OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 12:11:33 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Catholics and EO's in the fifth century  (Read 11727 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« on: August 20, 2007, 09:25:58 AM »

This topic was split off from this thread about hurdles to Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox reunification:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12549.0.html


What makes an Ecumenical Council infallible?  Is the infallibility intrinsic to the Council, such that we must accept EVERY decision of the Council as authoritative?  Or do we recognize an Ecumenical Council as authoritative because that which it proclaims is the faith of the Church?  What if a particular decision of a council recognized as Ecumenical does not represent the faith of the Church as manifested in the catholic consciousness of the faithful?  For instance, can we recognize a council as truly ecumenical if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical?  Is it possible for that half of the Church to reject the council while still holding fast to the faith proclaimed by that council?

Dear PeterTheAleut,

This is completely off-topic, so I apologize in advance, but I just have to ask:
when you say " ... if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical" do you mean to imply that the EO churches and the OO churches were "two halves" of the Church, back in the fifth century? (That is to say, do you mean that the Latin Church didn't count as a part of the Church, as early as the fifth century?)

God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 01:28:00 AM by Salpy » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2007, 09:33:03 AM »

P.S. This isn't just a spur-of-the-moment question prompted by your post; I have been wondering about this in a more general way for some time.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2007, 09:33:59 AM »

PtA isn't online right now, but I'm certain he means EO to refer to Chalcedonian Church.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2007, 10:13:41 AM »

PtA isn't online right now, but I'm certain he means EO to refer to Chalcedonian Church.

Actually, P-the-A never said "EO". (I did.) What he said was:

For instance, can we recognize a council as truly ecumenical if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical?

by which he presumably meant that those who never accepted Chalcedon counted as "one entire half of the church" -- which I thought was something of a stretch, unless he doesn't consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been part of the Church.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2007, 10:31:53 AM »

Actually, P-the-A never said "EO". (I did.) What he said was:

by which he presumably meant that those who never accepted Chalcedon counted as "one entire half of the church" -- which I thought was something of a stretch, unless he doesn't consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been part of the Church.

God bless,
Peter.

Presumably, the "Latin" church still is Chalcedonian, AFAIK. There was no "Latin" church anyway, back then, just "Catholics".
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2007, 01:40:04 PM »

Presumably, the "Latin" church still is Chalcedonian, AFAIK.

Yes, the "Latin" church is still Chalcedonian. What's your point?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2007, 01:43:19 PM »

No point except to answer you.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2007, 01:57:04 PM »

No point except to answer you.

I never asked whether the Latin Church is Chalcedonian. (Although perhaps the question I should be asking you is: Is it a problem that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian?)
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 01:58:39 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2007, 01:59:03 PM »

I'm not sure what Peter meant, but I have to stress that the OO Church did present a huge chunk of Christianity that rejected Chalcedon, not to mention an even more diverse array of cultural traditions.

I don't disagree with that (since you said "a huge chunk" rather than "one entire half").

Anyhow, I don't wish to talk about PeterTheAleut, but rather to let him explain what he meant.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2007, 02:09:37 PM »

I never asked whether the Latin Church is Chalcedonian. (Although perhaps the question I should be asking you is: Is it a problem that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian?)
No there isn't.

PtA isn't online right now, but I'm certain he means EO to refer to Chalcedonian Church.

Actually, P-the-A never said "EO". (I did.) What he said was:

by which he presumably meant that those who never accepted Chalcedon counted as "one entire half of the church" -- which I thought was something of a stretch, unless he doesn't consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been part of the Church.

God bless,
Peter.

To which I replied:
Presumably, the "Latin" church still is Chalcedonian, AFAIK. There was no "Latin" church anyway, back then, just "Catholics".

The Copts probably did not use the term "Chalcedonian" anyway, at that time. WE were the 'Romans' - the Church of the empire to them, which included the Church of Rome. Hence, I don't see any implication that the "Latin" church wasn't part of it. Do you?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2007, 02:35:46 PM »

Dear PeterTheAleut,

This is completely off-topic, so I apologize in advance, but I just have to ask:
when you say " ... if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical" do you mean to imply that the EO churches and the OO churches were "two halves" of the Church, back in the fifth century? (That is to say, do you mean that the Latin Church didn't count as a part of the Church, as early as the fifth century?)

God bless,
Peter.
When I spoke of "two halves" of the Church in relation to the 4th - 7th Ecumenical Councils, I spoke of those who accepted Chalcedon vs. those who didn't.  Considering that the EO and Latin churches were united through the end of the furor following the 7th Council, and that Chalcedon wasn't the issue that eventually divided the Latins from the EO, I was thinking of the Latin Church and the EO Church as being one and the same "half" of the Church that accepted Chalcedon.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2007, 03:35:51 PM »

Exactly. Sorry I tried to 'help'.  Undecided
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2007, 03:44:15 PM »

When I spoke of "two halves" of the Church in relation to the 4th - 7th Ecumenical Councils, I spoke of those who accepted Chalcedon vs. those who didn't.  Considering that the EO and Latin churches were united through the end of the furor following the 7th Council, and that Chalcedon wasn't the issue that eventually divided the Latins from the EO, I was thinking of the Latin Church and the EO Church as being one and the same "half" of the Church that accepted Chalcedon.

