remember correctly) from Lutherans: they claimed that saying the creed with "Christian" in place of "Catholic" was already common in Germany before Martin Luther came along.
Lutherans seem to elevate German in a similar way to how Latin is elevated within the Roman Catholic Church...maybe even more so. The local Lutheran Church sings Silent Night in German at their Christmas Eve service and they have German celebrations at the church like Oktoberfest. It's kind of bizarre how many German culture is intertwined in their church.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 11:32:50 PM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 11:34:38 PM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."

I haven't had a lot of time for posting today, but I wanted to pop in here to mention something interesting I've heard (if I remember correctly) from Lutherans: they claimed that saying the creed with "Christian" in place of "Catholic" was already common in Germany before Martin Luther came along.
Lutherans seem to elevate German in a similar way to how Latin is elevated within the Roman Catholic Church...maybe even more so. The local Lutheran Church sings Silent Night in German at their Christmas Eve service and they have German celebrations at the church like Oktoberfest. It's kind of bizarre how many German culture is intertwined in their church.
Maybe because your local Lutheran parish is German? Because I never noticed it among the Norwegians, Swedes or Arabs.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: LBK on June 27, 2011, 11:55:45 PM
Quote
The local Lutheran Church sings Silent Night in German at their Christmas Eve service


Hardly surprising. The carol was originally written in German, and called Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 12:13:13 AM
The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

 ???

To me, it sounds an awful lot like you agree with Mill's comment.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 12:15:20 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."

I haven't had a lot of time for posting today, but I wanted to pop in here to mention something interesting I've heard (if I remember correctly) from Lutherans: they claimed that saying the creed with "Christian" in place of "Catholic" was already common in Germany before Martin Luther came along.
Lutherans seem to elevate German in a similar way to how Latin is elevated within the Roman Catholic Church...maybe even more so. The local Lutheran Church sings Silent Night in German at their Christmas Eve service and they have German celebrations at the church like Oktoberfest. It's kind of bizarre how many German culture is intertwined in their church.

I suspect that it seems strange to us Americans, but is actually common with respect to a lot of different cultures.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 12:27:13 AM
The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

 ???

To me, it sounds an awful lot like you agree with Mill's comment.

That's strange.  Mills says "the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition ..... not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures."

I was pointing out the opposite, namely that it *is* a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 28, 2011, 01:11:52 AM
The Spirit has descended!

The Orthodox=the Catholics.

I really wish our people would get this.   When the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils speak of "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" they are speaking about us!   Why are any of us hesitant to speak of ourselves in the terminology that the Holy Fathers gave us?  

To be fair, I think a big part of it is a simple desire to avoid confusing people.
I think it is interesting that, even though I am sure that the majority of Roman Catholics here on the forum consider their faith to be orthodox, you do not see a great push from us to refer to our Church as the Orthodox Church or refer to ourselves as Orthodox Christians.

True. I guess there's no need, since the creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", not "One Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Church".
Which makes sense I guess why the Orthodox lay claim to the word "catholic" and why they are opposed to us referring to ourselves as such.

On a related note, I think it is funny that Lutherans change the wording of the Creed. I'm not sure if this is across the board, but at least at my sister's Lutheran church here in town, when they recite the Nicene Creed they say they believe in "One, Holy, Christian, and Apostolic Church."  :laugh:
Yes, it's extremely common.  The service books used to say "Christian" but some of the modern ones (odd in this instance) have "Catholic" with an asterisk with a footnote "or Christian."

I haven't had a lot of time for posting today, but I wanted to pop in here to mention something interesting I've heard (if I remember correctly) from Lutherans: they claimed that saying the creed with "Christian" in place of "Catholic" was already common in Germany before Martin Luther came along.
Lutherans seem to elevate German in a similar way to how Latin is elevated within the Roman Catholic Church...maybe even more so. The local Lutheran Church sings Silent Night in German at their Christmas Eve service and they have German celebrations at the church like Oktoberfest. It's kind of bizarre how many German culture is intertwined in their church.
Maybe because your local Lutheran parish is German? Because I never noticed it among the Norwegians, Swedes or Arabs.
There are several families that attend their that trace their lineage to German roots, but I'm not sure you could consider the entire church German. I always just figured they did it as a way to honor the ethnic heritage of their founder.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 07:22:47 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 07:28:39 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

Again.....hmmm... not one of your more insightful comments.   If you were being paid a stipend to destabilise the Orthodox on the internet I'd deduct dollars from your bonus this week!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 07:34:58 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 08:29:00 AM
The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

 ???

To me, it sounds an awful lot like you agree with Mill's comment.

That's strange.  Mills says "the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition ..... not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures."

If you can show that he said that, I'm all ears. But I find it very unlikely that he did say that, given that I've already shown that he said that Protestant liberals "tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures." (emphasis added)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 08:45:59 AM
The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

 ???

To me, it sounds an awful lot like you agree with Mill's comment.

That's strange.  Mills says "the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition ..... not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures."

If you can show that he said that, I'm all ears. But I find it very unlikely that he did say that, given that I've already shown that he said that Protestant liberals "tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures." (emphasis added)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

Sorry... was I reading it too fast?  Was Mills speaking of the mistaken assumptions of Prostestant liberals and disavowing them?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:17:38 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:29:06 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!

My dear lady, who knows if what you alleged is false or not?  You made vague accusations which as usual you did not even bother to specify or substantiate (message 214.)

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:39:34 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!

My dear lady, who knows if what you alleged is false or not? 


Of all the people I know, you do.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 09:40:14 AM
The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

 ???

To me, it sounds an awful lot like you agree with Mill's comment.

That's strange.  Mills says "the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition ..... not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures."

If you can show that he said that, I'm all ears. But I find it very unlikely that he did say that, given that I've already shown that he said that Protestant liberals "tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures." (emphasis added)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

Sorry... was I reading it too fast?  Was Mills speaking of the mistaken assumptions of Prostestant liberals and disavowing them?

I think that "disavowing them" was implied, even if it wasn't the point of what he was saying.

I've pulled up the full quote,

Quote
I would add to Steve’s comments that in my observation the Orthodox can get away with being so conservative in the WCC because modern Protestant liberals treat them as primitives or exotics. They tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures.

I’ve heard this line taken especially on the Orthodox opposition to women’s ordination. Which means, among other things, that while the Orthodox may think they are having an influence, any stand they make for orthodoxy that offends the liberal consensus is dismissed as just “their thing,” as an Orthodox peculiarity that they will someday get over. If they have an influence for good on doctrinal matters, I suspect the liberals are open to their influence because liberals don’t care as much about doctrine as about ordaining women, and they further believe that all doctrines are just metaphors anyway, so why not let the Orthodox have their way?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 09:45:53 AM
I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:47:06 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!

