OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 02:50:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox-Catholic differences, by a Catholic  (Read 3246 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« on: August 10, 2009, 11:21:53 AM »

Thanks to John ad Ad Orientem I found this list from a Roman Catholic (I'm sorry, I have never figured out URLs in BBCode, so the link is below).

http://vivificat1.blogspot.com/2009/08/twelve-differences-between-orthodox-and.html

What stands out for me is #9, which is something you rarely see mentioned on these lists, and which I throw out for your interest or discussion:

Quote
Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.

I also like #10.

Thanks, John!

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2009, 04:24:48 PM »

Did I miss something, or was the filioque not even mentioned?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2009, 01:10:08 PM »

Quote
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.
Right off the bat this blogger shows that he is most likely Orthodox. In 1054 AD the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church entered into schism from one another. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church broke off from them and (you shouldn't be surprised at this) the Catholic Church holds the opposite.


Quote
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
The Church Fathers certainly disagree. While Jesus Christ is certainly the ultimate head of His Church, He has placed others as visible heads on this earth. Or do the Orthodox think that Bishops have no divine authority even over their own local Church?


Quote
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
Yes, part of the ecclesiastical organization and structure is very much modeled on human design -- such as the borders of dioceses, the reason Constantinople ever became a Patriarchate, even the reason why Peter and Paul felt compelled to go to Rome. Even some of the jurisdictional authority is based on human modeling -- such as how an Archbishop is given so-called suffragan dioceses. But, there is some actual divinely given authoritative differences (here we'd get into debates on probably Matthew 16).

One question I've always had that's never really been answered is -- what exactly is a primacy of honor, what does it entail, and why would Jesus institute it into His Church (for the common Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16 is a primacy of honor, from what I've seen).


Quote
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
I wonder if the author realizes that the Catholic Church is also conciliar, we just hold that there is a head of the council and that head has certain and real authority and prerogatives.


Quote
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils.


Quote
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
I don't think I would tell God he has no authority if I were you.  Wink

Also, authority in the Catholic Church is also seen primarily in servitude. Jesus told his disciples that whoever wanted to be the first among them must be the servant of them. One of the Pope's official titles is Servant of the Servants of God.


Quote
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
The Catholic Church does not teach that we inherit a guilt of actual sin from Adam. We inherit his fallen nature.

CCC:
Quote
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297


I also wonder if this Orthodox blogger realizes that Augustine is held in highest esteem by an Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) that the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts. Also, more than one Eastern Orthodox has held Saint Thomas Aquinas in high esteem: Aquinas, a Light to the East?


Quote
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
Yes, a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's view of Original Sin can easily lead to a misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception. Let's put it this way -- by a unique grace of God, Mary was conceived in the same spiritual state as Adam and Eve, that is in the state of original innocence.


Quote
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
Yes, the Divine Liturgy is catechetical -- the Catholic Church holds the same view. But, you can't learn everything in Liturgy that you don't need to further learn in, say, a University. In another thread here there was talk of whether or not Christ had a gnomic and/or discursive will. Where can I learn about that in the Liturgy?

Yes, the normal life of a parish will teach a person everything they need to know for their salvation -- this is true in both the Orthodox and Catholic faith. But for the finer points of philosophy and theology one needs further education. Do you think Bishop Ware knows all the minute points of thought that he knows merely from attending Liturgy -- or was it the years he spent at seminary and university that took him from a Orthodox believer who knew enough to get to heaven and propelled him to a formidable scholar who can precisely articulate his faith in theological and philosophical terms.


Quote
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
As for music -- personally I musically prefer a cappella chant, especially Old Roman Chant that retains the drone line like in Byzantine Chant. But, there is nothing theologically or liturgically wrong with certain instruments being used and offered to God. Recall that many psalms even include instructions to use instruments such as lyre and harps -- certainly God does not disdain our use of instruments to glorify Him.


Quote
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
Well, I'd like a more precise definition from the Orthodox on what is a sacrament and what is a sacramental act, but from the Catholic perspective, a tonsure and consecration can indeed be sacramental in nature. By sacramental, we mean something that disposes us to receive grace from the seven sacraments.


Quote
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
I think the author is trying to make distinctions where there are none. Yes, we look at things in different perspectives, but we both essentially teach similar things -- I certainly don't think Catholic eschatology is any more subdued than the Orthodox.


Quote
Did I miss something, or was the filioque not even mentioned?
I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned either, or that no mention was made of the use of unleavened bread, or other things.

