OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 10:29:46 PM *
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 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Orthodox vs. Eastern Catholic  (Read 29326 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #270 on: January 06, 2011, 07:56:02 PM »

It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

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

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

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #271 on: January 06, 2011, 08:09:10 PM »

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

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

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

Does a bishop replace God?
No,

Exactly, and neither does a Pope.

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

? That doesn't match the question.

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

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

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

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

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

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

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

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

The conditions of history and location produced different results for the severed heterodox/unrecognized churches. The west has had a better breeding ground, both through colonialism, as well as state acceptance if not outright sponsorship of heretical/heterodox churches (Church of England, Lutheran German states, Calvinistic Netherlands, etc). The same has not often been the case in the east.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #272 on: January 06, 2011, 08:30:24 PM »

It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread.

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

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

Ah. Well, when you use the term "the East", it generally has a connotation of Eastern Christianity in general, rather than exclusively the Byzantines.
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
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: 37,960



« Reply #273 on: January 06, 2011, 08:58:25 PM »

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

Earthly head, obviously. Don't play dumb.

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

Does a bishop replace God?
No,

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

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

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

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

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

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

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

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

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

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

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

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

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

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

Church of England, the one that first dedicated itself to the defense of the filioque and invented the IC?  The one whose head the Vatican entitled "Defender of the faith?"
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #274 on: January 06, 2011, 09:17:07 PM »

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

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

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


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

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

Orthodoxy has internal communion problems,

Such as?

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

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

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

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


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

LOL Yes, like Rome.

"LOL" Yes, my point.

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

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


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

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

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

Prevail against the Orthodox? Who mentioned this?!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #275 on: January 09, 2011, 01:35:20 PM »

I think Apotheoun took you to mean that by clarifying the latin meaning of Pontifex Maximus you were thereby denying that the Popes were claiming to be the Supreme Priests of Christianity.
Yes, that is how I took what he wrote.  Be that as it may, the words "maximus" and "summus" can both be rendered into English as "greatest," "highest," or "utmost," and so the to say that the "pontifex maximus" and "summus pontifex" are unrelated really is pointless.

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

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

*Jab!*

I don't believe in "Papal Supremacy".

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

Cheesy

Whether or not you accept papal supremacy, the Eastern Catholic churches do, according to the Canons for the Eastern Church. They also accept the title "supreme pontiff." I mean, these are both clearly defined and accepted in the laws of your church.
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #276 on: January 09, 2011, 07:55:26 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #277 on: January 09, 2011, 08:17:29 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #278 on: January 09, 2011, 09:56:24 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Answered in message 266

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26409.msg516325/topicseen.html#msg516325
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #279 on: January 09, 2011, 10:17:49 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Answered in message 266

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

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

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

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

So I still don't understand how the Latin use is heretical. Additionally, I'm curious about this particular disagreement, as it is uncharacteristically legalistic for the Orthodox.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #280 on: January 10, 2011, 01:54:17 AM »


And what is that change in theology that is heretical? Remember, not all different theological opinions are heretical.
I didn't say there was a change in theology. I said a change in the form of the bread suggests a change in the theology, given the Church's past experience with the azymite Armenians who did have a different theology.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #281 on: January 10, 2011, 10:42:31 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Has anyone read Mother Maria Skobstova's article on Pharasaism? (She doesn't condemn it out of hand, I am just asking at this point. It's relevant to many of these discussions.)
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: 37,960



« Reply #282 on: January 10, 2011, 10:54:23 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Answered in message 266

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #283 on: January 10, 2011, 11:00:16 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Answered in message 266

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

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

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

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

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


Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #284 on: January 10, 2011, 11:09:46 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

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

Answered in message 266

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

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

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

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

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


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

And so with the bread. Surely THESE are not the most important topics we need to resolve in order "that we may be one"?
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: 37,960



« Reply #285 on: January 10, 2011, 11:10:11 AM »

"On the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked. "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the passover?" (Matthew 26:17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #286 on: January 10, 2011, 01:10:14 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

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

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
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: 37,960



« Reply #287 on: January 10, 2011, 01:25:25 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #288 on: January 10, 2011, 01:32:48 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
Roll Eyes    Roll Eyes    Roll Eyes
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,263



« Reply #289 on: January 10, 2011, 01:45:39 PM »

Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.

Here's one!


In Christ,
Andrew
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 01:46:28 PM by Shlomlokh » Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #290 on: January 10, 2011, 03:15:12 PM »

Where are these Normans, now? You have become them.

Here's one!


