OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 17, 2014, 12:21:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Poll
Question: When will dual-communion between the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, be possible?  (Voting closed: June 20, 2011, 08:55:23 AM)
Within the next 10 to 20 years - 5 (10%)
Pshh! Not within my lifetime! - 7 (14%)
When the Pope becomes Orthodox - 21 (42%)
When the East stops being schismatic - 1 (2%)
NEVER - 8 (16%)
Other - 8 (16%)
Total Voters: 50

Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is "dual communion" on the horizon?  (Read 7126 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« on: June 09, 2011, 08:55:23 AM »

A recent poll asked "When will our two Churches reunite?"

I'd like to see how peoples' answers will differ if the goal in question is slightly less ambitious: dual-communion between the Melkite Catholic Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, as proposed by the Zoghby Initiative. (If you choose a different answer here than you did on the other poll, please tell us about it.)



Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2011, 09:02:51 AM »

The Zoghby initiative is nonsensical- I don't see how it coul be the basis of anything.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 867


« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2011, 10:00:39 AM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2011, 10:15:20 AM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.

Yes, I do recall that. But as I understand it, it was pretty innocent -- a matter of misunderstanding without intention to deceive.

Doesn't really pertain to my question anyhow.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2011, 10:21:50 AM »

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2011, 10:26:01 AM »

The Constantinople Bishop Kallistos Ware of Oxford has a booklet "Communion ands Intercommunion" which explains the theological basis of the Orthodox inability to accept the concept of "intercommunion."  It is published by the Anglican Sisters of the Love of God, Oxford.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2011, 10:27:04 AM »

Christ is ascended!

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2011, 10:28:41 AM »

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2011, 11:01:54 AM »

Christ is ascended!

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.

Intercommunion already happens, but I'm talking about "dual communion" in the sense that the Melkite Catholic Church, while continuing to be in full communion with the Vatican, would simultaneously be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2011, 11:15:13 AM »

Christ is ascended!

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy), and otherwise, it will never happen.

Intercommunion already happens, but I'm talking about "dual communion" in the sense that the Melkite Catholic Church, while continuing to be in full communion with the Vatican, would simultaneously be in full communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

Such a restricted version of communion would be impossible since every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.

Yes, there are anomalies in what Antioch does in practice and the effect is that it may be seen as being in in communion with the Pope as Supreme Authority in the Melkite Church (CCEO 43.)

Perhaps this will be addressed if the forthcoming All-Orthodox Council ever takes place?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2011, 12:32:05 PM »

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.
Right. I know on our end we are less strict in terms of who we commune, but I was thinking of RC-EO intercommunion, and I was thinking of a situation where both Communions agree to intercommunion. My Church already allows EO to commune, but to me intercommunion means that both sides agree to commune one another.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #11 on: June 09, 2011, 03:48:40 PM »

The Zoghby initiative is nonsensical- I don't see how it coul be the basis of anything.

So would you say that dual communion isn't a "slightly less ambitious" goal than total reunion of Catholics and Orthodox?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2011, 03:49:47 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2011, 04:19:55 PM »

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy)


It also amounts to a rejection of Orthodoxy. It's silly position which has more to do with indifference and ignorance than anything else.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 #13 on: June 09, 2011, 04:48:55 PM »

As I said in the other thread: "When the Pope becomes Orthodox."

Of course, the Melkite Church is free to break communion with Rome and join with their Syriac brethen. However, that is not "dual communion" as described by the OP, but the Melkites rejecting the heterodoxy of Rome and returning to the Church.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2011, 10:32:03 PM »

I answered the same here as I did on my poll: not within my lifetime. Right now, it appears there are just too many differences between us, and I don't see even a small scale intercommunion taking place between one of the Eastern Catholic Churches and one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches until the doctrinal issues between the two Communions as a whole are ironed out.

The Vatican has approved intercommunion of the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church.
Right. I know on our end we are less strict in terms of who we commune, but I was thinking of RC-EO intercommunion, and I was thinking of a situation where both Communions agree to intercommunion. My Church already allows EO to commune, but to me intercommunion means that both sides agree to commune one another.

If I remember correctly, the agreement between the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East is pretty symmetrical.
Logged

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

Posts: 867


« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2011, 02:26:02 PM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.

Yes, I do recall that. But as I understand it, it was pretty innocent -- a matter of misunderstanding without intention to deceive.

Doesn't really pertain to my question anyhow.

In what way was it innocent?  A story was made up about the EP saying in an interview that he agreed to "dual communion" between Eastern catholics and Orthodox.  He did not say this.  There is no record of his saying this in print and the EP denied he ever said it.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2011, 03:01:37 PM »

I put "other," as it already happens between Antiochians who say a pox on both houses of Old and New Rome (but since supremacy and primacy is a dogmatic matter for the Vatican, that amounts to a rejection of its heterodoxy)


It also amounts to a rejection of Orthodoxy. It's silly position which has more to do with indifference and ignorance than anything else.
If that were true, they would have bowed to Mecca a millenium ago: Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  We are rather indifferent to their ignorant one upmanship.  On the questions of belief, we side with Orthodoxy, which isnt' the same as siding with New Rome.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2011, 03:05:30 PM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance. Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome". The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2011, 03:06:37 PM by Iconodule » Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2011, 03:27:14 PM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance.

Knowing the communities in question, no, I'm not.

Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome".

Acts I (the formation of the Melkite hierarchy in 1724) and Act II (ridding Antioch of the Phanriots c. 1890-1917) says otherwise.

The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
I'm not so sure they have accepted them.
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2011, 03:34:49 PM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance.

Knowing the communities in question, no, I'm not.

Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome".

Acts I (the formation of the Melkite hierarchy in 1724) and Act II (ridding Antioch of the Phanriots c. 1890-1917) says otherwise.



The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2011, 03:44:03 PM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance.

Knowing the communities in question, no, I'm not.

Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome".

Acts I (the formation of the Melkite hierarchy in 1724) and Act II (ridding Antioch of the Phanriots c. 1890-1917) says otherwise.



The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?
As far as they are concerned, they are in communion with Antioch.
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: 5,670



« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2011, 04:04:36 PM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance.

Knowing the communities in question, no, I'm not.

Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome".

Acts I (the formation of the Melkite hierarchy in 1724) and Act II (ridding Antioch of the Phanriots c. 1890-1917) says otherwise.



The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?

Not agreeing with something isn't the same as saying "That's heresy. We can't be in full communion with anyone who believes that."
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2011, 04:42:56 PM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.

Yes, I do recall that. But as I understand it, it was pretty innocent -- a matter of misunderstanding without intention to deceive.

Doesn't really pertain to my question anyhow.

In what way was it innocent?  A story was made up about the EP saying in an interview that he agreed to "dual communion" between Eastern catholics and Orthodox.  He did not say this.  There is no record of his saying this in print and the EP denied he ever said it.

My memory is a little rusty on the details, so I went looking to see what I said about it at the time:

06-20-2008 (the day after the Catholic World News article Orthodox leader suggests "dual unity" for Eastern Catholics)
Quote
Have any of you seen the text of the actual interview? I'd very much like to read it (even if only an automatic translation from German).

06-21-2008
Quote
Something I was just thinking: RISU and CWNews are well-known, reputable news sources. But I've never heard of this German ecumenical journal called "Cyril and Methodius".

I don't doubt that it exists, but is it a reputable journal? Is it possible that "Cyril and Methodius" printed a fictional interview? Seems unlikely, but I can't rule it out.

06-21-2008
Quote
You know ... I'm starting to think this will turn out to be pretty simple. Namely, that the EP was simply saying that, relatively speaking, we are closer to seeing a "dual communion" situation than we are to seeing full communion between Rome and Constantinople. (That doesn't in any way imply that the EP thinks "dual communion" can happen now.)

(I also posted a message on 06-22-2008, but just to say that the text of the interview didn't appear to be available online.)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2011, 04:50:54 PM »

the Catholic World News article Orthodox leader suggests "dual unity" for Eastern Catholics

which can be found here. Note the clause at the end of this sentence:

Quote
Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople welcomed the proposal in an interview with the magazine Cyril and Methodius, the RISU news service reports.

I think it's clear the Catholic World News wasn't fabricating anything. If anything, they were rather guilible not to say "Wait a second, this report from RISU doesn't seem right."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2011, 11:22:42 PM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.

Eastern Catholics claimed no such thing.  Catholic World News claimed the EP suggested it in an uncredited article.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=59186
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2011, 11:31:52 PM »

No it is not on the horizon.  Remember about 3 years ago the Eastern catholics claimed that the EP agreed to "dual communion".  A totally false claim.

Eastern Catholics claimed no such thing. 

Very good point. Attributing that incident to "the Eastern catholics" is absurd.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2011, 08:48:07 AM »

When comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him, not your biased religious subjective Catholic news agencies like RISU or AsiaNews.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 08:49:29 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2011, 09:26:29 AM »

When comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him, not your biased religious subjective Catholic news agencies like RISU or AsiaNews.

On the 5th of July 2008, the Ecumenical Patriarchate clearly denied the claims in question (see below). That absolutely settled the question for me. (How could it not?) It was only during those 2 weeks or so in between the Catholic World News article and the EP's press release that I thought the claim had merit. (And, in fact, if you read the quotes above, you'll see that even on June 21 I was "starting to think" that the claim was wrong. But that's beside the point.)

So I too would say that "When comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him".

Quote
PRESS RELEASE

With respect to the recently published articles reporting that allegedly His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew believes that it is possible for the Greek Catholics (Uniates) to have a “double union”, in other words, full communion with Rome as well as with Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate refutes this inaccurate statement and affirms it was never made.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate repeats its position that full union in faith is a prerequisite for sacramental communion.

At the Patriarchate, the 5th of July 2008
From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2011, 09:35:39 AM »

Patriarch Peter III of Antioch (we all know who Peter I was  Cheesy) and his successor Pat. John VI saw no reason to get involved in the squabbles of Old and New Rome.  