But, to my mind, the only true difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism is in the understanding of the Papacy. All the rest is misunderstanding, quibbling over saying the same thing in diverse ways, or plain petty arguing.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2009, 01:31:07 PM »

Quote
But, to my mind, the only true difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism is in the understanding of the Papacy. All the rest is misunderstanding, quibbling over saying the same thing in diverse ways, or plain petty arguing.
I would definitely have to disagree, as a former Protestant (though never Catholic), I can tell you that the two are vastly different. If we were to talk unity, it would be many hundreds of years away.

The Papacy, the Filioque, Papal Infallibility, the RC Mass, difference in Eucharist, celibacy of all Priests, leavened vs. unleavened bread, new revelations in the RCC, use of instruments during church, the immaculate conception of Mary, Mary as Queen of Heaven, perspective on the Incarnation, the canon of scripture, addition of more than just 7 councils, differences in the basic sacraments & mysteries, over-emphasis on scholasticism & reason, the nature of man, election of the Pope (not truly conciliar), the jurisdiction of the Pope, treatment of heretics. I could go on and on with the important and basic differences.

It may be to Roman Catholics that these issues aren't that big of an issue, but to us Orthodox, they are a big deal. People have suffered and died to keep our truths & tradition intact, we simply cannot just write them off as "simply political" or minor doctrinal issues.

The separation between the Latin Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic Churches is greater than many people think.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 01:39:38 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,670



« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2009, 01:58:48 PM »

Mary as Queen of Heaven...

I'm pretty sure the Orthodox refer to the Theotokos as the Queen of Heaven as well.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,841



« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »

I know, but I think it's a difference in how we view her. I think our view is more along the Biblical lines with her being more like the Queen Mother of the OT.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2009, 02:08:38 PM »

Quote
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.
Right off the bat this blogger shows that he is most likely Orthodox.

Did you miss that picture of Pope Benedict XVI on the left?

he explains himself:
Quote
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.

Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:


Quote
In 1054 AD the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church entered into schism from one another. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church broke off from them and (you shouldn't be surprised at this) the Catholic Church holds the opposite.

Yes, but the problem is that the Vatican has be explain why Rome's position was the same as Constantinople's, until the Frank emperor told the pope of Rome othewise.


Quote
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
The Church Fathers certainly disagree. While Jesus Christ is certainly the ultimate head of His Church, He has placed others as visible heads on this earth. Or do the Orthodox think that Bishops have no divine authority even over their own local Church?

Heads.  Plural, so obvious not THE (singular) head.  The practice of calling one bishop (the only real bishop, in fact according to the theory) THE Holy Father (capitalized) who can by himself issue the teaching of the Church as THE Teacher (hence Magisterium), muddles the issue.

Quote
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
Yes, part of the ecclesiastical organization and structure is very much modeled on human design -- such as the borders of dioceses, the reason Constantinople ever became a Patriarchate, even the reason why Peter and Paul felt compelled to go to Rome. Even some of the jurisdictional authority is based on human modeling -- such as how an Archbishop is given so-called suffragan dioceses. But, there is some actual divinely given authoritative differences (here we'd get into debates on probably Matthew 16).

and how Antioch, St. Peter's first see, doesn't qualify.

Matthew 16? Isn't that where Christ calls St. Peter "Satan?"

Quote
One question I've always had that's never really been answered is -- what exactly is a primacy of honor, what does it entail, and why would Jesus institute it into His Church (for the common Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16 is a primacy of honor, from what I've seen).

Primacy wasn't instituted by Christ: it was created by the Church.

Quote
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
I wonder if the author realizes that the Catholic Church is also conciliar, we just hold that there is a head of the council and that head has certain and real authority and prerogatives.

Like he doesn't need the Council.

And of course, the problem that said "head" never headed any of the Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils.

The problem is that the list that the Vatican recognize as Ecumenical has changed over the centuries.


Quote
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
I don't think I would tell God he has no authority if I were you.  Wink

Also, authority in the Catholic Church is also seen primarily in servitude. Jesus told his disciples that whoever wanted to be the first among them must be the servant of them. One of the Pope's official titles is Servant of the Servants of God.

Yes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/ChristWashingFeet.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/PopeKissing_Feet.JPG


7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
The Catholic Church does not teach that we inherit a guilt of actual sin from Adam. We inherit his fallen nature.

