OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 05:33:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: When will our two Churches reunite (if you select "other," please explain in a post)?
Within the next 10 to 20 years
Pshh! Not within my lifetime!
When the Pope becomes Orthodox
When the East stops being schismatic
NEVER
Other

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Orthodox-Catholic reunion on the horizon?  (Read 7257 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #90 on: June 13, 2011, 03:50:34 PM »

You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.

One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.  Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.

I think you are being provacative again here and you don't really mean what you say. We just believe that it is possible, and has happened before, for hierarchs and emperors to be wrong. At no time have all Orthodox bishops departed into heresy, and the Lord will not permit the grace of the priesthood to disappear before he returns. So, please, end the hyperbole.
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.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #91 on: June 13, 2011, 03:53:26 PM »

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #92 on: June 13, 2011, 03:55:14 PM »

Neither the Pope or a pan-Orthodox Synod today would compromise any to the doctrine (i.e. for Roman Catholics, innovations since the Great Schism, the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, Papal Infallibility), traditions or practices of the churches today
Why do you think it would be impossible for the Roman Church to compromise on papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. Although they might not use the word compromise, but in the end, operationally, the teaching could be clarified and brought more in line with the Orthodox teaching of first among equals. This is not unprecedented, since, as you know, the Roman Catholic Church has clarified the teaching on the filioque, so that it gives more weight to the Orthodox position.

And this is another problem. Rome keeps changing what its position is, and then claims its position has never changed. The statement we sign with such a party would not be worth the paper it's printed on. And perhaps we return to the worldview difference.
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.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: June 13, 2011, 03:58:05 PM »

You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.
One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.  Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.

I am sure you know more of Orthodoxy than that statement would lead us to believe.   The primary work of a bishop is that of sanctification.  He is the one from whom all the Sacraments/Mysteries and their grace flow. Without him there are no Sacraments in the Church.   In the Slavonic languages he is known as the "Sviatitel' - he who makes holy.

This is not to downplay his other important Petrine powers of binding and loosing, in maintaining the purity of the faith and in leading the faithful of his diocese, but his work of sanctification is paramount and is occurring every day.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #94 on: June 13, 2011, 04:00:14 PM »

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.
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.
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: 37,963



« Reply #95 on: June 13, 2011, 04:01:54 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.

One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.
 
Because Christ founded it and it works.
Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.
Your confusion isnt' our contradiction.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: June 13, 2011, 04:04:23 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.
One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.  Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.

I am sure you know more of Orthodoxy than that statement would lead us to believe.   The primary work of a bishop is that of sanctification.  He is the one from whom all the Sacraments/Mysteries and their grace flow. Without him there are no Sacraments in the Church.   In the Slavonic languages he is known as the "Sviatitel' - he who makes holy.

This is not to downplay his other important Petrine powers of binding and loosing, in maintaining the purity of the faith and in leading the faithful of his diocese, but his work of sanctification is paramount and is occurring every day.

Indeed, Father! It is the bishops who chrismate the Faithful to keep the episcopacy in line should they be tempted to stray.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2011, 04:29:43 PM »

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2011, 05:17:44 PM »

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)

