Fellow Catholics: should we want to commune with the EO?

[Wyatt]

This question popped into my head when we were discussing whether or not an EO Priest would give Holy Communion to a dying RC. My question is this, even though our Church technically would allow us to receive the Eucharist in an EOC and there may be some EO Priests who would allow it, should we do it? From a theological standpoint, the Eucharist unites us not only to Christ but to each other as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

[mike]

So you reject the doctrines of your Church?

[Wyatt]

So you reject the doctrines of your Church?

No...where did you get that?

[mike]

Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

[elijahmaria]

So you reject the doctrines of your Church?

What doctrine?  So far it is an open door to the Orthodox.  There's no doctrine about it.

No wonder you folks tilt at windmills when you attempt to talk about the Catholic Church.

 ....doctrine, indeed!!

[elijahmaria]

This question popped into my head when we were discussing whether or not an EO Priest would give Holy Communion to a dying RC. My question is this, even though our Church technically would allow us to receive the Eucharist in an EOC and there may be some EO Priests who would allow it, should we do it? From a theological standpoint, the Eucharist unites us not only to Christ but to each other as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

You know, if I depended on some sort of absolute, black and white, jot for tittle equality in belief, I'd probably be able to count on one hand those Catholics with whom I would commune.  

So why would I hold a different standard for Orthodox believers?

 

PS: I can actually think of several Orthodox believers that I know by name, whose faith is more similar to my own than many of my fellow Catholics...actually.

I am being a bit lighted-hearted in tone with this topic, but in the main there is truth in what I am saying in both responses here.

[synLeszka]

Kolega, przeczytaj sobie ten przepis Kodeksu Prawa Kanonicznego po polsku i zrozumiesz jaki błąd popełniłeś
Friend, read that section of the Code of Canon Law in Polish and you will understand the confusion here.

The fact of intercommunion occurs in areas mixed religiously. Roman Catholics visit Orthodox shrines and Orthodox visit Roman Catholic shrines. The fact, to which church one belongs is more subjective than objective since the world does not abound in ideal solutions.

Nikolai Berdiaev, wrote about how in his life Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy interacted. His mother, was a noble women of Polish-French origins, although she followed the Orthodox religion of her husband, prayed from a French prayerbook. Even Berdiaev scolded his mother for not being Orthodox enough and dismissed this all as heresy. Even though Berdiaev never rejected Orthodoxy, he wrote that during his exile after the Russian revolution, he felt more at home at the Latin Masses in France than in the Orthodox church although he called the governance of the Roman Catholic Church autocratic.
source:
Berdiaev autobiography (I must note that the translated title in English is not the best
(1949) DREAM AND REALITY: An Essay in Autobiography. trans. by Katherine Lampert, London: G. Bles, 1950, 326 p.; New York: MacMillan, 1950. "Samopoznanie. Opyt Filosofskoi avtobiografii" (lit.) "Self-Knowledge: an Attempt at Philosophic Autobiography".

[AMM]

They probably heard about the special 10,000th to commune this month wins a Dodge Stratus prize.

[Melodist]

This question popped into my head when we were discussing whether or not an EO Priest would give Holy Communion to a dying RC. My question is this, even though our Church technically would allow us to receive the Eucharist in an EOC and there may be some EO Priests who would allow it, should we do it? From a theological standpoint, the Eucharist unites us not only to Christ but to each other as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

If I'm not mistaken, while your catechism says that intercommunion is encouraged, it also says that it should only be done with the permission of both churches.

I'll be honest, thinking of the implications of intercommunion between the two communions raises a number of questions that no matter how you answer them, the answer has deep imlications on what such practices may reflect. One such issue is the nature of our division if the RC view is correct. I will admit that the Roman canon concerning priests not turning away properly disposed Orthodox from the Chalice along with the "ecouragement" to intercommune "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority" would be in accordance with the implications of the belief that we both serve Christ on our altars.

[Melodist]

They probably heard about the special 10,000th to commune this month wins a Dodge Stratus prize.

There would probably be more if maintenance on the prize was easier. I have one and have to take one of my tires off just to get to the battery.

[Wyatt]

Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

I realize that my Church says that we can commune in EO Churches, but there is a big difference between "can" and "should." I would really have to be on the verge of death before I would feel comfortable receiving the Eucharist from an EO Priest (and even then I still might not) because, in any other situation, I would definitely feel like I was betraying my own Church since my reception of it would be like saying I concur with EO doctrine. Obviously I do not, so I would not feel right partaking in the Eucharist at an EO Church.

[ialmisry]

So you reject the doctrines of your Church?

What doctrine?  So far it is an open door to the Orthodox.

No, a trap door.

 There's no doctrine about it.

So Vatican I and II have no doctrine.  Seems an incredible waste of time and fuss if all the bishops of your ecclesiastical community to hold a meeting at HQ to say and do nothing.

No wonder you folks tilt at windmills when you attempt to talk about the Catholic Church.

Maybe that's how it seems from your view from La Mancha (or are you in Holland: that Dutch Catechism of yours was quite a work)

....doctrine, indeed!!

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
....doctrine, indeed!

[stanley123]

This question popped into my head when we were discussing whether or not an EO Priest would give Holy Communion to a dying RC. My question is this, even though our Church technically would allow us to receive the Eucharist in an EOC and there may be some EO Priests who would allow it, should we do it? From a theological standpoint, the Eucharist unites us not only to Christ but to each other as the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. Since we are not unified with the EO in doctrine, wouldn't receiving their Eucharist be a lie and thus possibly put us in a worse spiritual state than just not receiving at all? Allow me to put it another way. If I was on the verge of death, wouldn't receiving the Eucharist from an EO put my soul in a dangerous state since I would, in effect, be denying the IC, Papal Primacy, Purgatory, and other RC doctrines by my reception of the EO Eucharist since reception of the Eucharist indicates doctrinal unity with a Christian communion?

Not everyone believes as you do on this, but if that's the way you feel about it, don't accept Holy Communion or the Last rites from an EO priest.

[mike]

I realize that my Church says that we can commune in EO Churches, but there is a big difference between "can" and "should." I would really have to be on the verge of death before I would feel comfortable receiving the Eucharist from an EO Priest (and even then I still might not) because, in any other situation, I would definitely feel like I was betraying my own Church since my reception of it would be like saying I concur with EO doctrine. Obviously I do not, so I would not feel right partaking in the Eucharist at an EO Church.

But it that canon there is no single word about accepting the doctrine.

[Alpo]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

[elijahmaria]

This particular note makes even less sense than most so please try again. 

Get rid of the pretty pics and let's hear your thoughts from your own mouth, and try not to filter them through a mountain of extraneous text.

You might get a dialogue going that way...if that is what is of interest to you?

So you reject the doctrines of your Church?

What doctrine?  So far it is an open door to the Orthodox.

No, a trap door.

 There's no doctrine about it.

So Vatican I and II have no doctrine.  Seems an incredible waste of time and fuss if all the bishops of your ecclesiastical community to hold a meeting at HQ to say and do nothing.

No wonder you folks tilt at windmills when you attempt to talk about the Catholic Church.

Maybe that's how it seems from your view from La Mancha (or are you in Holland: that Dutch Catechism of yours was quite a work)

....doctrine, indeed!!

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
....doctrine, indeed!

[elijahmaria]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

It is not off-topic.  It IS the heart of the topic.

The Catholic Church accepts three principle assertions about the Orthodox Church. 

The first is that we share Apostolic Succession.

And the Second is that we share a faith that is sufficient to salvation.

The third is that our sacraments are mutually grace-filled.

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

That, of course, has been received in some quarters with all kinds of doors being slammed in our faces, but I believe that it was the right and necessary thing for the Catholic Church to do and to say.

[ialmisry]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

It is not off-topic.  It IS the heart of the topic.

The Catholic Church accepts three principle assertions about the Orthodox Church. 

The first is that we share Apostolic Succession.

And the Second is that we share a faith that is sufficient to salvation.

The third is that our sacraments are mutually grace-filled.

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

That, of course, has been received in some quarters with all kinds of doors being slammed in our faces, but I believe that it was the right and necessary thing for the Catholic Church to do and to say.

Since the Orthodox Church (and yes, that is the Orthodox Church, not your nameless Orthodox priests and friends. Those who doubt that, can see what the Orthodox Church of Romania did over Met. Nicolae Corneanu, and that was with the "Romanian Church in Union with Rome-Greek Catholic") does not share these assertions, the perplexity of what you all think you "accomplishing." Because it seems yet another attempt to con us into thinking we believe the same "so why don't you submit to the Vicar of Christ and sign on the dotted line for the union?"

[Wyatt]

But it that canon there is no single word about accepting the doctrine.

Not in that canon, but that is the general reason given by our Church for why we are not to commune in non-Catholic churches (except the EO in certain circumstances apparently) because we are not doctrinally unified, and communing implies doctrinal unity.

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

Actually I do not think this is off topic at all. Admittedly, this is one area where I am fuzzy as far as the rationale of our Church allowing us to commune from the EO. If validity is all that is required for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist then, IMO, the lack-of-doctrinal-unity card should never be played when discussing where we are not allowed to commune. I would greatly appreciate anyone who could shed more light on the RC teaching on this.

[elijahmaria]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

It is not off-topic.  It IS the heart of the topic.

The Catholic Church accepts three principle assertions about the Orthodox Church. 

The first is that we share Apostolic Succession.

And the Second is that we share a faith that is sufficient to salvation.

The third is that our sacraments are mutually grace-filled.

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

That, of course, has been received in some quarters with all kinds of doors being slammed in our faces, but I believe that it was the right and necessary thing for the Catholic Church to do and to say.

Since the Orthodox Church (and yes, that is the Orthodox Church, not your nameless Orthodox priests and friends. Those who doubt that, can see what the Orthodox Church of Romania did over Met. Nicolae Corneanu, and that was with the "Romanian Church in Union with Rome-Greek Catholic") does not share these assertions, the perplexity of what you all think you "accomplishing." Because it seems yet another attempt to con us into thinking we believe the same "so why don't you submit to the Vicar of Christ and sign on the dotted line for the union?"

Dear Fellow Catholic,

I have been at this business of informal dialogue for seventeen years now and I can tell you that you do not represent universal Orthodoxy, however much you might hope to do so.

The days of untrammeled unionist vs. anti-unionist bullying are over.  

Instant communications makes our mutual warts too difficult to hide any more.   True historians have improved access to all kinds of archives which will do much to allow the ordinary fellow to refute pseudo-history.

And most importantly of all, the ability to actually "see" our similarities as faithful people is increasing exponentially.  Your photos of clown masses will soon be nearly 100 years old and will no longer pack the same punch....They do not even now because it should be evident to all that the photo gallery is quite dated already.

So you'd best crow now while you still can.  

Resumed communion is coming, and coming at a rate that you cannot stop.

In Christ,

Mary

[mike]

Not in that canon, but that is the general reason given by our Church for why we are not to commune in non-Catholic churches (except the EO in certain circumstances apparently) because we are not doctrinally unified, and communing implies doctrinal unity.

And Nestorian, OO, FSSPX and maybe somewhere else...

[elijahmaria]

Communing does not imply doctrinal unity, any more than the reception of councils requires a democratic head count of the faithful, any more than the consensus of the Fathers requires, God help us, that all the patristic Father, or even most of the patristic Fathers agree on all things, jot for tittle, black and white.

The trouble that we have is that in one area we apply this criteria for truth,  and in another we apply that criteria for truth; we talk past one another; bully each other; and at the end of the day we are all too emotionally and spiritually exhausted to give a tinkers dam about any of it.  

Then we wait till the next generation or the next hundred years and try again.

Well that is not going to happen this time.  

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

M.

But it that canon there is no single word about accepting the doctrine.

Not in that canon, but that is the general reason given by our Church for why we are not to commune in non-Catholic churches (except the EO in certain circumstances apparently) because we are not doctrinally unified, and communing implies doctrinal unity.

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

Actually I do not think this is off topic at all. Admittedly, this is one area where I am fuzzy as far as the rationale of our Church allowing us to commune from the EO. If validity is all that is required for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist then, IMO, the lack-of-doctrinal-unity card should never be played when discussing where we are not allowed to commune. I would greatly appreciate anyone who could shed more light on the RC teaching on this.

[Papist]

Wyatt,
This is an interesting question and I am not certain that I can give a straight yes or no answer. I tend to side with you. The EOs are outside of the Catholic Church, so there seems no reason for us to commune with them. In fact, I do think that it is important that we never down-play our doctrinal differences. There is a real disconnect between us and them.

BUT, at the same time, they are so closely united to us in that they participate in our sacraments (their valid sacraments are not EO sacraments but Catholic Sacraments) and much of our tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the bond is so close that it all but allows for a concelebration of the liturgy.

I would like to further point out that they have not a single "ecumenical" council that comdemns the teachings of the Catholic Church, and so we can say that while many EO's dislike some of the things that Catholics believe, that has not been dogmatically condemned by an Ecumenical council. This leaves great room for them to come back into the Church.

That all being said, I am Catholic. I will receive communion in a Catholic Church. The only way I could imagine doing otherwise is if I was on my deathbed and no Catholic priest was available and an EO, OO, or ACE priest were to offer me viaticum.

[Irish Hermit]

Resumed communion is coming, and coming at a rate that you cannot stop.

Ooo, Mary, you are scary, even more scary than the huge bangs from the fireworks going off for Guy Fawkes day!