CCC:
Quote
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. the first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. the Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297


I also wonder if this Orthodox blogger realizes that Augustine is held in highest esteem by an Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) that the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts. Also, more than one Eastern Orthodox has held Saint Thomas Aquinas in high esteem: Aquinas, a Light to the East?[/quote]

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21719.135.html


I've have to respond to the rest later.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2009, 06:08:32 PM »

Did you miss that picture of Pope Benedict XVI on the left?

he explains himself:
Quote
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.

Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
Well, which is he? He claims to be Catholic (Latin, Eastern?), but admits to wearing his "Orthodox hat" whatever that means? His first point of conjecture is very much from an Orthodox perspective and is not consonant with Catholic teaching which proclaims that the Catholic Church is the One True Church and not broken off from Eastern Orthodoxy.

I'm not blaming him or any Orthodox for thinking their's is the true Church (if you're Orthodox why would you think differently), but it tells everyone from what angle he'll be looking at things throughout his blog.


Yes, but the problem is that the Vatican has be explain why Rome's position was the same as Constantinople's, until the Frank emperor told the pope of Rome othewise.
What are you talking about?


Heads.  Plural, so obvious not THE (singular) head.  The practice of calling one bishop (the only real bishop, in fact according to the theory) THE Holy Father (capitalized) who can by himself issue the teaching of the Church as THE Teacher (hence Magisterium), muddles the issue.
Whether one or plural, it doesn't matter. The blogger claims that Jesus is the only headship of the Church in an absolute sense, as in the Bishop isn't the head of his diocese.

Also, we needn't go off-topic on the headship of Peter here nor the Patristic evidence for it. The only point of discussion here is on this blog entry and its claim of no earthly headship, singular or plural.


and how Antioch, St. Peter's first see, doesn't qualify.

Matthew 16? Isn't that where Christ calls St. Peter "Satan?"
Antioch never became the primary See because Saint Peter didn't cease to be a Bishop when he left Antioch to travel to Rome.

You'll stop at nothing to insult the Catholic Church (here by innuendo), how pitiable for you. Yes, Saint Peter was rebuked by Jesus because Saint Peter sought to save Jesus from His Passion. But, that doesn't take away from where Christ gave him the commission as the rock, as the confirmer of brethren, and as the shepherd of the flock.


Primacy wasn't instituted by Christ: it was created by the Church.
Even the Orthodox claim that Peter was singled out by Jesus. They'll just claim now that all that was given and ever exercised was a primacy of honor.

So, what exactly is a "Primacy of honor" and what does it entail. (Please answer with specifics)


Like he doesn't need the Council.

And of course, the problem that said "head" never headed any of the Ecumenical Councils.
For the other thread. But, he has headed by proxy, by sending legates to represent him.


The problem is that the list that the Vatican recognize as Ecumenical has changed over the centuries.
I can only suppose that you are referring to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. That was the fodder of another debate that I won't get into again here. Let it suffice that you didn't make your case to me and I assume you hold that I didn't make mine to you.


You found a 16th century political cartoon -- good for you.  Roll Eyes


Is there something in particular there you want to bring to my attention?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2009, 06:39:57 PM »

"Right off the bat this blogger shows that he is most likely Orthodox. In 1054 AD the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church entered into schism from one another. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Catholic Church broke off from them and (you shouldn't be surprised at this) the Catholic Church holds the opposite."

I think you missed the nature of the list. He is not representing his own opinions, but rather that of the Orthodox Churches. From the article:

"Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church."

This is what immediately precedes the list.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2009, 06:41:52 PM »

"The Church Fathers certainly disagree. While Jesus Christ is certainly the ultimate head of His Church, He has placed others as visible heads on this earth. Or do the Orthodox think that Bishops have no divine authority even over their own local Church?"

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2009, 06:43:51 PM »

"True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils."

"Orthodox" is not a term ever used to refer to the ACE.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2009, 06:45:51 PM »

"Also, more than one Eastern Orthodox has held Saint Thomas Aquinas in high esteem"

Such would be out of nothing more than ignorance. Thomas Aquinas is clearly a great heretic in stark contrast to the EO Tradition.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 06:46:09 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2009, 06:48:10 PM »

"Well, I'd like a more precise definition from the Orthodox on what is a sacrament and what is a sacramental act, but from the Catholic perspective, a tonsure and consecration can indeed be sacramental in nature. By sacramental, we mean something that disposes us to receive grace from the seven sacraments."