If that comment is accurate, it shows  just how poorly our Churches understand one another, for we did not reject Brest because we did not understand it, but because it did not bring about a real union, as we see it. Even if the Orthodox were presented with an agreement whereby we had to change nothing of our dogma or practice and accept nothing of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma or practice, only enter into communion, it would still be unacceptable to us, not because we want to create difficulties or even want Rome to drop the last 1,000 years, but because the communion would not be real, we would not be of one mind in the faith. It would also be like pretending we have no real differences, which, frankly, is a philosophy I hear from many who advocate open communion. In our tradition, we have always worked to resolve, not dismiss, the differences we have had with  those in schism or heresy. This has happened to varying degrees of success. I respect the desire and the work many have done on both sides, but I think that, often, people enter into religious dialogue as a kind of hobby. Lyons, Florence, and Brest were all rather unbalanced summits with bad terms for us and lots of political pressure on our bishops to conform to their decrees. I think this has has burned our ecclesiastical psyche. For better or worse we look at Roman Catholic proposals with suspicion, often because in what they bill as overtures, we see evidence that they don't understand our position. It has happened so often, we wonder maybe they don't want to understand. We try to state our position clearly, using language which is often blunt and are rebuffed as uncharitable. (I don't say you do this, Peter, I'm speaking only in general, from my observations.) Some things we don't understand, like when the pope dropped the title "Patriarch  of the West" in what was billed, at least by the media, as a gesture of reconciliation. But we have never had a problem with that title, which has existed since Rome was Orthodox. In our view, the west is where Rome belongs. So, this as a gesture toward us we find puzzling, for one example.
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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2011, 05:29:20 PM »

You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.
One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.  Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.

I am sure you know more of Orthodoxy than that statement would lead us to believe.   The primary work of a bishop is that of sanctification.  He is the one from whom all the Sacraments/Mysteries and their grace flow. Without him there are no Sacraments in the Church.   In the Slavonic languages he is known as the "Sviatitel' - he who makes holy.

This is not to downplay his other important Petrine powers of binding and loosing, in maintaining the purity of the faith and in leading the faithful of his diocese, but his work of sanctification is paramount and is occurring every day.


In the Catholic Church sanctification comes from the Holy Spirit and Indwelling Trinity...with and without our bishops.  Each individual soul is open and capable of theosis and it is not necessary for any bishop to work sanctification in us or certify it in us.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2011, 05:32:57 PM »

I will ask again, given the range of beliefs within Orthodoxy, what do you envision as a shared faith?  What does that mean in real terms?

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)

If that comment is accurate, it shows  just how poorly our Churches understand one another, for we did not reject Brest because we did not understand it, but because it did not bring about a real union, as we see it. Even if the Orthodox were presented with an agreement whereby we had to change nothing of our dogma or practice and accept nothing of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma or practice, only enter into communion, it would still be unacceptable to us, not because we want to create difficulties or even want Rome to drop the last 1,000 years, but because the communion would not be real, we would not be of one mind in the faith. It would also be like pretending we have no real differences, which, frankly, is a philosophy I hear from many who advocate open communion. In our tradition, we have always worked to resolve, not dismiss, the differences we have had with  those in schism or heresy. This has happened to varying degrees of success. I respect the desire and the work many have done on both sides, but I think that, often, people enter into religious dialogue as a kind of hobby. Lyons, Florence, and Brest were all rather unbalanced summits with bad terms for us and lots of political pressure on our bishops to conform to their decrees. I think this has has burned our ecclesiastical psyche. For better or worse we look at Roman Catholic proposals with suspicion, often because in what they bill as overtures, we see evidence that they don't understand our position. It has happened so often, we wonder maybe they don't want to understand. We try to state our position clearly, using language which is often blunt and are rebuffed as uncharitable. (I don't say you do this, Peter, I'm speaking only in general, from my observations.) Some things we don't understand, like when the pope dropped the title "Patriarch  of the West" in what was billed, at least by the media, as a gesture of reconciliation. But we have never had a problem with that title, which has existed since Rome was Orthodox. In our view, the west is where Rome belongs. So, this as a gesture toward us we find puzzling, for one example.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2011, 05:54:45 PM »

I will ask again, given the range of beliefs within Orthodoxy, what do you envision as a shared faith?  What does that mean in real terms?

