OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: BayStater123 on September 27, 2012, 11:43:25 PM

Title: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: BayStater123 on September 27, 2012, 11:43:25 PM
Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 27, 2012, 11:49:34 PM
The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on September 28, 2012, 01:55:08 AM
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 28, 2012, 02:38:27 AM
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: celticfan1888 on September 28, 2012, 02:38:51 AM
Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?

Oriental, certainly.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cognomen on September 28, 2012, 02:41:59 AM

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

 ??? The RCC lumps the ECs with the RCs.


Oriental, certainly.

Agreed. Very little question for me.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: mike on September 28, 2012, 05:41:56 AM
I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Azul on September 28, 2012, 06:29:52 AM
The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 28, 2012, 07:30:33 AM
The OP is the only one who took option 1?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: sheenj on September 28, 2012, 08:12:28 AM
The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?
Difference between EO and OO councils: 4
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Iconodule on September 28, 2012, 08:16:25 AM
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Stop lumping yourself with them.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 28, 2012, 08:20:16 AM
I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: sheenj on September 28, 2012, 08:22:01 AM
I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
Huh, for some reason I was thinking 27.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 28, 2012, 08:32:32 AM
I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
Huh, for some reason I was thinking 27.

Good thing they aren't really ecumenical. Can you imagine how long it would take to read all those acts and definitions?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 28, 2012, 08:46:45 AM
RC for sure.

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 28, 2012, 08:50:56 AM

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

How do the OO reject Orthodox ecclesiology? At least they haven't set up for themselves an "infallible" pontiff.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: sheenj on September 28, 2012, 08:52:58 AM

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

As they say in /b: 7/10.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Dominika on September 28, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
Oriental Orthodoxy - the same spirituality (feasts and fasts, some prayers and hymnography the same, similarities in the celebration and perceiving of the Divine Liturgy) and (maybe for some controversial) the faith.

As for me the, difference is based only in the history: Ecumenical Councils and saints.
EO and OO for me are just two branches of the same Christian faith - Orthodoxy.


Roman Catholicism has changed the faith and the meaning and importance of the feasts a lot, forgotten about fasting, laxed fasting and prayer rules, shorten services. RC spirituality is very based on some strange revelations and one man - Roman pope. It also tries to perceive and describe Divine things in human way (I mean law, they try to call all things). All this stuff is strange for EO as OO.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on September 28, 2012, 02:13:48 PM
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?

Yes, we are--hence the "lumping".  Not sure why choy would be surprised about this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 28, 2012, 02:18:31 PM
If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 03:02:05 PM
I voted for option two.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on September 28, 2012, 03:02:13 PM
If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.

The poll is missing the option I would pick, i.e. "Yes".  So, I'm not voting.  ;).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 28, 2012, 03:04:18 PM
If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.

The poll is missing the option I would pick, i.e. "Yes".  So, I'm not voting.  ;).

Exactly!
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 28, 2012, 04:18:33 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us :)

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 04:33:27 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us :)

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   :D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 28, 2012, 04:39:06 PM
The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 04:43:56 PM
The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO.  . . .
Yes, even Grillmeier in his magnum opus "Christ in Christian Tradition" raises questions about how shared the shared Christological vision is between the Greek East and the Latin West.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 28, 2012, 04:51:41 PM
As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 04:57:33 PM
As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.
Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 28, 2012, 05:05:45 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today :)


Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 28, 2012, 05:10:18 PM
Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion?  ;D But I digress...

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 05:11:42 PM
Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today :)
As an Eastern Catholic I do not think I agree.  I would say that the newer Roman liturgy (when it is celebrated well - i.e., without clowns and other bizarre things) has more in common with the Byzantine liturgy.  It does lack solemnity in most cases, but it is still closer to the Byzantine liturgy than the Tridentine (codification) of the Roman Mass.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Fabio Leite on September 28, 2012, 05:13:31 PM
From another perspective,

Of all the councils we officially and consensually consider ecumenical, RCs agree with 100% of them;

Non-Chalcedonians agree with just 43%.


Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us :)

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   :D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 05:17:44 PM
Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion?  ;D But I digress...
In my opinion Constantinople II (AD 553) was convened for two reasons in particular:  (1) to try and heal the rupture between the Miaphysites and the Chalcedonians by assuring the Miaphysites of the Cyrillian nature of Chalcedon, and (2) because the West often tended to make the two natures of Christ subjects of predication and that ultimately ends in a Nestorian Christology, and that is why the Council issued the anathemas against the "Three Chapters."

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Apotheoun on September 28, 2012, 05:20:43 PM
From another perspective,

Of all the councils we officially and consensually consider ecumenical, RCs agree with 100% of them;

Non-Chalcedonians agree with just 43%.
Good point, but the number of rejected councils between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics is 350% larger than the number of rejected councils between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. 

 :D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 28, 2012, 05:22:14 PM
Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today :)

That is irrelevant, as Vatican II was not even close to the start of the division that eventually solidified (for convenience's sake) in 1054. The Vatican was wrong in 1364 just as it was wrong in 1964, and is wrong in 2012. The fact that it seems to be drifting even further away is problematic, but to hear self-proclaimed Latin "Traditionalists" tell it, getting rid of VII would heal the world and realign the planets, and we would enter into a new Edenic age, and the whole bit. That is silly. VII is not the problem, in itself. It is a symptom of a much, much deeper sickness, and laying too much of the responsibility for division at its feet would be like saying that the Titanic sunk because its deck got wet.

If anything, VII is responsible for many internal divisions and wounds within the RCC, but what do those have to do with us? To echo the point made in the other half of your reply, by that time we were long out of the picture, whether EO or OO.


Quote
Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

Yep... (I'm not sure why this point needs to be addressed directly in response to what I wrote; I didn't mention it explicitly because it is so obvious, I didn't feel it needed to be mentioned.)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: minasoliman on September 28, 2012, 10:17:48 PM
RC for sure.

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.
Caesaropapism
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: christian7777 on September 28, 2012, 11:25:47 PM
Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?

I'd say the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Severian on September 28, 2012, 11:39:50 PM
I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Father H on September 28, 2012, 11:59:36 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us :)

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   :D

Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that.  Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again).  In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians.  In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC.  Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc.  However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go.  Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away. 
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 29, 2012, 12:27:01 AM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that.  Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again).  In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians.  In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC.  Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc.  However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go.  Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away. 


Thank you Father, a sound and concise analysis :)



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 29, 2012, 09:17:09 AM
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 29, 2012, 09:19:58 AM
Bearing in mind, of course, the the RCC's Eighth (869) and ours (879) are not the same.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 29, 2012, 09:22:24 AM
I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.

Hehehe. I didn't see that one coming.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: ZealousZeal on September 29, 2012, 01:58:02 PM
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.

How concrete is this, though? Do Eastern Catholics recognize as many ecumenical councils as their Latin coreligionists? I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on September 29, 2012, 03:47:26 PM
IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: mike on September 29, 2012, 05:55:49 PM
I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.

LARP-ing.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 29, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?

It was a combo of councils AND dogma. While we share more of the 7 councils w/RCs, we share more actual dogmatic belief w/OOs because they, unlike RCs, have not added new dogma and ignored old dogma.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 29, 2012, 07:37:59 PM
IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.

I wouldn't go that far. I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 29, 2012, 07:44:19 PM
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Iconodule on September 29, 2012, 08:04:37 PM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Melodist on September 29, 2012, 08:21:38 PM
We have more practice in common with OO, more history and common tradition with RC. We have fewer differences in belief with OO, but the main dividing issue is Christological (which I don't see a difference between us, even though it continues to be a dividing issue). We have more differences in faith with RC, but they are not Christological. EO and OO are traditionally geographically and culturally closer to each other, where RC is traditionally geographically and culturally different giving opportunity for differences that may have developed, in some case, more out of expression than substance.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 29, 2012, 08:31:25 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