The EO generally recognize that there are more than seven rituals which actually dispose grace, not just more than dispose us to receive grace.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2009, 06:50:04 PM »

"All the rest is misunderstanding, quibbling over saying the same thing in diverse ways, or plain petty arguing."

So the fact that the RC Tradition teaches that the Son is part of the ontological principle that generates the Holy Spirit and the EO Tradition teaches that He is not does not appear to be an actual difference to you??
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2009, 07:30:05 PM »

Private revelations purportedly from Jesus or Mary have been effectively canonized and promulgated. You might find on some Orthodox websites references to the Sacred Heart image, for example. But there is a more recent 20th century example: the Divine Mercy devotion. Initially suppressed, then tolerated (her diary was once on the forbidden books list), things changed when a Pole ascended to the seat of Peter. Words of Jesus from her purported revelations were used at her canonization ceremony at the Vatican. Here's a few samplings of her diary here -  entries on purgatory:

http://www.pwhs-mfi.org/newsletter/news13/st_faustina.htm

The Divine Mercy devotion had impact on the Roman liturgical calendar, namely Thomas Sunday has now been rechristened "Mercy Sunday", and those who devote themselves to the Divine Mercy novena essentially get out of Purgatory free (sins forgiven, punishment due to sins). Divine Mercy images now proliferate, not only privately, but within Latin-rite churches and even Byzantine-rite ones (!)

Orthodox apologist and NT translator Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck mentioned the proliferation of these types of devotions as an obstacle to communion with Rome in "His Broken Body".

Quote
Devotion to the Sacred Heart, for example, finds its origin in the apparitions received by St. Marguerite Marie Alacoque. it is not my intention to offer any opinion on specific apparitions or the merits of this particular devotional image. What needs to be understood is that the combination of ever-evolving Western art and devotions is a cause of concern to many Eastern Orthodox, who have themselves been greatly influenced by Westernized 'iconography.' The question, 'what kind of music and art should we have in the Church' is extremely important, as it is to a large extent how we express our faith and identity.

A few other influential apparitions should be mentioned: the rue de Bac and Lourdes, both connected to the theology of the Immaculate Conception, as well as Fatima, connected with the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the conversion of Russia...

Apparitions are an important aspect of the Roman Catholic experience, and their theological message cannot be ignored. Theologians should be aware that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism cannot be effectively reconciled if the topic of devotions and apparitions is not frankly discussed, and hopefully harmonized with sound theology.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2009, 07:31:52 PM by John Larocque » Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2009, 08:11:50 PM »

"True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils."

"Orthodox" is not a term ever used to refer to the ACE.

at least not by the Orthodox.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2009, 08:15:04 PM »

"at least not by the Orthodox."

No, "orthodox" is not a terminology they even use as a title for themselves. If you pursue them and ask if they believe their beliefs are the most accurate and correct, they will admit so. But it's simply not a defining attribute they refer to.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2009, 08:57:22 PM »

Well, which is he? He claims to be Catholic (Latin, Eastern?), but admits to wearing his "Orthodox hat" whatever that means? His first point of conjecture is very much from an Orthodox perspective and is not consonant with Catholic teaching which proclaims that the Catholic Church is the One True Church and not broken off from Eastern Orthodoxy.

I'm not blaming him or any Orthodox for thinking their's is the true Church (if you're Orthodox why would you think differently), but it tells everyone from what angle he'll be looking at things throughout his blog.

If you read the blog posting you will see that he is a Roman Catholic blogger who spent four years in the Orthodox Church. He converted to Orthodoxy then re-verted back to Catholicism. In this particular blog post he writes from an Orthodox point of view to address a question from a Catholic as to what differances lie between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Furthermore, it is quite clear by the graphics and other blog postings on the blog that he is a Catholic writer.
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2009, 02:10:24 PM »

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.

The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2009, 02:11:55 PM »

Such would be out of nothing more than ignorance. Thomas Aquinas is clearly a great heretic in stark contrast to the EO Tradition.
Rather, it seems that the Orthodox in the last 1 - 2 hundred years have become more and more anti-Latin and anti-Western and willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2009, 02:20:29 PM »

The EO generally recognize that there are more than seven rituals which actually dispose grace, not just more than dispose us to receive grace.
There are various types of grace. What is given only in the Sacraments is called sacramental grace.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2009, 02:22:26 PM »

"All the rest is misunderstanding, quibbling over saying the same thing in diverse ways, or plain petty arguing."