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)

If that comment is accurate, it shows  just how poorly our Churches understand one another, for we did not reject Brest because we did not understand it, but because it did not bring about a real union, as we see it. Even if the Orthodox were presented with an agreement whereby we had to change nothing of our dogma or practice and accept nothing of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma or practice, only enter into communion, it would still be unacceptable to us, not because we want to create difficulties or even want Rome to drop the last 1,000 years, but because the communion would not be real, we would not be of one mind in the faith. It would also be like pretending we have no real differences, which, frankly, is a philosophy I hear from many who advocate open communion. In our tradition, we have always worked to resolve, not dismiss, the differences we have had with  those in schism or heresy. This has happened to varying degrees of success. I respect the desire and the work many have done on both sides, but I think that, often, people enter into religious dialogue as a kind of hobby. Lyons, Florence, and Brest were all rather unbalanced summits with bad terms for us and lots of political pressure on our bishops to conform to their decrees. I think this has has burned our ecclesiastical psyche. For better or worse we look at Roman Catholic proposals with suspicion, often because in what they bill as overtures, we see evidence that they don't understand our position. It has happened so often, we wonder maybe they don't want to understand. We try to state our position clearly, using language which is often blunt and are rebuffed as uncharitable. (I don't say you do this, Peter, I'm speaking only in general, from my observations.) Some things we don't understand, like when the pope dropped the title "Patriarch  of the West" in what was billed, at least by the media, as a gesture of reconciliation. But we have never had a problem with that title, which has existed since Rome was Orthodox. In our view, the west is where Rome belongs. So, this as a gesture toward us we find puzzling, for one example.

And what do you envision as the "range of beliefs?" I could say the same exists, and perhaps with broader range, in the Roman Catholic Church. That is not the point. You are not listening to what I am saying.
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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2011, 05:59:42 PM »

I will ask again, given the range of beliefs within Orthodoxy, what do you envision as a shared faith?  What does that mean in real terms?

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)

If that comment is accurate, it shows  just how poorly our Churches understand one another, for we did not reject Brest because we did not understand it, but because it did not bring about a real union, as we see it. Even if the Orthodox were presented with an agreement whereby we had to change nothing of our dogma or practice and accept nothing of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma or practice, only enter into communion, it would still be unacceptable to us, not because we want to create difficulties or even want Rome to drop the last 1,000 years, but because the communion would not be real, we would not be of one mind in the faith. It would also be like pretending we have no real differences, which, frankly, is a philosophy I hear from many who advocate open communion. In our tradition, we have always worked to resolve, not dismiss, the differences we have had with  those in schism or heresy. This has happened to varying degrees of success. I respect the desire and the work many have done on both sides, but I think that, often, people enter into religious dialogue as a kind of hobby. Lyons, Florence, and Brest were all rather unbalanced summits with bad terms for us and lots of political pressure on our bishops to conform to their decrees. I think this has has burned our ecclesiastical psyche. For better or worse we look at Roman Catholic proposals with suspicion, often because in what they bill as overtures, we see evidence that they don't understand our position. It has happened so often, we wonder maybe they don't want to understand. We try to state our position clearly, using language which is often blunt and are rebuffed as uncharitable. (I don't say you do this, Peter, I'm speaking only in general, from my observations.) Some things we don't understand, like when the pope dropped the title "Patriarch  of the West" in what was billed, at least by the media, as a gesture of reconciliation. But we have never had a problem with that title, which has existed since Rome was Orthodox. In our view, the west is where Rome belongs. So, this as a gesture toward us we find puzzling, for one example.

And what do you envision as the "range of beliefs?" I could say the same exists, and perhaps with broader range, in the Roman Catholic Church. That is not the point. You are not listening to what I am saying.

There's outright de facto schism in the Roman rite.  But that is not the case in Orthodoxy.  There is an observable tolerance for variation in doctrinal teachings, and in the anthropologies of tradition or popular piety, and in liturgical prayer.  Yet you will not extend that to the Catholic Church.  I find that interesting.  Not judging it here just noting it.

What am I missing that you are saying?  I am only addressing one of your points so I may not be missing it...quite...just not noting it at the moment.  You latest posts have been pretty substantial and I am not trying to address it all at once.  No time or mind for that at the moment.