PeterTheAleut,

Thanks for your response; now that I know what you meant, however, I must say that I find your reasoning to be completely unconvincing, and even a little disturbing.

On the one hand, you challenge the ecumenicity of Chalcedon on the basis that it wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church"; then you back that claim up with the statement that the Latin and EO Churches together only count as half of the Church BECAUSE they both accepted Chalcedon (and three later councils).

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2007, 05:42:38 PM »

I certainly hope God grants His Orthodox Church to be completely re-unified before the 2,000 year anniversary of Christ's Ascension!

So for some Orthodox, the Church can be separated?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2007, 05:46:25 PM »

"the [Oriental] Church saw nothing objectionable about the veneration of icons established by what the [Eastern Orthodox] call the Seventh Council."

I find it very interesting that the "crisis" of iconoclasm did not even effect western europe (which at the time was VERY Eastern Orthodox).  Until this current discussion, it never occurred to me that there was yet another "body" of Christians that never had to deal with the crisis of iconoclasm: which is the "Oriental" Orthodox. 

I have felt that we Catholics are at last dealing with our own iconoclastic crisis in the present era. Praise God for our recent victories.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2007, 06:26:03 PM »

So for some Orthodox, the Church can be separated?
No. The Church can be fractured, but she is never fragmented. Any divisions in her are merely superficial, and will only last until God sets things aright. This is the reason we still hold Rome as one of the five Holy Sees. The Catholic Church is not a separate religion, it is an estranged part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2007, 07:06:54 PM »

This is the reason we still hold Rome as one of the five Holy Sees. The Catholic Church is not a separate religion, it is an estranged part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

If the "we" in your statement refers to the Orthodox Church as a whole, I'd consider revising it. If it refers to a small liberal fringe within the Church, then by all means keep it as it is.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2007, 07:28:21 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2007, 07:31:43 PM »

If the "we" in your statement refers to the Orthodox Church as a whole, I'd consider revising it. If it refers to a small liberal fringe within the Church, then by all means keep it as it is.

I second this.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2007, 08:13:27 PM »

If the "we" in your statement refers to the Orthodox Church as a whole, I'd consider revising it. If it refers to a small liberal fringe within the Church, then by all means keep it as it is.

My sentiments exactly when I read the original statement.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2007, 08:25:21 PM »

So then, how do you account for divisions in the Church? Is Christ divided? Does He have two, or even three bodies? Surely this cannot be what you mean.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2007, 08:36:47 PM »

So then, how do you account for divisions in the Church? Is Christ divided? Does He have two, or even three bodies? Surely this cannot be what you mean.

He only has one Body. The Catholic Church is not part of it according to any Orthodox ecclesiology.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2007, 08:41:55 PM »

Your answer was fully expected, but disheartening at the same time. How unfortunate that you would throw away good Christians simply because they misunderstand the role of their bishop. Nevertheless, he is of apostolic succession, same as the four in the East.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2007, 10:11:42 PM »

No. The Church can be fractured, but she is never fragmented. Any divisions in her are merely superficial, and will only last until God sets things aright. This is the reason we still hold Rome as one of the five Holy Sees. The Catholic Church is not a separate religion, it is an estranged part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I agree (from my Catholic perspective, of course.). It is a blessing to hear this from some Orthodox like you.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2007, 10:15:09 PM »

So then, how do you account for divisions in the Church? Is Christ divided? Does He have two, or even three bodies? Surely this cannot be what you mean.

Nope, it isn't. They mean that me and many others are unbaptized heretics, descended from apostates.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2007, 01:59:17 AM »

Your answer was fully expected, but disheartening at the same time. How unfortunate that you would throw away good Christians simply because they misunderstand the role of their bishop. Nevertheless, he is of apostolic succession, same as the four in the East.
You might have to take up your argument with St. Mark of Ephesus.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2007, 09:36:19 AM »

Quote
This topic was split off from this thread about hurdles to Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox reunification:

Good idea, Salpy. (Incidentally, though, I think it's a Chalcedon discussion as well as a Catholic-Orthodox discussion, but you're the moderator.)

In any case, I definitely want to thank you for giving this thread a neutral (i.e. not anti-Chalcedon) title.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2007, 09:56:08 AM »

No. The Church can be fractured, but she is never fragmented. Any divisions in her are merely superficial, and will only last until God sets things aright. This is the reason we still hold Rome as one of the five Holy Sees. The Catholic Church is not a separate religion, it is an estranged part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

ytterbiumanalyst,

I appreciate the thought, but I can also understand the position of those Orthodox who are (shall we say) less Catholic-friendly -- they have much the same feeling towards me, in fact, that I have towards Protestants.

The way I see it, if Orthodox are willing to receive Catholic converts by re-chrismation, rather than re-baptism, that's pretty good (for now).

God bless you,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2007, 09:56:44 AM »

I, on the other hand, do have an issue with topic label.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2007, 11:27:44 AM »

I, on the other hand, do have an issue with topic label.