So the fact that the RC Tradition teaches that the Son is part of the ontological principle that generates the Holy Spirit and the EO Tradition teaches that He is not does not appear to be an actual difference to you??

If you read the document The Father as Source of the Whole Trinity, you see that we say essentially the same thing only with different language.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2009, 02:23:26 PM »

Private revelations purportedly from Jesus or Mary have been effectively canonized and promulgated. You might find on some Orthodox websites references to the Sacred Heart image, for example. But there is a more recent 20th century example: the Divine Mercy devotion. Initially suppressed, then tolerated (her diary was once on the forbidden books list), things changed when a Pole ascended to the seat of Peter. Words of Jesus from her purported revelations were used at her canonization ceremony at the Vatican. Here's a few samplings of her diary here -  entries on purgatory:

http://www.pwhs-mfi.org/newsletter/news13/st_faustina.htm

The Divine Mercy devotion had impact on the Roman liturgical calendar, namely Thomas Sunday has now been rechristened "Mercy Sunday", and those who devote themselves to the Divine Mercy novena essentially get out of Purgatory free (sins forgiven, punishment due to sins). Divine Mercy images now proliferate, not only privately, but within Latin-rite churches and even Byzantine-rite ones (!)

Orthodox apologist and NT translator Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck mentioned the proliferation of these types of devotions as an obstacle to communion with Rome in "His Broken Body".

Quote
Devotion to the Sacred Heart, for example, finds its origin in the apparitions received by St. Marguerite Marie Alacoque. it is not my intention to offer any opinion on specific apparitions or the merits of this particular devotional image. What needs to be understood is that the combination of ever-evolving Western art and devotions is a cause of concern to many Eastern Orthodox, who have themselves been greatly influenced by Westernized 'iconography.' The question, 'what kind of music and art should we have in the Church' is extremely important, as it is to a large extent how we express our faith and identity.

A few other influential apparitions should be mentioned: the rue de Bac and Lourdes, both connected to the theology of the Immaculate Conception, as well as Fatima, connected with the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the conversion of Russia...

Apparitions are an important aspect of the Roman Catholic experience, and their theological message cannot be ignored. Theologians should be aware that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism cannot be effectively reconciled if the topic of devotions and apparitions is not frankly discussed, and hopefully harmonized with sound theology.


Besides being inaccurate, what in the least does this have to do with the topic at hand?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2009, 02:25:24 PM »

"True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils."

"Orthodox" is not a term ever used to refer to the ACE.

at least not by the Orthodox.

Aren't the Assyrians considered part of the Oriental Orthodox communion?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2009, 02:30:22 PM »

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.

The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.

And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2009, 02:38:17 PM »

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.

The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.

And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.

The question isn't what the headship entails nor who the Orthodox hold currently possesses that headship -- the question is whether the blogger is inaccurate in stating that the Orthodox don't believe in any sort of headship besides Jesus Christ (the blogger's point #2).
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 525


« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2009, 02:42:40 PM »

Quote
Besides being inaccurate, what in the least does this have to do with the topic at hand?

According to Fr. Cleenewerck, a number of devotions (which have origins in private revelations) are a cause of concern with Orthodox, and he cited specifically the theology of them as well as iconography. As I've acquainted myself with Orthodoxy, he has been one of my resources. You could probably segue into an entire discussion on the different approaches to devotion to the Virgin Mary / Theotokos, as well as the impact of both "popular" Catholicism and these private revelations.

You won't find pictures of the Sacred Heart in Orthodox Churches, and there are constraints on how the Theotokos is to be represented as well. I sometimes wish that the Latins had clamped down harder in regulating devotions in the Latin rite.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 02:46:56 PM by John Larocque » Logged

Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei, miserere mei, peccatoris.
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2009, 04:05:02 PM »

"True -- the Catholic Church recognizes 21 Ecumenical Councils and the Eastern Orthodox only recognize 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Oriental Orthodox only recognize 3 Ecumenical Councils and the Assyrian Orthodox only recognize 2 Ecumenical Councils."

"Orthodox" is not a term ever used to refer to the ACE.

at least not by the Orthodox.

Aren't the Assyrians considered part of the Oriental Orthodox communion?

Not technically. The Assyrians are Nestorians.

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2009, 04:38:49 PM »

"Aren't the Assyrians considered part of the Oriental Orthodox communion?"