(http://abduzeedo.com/files/posts/back-future/back-future-6.jpg)

Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Iconodule on September 29, 2012, 08:33:06 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

(http://abduzeedo.com/files/posts/back-future/back-future-6.jpg)

Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)


Yeah, but we do it together.  8)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: FormerReformer on September 29, 2012, 08:47:36 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

(http://abduzeedo.com/files/posts/back-future/back-future-6.jpg)

Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)


Yeah, but we do it together.  8)

Just remember- when this Ark hits 88 MPH, you're gonna see some serious....
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Iconodule on September 29, 2012, 09:26:39 PM
There's something wrong with your gauge, it keeps going back to 451  ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 29, 2012, 10:06:13 PM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 29, 2012, 10:08:31 PM
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Iconodule on September 29, 2012, 10:12:13 PM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

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


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 29, 2012, 10:24:06 PM
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?

??? How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on September 30, 2012, 02:24:40 AM
I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

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


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.

And #1 says that the RC Church is heterodox today.  So I do not know how someone can be #1 and #2 at the same time, today.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: BayStater123 on September 30, 2012, 02:28:33 AM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

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


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on September 30, 2012, 02:41:17 AM
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: BayStater123 on September 30, 2012, 02:43:35 AM
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: BayStater123 on September 30, 2012, 02:45:08 AM
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

Title 3, Canons 42 to 54 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches describe the Holy Father's role and authority in relation to the Eastern churches in communion with him
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on September 30, 2012, 02:50:53 AM
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

Hello Constantinople! ;)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: BayStater123 on September 30, 2012, 02:51:37 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on September 30, 2012, 06:32:01 AM
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

And that is a shame.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 30, 2012, 08:15:39 AM
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?

??? How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.

An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 30, 2012, 08:21:58 AM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

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


Well yeah, there is that.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Αριστοκλής on September 30, 2012, 09:00:21 AM
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
Exactly so.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 30, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.

Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 30, 2012, 04:56:25 PM
An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.

Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.

I thought I was talking about it ... well, unless you mean literally talking, as distinct from writing.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 30, 2012, 05:01:56 PM
You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is", which was my question, so... ???
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on September 30, 2012, 05:55:03 PM
You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is",

Yes, I only say that it (that there are 7 ecumenical councils I mean) is true. Perhaps someone else will say what the point of that statement is, but I'm not going to try to.

which was my question, so... ???

So ... ?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on September 30, 2012, 06:09:09 PM
So there is virtually no connection between the councils and the beliefs of the Eastern Catholics, since they are required to hold to all the dogmas declared by their Roman masters at later councils that Eastern Catholics themselves don't even recognize.

Pretty lame, Milhouse.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 12, 2012, 08:58:40 PM
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?

Perhaps the question we should ask is, Is the meaning of "Roman Catholics" up for discussion?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 12, 2012, 10:12:53 PM
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 12, 2012, 11:48:45 PM
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 12, 2012, 11:50:02 PM
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 12:11:07 AM
Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:32:14 AM
Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:33:11 AM
Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.

Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 12:36:52 AM
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:46:02 AM
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.

How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 12:55:38 AM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 01:10:15 AM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).

My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 01:17:43 AM
I don't understand the idea that it is fine because the Romans' understanding requires it. If that Roman understanding is wrong (and as far as understand EO teaching on sin, it is), then it would follow that it is not fine, even if it makes sense given (wrong) RCC prepositions.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 01:22:48 AM
Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 05:37:29 AM
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.


I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).

My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Αριστοκλής on October 13, 2012, 06:58:09 AM
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.

How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.

choy,
I hope you realize how weak this reads.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 08:09:07 AM
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him.

Your experience must be very limited then. I recall many times when Orthodox have insisted on "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" being interchangeable. (I can give examples if you'd like.)