M.
Logged

James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 752



« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2011, 06:06:53 PM »

I can envision large segments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches reuniting within 10-20 years.  But such reunions would be accompanied by further schisms on both sides by the many who would refuse to accept them.  One of the difficulties is that, while each church has its own history of continuous and consistent development, many of these developments took place in relative isolation from each other during the first millennium, such that the roots of the schism lie centuries before it was consummated (whenever that was).  For example, one of the posts on this thread includes acceptance of the Quinisext Council as a condition for reunion, but some of the acts of this council were very controversial in the Western Church of the 7th-8th centuries and remain so to this day.  Another obstacle is the history of mutual persecution between the two Churches which is so hard to forget.  Feuds are easy to start but hard to stop without a tremendous amount of humility and goodwill.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2011, 06:18:26 PM »

I can envision large segments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches reuniting within 10-20 years.  But such reunions would be accompanied by further schisms on both sides by the many who would refuse to accept them.  One of the difficulties is that, while each church has its own history of continuous and consistent development, many of these developments took place in relative isolation from each other during the first millennium, such that the roots of the schism lie centuries before it was consummated (whenever that was).  For example, one of the posts on this thread includes acceptance of the Quinisext Council as a condition for reunion, but some of the acts of this council were very controversial in the Western Church of the 7th-8th centuries and remain so to this day.  Another obstacle is the history of mutual persecution between the two Churches which is so hard to forget.  Feuds are easy to start but hard to stop without a tremendous amount of humility and goodwill.

"Mutual persecution" may need to be qualified in another thread.
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.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2011, 07:23:16 PM »

The Orthodox position is that communion will be the crowning point of union, not the starting point nor a stage along the way.  

They say it will proceed in the stages that we see in the Liturgy...

"Let us love one another....."   love will be the first stage

".... that we may confess..."  Identity of confession of faith will be stage two

and that will lead very quickly to stage three.... communion.
I wonder how long it will be before the first stage is reached?
I don't know. Unlikely until everyone acknowledges it's a two way street.

Unlike what one might ferret from this board, I do think that there is more love out there than you would think, not universal but it is real.

I would venture to say that the main thing at this point is to get to know, and understand, one another.

I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.) Here's the bit that caught my attention:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

It sounds to me like we still have a ways to go as far as understanding one another.


P.S. Speculation ... I wonder what the reaction would be if a published interview contained this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2011, 07:44:49 PM »

The Orthodox position is that communion will be the crowning point of union, not the starting point nor a stage along the way. 

They say it will proceed in the stages that we see in the Liturgy...

"Let us love one another....."   love will be the first stage

".... that we may confess..."  Identity of confession of faith will be stage two

and that will lead very quickly to stage three.... communion.
I wonder how long it will be before the first stage is reached?
I don't know. Unlikely until everyone acknowledges it's a two way street.

Unlike what one might ferret from this board, I do think that there is more love out there than you would think, not universal but it is real.

I would venture to say that the main thing at this point is to get to know, and understand, one another.

I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.) Here's the bit that caught my attention:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

It sounds to me like we still have a ways to go as far as understanding one another.


P.S. Speculation ... I wonder what the reaction would be if a published interview contained this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."


A very real example of how shared faith is not is the Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans [some Lutherans] and Catholics.  There is not a shared teaching at all on at least one very important issue which results in the teaching, on the part of Catholics, concerning infused virtue at Baptism and the Indwelling Trinity.  That still, apparently, does not compute with members of the ELCA...at least based on my own personal experience.

Also at the last moment Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger moved in and changed the language of one of the statements so that it comported more closely with Catholic teaching and which started the hue and cry in the ELCA that their signing members had sold out Lutheran teaching.

Can Orthodox and Catholics do better than that?  I think so indeed!

« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 07:45:13 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2011, 08:24:45 PM »

A very real example of how shared faith is not is the Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans [some Lutherans] and Catholics.  There is not a shared teaching at all on at least one very important issue which results in the teaching, on the part of Catholics, concerning infused virtue at Baptism and the Indwelling Trinity.  That still, apparently, does not compute with members of the ELCA...at least based on my own personal experience.

Also at the last moment Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger moved in and changed the language of one of the statements so that it comported more closely with Catholic teaching and which started the hue and cry in the ELCA that their signing members had sold out Lutheran teaching.

That's an excellent example, and an excellent contrast with:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

Can Orthodox and Catholics do better than that?  I think so indeed!

Yes, I think Orthodox and Catholics do better than both of those examples.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2011, 09:32:59 PM »

I can envision large segments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches reuniting within 10-20 years.  But such reunions would be accompanied by further schisms on both sides by the many who would refuse to accept them.

I don't think that will happen. If we can only manage to reunite "large segments", that means it moved too fast. A bitter divorce is not something that can be pushed together so quickly without getting very messy. It would be a greater sin to move too quickly and cause new schisms than to remain divided, I feel. If that means it takes 1000 years instead of 100, it's a small price to pay.

Unity must be Kata Holos—Catholic, "according to the whole"—not just according to a few, or even according to most.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 09:38:12 PM by bogdan » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2011, 09:33:36 PM »

[
I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.) Here's the bit that caught my attention:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

His faith that the Vatican can kiss a disputed issue and make it all better is touching.  But really! the man is living in an alternative universe.

Oh, I've just noticed it is a Zenit article.  Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome.   laugh
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2011, 10:06:37 PM »

A very real example of how shared faith is not is the Joint Declaration on Justification with Lutherans [some Lutherans] and Catholics.  There is not a shared teaching at all on at least one very important issue which results in the teaching, on the part of Catholics, concerning infused virtue at Baptism and the Indwelling Trinity.  That still, apparently, does not compute with members of the ELCA...at least based on my own personal experience.

Also at the last moment Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger moved in and changed the language of one of the statements so that it comported more closely with Catholic teaching and which started the hue and cry in the ELCA that their signing members had sold out Lutheran teaching.

That's an excellent example, and an excellent contrast with:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

Can Orthodox and Catholics do better than that?  I think so indeed!

Yes, I think Orthodox and Catholics do better than both of those examples.

I just realized I wrote "do" when I meant to write "can do"

Yes, I think Orthodox and Catholics can do better than both of those examples.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2011, 10:10:50 PM »

[
I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.) Here's the bit that caught my attention:

Quote
Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues? For example, the most famous, the "Filioque."

Father Rupnik: On the question of the "Filioque," namely, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not proceed only from the Father, but also from the Son, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the East.

His faith that the Vatican can kiss a disputed issue and make it all better is touching.  But really! the man is living in an alternative universe.

I think his remark was quite presumptuous. In any case, it illustrates just the opposite of what he meant to illustrate: how far away reunion really is.

Oh, I've just noticed it is a Zenit article.  Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome.   laugh

Hmmm I wasn't aware of that.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 10:14:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2011, 11:50:52 PM »

You are absolutely correct about it needing to be accepted by the whole church. My only point was that Patriarchs are not little popes and don't always get what they want. I think some orthodox and a lot of nonorthodox don't understand that.
Oh lol, I was responding to the posts just before yours from the roman catholic members.
thanks.
Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism. It is not the bishops and theologians who guard the faith, but the people. This is our experiential ecclesiology. It's messy, but it's ours, and we rather like it.