The Melkites are in communion with Old Rome and with its heresies, even if they don't vocally profess them. I think you're mistaking duplicity with resistance.

Knowing the communities in question, no, I'm not.

Rejecting the Vatican heresies has nothing to do with "squabbles of Old and New Rome".

Acts I (the formation of the Melkite hierarchy in 1724) and Act II (ridding Antioch of the Phanriots c. 1890-1917) says otherwise.



The Church of Antioch should not be in communion with the Melkite Catholics unless the latter have broken communion with Old Rome and explicitly renounced its false doctrine.
I'm not so sure they have accepted them.

Then why are they in communion with Rome?

Not agreeing with something isn't the same as saying "That's heresy. We can't be in full communion with anyone who believes that."

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 09:36:11 AM by Iconodule » Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2011, 10:38:40 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2011, 10:52:39 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

Messages 10 and 11 in this thread provide answers. 
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31756.msg501844.html#msg501844

The first from Russia's most distinguished contemporary theologian.

The second from the doyen of the Church's theologians of the last 100 years, Saint Justin Popovic.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2011, 11:07:46 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2011, 11:15:55 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchs, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2011, 11:23:23 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of co-existence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchs, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Yes, it speaks to a mood of nonsensical relativism and a thirst for unity above truth in the Vatican, and also the dishonesty of the Melkites. I can, of course, agree with the Melkites' rejection of these doctrines, but I can't respect their position as long as they remain in communion with Rome.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2011, 12:03:42 PM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 12:05:42 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2011, 12:10:01 PM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

When he wishes to enter the Church we should have opinions on his imagination creations.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2011, 12:34:14 PM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

It is the case when anything is proclaimed dogma, by anyone. To say it is dogma is to say "everyone must believe this; whoever rejects this is anathema." It's impossible to co-exist in a Church with someone who proclaims a false dogma- you can't say, "oh, that's just his opinion" because he will demand that you believe it and threaten anathema if you don't. And it is impossible to enter communion with such a person until he renounces his dogma.

If Papal Infallibility or supremacy become optional, they in fact become nonsensical as well. The Pope can't be supreme universal pastor, except where he's not. He can't make a statement that's infallible except where it's not considered infallible.
Logged

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

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


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


« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2011, 12:40:22 PM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

I don't think anyone means to suggest that everything the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaim as dogma must be heresy.  Some of it may be true, and some it may be a thelogumenon (sp?).  However, when the Pope declares he is infallible (even in limited situations) that must be either true or untrue.  There is no middle ground there, you must either accept it is true, or you must deny it as heresy.  Likewise for the Pope's claim of universal jurisdiction.

As well, I would point out that it is impossible to be in communion with someone claiming as dogma (something that all must believe) what you hold as untrue, if not heresy.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2011, 09:49:23 PM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

So, if I understand you correctly, if the Pope proclaims X to be a dogma, then you (and everyone) must either agree with him or else reject X as heresy?

This begets the question, what if it was someone other than the Pope? E.g. could we also say that if the Archbishop of Cantebury proclaims X to be a dogma, then you must either agree with him or reject X as heresy? If not, then it would seem that you are, in some sense, acknowledging the Pope, since he has the power to remove the "middle position".

I don't think anyone means to suggest that everything the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury proclaim as dogma must be heresy.  Some of it may be true, and some it may be a thelogumenon (sp?).  However, when the Pope declares he is infallible (even in limited situations) that must be either true or untrue.  There is no middle ground there, you must either accept it is true, or you must deny it as heresy.  Likewise for the Pope's claim of universal jurisdiction.

As well, I would point out that it is impossible to be in communion with someone claiming as dogma (something that all must believe) what you hold as untrue, if not heresy.

I have found, on this board and elsewhere, that Orthodox believers do not hold precisely the same truths to be self-evident.  It is also clear that from Orthodox jurisdiction to Orthodox jurisdiction, some pretty important defining teachings do differ.

How does this fit within the definition of "shared faith"?...particularly with your assertion that there is no so-called middle ground?
Logged

JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


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


« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2011, 09:57:08 PM »

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2011, 10:08:03 PM »

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment.  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.

M.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 10:08:27 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2011, 02:10:42 AM »


There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

Dear Mary,

Yes, there is.  It is a variety transmitted to us in the patristic writings.

There is an interesting essay "Salvation By Christ: A Response to Credenda /
Agenda on Orthodoxy's Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
,"
by Carmen Fragapane.

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

Carmen Fragapane writes:

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their published
explanations of salvation.
 

[For example it is absent from Bishop Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in one
particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The seven
ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]
alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvation
includes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying
thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually
incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to
the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no
logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While
insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, the
Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement.
The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models
are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation" ..."


« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 02:15:05 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2011, 02:14:10 AM »


/\  When the question concerns union with Rome the question before the Church is to make a decision whether Rome's developed teaching on Atonement is still within patristic parameters.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 6,670



« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2011, 02:20:56 AM »

Duel communion will never take place until Rome accepts the Toll Houses. This is the top priority.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2011, 02:22:38 AM »


Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

The Myth of the Eternal Sphragis

Please see message 86
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32995.msg523081.html#msg523081
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2011, 03:14:53 AM »

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of coexistence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchies, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.


As a Catholic, I agree that the recent uppitiness of Eastern Catholic Churches is a disturbing trend.  It's true that these particular Churches are encouraged by the Vatican to keep their won unique, Eastern liturgical and spiritual traditions, but they do not and never will have permission to deny either the Pope, his supremacy and infallibility, or the post schism ecumenical councils.  These recent trends among EC's are no doubt the result of a misapplication of the Vatican Council II documents on the Eastern Churches and its unsuppressed development came from the laxity of the previous Pontificate in regards to supervising certain Church disciplines.  It is totally impossible to be any type of Catholic in union with the See of Rome unless one accepts the very dogma's and doctrines which make Catholicism unique and exceptional amongst the worlds Christians.

This whole situation could be compared to a group of RC's who became Western rite Orthodox, yet continued to insist on recognizing Papal infallibility and supremacy as well as the post schism councils.  It just can't be done and I predict that Papa Benedict will soon start busting some EC heads unless the practice is soon stopped by them.

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2011, 04:12:22 AM »

I know I'm only new here but I stuck my oar in so to speak and voted 'other' - for nothing is impossible where God is concerned.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2011, 05:13:34 AM »

  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.


As far as I know all Orthodox accept out liturgical tradition as unimpeachable and inspired by the Spirit. 

The Church's teaching on prayer for the dead and their release from torments is found in the Kneeling Prayers recited this Sunday on Pentecost

Please see message 27
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36571.msg579296.html#msg579296

Those who wish to say that there is no release from hell have the unenviable task of explaining why they contradict our tradition.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2011, 08:16:31 AM »

Duel communion will never take place until Rome accepts the Toll Houses. This is the top priority.

Hey don't make me come over there!
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: 35,605



« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2011, 08:54:15 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

Since Papal supremacy, infallibility, etc., are promulgated as dogma, one has no choice to accept them or reject them as heresy. There is no tenable middle position.

Is this a general Orthodox principle?

It's simply logic. Since the Vatican has promulgated these doctrines as dogma, with accompanying anathema, there is no choice. There is no possibility of coexistence between someone who proclaims something as dogma, to be believed by the whole Church, and someone who does not accept this dogma.

It becomes very doubtful and nebulous when Eastern Catholics, their websites and their senior hierarchies, deny supremacy and infallibility and no action is taken against them by Rome.  This is particularly true of the Melkites.

Of course this confused situation simply could not form the basis of any unity with the Orthodox Church.


As a Catholic, I agree that the recent uppitiness of Eastern Catholic Churches is a disturbing trend.  It's true that these particular Churches are encouraged by the Vatican to keep their won unique, Eastern liturgical and spiritual traditions, but they do not and never will have permission to deny either the Pope, his supremacy and infallibility, or the post schism ecumenical councils.  These recent trends among EC's are no doubt the result of a misapplication of the Vatican Council II documents on the Eastern Churches and its unsuppressed development came from the laxity of the previous Pontificate in regards to supervising certain Church disciplines.  It is totally impossible to be any type of Catholic in union with the See of Rome unless one accepts the very dogma's and doctrines which make Catholicism unique and exceptional amongst the worlds Christians.

This whole situation could be compared to a group of RC's who became Western rite Orthodox, yet continued to insist on recognizing Papal infallibility and supremacy as well as the post schism councils.  It just can't be done and I predict that Papa Benedict will soon start busting some EC heads unless the practice is soon stopped by them.


Pope Pius did that at Vatican I (ask any Melkite), but it didn't work.  He just hit the nail on the head
Logged

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

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



« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2011, 09:27:06 AM »

The Spirit has descended!

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue

I had been in four autocephalous Churches (including three of the ancient patriarchates) and through eight others and an autonomous Church (Finland) for years before I had even heard of toll houses.



They seem-apart from some extreme enthusiasts (most of whom I've come across share old calendarist views), they seem to form the obsession of apologists for the Vatican who, in desperation, profer toll houses as proof of some need of a supreme pontiff.  No Orthodox Church has adopted them as an article of Faith, though ROCOR has banned discussion of them, because of people trying to make theologoumena into dogma.  Speaking of theologoumena:



and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment.  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

And they can have their opinions, as long as they admit that God, Who alone knows, has revealed very little on the matter (odd how the Vatican's "private revelations" tries to make up for this silence).  As long as that is accepted one can speculate-although speculation is never encouraged in Orthodoxy-as much as one wants. The Holy Synod of ROCOR put it very well:

Quote
Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false notions on questions of importance to our salvation
http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.aspx



Speculation on such matters is how the Vatican came up with purgatory and the merit system, which it tried to cram down our thoats at Brest, etc.

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

I was surprised to find out that it is not eternal.  I was one of the few who evidently thought it was, but seeing the majority teaching-and the one which is implimented by those in involved and in charge of such things, i.e. the bishops and priests-I have found such is not so.  So your "some" I'm afraid are the uninformed minority.  I don't know of anyone who views a defrocked priest as a priest, and none where reality rather than theory is involved.