In Christ,
Andrew

LOL!  Cheesy
Logged


I'm going to need this.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #291 on: January 10, 2011, 03:55:08 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

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

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #292 on: January 11, 2011, 10:35:15 AM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

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

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.

Poli Sci seminars are much the same. Intellectual showing off. After the leavened vs. un debate, perhaps we'll be able to argue ad infinitum about which way we make the sign of the cross: the people who go left first (i.e., the "heretics"), or US. LOL
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #293 on: January 11, 2011, 10:47:33 AM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

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

Don't feel badly, on this board nothing usually has anything to do with anything except for the singularity of strong opinions posted by one 'side' or the other in an attempt to 'trump' the points raised by the other. They usually remind me of either grade school recess or first year law school study groups, which were sort of the same as I look back.

Poli Sci seminars are much the same. Intellectual showing off. After the leavened vs. un debate, perhaps we'll be able to argue ad infinitum about which way we make the sign of the cross: the people who go left first (i.e., the "heretics"), or US. LOL

Now that I think about it, I was a Poli Sci major also! hmmmmm......
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #294 on: January 12, 2011, 02:15:50 PM »

Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #295 on: January 12, 2011, 04:44:01 PM »

Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #296 on: January 12, 2011, 05:40:40 PM »

Hello--

I have a request, that I'[ve also passed on to the moderator. A number of times recently, posters have used terms such as Judaizer or Judaizing. I understand what is meant by these terms, and that they are being used more in an Orthodox context than a Catholic one. I also understand the people using the terms may be using the terms pejoratively but as racist words meant to incite violence. But those were terms that were used for centuries (by the Inquisition, among others) to persecute and burn Jews. In Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries, being convicted of Judaizing was sufficient in itself to send a person to the dungeons, the scaffold or the pyre--or into exile, if one were "lucky." Instances exist where people who had been charged with high treason (in one case for conspiracy in the murder of the inquisitor general of Zaragoza) weren't even tried for those crimes, but were executed instead for being "Judaizers." The one who murdered the inquisitor had attended a Jewish wedding, shopped at a Jewish butcher, and visited a Jewish shop. He was also seen in the company of Jews, which in 15th century Spain would have been almost as inevitable as in 21st-century New York, no matter how much one might have tried to avoid it. And the threat was always there for those who came from convert families, no matter how many generations back they had converted. St. Teresa of Avila was the great-granddaughter of a converso family, but despite her own sanctity, her vocation as a Carmelite nun, her uncle's profession as a Hieronymite monk, and the fact her family had been deeply devout Christians for three generations, she was constantly in danger of the Inquisition--and the cage and the wheel. (She was summoned at least once.)

So, my request: Could we please have a ban on this word and all its derivatives? It's highly offensive in itself and indicative of the thousands of years of anti-Semitism that eventually resulted in the Shoah.

Thank you.

I'll second the motion!

I'm sorry--I meant to write that I understand those who are using the term are NOT intentionally using it in  a racist way, though it is a racist term.

Incidentally, the man who conspired to  kill the inquisitor was a magistrate and did so because the inquisitor had decided to go after all the prominent conversos of Zaragoza. He meant to burn them and confiscate all their families' goods and property, and they were scared. Not an excuse, but it wasn't just an idle murder. The inquisitor in question was canonized by the Roman church in the 19th century.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #297 on: January 12, 2011, 05:43:44 PM »

Hermogenes

I was one of those who, sometime within the past few weeks, used the term judaizer. I used it when trying to point out how there had been divisions in Christianity early on (I was thinking, for example, of groups like the Ebionites). However, not really having thought about it before, I did not realise that the word would or could be taken as being very offensive, as you have explained, so for that I apologize, and will do my best to avoid using the term in the future.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #298 on: January 12, 2011, 05:53:57 PM »

Hermogenes

I was one of those who, sometime within the past few weeks, used the term judaizer. I used it when trying to point out how there had been divisions in Christianity early on (I was thinking, for example, of groups like the Ebionites). However, not really having thought about it before, I did not realise that the word would or could be taken as being very offensive, as you have explained, so for that I apologize, and will do my best to avoid using the term in the future.

No problem. I understood how the word was being used and hadn't thought much about it myself until I came across some docs about the Roman and Spanish inquisitions and realized how they used the word; how for 800 years they committed the most appalling crimes under its heading. One of the very last cases wasn't closed until the middle of the 20th century!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #299 on: January 13, 2011, 05:00:13 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #300 on: January 13, 2011, 06:35:16 PM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
I apologise if this isn't the case, but you seem to have completely missed the point in my post.

