OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 12:59:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If....................  (Read 3667 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« on: May 26, 2011, 11:18:30 PM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2011, 11:22:59 PM »

It would definitely be iffy.  It'd be like a smoker and non-smoker getting married- yeah, you go outside for a smoke even in the freezing cold and she still complains.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,880



« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2011, 11:25:47 PM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

I think the better question is this: Why would they want to be in communion with anyone that rejected what they considered to be dogmatic truths? Dogmas are life-giving, and to deny them is cancerous. So this would be equivalent to letting cancer into your body.

Also, note that you spoke in terms of Rome "not requiring" us to do such and such. This is still a fundamental orientation of domination and arbitration.

We would be embracing filioque ipso facto just by being in communion with those that use it.

Nothing about your proposal makes any sense.
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,233



« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2011, 11:28:13 PM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

I think the better question is this: Why would they want to be in communion with anyone that rejected what they considered to be dogmatic truths? Dogmas are life-giving, and to deny them is cancerous. So this would be equivalent to letting cancer into your body.

Also, note that you spoke in terms of Rome "not requiring" us to do such and such. This is still a fundamental orientation of domination and arbitration.

We would be embracing filioque ipso facto just by being in communion with those that use it.

Nothing about your proposal makes any sense.
^The EXACT problem with the Unia.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2011, 11:29:39 PM »

If those issues had never been forced on the East in the first place, it is likely Communion would not have ended, however Communion can't be re-established magically. The Latin Church features many areas of concern, not to mention the question of what happens to the present Eastern Catholic Churches.
Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2011, 11:30:01 PM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?
Probably not, as being in communion with a jurisdiction that believes such things gives them some degree of validity. It's a statement that those doctrines are acceptable expressions of Christian theology - which they are not.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,987



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2011, 11:34:06 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel
Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,990



« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2011, 12:06:11 AM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No.  Too many other questions would persist.  And your phrasing betrays still a hint of papal authority in that the pope wouldn't require the Orthodox to be x or y.  Such still assumes that he has the power on which to establish the communion.

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Also, we need to change our vocabulary when approaching this topic.  We should not be talking about uniting the churches.  We should be talking about uniting the various "confessions" to THE CHURCH.
Logged

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

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

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ruthenian Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Pheonix
Posts: 2,362



« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2011, 12:30:05 AM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


exactly.   Smiley
Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2011, 01:54:48 AM »

I don't think those questions can be simply 'not required' of someone.

If the Pope has the authority to define dogma, and it is the ratification of the Pope that confirms a council as ecumenical, how can one be in communion with Rome while rejecting these notions? There might be differences of practice in how the Pope deals with one particular Church versus other particular Churches, but every Church would have to accept that in principle these things are true.

Also as regards the Filioque: As it currently stands the Church does not require it to be said in every Church, but every Church must assent to its theological validity. I don't know how there could be much of a longstanding or real communion if there was dissent over an issue of such importance as the very nature of God.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2011, 10:11:22 AM »

The Holy Fathers do not permit us to enter into communion with heretics.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,003


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2011, 10:12:15 AM »

So the Pope is universal pastor when you're in Rome but not in Moscow? Give me a break.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 10:12:40 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2011, 11:21:31 AM »

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

No. You would be required to abandon the primacy of Rome and the co-participation of the Son in the causation of the Spirit.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2011, 11:21:34 AM »

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Such ecumenist heresy is certainly present even in the "Apostolic" churches, and I have seen it advanced vigorously many times by modern day Romanists.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,093


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2011, 11:29:25 AM »

Oh boy, oh boy......here we go again  Grin!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2011, 11:51:58 AM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2011, 11:52:26 AM »

Besides true communion is not  living by each other and merely "agreeing to disagree." Such is what you are proposing.  That is not communion...it is simply tolerating differences. That's the communion arrangements that the ELCA Lutherans and Episcopalians and UCC have in this country together.  Those denominations are not one in the same in faith and especially not in praxis.  Is that what you are looking for in communion with the RC and the EO?  I hope not.

Such ecumenist heresy is certainly present even in the "Apostolic" churches, and I have seen it advanced vigorously many times by modern day Romanists.
By who? Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2011, 11:53:25 AM »

The Holy Fathers do not permit us to enter into communion with heretics.
Then you should return to the Catholic church.  Grin
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2011, 12:11:25 PM »

We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh snap!

Then you should return to the Catholic church.  Grin
PWNED

_______________________________________

In all seriousness, my question in the opening post was more hypothetical than anything else. Obviously, as a Catholic, I don't think that any of our dogmas need to be done away with. Interestingly, it seems that the type of unity outlined in the OP already exists amongst us and the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am not saying that all of them reject our dogmas (because I'm sure some don't) but it is quite stunning (and scandalous) to me that they seem to be able to do so and remain in communion with us. I tend to take the same stance as others in this thread, albeit from the opposite side of the fence, that true communion requires agreement and uniformity in faith. Either our doctrines and dogmas are true or they are not. Either we are the Church or we are not.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2011, 12:16:42 PM »

We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh snap!

Then you should return to the Catholic church.  Grin
PWNED

_______________________________________

In all seriousness, my question in the opening post was more hypothetical than anything else. Obviously, as a Catholic, I don't think that any of our dogmas need to be done away with. Interestingly, it seems that the type of unity outlined in the OP already exists amongst us and the Eastern Catholic Churches. I am not saying that all of them reject our dogmas (because I'm sure some don't) but it is quite stunning (and scandalous) to me that they seem to be able to do so and remain in communion with us. I tend to take the same stance as others in this thread, albeit from the opposite side of the fence, that true communion requires agreement and uniformity in faith. Either our doctrines and dogmas are true or they are not. Either we are the Church or we are not.

