OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 03:17:35 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 Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??  (Read 13931 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #135 on: April 05, 2012, 11:02:36 AM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.
The fact that we do not see ourselves as ready to concelebrate liturgy, demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not view itself as in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If we are willing to share the chalice, then it follows as night follows day that we would be open to concelebration.  The fact that it does not happen is because Orthodoxy is closed to both the chalice and to concelebration, and many are opposed to prayer shared. 

The CCC specifically states that we are not ready for concelebration.

Allowing communion but not concelebration is the madness akin to denying communion to baptized babies and only communing under one species.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,626



« Reply #136 on: April 05, 2012, 11:02:53 AM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Which is ironically interesting since the word "papacy" does not appear until the 11th century.
"pontificate" exists before (before the Church even, being the office of the king of Rome as chief high priest).  So although the term not existing before the 11th century isn't dispositive, but the fact that equivalents have to be searched for (and explain, for instance, why no patriarch ever got a pallium from a Roman pontiff) is telling.  Revisionism.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #137 on: April 05, 2012, 11:03:27 AM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.
The fact that we do not see ourselves as ready to concelebrate liturgy, demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not view itself as in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

If we are willing to share the chalice, then it follows as night follows day that we would be open to concelebration.  The fact that it does not happen is because Orthodoxy is closed to both the chalice and to concelebration, and many are opposed to prayer shared. 


According to what I learned (Im a former Roman Catholic), the Catholic Church allows Communion to anyone who was chismated in a church that has valid apostolic orders. This includes the: Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, and Assyrian Churches of the East. The reason why the Roman Catholic Church offers communion to Orthodox Christians is because they acknowledge our Apostolic origin as valid orders but not becuase they think that we are in communion with each other.

A stance I find puzzling, honestly. Why offer communion to someone (someones)- the symbol of, well, communion- if you're not really in communion?

Because all that matters is adherence to the Papacy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,626



« Reply #138 on: April 05, 2012, 11:18:34 AM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.
The fact that we do not see ourselves as ready to concelebrate liturgy, demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not view itself as in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And yet when strange Romanian Metropolitans walk into Eastern Catholic Churches to commune at the altar to make a statement (and that statement is, "I'm an ecumaniac."), it's okay.
Yes, it is interesting that their Major Archbishop of the UGCC openly speaks of the whole former Soviet Union outside of Galicia as a mission field, and yet complains that Moscow and Kiev looks at Galicia as their canonical territory.  I'm just waiting for the Vatican to further bring him to reality: his beatitude keeps on talking about the UGCC being a world church, which the Vatican likes in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, not so much in Argentina, the United States, Italy and Great Britain, let alone Africa and Asia (outside Russia) like it did his predecessor in Lviv Met. Sheptitsky-when he tried to resurrect the Kholm eparchy in the Polish Second Republic, the Warsaw-Vatican concordat limited him to the former province of Galicia, subjected UGCC outside to the Latin ordinaries who, when they were not Latinizing them, forced them to use the "Neo-Union" rite (the rite of Orthodox Moscow in 1917) and not the UGCC rites, and subjected the Lemkos directly to the Vatican.  Sui juris my ----

Btw, the revisionism involved for the Vatican scheme is like that towards the Romanian metropolitan. Any sign of rapprochment to the Vatican is taken as conversion and submission.  E.g.  Met. Joseph II
Quote
Joseph II Bolgarynovich of Kiev (1498–1501): Catholic
-Bollandists 9:II:xxvi:AB, §108 (50):
-
-Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was Joachim I (1498-1502) [AASS 8:I:222B-E (248)]
Posted by Will R. Huysman at 2/28/2011 07:39:00 AM   
Labels: Kiev, Metropolitans of Kiev, Russian Catholic Church, Russian Orthodoxy, Russian Saints, Under Construction
http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2011/02/metropolitans-of-kiev.html

Ignoring that their supreme pontiff Pope Alexander specifically rebuffed Met. Joseph's moves for reconciliation, specifically saying that he was not the Metropolitan of Kiev, as he had not been consecrated by the "Patriarch of Constantinople" i.e. the Latin pretender who was lagging about the Curia  in Old Rome and never set foot in 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
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 516



WWW
« Reply #139 on: April 05, 2012, 11:25:29 AM »

I agree with others have have stated their belief that jurisdictional authority of the Pope, as dogmatized by Vatican I, remains the principal obstacle to reunion.  It's hard to see how the two Churches can reach agreement on this, but the fact that I cannot see this possibility does not mean that the Spirit cannot create this possibility. Thirty years ago no one could have predicted that the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation could reach an agreement on justification by faith ... but it happened.   