But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

I can't say "why" universally, but regarding my own close acquaintances I would say that they are actually trying (albeit going about it in a questionable way) to make the point that it's wrong to use "Roman Catholics" to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

That's a good question. The usual answer is that you should call us "Catholics", but I can understand your objections to that. So perhaps it would be best you and like-minded persons to say "Latin and Eastern Catholics" or something of that sort.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 08:33:05 AM
Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

Choy, I too am puzzled by your saying it's "necessary to define it". :puzzlement:
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 08:39:44 AM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: mike on October 13, 2012, 10:47:59 AM
Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.

Pope is superior to your major archbishop.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:28:40 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:29:40 PM
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:31:46 PM
Pope is superior to your major archbishop.

Sure.  But we are still a separate Church.  Its kind of like the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada.  Canadians aren't British just because Queen Elizabeth is our monarch.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 12:37:21 PM
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:40:15 PM
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 12:41:18 PM
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 12:45:53 PM
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 12:49:06 PM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me. As Αριστοκλής pointed out, Choy's defense of the ECs relation to Rome, which I take it is fairly mainstream as far as EC defenses go (i.e., he's certainly not the first one I've heard that from), reads rather weak. At least the Latins believe in their wrong dogma, rather than paying lip-service to it as appropriate for them but not actually correct.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 12:57:04 PM
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?

Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 01:01:48 PM
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?

Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.

Protestants are Christians, which confuse people within the Church.  Even today you'd see Catholics, and I bet even some Orthodox, buy into some Protestant teachings.  Its better for the Church to clearly state what she teaches over the heresy coming from outside.  Even though I personally don't totally agree with IC, I fully understand the reason why the Church had to dogmatize it.  I know the Orthodox said it wasn't necessary to dogmatize it, but they weren't hit as hard with the Protestant Reformation as the West was.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 01:11:37 PM
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

Actually the translation "full of grace" can't be found in all bibles -- not even all Catholics bibles, iirc.

P.S. I mean it can't be found in Luke 1 in all bibles. Not talking about the passage that says that Christ is full of grace.

There are other posts I want to respond to, but I won't have time till this evening.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 01:37:11 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 01:44:29 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 01:50:02 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

 :-\

I see...
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 01:54:46 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 02:13:59 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Severian on October 13, 2012, 02:17:06 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 02:18:05 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oreintal Orthodox don't you?

Yes, I do. AFAIK the Orientals are orthodox.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Severian on October 13, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
NVM!

You answered my question already.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 13, 2012, 02:23:31 PM
NVM!

You answered my question already.

I did? I remember myself dodging it, actually.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 02:45:26 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Severian on October 13, 2012, 02:53:59 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. ;)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 02:55:11 PM
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. ;)

Heh. Lost track with all the quotes. Carry on...
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.

What, Catholic with a minus?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 06:49:45 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

I was going to respond to this, but then I discovered that my brain melted while reading it.  :-[

But anyhow, how did you come to the conclusion that if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 09:05:23 PM
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.

What, Catholic with a minus?

Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

I don't know. Eastern Catholicism is neither fish nor fowl.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 09:10:52 PM

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 13, 2012, 09:11:57 PM
Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

I don't know. Eastern Catholicism is neither fish nor fowl.

'cause we're the meat!  100% AAA-grade beef!  Catholicism, only better ;)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 13, 2012, 09:22:52 PM
Uh huh...  ::)

Your baloney has a first name, it's V-A-T-I-C-A-N.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
That's it, I'm turning the car around right now.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 13, 2012, 09:58:32 PM
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

I quite understand the idea that we who are in communion with Rome should be called "Catholics" rather than "Roman Catholics". But what I don't get is that people still use "Roman Catholics" but make it synonymous with "Latin Catholic", often by fiat.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 13, 2012, 11:15:30 PM

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 14, 2012, 03:24:24 PM
I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?

I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere. Seems to me that Orthodox want to "have their cake and eat it too", as it were: they object to us being called "Catholic", and at the same time they also feel perfectly free to use "Roman Catholic" interchangeably with "Latin Catholic".