There will be no communion between us until we share the communion of a common unifying faith.

Read Bp Kallistos Ware's "Communion and Intercommunion."

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt,
This is an interesting question and I am not certain that I can give a straight yes or no answer. I tend to side with you. The EOs are outside of the Catholic Church, so there seems no reason for us to commune with them. In fact, I do think that it is important that we never down-play our doctrinal differences. There is a real disconnect between us and them.

BUT, at the same time, they are so closely united to us in that they participate in our sacraments (their valid sacraments are not EO sacraments but Catholic Sacraments) and much of our tradition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the bond is so close that it all but allows for a concelebration of the liturgy.

I would like to further point out that they have not a single "ecumenical" council that comdemns the teachings of the Catholic Church, and so we can say that while many EO's dislike some of the things that Catholics believe, that has not been dogmatically condemned by an Ecumenical council. This leaves great room for them to come back into the Church.

That all being said, I am Catholic. I will receive communion in a Catholic Church. The only way I could imagine doing otherwise is if I was on my deathbed and no Catholic priest was available and an EO, OO, or ACE priest were to offer me viaticum.

You have said something very important here at the end.  The operative word is "offer"...If an Orthodox priest was at my deathbed and refused to hear my last confession, I would not beg for it, but if it were offered and there were no other, then yes, I would gratefully accept.

As to the rest of, with some minor adjusting, I'd be happy to agree with it.  ...ain't that good of me?

[Alpo]

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

Thank you for your answer. But this raises another question. That seems to imply that there is some kind of hierarchy of doctrines in Catholic dogma and that one can somewhat dismiss not-so-important doctrines without losing salvation or communion with Rome. If so, doesn't that render papacy to one of those not-so-important doctrines since we don't accept it?

I would like to further point out that they have not a single "ecumenical" council that comdemns the teachings of the Catholic Church, and so we can say that while many EO's dislike some of the things that Catholics believe, that has not been dogmatically condemned by an Ecumenical council. This leaves great room for them to come back into the Church.

So the RCC doesn't know the concept of unwritten Tradition? RC Tradition consists of doctrines which has been codified by the Councils and Popes? I ask think since that is what your message seems to imply. For me it's as silly thing to claim that we don't dogmatically condemn Catholic doctrines as it is silly thing to claim that we don't believe in real presence in Eucharist since neither of them has been codified by an Ecumenical Council. Of course we do.

[Shanghaiski]

Communing does not imply doctrinal unity

Are you sure about that, Mary? For the Orthodox, there must be communion in faith and prayer before there can be communion in sacris (if that's the Latin expression I'm looking for). Sure, non-Orthodox commune from Orthodox chalices on the sly and Orthodox priests knowingly commune non-Orthodox, but these things should not happen. Indeed, this is a very dangerous thing. Accident is one thing, prideful disobedience another. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, Church teaching another.

[elijahmaria]

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

Thank you for your answer. But this raises another question. That seems to imply that there is some kind of hierarchy of doctrines in Catholic dogma and that one can somewhat dismiss not-so-important doctrines without losing salvation or communion with Rome. If so, doesn't that render papacy to one of those not-so-important doctrines since we don't accept it?

Not ever word or act of the Catholic Church is immutable.  Not every word of every ecumenical council is absolutely written in stone.  Not every canon carries doctrinal weight.   Some are some are not.

The ordination of married men is mutable.

The ordination of women is not.

Papal infallibility and primacy are part of de fide doctrine, which means that we are bound by the truth to accept this doctrine as it has been defined over time, and more than that:  we are asked to accept it in faith as it works to support the core doctrine of the Church which are the Christological doctrine.

The hierarchy of truths does not determine some sort of rank order of what may or may not be believed.

Rather the hierarchy of truths helps to show us the wholeness of our doctrinal teachings and how and where they fit in relationship to the core Christological doctrines, and how they support those doctrines.

These are the formal teachings.

To accept a teaching with assent of the will and intellect means that we take a teaching as it is given to us and try to see how it might be true, how it might fit well with other teachings, and how it might well serve the lives of the faithful.  We are asked to first think about a thing in a positive light rather than being self-willed and working hard to see how it might be wrong.  It does not mean that we cannot discuss these things and even disagree with certain aspects of the teaching, and to do so quite actively unless we have been asked specifically not to do so.

To accept a teaching with the assent of faith or de fide, is essentially asking the faithful to go through the same process as the assent of will or intellect, but to lock it in even more clearly and not ever to call that teaching by the name of heresy, even if we do not fully understand or agree with it.   We may think about it, talk about it, but never work to divide the Church over it.

I hope this is helping a little.

[ialmisry]

Communing does not imply doctrinal unity,

you're right. It doesn't imply it, it demans it.

any more than the reception of councils requires a democratic head count of the faithful,

Are you mischaracterizing the Consensus of the Faithful here?  At the Council of Jerusalem St. James didn't take a democratic head count of the Faithul, but he did gather the "Apostles, presbyters and the Brethren" and issued the decision in their name.  It works.  Your ecclesiastical community should go back to trying it, once you get your Apostolic succession back in line. You woudn't be in your present mess.

any more than the consensus of the Fathers requires, God help us, that all the patristic Father, or even most of the patristic Fathers agree on all things, jot for tittle, black and white.

On that we agree, although that doesn't help your Ultramontanism, nor its intercommunion folly.

The trouble that we have is that in one area we apply this criteria for truth,  and in another we apply that criteria for truth; we talk past one another; bully each other; and at the end of the day we are all too emotionally and spiritually exhausted to give a tinkers dam about any of it.

Maybe you all do, but we don't.  That's why we do not have intercommunion.

Then we wait till the next generation or the next hundred years and try again.

Well that is not going to happen this time.  

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

jesuitry.

[elijahmaria]

Communing does not imply doctrinal unity

Are you sure about that, Mary? For the Orthodox, there must be communion in faith and prayer before there can be communion in sacris (if that's the Latin expression I'm looking for). Sure, non-Orthodox commune from Orthodox chalices on the sly and Orthodox priests knowingly commune non-Orthodox, but these things should not happen. Indeed, this is a very dangerous thing. Accident is one thing, prideful disobedience another. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, Church teaching another.

I am sure.  I am sure because I know without doubt that each time I commune I commune with millions of other Catholics who do not see Catholic teaching in precisely the same way that I do.

I am sure.  I am sure because I know that there are Orthodox communing with other Orthodox and they do not all see Orthodox teaching in precisely the same way either, one to the other.

Many Catholics and Orthodox are not certain of what it is precisely that their Churches DO actually teach on this or that issue or point and even when they know there is disagreement and misunderstanding that gets in the way of absolute unity.

So there is no question that we live, in relationship to revealed truth, it a state of disunity and confusion.

There is no question that the Church is established to minimize that disunity and confusion and work to bring forth spiritual and real unity and insight.

But to imagine that any of our respective confessions are successful in any absolute manner is an absurdity, by definition.

Given that reality, then our respective Confessions much ask themselves and each other, how much unity and commonality is enough for the salvation of souls...and then they must work toward that for unity, because that is what we are commanded to do...by the head of both of our confessions...Jesus the Christ.

M.

[elijahmaria]

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

jesuitry.

Nonsense, my dear fellow Catholic!

There is a very real difference between faith and the content of confessional teaching which we believe and profess!!

Faith is much much more than the sum total of what it is that we believe!!

Your Lutheran background would cause you to have no little difficulty with that idea!!  I have seen it many times before.

M

[Papist]

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

jesuitry.

Nonsense, my dear fellow Catholic!

There is a very real difference between faith and the content of confessional teaching which we believe and profess!!

Faith is much much more than the sum total of what it is that we believe!!

Your Lutheran background would cause you to have no little difficulty with that idea!!  I have seen it many times before.

M

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

[elijahmaria]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

[Papist]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

[elijahmaria]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

[ialmisry]

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

jesuitry.

Nonsense, my dear fellow Catholic!

Yes, jesuitry is nonsense. Catholics should stay away from it and keep the purity of our Orthodox Faith.

There is a very real difference between faith and the content of confessional teaching which we believe and profess!!

Since we are not a confessinal demonination, it doesn't concern us.  Since the Vatican professes a very real difference between its faith and our Orthodox Faith, what it believes doesn't interest us.

Faith is much much more than the sum total of what it is that we believe!!

Your Lutheran background would cause you to have no little difficulty with that idea!!

I have left my Lutheran background, and the practice of receiving sacraments from the Vatican that I did when I was in it.

I have seen it many times before.

Seen what?

[ialmisry]

One of the things you would be well served to start doing, Wyatt, would be to stop make "faith" the equivalent of "belief"...and rethink the two: and then move on to the meaning and identification of doctrine and how that fits, in real life on the ground, with faith and belief.

jesuitry.

Nonsense, my dear fellow Catholic!

There is a very real difference between faith and the content of confessional teaching which we believe and profess!!

Faith is much much more than the sum total of what it is that we believe!!

Your Lutheran background would cause you to have no little difficulty with that idea!!  I have seen it many times before.

M

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it.  

And the Mormons will "baptise you into their church" when you are dead.  It just means someone else gets wet.

What you don't know can hurt you.

[ialmisry]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

That is true of course.

[ialmisry]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

since the Vatican is in heresy, what he says is immaterial.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

And whatever status you accord yourself in your own eyes is immaterial to the Orthodox confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded,

We're quite fine, as is our communion with the Orthodox Popes of the Catholic Church, whether at Rome or Alexandria, and with Bishop Siluan of Rome.

and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

ah, the jesuitry of your magisterium!

[elijahmaria]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

That is true of course.

Yes, you are as Catholic as I am and one day Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church will return to communion without more changing in either than a series of understandings between them.

And then you will either have to change your tune or find another ball room to dance your dance.

M.

[Wyatt]

And then you will either have to change your tune or find another ball room to dance your dance.

The latter is more like it in his case.

[Papist]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

[Justin Kissel]

Wait, so I'm Orthodox and Catholic?  Nooooo!  But I was baptized by Catholics but never confirmed, doesn't that make me an apostate or something?

[Papist]

Wait, so I'm Orthodox and Catholic?  Nooooo!  But I was baptized by Catholics but never confirmed, doesn't that make me an apostate or something?

LOL! I think you are happily Eastern Orthodox.

[ialmisry]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it.  

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

That is true of course.

Yes, you are as Catholic as I am

No, the Catholic Church will give me commuion.

and one day Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church will return to communion

As, Orthodoxy is the soul that animates the body of the Catholic Church, you sentence makes no sense.

without more changing in either than a series of understandings between them.

But as Fr. Ambrose has pointed out, your misty, rarified ecclesiastical "reality" is beyond understanding.

And then you will either have to change your tune or find another ball room to dance your dance.

O.K, Pied Piper.

And then you will either have to change your tune or find another ball room to dance your dance.

The latter is more like it in his case.

[ialmisry]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

there you go, bringing up facts...

[Ionnis]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

[Papist]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

[Wyatt]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

To be honest, that is what it sounded like to me as well. Now granted, I realize that we believe there are varying degrees of communion with the Catholic Church, and every Christian baptized with the Trinitarian formula technically belongs to the Catholic Church even though they are not in full communion with Her. I do not see the rationale either with us letting the EO commune in our Church without them being formally received into the Catholic Church, nor do I see the rationale in us being allowed (by our Church) to commune in their Church. Certainly it is technically okay according to our Canon Law, but hopefully this is the exception rather than the rule as there is no sense in it happening on a regular basis. It is inappropriate for a Christian who only accepts the first seven Ecumenical Councils to continue receiving the Eucharist in our Church while persisting in that believe just as it would be inappropriate for us to receive in the EO Church while still holding onto belief in councils which they deem heretical and certainly not ecumenical.

[Papist]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

To be honest, that is what it sounded like to me as well. Now granted, I realize that we believe there are varying degrees of communion with the Catholic Church, and every Christian baptized with the Trinitarian formula technically belongs to the Catholic Church even though they are not in full communion with Her. I do not see the rationale either with us letting the EO commune in our Church without them being formally received into the Catholic Church, nor do I see the rationale in us being allowed (by our Church) to commune in their Church. Certainly it is technically okay according to our Canon Law, but hopefully this is the exception rather than the rule as there is no sense in it happening on a regular basis. It is inappropriate for a Christian who only accepts the first seven Ecumenical Councils to continue receiving the Eucharist in our Church while persisting in that believe just as it would be inappropriate for us to receive in the EO Church while still holding onto belief in councils which they deem heretical and certainly not ecumenical.

It is the exception, rather than the norm. If there is a Catholic liturgy available, you should receive communion there. The idea that we could receive from and Eastern Orthodox priest is only to be applied to extreme situation, such as when there is no Catholic Church nearby or if you are in danger of death, and there is no reasonable possibility of receiving communion from a Catholic priest.

[elijahmaria]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Branch theory admits to some sort of formal loss of Apostolic Succession.

What has happened between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church has not resulted in the loss of succession.  It is a long series of refusals to understand and give way to a renewed and legitimate understanding.

M.

[elijahmaria]

It is the exception, rather than the norm. If there is a Catholic liturgy available, you should receive communion there. The idea that we could receive from and Eastern Orthodox priest is only to be applied to extreme situation, such as when there is no Catholic Church nearby or if you are in danger of death, and there is no reasonable possibility of receiving communion from a Catholic priest.