One always wonders why you and your coreligionists bother with a hierarchy in any event.  Seems something of a waste...or a contradiction.
I've often wondered the same about you and your coreligionists (apparently only one of us is Christian).
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #113 on: June 14, 2011, 01:03:33 AM »

Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition.
This is interesting in that you say that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs, together with all of the Orthodox bishops and participating theologians could all be in error. So this group of all Orthodox Patriarchs, all Orthodox bishops and participating theologians would not be under the protection of the Holy Spirit, according to your view.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #114 on: June 14, 2011, 01:06:14 AM »

Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome. 
My guess is that it is more like positive thinking.
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #115 on: June 14, 2011, 01:08:22 AM »

Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition.
This is interesting in that you say that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs, together with all of the Orthodox bishops and participating theologians could all be in error. So this group of all Orthodox Patriarchs, all Orthodox bishops and participating theologians would not be under the protection of the Holy Spirit, according to your view.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church as a whole. None of those groups are the Church as a whole.

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #116 on: June 14, 2011, 01:11:28 AM »

Suppose then, that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs and all of the Orthodox bishops and their participating theologians,  reached an agreement with the Roman Pope. Would it be likely to be rejected by the rest of the Orthodox Church?

No. It happened before and failed, ending in recanting or schism.

I believe you are mistaken there, Shanghaiski. Neither the Council of Florence nor any of the "unions" that happened in subsequent centuries involved all of the Orthodox Patriarchs (much less all of the Orthodox bishops).

I did not explicitly say they did. "All" was understood loosely. My apologies. Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition. Each bishop, upon his consecration, vows not to make any innovations in the faith, and to uphold the tradition of the Church, that which has been handed down by Christ, his apostles, the holy ecumenical synods, and the saints. I won't go beyond this, being opposed to hypothetical questions in general.

I have to admit that I myself find it to be a rather strange hypothetical.

I'm reminded of Pope John Paul II on the anniversary of one of the "unions". I forget his exact words, but the Orthodox complained that he was making it sound like the Union of Brest could have reunited the two sides but it didn't because of an Orthodox misunderstanding. (My apologies if I'm not expressing the complaint very well.)

If that comment is accurate, it shows  just how poorly our Churches understand one another, for we did not reject Brest because we did not understand it, but because it did not bring about a real union, as we see it. Even if the Orthodox were presented with an agreement whereby we had to change nothing of our dogma or practice and accept nothing of the Roman Catholic Church's dogma or practice, only enter into communion, it would still be unacceptable to us, not because we want to create difficulties or even want Rome to drop the last 1,000 years, but because the communion would not be real, we would not be of one mind in the faith. It would also be like pretending we have no real differences, which, frankly, is a philosophy I hear from many who advocate open communion. In our tradition, we have always worked to resolve, not dismiss, the differences we have had with  those in schism or heresy. This has happened to varying degrees of success. I respect the desire and the work many have done on both sides, but I think that, often, people enter into religious dialogue as a kind of hobby. Lyons, Florence, and Brest were all rather unbalanced summits with bad terms for us and lots of political pressure on our bishops to conform to their decrees. I think this has has burned our ecclesiastical psyche. For better or worse we look at Roman Catholic proposals with suspicion, often because in what they bill as overtures, we see evidence that they don't understand our position. It has happened so often, we wonder maybe they don't want to understand. We try to state our position clearly, using language which is often blunt and are rebuffed as uncharitable. (I don't say you do this, Peter, I'm speaking only in general, from my observations.) Some things we don't understand, like when the pope dropped the title "Patriarch  of the West" in what was billed, at least by the media, as a gesture of reconciliation. But we have never had a problem with that title, which has existed since Rome was Orthodox. In our view, the west is where Rome belongs. So, this as a gesture toward us we find puzzling, for one example.
There is a point here. I also did not understand why the Pope would want to drop the title of Patriarch of the West. But accepting the fact that he did drop the title, I don't understand how that promotes union with the Orthodox Church? It seems like it might be perceived as  better for reunion, if the Pope accepted the title of Patriarch of the West or of Rome, or of the Roman Church or something like that?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #117 on: June 14, 2011, 01:13:17 AM »

Okay, so even if all, as in every single living Orthodox bishop and theologian--who are they?--appeared in council and voted on whatever sort of agreement was put on the table leading to full communion, they could still all be wrong if their vote was not in accord with holy tradition.
This is interesting in that you say that all of the Orthodox Patriarchs, together with all of the Orthodox bishops and participating theologians could all be in error. So this group of all Orthodox Patriarchs, all Orthodox bishops and participating theologians would not be under the protection of the Holy Spirit, according to your view.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church as a whole. None of those groups are the Church as a whole.