I've pointed out before (but to no avail of course) that this forum's description says "Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome)." thus implying that "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 14, 2012, 04:38:05 PM
If Roman Catholic ≠ Latin Catholic, then does that mean that Latin Catholics are not Roman Catholic?

It seems like you guys are twisting around every which way to avoid the association that your forefathers willingly took on by being united with Rome in the first place (i.e., the older documents found in the Vatican itself before the modern PC-ism took over that use what are now bad words like "uniate", etc). If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority? If I wanted to distance myself from some undesirable group (e.g., the "Coptic" idiot who made the amateurish anti-Islam film and all his evangelical cronies), it'd be pretty silly of me to defend my relation to it, much less affirm union with it, and even much less show up at meetings in defense of it and for the propagation of union with it among people who do not accept such things. Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 05:25:55 PM
If Roman Catholic ≠ Latin Catholic, then does that mean that Latin Catholics are not Roman Catholic?

So if I understand your question right, it's basically equivalent to "If Russian Orthodox ≠ Eastern Orthodox, then does that mean that Russian Orthodox are not Eastern Orthodox?"
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 05:34:02 PM
If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority?

Because I don't see a justification to break off communion from my bishop, and my bishop is in communion with Rome. Ergo, I continue to be in communion with Rome.

Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 14, 2012, 05:38:32 PM
I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?

No. I'm not asking you to stop calling yourselves Catholic. I'm asking you to stop complaining when others qualify that term in relation to you. Peter J has offered "Latin and Eastern Catholics," which is unwieldy, but at least acknowledges the problem. What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 05:51:57 PM
What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.

Hmm, I wonder what ialmisry is doing these days. Time was, he was one of the most regular contributors here.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 14, 2012, 05:59:29 PM
Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

"In the year 1720 Peter the Great, to whom modern Russia owes not only its capital, but much besides, instituted for the government ot [sic] the Greek Orthodox Church of Russia a Holy Legislative Synod." (emphasis mine)

From Under three tsars: liberty of conscience in Russia, 1856-1909

Retrieved from http://archive.org/stream/underthreetsarsl00lati/underthreetsarsl00lati_djvu.txt
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 14, 2012, 06:11:37 PM
If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority?

Because I don't see a justification to break off communion from my bishop, and my bishop is in communion with Rome. Ergo, I continue to be in communion with Rome.

You don't see Rome-centered ecclesiology as important when it's the entire reason why you are counted as being of the Romans? (i.e., the reason for the thing you are complaining about?) That's my point: It's your fault (~the fault of your accepted ecclesiology) that it is this way, but you don't do anything about it because without it being as it is, you wouldn't feel right calling yourselves "Catholic" (hence why it is not accepted by RCs or their EC brethren that the Orthodox call themselves Catholic -- the difference being that Orthodox generally don't whine that Romanists won't play by their naming conventions).

Quote from: Peter J
Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.

claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy... (cf. earlier conversations between me and Choy when he wondered why it can't be that the ECCs guide Rome to Orthodoxy/model Orthodoxy to the Romans or some such)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 06:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter J
Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.

claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy... (cf. earlier conversations between me and Choy when he wondered why it can't be that the ECCs guide Rome to Orthodoxy/model Orthodoxy to the Romans or some such)

I would still see that as a little bit of an overgeneralization. "Eastern Catholic" (or even "Byzantine Catholic") does not intrinsically mean that someone claims to uphold Orthodoxy (unless of course you mean "claims to uphold orthodoxy", but then that would apply to all Catholics).
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 14, 2012, 06:30:41 PM
Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 14, 2012, 06:37:28 PM
Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.