No at all. They have a Christology that affirms twoness in Christ even more than the EOC does. This is opposite to the Oriental Orthodox. The ACE asserted independence from the imperial church in 424, and then accepted into their church the Nestorian partisans who were fleeing condemnation from the imperial church following the Council of Ephesus of 431. The OO strongly uphold Ephesus and reject any alliance with Nestorian partisans. The ACE isn't really part of any broader communion.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2009, 04:45:06 PM »

"The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.
"

For one, it doesn't really matter to me what an excommunicated ACE "bishop" has to say about much of anything. Even if he was in good standing in the ACE, it still wouldn't mean much to me. And even if he was part of the OOC or EOC, he would still be only one bishop with a private opinion. Finally, given the typical Orthodox conception of all bishops being successors of Peter, I'm not sure that this quote necessarily even indicates an identification of the Bishop of Rome with Peter. So it may not even mean what you are suggesting.

Where do you get the idea that any EO would say that the Bishops of Rome were the head of the College of Bishops?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2009, 04:49:22 PM »

"Rather, it seems that the Orthodox in the last 1 - 2 hundred years have become more and more anti-Latin and anti-Western and willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I won't deny that the EO have become rather galvanized against the RC Tradition over recent years. However, this appears to be more a matter of recognizing the points of where we were already clearly inconsistent with each other, not an exaggeration of our differences. Gregory Palamas says that we cannot perceive the Essence of God. Thomas Aquinas says that we can. How is this not a huge and irreconcilable difference that qualifies Aquinas as a heretic for the EO?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2009, 04:50:39 PM »

"There are various types of grace. What is given only in the Sacraments is called sacramental grace."

I know this. You're not getting the point. The majority of EO theologians would say that there are more than seven rituals of the Church that convey sacramental grace.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2009, 05:12:11 PM »

"If you read the document The Father as Source of the Whole Trinity, you see that we say essentially the same thing only with different language."

I read it, but it doesn't seem to really address the major difference I see. In RC theology, the Father and the Son both directly contribute to the eternal generation of the Holy Spirit, as if they are one principle. The Holy Spirit comes into being and receives the divine essence from a co-operative effort between the Father and the Son. This is not the case at all in EO theology. Rather, the Holy Spirit comes into being and receives the divine essence only from the efforts of the Father. This is referred to as happening "through the Son" because the Son in the midst of this is a possessor of the divine essence. Thus, the Father is taking from the essence of the Son to produce the Holy Spirit. Further, in this being an act of motion, procession, the Holy Spirit's eternal issuing forth from the Father happens through the Son because of the doctrine of perichoresis. Finally, as John of Damascus writes, the Son is eternally receiving the Holy Spirit and being annointed by Him because the Father is eternally issuing forth the Holy Spirit to the Son (though not as if there was ever a time when the Son did not have the Holy Spirit); and the Holy Spirit is eternally resting upon the Son, though never actually leaving the Father.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2009, 11:06:55 AM »

Quote
Besides being inaccurate, what in the least does this have to do with the topic at hand?

According to Fr. Cleenewerck, a number of devotions (which have origins in private revelations) are a cause of concern with Orthodox, and he cited specifically the theology of them as well as iconography. As I've acquainted myself with Orthodoxy, he has been one of my resources. You could probably segue into an entire discussion on the different approaches to devotion to the Virgin Mary / Theotokos, as well as the impact of both "popular" Catholicism and these private revelations.

You won't find pictures of the Sacred Heart in Orthodox Churches, and there are constraints on how the Theotokos is to be represented as well. I sometimes wish that the Latins had clamped down harder in regulating devotions in the Latin rite.


This is off-topic to the discussion at hand.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2009, 11:19:12 AM »

"There are various types of grace. What is given only in the Sacraments is called sacramental grace."

I know this. You're not getting the point. The majority of EO theologians would say that there are more than seven rituals of the Church that convey sacramental grace.

While this is fodder for another thread, I will say that things such things cannot be considered Sacraments in Catholic theology for the simple fact that Catholics maintain that the Sacraments were instituted by Christ.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2009, 11:35:35 AM »

"The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.
"

For one, it doesn't really matter to me what an excommunicated ACE "bishop" has to say about much of anything. Even if he was in good standing in the ACE, it still wouldn't mean much to me. And even if he was part of the OOC or EOC, he would still be only one bishop with a private opinion. Finally, given the typical Orthodox conception of all bishops being successors of Peter, I'm not sure that this quote necessarily even indicates an identification of the Bishop of Rome with Peter. So it may not even mean what you are suggesting.