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.
Then, that would be a major difference with Roman Catholicism, I think.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #118 on: June 14, 2011, 04:59:11 AM »

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.

How? There is no Church without a Bishop. There has to be at least one (or three) left.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #119 on: June 14, 2011, 07:49:27 AM »

Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome. 
My guess is that it is more like positive thinking.

I'd like to agree with you, but frankly I have to admit that I find it strange.

Just consider if the interview had instead said this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."

We won't be seeing that, I'll bet you. What are we to conclude? That Catholics have more respect for Presbyterians than for Orthodox?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #120 on: June 14, 2011, 10:00:13 AM »

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.

How? There is no Church without a Bishop. There has to be at least one (or three) left.

But nothing prevents bishops from repenting, as those who kissed the pope in Florence, corrected by the crowds of the faithful, changed their position to the side of truth.
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.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #121 on: June 14, 2011, 11:38:12 AM »

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.

How? There is no Church without a Bishop. There has to be at least one (or three) left.

But nothing prevents bishops from repenting, as those who kissed the pope in Florence, corrected by the crowds of the faithful, changed their position to the side of truth.

Point for you.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 12:01:39 PM by Michał Kalina » 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: 37,963



« Reply #122 on: June 14, 2011, 12:05:22 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.)
LOL. Hiding the horror?
http://www.centroaletti.com/
Quote
The Pontifical Oriental Institute ("Pontificium Institutum Orientalium" in Latin, "Pontificio Instituto Orientale" in Italian) is the premier center for the study of Eastern Christianity in Rome, Italy.  The pontifical school was established in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV. Pope Pius XI entrusted the Institute to the Society of Jesus in 1922, and with the 1928 encyclical "Rerum Orientalium", encouraged bishops to send students to the Institute to be formed as future professors in Oriental studies....The Institute has been located across from the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore since 1926. It is separated from the Collegium Russicum by the Church of Saint Antony.

According to article 16 of the Lateran Treaty, signed in 1929 between Italy and the Holy See, the property of the Oriental Institutue enjoys a certain level of extraterritoriality, with the Holy See having all rights over the infrastructure without interference from the Italian State, and free from all Italian taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Oriental_Institute

So, this is the opinion of the Vatican's expert on the East, what they are teaching those they are sending East. Like you said...
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 12:10:55 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #123 on: June 14, 2011, 12:38:24 PM »

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.

How? There is no Church without a Bishop. There has to be at least one (or three) left.

But nothing prevents bishops from repenting, as those who kissed the pope in Florence, corrected by the crowds of the faithful, changed their position to the side of truth.

Point for you.

Not sure what you mean by this.
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.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #124 on: June 14, 2011, 02:01:26 PM »

Not sure what you mean by this.

It must be a Polish-only idiom. It means that you are right with that.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #125 on: June 14, 2011, 02:26:35 PM »

Not sure what you mean by this.

It must be a Polish-only idiom. It means that you are right with that.

Or it could be an idiom used on fora by persons far more tech-savvy than myself. Smiley
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.
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #126 on: June 14, 2011, 02:40:47 PM »

It is unlikely that all bishops (Patriarchs are bishops, you don't need to list them seperately) and all theologeons (using the term loosly, as it is used in the west) would be wrong, but such an event itself is not something we believe to be impossible.

How? There is no Church without a Bishop. There has to be at least one (or three) left.
True. I suppose it is impossible then.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #127 on: June 15, 2011, 01:05:06 AM »

Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome. 
My guess is that it is more like positive thinking.