My dear lady, who knows if what you alleged is false or not? 


Of all the people I know, you do.

Ah, flattery.... I am thinking of restoring your bonus this month.   :laugh: :D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:49:04 AM
I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

Sometimes nit-picking is a good thing   :)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

But as you can see, they don't accept the doctrines!  The Melkites deny, for example, the teaching on papal infallibility of your 20th Ecumenical Council.  Regnat chaos!
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:55:15 AM
I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)

There's really nothing wrong with certain Catholics believing that there have only been 7 ecumenical councils, provided they affirm the teachings of all 21 general councils.

Sometimes nit-picking is a good thing   :)

Mea culpa!  I can never keep it straight in my head - how many Ecumenical Councils you have had and how many Catholic Churches.   :laugh:  I know both are around 20.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 10:00:09 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary
I've been trying (computer keeps on freezing) to get on line links to the works you listed in that fruit salad of a post of yours-apples, oranges, and even cumquats-with this assertion.  They show far more unanomity than the Baltimore Catechism, the Dutch Catechism and the CCC.  And they're all catechisms, unlike the Catechisms, systematic dogmatic theologies, popular overviews (for a non-Orthodox audience, btw), meditative commentaries, reformist essays, etc. you posted:i.e. the difference seem to be in genre, not belief.

I've been to 11 of the 15 autocephalous Churches, and an autonomous one (Finland).  It is as Father Ambrose described.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 10:06:31 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 10:09:14 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 10:12:06 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare. 

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!

My dear lady, who knows if what you alleged is false or not?  You made vague accusations which as usual you did not even bother to specify or substantiate (message 214.)

I on the other hand provided substantiation of what I said with my linked reference to the chaotic situation in the Catholic Church where some bishops reject papal infallibility and 15 of the Ecumenical Councils called by the Pope (message 216.)  What a nightmare!!

It would seem that she is following the style of her magisterium, which is ever so vague when it comes to specifying what exactly is infallible, while vaunting this vague infallibility as proof of its superiority.  Never wants to be pinned down by details that can be examined:case in point, even on the three ex cathedra statements they all seem to agree on, I've seen disagreement on what part exactly of them are infallible.  We have similar disagreements on the works of the Ecumenical Councils (e.g. many, like myself take the canons as inspired but not infallible), but the Vatican is the one who faults us for an alleged lack of "specificity."
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 10:13:11 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 10:21:54 AM
It would seem that she is following the style of her magisterium, which is ever so vague when it comes to specifying what exactly is infallible, while vaunting this vague infallibility as proof of its superiority.  

I've seen this sort of statement on this forum before. But it would be interesting to see the magisterial statement/document to which you are referring.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 10:38:23 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.

 ;)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2011, 09:13:16 PM
Forums are for responding to posts. That doesn't make each post 'obsessive.'

Besides, you responded to her after that, didn't you, Isa?  :D
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 12:13:13 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts :P
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 12:17:26 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts :P
So I know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 12:30:39 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts :P
So I know what I'm talking about.
You know how to obsess too. ;)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 29, 2011, 02:23:02 AM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts :P
So I know what I'm talking about.
With 18,000 posts, its more like we know what you are talking about?!?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 29, 2011, 03:32:36 AM

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 09:41:30 AM

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?


Yes. Then there were 8 General Councils between then and Florence, then 4 more since Florence (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II). So 21 total.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 29, 2011, 04:11:48 PM

Not to nit-pick, but I think you meant "14". ("15" implies accepting only 6 ecumenical councils.)


Don't you count Constantinople IV in 869 as your 8th Ecumenical Council?


Yes. Then there were 8 General Councils between then and Florence, then 4 more since Florence (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II). So 21 total.

If I understand the newfangled distinction between Ecumenical Councils and General Councils

1.  Ecumenical Councils:-- 

8 of them.

Convened by the Popes in cities of the area of what is now Turkey

Attended by hundreds of Catholic bishops from the Eastern segment of the Church

Attended by two or three bishops from Italy or Spain.


After the 8th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople IV in 869 there have been no more Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church


2.  General Councils:--

13 of them

All held in Italy (?)

Attended by Italian and French and Spanish Bishops

Considered as Regional Councils of the Church of Rome



Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 08:05:48 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 29, 2011, 08:12:31 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 08:25:53 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 08:27:04 PM
Forgive me for cutting and pasting, but I think a couple things I posted a month ago might be helpful here ...

Can you please tell me why the Orthodox church does not consider the Council of Lyons Ecumenical? Were representatives of the historical Patriachs not present and would that make it not ecumenical? (eg. Egypt, Antioch?)

I think the interesting thing is that the West did not seize on that fact and say, See it was an ecumenical council.

For example, from Session 23 (26 March 1436) of the Council of Florence:

Quote
... firmly believe and hold the catholic faith, according to the tradition of the apostles, of general councils and of other holy fathers, especially of the eight holy universal councils — namely the first at Nicaea, the second at Constantinople, the third which was the first at Ephesus, the fourth at Chalcedon, the fifth and sixth at Constantinople, the seventh at Nicaea and the eighth at Constantinople — as well as of the general councils at the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, Constance and Basel ...

Notice that, out of the general councils, Florence distinguishing only 8 (not counting itself) as having been ecumenical councils.

In the mid-to-late 16th century, certain Catholics (St. Robert Belarmine particularly comes to mind) basically threw out the distinction between the terms "general councils" and "ecumenical councils". Hence, 8 councils (4 at the Lateran, 2 in Lyons, 1 in Constance, and 1 in Vienne) were added en masse to their list of ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 29, 2011, 08:29:05 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.


The 8th Ecumenical Council in 869 was the last Council the Pope convened in (modern) Turkey.

After that he convened only regional General Councils in Italy.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Papist on June 29, 2011, 08:41:01 PM


"tend to assume the Orthodox commitment to the Tradition is ethnic and cultural, a product of their historical development—e.g., in places like Greece as opposed to Germany—not a doctrinal conviction that spans ethnic groups and cultures"? (cf. David Mills)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36642.0.html

The unanimity of Orthodox doctrine is spectacular - from the freezing monasteries of Siberia to the sunbaked churches of the Holy Land and the islands of the Mediterranean.  Ask a Zambian priest a question and he'll give you the same answer as a Japanese priest.  And all this unanimity maintained without any magisterium nor central headquarters and often through long centuries of isolation from one another, before the internet and the jetplane.   It is the Spirit who works this in the holy Church.  Mills' comment could not be further off the mark.

The purity of this unanimity in Orthodoxy is not at all perfect in all of its particulars, from time to time and place to place.