Where do you get the idea that any EO would say that the Bishops of Rome were the head of the College of Bishops?
I doubt you'd listen even if a Synod of Bishops said so -- you'd find the one Bishop with a private opinion that agreed with you and claim he must be the only Orthodox Bishop currently in the world.

Anyway, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website has an article by Father Emmanuel Clapsis on the topic of Papal Primacy which states:

Quote
Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles.


Now note that I am not currently arguing for Papal Primacy nor other papal interpretations, I am merely arguing that the blogger's assertion that there was not a visible head of the Church is false (regardless of what if any authority that head had).
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2009, 11:37:53 AM »

"Rather, it seems that the Orthodox in the last 1 - 2 hundred years have become more and more anti-Latin and anti-Western and willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I won't deny that the EO have become rather galvanized against the RC Tradition over recent years. However, this appears to be more a matter of recognizing the points of where we were already clearly inconsistent with each other, not an exaggeration of our differences. Gregory Palamas says that we cannot perceive the Essence of God. Thomas Aquinas says that we can. How is this not a huge and irreconcilable difference that qualifies Aquinas as a heretic for the EO?
Did you read the article I linked to on the role of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Orthodox Church?

I would also point out that it has been told to me numerous times by Orthodox posters that one would be hard pressed to find a single Church Father you got it right on everything 100% of the time.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2009, 11:39:52 AM »

"If you read the document The Father as Source of the Whole Trinity, you see that we say essentially the same thing only with different language."

I read it, but it doesn't seem to really address the major difference I see. In RC theology, the Father and the Son both directly contribute to the eternal generation of the Holy Spirit, as if they are one principle. The Holy Spirit comes into being and receives the divine essence from a co-operative effort between the Father and the Son. This is not the case at all in EO theology. Rather, the Holy Spirit comes into being and receives the divine essence only from the efforts of the Father. This is referred to as happening "through the Son" because the Son in the midst of this is a possessor of the divine essence. Thus, the Father is taking from the essence of the Son to produce the Holy Spirit. Further, in this being an act of motion, procession, the Holy Spirit's eternal issuing forth from the Father happens through the Son because of the doctrine of perichoresis. Finally, as John of Damascus writes, the Son is eternally receiving the Holy Spirit and being annointed by Him because the Father is eternally issuing forth the Holy Spirit to the Son (though not as if there was ever a time when the Son did not have the Holy Spirit); and the Holy Spirit is eternally resting upon the Son, though never actually leaving the Father.

One problem I think is that in Catholic theology (as well as Oriental theology, if I recall correctly) doesn't differentiate in our language between essence and energies. But, I think the article addresses this.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2009, 09:04:50 PM »

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.

The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.

And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.

The question isn't what the headship entails nor who the Orthodox hold currently possesses that headship -- the question is whether the blogger is inaccurate in stating that the Orthodox don't believe in any sort of headship besides Jesus Christ (the blogger's point #2).

No, besides Christ, there is no single head of the Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2009, 09:13:58 PM »

Various bishops are heads of their own dioceses. But no one bishop is the head of the Church, meaning the Church ecumenical. So his comment still stands. You were just misinterpreting it.

The Assyrian Bishop Mar Bawai Soro wrote: "If there is no Peter for the Universal Church there could not be Peter for the local Church." (The Position of the Church of the East Theological Tradition on the Questions of Church Unity and Full Communion)

He is not Assyrian, he is Chaldean, and openly admits that he had been so long before his formal submission to the Vatican.

If it were as he says, then the ordained clergy would be pope-bishop-priest-deacon.  But there is no such seperate order as "pope."  Patriarch St. Ignatius, St. Peter's successor in his first see of Antioch, does not portray the bishops are miniature popes (an office which he shows no knowledge of): he says that where the Catholic [earliest reference known] Church is gathered around the local bishop she is there in all her fullness, and there is Christ.

Quote
Besides which, hardly any Eastern Orthodox deny that Saint Peter and his successors the Popes were the head of the College of Bishops. The disputed point is what this headship entailed.
That's the Vatican's terminology.  The Orthodox Catholic term was and remains "the choryphaeus."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2009, 09:41:56 PM »

Like he doesn't need the Council.

And of course, the problem that said "head" never headed any of the Ecumenical Councils.
For the other thread. But, he has headed by proxy, by sending legates to represent him.