There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

If one thinks of it at all.  Having been accomplished, the Orthodox are less worried about the mechanics of the Cross than actually putting its power into practice.  In that context, "a great variety in how one views atonement" doesn't necessitate mutually ecclusive ideas.  I've not seen it come up as an issue except in the US, with the great number of Protestant, especially Evangelical, converts coming in, some with scars and some with their ideas, coming to their new monastery with their old rule.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much
Given that Orthodoxy is consensus driven-i.e. the Consensus of the Fathers reflected in the Sense of the Faithful-such matters as "tie breakers" rarely if ever come up.  And any primate who overstates his power and authority is quickly corrected.

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...

LOL.  They are very inconcequential. But if that is all you got, I guess you have to run with it. They are no where near the importance of accepting or rejecting Lourdes and Fatima has in your ecclesiastical community, for example.



Chalcedon and the calendar (not so much in itself, but what it has come to represent) are the only really dividing issues, and yet you didn't mention them.



So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.
Sort of like finding out your fiancee is addicted to drugs, and finding out your wife is addicted to drugs, and how that plays into your decision to stay with her or not. But not exactly, as the things you talk about is on the level of finding out she thinks soup is an essential part of dinner, and you can't stand soup.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,168



« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2011, 03:05:25 PM »

Is dual communion anything like dual lightsabers?

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2011, 05:17:08 PM »

I know I'm only new here but I stuck my oar in so to speak and voted 'other' - for nothing is impossible where God is concerned.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2011, 05:40:17 PM »

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.

Can you point to a specific issue, instead of a vague notion that faith differs?

Toll houses is one such issue and various positions concerning the particular/partial judgment.  Some say that once you die your fate is sealed.  Others say things could change.

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

There is great variety in how one views atonement in Orthodoxy.

There's a fair amount of variety among those who think there is actual primatial power and authority in Orthodoxy and there are others who go in the opposite direct making Orthodox primates some very over-priced tie breakers...which also means that Orthodoxy is a democracy where majority rules...others say not so much

There are others things, but these few things are not lightweight issues...So I guess it's ok if you are in communion with one another to have these differences in faith...but if you are not in communion now, then everything has to be perfect prior to establishing communion...I guess.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2011, 05:53:47 PM »

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.


There are two issues which divide the Orthodox today.

1.  Our approach to ecumenism and that includes our attitude to the Roman Catholic Church

2.  The Calendar issue.

Neither is an internal matter of faith.  Both are external issues which do not impinge on the faith.  They are not so urgent that we must loose sleep over them.  In good time God will resolve them as is best.

While it is indeed true that it will be the bishops who hammer out the terms of resumed communion it will be the Church's decision whether to implement them or not.  Bishops, priests and laity will make the decision.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2011, 08:55:46 PM »

In addition to those few things listed below, I think the greatest internal discord in Orthodoxy, aside from the diptychs, is the fact that Orthodoxy is deeply divided on how her members perceive the Catholic Church and a shared faith.  Some Orthodox say it is no more than the jurisdictional aspect of the papacy which is the problem.  And this of course relates directly to the internal ecclesial matter of the diptychs.

From that point on there unfolds a huge variety of laundry lists of things that "need" to change in the Catholic Church.   But even on the Internet it is difficult to come to any real consensus.

People tell me all kinds of things privately about what they think is important or not and it all varies wildly and there are many more who think we do share a common faith than those who think that we do not, at least in terms of the mail that I've gotten over the years.  Each person seems to have one or two things about Catholic teaching that bothers them but very few are unwilling to listen to explanations or clarifications.

So I would say that kind of discontinuity is not very indicative of the more hard-line positions taken by some.

As someone noted here:  the bishops and hierarchs are the ones responsible for hammering out the terms of resumed communion.


There are two issues which divide the Orthodox today.

1.  Our approach to ecumenism and that includes our attitude to the Roman Catholic Church

2.  The Calendar issue.

Neither is an internal matter of faith.  Both are external issues which do not impinge on the faith.  They are not so urgent that we must loose sleep over them.  In good time God will resolve them as is best.

While it is indeed true that it will be the bishops who hammer out the terms of resumed communion it will be the Church's decision whether to implement them or not.  Bishops, priests and laity will make the decision.

I keep forgetting that some Orthodox think that universal Orthodoxy is a democracy!!...

I would say that confusion over the Catholic Church would be an issue of faith since some Orthodox think we are close and others do not...That seems to me to be based on how they perceive our doctrine or not which also reflects how they see their own.  When they are poles apart that says something about Orthodox beliefs, and how you all are taught.  You can brush it off if you like...however...
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2011, 09:09:30 PM »


I keep forgetting that some Orthodox think that universal Orthodoxy is a democracy!!...


Hmmmm... that betokens an unexpected gap in your knowledge of Orthodoxy or just a desire to be polemical?

We would not want to diminish the enormous authority with which the Spirit endows the episcopate but we should not forget that our ideas of "Church" vary enormously from the Roman Catholics with their sharp division into the Ecclesia Docens (Pope and Magisterium) vs. the Ecclesia Discens (the great unwashed.)  This is the triumph of the ruling elite over the faithful, the triumph of Magisterialism over the Church and Tradition.

I am sure you are well read in these things and don't need me to explain.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2011, 10:55:54 PM »

Some say that holy orders is eternal.   Other protest not.

I was surprised to find out that it is not eternal.  I was one of the few who evidently thought it was, but seeing the majority teaching-and the one which is implimented by those in involved and in charge of such things, i.e. the bishops and priests-I have found such is not so.  So your "some" I'm afraid are the uninformed minority.  I don't know of anyone who views a defrocked priest as a priest, and none where reality rather than theory is involved.

That's curious ... I was under the impression that Catholics and Orthodox agreed that holy orders are eternal.

Do you happen to know whether the Vatican regards this as a church-dividing issue?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2011, 12:04:16 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 12:04:50 AM by stanley123 » Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #59 on: June 13, 2011, 01:05:23 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?
Or the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.

Or the Old Calendarists.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: June 13, 2011, 01:12:14 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #61 on: June 13, 2011, 01:15:20 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.
I thought that for a while the Serbian Orthodox Church recognised the Macedonian Orthodox Church?
Also, I thought that the UOC KP, and the MOC were in communion?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: June 13, 2011, 01:39:34 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.
I thought that for a while the Serbian Orthodox Church recognised the Macedonian Orthodox Church?
Also, I thought that the UOC KP, and the MOC were in communion?

The Serbian Orthodox Church was very friendly in the early years to the Macedonian Church.  During the time of Tito they looked upon them as Tito's effort to cause havoc in the Serbian Church.   The Serbs actually took Macedonians into their seminaries and trained them for the Macedonian Church.  That all ceased in more recent years when the Macedonians turned nasty and had the State imprison the Serbian bishop Jovan.  I think he is back in prison at the moment?

I don't know if the schismatic Macedonian Church is in communion with the Ukrainian Patriarch, defrocked and returned to lay status by the Synod of the Russian Church.
Logged
mwoerl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Church Abroad
Posts: 49


« Reply #63 on: June 13, 2011, 05:06:30 AM »

"I too would say that 'When it comes to the words of Patriarch Bartolomeo I trust him' ".

Patriarch Bartholomeo I has called Rome and Constantinople "Sister Churches." I a trusting that assessment more every day ...
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #64 on: June 13, 2011, 08:03:29 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

But what about ROCOR until 5 (I think) years ago?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #65 on: June 13, 2011, 08:20:47 AM »

... every Orthodox Church maintains full communion with all other Orthodox Churches and concelebratse with all others.
What about the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Kyivan Patriarchate?

These are not canonical Churches.   No Orthodox Church is in communion with them and they are not in communion even with one another.  The first two are in a position a little analogous to the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church.

But what about ROCOR until 5 (I think) years ago?

Potted history............

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was canonically established in 1921 by a Decree of Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Synod of bishops.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was in canonical communion and concelebration with every Orthodox Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad remained in full communion with all Orthodox Churches (except with Moscow which was increasingly Sovietised) for another 50 years.

But in 1969, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America quietly dropped the name of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad from its list of Sister Churches.  This was a result of the complaints of the Primate of ROCA against the ecumenical activities of the crazy 1960s.

One by one the other Orthodox Churches also stopped concelebration with ROCA.

However, two Orthodox Churches remained in full communion with ROCA through all its existence, the Church of Jerusalem and the Church of Serbia.


It should be noted that what in fact ceased from 1969 onwards was NOT communion since ROCA people continued to receive communion in the other Orthodox Churches and vice versa.  What in fact ceased was the concelebration of bishops and clergy. 

2007 - the signing in Moscow of the Act of Canonical Communion between the Church of Russia and the Russian Church Abroad.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 674



« Reply #66 on: June 13, 2011, 06:41:05 PM »

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.
Logged
mwoerl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian Church Abroad
Posts: 49


« Reply #67 on: June 13, 2011, 07:14:58 PM »

Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, dual communion...

After Vatican II, Eastern Catholics were given more leeway than thye had prior to that. Nonetheless, Melkites could not "make a decision" to enter into communion with an Orthodox Church, and any such agreement, simply by the nature of the Unia, would include Roman Catholics. Thus, Melkites could not be in "dual communion" with an Orthodox Church-if Rome was in communion witj an Orthodox Church, the Melkites would be also. If Rome was not, the Melkites could not be. Eastern Catholics and Rome are not "in communion" with each other as are Orthodox Churches-Eastern Catholics are under Rome, period. The Roman Catholic Church has no ruling Bishops as do the Orthodox-all Bishops are essentially answerable to the Pope, and are his Vicars. In other words, any Church not under Rome cannot be 'in communion' with 'part' of the Papal holdings ... its all or nothing. Theologically as well ... how could the Infallible Pope accept into 'communion' those who do not believe in his Infallibility? You are 'under' Rome, or you are not. And, there are Eastern Catholics who are interestred in none of this "nonsense" (their view). In the late 1990s I ran across a book by a Ukrainian Eastern Catholics who had been involved in Ukrainian nationalist underground activities against the Soviet Union. He had been in the Gulag for years, etc., and when he was released, wrote a book about his experiences. He denounced the Orthodox Church as totally heretical, and wanted to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. He spoke as if this was a common attitrude among his compatriots ...