Mary

I don't think you want to push that too far when your Church has bishops denying papal infallibility, denying papal supremacy and denying the authority of the last 15 Ecumenical Councils held by the Pope!!.

For example see message 39
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19903.msg296069.html#msg296069

You are the one with the obsessive need to compare.  

I made a true statement about Orthodoxy.  It is clear in a multitude of ways that you ignore when it is convenient and praise when it seems to suit your purposes.  I mean you personally.

So again the only reason you would rebuke me for saying so is because I am Catholic, not because what I say is false.

Brilliant!!
LOL. You just made 8 false statements and 1 true one ("I mean you personally") by my count.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  What makes you think I think you count... ;D
Your obessive need to respond to my post, demonstrated here.
Says the guy with over 18,000 posts :P
So I know what I'm talking about.
ROFL
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 29, 2011, 09:22:52 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Right.  I believe that in several instances, the Vatican refers to the first 7 as "Ecumenical" and the others as "General." 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 10:16:49 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Do you have a source for this? I've always heard that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils. I didn't know we were allowed to reject the Ecumenical status of any of them.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 11:01:08 PM
Well, there have been 21 General Councils, that much is clear.

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

There's a lot of ignorance about.  Constantinople IV in 869 must be counted as the 8th Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholics.

Interesting that they have not convened an Ecumenical Council since then.

I wouldn't describe that as "interesting" so much as "mistaken".

As to how many of those 21 should be consider Ecumenical Councils, most Catholics take one of two positions: either that all 21 are Ecumenical Councils, or that only the first 7 are.

Do you have a source for this? I've always heard that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils. I didn't know we were allowed to reject the Ecumenical status of any of them.

Well, since we are to firmly believe all the General Councils (see the quote from the Council of Florence) I wouldn't lose too much sleep over which ones are Ecumenical Councils (just as I wouldn't lose too much sleep over whether Unam Sanctum was ex cathedra or not).

But more specifically, the fact is that the Vatican has not issued an official statement on how many of the General Councils are to be considered Ecumenical Councils.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 11:13:11 PM
Just as a point of terminology, to avoid possible confusion, I should mention that some Catholics use the phrase "General Councils" in a slightly different way than I've been using it here. Namely, I've been speaking of "21 General Councils", including the Ecumenical Councils (i.e. an Ecumenical Council is necessarily a General Council, a General Council is not necessarily a Ecumenical Council). But some understand "General Council" to mean not Ecumenical. Hence they would speak of 21 "General Councils and Ecumenical Councils".
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on June 30, 2011, 01:31:03 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2011, 01:42:52 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 03:43:32 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 30, 2011, 04:07:40 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."


According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:
Canon 597
1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 04:44:56 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."


According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:
Canon 597
1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM


So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?


An Eastern Catholic statement:

o.....Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology

o.....The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma [this is a rejection of Canon you quote.]

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml

There are more atrocities on the web page.

It shows that the Canon you quoted means zilch to Eastern Catholics
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 04:55:09 AM
/\   We see why the Vatican never allows the Eastern Catholics to participate in the dialogue with the Orthodox!

Imagine the headlines when the media realises that there are large numbers of Catholic bishops who openly deny the Pope is infallible and pretty much agree with the Orthodox on most issues where the Pope and the Orthodox are at loggerheads!!!

The topic of the thread is "Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?"  Believe me, we need this kind of disunity in essential areas as much as we need a hole in the head.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 09:25:39 AM
So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?

It's not clear to me whether it the teaching itself that they reject, or just misunderstanding/exaggerations of it. Iason wrote a lengthy post about this, so I refer you to it:

Quote from: Iason
Quote from: Nelson Chase
Here are some words to ponder from the Melkite Patriarch that seem to indicate his postion.

Also, on the issue of Infallibily and later councils

According to his Beatitude the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church. They are not set in stone and need to be clarified.

 http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patholyapostles.pdf (http://www.mliles.com/melkite/patholyapostles.pdf) 
I'm glad that you mentioned this document.  I'm not at all inclined to think that it ought to be understood the way that you suggest in your glosses, though (in fact, I think it probably shouldn't be understood that way at all).  I'll say why.

The first quote requires some larger context.  Here it is:

Quote
The ecclesiological dimension has the leading role in the ecumenical movement in the world. But why is the ecumenical movement now in deep crisis, quite in agony? After the meeting in Balamand, the International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches met once in the United States (in Baltimore), without any result, and since then has not met any more.

All these things are urging us to go ahead in our prophetical role, in the line of my predecessors Gregorios II and Maximos IV.

But we must not forget that the official theological position of Rome does not represent the position of all Western Catholics. As it was recently underlined by Archbishop John Raphael Quinn, there are Roman Catholic theologians who do not completely and fully accept the ecclesiology of the First and Second Vatican Councils. This is why our firm decision to achieve our initiative will let us get into the arena of the international ecumenical movement and work.
Now, the train of thought here seems to go like this: The ecumenical movement is in crisis; Catholics and Orthodox have stopped talking.  This urges us to take up the cause in our own prophetical role.  But (notice: the "but" is stating an apparent opposition to the Melkites taking up their proper role) some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and Vatican II.  This is why we can and must get into the ecumenical arena and work.

Now, given the word "but," which appears to make it sound as if the fact that some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II is an opposition to the Melkites playing a role in ecumenism, how are we to understand this?  Well, there are at least two ways in which some Roman Catholics don't fully accept the ecclesiology of Vatican I and II.  Some might deny that the pope is infallible, true.  But why would that be opposed to the Melkites taking up their role in the ecumenical movement?  It doesn't seem that it would.  On the other hand, some Roman Catholics might not fully accept Vatican I and II because they might not be accepting of the not purely monarchical, non-exaggerated, non-ultramontane view of the pope (expressed particularly in Vatican II, but also to some degree in Vatican I) in which other bishops, including Eastern bishops and patriarchs, have true rights and privileges from Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit rather than as mere "delegates" of the pope, and in which the pope's infallibility is presented as a corollary of the Church's infallibility.  In other words, they might have much too strong views about the pope, and much too limited views about the rights and privileges of the bishops (particularly the Eastern bishops), in opposition to what is actually taught at Vatican II in particular.  That would be an obvious obstacle to Melkite involvement in the ecumenical movement between Rome and Orthodoxy.  In fact, this is precisely the misunderstanding of Vatican I that Patriarch Maximos IV warned about at Vatican II:

Quote
The supporters of this extremist opinion [are] aware that Tradition is not on their side . . . With this method [of reasoning] it can also be claimed that ordinary priests obtain their canonical mission from the pope, but indirectly, through the intermediary of their bishops. Following this train of thought, we can ask ourselves what, in the Church, does not issue from the pope! The very excesses of these deductions show that the method is scientifically condemnable and that the deductions are unjustified.