There are no such strictures against Eastern Catholics.

Furthermore there would be no such exception for any reason unless there is recognized apostolic succession and graced sacraments.

[Ionnis]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

They commemorate Nestorius as a saint.  And yes, the Pope did state that the "controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings."  

[ialmisry]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

The Nestorians still refuse to call the Holy Theotokos the Theotokos.

[elijahmaria]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

The Nestorians still refuse to call the Holy Theotokos the Theotokos.

So what?  You still refuse to call Catholics, Catholics.

[Papist]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

The Nestorians still refuse to call the Holy Theotokos the Theotokos.

I am well aware of that. And the reason is not that because they think it is wrong to do so. They just want to make it clear that Christ's Divinity is not derived from the Theotokos. So they prefer to call the Blessed Mother, Mary, the Mother of Christ our God. Which is about the same thing.
Do agree with all of the theological languea of the Assyrian Church of the East? No! But I don't believe that they are Nestorians.

[ialmisry]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

The Nestorians still refuse to call the Holy Theotokos the Theotokos.

So what?  You still refuse to call Catholics, Catholics.

I call Catholics Catholics all the time.  I also call a spade a spade, which is what is bothering some.

[Wyatt]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

The Nestorians still refuse to call the Holy Theotokos the Theotokos.

So what?  You still refuse to call Catholics, Catholics.

I call Catholics Catholics all the time.

No, you call the EO Catholics. Big difference.

[Schultz]

And here we go again...

[Papist]

And here we go again...

That's a pretty one.

[Ionnis]

^^  Wow, that is. 

[mike]

It is the exception, rather than the norm. If there is a Catholic liturgy available, you should receive communion there. The idea that we could receive from and Eastern Orthodox priest is only to be applied to extreme situation, such as when there is no Catholic Church nearby or if you are in danger of death, and there is no reasonable possibility of receiving communion from a Catholic priest.

Well, your Church thinks otherwise:

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it

No extreme situations here.

[Aindriú]

Well, your Church thinks otherwise:

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it

No extreme situations here.

What does "necessity requires it" mean to you? Perhaps, you have no other option?

[ialmisry]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

It is not off-topic.  It IS the heart of the topic.

The Catholic Church accepts three principle assertions about the Orthodox Church.  

The first is that we share Apostolic Succession.

And the Second is that we share a faith that is sufficient to salvation.

The third is that our sacraments are mutually grace-filled.

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

That, of course, has been received in some quarters with all kinds of doors being slammed in our faces, but I believe that it was the right and necessary thing for the Catholic Church to do and to say.

Since the Orthodox Church (and yes, that is the Orthodox Church, not your nameless Orthodox priests and friends. Those who doubt that, can see what the Orthodox Church of Romania did over Met. Nicolae Corneanu, and that was with the "Romanian Church in Union with Rome-Greek Catholic") does not share these assertions, the perplexity of what you all think you "accomplishing." Because it seems yet another attempt to con us into thinking we believe the same "so why don't you submit to the Vicar of Christ and sign on the dotted line for the union?"

Dear Fellow Catholic,

I have been at this business of informal dialogue for seventeen years now and I can tell you that you do not represent universal Orthodoxy, however much you might hope to do so.

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

The days of untrammeled unionist vs. anti-unionist bullying are over.  

Well, can't say what is going on over there in Oz, but here on earth and in heaven, the battle of Orthodoxy vs. heresy continues.

Instant communications makes our mutual warts too difficult to hide any more.   True historians have improved access to all kinds of archives which will do much to allow the ordinary fellow to refute pseudo-history.

You mean like this?

There is a documentary record of anti-unionists strong-arming the population to speak out against union.  It is an historical record that is not readily available to English speakers from the United States but it exists and it is not a record that looks much like the working of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, those anti-unionists must have had much stronger arms than the emperor's whole state apparatus and army and the Crusaders who backed them. The propoganda for union has left quite a documentary record, but bringing it up makes the claims all the more ridiculous. That such whinning exists, I do not doubt: I'm not monolingual, and have been to all the areas except India and Ethiopia where the Vatican imposed its unions. That the areas have remained majority Orthodox atttests to the work of the Holy Spirit.

And most importantly of all, the ability to actually "see" our similarities as faithful people is increasing exponentially.

kumbaya.  Will we joining the Muslims next? The Mormons?

Your photos of clown masses will soon be nearly 100 years old and will no longer pack the same punch....They do not even now because it should be evident to all that the photo gallery is quite dated already.

This is only three years old:

So you'd best crow now while you still can.

 

I'd rather listen to the choir of saints.

Resumed communion is coming, and coming at a rate that you cannot stop.

"If the whole universe were to commune with you, I alone would not commune with you."-St. Maximos the Orthodox Confessor

[stanley123]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

[Schultz]

Those pics are not from a clown mass, but from that group that dresses up at Mass to protest the alleged anti-gay doctrines of the RCC.  I can't recall their name at present.

[ialmisry]

And here we go again...

That's a pretty one.

I like the lights.

[Papist]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

[stanley123]

This is a little offtopic but could some Catholic explain your theological basis for accepting intercommunion?

It is not off-topic.  It IS the heart of the topic.

The Catholic Church accepts three principle assertions about the Orthodox Church.  

The first is that we share Apostolic Succession.

And the Second is that we share a faith that is sufficient to salvation.

The third is that our sacraments are mutually grace-filled.

And so despite the fact that there are claims, on all sides, to the contrary, the Church has decided that rather than keep the anger going, we shall release our centuries of bad feelings and embrace Orthodoxy as true Sister Churches...not with the fullness of union...but with sufficient fullness to warrant communion.

That, of course, has been received in some quarters with all kinds of doors being slammed in our faces, but I believe that it was the right and necessary thing for the Catholic Church to do and to say.

Since the Orthodox Church (and yes, that is the Orthodox Church, not your nameless Orthodox priests and friends. Those who doubt that, can see what the Orthodox Church of Romania did over Met. Nicolae Corneanu, and that was with the "Romanian Church in Union with Rome-Greek Catholic") does not share these assertions, the perplexity of what you all think you "accomplishing." Because it seems yet another attempt to con us into thinking we believe the same "so why don't you submit to the Vicar of Christ and sign on the dotted line for the union?"

Dear Fellow Catholic,

I have been at this business of informal dialogue for seventeen years now and I can tell you that you do not represent universal Orthodoxy, however much you might hope to do so.

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

The days of untrammeled unionist vs. anti-unionist bullying are over.  

Well, can't say what is going on over there in Oz, but here on earth and in heaven, the battle of Orthodoxy vs. heresy continues.

Instant communications makes our mutual warts too difficult to hide any more.   True historians have improved access to all kinds of archives which will do much to allow the ordinary fellow to refute pseudo-history.

You mean like this?

There is a documentary record of anti-unionists strong-arming the population to speak out against union.  It is an historical record that is not readily available to English speakers from the United States but it exists and it is not a record that looks much like the working of the Holy Spirit.

Yeah, those anti-unionists must have had much stronger arms than the emperor's whole state apparatus and army and the Crusaders who backed them. The propoganda for union has left quite a documentary record, but bringing it up makes the claims all the more ridiculous. That such whinning exists, I do not doubt: I'm not monolingual, and have been to all the areas except India and Ethiopia where the Vatican imposed its unions. That the areas have remained majority Orthodox atttests to the work of the Holy Spirit.

And most importantly of all, the ability to actually "see" our similarities as faithful people is increasing exponentially.

kumbaya.  Will we joining the Muslims next? The Mormons?

Your photos of clown masses will soon be nearly 100 years old and will no longer pack the same punch....They do not even now because it should be evident to all that the photo gallery is quite dated already.

This is only three years old:

So you'd best crow now while you still can.

 

I'd rather listen to the choir of saints.

Resumed communion is coming, and coming at a rate that you cannot stop.

"If the whole universe were to commune with you, I alone would not commune with you."-St. Maximos the Orthodox Confessor

Yes. These pictures posted by ialmisry and as well many others, are problematical.

[ialmisry]

Those pics are not from a clown mass, but from that group that dresses up at Mass to protest the alleged anti-gay doctrines of the RCC.  I can't recall their name at present.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  That the archbishop didn't know to give communion to them is beyond me.  In Chicago, there was a rainbow sash protest, and the archbishop told priests not to give communion to anyone who wore one.  So all is not lost.

[Papist]

As Catholics, why wouldn't you want to commune with us?  You guys commune with Nestorians quite openly.  Your own Pope JPII said that you and the Nestorians hold the same faith and that the Nestorian controversies were mere "misunderstandings."  

That is not what was said. What was said was that the Ancient Assyrian Church of the East is not really Nestorian. If they really believe that Jesus is one person, God incarnate, undivided, then how can we charge them with Nestorianism? Similarly, we don't charge the Oriental Orthodox with being monophysites because, even though they profess only one nature, they still acknowledge that Christ's Humanity and Divinity are distinct.

They commemorate Nestorius as a saint.  And yes, the Pope did state that the "controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings."  

Yes, they do commemorate him. But here's the thing. First, just becasue they commemorate him, doesn't mean that they view theology in exactly the same way that he did. In fact, they have explicitely stated that Christ is one person, human and divine. Second, are we really sure that Nestorius was "nestorian"?

[Schultz]

Those pics are not from a clown mass, but from that group that dresses up at Mass to protest the alleged anti-gay doctrines of the RCC.  I can't recall their name at present.

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.  That the archbishop didn't know to give communion to them is beyond me.  In Chicago, there was a rainbow sash protest, and the archbishop told priests not to give communion to anyone who wore one.  So all is not lost.

Yes, that's them.  Regardless, this is not a clown mass, which is an entirely different animal.  Same kingdom, perhaps, but different species, so to speak. 

[stanley123]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

[elijahmaria]

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

I don't often read Metropolitan John.

But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.   So your approach is less bothersome to me than it may be to others.  Also, those Orthodox who were once Lutheran are some of the toughest nuts to crack.  I don't ever expect Orthodox converts from the Lutheran Church to ever be conciliatory.  There has never been nor will there ever be a time of absolute unity in the Church...not in reality...so there's plenty of room for you to continue to spill your ink.  BTW my mother was a Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church...It all went right over her head.  Same thing is happening as she learns more about Orthodoxy.  She's a good woman though... ...but was and always will be Lutheran in her thinking and being.

[elijahmaria]

It is interesting that you, as moderator, would come in like this and derail the discussion.  I don't know that it matters that somethings get repeated in our dialogues.  Very often something new happens, or someone has a breakthrough in understanding...is that what worries you that you feel the need to interrupt?

Mary

And here we go again...

[Wyatt]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

Do we know that he was talking about EO and not the Eastern Catholic Churches? I am honestly asking because I do not know. I have heard some people on the internet claim he was referring to the EO when he said this and have heard others say he was only referring to Eastern Catholicism, then I have heard still others say he was referring to both. Do we have any sources that prove one way or the other?

[Schultz]

It is interesting that you, as moderator, would come in like this and derail the discussion.  I don't know that it matters that somethings get repeated in our dialogues.  Very often something new happens, or someone has a breakthrough in understanding...is that what worries you that you feel the need to interrupt?

Mary

And here we go again...

Actually, this "Who can lay claim to the title 'Catholic'?" discussion has derailed more than a few threads.  The continued semantic word games you all like to engage in has derailed many discussions  Seriously, how many times will you, Isa, and others have this semantic discussion about who can use the word "Catholic" to describe his or her church membership?  It's not only tiresome to me as both a poster and a moderator, it's counter-productive because otherwise interesting threads end up in a OC.net version of Monty Python's classic "Argument Clinic" sketch.

[ialmisry]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it.  

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.  

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

Do we know that he was talking about EO and not the Eastern Catholic Churches? I am honestly asking because I do not know. I have heard some people on the internet claim he was referring to the EO when he said this and have heard others say he was only referring to Eastern Catholicism, then I have heard still others say he was referring to both.

Hence the importance of saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and putting clarity in both.

[Aindriú]

[Wyatt]

Actually, this "Who can lay claim to the title 'Catholic'?" discussion has derailed more than a few threads.  The continued semantic word games you all like to engage in has derailed many discussions  Seriously, how many times will you, Isa, and others have this semantic discussion about who can use the word "Catholic" to describe his or her church membership?  It's not only tiresome to me as both a poster and a moderator, it's counter-productive because otherwise interesting threads end up in a OC.net version of Monty Python's classic "Argument Clinic" sketch.

I've implored you guys multiple times to put a pinned thread in place similar to the one regarding how to address Eastern Catholics on OC.net that protected the dignity of Roman Catholics, but as of yet this has not happened. Methinks if such a pinned thread were created all of this would go away.

[Schultz]

Actually, this "Who can lay claim to the title 'Catholic'?" discussion has derailed more than a few threads.  The continued semantic word games you all like to engage in has derailed many discussions  Seriously, how many times will you, Isa, and others have this semantic discussion about who can use the word "Catholic" to describe his or her church membership?  It's not only tiresome to me as both a poster and a moderator, it's counter-productive because otherwise interesting threads end up in a OC.net version of Monty Python's classic "Argument Clinic" sketch.

I've implored you guys multiple times to put a pinned thread in place similar to the one regarding how to address Eastern Catholics on OC.net that protected the dignity of Roman Catholics, but as of yet this has not happened. Methinks if such a pinned thread were created all of this would go away.