The Oriental Orthodox and Rome, in the early 1990s, had made several agrrements, and were preparing several more-I have not followed this since then, but at that time, the Amenians, Copts, Syrians and 'Thomas Christians' in India had agrements ranging from rules that mixed marriages were to be held in the church of the wife, to allowing intercommunion in case of 'necessity,' to agreements for 'sharing formation of priests,' and allowing generally all 'mysteries' to be shared in different circumstances. The pending agreements were for, of course, further interaction of all sorts. If Rome has indeed "permitted the Chaldeans (Eastern Catholics originally in the Assyrian Church) to be 'in communion' with the Assyrian Church, then there is a similar agreement with Rome. Such agreements were being discussed between the Vatican and the Assyrians in the early 1990s also. And, this type of thing between O.O. and Rome probably goes back even further.

so, "dual communion" -Rome and X, Orthodoxy Church of .... and X-will not only NOT be seen in my lifetime, it is impossible the way things stand today. Under Rome, or not. No middle option.

U-word removed - MK
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 07:21:18 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: June 13, 2011, 07:20:37 PM »

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #69 on: June 13, 2011, 07:44:09 PM »

Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, dual communion...

After Vatican II, Eastern Catholics were given more leeway than thye had prior to that. Nonetheless, Melkites could not "make a decision" to enter into communion with an Orthodox Church, and any such agreement, simply by the nature of the Unia, would include Roman Catholics. Thus, Melkites could not be in "dual communion" with an Orthodox Church-if Rome was in communion witj an Orthodox Church, the Melkites would be also. If Rome was not, the Melkites could not be.

That would appear to be the Vatican's position, based the response that they issued to the Melkite Proposal.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #70 on: June 14, 2011, 01:19:23 AM »

...so, "dual communion" -Rome and X, Orthodoxy Church of .... and X-will not only NOT be seen in my lifetime, it is impossible the way things stand today.
Yes, the way things stand today. But tomorrow is a new day and there is always hope for reconciliation.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #71 on: June 14, 2011, 08:27:46 AM »

Historically, each union (or period of unions) has been different from the previous unions: the Union of Brest in the late 16th century was significantly different from the Council of Florence in the mid 15th century. The union with the Melkites in the early 18th century was significantly different from the Union of Brest in the late 16th century.

The unions of the late 20th and early 21th centuries have been different from all of those in a number of ways, not least of which is that they have mainly been unions with Anglicans, not with Orthodox. I don't think the significance of that has yet been fully appreciated by very many people.
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: 35,605



« Reply #72 on: June 14, 2011, 09:15:03 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?
I've only heard of it happening with Melkites in submission to the Vatican (at least nominally) in Syria, not even in Lebanon.  And I've never heard of it extended to Maronites, in fact I've heard the contrary asserted.
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
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 867


« Reply #73 on: June 14, 2011, 10:38:06 AM »

I thought the Antiochian Orthodox Church officially made a public statement in the USA that Melkites could not receive communion in their Orthodox Church.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 674



« Reply #74 on: June 14, 2011, 11:55:38 AM »

Anything's possible.  Rome is showing itself to be flexible in ways that were inconceivable 50 years ago (e.g., the Anglican Use and ordaining former Anglican clergy who are married).  As for the Orthodox, it has already happened that two Orthodox churches who are not in communion with each other are both in communion with a third Orthodox church.  It's not that much of a stretch to see the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkites being in communion with each other but not necessarily with all other Orthodox churches.

Do you know if the Antiochian practice of communing Melkites and Maronites, as well as a few other non-Orthodox, has any deleterious impact on other Orthodox clergy in the city, Russian, Greek, Serb?  How do they feel when they see Catholics in the communion line?

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about this to answer your questions.
Logged
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 272


« Reply #75 on: June 14, 2011, 12:17:57 PM »

Isa,

    In my experience in Lebanon, at least in the Archdiocese of Beirut, there's an ask-no-questions policy about communion. It's pretty universal there for Philipino and Sri Lankan domestic servants (presumably Latin Catholics) to be communed, not to mention the Ethiopians. I can also think of a lot of cases of Maronites communing, or even being regular parishioners of an Orthodox parish without formally converting. This of course isn't part of any formal agreement, it's just the pastoral reality on the ground.
Logged
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 867


« Reply #76 on: June 14, 2011, 01:03:53 PM »

I thought the Antiochian Orthodox Church officially made a public statement in the USA that Melkites could not receive communion in their Orthodox Church.

This is the information I was looking for:
Quote
http://www.byzcath.org/faith/documents/melkite_initiative_2.htm

In October, 1996 the Holy Synod of the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate issued a statement which included these concerns on the Melkite proposal:

"In this regard, our Church questions the unity of faith which the Melkite Catholics think has become possible. Our Church believes that the discussion of this unity with Rome is still in its primitive stage. The first step toward unity on the doctrinal level, is not to consider as ecumenical, the Western local councils which the Church of Rome, convened, separately, including the First Vatican Council.

"And second the Melkite Catholics should not be obligated to accept such councils. Regarding inter-communion now, our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."

 In a letter to the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, Metropolitan Philip also said:

 "Please be advised that, while we pray for unity among all Christians, we cannot and will not enter into communion with non-Orthodox until we first achieve the unity of faith. As long as this unity of faith is not realized, there cannot be intercommunion. We ask you to adhere to the instructions which you receive from our office and hierarchs."

And it is important to note that the Roman Catholic Church also rejected this attempt at “dual communion”:

Quote
Current status of the plan
So far, neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox East has accepted the Zoghby initiative. Speaking for the Catholic Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) commented that "premature, unilateral initiatives are to be avoided, where the eventual results may not have been sufficiently considered."[13] The Antiochian Orthodox Church was circumspect toward his initiative, declaring in October 1996 that "our Synod believes that inter-communion cannot be separated from the unity of faith. Moreover, inter-communion is the last step in the quest for unity and not the first."[14]
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 01:18:17 PM by Orest » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #77 on: June 14, 2011, 01:13:00 PM »

the Spirit is descended!
Isa,

    In my experience in Lebanon, at least in the Archdiocese of Beirut, there's an ask-no-questions policy about communion. It's pretty universal there for Philipino and Sri Lankan domestic servants (presumably Latin Catholics) to be communed, not to mention the Ethiopians. I can also think of a lot of cases of Maronites communing, or even being regular parishioners of an Orthodox parish without formally converting. This of course isn't part of any formal agreement, it's just the pastoral reality on the ground.
unfortunately, never made it to Lebanon yet, so can't comment on it, but I have spoken with the Metropolitan of Beirut who specifically noted that the Maronites say it is "la meme chose" but it is not.

With all those churches I presume under the Vatican in Lebanon, rather odd that the Fillipinos and Sri Lankans would go to an Orthodox Church. Btw, the Malankara founded a WRO Church with its primate originally based in Ceylon/Sri Lanka.

As for the Ethiopians, who I presume are OO, it would be the same as the Syriac OO: not a problem, at least as far as Antioch is concerned.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2011, 01:22:59 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
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 272


« Reply #78 on: June 14, 2011, 01:39:52 PM »

Sri Lankans and Philipinos go to their employer's church, usually. If they're employed by a Muslim, they go to the nearest church, which in Beirut is often enough Orthodox. The one Latin parish in West Beirut has an English mass that gets a lot of Philipinos, but I assume it all depends on how much freedom they're given on their Sunday off.

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #79 on: June 14, 2011, 05:01:06 PM »

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.

I recall, 8 or 9 years ago, I got in the habit of visiting a nearby Episcopal church. The people were generally friendly, except that they seemed to give me dirty looks when they noticed I wasn't going up for communion. Although I guess that could have been my imagination. (This was in the US, so it's not directly relevant to your Lebanon discussion.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,168



« Reply #80 on: June 14, 2011, 05:56:44 PM »

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #81 on: June 14, 2011, 08:36:35 PM »

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

In Christ,
Andrew

No, not until you brought it up. But maybe that's because I usually call them "double-bladed lightsabers".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,168



« Reply #82 on: June 14, 2011, 09:38:11 PM »

Really? No one thinks of dual lightsabers?!?!

In Christ,
Andrew

No, not until you brought it up. But maybe that's because I usually call them "double-bladed lightsabers".
Ah, that would explain it!  Tongue

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #83 on: June 15, 2011, 08:21:56 PM »

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

Quote
24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #84 on: June 15, 2011, 09:47:56 PM »

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

Quote
24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.
That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #85 on: June 15, 2011, 11:17:19 PM »

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

Quote
24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.
That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?

I don't have time to post anything very substantial right now, but you can probably guess the Orthodox response, if you're familiar with their feelings toward "unions" in general.

I don't recall whether there was a Vatican response or not.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #86 on: June 15, 2011, 11:26:52 PM »

I don't have time to post anything very substantial right now, but you can probably guess the Orthodox response, if you're familiar with their feelings toward "unions" in general.

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren,
whose separation from us is tearing us apart."


~St Gregory of Nazianzen


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"


~Alexis Khomiakov
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #87 on: June 15, 2011, 11:30:23 PM »

"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... Oh that you could only consent to be again what
you were once, when we were both united in faith and communion!"


~Alexis Khomiakov

That's a beautiful quote.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #88 on: June 15, 2011, 11:55:17 PM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2011, 12:01:36 AM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #90 on: June 16, 2011, 12:11:55 AM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #91 on: June 16, 2011, 03:47:02 AM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?


We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #92 on: June 16, 2011, 03:59:14 AM »

And nothing else has changed, except for that?