I know what you mean, but I didn't want to split hairs. (Would "The Latins and Byzantines in the fifth century" be more acceptable?)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2007, 11:47:36 AM »

Your answer was fully expected, but disheartening at the same time. How unfortunate that you would throw away good Christians simply because they misunderstand the role of their bishop. Nevertheless, he is of apostolic succession, same as the four in the East. 

Mmmm, I don't think so.  Apostolic Succession implies staying in the Church that the Apostles founded - i.e. remaining in Communion.  What good is Apostolic Succession if the successors are separated from the Body of Christ that they yearned and died for?

True, we haven't set up another Pope to take Rome's place.  But the territories that the Pope had jurisdiction over at the time (except the Vatican itself) have been left in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - and there are bishops in each of these nations.  If the Pope comes back to the fold (and with him the rest of the RC Church) then the division of labor will change again. If not, then it will stay as it is.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2007, 11:49:10 AM »

I know what you mean, but I didn't want to split hairs. (Would "The Latins and Byzantines in the fifth century" be more acceptable?)

What about the Eastern Romans and the Azymites?
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2007, 12:02:07 PM »

What about the Eastern Romans and the Azymites?

<smile>...
Prefer eastern and western Catholics myself, but then the anti-Chalcedonians will object to that depending on what date in 5th century.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2007, 12:05:38 PM »

True, we haven't set up another Pope to take Rome's place.  But the territories that the Pope had jurisdiction over at the time (except the Vatican itself) have been left in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - and there are bishops in each of these nations.  If the Pope comes back to the fold (and with him the rest of the RC Church) then the division of labor will change again. If not, then it will stay as it is.

Fair enough. Similarly, Catholics looks forward to the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople will come back into the fold, at which point he will resume his position as second-ranking patriarch.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
sdcheung
it's as if..Saint Photios and Saint Mark Ephesus, has come back
Banned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,325


...even though Romania Falls, another will Rise...


« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2007, 12:06:40 PM »

Fair enough. Similarly, Catholics looks forward to the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople will come back into the fold, at which point he will resume his position as second-ranking patriarch.

Don't hold your breath, vre.
Logged


Keep Breed Mixing, and this Maine Coon Cat will be the last of it's kind. /\
No profanities in your sig line if you're going to post in the public forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2007, 12:19:12 PM »

Fair enough. Similarly, Catholics looks forward to the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople will come back into the fold, at which point he will resume his position as second-ranking patriarch.

yeah, when the pope alights from his high horse and re-assumes his proper place...i.e., when pigs (and dogs) fly. (See private forums  Cheesy )
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Trevor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2007, 12:44:42 PM »

Quote
Your answer was fully expected, but disheartening at the same time. How unfortunate that you would throw away good Christians simply because they misunderstand the role of their bishop. Nevertheless, he is of apostolic succession, same as the four in the East.
First of all, we're not "throwing away good Christians," and I think that's pretty well understood. What we are doing is declaring that the Latins are in heresy and refuse to renounce it, and as such cannot possibly be considered a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Apostolic Succession is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be in the Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2007, 12:55:11 PM »

Don't hold your breath, vre.

Dude, did you just call me a Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus?

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath (except when I swim underwater).

yeah, when the pope alights from his high horse and re-assumes his proper place...i.e., when pigs (and dogs) fly. (See private forums  Cheesy )

Well I don't know much about pigs flying, but I think that "the pope alight[ing] from his high horse and re-assum[ing] his proper place" has begun to happen already. (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all come to mind.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2007, 04:53:10 PM »

True, we haven't set up another Pope to take Rome's place.  But the territories that the Pope had jurisdiction over at the time (except the Vatican itself) have been left in the hands of the Ecumenical Patriarchate - and there are bishops in each of these nations.  If the Pope comes back to the fold (and with him the rest of the RC Church) then the division of labor will change again. If not, then it will stay as it is.

Still, the EP seems pretty friendly, or at least a little too friendly for the "true" Orthodox. As the monks on the Holy Mountain complained after the papal visit to the Phanar last year,

First of all, the Pope was received as though he were a canonical (proper) bishop of Rome. During the service, the Pope wore an omophoron; he was addressed by the Ecumenical Patriarch with the greeting "blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord" as though it were Christ the Lord; he blessed the congregation and he was commemorated as "most holy" and "His Beatitude the Bishop of Rome". Furthermore, all of the Pope's officiating clergy wore an omophoron during the Orthodox Divine Liturgy; also, the reciting of the Lord's Prayer, his liturgical embrace with the Patriarch, were displays of something more than common prayer. And all of this, when the papist institution has not budged at all from its heretical teachings and its policy. . .


Of course, we are softening on our end. The diocese there used to be called the Vicariate Apostolic of Constantinople. In 1990 the Holy See changed the name to the Vicariate Apostolic of Istanbul. Interesting, eh?

Of course, at the restoration of the Catholic episcopacy in England in the 19th century, none of the restored dioceses were named for the historic sees that were lost in the Reformation (no Canterbury, London, Lincoln, etc.). However (YoungFogey, correct me if I'm wrong), I think this was largely because Parliament forbid it.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2007, 04:54:42 PM »

Dude, did you just call me a Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus?

Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath (except when I swim underwater).

Well I don't know much about pigs flying, but I think that "the pope alight[ing] from his high horse and re-assum[ing] his proper place" has begun to happen already. (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all come to mind.)