I disagree with all of you to this extent, for example:

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.

There were these kinds of disagreements over more important core doctrines and we did not tear one another apart or schism:  one might rightly except the treatment of the Oriental Orthodox but even now the EO will embrace the OO and kick sand in the face of the papal Church.

So it is not at all clear that we should not be in communion and work out our differences from there, or live with them.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2011, 12:19:37 PM »

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.
That might be true if the Immaculate Conception was a theological opinion such as limbo of the infants, but it is not. It is dogma.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2011, 12:25:13 PM »

It seems to me, using the Immaculate Conception as an example, that it would be quite possible for us to disagree over whether the Mother of God was immaculate in the womb or at the moment of conception.
That might be true if the Immaculate Conception was a theological opinion such as limbo of the infants, but it is not. It is dogma.

It is dogma as defined by the west.  Even in the east there has been an openness to it in fact and there is nothing in the liturgy of the eastern Church that argues against it.  And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.

You seem to miss the point that the unified Church was hardly unified in all points of doctrine or doctrinal expression.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2011, 12:50:11 PM »

It is dogma as defined by the west.
Truth isn't regional. Either something is true or it isn't. Something can't just be true in the west.

Even in the east there has been an openness to it in fact and there is nothing in the liturgy of the eastern Church that argues against it.
That much is good at least.

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.
It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

You seem to miss the point that the unified Church was hardly unified in all points of doctrine or doctrinal expression.
Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2011, 01:09:42 PM »


Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.

Frankly I think your certitude in this matter is more than a little delusional...or illusional depending on how deeply you've read in the Holy Fathers and Church History.

Also there is the clear statement of the Holy Father that there is no need to ask of the Orthodox more than that which was sufficient for the first thousand years.

Without a shadow of a doubt I believe that the ultimate grounds for resumption of Communion is going to be a shock to legalists on both sides.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 01:10:35 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2011, 01:13:09 PM »


Though I am sure the first millennium Church was more unified doctrinally than Catholicism and Orthodoxy currently is.

Frankly I think your certitude in this matter is more than a little delusional...or illusional depending on how deeply you've read in the Holy Fathers and Church History.

Also there is the clear statement of the Holy Father that there is no need to ask of the Orthodox more than that which was sufficient for the first thousand years.

Without a shadow of a doubt I believe that the ultimate grounds for resumption of Communion is going to be a shock to legalists on both sides.
Well obviously something changed between then and now because they were in communion with us then and are in schism now. I don't consider it legalistic to believe that the truth cannot be compromised in the name of unity. Unity has to come through mutual recognizing and professing the truth through the working of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2011, 01:17:31 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

Wyatt - doctrine didn't really change (Papal Infallibility only having been explicitly defined at Vatican I, centuries after the schism). The issue that begat the infamous double-excommunication of 1054 was Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople complaining over the west's use of unleavened bread in the liturgy and writing a letter about that to the west in which he took the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" and referred to the Pope as "brother" rather than the customary "Father". Obviously these were smoke-screens for the real issue, which was mutual cultural and doctrinal antipathy between Greeks and Latins (the Photian schism had ended without any real resolution of the Filioque issue).
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 01:20:36 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2011, 01:20:16 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 01:22:40 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2011, 01:21:18 PM »

I really can't agree with you that it's an issue of legalism at all. It speaks to fundamental differences in how east and west understand the core nature of sin and man.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2011, 01:27:46 PM »

I really can't agree with you that it's an issue of legalism at all. It speaks to fundamental differences in how east and west understand the core nature of sin and man.

If you read the saints and doctors and pray through the liturgies, you'd find that those differences are not at all Life threatening.  If they were the head of the CDF would never have said what he said about the OO and EO Churches...sorry about the acronyms but I am rushing to go out.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2011, 01:36:17 PM »

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.
I don't subscribe to branch theory.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2011, 01:40:52 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?
No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2011, 01:44:02 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?
No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).
While I don't agree with your use of the 'h' word, I get where you are coming from. Yes, in my above hypothetical scenario, we would stay the same doctrinally and you all would stay the same doctrinally as well.
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2011, 01:54:53 PM »

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.
It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2011, 02:18:02 PM »

And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.
It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.

You would think that the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the bilateral discussions would say that if that is what they meant or thought.  The fact that we do not hear these kinds of things from the majority of Orthodox hierarchs tells me that you too will be disappointed.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2011, 02:32:43 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


exactly.   Smiley

Trevor, GIFs are not allowed to prostrate between Pascha and Pentecost.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2011, 02:34:22 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
And frankly, however much I believe it and love the teaching, I do not press it among eastern Catholics.  It is sufficient to sing the hymns of the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple and celebrate the Feast of the Conception of St. Anne.
It shouldn't have to be pushed. If one desires to be in communion with the Catholic Church then they should willingly embrace Catholic teaching. If Eastern Catholics are not doing this then how are they really different than the Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly, Wyatt. That's why the EO reject the Unia, it's not truly union. Either the Eastern Rite becomes Roman Catholic in every way except rite, or it remains Orthodox in everyway, but in communion with Rome. Neither of these are real union. It is either submission to Rome or false union.