Everything must change - otherwise you and I might never make it.

Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed.  And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.

If Christ's death means anything at all it means hope for a better future.  After all, hope is THE divine gift.  It is we humans that fouled the waters but that does not mean we have to remain in that condition.  

There is much the OC can offer humanity.  There is much the Western Church can offer.  

What has not changed is that hope that has been implanted inside all of us which is the spark from which a united vision of the future will ensure.  

Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: June 16, 2011, 04:10:07 AM »


"Changing the unchanging"

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/changing-the-unchanging/
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 16, 2011, 08:32:18 AM »

^^
If I recall from when I first read this some years ago, his plea was viewed by the Orthodox as an 'ex post facto' attempt to justify the relocation of his see from the historical see of L'viv in western Ukraine to Kiev where there was no significant Greek Catholic presence historically; as an attempt to wiggle into the dispute among the Orthodox groups in Ukraine; as evidence of his loyalty to Ukrainian nationalism as opposed to the charge that the Greek Catholics were first loyal to Rome rather than Ukraine and finally,  as expressing what was probably a heart-felt, but ultimately naive hope.

That being said, there is some fair amount of critical introspection about the impact of Unia and as to the treatment of his church by Rome. However, not enough for him to fully criticize Rome in any way meaningful to the Orthodox. In the end the speech had little impact outside of his own flock.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 08:33:35 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 16, 2011, 10:40:37 AM »

^^
If I recall from when I first read this some years ago, his plea was viewed by the Orthodox as an 'ex post facto' attempt to justify the relocation of his see from the historical see of L'viv in western Ukraine to Kiev where there was no significant Greek Catholic presence historically; as an attempt to wiggle into the dispute among the Orthodox groups in Ukraine; as evidence of his loyalty to Ukrainian nationalism as opposed to the charge that the Greek Catholics were first loyal to Rome rather than Ukraine and finally,  as expressing what was probably a heart-felt, but ultimately naive hope.

That being said, there is some fair amount of critical introspection about the impact of Unia and as to the treatment of his church by Rome. However, not enough for him to fully criticize Rome in any way meaningful to the Orthodox. In the end the speech had little impact outside of his own flock.

Insight is sometimes in very short supply around here: thank you.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #96 on: June 16, 2011, 10:50:17 AM »

Hi again. When I started this thread, I was mostly thinking of the Zoghby Initiative; but now it seems appropriate to post this text as well:

Quote
24 September 2005
  Cardinal Husar denounces Uniatism and urges to establish a one Orthodox-Catholic Church in Ukraine   

Moscow, September 24, Interfax - Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, following President Viktor Yuschenko, has spoken in favour of establishing a one Church in Ukraine.

According to the cardinal, all the church problems would be solved, ‘if Ukraine had one patriarch for all’. This is the basis on which both the Orthodox and Catholics could ‘return to the primary unity’, he believes as cited by the Religious Information Service in Ukraine this week.

At the same time, he adds, ‘there are no claims that a Greek Catholic should be the patriarch’; what is only important is that ‘this patriarch should be a person capable of uniting all’.

However, Husar lays down the condition ‘that this Church and this patriarch should be united with Rome’. It seems to mean that if the patriarch is not initially Uniate, he will have to join the Unia afterwards.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its leader affirms, ‘continues the historical policy of the Kiev Metropolia’, but as the cardinal’s present designation of ‘supreme archbishop’ is little known in ‘the tradition of Eastern Churches’, ‘an ordinary Christian does not know what to do with it’. In Husar’s view, the UGCC ‘has long grown up to act as patriarchate, for it is a natural development for a Local Church in the Eastern tradition’.

At the same time the cardinal is concerned about ‘the failure of the Latin theology to appreciate any sharing between Local Churches and Rome’. The Vatican, he believes, understood unity ‘as subjection’ and this process was called ‘Uniatism’.

‘Denouncing Uniatism today’, Husar points out, he seeks ‘a vision of unity which should be built not on uniformity, but on the preservation of everyone’s own tradition in the form of sharing’. This is ‘a rather complicated’ problem and, to the cardinal’s regret, ‘not quite adequately solved’. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics, however, intend ‘to move towards its solution and to be in the vanguard’, though ‘not everyone in Rome has been made to change his mind’.

The Supreme Archbishop underscores that in the matter of one Church ‘much hangs on relations with the Orthodox’, referring to both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church linked with the Moscow Patriarchate and the unrecognized Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

He believes however that among the Orthodox ‘the spiritual processes develop in a very much disordered way’ - a reason for which ‘we all are in a rather chaotic state, from which we should come out step by step’.

Husar says he would welcome the emergence of three patriarchs in Kiev at once, ‘Russian Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Autocephalous’, because they would make ‘three partners in negotiations’, and this would make ‘a concrete talk much easier’ and help to come ‘to the idea of one patriarch and one patriarchate’ much sooner.

According to the cardinal, ‘neither Moscow nor Rome will give us our unity’. It has to be developed independently. And then ‘Rome, Constantinople or Moscow, which is much younger compared to them, will just accept this fact’. He sees it more desirable to consider this issue ‘in a discussion in which various confessions and the government could participate’, since ‘the Ukrainian president has stated on many occasions that the government would like to see a one Local Church’.

In order to influence those Ukrainians who ‘are not disposed’ to such a dialogue today, the cardinal proposes to use the existing ‘examples of certain decisions’. He cites Northern Ireland, where ‘people are struggling for a life in harmony’. His also cited relations between the Palestinian and the Israeli as a similar example.

In Husar’s opinion, the negotiations on unification should be started by ‘people with higher education and solid religious training’. In doing so, they should understand that the aim of the negotiations is already clear: ‘the Church should be one, and we all recognize it’, so the unification ‘is not a matter of our good will. It is the commandment that is in point’.
That was 2005. What was the response to his initiative?

This interview discusses 'the answer of the Synod of the UOC[-MP] to the letter of Cardinal Husar concerning his idea of a "double unity" of Greek Catholics with Rome and Constantinople at the same time' (I don't know where to find the actual text of that answer):

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/webconf_archive/25537/
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2011, 11:33:25 AM »


Interesting read, thanks for the link!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #98 on: June 16, 2011, 11:50:01 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
And nothing else has changed, except for that?

Everything must change - otherwise you and I might never make it.

Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed.  And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.
yes, the OC has changed, like the change from infancy to adulthood.  Not like a sex change, which is what some ecclesiastical communities have done to themselves as of late.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 11:52:18 AM 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
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 16, 2011, 12:52:15 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
And nothing else has changed, except for that?

Everything must change - otherwise you and I might never make it.

Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed.  And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.
yes, the OC has changed, like the change from infancy to adulthood.  Not like a sex change, which is what some ecclesiastical communities have done to themselves as of late.

In case the lightbulb joke wasn't understood, we should note that the Holy Mountain does have electricity!
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 674



« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2011, 04:31:13 PM »

Orthodoxy does have a slow process and a fast process for change.  The fast one takes 500 years.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2011, 11:30:59 PM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?


We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.
It seems to me that you are forgetting about the  change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation  of St. Paul?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2011, 11:32:51 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
And nothing else has changed, except for that?

Everything must change - otherwise you and I might never make it.

Despite some words to the contrary, the OC has changed.  And despite supposed fears to the contrary, will change in the future.
yes, the OC has changed, like the change from infancy to adulthood.  Not like a sex change, which is what some ecclesiastical communities have done to themselves as of late.
Yes, it is true that the Roman Catholic Church has undergone some kind of a phase transition since Vatican II.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #103 on: June 17, 2011, 12:45:54 AM »

The Spirit is descended!


"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?


We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.
It seems to me that you are forgetting about the  change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation  of St. Paul?
This is the change that is thrown in our faces?

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads.  And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered). 

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #104 on: June 17, 2011, 01:01:24 AM »

This is the change that is thrown in our faces?

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads.  And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered). 

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.
Let's go back to the beginning of this discussion:
The quote that was given above:
"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
I don't think that what is asserted here (We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century...)  rings true because there has been a radical change in total contradiction to what was commanded by St. Paul in the New Testament. In the eighth century, St. Paul was strictly obeyed by the Orthodox Catholic Church, was he not? Now, in the west, the Orthodox practice is that this commandment of St. Paul does not have to be followed.  But that was not true before because in  the eighth century, the Orthodox followed the Bible and the commandment of St. Paul - universally and without reservation. 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 01:02:24 AM by stanley123 » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


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


« Reply #105 on: June 17, 2011, 02:56:12 AM »

What is meant by "The Orthodox Church has not, does not, and will not change." is not that everything is the same it always has been.  If that were the case, we would still meet in catacombs and have no canon of scripture.  If that were the case, we would still use solely the Liturgy of St. James.  If that were the case, we would not have electric lights in parishes.  If that were the case, seminaries wouldn't exist.  If that were the case, all services would still be in Koine Greek. 

What is meant by "The Orthodox Church has not, does not, and will not change." is that there has been NO change in any part of the deposit of faith.  Never has the understanding of the Holy Trinity changed.  Never has the belief in the veneration of the Saints changed.  Never has the belief in the necessity of the laying on of hands by bishops - for the ordination of priests and deacons - changed.  This is what is meant by the Orthodox Church being unchanging.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: June 17, 2011, 03:49:44 AM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?


We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.
It seems to me that you are forgetting about the  change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation  of St. Paul?

Good grief!  Shocked  I had no idea!  Shocked  I can only say that Orthodox America constitutes 1% of the Orthodox world.  What are the 99% doing?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #107 on: June 17, 2011, 04:25:37 AM »



"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century... 


~Alexis Khomiakov
Is it truly a fact that there have been no changes at all in the Orthodox Church since the eighth century?

Of course not.... we now use printing presses for liturgical books ands some hierarchs have been seen to have velcro on their vestments.
And nothing else has changed, except for that?