Right. Now, all we need is for the respective EO Churches to release their prayer ropes from each others' necks and we'll make some progress!  Grin
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2007, 07:58:10 PM »


Of course, we are softening on our end. The diocese there used to be called the Vicariate Apostolic of Constantinople. In 1990 the Holy See changed the name to the Vicariate Apostolic of Istanbul. Interesting, eh?


About as interesting as the pope dropping his 'Patriarch of the West' title.  Wink
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2007, 08:33:00 PM »

In any case, I definitely want to thank you for giving this thread a neutral (i.e. not anti-Chalcedon) title.

Darn!  I did this really late last night and I made a mistake.  I intended to call it "Western and Eastern Diophysite Heretics in the Fifth Century."  Oh well, next time...        Grin

(You know I'm kidding, right?  Smiley )
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2007, 10:09:44 PM »

Darn!  I did this really late last night and I made a mistake.  I intended to call it "Western and Eastern Diophysite Heretics in the Fifth Century."  Oh well, next time...        Grin

(You know I'm kidding, right?  Smiley )

Yes, I know you're kidding; I just don't find it funny.

How is your "Horror of Chalcedon" thread doing? Progressing to your satisfaction?

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2007, 10:28:44 PM »

I think this thread just illustrates how difficult it would be for the average lay person, or even theologian, to determine which of the Apostolic Churches is the true Church and which one is right. I mean,
The Catholic says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
The Eastern Orthodox Christian says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
The Oriental Orhtodox Christian says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
I can sympathize with each group. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church refered to in the Creed, and that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Sts. Peter and Paul. However, I do see how one might believe in one of the other two Churches. For that reason, I don't think that any Christian can stand in harsh judgement over another Christian because he or she does or does not accept Chalcedon or Palamite theology, or Scholasticism, etc. The issues that divide us are difficult to wade through, and apart from a powerful divine intervention, none us can fix the problem here and now.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,279



« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2007, 10:47:18 PM »

Right. Now, all we need is for the respective EO Churches to release their prayer ropes from each others' necks and we'll make some progress!  Grin

And if you can reign in your schismatic bishops who ordain women or keep the Tridentine Rite down, maybe we'll have time for tea!  Get your own house in order, then come talk to us!  Your call will be ignored in the order it was received. Cheesy
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2007, 10:53:10 PM »

I think this thread just illustrates how difficult it would be for the average lay person, or even theologian, to determine which of the Apostolic Churches is the true Church and which one is right. I mean,
The Catholic says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
The Eastern Orthodox Christian says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
The Oriental Orhtodox Christian says, "We're right because the Fathers say..."
I can sympathize with each group. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church refered to in the Creed, and that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Sts. Peter and Paul. However, I do see how one might believe in one of the other two Churches. For that reason, I don't think that any Christian can stand in harsh judgement over another Christian because he or she does or does not accept Chalcedon or Palamite theology, or Scholasticism, etc. The issues that divide us are difficult to wade through, and apart from a powerful divine intervention, none us can fix the problem here and now.
Excellent food for thought, Papist.  I'm actually mulling over this very insight in relation to another situation I'm addressing.  Thank you.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2007, 10:57:22 PM »

Yes, I know you're kidding; I just don't find it funny.

How is your "Horror of Chalcedon" thread doing? Progressing to your satisfaction?

-Peter.

I am sorry if I offended you.  That was not my intention.  I have to remember that not everyone here knows how much I really do like the EO's and Catholics.  I thought you were joking with me and I joked back.  Obviously, I misread you and offended you.  Forgive me.

Actually that "horror" thread isn't really mine, since it was not I whose question started it.  Your question started it and, if I recall correctly, it was a good question too, wondering if Deacon Amde's calling Chalcedon and its consequences a "horror" reflected OO sentiments in general.  

To answer your question, the thread died after I put it into private.  I think that may be because you haven't really posted in it since then.  Do you not have access to the private forum?  If not, and if you like polemics, you may want to pm Fr. Chris for admission.  If you don't want to join the private forum that's O.K. but that thread, as well as the one you began about Nestorius and whether he was really a heretic when he wrote The Bazaar, will probably just continue to sit there, neglected.   Sad
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 12:10:15 AM by Salpy » Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2007, 11:25:21 PM »

PJ,

Would it help if I renamed the "Horror of Chalcedon" thread?  As I explained in reply #19 of this thread

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12288.15.html

I called the thread that because that phrase was what the discussion was about.  If it still offends you, though, I will change the name.  Just let me know.   Smiley
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2007, 11:24:45 AM »

I am sorry if I offended you.

In the time I've spent on these forums, there have been many statements made which I object to. These statements seldom offend me; rather I usually just make a note of them because they provide some insight about the poster, and sometimes about the overall board.

Take a look, for example, at Deacon Amde Tsion's post which started this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12288.msg167147.html#msg167147

I won't quote the whole post here, but basically it's about how EOs and OOs are one church, not two, and both are Orthodox, and how God doesn't wish for them to be separated from each other.

About half-way through, you'll see this paragraph:

Therefore the only thing these two 'groups' have is the horror of Chalcedon which created the 'division' and the resulting two 'groups' (not churches).