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.  The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and therefore is allowed to call itself by that title.  The conventions concerning Eastern Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are in place because the moderation team has decided that the previously used alternatives are commonly considered perjorative by members of those respective communions. 

Of course, it would be nice if posters used the common accepted terminology of "Catholic" to mean communicants of the Roman Catholic Church which is HQ'd in the Vatican and has the Bishop of Rome, commonly called the Pope, as its nominal, temporal head and "Orthodox" to mean to communicants of the various churches commonly called "Greek Orthodox" or just plain "Eastern Orthodox", if only for convenience sake and ease of meaning. 

However, posters such as ialmisry are perfectly in their rights to argue for exclusive use of the term "Catholic."  As noted, however, I find such an argument tiresome and counter-productive.  An easy way to avoid frustration is to simply ignore such posts and continue to use the generally accepted conventions and not engage in such an argument.  It's really not that hard.

-Schultz.
Orthodox-Catholic discussion moderator

[elijahmaria]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

Do we know that he was talking about EO and not the Eastern Catholic Churches? I am honestly asking because I do not know. I have heard some people on the internet claim he was referring to the EO when he said this and have heard others say he was only referring to Eastern Catholicism, then I have heard still others say he was referring to both. Do we have any sources that prove one way or the other?

Wyatt,

This is one of the first times Pope John Paul II ever used the metaphor.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3700

I am sorry that I derailed the thread by asking that the thread not be derailed.  I never learn.

M.

[stanley123]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

The Pope also used the expression of Sister Churches.

[ialmisry]

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

I don't often read Metropolitan John.

I don't read him at all, except his statements.

But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

More reading is in order then.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.

St. Mark of Ephesus showed up at Florence.

So your approach is less bothersome to me than it may be to others.

Good.

Also, those Orthodox who were once Lutheran are some of the toughest nuts to crack. I don't ever expect Orthodox converts from the Lutheran Church to ever be conciliatory.

Since there are plenty of converts to Orthodoxy from the Vatican, from the Episcopalians, Baptists, Muslims, Evangelicals, and even *gasp* cradle Orthodox whose ancestors threw into the Bosphoros the bishops returning from Florence and pelted the jail where Isodore the Apostate was held in Moscow before being allowed to "escape" to the Vatican, who will tell you the same thing, would you mind to point out the relevance of my Lutheran background?

There has never been nor will there ever be a time of absolute unity in the Church...not in reality...so there's plenty of room for you to continue to spill your ink.  BTW my mother was a Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church...It all went right over her head.  Same thing is happening as she learns more about Orthodoxy.  She's a good woman though... ...but was and always will be Lutheran in her thinking and being.

Well, then, with your background you can point out then what argument I have made from Lutheranism here. Since I accepted communion and even absolution once from the Vatican when I was a Lutheran, and then would have never questioned its baptism.   I'm quite curious.  I mean, you are of course quite free to attribute my defense of Orthodoxy to Lutheranism if it gets you through the day, but it is an odd way to "dialogue."

[stanley123]

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

I don't often read Metropolitan John.

I don't read him at all, except his statements.

But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

More reading is in order then.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.

St. Mark of Ephesus showed up at Florence.

So your approach is less bothersome to me than it may be to others.

Good.

Also, those Orthodox who were once Lutheran are some of the toughest nuts to crack. I don't ever expect Orthodox converts from the Lutheran Church to ever be conciliatory.

Since there are plenty of converts to Orthodoxy from the Vatican, from the Episcopalians, Baptists, Muslims, Evangelicals, and even *gasp* cradle Orthodox whose ancestors threw into the Bosphoros the bishops returning from Florence and pelted the jail where Isodore the Apostate was held in Moscow before being allowed to "escape" to the Vatican, who will tell you the same thing, would you mind to point out the relevance of my Lutheran background?

There has never been nor will there ever be a time of absolute unity in the Church...not in reality...so there's plenty of room for you to continue to spill your ink.  BTW my mother was a Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church...It all went right over her head.  Same thing is happening as she learns more about Orthodoxy.  She's a good woman though... ...but was and always will be Lutheran in her thinking and being.

Well, then, with your background you can point out then what argument I have made from Lutheranism here. Since I accepted communion and even absolution once from the Vatican when I was a Lutheran, and then would have never questioned its baptism.   I'm quite curious.  I mean, you are of course quite free to attribute my defense of Orthodoxy to Lutheranism if it gets you through the day, but it is an odd way to "dialogue."

[/quote]I have heard it said that converts to a faith are oftentimes stronger (or more fanatical?) in their faith than those who had been brought up in that faith from birth?

[ialmisry]

Well, I don't know what you are reading into the pretty words Met. Zizoulis has been telling you, but as the Romanian Patriarch and the Holy Synod in the diptychs of the universal Orthodox Church  has unambiguously stated (along with the consequences), you are mistaken.

I don't often read Metropolitan John.

I don't read him at all, except his statements.

But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

More reading is in order then.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.

St. Mark of Ephesus showed up at Florence.

So your approach is less bothersome to me than it may be to others.

Good.

Also, those Orthodox who were once Lutheran are some of the toughest nuts to crack. I don't ever expect Orthodox converts from the Lutheran Church to ever be conciliatory.

Since there are plenty of converts to Orthodoxy from the Vatican, from the Episcopalians, Baptists, Muslims, Evangelicals, and even *gasp* cradle Orthodox whose ancestors threw into the Bosphoros the bishops returning from Florence and pelted the jail where Isodore the Apostate was held in Moscow before being allowed to "escape" to the Vatican, who will tell you the same thing, would you mind to point out the relevance of my Lutheran background?

There has never been nor will there ever be a time of absolute unity in the Church...not in reality...so there's plenty of room for you to continue to spill your ink.  BTW my mother was a Lutheran convert to the Catholic Church...It all went right over her head.  Same thing is happening as she learns more about Orthodoxy.  She's a good woman though... ...but was and always will be Lutheran in her thinking and being.

Well, then, with your background you can point out then what argument I have made from Lutheranism here. Since I accepted communion and even absolution once from the Vatican when I was a Lutheran, and then would have never questioned its baptism.   I'm quite curious.  I mean, you are of course quite free to attribute my defense of Orthodoxy to Lutheranism if it gets you through the day, but it is an odd way to "dialogue."

I have heard it said that converts to a faith are oftentimes stronger (or more fanatical?) in their faith than those who had been brought up in that faith from birth?

That's true enough (though I've known lukewarm converts and zealous craddles), but she seems to single out Lutheranism for some meaning.

[Schultz]

I love that. I tell Christians outside of the Church's boundaries that they are Catholic (because of their baptism) but they just don't know it. 

The Orthodox ARE Catholics, and always have been.

M.

Do you believe them to be members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Absolutely

According to our Holy Father they are in material and not formal schism.

They are possessed of graced sacraments and also Apostolic Succession and are fully my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether they accord me the same status in their eyes is immaterial to what I am taught by my own confession.

They are not in communion with the Pope of the Catholic Church, and by that fact our unity is wounded as well as their own unity being wounded, and that is documented and formalized as a truth and teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is not however a doctrine, nor is it in the nature of doctrine.   

M.

This seems to be branch theory, which suggests that the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ is not one in and of herself, but divided. It also appears to contradict Mystici Corporis Christi:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Does the two lung theory contradict RC teaching in your view?

Yes

But His Holiness Pope John Paul II used the two lung metaphor, so why wouldn't that put you  out of line with the teaching of the Pope?

Do we know that he was talking about EO and not the Eastern Catholic Churches? I am honestly asking because I do not know. I have heard some people on the internet claim he was referring to the EO when he said this and have heard others say he was only referring to Eastern Catholicism, then I have heard still others say he was referring to both. Do we have any sources that prove one way or the other?

Wyatt,

This is one of the first times Pope John Paul II ever used the metaphor.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3700

I am sorry that I derailed the thread by asking that the thread not be derailed.  I never learn.

M.

The thread was already derailed long before I got involved.  I was merely trying to use some humor to call attention to that.

Next time, I'll just issue another diktat because apparently that's what you people want. 

[Wyatt]

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid.  The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and therefore is allowed to call itself by that title.  The conventions concerning Eastern Catholics and Oriental Orthodox are in place because the moderation team has decided that the previously used alternatives are commonly considered perjorative by members of those respective communions.

This part is a red herring because I have never asked that our Church be called "the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" by members of this forum. For that matter, I have not even insisted that members of this forum call our communion simply "Catholic" with no modifiers. As you may recall, I was willing to compromise in being called RC, but certain members will not even use that term and prefer to use derogatory terms instead.

[elijahmaria]

Next time, I'll just issue another diktat because apparently that's what you people want. 

This is not particularly irenic.  I simply had hoped this particular thread would not be derailed.  But it is a bit late for that now, as you noted.  As for your diktats, I don't know that any of "we people" have much choice. 

M.

[Irish Hermit]

[But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.   

You will have observed the slowing down of the International Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.   It has happened because our bishops have at last decided to take an immediate interest and a hands-on approach and not to leave the Dialogue in the control of the small group of ecumenicats such as Metropolitan John Zizioulas, titular of Pergamon. 

Before the meeting on Cyprus in October 2009 the bishops of the Greek Church studied the document composed a year earlier on Crete which was created to form the basis of the discussion on Cyprus  -- and they were horrified by the extent to which the document appeared to be receptive to unorthodox teaching and especially on ecclesiology and the concept of a universal primacy.

So they clamped down on the Dialogue.  At their Synod prior to Cyprus the bishops ordered that no Statements should be issued by the International Dialogue until they had been examined and approved by the bishops. 

Metropolitan Zizioulas was thoroughly alarmed by this, and the word enraged is not unfitting for his angry reaction.   He wrote a nasty letter to the Greek bishops accusing them of being obscurantist and of making themselves look medieval in front of their flocks.   His letter is on the web and I shall find it.   The bishops replied; they had the good sense to ignore +Zizioulas' crassness and simply rejected his accusations.

Since then you will notice that neither Cyprus 2009 nor Vienna 2010 have released any Joint Statements.

The bishops, hardliners on matters doctrinal, are now the adjudicators of the Dialogue.  Glory to God!

[ialmisry]

[But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.   

You will have observed the slowing down of the International Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.   It has happened because our bishops have at last decided to take an immediate interest and a hands-on approach and not to leave the Dialogue in the control of the small group of ecumenicats such as Metropolitan John Zizioulas, titular of Pergamon. 

Before the meeting on Cyprus in October 2009 the bishops of the Greek Church studied the document composed a year earlier on Crete which was created to form the basis of the discussion on Cyprus  -- and they were horrified by the extent to which the document appeared to be receptive to unorthodox teaching and especially on ecclesiology and the concept of a universal primacy.

So they clamped down on the Dialogue.  At their Synod prior to Cyprus the bishops ordered that no Statements should be issued by the International Dialogue until they had been examined and approved by the bishops. 

Metropolitan Zizioulas was thoroughly alarmed by this, and the word enraged is not unfitting for his angry reaction.   He wrote a nasty letter to the Greek bishops accusing them of being obscurantist and of making themselves look medieval in front of their flocks.   His letter is on the web and I shall find it.   The bishops replied; they had the good sense to ignore +Zizioulas' crassness and simply rejected his accusations.

Since then you will notice that neither Cyprus 2009 nor Vienna 2010 have released any Joint Statements.

The bishops, hardliners on matters doctrinal, are now the adjudicators of the Dialogue.  Glory to God!

Glory to God indeed!

Not to be forgotten, the Vatican rejected the statement from the council of Ravenna.

[elijahmaria]

I haven't noticed any slowing down at all.  I haven't noticed any truly negative bombshells from any quarter either...except of course for the usual suspects.

It is to be expected that the bishops be involved, after all.  It would be far more alarming if they were not!!

There's nothing of real negative substance here in your comments except some mild attempt on your part to sour the soup.

When the talks are cut off, and the Catholic Church shakes the dust from her sandals, then I'll pack my bags and you will have seen the last of me, till we are all called to judgment.

[But I do know from reading here on this Forum that you are not universally representative.

I also understand that if Orthodox bishops all took the hard line that you take here, there would be no bilateral discussions at all.   

You will have observed the slowing down of the International Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.   It has happened because our bishops have at last decided to take an immediate interest and a hands-on approach and not to leave the Dialogue in the control of the small group of ecumenicats such as Metropolitan John Zizioulas, titular of Pergamon. 

Before the meeting on Cyprus in October 2009 the bishops of the Greek Church studied the document composed a year earlier on Crete which was created to form the basis of the discussion on Cyprus  -- and they were horrified by the extent to which the document appeared to be receptive to unorthodox teaching and especially on ecclesiology and the concept of a universal primacy.

So they clamped down on the Dialogue.  At their Synod prior to Cyprus the bishops ordered that no Statements should be issued by the International Dialogue until they had been examined and approved by the bishops. 

Metropolitan Zizioulas was thoroughly alarmed by this, and the word enraged is not unfitting for his angry reaction.   He wrote a nasty letter to the Greek bishops accusing them of being obscurantist and of making themselves look medieval in front of their flocks.   His letter is on the web and I shall find it.   The bishops replied; they had the good sense to ignore +Zizioulas' crassness and simply rejected his accusations.

Since then you will notice that neither Cyprus 2009 nor Vienna 2010 have released any Joint Statements.