We have added in long-term addiction to narcotics as a ground for divorce.
It seems to me that you are forgetting about the  change where Orthodox women in the West are now allowed to go contrary to the New Testament commandment of St. Paul to keep their heads covered in Church. This is a fairly recent change in Orthodox teaching or practice, is it not, for women to attend religious services with their heads uncovered, and isn't it contrary to the ancient practice and as well contrary to the recommendation  of St. Paul?

Good grief!  Shocked  I had no idea!  Shocked  I can only say that Orthodox America constitutes 1% of the Orthodox world.  What are the 99% doing?
Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery.  Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: June 17, 2011, 04:53:09 AM »


Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery.  Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?



Now why do you consider that a change?   Do you  not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly.  Please see the Epistle to Philemon. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #109 on: June 17, 2011, 05:14:04 AM »


Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery.  Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?



Now why do you consider that a change?   Do you  not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly.  Please see the Epistle to Philemon. 
Right. That is true.
But the teaching now is that it is wrong to enslave people.
So that is one reason why I don't think that the statement quoted above: "We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... 
~Alexis Khomiakov:
is completely accurate. The Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on the morality of enslaving people, has it not? I hope nobody here thinks that it is OK for a white European male to enslave a black African lady, even though he may treat her kindly? The teaching is that it is wrong now, is it not?
And as well, the Orthodox Church in some countries has changed its teaching on whether or not women are to obey the commandment of St. Paul concerning wearing headcovering at religious services.
So the question is this:
As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned:
1. Has the teaching on the morality of slavery changed from what it was in early times?
2. Has the teaching on whether or not women are to obey Scriptures and the commandment of St. Paul concerning the wearing of headcovering during religious services in Church - has this teaching changed from what it was in the eighth century?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 05:22:47 AM by stanley123 » Logged
ag_vn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 402


« Reply #110 on: June 17, 2011, 05:32:54 AM »

But in general communion practice in Lebanon is such that it's more or less assumed that everyone goes to the chalice at every single liturgy, which usually means that everyone present at the liturgy communes.

Just an example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ujSr0qG-A8

This is Nayla Tueni taking communion in the Maronite Church (around the fifth minute in the video). Nayla Tueni is an Antiochian Orthodox Christian, member of the Parliament, daughter of Gebran Tueni and granddaughter of Ghassan Tueni.


This is the funeral service of the Lebanese composer Walid Gholmieh a few days ago - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10HSxCPsGZE.
You see can the Antiochian Metropolitans Elias of Beirut and Elias of Tyre and Sidon concelebrating it with the Melkite Metropolitan of Beirut Youssef Kallas.


Another example is that this year the Orthodox and the Melkites celebrated jointly the Holy Unction on Great Wednesday in Sidon (Saida), the Orthodox priest there concelebrated it with the Melkite Archbishop of Sidon Elie Haddad.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #111 on: June 17, 2011, 07:20:21 AM »

The Spirit is descended!
This is the change that is thrown in our faces?

Based on experience around the world, only in America does this even enter into the discussion, as the vast majority of Orthodox women elsewhere still cover their heads.  And even here, covering their heads is far from unknown (I was just at the local ROCOR parish, and they won't let you in uncovered).  

But that aside, it is hardly anything to call an ecumencal Council over.
Let's go back to the beginning of this discussion:
The quote that was given above:
"We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century...  


~Alexis Khomiakov
I don't think that what is asserted here (We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were
in the eighth century...)  rings true because there has been a radical change in total contradiction to what was commanded by St. Paul in the New Testament. In the eighth century, St. Paul was strictly obeyed by the Orthodox Catholic Church, was he not? Now, in the west, the Orthodox practice is that this commandment of St. Paul does not have to be followed.  But that was not true before because in  the eighth century, the Orthodox followed the Bible and the commandment of St. Paul - universally and without reservation.  
Let's go further back (I've deatl with this before):
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 07:20:54 AM 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #112 on: June 17, 2011, 07:36:08 AM »

The Spirit is descended!

Another possible change, concerns the attitude toward slavery.  Although it is not that easy for me to pin down exactly the situation, it is true, is it not, that at one time in the past, Orthodox clerics did hold Romani or gypsy slaves in Romania, and it was thought to be an acceptable practice?



Now why do you consider that a change?   Do you  not know that Christians had slaves and it has apostolic approval?

Why, Saint Paul devotes an entire epistle to a rich Christian slave owner exhorting him to take back a runaway slave and treat him kindly.  Please see the Epistle to Philemon. 
Right. That is true.
But the teaching now is that it is wrong to enslave people.
So that is one reason why I don't think that the statement quoted above: "We are unchanged; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century... 
~Alexis Khomiakov:
is completely accurate. The Orthodox Church has changed its teaching on the morality of enslaving people, has it not? I hope nobody here thinks that it is OK for a white European male to enslave a black African lady, even though he may treat her kindly? The teaching is that it is wrong now, is it not?
And as well, the Orthodox Church in some countries has changed its teaching on whether or not women are to obey the commandment of St. Paul concerning wearing headcovering at religious services.
So the question is this:
As far as the Orthodox Church is concerned:
1. Has the teaching on the morality of slavery changed from what it was in early times?
2. Has the teaching on whether or not women are to obey Scriptures and the commandment of St. Paul concerning the wearing of headcovering during religious services in Church - has this teaching changed from what it was in the eighth century?

All this concern over a defunct institution and custom differences in the New World.  You are really grasping at straws and ignoring logs.

Slavery had been condemned in the 4th century by St. Gregory of Nyssa as the sin of pride and denial of the Image and Likeness of God and common descent from Adam taught in Genesis.
The Brill Dictionary of Gregory of Nyssa By Lucas F. Mateo Seco, Giulio Maspero "Slavery"
http://books.google.com/books?id=lD3zg6t4y7MC&pg=PA683&dq=gregory+Nyssa+slavery&hl=en&ei=DDv7TePOH-LW0QGCu5CuAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=gregory%20Nyssa%20slavery&f=false
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
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 17, 2011, 09:47:11 AM »



Truth hurts I suppose regarding the comments about slavery and the Church, given the tenor of the 'I'm Shocked!' or the 'Well, it wasn't really sooo bad' response from some.

Here's a better truth since Roma were brought up by Stanley  (sorry to digress):

The Orthodox Church in Slovakia, under the Diocese of Presov and Archbishop Jan has sponsored a Children's Home in the town of Medzilaborce, near the Ukraine border. (the hometown, I should note of the family of the late artist Andy Warhol ) This Childrens' home has primarily served the Roma population or the children of mixed Slovak/Roma relationships. Serving this population is still a very courageous thing to do in rural Slovakia as the historical enmity towards Roma remains a real problem.

Recently, with the assistance of a Slovak man who works for a social agency of the EU, a grant was obtained by the Presov Orthodox Diocese for a 1.5 million euro renovation and expansion of the  Home. On July 14th, His Eminence, Archbishop Jan will serve Liturgy and dedicate the new wing.

Talk about 'pay it forward', this Slovak man came to Binghamton about ten years ago to study English through a UN project at the local community college. He had relatives here who would not put him up for the six months after he arrived. He was at the post office where he was trying to send a letter home but had difficulty expressing himself. My dad overheard and jumped in as he was adequate with Slovak. The man was a Roman Catholic, but we found him a room with a parishioner by the Church and he became a fixture for six months, working at the church's pirohi sales and being a part of the community. He never forgot the kindness shown to him and he found a way to repay it. This is what being a Christian witness is all about folks.

This Children's Home was been a special mission project of my parish of St. Michael's in Binghamton, NY of ACROD and a particular effort led by one of the esteemed elders of the parish who was from the area in Slovakia, fought in the resistance during the war and with the US Air Force in Korea who was made an Archon by the Ecumenical Patriarch for his charitable efforts.


A picture of Archbishop Jan and the late Metropolitan Nicholas a fews back at the St. Nicholas Childrens' home:

[/  img]



Accentuate the positive as they say.
Logged
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #114 on: June 17, 2011, 11:46:50 AM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.
The Church itself, like a family, has grown. Small t "traditions" have changed. But the Big T 'Traditions" haven't changed. Whereas Western Christians, whether it's the Roman Catholics, or the Protestants, have all changed the Christian faith. None of them look anything like the Early Church, and the Apostles would be ashamed that these "followers" of Christ have taken such liberties with his teachings.

There cannot ever be any inter-communion between any Orthodox Church and churches that are outside of "The Church". Other Christian communions have to become Orthodox before any communion can occur. Communion exists only within the Orthodox Church, and that is something that will never change. "Inter-Communion" only exists within "The Church".
Therefore, it doesn't matter if "Melkites" are Byzantine Rite. They are still in submission to the Pope (even if they are "autonomous" or "autocephalous"). The Pope is in schism to the Church. If Melkites wish to have communion with Orthodox, then they must denounce the Pope, sever communion with him, and come into Orthodoxy.

You cannot "play Orthodox", and having your rite as "Byzantine" and your beliefs as "Orthodox" isn't enough. The error of the "Byzantine Catholics" is that they recognize the Pope. If they truly want to be Orthodox, then they need to sever communion with him and all other Roman Catholics, and enter into communion with the Orthodox Churches.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #115 on: June 17, 2011, 12:19:14 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2011, 01:21:26 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;
2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;
2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 01:25:05 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2011, 02:13:20 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;
2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;
2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.

The Holy Spirit manifests in the entire Church. 

In fact the entire Trinity indwells in you and me.

I guess you've never missed a cue.  I know I have!!

So the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of the Church save for those times when the Church is deeply divided on some issue or when there is a great pressure from the secular world that seeps into the hearts and minds of the faithful, sowing doubt and dissension.  At that point the pope, through a charism granted by Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, is guaranteed the power, should he choose to seek it and use it,  of speaking the truth and restoring unity to the Church.

Absolute unity may not occur because there are other minds and consciences involved, however the truth is there for those who seek it. 

Infallibility is not some sort of automatic wonderwork.  It is a promise made by Christ to protect the truth though the entire Church, with its earthly head given the power to speak the truth, concerning faith and morals, when asked or when all else fails.