For the Orthodox to commune again with the Roman church, in my own opinion, Rome would have to undogmatize those things which divide us (IC, papal infallibility/supremacy, etc.) and resume its status as an equal autocelphalous church, with the Bishop of Rome being a their primate, and a bishop among equal bishops, without intervention in other churches (unless Rome was granted its pre-schism privilages of appeal, allowing the Pope of Rome to intervene only when receiving an appeal).

Anything less, I think, is false union.

You would think that the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the bilateral discussions would say that if that is what they meant or thought.  The fact that we do not hear these kinds of things from the majority of Orthodox hierarchs tells me that you too will be disappointed.
yes, that the Vatican and its followers will not return to Catholic unity is a disappointment.

I do believe Fr. Ambrose has posted links many times, on how the bishops engaged in the bilateral discussion, for long on a long leash, have had that leash pulled, or rather yanked, in as of late.  What the Holy Synod of Romania, the second largest EO Church, said to and about Arb. Nicolae Corneanu represents what the majority of Orthodox hiearchs have to say on the matter.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2011, 02:43:54 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2011, 02:45:29 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?
No, as you would not be in communion with us (I take that your scenario would allow you to retain your heresies).
While I don't agree with your use of the 'h' word, I get where you are coming from. Yes, in my above hypothetical scenario, we would stay the same doctrinally and you all would stay the same doctrinally as well.

Wyatt, could you clarify the original question? When you say, "If the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept" etc., do you mean that we would no longer consider them to be dogmas?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2011, 02:58:00 PM »

I think the Antiochian service book puts it nicely:

"We understand 'communion' to mean we hold all things in common."

Until such a time comes that we can say that, there will be no communion. Agreeing to disagree is not grounds for communion.
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2011, 03:07:40 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2011, 03:43:37 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.

If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2011, 04:07:49 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.

If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I guess you know a lot about what would be.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2011, 04:28:44 PM »


If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I think you are in a position to have a very good sense of these things.  Yes.  Resumption of communion will not make many of the Catholics you see here very happy at all:  No more happy than many of the Orthodox.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2011, 04:43:29 PM »


If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I think you are in a position to have a very good sense of these things.  Yes.  Resumption of communion will not make many of the Catholics you see here very happy at all:  No more happy than many of the Orthodox.
In my mind the type of reunion you believe is going to take place could never happen. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. If the post-schism dogmas of our Church were all of a sudden thrown out or else it was admitted that they were not universally binding that would be the very definition of the gates of hell prevailing. Since dogmas are universal truths, if our Church reneged on any of them or said that they were not universally binding, that would either mean that our Church was in error when defining those dogmas or was in error in renouncing them. We know that our Church cannot err on such matters so such a reunion is impossible.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 04:44:08 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2011, 04:52:53 PM »


If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I think you are in a position to have a very good sense of these things.  Yes.  Resumption of communion will not make many of the Catholics you see here very happy at all:  No more happy than many of the Orthodox.
In my mind the type of reunion you believe is going to take place could never happen. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. If the post-schism dogmas of our Church were all of a sudden thrown out or else it was admitted that they were not universally binding that would be the very definition of the gates of hell prevailing.

Or it could mean that the Oriental Orthodox were the one true church. Grin
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 04:53:37 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2011, 05:16:05 PM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.

If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I guess you know a lot about what would be.




I have my direct sources on the North American Dialog. Anyway, if you read their papers you would rather quickly find out that the Catholic participants do not bring such an absolutist view of Vatican 1 to the table.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2011, 05:18:03 PM »


If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I think you are in a position to have a very good sense of these things.  Yes.  Resumption of communion will not make many of the Catholics you see here very happy at all:  No more happy than many of the Orthodox.
In my mind the type of reunion you believe is going to take place could never happen. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. If the post-schism dogmas of our Church were all of a sudden thrown out or else it was admitted that they were not universally binding that would be the very definition of the gates of hell prevailing. Since dogmas are universal truths, if our Church reneged on any of them or said that they were not universally binding, that would either mean that our Church was in error when defining those dogmas or was in error in renouncing them. We know that our Church cannot err on such matters so such a reunion is impossible.

Dogmas my young padawan, are capable of being, shall we say, interpreted for lack of a better word.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2011, 05:18:59 PM »


In my mind the type of reunion you believe is going to take place could never happen. Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church. If the post-schism dogmas of our Church were all of a sudden thrown out or else it was admitted that they were not universally binding that would be the very definition of the gates of hell prevailing. Since dogmas are universal truths, if our Church reneged on any of them or said that they were not universally binding, that would either mean that our Church was in error when defining those dogmas or was in error in renouncing them. We know that our Church cannot err on such matters so such a reunion is impossible.

 laugh laugh laugh

Our Oriental and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters hardly qualify as the Gates of Hell, Wyatt!!

I don't expect that Pope Benedict expects that the post-schism dogmas are going to be thrown out.  I don't think the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the dialogue think that either or they'd say so and discontinue talks.

So I would expect that something else entirely is going to happen.  But I do not expect that the dogmatic definitions as they have been constructed in the west are going to be "forced" on the east in any form that you will recognize.

I expect that we'll get beneath the surface of the literal words and seek meaning and truth and we may even agree to disagree over things that are not central to the credal truths.

As time goes on, who knows what might be possible with full Catholic unity in the world.

I don't think either side should be about the business of dictating words at the moment.

PS: I also wanted to mention that there are also ways that one can ask another to accept an element of the faith.  Perhaps the west will ask the east to give religious assent, meaning that they will accept the belief as a belief of the west until such time as there can be more of a meeting of the minds and hearts.