Needless to say (or is it?) I found it quite "interesting" to see that paragraph in such an ecumenical post -- or rather, to see that paragraph in such an ecumenical-sounding post.

(Not to get off-topic, but perhaps you'll remember my commenting, not too long ago, about the Catholic "ecumenism" Fr. Robert Taft and his "to hell with Moscow" remark?)

The rest, as they say, is history: I posed an open question about Deacon Tsion's statement, and I received some replies. Was I offended by your reponses, Salpy (including the fact the you titled the split off thread "The Horror of Chalcedon")? No, I was not. I do think, however, that everyone's responses (including yours) say a lot (and I don't mean that in a good way) about the way things are on this forum.

Would it help if I renamed the "Horror of Chalcedon" thread?

No, I think you should do what you think is best.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2007, 09:24:04 AM »

On the one hand, you challenge the ecumenicity of Chalcedon on the basis that it wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church"; then you back that claim up with the statement that the Latin and EO Churches together only count as half of the Church BECAUSE they both accepted Chalcedon (and three later councils).

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Well I'm not really sure why you aren't giving me an answer, but I just read something which may be of interest to you:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12260.msg171186.html#msg171186
MODERATION:
I have removed the quote and replaced it with a link.
In future, do not quote things from the Private Fora and post them in the Public Fora.
George


Now before you get the wrong idea, I am not saying that I agree with Starvo overall. Far from it. (On the contrary, I would say that I have considerably greater disagreements with him than I have with you, PeterTheAleut. Case-in-point: his claim that Chalcedon "deviated from the truth".) Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".

God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2007, 09:57:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2007, 11:41:59 AM »

Now before you get the wrong idea, I am not saying that I agree with Starvo overall. Far from it. (On the contrary, I would say that I have considerably greater disagreements with him than I have with you, PeterTheAleut. Case-in-point: his claim that Chalcedon "deviated from the truth".) Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".
If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2007, 01:10:28 PM »

If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.

I can definitely agree that your use of word half can be described as "loose", but I think even better descriptions would be "biased", "manipulative", and "circular".

-Peter.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I don't mean to be at all uncharitable.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2007, 01:36:25 PM »

I can definitely agree that your use of word half can be described as "loose", but I think even better descriptions would be "biased", "manipulative", and "circular".

-Peter.

P.S. Sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I don't mean to be at all uncharitable.
Please forgive me for offending you, for evidently I have.  That said, I think you're reading into my recent posts much more than I had intended to express and are accusing me of motives that are not mine.

-Peter
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2007, 02:35:08 PM »

Quote
Rather, I just want to give Starvo credit for not re-writing and manipulating history to say that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "one entire half of the church".

PJ,

You are aware that "the Church" is constituted by more than just Bishops, and that more Bishops had something to say about Chalcedon than the number that were invited to Chalcedon?

Statistically, it was probably closer to a third; I remember one academic source clearly stating this, and I would have no problem giving you a reference to that as I did with the other issue with which you had contentions (viz. whether Nestorius was still a heretic in his latter days, particularly when he declared his approval of the Tome of Leo--which I would love for you to get back to me on).

Needless to say, it appears very difficult to have reasonable dialogue with you, given that you appear to be overly sensitive, and yet somewhat hypocritical (i.e. constant accusations that you are being dealt with offensively--the majority of which are clearly unwarranted, but look at your last response to PeterTheAleut, and your generally sarcastic and condascending tone).

« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 02:52:51 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2007, 04:37:07 PM »

Please forgive me for offending you, for evidently I have.  That said, I think you're reading into my recent posts much more than I had intended to express and are accusing me of motives that are not mine.

-Peter

Dear Peter,

I never said I was offended. (Please read what I just finished explaining to Salpy.) I said that your reasoning is circular: You said that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by "half of the Church". ("For instance, can we recognize a council as truly ecumenical if one entire half of the church never accepted it as ecumenical?")

Then, when I challenged this claim by pointing out that Chalcedon was accepted by both the Latins and the Byzantines, you replied that they counted as "half" the Church "considering that the EO and Latin churches were united through the end of the furor following the 7th Council, and that Chalcedon wasn't the issue that eventually divided the Latins from the EO".

That's what I call "circular reasoning", or if you prefer "begging the question" (and I hope you, in turn, won't be offended by my saying so): you're trying to show that the Chalcedonian side only counts as "half of the Church", but you're arguing that they are half because they are the Chalcedonian side.

But I give up. Believe what you will; for I have better things to do with my time than continue this conversation, which is starting to get a little ridiculous, having less to do with reasoning about the issues than with discussing whether the participants are "immature", "overly sensitive", etc.:

Needless to say, it appears very difficult to have reasonable dialogue with you, given that you appear to be overly sensitive, and yet somewhat hypocritical (i.e. constant accusations that you are being dealt with offensively--the majority of which are clearly unwarranted, but look at your last response to PeterTheAleut, and your generally sarcastic and condascending tone).