It is really not nearly as tortured as you make it. 



 
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 02:19:53 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2011, 02:38:42 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;

Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;
2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

This conclusion is faulty since you're not distinguishing between "true" and "infallible". But for what it's worth, I doubt think Newman was terribly concerned about PI being useful: I think he was mostly just glad that it wasn't an ecumenical disaster.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2011, 03:22:54 PM »

Peter,

Quote
Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

And as we have correctly pointed, we can only know that because this knowledge is part of the depositum of faith. We can only know the right canon of the Bible from the depositum, which statements of the pope are infallible so long they echo the deposit, but how do we know what is in the deposit? "Through the Bible" or "through infallible statements of the pope" would just make that a circular argument.

The point I'm making is precisely that

1 - If only some, but not all, of the statements of the pope on doctrine and morality are infallible, and;
2 - we can discern these only by comparing to an exterior (to the pope) deposit of shared and accepted knowledge, and;
3 - We are not infallible in discerning what belongs or not to this deposit;
4 - we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not. He may say some things that are, some that are not, but so long as the rest of the Church is not infallible in its discernement, papal infallibility, even if real, would be useless, since indistinguishable.

The *real* problem is that romans do not trust the Spirit of Truth. Even secular atheists understand the Spirit of Truth better and *that* is why they have been having the upper hand in the last century. Their trust on the capacity of Truth to prevail of its own accord, by whatever means, through whatever channels, is the true traditional, correct teaching about the guidance of the Church. When Romans and Protestants deny to Truth the power of prevailing of His own accord, even in times of confusion, that's just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus *never* promised that any successor to the Apostles, or to one Apostle in particular, would be the infallible teacher of the Church. We know that because He did promise us an infallible teacher, a unfailing guide:

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Infallible Teacher:
But the Comforter, {which is} the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (S. Jo. 14:26)

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Faithful Witness:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (S. Jo. 15:26)
(Oh, did you notice Jesus' "opinion" about the procession of the Holy Spirit too? I don't see any "and from Me" there... Wink Since He, elsewhere explains He sends the Holy Spirit, there must be some difference between procession and sending. But, surely Charlesmagne and the medieval popes knew better. They are infallible after all, Jesus must have comitted some mistake. Smiley )

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Unfailing Guide:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, {that} shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.(S.Jo 16:23)

Whether Romans and Protestants like it or not, it's neither the Pope, nor the Bible. It's the Holy Spirit. Sometimes through a pope. Sometimes through a council. Sometimes through a priest. Sometimes through a monk. Sometimes through a lay person. Sometimes through a reading of the Bible. That is the meaning of "kat'holic" - according to all. The Holy Spirit can prevail by all and any means, through every and any element in the Church. The true Church is kat'holic, not katapapic, nor katabiblic. That is why Romans are not Catholic. They are Catapapic.

And how do all these elements can be the channel to the infallible teachings of the Holy Spirit? That's what S.Mt. 16:18 shows us: when they hold the Orthodox Faith. It can be Peter, it can be Paul, it can be Phillip, it can be a non-Jew pagan centurion, it can be the donkey of Balaam. It can be an atheist who trusts Truth more than you, righteously pointing the mistakes you fell for not trusting Truth. If you see with clear eyes, than the Spirit can, if He wills, act through you.

Trust the power of the Spirit of Truth. If atheist scientists, who don't even know Him personally know this and can feel His power, so can you. Stop limiting the truth. Stop trusting people or books. Have faith.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 03:38:03 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
88Devin12
Moderated
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #120 on: June 17, 2011, 04:38:20 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine. Papal Infallibility is a development by the West, that came about so that the Pope could hold more power over his own domain. Neither the Pope, nor St. Peter are infallible in any way. Christ never, ever taught that, neither did his disciples, nor the Church Fathers.
Sure, Rome can twist around the Church Fathers and the Saints all it wants to. But the fact remains, that Papal Infallibility is a complete lie and is simply a false doctrine taught by false teachers and wolves.

There cannot, and will not ever be reunion between any of our Churches so long as Rome refuses to revert back to the complete, whole, true Apostolic Faith that the Orthodox Church has maintained since Christ ascended into heaven.

Doctrines like Papal Infallibility are the reason why your church has been cut off from ours for a millenia.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 04:40:20 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 17, 2011, 04:56:20 PM »

When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine. Papal Infallibility is a development by the West, that came about so that the Pope could hold more power over his own domain. Neither the Pope, nor St. Peter are infallible in any way. Christ never, ever taught that, neither did his disciples, nor the Church Fathers.
Sure, Rome can twist around the Church Fathers and the Saints all it wants to. But the fact remains, that Papal Infallibility is a complete lie and is simply a false doctrine taught by false teachers and wolves.

There cannot, and will not ever be reunion between any of our Churches so long as Rome refuses to revert back to the complete, whole, true Apostolic Faith that the Orthodox Church has maintained since Christ ascended into heaven.

Doctrines like Papal Infallibility are the reason why your church has been cut off from ours for a millenia.

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #122 on: June 17, 2011, 05:03:47 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."
The good cardinal was deluding himself: what many (the majority?) of the Vatican's followers agree as the first exercise of "papal infallibilty" occured in his life time, the declaration of the immaculate conception, a teaching unknown to the Apostles (we know as when it reared its hideous head it was condemned in the West as an innovation).   It is drawn from that Scholastic invention, the Moral law, a primary revelation of their own making.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #123 on: June 17, 2011, 05:12:58 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."

What just moves the decision of said infalibility to the analysis and definition of what such deposit is. In practical terms it says that the pope is "infallible" as long as he repeats what is known to be true. In that sense we have a statemente and a consequence:

1) Everybody is infallible when stating a known truth;
2) The real issue, then, is to establish what is a known truth regarding the Church;
2.1) Since we need to know what is the Moral Law and the depositum of the doctrine before any papal statement to know if it is infallible, the whole point of having infallibility as a safeguard of doctrine is nullified.

Both consequences render the whole doctrine of papal infallibility meaningless and useless *in what regards espistemological and theological clarification of truth*.

What papists and protestants have in common is that both trust human, material aspects of the Church are the exclusive channels of the One True Infallible guide of the Church that is the Holy Spirit. Papists believe that the voice of the pope will necessarily be that channel in times of confusion and protestants think the Bible will be it. In choosing "elements" of the Church over the "whole" of the Church, that is, believing some elements of the Church can be the lens through which truth is defined or given to the rest, instead of believing that the Spirit manifests equally in all elements, they are "choosers" aka heretics. Not believing that the Truth is "according to the whole" (kat'holics), they believe the Truth is according to a part (kata meric; katapapic concerning the Romans and katabiblic for the protestants. What is sure is that neither is kat'holic). Trusting only one part to be definitive (pope or bible), they will miss the Holy Spirit when He manifests elsewhere, therefore, not having the plenitude of Grace and being, actually, separated from the organic wholeness of the Church. They are not members of the Church.

The Holy Spirit manifests in the entire Church. 

In fact the entire Trinity indwells in you and me.

I guess you've never missed a cue.  I know I have!!

So the infallibility of the pope is the infallibility of the Church save for those times when the Church is deeply divided on some issue or when there is a great pressure from the secular world that seeps into the hearts and minds of the faithful, sowing doubt and dissension.


Neither applying to either the IC nor the Assumption, two of the near universally held as ex cathedra statements (no official list exists, so we can't go beyond that).

At that point the pope, through a charism granted by Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, is guaranteed the power, should he choose to seek it and use it,  of speaking the truth and restoring unity to the Church.
He kept pretty silent during the Three Chapter Controversy. And on the Pelagians (Pope Zosimos).  And on the Monotheletes (Honorios), of course.

Haven't heard any ex cathedra statements on woman priests, which is splintering your ecclesiastical community.
Absolute unity may not occur because there are other minds and consciences involved, however the truth is there for those who seek it.
But no ex cathedra list for them to find.

Infallibility is not some sort of automatic wonderwork.  It is a promise made by Christ to protect the truth though the entire Church, with its earthly head given the power to speak the truth, concerning faith and morals, when asked or when all else fails.

It is really not nearly as tortured as you make it.  
Yes, it is.  A silly, meaningless and useless dogma.
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: 5,670



« Reply #124 on: June 17, 2011, 05:43:51 PM »

Peter,

Quote
Correction: every infallible statement is true, but not every true statement is infallible. Thus, when we say "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans was infallible" we are not just saying that what he wrote in it is true, we are in fact saying that he was divinely protected from error.

And as we have correctly pointed, we can only know that because this knowledge is part of the depositum of faith. We can only know the right canon of the Bible from the depositum, which statements of the pope are infallible so long they echo the deposit, but how do we know what is in the deposit? "Through the Bible" or "through infallible statements of the pope" would just make that a circular argument.

The point I'm making is precisely that

1 - If only some, but not all, of the statements of the pope on doctrine and morality are infallible, and;
2 - we can discern these only by comparing to an exterior (to the pope) deposit of shared and accepted knowledge, and;
3 - We are not infallible in discerning what belongs or not to this deposit;
4 - we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not. He may say some things that are, some that are not, but so long as the rest of the Church is not infallible in its discernement, papal infallibility, even if real, would be useless, since indistinguishable.

I don't agree with your statement that "we are, in practice, unable to determine what he is saying is actually infallible or not." That's like saying a 3rd-century Christian saying "We are unable to determine what books are in the bible."