I'd like to agree with you, but frankly I have to admit that I find it strange.

Just consider if the interview had instead said this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."

We won't be seeing that, I'll bet you. What are we to conclude? That Catholics have more respect for Presbyterians than for Orthodox?
I don't see an analogy between the situation of Catholics vis a vis Presbyterians and Catholics vis a vis Orthodox. Catholics recognise the Orthodox priesthood.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #128 on: June 15, 2011, 09:35:21 AM »

Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome. 
My guess is that it is more like positive thinking.

I'd like to agree with you, but frankly I have to admit that I find it strange.

Just consider if the interview had instead said this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."

We won't be seeing that, I'll bet you. What are we to conclude? That Catholics have more respect for Presbyterians than for Orthodox?
I don't see an analogy between the situation of Catholics vis a vis Presbyterians and Catholics vis a vis Orthodox. Catholics recognise the Orthodox priesthood.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you think about it, the fact that we recognize the validity of the Orthodox priesthood, but not the Presbyterian ministry, is all the more reason that we should be showing more respect toward Orthodox than toward Presbyterians.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #129 on: June 15, 2011, 10:35:35 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.)
LOL. Hiding the horror?

You can't handle the truth. No, truth-handler, you. I deride your truth-handling abilities.

For anyone who doesn't already know, that line's from Robert "Sideshow Bob" Terwilliger (obviously a parody of A Few Good Men).

Seriously though, I could have said "Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I don't know." But I decided it sounded better the other way.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 37,963



« Reply #130 on: June 15, 2011, 11:37:29 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
I happened upon an interesting tidbit today, "Eastern Schism: A Thing of the Past?" which is an "Interview With Father Marko Rupnik, of Aletti Center". (Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I won't tell you.)
LOL. Hiding the horror?

You can't handle the truth. No, truth-handler, you. I deride your truth-handling abilities.

For anyone who doesn't already know, that line's from Robert "Sideshow Bob" Terwilliger (obviously a parody of A Few Good Men).

Seriously though, I could have said "Don't ask me what the Aletti Center is, because I don't know." But I decided it sounded better the other way.
LOL. Truth-handling.  Is that like snake handling?
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #131 on: June 15, 2011, 11:53:40 AM »

Careful there, if you keep joking with Catholics someone might think you're an ecumaniac.  Shocked
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #132 on: June 15, 2011, 02:03:57 PM »

Careful there, if you keep joking with Catholics someone might think you're an ecumaniac.  Shocked

I invented that word. Please, pay the royalty.
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.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #133 on: June 15, 2011, 06:53:58 PM »

Zenit is known for being uber optimistic that the Orthodox are about to submit to Rome. 
My guess is that it is more like positive thinking.

I'd like to agree with you, but frankly I have to admit that I find it strange.

Just consider if the interview had instead said this:

"Q: What happened, then, to those disputed issues between Catholic and Presbyterians? For example, the most famous, predestination.

Father X: On the question of the predestination, there is nothing left, as the Catholic Church, in a declaration a few years ago, totally resolved the question, which today does not represent any difficulty with the Presbyterians."

We won't be seeing that, I'll bet you. What are we to conclude? That Catholics have more respect for Presbyterians than for Orthodox?
I don't see an analogy between the situation of Catholics vis a vis Presbyterians and Catholics vis a vis Orthodox. Catholics recognise the Orthodox priesthood.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you think about it, the fact that we recognize the validity of the Orthodox priesthood, but not the Presbyterian ministry, is all the more reason that we should be showing more respect toward Orthodox than toward Presbyterians.
Right
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #134 on: June 15, 2011, 07:28:27 PM »

Careful there, if you keep joking with Catholics someone might think you're an ecumaniac.  Shocked

I invented that word. Please, pay the royalty.

Alright, but I invented the word royalty, so you owe me as well.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.202 seconds with 74 queries.