God bless you,
Peter.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 04:57:09 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2007, 05:14:42 PM »

Dear PJ,

Quote
having less to do with reasoning about the issues than with discussing whether the participants are "immature", "overly sensitive", etc.:

Please do not try and mislead people into believing that peripheral side-remarks were the main focus of the responses given to you. I can easily play that game with you, and argue that you are less interested in dealing with the arguments and sources given than with whether the responses offend you or cause you to conclude a negative impression of one's Church. In fact, if I recall correctly, the remarks of mine which you refer to in the above quote were made in direct response to those various remarks of yours which I have just alluded to.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2007, 05:25:54 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2007, 11:01:18 AM »

Dear PeterTheAleut,

Something -- I'm not sure what -- got me to thinking about this conversation again. In any case the end result was I realized that I really wasn't satisfied with the way it was left at the end.

Do not fear, however, that I am I planning on rehashing the argument. On the contrary, let's just suppose that all you have said is right. Rather, what I want to ask about is Acts 15 and similar passages which speak about laying "no greater burden than what is necessary" on those coming to the faith.

In particular, doesn't the insistence on your statement (i.e. the Chalcedon was not accepted by "one entire half of the Church") place an unnecessary burden on Catholics coming to Orthodoxy?

(Before this get off track again, please everyone note that I am talking about Catholic disagreeing with the statement, not about being "offended".)

Thanks in advance,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2007, 02:42:59 PM »

P.S. To be fair, Catholics have done (and many still do, I'm sure) something very similar, only in reverse: say that Chalcedon was accepted by "the whole Church", when in actual fact about one-third of the Church did not accept it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2007, 01:25:16 AM »

In particular, doesn't the insistence on your statement (i.e. the Chalcedon was not accepted by "one entire half of the Church") place an unnecessary burden on Catholics coming to Orthodoxy?
How so?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #58 on: September 11, 2007, 08:28:33 AM »

How so?

Yeah, what PtA asked. PJ's question makes no sense...to me.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #59 on: September 11, 2007, 11:03:57 AM »

Dear PeterTheAleut and Αριστοκλής,

How so?

Yeah, what PtA asked. PJ's question makes no sense...to me.

Alright, but my answer will depend which part of the question doesn't make sense to you.

For example, is my claim that it is an "unnecessary" burden the part you disagree with (i.e. is it your contention that the language "Chalcedon wasn't accepted by one entire half of the Church" is necessary for someone coming to Orthodoxy)?

If that is the case then, quite honestly, I'm not sure what argument I should respond with. (Perhaps some poster who is a convert, or just more familiar with conversions, could help me out here?) It just seems intuitively clear to me that it isn't necessary.

(And, again, to try to be fair to the Orthodox p.o.v., for Catholics to speak of Chalcedon having been "accepted by all" is a similarly unnecessary burden on Orthodox converting to Catholicism.)

If that isn't the part of my question which doesn't make sense to you, please tell me which part and I will do my best to explain.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2007, 12:52:38 PM »

I am converting from Roman Catholicism and I don't see how that would be a 'burden'.

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 

Almost sounds like the Assumption/Dormition beliefs to me.  One statement leaves it more open at the end, while the other is definite.

If I am way off, forgive me.  Too many technical books might have me seeing things that are not exactly there.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #61 on: September 11, 2007, 01:30:25 PM »

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 

Dear Friul,

Thanks for your input.

For what it is worth, I am not saying that those who didn't accept Chalcedon were no longer part of the Church. (I'm not even sure which post of mine you're referring to.)

What I believe is that the portion of the Church that accepted Chalcedon was about twice as large as the portion of the Church that didn't accept it. So I guess my question to you is, shouldn't your designation "One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon" include just as much as PtA?

Thanks in advance for whatever answer you would like to give to this question and God bless you,
Peter.

P.S. I was just re-reading your post, Friul, and I realized that there could different ways of taking it. So perhaps a better question than the one I wrote above is simply, Can you explain what you meant?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 01:48:04 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #62 on: September 11, 2007, 01:51:06 PM »

I am converting from Roman Catholicism and I don't see how that would be a 'burden'.

I'm glad to hear that is the case for you. Perhaps I should have worded my statement more carefully, e.g. "saying that Chalcedon wasn't accepted by one entire half of the Church is an unnecessary burden on some Catholics coming to Orthodoxy". (Likewise, if Catholics speak of Chalcedon having been "accepted by all", that is an unnecessary burden on some Orthodox converting to Catholicism.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #63 on: September 11, 2007, 02:26:18 PM »

Maybe I am reading it differently, but to me it looks like you are both more or less saying the same thing.  One is saying you had a united Church when a chunk/group/third/half that was part of the Church did not accept Chalcedon, it is not commenting on what those members are afterwards (whether still part of the Church or now outside it).  While the other argument is saying that those who accepted it were part of the united Church and those who did not, were than instantly not part of it (hence the whole Church accepted it). 
Can you explain what you meant?

Hold on, I think I can answer my own question. The dichotomy confused me at first, but now I'm pretty sure that you are saying that there's not much difference between saying that Chalcedon was accepted by two-thirds of the Church (as I have) versus saying that Chalcedon was accepted by one-half of the Church (as PtA has); but that there is a very significant difference between saying that it was accepted by two-thirds of the Church versus saying that it was accepted by all of the Church.