5. The supporters of the opinion that we are opposing have recourse to another deduction. They claim that their opinion is a logical conclusion of the dogma of Roman primacy. Therefore, they say, according to the definition of Vatican Council I, the pope possesses an ordinary, episcopal, and immediate power over the pastors and the faithful, and the bishops obtain their power over their respective dioceses only through the pope's mandate. To this we reply: the definition of Vatican Council I does not in any way include a statement that the pope is the ultimate and sole source of all power in the Church. Someone can have authority over another without being the source of all authority for this other person. The two things are distinct. To pass from one to the other is to surreptitiously desire the Church to accept a new dogma that Vatican Council I in no way defined, even though it could have done so.
So, to put the point shortly, your first quote appears to be best understood as saying that some people don't fully accept Vatican II and the proper understanding of Vatican I according to which the bishops, including the Eastern Catholic bishops, have full rights and privileges by virtue of their office and are not as mere delegates of the ultramontane pope.  That could prevent Melkites from taking up their prophetical role in the ecumenical movement.  But it is also precisely why Melkites must take initiative and work to play a real, assertive role.  On this understanding, there is no (even implicit) denial of the dogma of Vatican I or Vatican II to be found in this quote at all.

The second quote you cite says only that we must "explain and clarify" topics that are obstacles to full communion with the Orthodox.  Yes, these include the primacy of the pope, Western councils, and other theological dogmas (note: the quote says that they are theological dogmas).  Nothing said in this quote says what you assert, namely that, "the teachings of these councils are not binding on Eastern Catholics as they are only Local Councils of the Western Church."  It only says that those councils were not all ecumenical, which is obviously true, and that the topics must be explained and clarified (not denied, as in the first post that started this thread).  It is still possible for non-ecumenical, local councils to produce infallible declarations of dogma, insofar as they may include infallible declarations of the pope.  This seems to be the case with Trent, for example, about which Patriarch Maximos IV said (I quote again):

Quote
The indissolubility of marriage has been solemnly defined by the Council of Trent. It is an object of faith for every Catholic and closes the door to all discussion. Period.
That contradicts your way of glossing the quote.  Again, then, given the total evidence (including also previous quotes I've provided from Melkite hierarchs about the infallibility of the pope and the authority of Vatican I), the best way to understand what you've quoted seems to be to understand it as saying that there are post-schism dogmas that we must accept, but that must be explained and clarified to our Orthodox brethren and said not to be the result of truly ecumenical councils.  They can still be binding, even so.

In summary, these appear to be two not-entirely-clear quotations that do not really challenge the position I've been speaking on behalf of here, and in fact seem best explained by that position.  The overall evidence still seems to suggest to me that Melkites are to accept post-schism "Latin" dogma as authoritative, though it is permissible to give them a more Eastern interpretation.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 09:27:54 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 09:35:50 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Now Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5. 

Whether one posits infallibility in Ecumenical Councils or Popes or both, this document is ungainsayable on all counts, and the Pope was most certainly exercising his magisterial authority.  In other words, Catholics must give assent of mind and will to all papal teachings.
 
While this may be acceptable to Roman Catholics, it is highly unlikely that Melkite Catholics and the other 21 Catholic Churches accept it.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 09:43:20 AM
So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?

It's not clear to me whether it the teaching itself that they reject, or just misunderstanding/exaggerations of it.


EWTN speaks of the rejection of various omportant Roman Catholic teachings by the autonomous Catholic Churches..   Mildy expressed as you would expect and really not at all indicative of the massive dissent simmering in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

"Disputes among the indigenous
clergy and the immigrant Byzantine clergy have often resulted in whole
parishes leaving the Catholic communion to be received back into Orthodox
folds.  (See the COMMENTS for the Carpatho-Ruthenians below.)  Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 09:50:27 AM
There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 

My response to you is pretty much the same as my response to isamisry: it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only require assent to the teachings of the Pope in cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 09:52:44 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?

Personally, I take the view that, for the time being, Catholics shouldn't worry too much about which ones are "General Councils" and which ones are "Ecumenical Councils".

Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite. Why? Because the EOs insist that there have been 7 "Ecumenical Councils" but the OOs insist that there have been only 3.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 09:57:31 AM
There is a requirement to give assent to the teachings of the Pope, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  I find that quite interesting. 
 

My response to you is pretty much the same as my response to isamisry: it wouldn't make a lot of sense to only require assent to the teachings of the Pope in cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.


The problem is that the one man in the world who claims to be able to speak ex cathedra himself does not know how many ex cathedra statement he and his previous petrine incarnations have issued.

That doesn't inspire confidence, does it? 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 10:06:43 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 10:33:26 AM
Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?

Welcome to St. Scaredycat's

"You're new in the suburbs, and it's Sunday morning, so you drive over to the nearest Catholic Church -- uh, make that community. You walk into the modern cement structure and are accosted by a GREETER, who welcomes you with a moist handshake... "

This was placed in the New Oxford Review years ago by Catholics who were waging war on liturgical abuse.

I won't put the whole article here since, although it can give you a laugh, it can also be offensive/saddening to sincere Catholics who care about good reverent liturgy.

So for the whole article please go here and it is the second one from the bottom of the page.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/adgallery3.jsp
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2011, 10:50:14 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.
Quote
"The term "Monophysites" used for the believers in the One Nature has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted throughout certain periods of history. Consequently, the Coptic and the Syrian Churches in particular were cruelly persecuted because of their belief, especially during the period which started from the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A,D. and continued to the conquest of the Arabs in Egypt and
Syria (about 641 A.D.).

"This misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature of Christ and denied the other nature. We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies?"
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 10:59:48 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.



Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

Also this, from a site of the Russian Church Abroad
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 11:47:44 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067

The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

No, I wasn't jesting, but perhaps I was being a bit over-optimistic about Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2011, 01:56:49 PM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067


The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.



Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx[/quote]
Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.

Also this, from a site of the Russian Church Abroad
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm

Quote
He even chose the timing of the visit to coincide with the Monophysite feast of Theophany so that he could celebrate the feast with them for a second time.
It's the Orthodox feast of Theophany, moreover the Ethiopians celebrate it on the Old Calendar.