The bishops, hardliners on matters doctrinal, are now the adjudicators of the Dialogue.  Glory to God!

[Irish Hermit]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

[elijahmaria]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Yes.  I think I mentioned the usual suspects.

[Irish Hermit]

I haven't noticed any slowing down at all.  I haven't noticed any truly negative bombshells from any quarter either...except of course for the usual suspects.

It is to be expected that the bishops be involved, after all.  It would be far more alarming if they were not!!

Dear Mary,

Those of us who have been keenly following the dialogue over the years have been very aware that the bishops have *not* bothered to involve themselves.  And yes, I fully agree with you - their lack of involvement has been alarming.  It has almost been as if the dialogue has been a private club for a small group of interested participants.   There were never any reactions from the bishops about previously issued Statements.  They were simply allowed to drop into the bin of ecumenical history with a "ho hum, yawn" from our bishops.  You must have been aware of this?

Silly digs about my "trying to sour the milk" drag this discussion down.

[Irish Hermit]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Yes.  I think I mentioned the usual suspects.

How quaint!  How superciliously dismissive!  You consider the Synod of the Bishops of Greece (60 of them) as "the usual suspects"! 

Mind telling us which bishops you approve of?  Who are the good guys?

[Aindriú]

How quaint!  How superciliously...

Su.. Suuuper... ss... super fragilistic expialidocious! 

[ialmisry]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Yes.  I think I mentioned the usual suspects.

How quaint!  How superciliously dismissive!  You consider the Synod of the Bishops of Greece (60 of them) as "the usual suspects"! 

Mind telling us which bishops you approve of?  Who are the good guys?

Obviously Met. Nicolaie.

[elijahmaria]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Yes.  I think I mentioned the usual suspects.

How quaint!  How superciliously dismissive!  You consider the Synod of the Bishops of Greece (60 of them) as "the usual suspects"! 

Mind telling us which bishops you approve of?  Who are the good guys?

Christ himself calls for us to be one.  I leave all that good-guy, bad-guy business in His hands.

When the time comes, we will be one.  And I am without a shadow of a doubt that time is coming much faster than you wish and in ways that neither one of us will have imagined.

I'll leave you and Isa to your wailing wall...

 

[stanley123]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

[elijahmaria]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

First look to those Churches who share Apostolic Succession.

Ever ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no a member of the World Council?

Seems the answer to your question is evident...don't you think?...

[Aindriú]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

There have been many Episcopalians (American branch of the Anglican Communion) and Lutherans who have been flocking to Roman Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, as well) to escape such an example. You may have heard of the anglicanorum coetibus. It's a measure that is becoming increasingly popular among the conservative Episcopalians/CofE and especially members of the Continuing Anglican movement (conservative Anglicans who separated from the increasingly liberal Episcopal church)

[stanley123]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

First look to those Churches who share Apostolic Succession.

Ever ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no a member of the World Council?

Seems the answer to your question is evident...don't you think?...

One problem is that some of the Orthdox do not accept the Apostolic succession of the RCC.
And why do not RC accept the apostolic succession of the Anglicans. The RCC accepts the apostolic succession of the Old Catholics and some of the Old Catholic bishops have been involved in the ordination of the Anglicans. And further, some of the Orthodox had accepted the Apostolic succession of the Anglicans.
So, no it is not all that evident as to what the answer is. Yes. Christ prayed that His followers be one, but there are obstacles to that and these obstacles are appearing from all sides.
The RCC is not going to say, OK, Christ prayed that we should all be one, so let's join with the Anglicans and Lutherans in spite of our differences and allow intercommunion. Well, if the RCC is not going to follow the road to intercommunion with the Anglicans and Lutherans, then why is it out of order for the EO to say that they are reluctant to follow the road to intercommunion with the RCC ?

[John Larocque]

The Anglican issue has something to do, I think, with the episcopal ordination formulas. The decree declaring their orders null and void probably went too far, but as long as they are outside the Roman Catholic communion, there will always be a question mark over their orders. The most optimistic scenario in the Roman church is conditional re-ordination for those who cross the Tiber. This is especially true now in the era of female C of E bishops and priests, which had the effect also of closing the door on EO/Anglican "ecumenism". The "Dutch touch" expression is amusing.

I've sometimes compared the relationship between Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics with that of Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

[Aindriú]

One problem is that some of the Orthdox do not accept the Apostolic succession of the RCC.

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

And why do not RC accept the apostolic succession of the Anglicans. The RCC accepts the apostolic succession of the Old Catholics and some of the Old Catholic bishops have been involved in the ordination of the Anglicans. And further, some of the Orthodox had accepted the Apostolic succession of the Anglicans.

Since the beginning the Anglicans have been a melting pot of different theologies (catholic, calvin, and evangelic). The Anglican calvinists openly rejected apostolic succession. Pope Leo XIII, said %&!@, if you don't even have the faith in your Apostolic Succession, your very orders are invalid as far as we are concerned.

Now, even though that's a sweeping statement in the RCC. Anglicans are still not a singular faith. Anglo-Catholics are almost identical in faith to the Old Catholics. Therefore, some Anglicans having theological union with the RCC or Old Catholics does not speak for Anglicanism as a whole.

(Much of this problem is due to the origins of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church was a political split. King Henry VIII was still very Catholic. When he punched his ticket, Calvinists started making reformations in the church. How? Because, the Anglican church has never had much of an actual written doctrine. That which has been written by some is rejected by others (39 Articles). So when the homo-bishop fiasco came around, the bishops claimed to be unable to excommunicate for heresy due to lack of official church doctrine (&@*!))

So, no it is not all that evident as to what the answer is. Yes. Christ prayed that His followers be one, but there are obstacles to that and these obstacles are appearing from all sides.
The RCC is not going to say, OK, Christ prayed that we should all be one, so let's join with the Anglicans and Lutherans in spite of our differences and allow intercommunion. Well, if the RCC is not going to follow the road to intercommunion with the Anglicans and Lutherans, then why is it out of order for the EO to say that they are reluctant to follow the road to intercommunion with the RCC ?

So the RCC is making efforts for those that want communion to feel comfortable in doing so. For example, the anglicanorum coetibus allows Anglicans to keep the Anglican tradition, but simultaneously affirm Catholic teaching.

[elijahmaria]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

First look to those Churches who share Apostolic Succession.

Ever ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no a member of the World Council?

Seems the answer to your question is evident...don't you think?...

One problem is that some of the Orthdox do not accept the Apostolic succession of the RCC.

Then we would not want to generalize strongly on the qualifier "some" would we? 

We have a very long history of interaction and it is clear, outside of this Forum, that many more Orthodox believers do indeed recognize that the Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession and is closer to Orthodoxy than the others you mention.  So you are asking the wrong question actually which is why you remain a bit confused by a more confident declarative.

[elijahmaria]

One problem is that some of the Orthdox do not accept the Apostolic succession of the RCC.

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

That statement would get a pass among many of the Orthodox on this Forum, but it does not hold up historically, so there's good reason to work on these things by backing up and taking the long view.

[Aindriú]

BTW, if you want to know what an Anglo-Catholic liturgy looks like. It's pretty much an Latin Mass said in English. The new missal translation set for next November reminds me of it.

[Aindriú]

One problem is that some of the Orthdox do not accept the Apostolic succession of the RCC.

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

That statement would get a pass among many of the Orthodox on this Forum, but it does not hold up historically, so there's good reason to work on these things by backing up and taking the long view.

It's definitely a generalization. However, when Orthodox deny the sacraments/apostolic succession of the west, it is due to this understanding.

[Irish Hermit]

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

That statement would get a pass among many of the Orthodox on this Forum, but it does not hold up historically, so there's good reason to work on these things by backing up and taking the long view.

Azurestone is right. It most certainly does hold up historically because it is the teaching of our Holy Fathers.

Here is what Saint Basil the Great wrote on this matter.  See message 25 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446353.html#msg446353

[Aindriú]

That was me! I'm taking ma' ball and I'm goin' home!   

[ialmisry]

There was quite a lot of bad feeling on the part of Met Zizioulas who realised that his guns had been spiked and he could not control the International Catholic-Orthodox Meetings anymore.  In effect, he has become accountable to his brother bishops and their scrutiny. He wrote a mean and threatening letter to the Greek bishops.

You can find that letter, and the response of the Greek Synod of Bishops  and quite a lot of other documentation here

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

and here

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

Yes.  I think I mentioned the usual suspects.

How quaint!  How superciliously dismissive!  You consider the Synod of the Bishops of Greece (60 of them) as "the usual suspects"! 

Mind telling us which bishops you approve of?  Who are the good guys?

Christ himself calls for us to be one.  I leave all that good-guy, bad-guy business in His hands.

He puts Himself in our hands (in Father's case, quite literally). We should not give Him to you, nor should we receive Him (or bread) from someone who would give Him to you.  That's the point in quesiton of the OP.

When the time comes, we will be one. 

When you all confess the Orthodox Faith, you can join us at any time.

And I am without a shadow of a doubt that time is coming much faster than you wish and in ways that neither one of us will have imagined.

You all in the Orthodox catechumenate?

I'll leave you and Isa to your wailing wall...

You're the only one bewailing anything. Father and I, for instance, are quite happy about the actions of the Church of Romania on Met. Nicolaie and the Church of Greece on shortening Met. Zizioulis' leash.

[ialmisry]

Christ himself calls for us to be one. 

How would it come about? Say for example, between Roman Catholics and Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists or Lutherans. They allow women clergy. Would then the Roman Catholic Church follow the word of Scripture and the call of Our Divine Lord to be one with them?

First look to those Churches who share Apostolic Succession.

Ever ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no a member of the World Council?

Seems the answer to your question is evident...don't you think?...

Since several Churches of the Catholic Church are members of the World Council of Churches (something I'm not crazy about. The Catholic Church in Georgia has dropped out), no.

[Irish Hermit]

That was me! I'm taking ma' ball and I'm goin' home!   

Come back with the ball!  I've changed it!   

[elijahmaria]

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

That statement would get a pass among many of the Orthodox on this Forum, but it does not hold up historically, so there's good reason to work on these things by backing up and taking the long view.

Azurestone is right. It most certainly does hold up historically because it is the teaching of our Holy Fathers.

Here is what Saint Basil the Great wrote on this matter.  See message 25 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446353.html#msg446353

Yes.  I know you and Stanley are buds.

There are a few details that have to be worked out before St. Basil can be invoked.  If he could be invoked without qualification, as I have said, we would not be discussing anything at all.

[Irish Hermit]

Eastern understanding of Apostolic succession is different than the west. The west sees the succession valid, and therefore, if held correctly, the sacraments are valid. The east sees lack of communion with the true church to invalidate the sacraments.

That statement would get a pass among many of the Orthodox on this Forum, but it does not hold up historically, so there's good reason to work on these things by backing up and taking the long view.

Azurestone is right. It most certainly does hold up historically because it is the teaching of our Holy Fathers.

Here is what Saint Basil the Great wrote on this matter.  See message 25 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446353.html#msg446353

Yes.  I know you and Stanley are buds.

What's the principle at work here?  When two buds agree they must be wrong?   

[elijahmaria]

When you all confess the Orthodox Faith, you can join us at any time.

I'd have difficulty trying to figure out which one.  Best we resume communion and keep our individual integrity and expressions.

[ialmisry]

When you all confess the Orthodox Faith, you can join us at any time.

I'd have difficulty trying to figure out which one.

The One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church, the one which confesses the Orthodox Faith.

 Best we resume communion and keep our individual integrity and expressions.

Entering into communion with anyone not confessing the Orthodox Faith and so not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would mean the loss of all integrity, individually and collectively, and express rejection of the Faith delievered once and for all to the saints and preserved by the Fathers. Best we not do that.

[Sloga]

Resumed communion is coming, and coming at a rate that you cannot stop.

It already came, and it stopped dead. It's called Eastern Catholicism.

[elijahmaria]

When you all confess the Orthodox Faith, you can join us at any time.

I'd have difficulty trying to figure out which one.

The One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church, the one which confesses the Orthodox Faith.

 Best we resume communion and keep our individual integrity and expressions.

Entering into communion with anyone not confessing the Orthodox Faith and so not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would mean the loss of all integrity, individually and collectively, and express rejection of the Faith delievered once and for all to the saints and preserved by the Fathers. Best we not do that.

I sit here with about ten or twelve different books used to catechize Orthodox catechumen in parishes with which I am familiar.  Each one of those texts tells a different story on some major questions of sacramental theology or some other aspect of Orthodox belief that goes beyond what one might call small "t" tradition.  Perhaps I am too selective in my approach to theology and doctrine but that kind of divergence does not appeal to me.  I see the fruits of it here on the Internet daily.

When Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church, there will be no Unia [used in its historic sense since there is no other PC word to substitute for it].  Those days are gone.

Each Orthodox particular Church would enter into communion with full jurisdictional integrity.  The doctrinal and theological inconsistencies would either remain or be regularized internally to Orthodoxy.

My own Catholic brothers and sisters will be confused at first because most of them are Roman rite and have a tendency to think that the Roman rite IS the universal Church, but I am sure that there will be sufficiently intelligent people left in the Catholic Church to take care of their own and help them to grasp the historical reality that we were never, black and white, identical in any event.

So most of your fear mongering is just that.

I am not suggesting that things will not have to be worked through systematically and in good time, but the fear baiting is not a realistic assessment of what is coming.