The *real* problem is that romans do not trust the Spirit of Truth. Even secular atheists understand the Spirit of Truth better and *that* is why they have been having the upper hand in the last century. Their trust on the capacity of Truth to prevail of its own accord, by whatever means, through whatever channels, is the true traditional, correct teaching about the guidance of the Church. When Romans and Protestants deny to Truth the power of prevailing of His own accord, even in times of confusion, that's just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Jesus *never* promised that any successor to the Apostles, or to one Apostle in particular, would be the infallible teacher of the Church. We know that because He did promise us an infallible teacher, a unfailing guide:

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Infallible Teacher:
But the Comforter, {which is} the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (S. Jo. 14:26)

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Faithful Witness:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (S. Jo. 15:26)
(Oh, did you notice Jesus' "opinion" about the procession of the Holy Spirit too? I don't see any "and from Me" there... Wink Since He, elsewhere explains He sends the Holy Spirit, there must be some difference between procession and sending. But, surely Charlesmagne and the medieval popes knew better. They are infallible after all, Jesus must have comitted some mistake. Smiley )

The Holy Spirit (which blows wherever it wants) is the Unfailing Guide:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, {that} shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.(S.Jo 16:23)

Whether Romans and Protestants like it or not, it's neither the Pope, nor the Bible. It's the Holy Spirit. Sometimes through a pope. Sometimes through a council. Sometimes through a priest. Sometimes through a monk. Sometimes through a lay person. Sometimes through a reading of the Bible. That is the meaning of "kat'holic" - according to all. The Holy Spirit can prevail by all and any means, through every and any element in the Church. The true Church is kat'holic, not katapapic, nor katabiblic. That is why Romans are not Catholic. They are Catapapic.

Perhaps you're unaware that Catholics consider the New Testament to have 27 books*, and only 2 of them were written by a Pope.

* I won't bother to list them, since their the same as in your bible.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #125 on: June 17, 2011, 05:46:52 PM »

The Spirit is descended!
When we say that the Orthodox Church hasn't changed, as mentioned above, we are speaking of the faith. We have not, in any way, ever changed the Apostolic Faith.

Same here. As Cardinal Newman said regarding papal infallibility:

"the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"

And also:

"10. And in like manner, as regards the precepts concerning moral duties, it is not in every such precept that the Pope is infallible [Note 5]. As a definition of faith must be {331} drawn from the Apostolic depositum of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of infallibility, whether in the Pope or a Council, so too a precept of morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be drawn from the Moral law, that primary revelation to us from God."
The good cardinal was deluding himself: what many (the majority?) of the Vatican's followers agree as the first exercise of "papal infallibilty" occured in his life time, the declaration of the immaculate conception, a teaching unknown to the Apostles (we know as when it reared its hideous head it was condemned in the West as an innovation).   It is drawn from that Scholastic invention, the Moral law, a primary revelation of their own making.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't contradict his statement that "the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum" etc.

P.S. Actually, it would be an interesting application of Newman's statement, since it would follow that the teaching on the IC would be "without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics".
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 05:49:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: June 17, 2011, 07:56:35 PM »


The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course.  Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome.  As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: June 17, 2011, 08:06:04 PM »

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents.  The bilateral dialogue concerns itself with major disputed theological issues.  I have not seen discussions on the resumption of communion.

Apart from the unexpected major upset in the 1980s when Orthodox delegates at the International Dialogue found themselves unable to state that Catholics are baptized..... what serious discussion has been devoted to this matter?  This knotty question is something both sides seem unwilling to face openly.  How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #128 on: June 17, 2011, 08:10:19 PM »


The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course.  Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome.  As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #129 on: June 17, 2011, 08:13:42 PM »

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents. 

Do discussions on internet fora count?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #130 on: June 17, 2011, 08:16:31 PM »


The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course.  Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome.  As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.


What are the others?  That question generally reveals that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #131 on: June 17, 2011, 08:31:54 PM »

The Spirit is descended!

The thing is, it is a complete lie, a fabrication that Papal Infallibility is an Apostolic Doctrine.

Yes, of course.  Infallibility is a risible doctrine of Rome.  As far as Catholic theologians go they can only affirm with certainty that it has been used twice in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, in the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the promulgation of the Assumption in 1950.

Outside these two instances of papal infallibility in the last 150 years there is simply no knowledge of which papal statements are fallible or infallible.

It is in other words a really useless doctrine which has had no meaning in the life of the Roman Catholic Church apart from bolstering the ego of poor Pope Pius IX.

Personally, I have to question what makes those two instances of ex cathedra any more certain than others.
Just because they appear on nearly everyone's list. Except the ex cathedra list.  The Vatican isn't releasing that.
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #132 on: June 17, 2011, 09:16:03 PM »

How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?
Could Catholic baptism be accepted by means of a prayer together with a lenient application of economia?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: June 17, 2011, 09:32:27 PM »

How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?
Could Catholic baptism be accepted by means of a prayer together with a lenient application of economia?

Yes, it often is, at the point of individual reception.

And this is what would happen if union occurs, except it will happen on a massive scale.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 09:33:01 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #134 on: June 17, 2011, 09:58:10 PM »

How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?
Could Catholic baptism be accepted by means of a prayer together with a lenient application of economia?

Yes, it often is, at the point of individual reception.

And this is what would happen if union occurs, except it will happen on a massive scale.

We will happily accept all of you by economy...that is quite true but I don't think I'd consider Orthodox numbers as "massive"... Cheesy
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 17, 2011, 09:59:18 PM »

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents.  The bilateral dialogue concerns itself with major disputed theological issues.  I have not seen discussions on the resumption of communion.

Apart from the unexpected major upset in the 1980s when Orthodox delegates at the International Dialogue found themselves unable to state that Catholics are baptized..... what serious discussion has been devoted to this matter?  This knotty question is something both sides seem unwilling to face openly.  How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?

Feel better now?... Smiley
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #136 on: June 17, 2011, 10:07:49 PM »

How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?
Could Catholic baptism be accepted by means of a prayer together with a lenient application of economia?

Yes, it often is, at the point of individual reception.

And this is what would happen if union occurs, except it will happen on a massive scale.

We will happily accept all of you by economy...that is quite true but I don't think I'd consider Orthodox numbers as "massive"... Cheesy

Admittedly we don't pad our stats out with millions of South Americans.   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #137 on: June 17, 2011, 10:08:32 PM »

IF that were true there would be no serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion so the best I can say is that you are entitled to your opinion.

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents.  The bilateral dialogue concerns itself with major disputed theological issues.  I have not seen discussions on the resumption of communion.

Apart from the unexpected major upset in the 1980s when Orthodox delegates at the International Dialogue found themselves unable to state that Catholics are baptized..... what serious discussion has been devoted to this matter?  This knotty question is something both sides seem unwilling to face openly.  How can we achieve resumption of communion if there is no acceptance of Catholic baptism?

Feel better now?... Smiley

Wasn't feeling poorly, but thanks.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,565


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #138 on: June 18, 2011, 11:11:26 AM »

If you have read of any "serious discussion concerning the resumption of communion" many of us here would appreciate seeing the documents. 

Do discussions on internet fora count?

There are many sources regarding theological discussions and the real difficulties in acheiving 'communal' unity. In English,  one of the many published documents of the North American Theological Consultation, the Orthodox chair for the past thirty five year's has been Metropolitan Maximos of the Metropolis of Pittsburgh, PA is entitled "Sharing the Ministry of Reconciliation Statement on the Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue and the Ecumenical Movement Brookline, Massachusetts June 1, 2000" http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/31.html Therein, the very serious issues which prevent 'dual communion' are laid out and are discussed at length in some of the other statements released over the decades.

Just one of the reflections from this paper:

"....we cannot overlook the difficult issues which continue to divide us and prevent the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. The disputed points dividing our churches are serious and demand our continuing attention. Among these, we feel especially that issues related to conciliarity, primacy and the exercise of authority require much deeper theological reflection both within our churches and in our bilateral dialogues. Pope John Paul II himself has recognized the difficulties which the papacy presents to many, and has repeatedly invited theological reflection from all Christian traditions on this critical topic (eg., Ut Unum Sint #95-96)."

And from a more detailed document of 2010 entitled: "Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future" comes this sobering assessment:

"2. A Central Point of Disagreement.  In the course of our discussions, it has become increasingly clear to us that the most divisive element in our traditions has been a growing diversity, since the late patristic centuries, in the ways we understand the structure of the Church itself, particularly our understanding of the forms of headship that seem essential to the Church’s being at the local, regional and worldwide levels. At the heart of our differences stands the way each of our traditions understands the proper exercise of primacy in the leadership of the Church, both within the various regions of the Christian world and within Christianity as a whole.  In order to be the Body of Christ in its fullness -- to be both “Orthodox” and “Catholic” -- does a local community, gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, have to be united with the other Churches that share the Apostolic faith, not only through Scripture, doctrine, and tradition, but also through common worldwide structures of authority -- particularly through the practice of a universal synodality in union with the bishop of Rome?

It seems to be no exaggeration, in fact, to say that the root obstacle preventing the Orthodox and Catholic Churches from growing steadily towards sacramental and practical unity has been, and continues to be, the role that the bishop of Rome plays in the worldwide Catholic communion.....

.....Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure, and common action; but conscience also calls us to move beyond complacency in our divisions, in the power of the Spirit and in a longing for the fullness of Christ’s life-giving presence in our midst."
http://www.scoba.us/articles/towards-a-unified-church.html

Mind you that these words expressing the very real difficulties in ever achieving unity come from the most 'progressive' wing of Orthodox thinkers in the west. One those with the most rose colored of glasses underestimate the real complexity and many hurdles that lie ahead in such talks - if reunion is indeed to be the will of the Almighty. I believe that it is, but I recognize that it likely would not occur in my lifetime. This doesn't mean we shouldn't keep talking and trying better understand each other.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #139 on: June 18, 2011, 07:06:29 PM »

Indeed, I don't expect that the next few decades will see any "mega-unions", i.e. a union of hundreds-of-millions of Orthodox Christians with the Catholic Church.

If anything, I'd say we live in an era of "micro-unions", or more specifically, one parish (usually Anglican or Lutheran) at a time coming into communion with the Catholic Church (or the Orthodox Church). There was, of course, the union of Mar Bawai Soro and 3000 others with the Catholic Church a few years ago -- but that's still tiny compared with, say, the Union of Brest.
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 0.495 seconds with 170 queries.