There are many more ways of looking at all of this other than in terms of some literal, legalistic and logistical lock-down where nobody can move.  That is a Dead Faith...not a living one.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 05:27:58 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2011, 05:30:05 PM »

Our Oriental and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters hardly qualify as the Gates of Hell, Wyatt!!
If they expect us to throw out our dogmas then that is exactly what they are.

I don't expect that Pope Benedict expects that the post-schism dogmas are going to be thrown out.
Of course not. He wouldn't be Pope if he held such views.

I don't think the Orthodox hierarchs engaging in the dialogue think that either or they'd say so and discontinue talks.
That's good to know. I hope you are right about that.

So I would expect that something else entirely is going to happen.  But I do not expect that the dogmatic definitions as they have been constructed in the west are going to be "forced" on the east in any form that you will recognize.
I never said anything about us "forcing" anything on them, but since they are dogmas they are not optional. They can feel free to embrace them or remain out of communion. I think the fact that these talks have been going on for awhile and there is still no full communion is proof that neither side is willing to budge as much as you think they are. There is such a thing as being overly optimistic.

I expect that we'll get beneath the surface of the literal words and seek meaning and truth and we may even agree to disagree over things that are not central to the credal truths.
One is not free to pick and choose which dogmas they are going to accept. The very fact that a teaching is a dogma means one must believe in it.

As time goes on, who knows what might be possible with full Catholic unity in the world.
Full Catholic unity requires full Catholic belief. Anything else is a counterfeit unity.

I don't think either side should be about the business of dictating words at the moment.
Dogma is more than just words
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 05:30:36 PM by Wyatt » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2011, 05:49:05 PM »

Dogma is more than just words

Yes.  It is the definition of a truth that is a mystery.  It is the best effort of the Church universal to try to put the finest point possible on a teaching so that there is as little room for error as possible.

Dogma means NOTHING without meaning and the meaning often defies words.  So the words that are there are the best we can do for the time being.  Dogma never means that words cannot change:  Dogma means that meaning and truth and revelation never changes, because it is not our word but the Word of God that matters.

In a re-united Church, there will be things that have been done over the last thousand years, on both sides,  that will be revisited by the Church universal.  That thought does not frighten me in the least.
Logged

Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2011, 06:20:00 PM »

I have to say I really like your attitude, Wyatt.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #51 on: May 27, 2011, 06:35:18 PM »

Dogma is more than just words

Yes.  It is the definition of a truth that is a mystery.  It is the best effort of the Church universal to try to put the finest point possible on a teaching so that there is as little room for error as possible.

Dogma means NOTHING without meaning and the meaning often defies words.  So the words that are there are the best we can do for the time being.  Dogma never means that words cannot change:  Dogma means that meaning and truth and revelation never changes, because it is not our word but the Word of God that matters.

In a re-united Church, there will be things that have been done over the last thousand years, on both sides,  that will be revisited by the Church universal.  That thought does not frighten me in the least.
Yet, obviously, the words themselves are important too, not just the meaning behind them. If this was not the case then the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would already be reunited as it is commonly believed that, while they use different wording, they profess the same Christology. However, agreeing to disagree on wording is not enough. The wording of Chalcedon must be embraced before reunion can resume (or the wording before Chalcedon depending on which team you are on Wink ). In the same way I don't think we can just throw away the past one thousand years of theological language and terminology to appease the Greeks.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 06:41:20 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2011, 08:02:09 PM »

I have to say I really like your attitude, Wyatt.

Indeed you should ...

“He said to him: 'Just this once accept our community, we ask nothing else of you, after that you can go where you wish.' The Saint [Theodore] answered him and said: ‘That which you have said is the same as if you were to say, let me cut your head off just this once and then you can go wherever you like!’ Things are not as small as they sometimes appear.”
- Mark of Ephesus.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2011, 08:47:33 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2011, 09:04:08 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2011, 09:05:43 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.

These stupid dialogues are the reason I try to stay out of these debates now. Any serious conversations that could be held are for naught if it's interspersed with petty insults and sarcastic ad hominems. Yes, we do both think we're the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now talk about it. An assertion of truth is not an argument. I know you all know this and do it for spite, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

[/rant]
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2011, 09:09:34 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.

These stupid dialogues are the reason I try to stay out of these debates now. Any serious conversations that could be held are for naught if it's interspersed with petty insults and sarcastic ad hominems. Yes, we do both think we're the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now talk about it. An assertion of truth is not an argument. I know you all know this and do it for spite, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

[/rant]

What he said!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2011, 09:11:50 PM »

Dogma is more than just words

Yes.  It is the definition of a truth that is a mystery.  It is the best effort of the Church universal to try to put the finest point possible on a teaching so that there is as little room for error as possible.

Dogma means NOTHING without meaning and the meaning often defies words.  So the words that are there are the best we can do for the time being.  Dogma never means that words cannot change:  Dogma means that meaning and truth and revelation never changes, because it is not our word but the Word of God that matters.

In a re-united Church, there will be things that have been done over the last thousand years, on both sides,  that will be revisited by the Church universal.  That thought does not frighten me in the least.
Yet, obviously, the words themselves are important too, not just the meaning behind them. If this was not the case then the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would already be reunited as it is commonly believed that, while they use different wording, they profess the same Christology. However, agreeing to disagree on wording is not enough. The wording of Chalcedon must be embraced before reunion can resume (or the wording before Chalcedon depending on which team you are on Wink ). In the same way I don't think we can just throw away the past one thousand years of theological language and terminology to appease the Greeks.