[Irish Hermit]

I sit here with about ten or twelve different books used to catechize Orthodox catechumen in parishes with which I am familiar.  Each one of those texts tells a different story on some major questions of sacramental theology or some other aspect of Orthodox belief that goes beyond what one might call small "t" tradition.  Perhaps I am too selective in my approach to theology and doctrine but that kind of divergence does not appeal to me.  .

If you are sitting there with the books then it will not be anything difficult for you to give us, say, three major differences in Orthodox theology so that we may have an idea of what you mean.

Frankly, I don't think you will since you usually find ways to slide out of such requests.  We have noticed that asking you to prove anything is seen by you as an aggressive act.

In some ways we are not so demanding of "consistency" as you are.  Take the question of whether the wine poured into the chalice for a Pre-sanctified Liturgy is itself transmuted into the Blood of Christ when the consecrated Bread tinged with the consecrated Blood from a precious Liturgy is placed in it.   Some Churches believe that it is, some Churches believe that it is not.    You know, it simply does not matter overly much.  Maybe one Church is right, maybe all are right, maybe all are wrong.   

But perhaps you could offer some examples from your books...?

[Irish Hermit]

When Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church, there will be no Unia [used in its historic sense since there is no other PC word to substitute for it].  Those days are gone.

Each Orthodox particular Church would enter into communion with full jurisdictional integrity.

Will it?  Not one of your Eastern Catholic Churches has autocephalous status.  That is recognised only for the Church of Rome.  The other 22 Catholic Churches are held in the lesser status of autonomous Churches and dependent on Rome.

Will our Churches truly retains their "full jurisdictional integrity" as autocephalous Churches?  Will the Patriarchs have equal authority to the Pope of the Church of Rome?  Will the Pope be their equal and the equal of every other bishop at inter-church and international synods?  Will the Pope have one vote as has every Patriarch and every bishop?

I think it is not truthful to tell us that our "full jurisdictional integrity" will be maintained.

[elijahmaria]

When Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church, there will be no Unia [used in its historic sense since there is no other PC word to substitute for it].  Those days are gone.

Each Orthodox particular Church would enter into communion with full jurisdictional integrity.

Will it?  Not one of your Eastern Catholic Churches has autocephalous status.  That is recognised only for the Church of Rome.  The other 22 Catholic Churches are held in the lesser status of autonomous Churches and dependent on Rome.

Will our Churches truly retains their "full jurisdictional integrity" as autocephalous Churches?  Will the Patriarchs have equal authority to the Pope of the Church of Rome?  Will the Pope be their equal and the equal of every other bishop at inter-church and international synods?  Will the Pope have one vote as has every Patriarch and every bishop?

I think it is not truthful to tell us that our "full jurisdictional integrity" will be maintained.

It is the only way that it can happen.  It must happen that way and the most recent of our popes and our current pope knows it. 

Do you think that the personal prelature offered to the Anglo-Catholics has thrilled Roman rite bishops and the Curia?  Do you think it was easy to push through?  It was not easy and I know that with certainty, because by some strange stroke of nature, I was allowed to see the process as an insider, so I can say so in general terms and remain within bounds.

I am still arguing with Roman rite friends and correspondents that rather than being absorbed into the Roman rite, the next move for the Anglican Prelate will be to make the transfers successfully, hold in patience for a time, and then ask for full autocephalous status, and become in its own rite, a particular Church.

ALL of this is in preparation for what is to come with the Orthodox Churches.  And because you are all already in control of your ecclesial and theological and liturgical lives, and have been for some centuries, there will be no need for any kind of interim phase, and there will already be instances of particular Churches in communion with Rome so that the organizational image will be less shocking that it would be if the Roman rite still saw itself as THE universal Church.  Those days have gone from us,  and will never again return.

There is no other way.  Certainly I cannot predict the particulars nor the day and hour, but the direction is already quite evident, and I am also without doubt that Orthodox hierarchs see what I see with even greater precision.

So you may protest till you are blue, but it is coming and if we cannot speak of it with one another in terms that are positive and filled with the hope of a renewed union in faith and hope and love, then indeed we will be eclipsed by the power of the Holy Spirit and the inspired hope of the human spirit.

[Irish Hermit]

/\  Mary, drear one, you have fallen into the prideful spirit of your Roman brethren.   

Rome will not be permitted to determine the conditions of any unity.

Rome has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and her faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now you want us to offer obeisance and submit to the Pope's plans for our integration!   God forbid!   Rome will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if it will regain the place it held in the first millennium and in the diptychs.  One does not hand universal governance to an institution which has been ailing for 1000 years.

I have said this before.

[ialmisry]

/\  Mary, drear one, you have fallen into the prideful spirit of your Roman brethren.   

Rome will not be permitted to determine the conditions of any unity.

Rome has been ill and ailing for the last 1000 years, distorting doctrines, unleashing persecution on the Orthodox Church and her faithful, trying to destroy us and divide us with imitations of Orthodox Churches.  And now you want us to offer obeisance and submit to the Pope's plans for our integration!   God forbid!   Rome will need many long years and even centuries of slow restoration to spiritual and doctrinal health - and even then it is doubtful if it will regain the place it held in the first millennium and in the diptychs.  One does not hand universal governance to an institution which has been ailing for 1000 years.

I have said this before.

But praise be to God, the doctor has arrived!: Bishop Siluan of Rome of the Holy Synod of Romania. Togethr with the Greek Metropolitan of Italy forming the Episcopal Assembly, we are starting to have a restoration of Orthodox Rome.

[ialmisry]

When Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church, there will be no Unia [used in its historic sense since there is no other PC word to substitute for it].  Those days are gone.

Each Orthodox particular Church would enter into communion with full jurisdictional integrity.

Will it?  Not one of your Eastern Catholic Churches has autocephalous status.  That is recognised only for the Church of Rome.  The other 22 Catholic Churches are held in the lesser status of autonomous Churches and dependent on Rome.

Will our Churches truly retains their "full jurisdictional integrity" as autocephalous Churches?  Will the Patriarchs have equal authority to the Pope of the Church of Rome?  Will the Pope be their equal and the equal of every other bishop at inter-church and international synods?  Will the Pope have one vote as has every Patriarch and every bishop?

I think it is not truthful to tell us that our "full jurisdictional integrity" will be maintained.

Sure it will.  Nach Canossa gehen wir nicht.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_to_Canossa#.22Going_to_Canossa.22
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_nach_Canossa

[Wyatt]

we are starting to have a restoration of Orthodox Rome.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Rome is orthodox with or without the full communion of the EO.

[Irish Hermit]

There is no other way.  Certainly I cannot predict the particulars nor the day and hour, but the direction is already quite evident, and I am also without doubt that Orthodox hierarchs see what I see with even greater precision.

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

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



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

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



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


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

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

Report of the Third Panorthodox Preconciliar Conference, Chambesy,
1986

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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


Fr Ambrose
Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad)

[ialmisry]

When you all confess the Orthodox Faith, you can join us at any time.

I'd have difficulty trying to figure out which one.

The One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church, the one which confesses the Orthodox Faith.

 Best we resume communion and keep our individual integrity and expressions.

Entering into communion with anyone not confessing the Orthodox Faith and so not a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church would mean the loss of all integrity, individually and collectively, and express rejection of the Faith delievered once and for all to the saints and preserved by the Fathers. Best we not do that.

I sit here with about ten or twelve different books used to catechize Orthodox catechumen in parishes with which I am familiar.  Each one of those texts tells a different story on some major questions of sacramental theology or some other aspect of Orthodox belief that goes beyond what one might call small "t" tradition.  Perhaps I am too selective in my approach to theology and doctrine but that kind of divergence does not appeal to me.  I see the fruits of it here on the Internet daily.

Like nameless Orthodox clerics, I can't respond to titleless Orthodox books. The only major difference I ever found among all the catechumen material was one that bought into St. Jerome's invention of the Lord's Brethren as cousins rather than step brothers.

I do know that the Dutch Catechism of the Vatican's bishops in the Netherlands differs from the CCC. But then you have argued that the latter is not infallible, so I guess we can go with the Dutch bishops.

Since they differe on "major questions," then you should have no problem finding and giving us some examples. Two should be enough, three for good measure. Since you have no problem with Met. Nicolaie's actions (except perhaps his repentance to the Holy Synod of Romania), I don't trust your judgement as to small "t" tradition, let alone big "T."

When Orthodoxy resumes communion with the Catholic Church,

Catholic communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church consists of Orthodoxy.  Since you reject Orthodoxy, why you should want Catholic communion doesn't make any sense, except accepting Kumbaya as big "T" tradition.

there will be no Unia [used in its historic sense since there is no other PC word to substitute for it].  Those days are gone.

The schemes being presented says otherwise.

Each Orthodox particular Church would enter into communion with full jurisdictional integrity.

Every Orthodox particular Church are in communion with full jurisidcitonal integrity, although that of Ohrid and Kiev could be upgraded.

The doctrinal and theological inconsistencies would either remain or be regularized internally to Orthodoxy.

The Churches in the Orthodox diptychs do not have doctrinal and theological inconsistencies. That is how they get into the diptychs.

My own Catholic brothers and sisters will be confused at first because most of them are Roman rite and have a tendency to think that the Roman rite IS the universal Church,

It comes from the Vatican claiming to be the Catholic Church. Intercommunion just spreads that confusion.

but I am sure that there will be sufficiently intelligent people left in the Catholic Church to take care of their own and help them to grasp the historical reality that we were never, black and white, identical in any event.

How you want to regularize things internally in your communion doesn't involve us.

So most of your fear mongering is just that.

You refering to the anathemas pronounced by the Fathers as "fear mongering"?

I am not suggesting that things will not have to be worked through systematically and in good time, but the fear baiting is not a realistic assessment of what is coming.

It is telling how want to talk about "what is coming" but do not want to deal with what has actually come, i.e. the decision of the Holy Synod of Romania against Met. Nicolaie and its support throughout Orthodoxy.

[ialmisry]

we are starting to have a restoration of Orthodox Rome.

No need to reinvent the wheel. Rome is orthodox with or without the full communion of the EO.

The doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul outside the Wall in Rome used to have the Orthodox Creed (i.e. without filioque) on silver plaques set up by Pope Leo III with the inscription «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith)." What happened to them?

[elijahmaria]

It is telling how want to talk about "what is coming" but do not want to deal with what has actually come, i.e. the decision of the Holy Synod of Romania against Met. Nicolaie and its support throughout Orthodoxy.

What is to deal with?  He took it upon himself as a bishop and leader of a Church in schism with Rome to step over the line drawn by Orthodoxy and share a chalice in communion with the Catholic Church.

He was chastised for his example and will not be given the opportunity to do that again, until after the the end of the schism.

That does not change or alter anything that I have suggested here at all. 

You and Father Ambrose are not in charge.

Thank heaven!!

[Irish Hermit]

It is telling how want to talk about "what is coming" but do not want to deal with what has actually come, i.e. the decision of the Holy Synod of Romania against Met. Nicolaie and its support throughout Orthodoxy.

What is to deal with?  He took it upon himself as a bishop and leader of a Church in schism with Rome to step over the line drawn by Orthodoxy and share a chalice in communion with the Catholic Church.

He was chastised for his example and will not be given the opportunity to do that again, until after the the end of the schism.

That does not change or alter anything that I have suggested here at all. 

You and Father Ambrose are not in charge.

Thank heaven!!

I believe you have said that one of your spiritual mentors is an Orthodox monk.  Have you sought his views on your opinion on these matters?  Does he take your position?

I see that you have not yet given even one example of "a different story on some major questions of sacramental theology or some other aspect of Orthodox belief that goes beyond what one might call small "t" tradition." 

Perhaps I am too selective in my approach to theology and doctrine but that kind of divergence does not appeal to me.  .

Until you tell us to what you are referring you appear to be simply discrediting Orthodoxy for your own reasons.  It doesn't look nice.  Maligning Orthodoxy with non-specific allegations would not be seen by Rome as furthering the ecumenical dialogue with Orthodoxy.

[elijahmaria]

[quote author=Irish Hermit link=topic=31047.msg490558#msg490558 date=1289072411
Until you tell us to what you are referring you appear to be simply discrediting Orthodoxy for your own reasons.  It doesn't look nice.  Maligning Orthodoxy with non-specific allegations would not be seen by Rome as furthering the ecumenical dialogue with Orthodoxy.

Appearances.  Yes.  Let's be concerned about appearances.  Do you really think I am here for appearance's sake?

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.  Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin, which also has an impact on the way the sacraments of Initiation are treated.  There are other examples but those are the ones that come most readily to mind.

If you think that these things are treated equally among all Orthodox believers and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction then you haven't been paying much attention to on-line Orthodox dialogue...so it is not surprising that the same issues would appear in Orthodox texts.

Do I think that is a bad thing?  Not precisely.  Sometimes I think it causes problems.  But to think of these variations as a malignancy?...no.  I am not that rigid in my thinking.

It certainly doesn't support the Internet Orthodox fiction of some kind of monolithic Orthodoxy that sees the heretical Catholic Church in all the same fashion and manner, in substance and in attitude.   So that is actually a good thing...I think.  Keeps the reality from becoming as negative as some would like.

[Irish Hermit]

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372

the real presence in Eucharist

You have textbooks and catechisms teaching the Real Absence?  The mind boggles.

varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.



The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

[elijahmaria]

The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

 

Don't you just wish!!