1st Presided by Hosios, the personal friend of the Emperor Constantine.  Pope St. Sylester's legates were Vitus and Vincent.
2nd Presided by SS. Meletios, Gregory and Nectarius, none in communion with Rome at the time. Rome not represented.
3rd Presided by Pope St. Cyril. Pope Celestine's legatees were Philip, Arcadius and Projectus, who arrived after the Council had been opened.
4th Paschasinus, Lucentius as legatees of Rome did preside with Anatolius of Constantinople: they however did insist that Dioscoros be expelled at the begining of the Council and Leo's Tome be accepted as the definition of the Council.  Neither happened: Dioscoros remained to argue his case, and the Council accepted the Tome only after examining it, and wrote its own definition.
5th Pope Vigilius was in town for this Council, which was held over his objections, and struck him from the diptychs.

I could go on, but you get the idea (or should): the pope either didn't have a representative, and yet the council went on anyway, or his legate was not the one presiding.


The problem is that the list that the Vatican recognize as Ecumenical has changed over the centuries.
I can only suppose that you are referring to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. That was the fodder of another debate that I won't get into again here. Let it suffice that you didn't make your case to me and I assume you hold that I didn't make mine to you.

No, I was thinking in particular of the Council of Siena, but the Seventh is a problem as well.


You found a 16th century political cartoon -- good for you.  Roll Eyes

That the actions of the Fathers of the Second Council were in operation long before the Fourth.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2009, 01:14:02 AM »

Such would be out of nothing more than ignorance. Thomas Aquinas is clearly a great heretic in stark contrast to the EO Tradition.
Rather, it seems that the Orthodox in the last 1 - 2 hundred years have become more and more anti-Latin and anti-Western and willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hate to admit it, but any examination of the historical record shows this to be true. Who knows, years ago, before the anti-Western tilt, I might have actually become Orthodox. But it seemed that way was closed to me several years ago when I considered Orthodoxy. I did not feel welcome there.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 01:16:23 AM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2009, 01:20:33 AM »


And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.

This never made sense to me. Jesus picked Peter, yet a patriarchal see which was not elevated until 300 years after Christ can suddenly slip into the role, without even an ecumenical council ordering it? And the whole "Ecumenical Patriarch" title also seems somewhat confusing, considering you EO are always criticizing Catholics for recognizing a "universal bishop." Titles aren't meaningless.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,907


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2009, 08:36:38 PM »


And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.

This never made sense to me. Jesus picked Peter, yet a patriarchal see which was not elevated until 300 years after Christ can suddenly slip into the role, without even an ecumenical council ordering it? And the whole "Ecumenical Patriarch" title also seems somewhat confusing, considering you EO are always criticizing Catholics for recognizing a "universal bishop." Titles aren't meaningless.

Then you have issue with the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (as well as a previous one).
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,605



« Reply #44 on: August 20, 2009, 09:30:40 PM »


And of course we respond that the Ecumenical Patriarch now holds that position with its distinct rights and privileges in the exact manner as the pope in the undivided church.

This never made sense to me. Jesus picked Peter,

but his brother St. Andrew the First Called brought him to the Lord.

Quote
yet a patriarchal see which was not elevated until 300 years after Christ can suddenly slip into the role, without even an ecumenical council ordering it?

Never heard of the Second Ecumenical Constantinople I, you know, the one which wrote THE Creed.

Quote
And the whole "Ecumenical Patriarch" title also seems somewhat confusing, considering you EO are always criticizing Catholics for recognizing a "universal bishop."

Funny, the Pope of Rome criticized the title too, but his successors took it anyway.

The title EP was secular in origin, like Supreme Pontiff.

Quote
Titles aren't meaningless.

That's right.  The reason why the Vatican won't let the bishops of Alexandria who have submitted to it take the title of that See: Pope of All of Egypt and All of Africa.

Such would be out of nothing more than ignorance. Thomas Aquinas is clearly a great heretic in stark contrast to the EO Tradition.
Rather, it seems that the Orthodox in the last 1 - 2 hundred years have become more and more anti-Latin and anti-Western and willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hate to admit it, but any examination of the historical record shows this to be true.

Would those be the same centuries when Latinization ran rampent?

http://www.melkite.org/LATIN-IN.jpg


http://www.melkite.org/INTERIR.JPG

Ah, that's better.

Quote
Who knows, years ago, before the anti-Western tilt, I might have actually become Orthodox. But it seemed that way was closed to me several years ago when I considered Orthodoxy. I did not feel welcome there.

I have to admit some education is needed on the WRO.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 09:35:10 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.188 seconds with 73 queries.