I don't think you've been reading enough of the OO section of the Forum.  I don't think you realize how close they are to resumption of communion.  It won't be long at all, as these things go.
Logged

Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2011, 09:18:31 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.

These stupid dialogues are the reason I try to stay out of these debates now. Any serious conversations that could be held are for naught if it's interspersed with petty insults and sarcastic ad hominems. Yes, we do both think we're the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now talk about it. An assertion of truth is not an argument. I know you all know this and do it for spite, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

[/rant]

You're absolutely right. It is an issue I must deal with, and I apologize for my part, both to Papist, to RC's in general, and to those who had to read it.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2011, 09:19:29 PM »

Dogma is more than just words

Yes.  It is the definition of a truth that is a mystery.  It is the best effort of the Church universal to try to put the finest point possible on a teaching so that there is as little room for error as possible.

Dogma means NOTHING without meaning and the meaning often defies words.  So the words that are there are the best we can do for the time being.  Dogma never means that words cannot change:  Dogma means that meaning and truth and revelation never changes, because it is not our word but the Word of God that matters.

In a re-united Church, there will be things that have been done over the last thousand years, on both sides,  that will be revisited by the Church universal.  That thought does not frighten me in the least.
Yet, obviously, the words themselves are important too, not just the meaning behind them. If this was not the case then the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would already be reunited as it is commonly believed that, while they use different wording, they profess the same Christology. However, agreeing to disagree on wording is not enough. The wording of Chalcedon must be embraced before reunion can resume (or the wording before Chalcedon depending on which team you are on Wink ). In the same way I don't think we can just throw away the past one thousand years of theological language and terminology to appease the Greeks.

I don't think you've been reading enough of the OO section of the Forum.  I don't think you realize how close they are to resumption of communion.  It won't be long at all, as these things go.
My understanding at this point is that it is largely administrative. Not that that isn't a big obsticle.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 27, 2011, 09:29:32 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.

These stupid dialogues are the reason I try to stay out of these debates now. Any serious conversations that could be held are for naught if it's interspersed with petty insults and sarcastic ad hominems. Yes, we do both think we're the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now talk about it. An assertion of truth is not an argument. I know you all know this and do it for spite, but that doesn't make it any less annoying.

[/rant]

This is just the page 2 lag.  Expect actual argument to pick up by page 3, anything past page 5 will just be more of this, and a year after it dies Wyatt will resurrect this thread to complain about how we hate Roman Catholics around here.

Different track:

Not to blow my own trumpet, but this little theoretical exercise has turned out pretty much as I predicted in my reply at the beginning of the thread.  Note how fast this

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

became this


I never said anything about us "forcing" anything on them, but since they are dogmas they are not optional. They can feel free to embrace them or remain out of communion. I think the fact that these talks have been going on for awhile and there is still no full communion is proof that neither side is willing to budge as much as you think they are. There is such a thing as being overly optimistic.

.

"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #61 on: May 27, 2011, 09:56:17 PM »

to complain about how we hate Roman Catholics around here.

Hasn't anyone ever suggested a better way to hate Roman Catholics?

Wink

Different track:

Not to blow my own trumpet, but this little theoretical exercise has turned out pretty much as I predicted in my reply at the beginning of the thread.  Note how fast this

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

became this

I never said anything about us "forcing" anything on them, but since they are dogmas they are not optional. They can feel free to embrace them or remain out of communion. I think the fact that these talks have been going on for awhile and there is still no full communion is proof that neither side is willing to budge as much as you think they are. There is such a thing as being overly optimistic.

Seems to me that all your quotes show is that Wyatt's original question was purely hypothetical.

"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.

I'll grant you that some Catholics speak that way, but what Wyatt actually said was "They can feel free to embrace them or remain out of communion." Not the same at all.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 10:01:54 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,113


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #62 on: May 27, 2011, 10:19:37 PM »

"Dogma:... a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church " - Merriam-Webster

Elijahmaria, the very definition of dogma means that one cannot say "Well, I can hold this as dogma, but we can be one Church and you can disagree with me on it."  Now, you could say that one half of the Church doesn't half to emphasize a particular dogma, but to say that they don't have to hold it would be to deny it is a dogma.  I would appreciate it if you would stop redefining words to fit into your unusual and inane view that the Orthodox Church and the Roman church are going to reunite any time soon.  In all reality, they are probably at least a century from union.

As to EO and OO union, that is a lot closer.  However, other than just administrative, there are other problems, for instance the fact that - to my understanding - a significant number of Ethiopian Christians oppose reunion, and there are many more tradionalist EO that also oppose them.  No one wants to heal one schism just to have another schism take place, that would defeat the purpose.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #63 on: May 27, 2011, 10:27:33 PM »

"Dogma:... a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church " - Merriam-Webster

Exactly.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the Melkite Initiative (Zohgby Initiative) because the Melkites don't consider the Immaculate Conception, etc., to be dogmas, so it makes sense for them to want to be in full communion with Christians who don't accept those teachings.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 10:29:11 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2011, 10:29:45 PM »

to complain about how we hate Roman Catholics around here.

Hasn't anyone ever suggested a better way to hate Roman Catholics?

Wink

Well, personally, I subscribe to the Ice Cream and Donuts til diabetic coma form of hate, but it hasn't caught on yet.