Quote
The real meaning of this visit is the expression of remorse and repentance. This official visit carries the message.. "You Monophysites assumed certain extreme positions in the past. But the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, Sixth, and the Seventh that came thereafter likewise deviated. Times have changed and a new age has dawned on Orthodoxy, and the correction of the Ecumenical Councils and the new interpretation of the Bible has begun"! Church receptions, common prayers, and doxologies took place. In short, a complete recognition of the heresy of monophysitism.
Since the Ethiopians, like the rest of the OO, anathematize Eutychus, what recognition is going on here?  Who are they quoting?
Quote
"You are truly blessed. While the Old Israel laments destruction [of the Temple of Solomon], you rejoice in the divine services and the glorification of the Lord in this holy temple."! But, Bartholomew, the Lord does not dwell in man-made temples, neither does He rest in the "services" of the misbelieving heretics. God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Lord said to the Samaritan Woman.
The temples of Mt. Athos are man-made, but I doubt anyone would criticize comparisons of it to Mt. Zion, as none did when Justinian compared Hagia Sophia to Solomon's Temple.

Quote
Monophysites are not "brothers in Christ." Heretical Monophysites are not one family [a new ecumenical term] with the Orthodox. The reasons for their condemnation by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils have never been annulled, nor have they repented in order to become members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That trip's aim was a traitorous and strong-armed unification. Patriarch Bartholomew, following the example of the Patriarch of Antioch, came for ecclesiastical communion and common prayer with the heretical Monophysites. Communions such as this are no longer criticized, but they are passed in silence and downgraded to a mere formality. Bartholomew, pointing out the "mistakes" by the Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said, "The large Christian family gathers again, and the Church has come out of her isolation that past mistakes and painful historical circumstances had imposed on her. As evidence we point to the current successful conclusion of the dialogue with the Ethiopian Church." (Nea, January ~, 1995)
The Councils mentioned do not condemn what the OO believe except for the Sixth:the Fourth deposed Pope Dioscoros (while restoring those he deposed, Theodoret and Ibas, whom the Fifth Council anathematized, at least some of their alleged writings), but didn't mention him at all in its definition, the Sixth makes a passing reference to Pope Dioscoros as "hated of God," something the Fathers of Chalcedon did not say of him.

Though this is a ROCOR site, the statement doesn't seem to be ROCOR's (though that doesn't mean they wouldn't agree with it).

from the same website:
Quote
Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.

There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/longhair.htm
(http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/philolog/Justinian.jpg)
any married man, btw, can tell how "absurd" "My wife will not allow it!" is.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: stanley123 on June 30, 2011, 03:07:33 PM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Melkite Catholics, and probably other Eastern Catholics, reject papal infalliblity.  They point out that Vatican I is a (regional) General Council of the Church of Rome, it is not Ecumenical and it is not binding on the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches.

Oddly enough, the Vatican does nothing to prohibit this.  And yet the Eastern Catholics incur an Anathema by denying the Pope's infallibility!!

"Si quis autem huic Nostrae definitioni contradicere, quod Deus avertat, praesumpserit; anathema sit."


According to Canon 597 of the Code of canons of Oriental Churches:
Canon 597
1. The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office, possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of
all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers
in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine
of faith or morals is to be held.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM


So what do you do with Eastern Catholics who openly reject papal infallibility?


An Eastern Catholic statement:

o.....Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology

o.....The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma [this is a rejection of Canon you quote.]

http://www.mliles.com/melkite/theotokosminorconception.shtml

There are more atrocities on the web page.

It shows that the Canon you quoted means zilch to Eastern Catholics

Some Eastern Catholics have their own interpretation of this, but I don't see how they get around the canon of the Church. Obviously, many people believe that there needs to be further study on this point not only as it applies to Eastern Catholics, but how it would be interpreted in a unified Church, East and West. There has been talk by some theologians of  the RCC of going back to the time before 1054 and appplying the teaching on primacy that was in effect at that time, but that is only a study at this time. 
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 09:15:14 PM
Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.

Also this, from a site of the Russian Church Abroad
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm

Both these links click through  for me without any problem
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 09:23:48 PM
Both these links click through  for me without any problem

Me too.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 10:10:03 PM
Though this is a ROCOR site, the statement doesn't seem to be ROCOR's (though that doesn't mean they wouldn't agree with it).

At the very top of the webpage:

"Reprinted from Orthodox Life Vol. 45, No. 3 May - June 1995"

http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm

"Orthodox Life" is the English language periodical from the monastery of Jordanville.  Published with the Blessing of the First Hierarch. In 1995 that was Metropolitam Vitaly (Ustinov.)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on June 30, 2011, 10:38:10 PM
Though this is a ROCOR site, the statement doesn't seem to be ROCOR's (though that doesn't mean they wouldn't agree with it).

At the very top of the webpage:

"Reprinted from Orthodox Life Vol. 45, No. 3 May - June 1995"

http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm

"Orthodox Life" is the English language periodical from the monastery of Jordanville.  Published with the Blessing of the First Hierarch. In 1995 that was Metropolitam Vitaly (Ustinov.)

It is translated from Greek (judging from what it says in the statement and after it). Does ROCOR issue statements in Greek?  I took it as from the period of rapproachment between ROCOR and the "Greek Holy Synod in Resistance," being reprinted by ROCOR.  I take as ROCOR's statements those of its Holy Synod, its First Hiearchs or their representatives, and though there was agreement, I do not think/know that GHSiR was ever authorized to speak for ROCOR.  Hence my question.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 10:43:43 PM
Though this is a ROCOR site, the statement doesn't seem to be ROCOR's (though that doesn't mean they wouldn't agree with it).

At the very top of the webpage:

"Reprinted from Orthodox Life Vol. 45, No. 3 May - June 1995"

http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/strongarm.htm

"Orthodox Life" is the English language periodical from the monastery of Jordanville.  Published with the Blessing of the First Hierarch. In 1995 that was Metropolitam Vitaly (Ustinov.)

It is translated from Greek (judging from what it says in the statement and after it). Does ROCOR issue statements in Greek?  I took it as from the period of rapproachment between ROCOR and the "Greek Holy Synod in Resistance," being reprinted by ROCOR.  I take as ROCOR's statements those of its Holy Synod, its First Hiearchs or their representatives, and though there was agreement, I do not think/know that GHSiR was ever authorized to speak for ROCOR.  Hence my question.

What appears in "Orthodox Life" is presumed by readers to have approval of the First Hierarch since the periodical is published with his blessing.  This type of Statement would certainly fall within the parameters of Metropolitan Vitaly's views on ecumenism.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Father H on June 30, 2011, 10:49:22 PM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up.   Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding.    The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc.   Sounds like a win-win all the way around  ::)
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 10:58:59 PM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up.   Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding.    The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc.   Sounds like a win-win all the way around  ::)

I quite agree. To me, the idea that Catholics can ignore whatever isn't ex cathedra is just plain silly.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Wyatt on July 01, 2011, 12:04:38 AM
So why make a distinction between "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" if both are binding?
LOL. Why the demand of the submission of the will and assent of faith to your supreme pontiff when he is not speaking ex cathedra?