I think what Peter meant to do was distinguish between right doctrine (which Catholics believe they have) and the communions calling themselves Orthodox (mainly the non-Chalcedonian and Eastern Orthodox communions). While I believe that the Orthodox are orthodox, I readily grant that the definitions of the terms are different and while we need, perhaps, a clearer way to express it, the distinction is not to be dismissed so lightly.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 14, 2012, 06:45:13 PM
I disagree. If you are "Orthodox", you are "orthodox" as well. The opposite does not hold (since, like you say, RCs and others believe that they are "orthodox" without being "Orthodox"), but that doesn't matter if you don't make such a distinction in the first place.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 14, 2012, 06:47:21 PM
Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

"In the year 1720 Peter the Great, to whom modern Russia owes not only its capital, but much besides, instituted for the government ot [sic] the Greek Orthodox Church of Russia a Holy Legislative Synod." (emphasis mine)

From Under three tsars: liberty of conscience in Russia, 1856-1909

Retrieved from http://archive.org/stream/underthreetsarsl00lati/underthreetsarsl00lati_djvu.txt

"Upon accession to the Throne, the sacred coronation and anointment are performed according to the rite of the Greco-Russian Orthodox Church. The date for this solemn ritual is set at the discretion of the Emperor and is given nationwide publicity in advance." (emphasis mine)

From the 1906 Russian Constitution, Chapter 5, retrieved from http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/rfl.html

Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 08:14:31 PM
Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.

Well, okay I guess. Then I should have just said, Catholics in general (whether Eastern or Western) claim to be orthodox in union with Rome and to uphold orthodoxy. It's not schizophrenic.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 14, 2012, 08:22:08 PM
I can respect that.

Just so we're clear, though, the "schizophrenic" thing doesn't have to do with believing you're orthodox or not (at least not in the way that I'm using it), but rather the kind of situation that Choy described beautifully in response to one of my posts, where he said that he's not sure whether or not his church really accepts the IC, but that it's okay for Latins to believe it because it makes sense from their point of view (or some such; sorry, Choy, if that's not exactly it, but that's what I remember without looking it up...if I'm wrong, please correct me). That to me is schizophrenic because it is trying to embrace contradictory ideas (i.e., Orthodox theology, if the ECs are going to claim it as their own by virtue of it it being their theological patrimony, does not accept the IC), without really committing to anything in particular. This is what I meant when I said EC-ism is neither fish nor fowl. "We don't REALLY believe such and such (or we're not sure), but others can because we can see where they're coming from." Orthodox can see where the Latins are coming from too (or at least converts from Latin Catholicism can, like me), but we're not confused as to what we believe, and we won't say that others can believe in it so long as it makes sense to them. That's the difference I'm trying to capture by using that term.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 14, 2012, 08:35:41 PM
I disagree. If you are "Orthodox", you are "orthodox" as well. The opposite does not hold (since, like you say, RCs and others believe that they are "orthodox" without being "Orthodox"), but that doesn't matter if you don't make such a distinction in the first place.

But the distinction is necessary. You can't just "not make it," any more than you can just "not make" the distinction between Oriental Orthodoxy and revealed truth. You may believe that Oriental Orthodoxy contains and is the fullness of revealed truth. You may even be right. That doesn't make Oriental Orthodoxy and revealed truth the same concept. Likewise, Orthodoxy in the sense of the EO/OO communions and their faith is not a priori identical with orthodoxy in the sense of right doctrine.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 14, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
I can respect that.

Just so we're clear, though, the "schizophrenic" thing doesn't have to do with believing you're orthodox or not (at least not in the way that I'm using it), but rather the kind of situation that Choy described beautifully in response to one of my posts, where he said that he's not sure whether or not his church really accepts the IC, but that it's okay for Latins to believe it because it makes sense from their point of view (or some such; sorry, Choy, if that's not exactly it, but that's what I remember without looking it up...if I'm wrong, please correct me). That to me is schizophrenic because it is trying to embrace contradictory ideas (i.e., Orthodox theology, if the ECs are going to claim it as their own by virtue of it it being their theological patrimony, does not accept the IC), without really committing to anything in particular. This is what I meant when I said EC-ism is neither fish nor fowl.

I agree in part -- like I said before, I wouldn't apply that to Eastern Catholics in general, or even to "Byzantine" Catholics in general. But I agree that those few of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are a bit of an anomaly -- Eastern Catholic with a plus, as I like to say.