Different track:

Not to blow my own trumpet, but this little theoretical exercise has turned out pretty much as I predicted in my reply at the beginning of the thread.  Note how fast this

...the Roman Catholic Church didn't require the Eastern Orthodox Church to accept our definition of primacy in terms of the role of the Bishop of Rome and didn't require them to embrace the filioque or any of the post-schism doctrines/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, would you all be in communion with us?

became this

I never said anything about us "forcing" anything on them, but since they are dogmas they are not optional. They can feel free to embrace them or remain out of communion. I think the fact that these talks have been going on for awhile and there is still no full communion is proof that neither side is willing to budge as much as you think they are. There is such a thing as being overly optimistic.
.

"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.

Seems to me that all your quotes show is that Wyatt's original question was purely hypothetical.

Perhaps.  But it does illustrate a trend that happens once you go beyond the hypothetical, as the plight of the early Byzantine Catholic immigrants to America shows and the strain of the Anglican Ordinate's integration is showing now.  For the American BCs things seem to have improved for the moment, but there is always the possibility in the future of a Pope who isn't so kindly inclined.

The hypothetical situation might work in Europe and Asia where the Latin and Eastern churches each have a long history.  On our end of the pond I don't foresee things working out quite so harmoniously.  America is already the home of cafeteria religion, and the flood of people from one "jurisdiction" to the other would have our bishops and your cardinals fist-fighting at every synod (Roman Catholics coming this way to escape Papal supremacy and the IC, Orthodox going your way for cheeseburgers on Wednesday and fish on Friday).

Really, the only way reunion would work is if the Roman Church dropped ex cathedra infallibility in favor of ex conciliar and demoted the IC and filioque to the realm of theologuma.  Because, in the end, Wyatt is quite right- Dogma is not optional and one side or the other has to give.  Even in a hypothesis reality must be taken into account, you can't have a bishop who is the supreme authority of the Church only be supreme authority in a self contained area- that's sort of what got us all in this mess to begin with!
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,233



« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2011, 10:37:11 PM »

to complain about how we hate Roman Catholics around here.

Hasn't anyone ever suggested a better way to hate Roman Catholics?


Grind their bones to make my bread?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2011, 11:48:53 PM »


IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
That is not only disrespectful and a mockery of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but it is also inaccurate.
Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #67 on: May 28, 2011, 10:54:24 AM »

Quote from: Ineffabilis Deus
We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Some waffling might be done on original sin vs ancestral sin in Catholic-Orthodox understanding, but there isn't going to be any negotiation on the substantive point. It's been dogmatically defined, and along with Munificentissimus Deus is one of the two explicit uses of Papal infallibility in the wake of Vatican I.

As I said, I tend to follow the indications from the Holy Father, and do believe that all the legalists on both sides are going to be deeply disappointed.

Also I think both Alcuin and Wyatt need to do something about your understanding of Dogma in the Catholic Church.  I don't see it as much more illuminated than many Orthodox believer's understandings of it that I've seen over the years.

You can do the things with it that you do if you are teaching a systematic theology class but if you are living through the fullness of the Body of Christ and I include all EO Churches and OO Churches in that, then what you two are doing is far too rigid and has never been part of the living Church.

The Vatican I promulgation of Papal Infallibility, in defining a dogma, refers to it as a proposition of faith or morals "to be believed by the whole Church" and which is "irreformable". I think that's a pretty good definition of what dogma is.

If that were the starting point used by the theologians of your church most closely associated with the Vatican and recent popes, there would be no continuing dialog with the Orthodox. (that may be the view of some like Cardinal Mahoney as referenced in the story told yesterday by Maria on another thread, but that is another whole issue.) The first meeting would have been the last and it would have lasted 1 minute or less. While most of the Roman Catholics posting here do not want to admit it, Elijahmaria is on to something with her point about people on both sides being surprised in the end.

I wasn't referring to the particular dogma of Papal infallibility, or any particular dogma. Just looking for a definition used for "dogma" as such.

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #68 on: May 28, 2011, 11:18:17 AM »

Christus resurrexit!

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
That is not only disrespectful and a mockery of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but it is also inaccurate.
Yes, he doesn't wear the hat anymore.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #69 on: May 28, 2011, 11:29:21 AM »

Christus resurrexit!

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
That is not only disrespectful and a mockery of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but it is also inaccurate.
Yes, he doesn't wear the hat anymore.
Yes and no. He doesn't wear the Papal tiara anymore (although I hear that may change soon thanks to a very kind and generous gift from you guys), but he still wears a miter.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,576



« Reply #70 on: May 28, 2011, 12:32:25 PM »

Christus resurrexit!

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
That is not only disrespectful and a mockery of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but it is also inaccurate.
Yes, he doesn't wear the hat anymore.
Yes and no. He doesn't wear the Papal tiara anymore (although I hear that may change soon thanks to a very kind and generous gift from you guys), but he still wears a miter.
A miter is hardly funny (though I'm sure Stashko doesn't like your design), and not a problem.  The pretentious tiara is a different story.

And any Orthodox can do some fool thing without implicating the rest of us.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 12:33:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #71 on: May 28, 2011, 12:37:19 PM »

Christus resurrexit!