Well obviously it wouldn't make much sense to restrict "submission of the will and assent of faith to [our] supreme pontiff" to cases when he is speaking ex cathedra, since Catholics are free to disagree about how many ex cathedra statements there have been.

A politician from Portland must have made these rules up.   Let's just make it so that citizens are free to disagree how many laws issued by the legislature are actually binding.    The thief will claim that the laws against theft are not, while the illegal gambling establishments will simply say that they freely disagree that the laws against them are binding, etc.   Sounds like a win-win all the way around  ::)

I quite agree. To me, the idea that Catholics can ignore whatever isn't ex cathedra is just plain silly.
I wonder what the point is, then, of drawing a distinction between regular statements and ex cathedra statements if we are bound to everything?
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on July 01, 2011, 12:26:31 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067


The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.
I got a copy of the page.  I've seen it before, so I had an idea of its problems, but couldn't remember in detail.

Btw, since this Chalcedonian Orthodox doesn't have conniptions with Pope Shenoudah (nor, AFAIK, does Pope Theodore), but does have problems with the theologies presented at orthodoxinfo on this, I don't take this as EO/OO private fora material (though of course, the mods can move it if they find differently).

Quote
Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1 Although many persons, at least in the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, were received into the Church as schismatics.].
Not quite.

The Fathers at Chalcedon did condemn Monophysticism that Eutyches preached.  The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites never embraced that.

Then there is that little lump swept under the rug-the Henotikon, by which the EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus and (I presume) Georgia were in communion with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in 482.  It didn't repudiate Chalcedon-which was passed over in silence-but it did explicitely specify the Twelve Chapters of Pope St. Cyril against Nestorius as dogma.  Rome, with whom Orthodoxinfo usually (and rightly) has problems, alone refused, and anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Old Rome sent to New Rome the "Formula of Hormisdas," its terms for reunion:
Quote
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.
The Fathers of Chalcedon did NOT link Eutyches to Pope Dioscoros, nor did they anathematize Pope Dioscoros.  They did depose Pope Dioscoros for ignoring the Council's summons, but they also restored Theodoret and Ibas, whom Pope Dioscoros had deposed for heresy.  The Fathers of the Fifth Council rectified that error, while Pope Vigilius resisted, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council followed Pope Hormisdas here in misrepresenting the actions of the Fathers at Chalcedon (whose acts survive). If one misconstrues the actions of the Council as the Church's statement on Pope Dioscoros and his "Monophysism," as Pope Hormisdas does here, then we must, as Pope Vigilius did, contradict the Fathers of Constantinople II, and exonerate the Nestorian writings of Theodoret and the Letter attributed to Ibas, which the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't deal with, as the Non-Chalcedonians complained.
Quote
This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.
http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/formula-of-hormisdas/
Pope Hormisdas demanded of the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople sign it, and every bishop who was to be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, to seperate the "Monophysites" (by then Eutyches was long dead and anathamatized by the Miaphysites OO Non-Chalcedonians, and so there were no "monophysites") from the Orthodox as Orthodoxinfo advocates here.  That wasn't what happened:
On another forum  :police: ::) :police: there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas."  Mardukm, of course, is busy there.   I thought we might get to the truth here.

The thread there was started on this:
http://energeticprocession.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

where he makes the interesting observation:
Quote
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:
The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”


Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.
So the Pope of Rome demanded, and got, the subscription from the bishops who represented the East at Constantinople IV (869), which deposed the Pillar of Orthodoxy, EP Photios the Great.  But the Fathers of the PanOrthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879) exonerated EP St. Photios the Great, and voided all the actions of Constantinonple IV (869), including the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas.  Orthodoxinfo is free to overstep the bounds the Fathers set up and subscribe to the Formula of Hormisdas, but I'll join the actions of the Metropolitan of Thessalonika Dorotheos.

Throughout the pages, Orthodoxinfo takes as a given the Formula of Hormisdas Eutyches=Dioscoros=Monophysite=OO, such that it doesn't seem to think it has to explain what its complaint is.  Since the OO followed Dioscoros in anathamatizing Eutyches long ago, and never subscribed to Eutyches' Monophysism that the Fathers condemned at Chalcedon.  Orthodoxinfo seems to recongize that problem, but tries to explain it away:
Quote
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.
The Copts rejected the errors of Eutyches' Monophysite heresy at the latest in 475, led by Pope Timothy II and Patriarch Peter of Antioch, whom the Henotikon restored, and 600-700 bishops at Ephesus, which the Formula of Hormisdas condemned along with their followers, the Non-Chalcedonian OO.  that was the time for their reunion with Orthodoxy, and New Rome issued the Henotikon and Old Rome the Formula of Hormisdas.  If we stand on the opposite side of the Henotikon and the Formula of Hormisdas, that doesn't leave much distance from the OO. And if the Copts "have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy" then there is a problem, as they can demonstrate a continuity to what they have been teaching for 1600 years, as we can demonstrate continuity over the same time within Chalcedonianism, whereas our fellow Chalcednians (to get back to the OP) who produced the Formula of Hormisdas cannot.  How do the OO still resemble the Orthodox?

Hence the problem in the next paragraph:
Quote
Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al.
The OO decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Eutyches, and the persistent invincible ignorance of that fact is the loose thread that unravels the rest, helped by trying to skip over the Henotikon, which did not "require of them....to accept the Fourth...Oecumenical Synod."
Quote
When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.
Indeed!  The Henotikon was issued within the decade that the 6-702 bishops, condemned by the Formula of Hormisdas, solemly in council anathamatized Eutyches.
Quote
A Note to Coptic Christians: I fairly regularly receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.

To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite.
He can, of course, post anything he wants on his website.  But the truth would be nice.  He can call the Copts monophysites, equating that with the heresy of Eutyches, but repeating mantras is not an Orthodox practice, and beyond repitition of "Eutyches=Miaphysism," he is wanting in any argument in support thereof, but what he is doing is adding his signature to the Formula of Hormisdas.

Quote
This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken,
The Fathers at Chalcedon misjudged Theodoret and Ibas, and Pope Dioscoros judged rightly.  Did the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council-does that make them "ecumenists"?-wrongly led us to believe that the former's anti-Cyrillian writings and the letter attributed to the latter was heresy?

Quote
Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.
Oddly, he doesn't list the Formula of Hormisdas.






Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Peter J on July 01, 2011, 08:17:57 AM
Consider, if you will, our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox friends. They don't have a problem with one another's teachings, and yet they still can't unite.
 

You are jesting?

Read message 45 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13683.msg191067.html#msg191067


The Christology of Pope Shenouda of the Copts causes conniptions with the Chalcedonian Orthodox.