Furthermore, you say this latter claim implies that those who did not accept Chalcedon were then instantly not part of the Church. (Is this all a correct interpretation of your post?)

I actually agree to some extent with the first part (time allowing, I'll try to say more about that later), but I disagree with the last statement. Just as PtA's statement does not imply that thinks the Latin Church wasn't part of the Church, so too the statement "Chalcedon was accepted by all" does not imply that those that who didn't accept it weren't part of the Church.

More specifically, if you talk with people who hold that view (and this is not just hypothetical, I have done so) and point out that there were some in the Church who didn't accept Chalcedon, they will typically respond that the phrase "accepted by all" does not literally mean "accepted by every single person in the Church" but rather that those who accepted it were a clear majority. (Personally, I don't really care for that kind of rhetoric. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?)

That's all for right now.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 11, 2007, 03:01:05 PM »

I swear, the more Unix I work on, the more my English skills suffer.   Tongue

I think you got what I was trying to say in the last post.  While I was a Roman Catholic I never heard the "all accepted" statement, so it confused me a bit.  I thought maybe it meant that since to be in the Church you must accept it, those who did not accept it, were therefore not.  Things that are taken more loosely (all = majority, not having to be literally all) in every other part of life are so analysed and questioned when it comes to theology and the Church, eh?  Tongue
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 03:02:55 PM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #65 on: September 11, 2007, 03:57:51 PM »

I swear, the more Unix I work on, the more my English skills suffer.   Tongue
I think your English skills in this instance were better than mine. Smiley

I think you got what I was trying to say in the last post.  While I was a Roman Catholic I never heard the "all accepted" statement, so it confused me a bit.  I thought maybe it meant that since to be in the Church you must accept it, those who did not accept it, were therefore not.  Things that are taken more loosely (all = majority, not having to be literally all) in every other part of life are so analysed and questioned when it comes to theology and the Church, eh?  Tongue

Well said. (Incidentally, I should add that there have also been Catholics who've said that the Alexandrians were already in schism, and thus didn't count. But that's another matter; I simply wanted to make the point that say "all accepted Chalcedon" doesn't necessarily imply, etc.)

I actually agree to some extent with the first part (time allowing, I'll try to say more about that later),

Alright, to get back to that ...
You may very well be right in saying that the "all accepted Chalcedon" language is a bigger problem than the "only half accepted Chalcedon", so I won't argue with you there.

However, let me just add these thoughts:

1. If you consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been outside the Church, then (naturally) it makes sense to say that one-half of the Church accepted Chalcedon and one-half didn't. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that logic.

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

3. but he has strenuously avoided the logical implication: If you admit that the Latin Church was part of the Church at the time of Chalcedon, then you can no longer consider those who accepted and those who didn't accept Chalcedon to each be one-half of the Church.

4. Thus, without trying to say which is a bigger problem, I think that the "one-half accepted" rhetoric and the "all accepted" rhetoric are both pretty problematic.

Thanks again for your thoughts and God bless,
Peter.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 04:00:54 PM by PJ » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #66 on: September 11, 2007, 04:20:51 PM »

Why anyone would think (#2 above) that the 5th century Latin church was not IN the Church (excepting OOs post 451) is beyond me.

No wonder RCs and EO can't talk today...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #67 on: September 11, 2007, 11:26:20 PM »

However, let me just add these thoughts:

1. If you consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been outside the Church, then (naturally) it makes sense to say that one-half of the Church accepted Chalcedon and one-half didn't. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that logic.

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

3. but he has strenuously avoided the logical implication: If you admit that the Latin Church was part of the Church at the time of Chalcedon, then you can no longer consider those who accepted and those who didn't accept Chalcedon to each be one-half of the Church.

4. Thus, without trying to say which is a bigger problem, I think that the "one-half accepted" rhetoric and the "all accepted" rhetoric are both pretty problematic.
You're still stuck on a strict mathematical interpretation of my use of the word half, aren't you?

If by half you think I'm talking about an arithmetic half (0.5, 50%, 1/2, etc.), then, NO, that's not what I'm talking about.  I realize that those who accepted Chalcedon were much more numerous than those who rejected the council.  I just used the word half in a rather loose manner to denote the two large segments of the whole.

Let's just forget that I ever spoke of half the Church rejecting Chalcedon, for I see that I confused you unintentionally--I apologize for not making myself clear.  What I intended to say is that a large segment of the Church rejected Chalcedon.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2007, 09:43:54 AM »

You're still stuck on a strict mathematical interpretation of my use of the word half, aren't you?

Oh give me a break! Please read my posts before you respond to them. I never said that one-half has to mean literally one-half (just like I never said that "all" has to mean literally 100%).

The bottom line is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if it's okay for you, as an Orthodox, to use the "one-half" description, than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description, and vice versa. (Personally, I would prefer that neither of those descriptions be used, but that's beside the point.)

I know, I know ... you're going to say that this just further proves that I'm "confused".

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2007, 09:55:15 AM »

Let's just forget that I ever spoke of half the Church rejecting Chalcedon, for I see that I confused you unintentionally--I apologize for not making myself clear.  What I intended to say is that a large segment of the Church rejected Chalcedon.

That's good. Can you say it again without the condescension?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2007, 10:50:46 AM »

That's good. Can you say it again without the condescension?