[Irish Hermit]

The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

 

Don't you just wish!!

We see it here often.  Your scathing comments and ad hominems when someone does not agree with you and in particular does not agree with your thoughts and your timeline for unity.  You are in such a rush for it that you won't tolerate anything which you see as impeding it.   That is NOT the way that good ecumenists deal with these things.  They listen, they do not impose.  They do not try to make the person on the other side feel small or inadequate or ignorant or out of touch with reality or..... any of the many ways you have of brushing off matters you do not want to hear about.

[ialmisry]

It is telling how want to talk about "what is coming" but do not want to deal with what has actually come, i.e. the decision of the Holy Synod of Romania against Met. Nicolaie and its support throughout Orthodoxy.

What is to deal with?  He took it upon himself as a bishop and leader of a Church in schism with Rome

No, he's in communion with Bishop Siluan. Btw, the problems of jurisdiction with Bishop Sluan and the ROC are with the Ecumenical Patriarch (as having jurisdiction over Italy, long exercised through its Metropolitan in Venice), not the Vatican.

to step over the line drawn by Orthodoxy and share a chalice in communion with the Catholic Church.

He stepped over the line drawn by Orthodoxy and share a chalic not in communion with the Catholic Church.  And only by repentance to the Catholic Church that she did not depose him.

He was chastised for his example

As it should be, so others may fear.

and will not be given the opportunity to do that again, until after the the end of the schism

The Romanian Orthodox Church is working on that.

That does not change or alter anything that I have suggested here at all.

 

Truer words you have rarely posted.

You and Father Ambrose are not in charge.

No, but unlike you we speak for those who are.

Thank heaven!!

indeed!

[ialmisry]

[quote author=Irish Hermit link=topic=31047.msg490558#msg490558 date=1289072411
Until you tell us to what you are referring you appear to be simply discrediting Orthodoxy for your own reasons.  It doesn't look nice.  Maligning Orthodoxy with non-specific allegations would not be seen by Rome as furthering the ecumenical dialogue with Orthodoxy.

Appearances.  Yes.  Let's be concerned about appearances.  Do you really think I am here for appearance's sake?

These are Orthodox texts, readily available, on all the best book lists and catechism lists.  I am not going to sit here and type out text.

Not even a title? Doesn't pass the smell test, but with a different odor this time.

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of an eternal priesthood, the real presence in Eucharist, varying teachings on the atonement and salvation, varying perspectives on the ancestral sin, which also has an impact on the way the sacraments of Initiation are treated.  There are other examples but those are the ones that come most readily to mind.

Any details come to mind? You just list, without specifics.

If you think that these things are treated equally among all Orthodox believers and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction then you haven't been paying much attention to on-line Orthodox dialogue...so it is not surprising that the same issues would appear in Orthodox texts.

Not much catechising that I know of, barrign extreme circumstances, is conducted on line. I'll save the rest until we get the details of your list, but I'll note I've seen such things are not treated equally among al believers in the Vatican from jurisdiction to jurisdiction which have caught my attention.

Do I think that is a bad thing?  Not precisely.  Sometimes I think it causes problems.  But to think of these variations as a malignancy?...no.  I am not that rigid in my thinking.

Yes, well, the Orthodox Church has standards.

It certainly doesn't support the Internet Orthodox fiction of some kind of monolithic Orthodoxy that sees the heretical Catholic Church in all the same fashion and manner, in substance and in attitude.   So that is actually a good thing...I think.  Keeps the reality from becoming as negative as some would like.

Yes, when it comes to Tradition and dogma, the Orthodox Church is quite monolithic, preserving the Catholic Church from heretical fictions.

Shocking as it might be to you, Orthodox catechis doesn't deal with the heresies of the Vatican-after all, the aim is to teach Orthodoxy to those coming into the Catholic Church-except those who have to adjure the Vatican's heresies to be chrismated/baptized.

[ialmisry]

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372

the real presence in Eucharist

You have textbooks and catechisms teaching the Real Absence?  The mind boggles.

The studies I've seen show that the belief in the Real Presence is near unanimous among Orthodox rank and file, a clear contrast to the studies on the Vatican's flock.

varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.



The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Don't confuse her with the facts.

The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

 

Don't you just wish!!

We see it here often.  Your scathing comments and ad hominems when someone does not agree with you and in particular does not agree with your thoughts and your timeline for unity.  You are in such a rush for it that you won't tolerate anything which you see as impeding it.   That is NOT the way that good ecumenists deal with these things.  They listen, they do not impose.  They do not try to make the person on the other side feel small or inadequate or ignorant or out of touch with reality or..... any of the many ways you have of brushing off matters you do not want to hear about.

Yes, she has quite a lumpy rug.

[Aindriú]

varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.



The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Don't confuse her with the facts.

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

[ialmisry]

varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.



The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Don't confuse her with the facts.

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

Depends on what veiws we are talking about, and what you mean by different. We haven't been given any details here.

[Aindriú]

Depends on what veiws we are talking about, and what you mean by different. We haven't been given any details here.

You can't read my mind? Pthhh. 

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372

I read the link, and still was left with the understanding that Orthodoxy doesn't allow for any 'indelible mark', and may even compare it to a heresy.

Of course, it reminds me of not accepting the valid sacraments of the Latin Catholics ( ). Because Orthodoxy seems to acknowledge God's Authority as present in the Church as a body, and not by being transferred during the laying on of hands.

varying teachings on the atonement and salvation

Variation and different emphases in these things are common to the Fathers.  You will find this diversity still present in Orthodoxy.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

I have only read that Orthodoxy sees the atonement as God defeating death for mankind, and a rejection of Christ being the ultimate sacrifice (Agnus Dei) for the sins of the world.

varying perspectives on the ancestral sin

As we find in the Fathers.

The bottom line is that you do  not want to take Orthodoxy (or even Eastern Catholicism) on its own terms but you want it to conform to your rather Roman ideas of tidiness and consistency.  These presumptions on your part make your usefulness to the ecumenical dialogue questionable.

Don't confuse her with the facts.

My understanding is in Orthodoxy, ancestral sin/original sin is the condition of death. I have not seen a certainty, but mostly a rejection, on the broken spirit (lack of grace) of the human being(relating to Baptism).

[elijahmaria]

Yes, when it comes to Tradition and dogma, the Orthodox Church is quite monolithic, preserving the Catholic Church from heretical fictions.

Shocking as it might be to you, Orthodox catechis doesn't deal with the heresies of the Vatican-after all, the aim is to teach Orthodoxy to those coming into the Catholic Church-except those who have to adjure the Vatican's heresies to be chrismated/baptized.

Not really.  It is not shocking at all.  I don't need to do comparative doctrine to get a range of assertions from Orthodox catechesis.  All I need to do is to look inside Orthodox teaching.

You mentioned Romania.  I know a little something about Romania.  All of Orthodoxy is divided over this business of the resumption of communion with the Catholic Church.  It's not divided along yea or nay in black and white but there's a dividing line that cuts through the continuum in any event.  You do not speak for everyone though there are those who do speak as you do, and you are small enough to know who is who.

You won't get people responding favorably to me publicly on a Forum like this because...well...they see what you do to me and who needs that? 

But you cannot push us away so easily anymore, brother Catholic, because you are not pushing with all of Orthodoxy when you try...

M.

[elijahmaria]

Depends on what veiws we are talking about, and what you mean by different. We haven't been given any details here.

You can't read my mind? Pthhh. 

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372

I read the link, and still was left with the understanding that Orthodoxy doesn't allow for any 'indelible mark', and may even compare it to a heresy.

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

M.

[ialmisry]

Yes, when it comes to Tradition and dogma, the Orthodox Church is quite monolithic, preserving the Catholic Church from heretical fictions.

Shocking as it might be to you, Orthodox catechis doesn't deal with the heresies of the Vatican-after all, the aim is to teach Orthodoxy to those coming into the Catholic Church-except those who have to adjure the Vatican's heresies to be chrismated/baptized.

Not really.  It is not shocking at all.  I don't need to do comparative doctrine to get a range of assertions from Orthodox catechesis.  All I need to do is to look inside Orthodox teaching.

then do so some time.

You mentioned Romania.  I know a little something about Romania.

Ce ceva stii despre Romania (what something do you know about Romania)?

  All of Orthodoxy is divided over this business of the resumption of communion with the Catholic Church.

All of Orthoodxy is united in the communion of the Catholic Church.  As for these talks with the Vatican, the average Latin gives more thought to your "sui juris" ecclesiastical communities than the average (or above average) Orthodox in the Catholic Church gives to those talks.  For one thing, the "talks" are talked about much and its goings on not widely disseminated, perhaps because Met. Zizioulis doesn't want to end up in the Bosphoros.

  It's not divided along yea or nay in black and white but there's a dividing line that cuts through the continuum in any event.  You do not speak for everyone though there are those who do speak as you do,

...like the Holy Synod of Romania, the Holy Synod of Russia, etc. and even the EP at Georgetown....

and you are small enough to know who is who.

*wink* *wink*

You won't get people responding favorably to me publicly on a Forum like this because...well...they see what you do to me and who needs that? 

Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord.
25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the good man of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?
26 Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.
27 That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.
32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.
33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

If they can't confess you anonymously on the internet, let alone in public, it can't be much of a tidal of wave of support as you are claiming in the Orthodox Church.

But you cannot push us away so easily anymore, brother Catholic, because you are not pushing with all of Orthodoxy when you try...

Then it wouldn't be so easy.

[elijahmaria]

Then it wouldn't be so easy.

It isn't that easy or you'd not be so vigilantly working so hard at it here.

In Christ,

M.

[ialmisry]

In another thread it has been said that the Holy Mysteries of Chrismation and Holy Orders are inextinguishable.   I have always been taught that that is a Roman Catholic position.   What have the Orthodox members of the list been taught about this?

No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

It was presented to us in our Canon Law class that there is no indelible mark (this was in the context of the canons regarding defrocking, or "returning to the status of a layman").  In fact, the language of the canons of the Church seems to imply no such indelible mark, as they speak of making someone into a layman again, with no rights, responsibilities, or privileges of a clergyman.

Same as Cleveland here. "Defrock" is like "Christmas" or "Easter", a word picked up from Western ecclesiastical usage that is comparable too but doesn't literally translate the original--the literal translation for the primary punishment the canons present for clergy is "laicize", 'to make laity.'

The sacramental authority/power of a priest (or bishop) flows from their position as functionaries of the Church. Remove the position (either through schism or canonical sentence) and you remove the authority/power.

I think his quote the was in the context of dealing with this priest passing through that ended up being deposed , but wondering what/why the heck the guy was doing what he was and not repenting and acting like a priest again.  Of course, I don't know what this priest did (I let him stay in my empty other room for a week while in transit), but it wasn't my business anyways.

And if they are restored to the ranks of the clergy after being laicized?

St. Basil (3rd canonical epistle): "a layman excommunicated may be restored to the degree from which he falls, but a clergyman deposed cannot."

To the extent that it does occur, it's either a technical defect in the original judgement (i.e., a higher Synod's determination that the original sentence was incorrect) or simply a classic example of 'economy' (a bishop or synod, on their own apostolic authority, bending the rule for the good of the Church or the salvation of a soul).

The canons may say that, but my priest thinks otherwise - "A priest is always a priest"

That's certainly the popular opinion -- Melchizedek and all that -- but the canonical tradition is VERY different in letter and spirit.

Excommunication is different than laicization. A former clergyman can be reordained, but if after being laicized he is excommunicated, then he cannot be reordained according to the canon. So yes, ordination, like chrismation (repentant heretics are often brought back in to the Church via Chrismation) can be repeated if removed.

Technically, neither position is correct.

A priest is always a priest, as is a bishop which is why ordination is not repeated if they are defrocked. However, their priesthood is "tied" that is, the priesthood is the tap through which the Holy Spirit flows out sacramentally through the Holy Mysteries, so when the Holy Synod suspends or defrocks a deacon, priest, or bishop, they are simply closing - and sealing - the tap. The tap is still a tap though. Elder Paisios the Athonite was of the opinion that in most cases clergy should not be defrocked, but suspended for life and given jobs in diocesan offices. Note, most cases. Of course I'm sure the Elder is referring to involuntary manslaughter, adultery, and so on. Hence why he said "most cases" ie: not pedophilia, heresy etc.

Depends on what veiws we are talking about, and what you mean by different. We haven't been given any details here.

You can't read my mind? Pthhh. 

 Topics that don't co-inside precisely include the presence of

an eternal priesthood

Not a major issue but see here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372/topicseen.html#msg300372

I read the link, and still was left with the understanding that Orthodoxy doesn't allow for any 'indelible mark', and may even compare it to a heresy.

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's not a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...telling

[ialmisry]

Then it wouldn't be so easy.

It isn't that easy or you'd not be so vigilantly working so hard at it here.

It is much easier to be vigilant atop the stone wall of a fortress and armed, then being out in the open without a weapon.

[elijahmaria]

Then it wouldn't be so easy.

It isn't that easy or you'd not be so vigilantly working so hard at it here.

It is much easier to be vigilant atop the stone wall of a fortress and armed, then being out in the open without a weapon.

Dear Goliath,

Don't sweat the small stuff!!

[ialmisry]

Then it wouldn't be so easy.

It isn't that easy or you'd not be so vigilantly working so hard at it here.