Reading a few articles here will dispel the idea that there are no problems between our theologies
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
Father, this seems to have been pulled: I keep on getting a blank page, even with the way back machine.
I got a copy of the page.  I've seen it before, so I had an idea of its problems, but couldn't remember in detail.

Btw, since this Chalcedonian Orthodox doesn't have conniptions with Pope Shenoudah (nor, AFAIK, does Pope Theodore), but does have problems with the theologies presented at orthodoxinfo on this, I don't take this as EO/OO private fora material (though of course, the mods can move it if they find differently).

Quote
Monophysites, or Non-Chalcedonians—Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites—have, since the conclusion of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, been viewed by the Orthodox Church as heretical groups [1 Although many persons, at least in the aftermath of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, were received into the Church as schismatics.].
Not quite.

The Fathers at Chalcedon did condemn Monophysticism that Eutyches preached.  The Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssians), and Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites never embraced that.

Then there is that little lump swept under the rug-the Henotikon, by which the EO Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus and (I presume) Georgia were in communion with the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in 482.  It didn't repudiate Chalcedon-which was passed over in silence-but it did explicitely specify the Twelve Chapters of Pope St. Cyril against Nestorius as dogma.  Rome, with whom Orthodoxinfo usually (and rightly) has problems, alone refused, and anathematized the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Old Rome sent to New Rome the "Formula of Hormisdas," its terms for reunion:
Quote
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse.
The Fathers of Chalcedon did NOT link Eutyches to Pope Dioscoros, nor did they anathematize Pope Dioscoros.  They did depose Pope Dioscoros for ignoring the Council's summons, but they also restored Theodoret and Ibas, whom Pope Dioscoros had deposed for heresy.  The Fathers of the Fifth Council rectified that error, while Pope Vigilius resisted, but the Fathers of the Sixth Council followed Pope Hormisdas here in misrepresenting the actions of the Fathers at Chalcedon (whose acts survive). If one misconstrues the actions of the Council as the Church's statement on Pope Dioscoros and his "Monophysism," as Pope Hormisdas does here, then we must, as Pope Vigilius did, contradict the Fathers of Constantinople II, and exonerate the Nestorian writings of Theodoret and the Letter attributed to Ibas, which the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't deal with, as the Non-Chalcedonians complained.
Quote
This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus [”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter [”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.
http://becominghinged.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/formula-of-hormisdas/
Pope Hormisdas demanded of the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople sign it, and every bishop who was to be in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, to seperate the "Monophysites" (by then Eutyches was long dead and anathamatized by the Miaphysites OO Non-Chalcedonians, and so there were no "monophysites") from the Orthodox as Orthodoxinfo advocates here.  That wasn't what happened:
On another forum  :police: ::) :police: there is a thread on the OP here, on the "Eastern Catholicism Forum":Eastern Catholic opinion wanted on Formula of Hormisdas."  Mardukm, of course, is busy there.   I thought we might get to the truth here.

The thread there was started on this:
http://energeticprocession.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/

where he makes the interesting observation:
Quote
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.

As I've posted, Patriarch John wrote an introduction:
The patriarch of Constantinople, John II of Cappadocia (518-20), signed only after affixing his own preamble to the text: “Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee: for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see.”


Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, tore the Formula of Hormisdas in two in front of the people. He was brought to Constantinople for trial, exiled to Heraclea while his case was being considered, but then restored to his see in Thessalonica without ever signing the Formula. The emperor Justin wrote to Hormisdas that many found it difficult to sign the libellus: they “esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people.” In reply, Pope Hormisdas urged the emperor to use force to compel them to sign.

According to Denny’s Papalism (referenced in Moss’s The Old Catholic Movement) the other patriarchates of the East refused to sign this statement, and were reconciled through a different agreement. Patriarch John was succeeded by Epiphanius in 520. Patriarch Epiphanius (520-35) wrote to the pope to explain that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed.” Pope Hormisdas wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and gave him authority to act on his behalf in the East. In this letter, Hormisdas made restoration of communion dependent on agreeing to a declaration of faith that left unmentioned the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/chron6.htm

The Vatican's present the Ecumenical Council (869:Only promoted as such when the Vatican, embroiled in its own investiture contraversy dug up an anti-Photian treatise (the fragmentary record of the 869 Council only survives in this) and its canons. This was post 1054) required the members to sign on to the Formula of Hormisdas, which is odd as the apologists of the Vatican claim it showed papal supremacy in the sixth century. The 869 was dealing with the fact that as many bishops as the emperor couldn't strong arm (Pope Hormisdas told him to use force), refused to sign, included bishops under Rome.
So the Pope of Rome demanded, and got, the subscription from the bishops who represented the East at Constantinople IV (869), which deposed the Pillar of Orthodoxy, EP Photios the Great.  But the Fathers of the PanOrthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879) exonerated EP St. Photios the Great, and voided all the actions of Constantinonple IV (869), including the subscription to the Formula of Hormisdas.  Orthodoxinfo is free to overstep the bounds the Fathers set up and subscribe to the Formula of Hormisdas, but I'll join the actions of the Metropolitan of Thessalonika Dorotheos.

Throughout the pages, Orthodoxinfo takes as a given the Formula of Hormisdas Eutyches=Dioscoros=Monophysite=OO, such that it doesn't seem to think it has to explain what its complaint is.  Since the OO followed Dioscoros in anathamatizing Eutyches long ago, and never subscribed to Eutyches' Monophysism that the Fathers condemned at Chalcedon.  Orthodoxinfo seems to recongize that problem, but tries to explain it away:
Quote
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.
The Copts rejected the errors of Eutyches' Monophysite heresy at the latest in 475, led by Pope Timothy II and Patriarch Peter of Antioch, whom the Henotikon restored, and 600-700 bishops at Ephesus, which the Formula of Hormisdas condemned along with their followers, the Non-Chalcedonian OO.  that was the time for their reunion with Orthodoxy, and New Rome issued the Henotikon and Old Rome the Formula of Hormisdas.  If we stand on the opposite side of the Henotikon and the Formula of Hormisdas, that doesn't leave much distance from the OO. And if the Copts "have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy" then there is a problem, as they can demonstrate a continuity to what they have been teaching for 1600 years, as we can demonstrate continuity over the same time within Chalcedonianism, whereas our fellow Chalcednians (to get back to the OP) who produced the Formula of Hormisdas cannot.  How do the OO still resemble the Orthodox?