Some who taught heresy regarding the nature(s) of Christ used unleavened bread specifically as a symbol of their heretical understanding of Christ's nature, so when the Latins unilaterally changed their bread from leavened to unleavened it strongly suggested that their understanding of Christ's nature had changed, notwithstanding that this was not actually the case.

Personally, I believe that the Latins had simply lost an understanding of a great many symbols used in Orthodox worship, or the importance of those symbols in upholding theological truth. I see evidence of this in areas such as iconography and church architecture, though I can't comment beyond that as I am not familiar with any other aspects of the Latin Church
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 06:35:50 PM by prodromos » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #301 on: January 13, 2011, 06:51:13 PM »

Given that the Latin church was historically further from Monophysitism than the Byzantine church itself, the idea that they changed to unleavened bread as a reflection of a similar theology to the Armenians seems pretty idiotic.
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
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #302 on: January 14, 2011, 10:15:07 AM »

I don't care if the east uses leavened bread. It's the east that has a problem with the west using unleavened bread. The authors of the Gospel are very careful to emphasize "unleavened bread", the phrase appearing in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The idea that using it is a schismatic practice could not be more laughable.
Since the reasons for using leavened bread are theological, a change in the form of the bread immediately suggests a change in the theology (ie. heresy)

I wonder if Our Lord would say bread is made for man, rather than mad for bread?
I apologise if this isn't the case, but you seem to have completely missed the point in my post.

Some who taught heresy regarding the nature(s) of Christ used unleavened bread specifically as a symbol of their heretical understanding of Christ's nature, so when the Latins unilaterally changed their bread from leavened to unleavened it strongly suggested that their understanding of Christ's nature had changed, notwithstanding that this was not actually the case.

Personally, I believe that the Latins had simply lost an understanding of a great many symbols used in Orthodox worship, or the importance of those symbols in upholding theological truth. I see evidence of this in areas such as iconography and church architecture, though I can't comment beyond that as I am not familiar with any other aspects of the Latin Church

I don't believe I've missed your point, but you appear to have missed mine. See Luke 22:19. What does Christ tell us to do in remembrance of Him?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #303 on: January 15, 2011, 02:22:59 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,254


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #304 on: January 15, 2011, 02:24:55 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
The Netodox love attacking the Catholic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #305 on: January 15, 2011, 02:51:32 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

I can't speak for anyone else. But every time I pray the litany that refers to "the union of all" my heart feels the pain of all the separation that exists among followers of Christ. We Orthodox and you Catholics are so very close to one another, it is tragic we cannot resolve our differences. Even more tragic is that we Orthodox are not even united amongst ourselves.

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #306 on: January 15, 2011, 03:07:19 PM »

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #307 on: January 15, 2011, 03:17:33 PM »

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #308 on: January 15, 2011, 03:44:37 PM »

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.

Some progress is being made on understanding the role of primacy in the pre-schism days, however it is not clear that the efforts of scholars have made any real impact on Rome herself.

I do agree with Fr. Ambrose's analysis, but I wonder if the evolution of National Catholic Bishop conferences will pressure the center of Catholicism as time goes by. That may force a change of attitude from within the center of the Vatican itself rather than as a reaction to any outside pressure we Orthodox may bring to bear.

As to doctrinal and theological differences, it is my belief that most are, as Hermogenes states, a result centuries of seperation, linguistic nuancing, distance and pride. However it is reaching an understanding of the term 'most' that is vexing.

As to Rome's 'Ecumenical Councils' that occurred post schism, she will have to recognize them as synods of her Church only - not universal expressions of a united Apostolic Church. There probably is a way that Orthodox scholars can work that out but it will be a tough nut for Catholic traditionalists to swallow.

In the end a future unity will require more than any one Pope, Patriarch or Patriarchs or group of Eastern Orthodox Bishops and western Catholic ones reaching an understanding. The people of both East and West will be challenged to lay down much of the history and 'mythology' we dearly hold about the other side before we can truly be united. Pride will be the most difficult of all to set aside. Much prayer and more education for all of us will be needed if this is to happen.