It is much easier to be vigilant atop the stone wall of a fortress and armed, then being out in the open without a weapon.

Dear Goliath,

Don't sweat the small stuff!!

If you could notice from way out there in Oz, you would see that I am not.

[Irish Hermit]

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

Is there some extreme importance to this, enough for the Church to study this aspect and proclaim it in a Council?  

The majority opinion is that the priesthood "belongs" to the office of the bishop and he shares it with his priests.  If he decides not to continue sharing it with a priest that is his prerogative.

Btw, how did the Roman Catholic Church make up its mind?  Where are the papal proclamations?

Btw again, what is the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches on this?  I'll guarantee you cannot say because they have never issued any statements.

[Irish Hermit]

All of Orthodoxy is divided over this business of the resumption of communion with the Catholic Church.

The division does not seem as vast as you make out.  Mary, I think you may be dealing with bad information from sources hostile to the Orthodox.


"2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Orthodox-Catholic Reunion"

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30529.0.html

I. Executive Summary

"Sympathetic skepticism" and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition
aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010
Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced
with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to
exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council's decision
authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion
only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for
dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal
Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual
consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and
Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox
Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making
reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and
real liturgical communion between the Churches.

[elijahmaria]

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

Is there some extreme importance to this, enough for the Church to study this aspect and proclaim it in a Council? 

Btw, how did the Roman Catholic Church make up its mind?  Where are the papal proclaimation?

Btw again, what is the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches on this?  I'll guarantee you cannot say becuse they have never issued any statements.

My point was, in case we loose sight of it, that there is no monolithic Orthodox doctrinal teaching, on a number of issues, and so the claim that there is this rock solid monolithic Orthodoxy is not based in reality but in a kind of romantic assumption and assertion that is treated as fact regardless of reality.

[Irish Hermit]

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

Is there some extreme importance to this, enough for the Church to study this aspect and proclaim it in a Council? 

Btw, how did the Roman Catholic Church make up its mind?  Where are the papal proclaimation?

Btw again, what is the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches on this?  I'll guarantee you cannot say becuse they have never issued any statements.

My point was, in case we loose sight of it, that there is no monolithic Orthodox doctrinal teaching, on a number of issues, and so the claim that there is this rock solid monolithic Orthodoxy is not based in reality but in a kind of romantic assumption and assertion that is treated as fact regardless of reality.

You are, and not a little disingenuously <sigh>, dealing with peripherals, or with things where there is variation or lack of clarity in the patristic witness.

You just told Almisry not to "sweat the small stuff".... but you are doing that.

[elijahmaria]

You read that whole series of posts and still think that there's a unified approach on the part of all Orthodox believers on the eternal priesthood?...interesting.

Is there some extreme importance to this, enough for the Church to study this aspect and proclaim it in a Council? 

Btw, how did the Roman Catholic Church make up its mind?  Where are the papal proclaimation?

Btw again, what is the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches on this?  I'll guarantee you cannot say becuse they have never issued any statements.

My point was, in case we loose sight of it, that there is no monolithic Orthodox doctrinal teaching, on a number of issues, and so the claim that there is this rock solid monolithic Orthodoxy is not based in reality but in a kind of romantic assumption and assertion that is treated as fact regardless of reality.

You are, and not a little disingenuously <sigh>, dealing with peripherals, or with things where there is variation or lack of clarity in the patristic witness.

You just told Almisry not to "sweat the small stuff".... but you are doing that.

I gave you a list of topics that are hardly insignificant, but that's ok.  You've dismissed it so I don't care.

[elijahmaria]

All of Orthodoxy is divided over this business of the resumption of communion with the Catholic Church.

The division does not seem as vast as you make out.  Mary, I think you may be dealing with bad information from sources hostile to the Orthodox.


"2010 Lay Orthodox Survey on Attitudes Toward Orthodox-Catholic Reunion"

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30529.0.html

I. Executive Summary

"Sympathetic skepticism" and unwavering faithfulness to Orthodox Tradition
aptly describe the attitudes, some positive, some negative that the 2010
Orthodox Lay People Survey recorded from Orthodox respondents when faced
with the prospect of reunion between the Roman Catholic Church and the
Orthodox Churches. Although most respondents were remarkably open to
exploring reconciliation and even for receiving a Council's decision
authorizing and enabling reunion, Orthodox respondents envisioned reunion
only along strictly Orthodox theological lines, leaving little room for
dogmatic diversity and with a significantly redefined notion of Roman Papal
Primacy if one is to be retained at all. Despite exhaustive mutual
consultation and general councils, reconciliation between the Orthodox and
Catholic Churches may not take place at the grassroots, where lay Orthodox
Christians reject membership within the reconciled Churches, making
reconciliation a mere canonical formality without practical consequences and
real liturgical communion between the Churches.

From the same survey, speaking of the usual suspects:

V. Limitations and Strengths of this Survey

This survey is not scientifically descriptive of the opinion of all Orthodox lay people worldwide. Limiting the information collection solely to a web-based document distorted the pool of potential respondents to middle-aged to mature males located in North America. Other factors, such as Internet access and conversant knowledge about Orthodox and Catholic issues may have reduced the potential pool of respondents even further. Accessibility due to the survey being in English may have been another major limiting factor in decreasing the number of potential respondents.

The margin of error of this survey is approximately ±10 percent, whether the survey is taken to represent opinions in North America – specifically within the United States – or the world, although the margin of error is more meaningful in the United States for a population of approximately 1.4 million Orthodox faithful than for 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. This is due to both the size of the sample, the geographical distribution of the respondents across the world, and lack of significant representations from Orthodox lay faithful located outside North America.

Nevertheless, the opinions of 105 educated Orthodox, North American respondents are very valuable, since these are representative of a portion of Orthodox believers in one of the most influential regions of the world for Orthodoxy. For it is here in North America where most inter-church interaction takes place and where the most practical aspects of reunion would become visible. Moreover, 105 educated Orthodox lay men and women, many of whom may be converts to Orthodoxy from the Catholic Church of from Protestantism, may exert considerable influence over other Orthodox Christians and may sway them in favor or against reunion with the Catholic Church.

[Irish Hermit]

From the same survey, speaking of the usual suspects:

Blimey, "the usual suspects" pop up again!  It's a strange world where one has a group of anonymous but highly erudite and not-to-be-contradicted Orthodox bishops and priests who confide to one the *real* truth about Orthodoxy.    And on the other hand, one perceives another anonymous group who oppose the first anonymous group and they are known as "the usual suspects."    Is there some underground ecumenical dialogue going on there in central Pennsylvania?   

[Irish Hermit]

"The usual suspects"

People may not know that this survey was conducted by Alexei Krindatch.  He is a research consultant to the  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas.  Mr Krindatch is a director for research with the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute in Berkley, CA.

It's an amusing idea that Mary would include the bishops of SCOBA among her "usual suspects" !!  

[Irish Hermit]

I gave you a list of topics that are hardly insignificant, but that's ok.  You've dismissed it so I don't care.

You gave us a shopping list without even the slightest attempt to be specific or to provide the evidence.  Of course I am going to dismiss it.

It's the same as my saying...

The Roman Catholic Church is in an utter crisis of faith. 

65% of its members reject the Real Presence 

97% of its married people use forbidden methods of birth control and live in continuous mortal sin

80% of the priests reject the papal teaching on birth control

80% of Catholic members reject papal infallibility.

70% of members believe that sex outside marriage is not sinful.


 ......... .........

[Irish Hermit]

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

It would be fair to say that we find within Orthodoxy the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


"J.N.D. Kelly further explains: "Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complimentary" [42]. And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, the Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom, victory and participation" [43]."

[elijahmaria]

"The usual suspects"

People may not know that this survey was conducted by Alexei Krindatch.  He is a research consultant to the  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas.  Mr Krindatch is a director for research with the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute in Berkley, CA.

It's an amusing idea that Mary would include the bishops of SCOBA among her "usual suspects" !!  

What is not amusing is that you have neglected to grasp the reality that this is a survey of educated laypersons with Internet access...

These are people you and I see every day on the Internet...<smile>...the usual suspects.

We could probably name many of the correspondents from the survey...and the researcher goes on to say that the responses my be limited by the fact that they represent a exceptionally narrow band of Orthodoxy.

At any rate we now know what a 105 educated American Orthodox laymen with Internet access and visibility think about reunion.  I didn't need a survey to tell me that.

M.

[elijahmaria]

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

It would be fair to say that we find within Orthodoxy the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


"J.N.D. Kelly further explains: "Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complimentary" [42]. And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, the Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom, victory and participation" [43]."

NOW you are grasping my point.  There is no monolithic Orthodoxy...again so you will have a more difficult time putting words in my mouth....There is no monolithic Orthodoxy.

So that when you demand that Catholics pick up every jot and tittle of Orthodoxy, I can say honesty:

Which one?

As long as there is no monolithic Orthodoxy, at any level, then the claim that reunion can only come when we as Catholics come absolutely in line with some romanticized Orthodox monolith, we can say:

Which one?

[ialmisry]

"The usual suspects"

People may not know that this survey was conducted by Alexei Krindatch.  He is a research consultant to the  Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas.  Mr Krindatch is a director for research with the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute in Berkley, CA.

It's an amusing idea that Mary would include the bishops of SCOBA among her "usual suspects" !!  

What is not amusing is that you have neglected to grasp the reality that this is a survey of educated laypersons with Internet access...

These are people you and I see every day on the Internet...<smile>...the usual suspects.

We could probably name many of the correspondents from the survey...and the researcher goes on to say that the responses my be limited by the fact that they represent a exceptionally narrow band of Orthodoxy.

At any rate we now know what a 105 educated American Orthodox laymen with Internet access and visibility think about reunion.  I didn't need a survey to tell me that.

Can you produce a better survey of those outside of Oz which substantiates any of your claims?

[elijahmaria]

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

It would be fair to say that we find within Orthodoxy the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


"J.N.D. Kelly further explains: "Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complimentary" [42]. And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, the Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom, victory and participation" [43]."

NOW you are grasping my point.  There is no monolithic Orthodoxy...again so you will have a more difficult time putting words in my mouth....There is no monolithic Orthodoxy.

So that when you demand that Catholics pick up every jot and tittle of Orthodoxy, I can say honesty:

Which one?

As long as there is no monolithic Orthodoxy, at any level, then the claim that reunion can only come when we as Catholics come absolutely in line with some romanticized Orthodox monolith, we can say:

Which one?

[ialmisry]

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

It would be fair to say that we find within Orthodoxy the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


"J.N.D. Kelly further explains: "Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complimentary" [42]. And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, the Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom, victory and participation" [43]."

NOW you are grasping my point.  There is no monolithic Orthodoxy...again so you will have a more difficult time putting words in my mouth....There is no monolithic Orthodoxy.

Father didn't put those words into your mouth. They fell out of there.

So that when you demand that Catholics pick up every jot and tittle of Orthodoxy, I can say honesty disingenously:

Fixed that for you.

Which one?

The one in the diptychs of the Orthodox Church. That same One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which allows "the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers" (see that. it's a quote I can quote Fr. Ambrose's very words and cite his name, unlike those nameless "more conservative Orthodox priests" you (see! I did it again, quote the very words and identify the speaker) allege) and also warned Met. Nicolaie and others (I can also quote the official pronouncment, but won't. You know what I am talking about) about communion outside of our Catholic Church.

Some schimatic groups outside the diptychs perhaps cannot distinguish between dogma and theologoumena.  Maybe you should not pay so much attention to groups founded on jots and tittles, and rather pay attention to the Church with the boldface and headlines, i.e. the one Father Ambrose has consistently directed your attention to.

As long as there is no monolithic Orthodoxy, at any level, then the claim that reunion can only come when we as Catholics come absolutely in line with some romanticized Orthodox monolith, we can say:

Which one?

And we can say:

if you can't identify the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Orthodox diptychs, then it is not the one you want to "reunite" with.

[ialmisry]

I didn't realize Orthodoxy accepted different views with these.

It would be fair to say that we find within Orthodoxy the same rich diversity as found in the Gospels and found in the early Church Fathers.

See here
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx


"J.N.D. Kelly further explains: "Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories, however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as complimentary" [42]. And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ’s saving economy, the Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of atonement. The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom, victory and participation" [43]."

NOW you are grasping my point.  There is no monolithic Orthodoxy...again so you will have a more difficult time putting words in my mouth....There is no monolithic Orthodoxy.

So that when you demand that Catholics pick up every jot and tittle of Orthodoxy, I can say honesty:

Which one?

As long as there is no monolithic Orthodoxy, at any level, then the claim that reunion can only come when we as Catholics come absolutely in line with some romanticized Orthodox monolith, we can say:

Which one?

Was that an echo?

[elijahmaria]

if you can't identify the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Orthodox diptychs, then it is not the one you want to "reunite" with.

As a Catholic I do profess One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and I do that in Catholic and in Orthodox Churches.   There are not two faiths.  There are not two Churches.

And when Communion between the two is restored your poison pen will run out of ink, brother Catholic.

[Irish Hermit]

And when Communion between the two is restored your poison pen will run out of ink, brother Catholic.[/size

That statement is just an emotional backlash and typifies what I have been saying that when your own thoughts are opposed you fall back on personal attack. 

Your attack is quite unfair to Ialmisry whose position is upheld by the SCOBA Survey we are discussing.   His opinions on the matter align with what educated Orthodox in the United States are thinking on union.