Hence the problem in the next paragraph:
Quote
Despite all the "scholarly discussion" trying to show that we are in fact "of the same Faith and Family as the Monophysites," the fact remains that these groups have not unreservedly accepted the Fourth through Seventh Oecumenical Synods (something which was required of them by the Orthodox participants in all prior reunion attempts throughout church history), nor have they decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Dioscoros, Severos, Eutyches, et. al.
The OO decisively and conclusively renounced the teachings of Eutyches, and the persistent invincible ignorance of that fact is the loose thread that unravels the rest, helped by trying to skip over the Henotikon, which did not "require of them....to accept the Fourth...Oecumenical Synod."
Quote
When those events occur (at the very least), union is imminent.
Indeed!  The Henotikon was issued within the decade that the 6-702 bishops, condemned by the Formula of Hormisdas, solemly in council anathamatized Eutyches.
Quote
A Note to Coptic Christians: I fairly regularly receive emails expressing your frustation with being labeled as monophysite on this Web site. You are especially troubled by the article listed below entitled "Copts and Orthodoxy". You claim that you are "miaphysite", not monophysite. Your Christology is therefore supposedly Orthodox even though you do not accept the formulation agreed upon at the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). In other words, "it is supposedly evident that nothing separates us in Faith, that the differences hitherto observed are due to a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theological terminology, which the special theological experts now understand better than the holy Fathers, and that the original separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church was due not to theological but to political reasons." [2] Thus you frequently demand that I remove these claims from my site.

To this I can only respond that, from the traditional perspective of the Orthodox Church, you are monophysite.
He can, of course, post anything he wants on his website.  But the truth would be nice.  He can call the Copts monophysites, equating that with the heresy of Eutyches, but repeating mantras is not an Orthodox practice, and beyond repitition of "Eutyches=Miaphysism," he is wanting in any argument in support thereof, but what he is doing is adding his signature to the Formula of Hormisdas.

Quote
This is how the Orthodox Church has always viewed the Coptic Church. In other words, to us your "miaphysitism" is essentially "monophysitism". Moreover, you have been wrongly led to believe—whether by your own teachers or by Orthodox ecumenists [3]—that the Orthodox Church has been mistaken,
The Fathers at Chalcedon misjudged Theodoret and Ibas, and Pope Dioscoros judged rightly.  Did the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council-does that make them "ecumenists"?-wrongly led us to believe that the former's anti-Cyrillian writings and the letter attributed to the latter was heresy?

Quote
Some Orthodox clergy and teachers will agree with you, but I am persuaded by the Saints and teachers whose writings are listed below. I believe they represent the true teaching of the Orthodox Church. Thus, it would seem we are at an impasse regarding your request.
Oddly, he doesn't list the Formula of Hormisdas.

Good post. Long, but good.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 01, 2011, 08:39:21 AM
Excellent post, in fact.
Well done, Isa.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 01, 2011, 08:49:00 AM
Excellent post, in fact.
Well done, Isa.

Any confirmation from the episcopal level or the synodal level would be welcome.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 01, 2011, 09:47:31 AM
Excellent post, in fact.
Well done, Isa.

Any confirmation from the episcopal level or the synodal level would be welcome.

Agreed, but I wouldn't bet on any forthcoming.
Title: Re: Why do the Orthodox need Catholics?
Post by: ialmisry on July 01, 2011, 12:06:28 PM
Excellent post, in fact.
Well done, Isa.

Any confirmation from the episcopal level or the synodal level would be welcome.

Agreed, but I wouldn't bet on any forthcoming.
There is a rough divison between Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. on the one hand, and Jerusalem (which barely recognizes its Arab flock), Russia, Church of Greece, etc. on the other.  The former lives with OO, the latter for the most part see the OO as an academic exercise.  The former have already concluded agreements recognizing the Holy Mysteries of the OO, the latter question that.  There is an interesting claim I've seen:
Quote
Gukas Shirvanyan (Luka Shirvanov), the first head of the local Armenian community, requested Empress Anna Ioannovna to allow a construction of a church in the courtyard of this house in the Third Line of the Vasilievsky Island. On 18 January 1740, a permission was given ("This request is granted" was an official resolution); however, the church has never been completed...On 2 May 1770, granting a request made by Ivan Lazarev (1735–1801), the head of the Armenian community and an important statesman and enlightener, Catherine the Great allocated a lot for a construction of an Armenian church, on the north side of Nevsky Avenue. The community immediately started fund raising. The construction of the church and the adjacent parochial buildings was supervised by the author of the design, Saint Petersburg's major architect Georg Friedrich Veldten (1735–1801). After 8 years, in 1779, opposite the then not yet completed Gostiny Dvor, a slender and smart church emerged; later, an ensemble of the Armenian community's buildings formed around it.

The gracious Church of St. Catherine in Nevsky Avenue was constructed to fit the capital's state splendour and in accordance with the traditions of the Early Russian Classicism, becoming one of the marvellous examples of this architectural style....On 18 February 1780, Archbishop Ovsep Argutyants (Iosif Argutinsky), the spiritual leader of Russia's Armenians, consecrated the Church, giving it the name of St. Catherine. The ceremony was attended by Duke Grigory Potemkin. The people present were handed the text of the sermon entitled "The Speech for Consecrating the Armenian Church in Saint Petersburg, Delivered by Archbishop Iosif." The text contained gratitude towards "the glorious Russian country, where our people dwell", towards Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, saying that the latter had "opened the gates of deliverance into Russia" and that "this church is named in her honour". The empress did not attend the consecration, but in the following years visited the Church many times and commissioned prayers....In the late 1920s, the Church was shut down, and it then hosted warehouses, offices and workshops, which resulted in desolation and significant destruction. In August 1992, the Church was handed over back to the Armenian community....On 12 July 2000, the restored Church was consecrated jointly by the heads of the two related and allied churches (Alexius II, the patriarch of Russia, and Garegin II, the supreme patriarch-catholicos of Armenia).
http://www.worldwalk.info/en/catalog/261/

The real question is something official and across all the local Churches coming out.  One EO Metropolitan told me personally that the problem is that "no one wants to die," the EO in Egypt fearing being swallowed up by the Copts, and the Syriac OO fearing being overwhelmed by the Antiochian EO.  But that's a private statement, what Orthodoxinfo could characterize "personal, according to the theological preferences and proclivities of each member, based primarily on the contemporary bibliography" and would "accuse that has been adulterated by the ecumenist spirit."  As for a "corporate and systematic" offiical confirmation "based on the sources of the Orthodox Faith, the texts of the Synods and Fathers" signed on by all the Orthodox Churches, that hasn't arrived yet.

It was recorded officially that "When this [the Henotikon] had been read, all the Alexandrians united themselves to the holy catholic and apostolic church."
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/evagrius_3_book3.htm
But officially Rome, in which we EO were/are in communion with, stuck to the Formula of Hormisdas, which the Fathers voided at Constantinople IV (879). It is as one hierarch told me, seems to be a case where resolution is going to have to come from the bottom up, and agreements enforced from the top haven't worked.