PJ,
It's very easy to misinterpret people's intentions in the written word, since it lacks the nuance of non-verbal communication etc. I can't see anything in PeterTheAleut's responses which suggest condescension in a negative way. Nor do I see anything where he says the 5th century Latin Church was not in the Church. You don't seem to realise it, but in fact you have misunderstood and misinterpreted him several times in this thread.
You need to calm down mate. This is a friendly board where we welcome people of other confessions than Orthodox Christianity, and we encoursge dialogue. But what you are engaging in with PeterTheAleut is not conversation, but combat.

George
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2007, 11:17:21 AM »

Ozgeorge,

Just because I disagree with someone, it doesn't mean I have misinterpreted or been "confused" by what they said.

It's very easy to misinterpret people's intentions in the written word, since it lacks the nuance of non-verbal communication etc.

And yet, you have no problem reading my posts and concluding that I need to "calm down"? Isn't that a double-standard?

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2007, 11:27:41 AM »

2. P-the-A admitted to me earlier that he does consider the fifth-century Latin Church to have been in the Church (to his credit);

Nor do I see anything where he says the 5th century Latin Church was not in the Church.

Is there an echo in here?  Wink Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2007, 11:31:08 AM »

And yet, you have no problem reading my posts and concluding that I need to "calm down"?
Nope

Isn't that a double-standard?
Nope
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2007, 12:23:40 PM »

PJ,

I followed this thread closely, and frankly, I am just dead confused at the point you're trying to make.  Trust me, I'm trying hard, but it seemed to me you're rehashing the "half the church" thing.  Seriously, and there is no condescension here, but I haven't seen anything offensive from PetertheAleut, and I'm having a hard time at what you're trying to say.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2007, 12:30:12 PM »

Nope

Nope

Oh.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2007, 12:33:13 PM »

PJ,

I followed this thread closely, and frankly, I am just dead confused at the point you're trying to make.  Trust me, I'm trying hard, but it seemed to me you're rehashing the "half the church" thing.  Seriously, and there is no condescension here, but I haven't seen anything offensive from PetertheAleut, and I'm having a hard time at what you're trying to say.

Well ... I think I may have made this more complicated than it need be. All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2007, 12:37:40 PM »

All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2007, 12:38:37 PM »

GEORGE!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2007, 12:39:11 PM »

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes

?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2007, 02:04:42 PM »

All I really want to say here is, don't go and start complaining when Catholics say that "Chalcedon was accepted by all". (The whole "goose/gander" business, y'know.)

Well, that's cleared things up..... Roll Eyes

This might be stating the obvious (and if so, I apologize), but the above statement was basically meant as a short-hand way of saying what I had already said to PtA:

The bottom line is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: if it's okay for you, as an Orthodox, to use the "one-half" description, than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description, and vice versa.

Thanks everyone for your patience, and God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2007, 02:13:07 PM »

Whew!
Finally....good show, lads.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,969


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #82 on: September 12, 2007, 05:04:10 PM »

Whew!
Finally....good show, lads.

Today's theme:  Fuzzy math is misleading.  Wink
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #83 on: September 12, 2007, 05:08:27 PM »

^ Post of the Month nomination
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2007, 12:15:30 PM »

At last---this Abbott and Costello sketch has run its course! Pardon me while I rest my Linda Blair head.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2007, 01:18:40 PM »

At last---this Abbott and Costello sketch has run its course! Pardon me while I rest my Linda Blair head.

If you say so.

Who's Linda Blair?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #86 on: September 13, 2007, 03:08:39 PM »

If you say so.

Who's Linda Blair?

And you call yourself Catholic?  Wink

Linda Blair is She of the Spinning Head:


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,154


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #87 on: September 14, 2007, 12:28:02 AM »

Who's Linda Blair?
You never watched the 1973 movie The Exorcist?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #88 on: September 14, 2007, 10:54:15 AM »

You never watched the 1973 movie The Exorcist?

No, I haven't. But I'm glad to see that the conversation was resolved without any hard feelings (aside from lubeltri's neck muscles, apparently). I rather expected you to disagree with my statement that "than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description". (I should have said "then" not "than", BTW.) But I guess that just goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about what other people are going to say.

Hopefully our next argument won't end with onlookers making Abbott and Costello comparisons.

God bless,
Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2007, 12:16:27 PM »

No, I haven't. But I'm glad to see that the conversation was resolved without any hard feelings (aside from lubeltri's neck muscles, apparently). I rather expected you to disagree with my statement that "than it is also alright for Catholics to use the "accepted by all" description". (I should have said "then" not "than", BTW.) But I guess that just goes to show that I shouldn't make assumptions about what other people are going to say.

Hopefully our next argument won't end with onlookers making Abbott and Costello comparisons.


Lighten up just a tad. My comment, on the circular and confusing semantics of the thread, was in good humor.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #90 on: September 14, 2007, 12:38:45 PM »

Lighten up just a tad. My comment, on the circular and confusing semantics of the thread, was in good humor.

My "neck muscles" and "Abbott and Costello" remarks were meant in good humor, too.

If you're going to dish out zings, you should expect to take them as well.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.239 seconds with 118 queries.