That's part of the reason I always say that I wouldn't switch from Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism (if I were in a position to do so), but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to switch from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 01:47:24 PM
So how do we resolve this?  Self designation doesn't work because the other side doesn't want to agree on what we want to call ourselves.  The other side can't come up with a term that justifies the true position and existence of the other.

How about just call each other "Heretic Schismatics".  If an Orthodox person says that, he means the Catholics.  If a Catholic person says that, he means the Orthodox.  And then we're done!  ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 15, 2012, 01:52:06 PM
What's to be "resolved" in the first place? You call yourselves what you believe you are, we call ourselves what we believe we are. This is already the state of affairs.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 15, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
What's to be "resolved" in the first place?

If you accept the testimony of Eastern Orthodox posters on the internet, then there's nothing to be resolved.

I refer you to this post from OCnet:

There is no big deal.  Peter J needs to get off the internet and stop worrying about the contentious ramblings some mouthbreather sitting in front of a computer surrounded by icons and/or "religious paintings" in his parents' basement (whether in reality or because such a person hasn't matured past adolescence).  The only people who are offended by or insist on using the term "Roman Catholic" to differentiate it from the term "Orthodox Catholic" are people who need to shut up, grow up, grow a pair, and go live life and pray instead of reading about both.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 15, 2012, 02:38:26 PM
I agree with Schultz. I am not offended by those in communion with Rome using the term "Catholic" to refer to themselves. After all, they believe they are the Catholic Church, so why wouldn't they use it? I don't go around calling myself "Orthodox Catholic", but when I say the Nicene Creed in church or at home and it gets to the "Catholic" part, I know what Church I am and am not referring to. That's good enough for me.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 15, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
So how do we resolve this?  Self designation doesn't work because the other side doesn't want to agree on what we want to call ourselves.  The other side can't come up with a term that justifies the true position and existence of the other.

How about just call each other "Heretic Schismatics".  If an Orthodox person says that, he means the Catholics.  If a Catholic person says that, he means the Orthodox.  And then we're done!  ;D

Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 03:26:35 PM
Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2012, 03:29:03 PM
Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)

Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 03:32:48 PM
Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".

I always get the, "you're not Ukrainian, why do you go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church?"  And I always give the, "well, you don't exactly look like a Roman to me."
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2012, 03:53:27 PM
Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".

I always get the, "you're not Ukrainian, why do you go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church?"  And I always give the, "well, you don't exactly look like a Roman to me."

Good reply!
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 15, 2012, 04:10:18 PM
Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)

Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 04:35:44 PM
Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 15, 2012, 04:37:14 PM
Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2012, 04:45:48 PM
Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 04:46:16 PM
Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?

They are under the Roman Church, they are not a sui juris like the Eastern Churches.  Athough they are separate Rites similar to the Rites that some Religious Communities may have (like Dominican Rite).  So Roman can refer to the Church that all these other Rites belong to, but the Roman Rite is just the OF and EF (no official word if the Anglican Use is just another use of the Roman Rite, but I suspect it is) and these are just other Rites within the Roman Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 04:46:45 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2012, 04:51:37 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

LOL!
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 15, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 15, 2012, 04:58:39 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Gotta throw a fly in the ointment, dontcha?   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 15, 2012, 05:00:59 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

Hey, hey, hey...watch it. That's us, not you. Don't make Mina angry. You wouldn't like him when he is angry.