IF...theoretically the RC didn't require all the items stated above....I think all the RC's should just relinquish all the phony dogmas and simply return, like the prodigal son, to their "father" whom they abandoned - Orthodoxy.

angel


We are the Orthodox Church. Smiley
Oh, I guess I was confused by all your incorrect doctrine.
Acctually, it's your errors that have you in confusion. Look what a muddled mess your thinking is.
You'll have to explain to me what is muddled about refusing to see a falible human being as unfallible when he wears a special hat and sits in a special chair.
That is not only disrespectful and a mockery of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, but it is also inaccurate.
Yes, he doesn't wear the hat anymore.
Yes and no. He doesn't wear the Papal tiara anymore (although I hear that may change soon thanks to a very kind and generous gift from you guys), but he still wears a miter.
A miter is hardly funny (though I'm sure Stashko doesn't like your design), and not a problem.  The pretentious tiara is a different story.

And any Orthodox can do some fool thing without implicating the rest of us.
Yes...make sure you distance yourself from Christian charity. Wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 28, 2011, 01:46:51 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?

I am pretty sure you were not addressing this to me, but I would like to comment here that it is not a matter of "reneging" on any of the truths of revelation, be they dogmatically defined or not.
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2011, 03:28:55 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?
I think that the word renege is more or less a loaded term. As I understand things, the RCC doesn't see an outright black and white contradiction between what they believe and what the E. Orthodox believe, but regard many of the differences as cultural and due to the fact that the two Churches were apart for a long time. For example, there is the statement on the filioque which more or less points out that the RCC accepts the EO position on the filioque.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I suppose that someone could say that the RCC is renegging on the filioque, but I am not so sure that this is the most charitable way to describe it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 28, 2011, 03:34:21 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?
I think that the word renege is more or less a loaded term. As I understand things, the RCC doesn't see an outright black and white contradiction between what they believe and what the E. Orthodox believe, but regard many of the differences as cultural and due to the fact that the two Churches were apart for a long time. For example, there is the statement on the filioque which more or less points out that the RCC accepts the EO position on the filioque.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I suppose that someone could say that the RCC is renegging on the filioque, but I am not so sure that this is the most charitable way to describe it.

Charity is always necessary.

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #75 on: May 28, 2011, 03:39:49 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 28, 2011, 03:53:01 PM »


.

"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.
[/quote]

That may be the internet poster impression, but it does not do justice to the dialog and academic work being undertaken by both sides.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 28, 2011, 03:55:53 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?

I am pretty sure you were not addressing this to me, but I would like to comment here that it is not a matter of "reneging" on any of the truths of revelation, be they dogmatically defined or not.

If dogma were 'black and white' and 'cut and dry', there would be no need for theologians, east or west. Theology would be a simple subject taught to all in elementary school. It is not so and it does disservice to theologians, Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike to try to reduce centuries of complex disputes into simple syllogisms.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: May 28, 2011, 04:02:18 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Logged

FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,424



WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 28, 2011, 06:10:58 PM »




"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.

That may be the internet poster impression, but it does not do justice to the dialog and academic work being undertaken by both sides.

Oh, I'm sure if the dialogue advances and union takes place it will be done properly.  My response was to the hypothetical situation stated at the beginning of the thread.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,326


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 28, 2011, 09:04:12 PM »




"If you really loved me you'd quit smoking altogether." - many a poor man's wife.   "If you really loved us you'd adopt the filioque and Immaculate Conception and our papal supremacy."- Roman Catholic Ecumenical approach.

That may be the internet poster impression, but it does not do justice to the dialog and academic work being undertaken by both sides.

Oh, I'm sure if the dialogue advances and union takes place it will be done properly.  My response was to the hypothetical situation stated at the beginning of the thread.

Quite true.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #81 on: May 28, 2011, 11:25:15 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #82 on: May 28, 2011, 11:30:11 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Is filioque a dogma though? Our Church recognizes that the Creed is perfectly legitimate without it.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #83 on: May 28, 2011, 11:34:13 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Is filioque a dogma though? Our Church recognizes that the Creed is perfectly legitimate without it.
Is that a change from what was taught before Vatican II? Before Vatican II, the Ruthenian Byzantince Catholic Chruch was required to have the filioque in their creed, were they not?
Now after Vatican II, we see popping up papers issued by the office of Catholic bishops taking a second look on what is implied by the filioque phrase.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #84 on: May 28, 2011, 11:40:03 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Is filioque a dogma though? Our Church recognizes that the Creed is perfectly legitimate without it.
Is that a change from what was taught before Vatican II? Before Vatican II, the Ruthenian Byzantince Catholic Chruch was required to have the filioque in their creed, were they not?
Now after Vatican II, we see popping up papers issued by the office of Catholic bishops taking a second look on what is implied by the filioque phrase.
I have no idea. The original wording of the Creed didn't contain the filioque, though. It was added later as a clarification. So obviously, when the Creed was recited prior to the Church adding it the Creed was no less valid beforehand.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2011, 11:40:17 PM by Wyatt » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #85 on: May 28, 2011, 11:54:18 PM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Is filioque a dogma though? Our Church recognizes that the Creed is perfectly legitimate without it.
Is that a change from what was taught before Vatican II? Before Vatican II, the Ruthenian Byzantince Catholic Chruch was required to have the filioque in their creed, were they not?
Now after Vatican II, we see popping up papers issued by the office of Catholic bishops taking a second look on what is implied by the filioque phrase.
I have no idea. The original wording of the Creed didn't contain the filioque, though. It was added later as a clarification. So obviously, when the Creed was recited prior to the Church adding it the Creed was no less valid beforehand.
A lot of things were different 1500 years ago. For example, was there universal agreement that the Roman Pope was infallible when speaking ex cathedra 1500 years ago? Was there universal agreement on the Immaculate Conception 1500 years ago? (Hint: Read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote.)
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #86 on: May 29, 2011, 09:38:23 AM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?
Is filioque a dogma though? Our Church recognizes that the Creed is perfectly legitimate without it.
Is that a change from what was taught before Vatican II? Before Vatican II, the Ruthenian Byzantince Catholic Chruch was required to have the filioque in their creed, were they not?