Finally, if it is God's will, it will happen when the time is right. In the meantime, I, for one, am not afraid to support those Bishops and Churches of Orthodoxy who are trying. While I understand those who can not support the same, I believe that they are mistakenly on the wrong side of history. Of each side's sincerity within our Orthodox world, I have little doubt and I hope that we can live together under one banner of Faith ( not jurisdiction ) as we all move along the journey of life.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #309 on: January 15, 2011, 03:54:18 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #310 on: January 15, 2011, 03:59:50 PM »

To me, the one stumbling block I cannot get past is Rome's insistence on the supremacy of Peter, as opposed to the primacy of Peter, inter pares, which we already acknowledged in the earliest ecumenical councils. Most of the other issues, which as far as I can tell are mainly due to developments  in our respective churches during the centuries of separation, could probably be resolved. That one is a deal breaker and doesn't appear to leave room for compromise.
 

I do not believe the Pope is ready for unity.  He is not yet able to accept that he will be subject to Church Councils as is every bishop and he is not ready to accept that he will be one bishop with one vote, again just as all other bishops.  He requires more time.

Unus episcopus unum suffragium

Yes,I agree. This is going to be a long process and will require just the right men on either side. And MUCH prayer.

Some progress is being made on understanding the role of primacy in the pre-schism days, however it is not clear that the efforts of scholars have made any real impact on Rome herself.

I do agree with Fr. Ambrose's analysis, but I wonder if the evolution of National Catholic Bishop conferences will pressure the center of Catholicism as time goes by. That may force a change of attitude from within the center of the Vatican itself rather than as a reaction to any outside pressure we Orthodox may bring to bear.

As to doctrinal and theological differences, it is my belief that most are, as Hermogenes states, a result centuries of seperation, linguistic nuancing, distance and pride. However it is reaching an understanding of the term 'most' that is vexing.

As to Rome's 'Ecumenical Councils' that occurred post schism, she will have to recognize them as synods of her Church only - not universal expressions of a united Apostolic Church. There probably is a way that Orthodox scholars can work that out but it will be a tough nut for Catholic traditionalists to swallow.

In the end a future unity will require more than any one Pope, Patriarch or Patriarchs or group of Eastern Orthodox Bishops and western Catholic ones reaching an understanding. The people of both East and West will be challenged to lay down much of the history and 'mythology' we dearly hold about the other side before we can truly be united. Pride will be the most difficult of all to set aside. Much prayer and more education for all of us will be needed if this is to happen.

Finally, if it is God's will, it will happen when the time is right. In the meantime, I, for one, am not afraid to support those Bishops and Churches of Orthodoxy who are trying. While I understand those who can not support the same, I believe that they are mistakenly on the wrong side of history. Of each side's sincerity within our Orthodox world, I have little doubt and I hope that we can live together under one banner of Faith ( not jurisdiction ) as we all move along the journey of life.

You know, every so often I have this image in my mind of the first thousand years of Christianity. Certainly, the church was frequently challenged by some incredibly thorny issues. But it was ONE church, mostly at peace within itself, a church that could accommodate Benedict and Pachomius; Chrysostomos and Gregory the Great; Iona and Athos. I find that idea very inspiring. Wherever Christ was worshipped, any Christian could commune with the local orthodox parish.
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: 37,960



« Reply #311 on: January 15, 2011, 04:34:53 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
Honestly and Truth.
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: 37,960



« Reply #312 on: January 15, 2011, 04:36:18 PM »

So it served the practical purpose of not letting the Orthodox be fooled by the Latin filioque hiding  behind Chalcedon.

I don't understand what the use of unleavened bread has to do with the filioque.
For one, it was being forced on the Orthodox as the same time as the filioque, taking the new leaven out of the eucharist and putting the new heresy into the Creed.  Like I said, "practical purpose."
I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?
The Netodox love attacking the Catholic Church.
The Orthodox love of the Catholic Church, which moves not the boundary marks the Fathers set up.

That the Vatican temporarily has let those in submission to it reerect the boundary mark it kicked over doesn't fool us.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 04:38:55 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #313 on: January 15, 2011, 04:53:31 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #314 on: January 15, 2011, 04:56:23 PM »

I know you enjoy rehashing the past, but modern Eastern Catholics are in full communion with us and they are not obliged to recite filioque in their creed, nor do they have to use unleavened bread. Because of this, it would seem that these things are no longer a stumbling block to full communion, so why do the Eastern Orthodox still wish to bring these things up as points of disunity?

In the Orthodox Church  there is one Creed, no many.
Well actually you have three (Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostle's), but assuming you mean one Nicene Creed...so do we. Utilizing or omitting the filioque is not problem to us because it is only a clarification anyway, not an outright alteration.

If it's not a problem then why not remove it for the akse of unity?Huh  Your comment doesn't make sense!

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »   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 0.231 seconds with 72 queries.