(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/10/15/XFUsNZ7UhEOc9JAQJmWXPw2.jpg)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 15, 2012, 05:12:24 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Hhhmm... makes me think now.  I wonder how many ECs actually accepted Pastor Aeternus (for those already in communion with Rome by Vatican I)?  I think having a prime overseer such as the Pope is not beyond Orthodoxy granted that it is agreed that it is something of a development of ecclesiology (such as having Metropolitans and Patriarchs) rather than some divinely instituted authority.  I wonder if the ECs were, "well, there's no going back to the Orthodox now, might as well go along with this," or did they actually believe in the RC teaching and see it as orthodox?
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 15, 2012, 05:44:33 PM
See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  ;D

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  ;D

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Hhhmm... makes me think now.  I wonder how many ECs actually accepted Pastor Aeternus (for those already in communion with Rome by Vatican I)?  I think having a prime overseer such as the Pope is not beyond Orthodoxy granted that it is agreed that it is something of a development of ecclesiology (such as having Metropolitans and Patriarchs) rather than some divinely instituted authority.  I wonder if the ECs were, "well, there's no going back to the Orthodox now, might as well go along with this," or did they actually believe in the RC teaching and see it as orthodox?

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 15, 2012, 05:50:56 PM
The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

It's the other way around: the Roman Rite is a rite of the Latin Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Papist on October 15, 2012, 09:25:38 PM
So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 15, 2012, 09:37:54 PM
So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  :laugh:

Thank you!  :)
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 15, 2012, 09:45:28 PM
So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  :laugh:

Thank you!  :)

I can think of some things you probably wouldn't want me (or EOs for that matter) calling you. :D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: dzheremi on October 15, 2012, 10:05:31 PM
Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... :-X :P
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Papist on October 16, 2012, 09:42:01 AM
Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... :-X :P
:D
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Peter J on October 16, 2012, 09:54:15 AM
Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... :-X :P

Fair enough ... I should have said I can think of something we are not allowed to call you.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: J Michael on October 16, 2012, 10:28:50 AM
Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... :-X :P

LOL!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 16, 2012, 10:47:09 AM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: Cyrillic on October 16, 2012, 10:51:35 AM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.

Making it a God-revealed dogma is a legitimate development?  ???

Edit: NVM, didn't bother to read the last sentence.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: jmbejdl on October 16, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

I think I'd have to disagree. I can't see how a universal bishop can ever be a legitimate development. If the Pope is universal bishop then surely no other bishop is really bishop at all. I can absolutely see a single bishop as head bishop within (not over) the Church as a possibly acceptable development (which is I guess what we would say the primacy of Rome should be) but he still needs to be subject to the Church and not the other way around.

James
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: OrthoNoob on October 16, 2012, 11:31:43 AM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

But Metropolitans and Patriarchs are just bishops tasked with presiding at meetings of particular local synods. There have always been bishops, and there have always been synods. But the idea of a Pope, to whom all other bishops are essentially auxiliaries, is a fundamental attack on Orthodox ecclesiology. Look up the outcry when the Patriarchate of Antioch made all its bishops (not all the bishops in the world, as you seem to be advocating, just all its own bishops) essentially auxiliaries.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 16, 2012, 12:49:08 PM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.

Making it a God-revealed dogma is a legitimate development?  ???

Edit: NVM, didn't bother to read the last sentence.

No, I said without making it as if it is a divine mandate.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 16, 2012, 12:52:43 PM

I think I'd have to disagree. I can't see how a universal bishop can ever be a legitimate development. If the Pope is universal bishop then surely no other bishop is really bishop at all. I can absolutely see a single bishop as head bishop within (not over) the Church as a possibly acceptable development (which is I guess what we would say the primacy of Rome should be) but he still needs to be subject to the Church and not the other way around.

James

Sorry, I don't men universal in that way.  But universal that he is somewhat a "Patriarch of Patriarchs".  Definitely not in the current authority of the Pope of Rome, but similar to what a Patriarch is today, but over the whole Church.
Title: Re: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)
Post by: choy on October 16, 2012, 12:53:06 PM
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

But Metropolitans and Patriarchs are just bishops tasked with presiding at meetings of particular local synods. There have always been bishops, and there have always been synods. But the idea of a Pope, to whom all other bishops are essentially auxiliaries, is a fundamental attack on Orthodox ecclesiology. Look up the outcry when the Patriarchate of Antioch made all its bishops (not all the bishops in the world, as you seem to be advocating, just all its own bishops) essentially auxiliaries.

Then there is the ROC Patriarch.