If you look at any period of church history, you are going to see abuses.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 29, 2011, 10:11:26 AM »

Accuracy is perhaps icing on the cake, but I love icing.   Wink
But what about the cake itself?

In my little scheme that would be charity.  I was suggesting that you would have been better served to say that "renege" is not accurate...rather than suggesting it is not charitable.  In the first place it is not accurate...see?
Renege is a bit harsh and has bad connotations. But without the bad implications, didn't the Byzantine Catholic Church throw out the filioque from their creed? They don't say the filioque now, but before Vatican II, the filioque  was in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic creed, was it not?

Reneging on a dogma is not an accurate description of this either.
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #88 on: May 29, 2011, 02:18:22 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?
I think that the word renege is more or less a loaded term. As I understand things, the RCC doesn't see an outright black and white contradiction between what they believe and what the E. Orthodox believe, but regard many of the differences as cultural and due to the fact that the two Churches were apart for a long time. For example, there is the statement on the filioque which more or less points out that the RCC accepts the EO position on the filioque.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I suppose that someone could say that the RCC is renegging on the filioque, but I am not so sure that this is the most charitable way to describe it.

Saying or not saying the filioque can be interpreted as a matter of custom and place. But if people think there is going to be a substantive reunion while the west affirms the validity of the filioque in principle and the east denies the validity of it in principle, I think they're fooling themselves. Easterners are not going to want to join a Church whose creed they regard as heretical.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 02:19:34 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 29, 2011, 02:26:54 PM »

Just to be clear though, if you believe reunion is going to happen, what particular dogmas do you think the Catholic Church is going to renege on?
I think that the word renege is more or less a loaded term. As I understand things, the RCC doesn't see an outright black and white contradiction between what they believe and what the E. Orthodox believe, but regard many of the differences as cultural and due to the fact that the two Churches were apart for a long time. For example, there is the statement on the filioque which more or less points out that the RCC accepts the EO position on the filioque.
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
I suppose that someone could say that the RCC is renegging on the filioque, but I am not so sure that this is the most charitable way to describe it.

Saying or not saying the filioque can be interpreted as a matter of custom and place. But if people think there is going to be a substantive reunion while the west affirms the validity of the filioque in principle and the east denies the validity of it in principle, I think they're fooling themselves. Easterners are not going to want to join a Church whose creed they regard as heretical.

I would suggest that not all of Orthodoxy denies the filioque in principle.   The fact that some do and do so loudly is an observable fact, but I do not believe that universal Orthodoxy will find against filioque as understood by the west.  The principled complaint in the main is that it was added to the Creed without the agreement of the east.  That can be reconciled by forgiveness as long as the teaching is understood correctly as it is.
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #90 on: May 29, 2011, 02:32:23 PM »

When the west under the political influence of the Franks began demanding that the Orthodox add the filioque to the Creed (and actually accusing them of having omitted it from the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed) I agree that the east had every right to feel insulted and be upset. I don't think they should be forced to say it in their creed.

It may be the case that the Orthodox will be willing to omit it from their creed while not holding to the view that its inclusion is in principle heretical. But that isn't the same as the giving up of dogmas, which is what I was addressing. As regards the Immaculate Conception, likewise, if the Orthodox consider it to be heretical because they consider the doctrine of Original Sin (contra Ancestral Sin) to be heretical, there won't be a substantive union.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2011, 02:38:21 PM »

Filioque should not be a stumbling block now since Eastern Catholics don't say it. The dogmas certainly still are since, as long as they deny them as dogmatic, we do not have the same faith.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2011, 02:40:41 PM »

When the west under the political influence of the Franks began demanding that the Orthodox add the filioque to the Creed (and actually accusing them of having omitted it from the original Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed) I agree that the east had every right to feel insulted and be upset. I don't think they should be forced to say it in their creed.

It may be the case that the Orthodox will be willing to omit it from their creed while not holding to the view that its inclusion is in principle heretical. But that isn't the same as the giving up of dogmas, which is what I was addressing. As regards the Immaculate Conception, likewise, if the Orthodox consider it to be heretical because they consider the doctrine of Original Sin (contra Ancestral Sin) to be heretical, there won't be a substantive union.

When there is substantive agreement on what the west has taught about original sin, and when the east stops asserting that the Catholic Church teaches a personal form of original guilt, which is where we are with it now, then the doors open for many understandings.

As I said it is not just a matter of acceptance but how one accepts a doctrine.   Again it has already been said and understood that the east will not be asked to accept more than what was accepted up until the schism, in the same manner as the west has been asked to accept it. 

What will be asked is that the east cease calling western teaching heresies, and that the west stop looking upon the east as something lesser in her faith.

These things are what will provide grounds for resumption of communion.  What we do from there?...only the Holy Spirit knows...

If you have not read it, I suggest that you pick up and read Joseph Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology.  He is not just speaking of the Catholic west when he writes about theology.   He is too deeply read in the Holy Fathers to speak only of the west when he speaks of our shared theology.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2011, 02:42:40 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Tags: ialmisry's b.s. 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.341 seconds with 120 queries.