Several months ago I watched a video of Met Kallistos discussing the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue, with special reference to the last meeting at Vienna.  The topic of the Vienna discussion was the question "How did the Church understand the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the 1st millennium?" (or something like that).  Apparently the participants could not achieve consensual understanding and interpretation of the historical data.  I recall distinctly that Met Kallistos said Met John Zizioulas mentioned afterwards that he experienced the failure of Vienna as a crushing blow to his ecumenical work over the past thirty years.  Perhaps this is why no further meetings of the dialogue have been scheduled (t least as far as I know).  Unfortunately, I have not been able to find this video again (I think it was a talk given at the Sacred Heart Seminary) and so cannot confirm precisely what Met Kallistos said.  My impression is that the ecumenically-minded Orthodox participants, like Mets Kallistos and John, expected greater flexibility from the Catholic participants, especially after the Ravenna agreement
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #140 on: April 05, 2012, 12:13:11 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.
2. The paragraph from the CCC states that there is still a lack of communion, and consequently, we cannot celebrate liturgy together.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 996


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #141 on: April 05, 2012, 12:13:39 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

If you ask any Orthodox Christian whether or not we "lack" any fullness in our faith you will find a puzzled stare.  What lacking?  For Orthodox Christians have the fullness and perfection of faith, a faith dating back to Christ Himself.  Bottom line: This tact wont work at least in the eastern world view.  So, whatever the personal views of the Vatican are, this idea that we somehow lack something is in the mind of the Vatican only.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #142 on: April 05, 2012, 12:16:41 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

If you ask any Orthodox Christian whether or not we "lack" any fullness in our faith you will find a puzzled stare.  What lacking?  For Orthodox Christians have the fullness and perfection of faith, a faith dating back to Christ Himself.  Bottom line: This tact wont work at least in the eastern world view.  So, whatever the personal views of the Vatican are, this idea that we somehow lack something is in the mind of the Vatican only.
This works the other way as well. We orthodox Catholics (littel 'o') see the Catholic Church as lacking nothing, and the Eastern Orthodox Church as lacking certain aspects of the faith. I think this is the more honest position for a Catholic to take than to pretend like there is really nothign separating us.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 996


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #143 on: April 05, 2012, 12:17:06 PM »


We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox.
[/quote]

touché
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 12:17:34 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #144 on: April 05, 2012, 12:19:07 PM »


We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox.

touché
[/quote]
Well, that wasn't meant as an insult to you. I was direcing that to Maria as an expression of what a faithful Catholic is supposed to believe.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JoeS2
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 996


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #145 on: April 05, 2012, 12:19:24 PM »

This works the other way as well. We orthodox Catholics (littel 'o') see the Catholic Church as lacking nothing, and the Eastern Orthodox Church as lacking certain aspects of the faith. I think this is the more honest position for a Catholic to take than to pretend like there is really nothign separating us.
[/quote]

We live in parallel universes.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 12:21:23 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #146 on: April 05, 2012, 12:20:40 PM »


This works the other way as well. We orthodox Catholics (littel 'o') see the Catholic Church as lacking nothing, and the Eastern Orthodox Church as lacking certain aspects of the faith. I think this is the more honest position for a Catholic to take than to pretend like there is really nothign separating us.

I must have missed something or Im not understanding your last line.  Are we pretending there is nothing separating us?  Am I taking this statement correctly?
[/quote]
No, but some Catholics like to pretend that there is nothing separating.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #147 on: April 05, 2012, 12:24:20 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


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


« Reply #148 on: April 05, 2012, 12:35:03 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary

Up to now I've followed this thread fairly well, and I think I've understood most of the posts.  But this one has thrown me a little bit.  Would you mind explaining in simple terms what you mean by "ontological damage", and what the damage is that has been done to the Church?  Also, if you could explain for this simpleton what you mean by "we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history" and what that fullness is, I'd really appreciate it  Smiley!

Thanks!
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #149 on: April 05, 2012, 12:59:23 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary

Up to now I've followed this thread fairly well, and I think I've understood most of the posts.  But this one has thrown me a little bit.  Would you mind explaining in simple terms what you mean by "ontological damage", and what the damage is that has been done to the Church?  Also, if you could explain for this simpleton what you mean by "we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history" and what that fullness is, I'd really appreciate it  Smiley!

Thanks!

Ontology is the study of existence or being or manner of being, the reality of a things is-ness.  Not all reality is susceptible to the senses, thereby allowing us to speak of Eucharist as the real presence, for example.

So ontological damage is damage to the is-ness of a thing, or its manner of being, or its reality, as it is experienced by the senses, or not. 

If the wound that is sustained by the Church on account of the schism, in history, is a real wound then it changes the reality of Church, or its manner of being, or its reality in history.

If the Church is wounded or damaged, in history, then it is not complete, whole, perfect as it should be as we are called to be: Ut Unum Sint.

We are without the unity indicated in the following: and in the case of Orthodoxy we are without unity with graced ecclesial bodies bearing the blessing of Apostolic Succession:

http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/jp2utunu.html

Quote
In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.[10] The faithful are <one> because, in the Spirit, they are in <communion> with the Son and, in him, share in his <communion> with the Father: "Our <fellowship> is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 <Jn> 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, the <communion> of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own <communion>, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (<Eph> 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "<Ut unum sint">.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 01:07:18 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


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


« Reply #150 on: April 05, 2012, 01:05:59 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary

Up to now I've followed this thread fairly well, and I think I've understood most of the posts.  But this one has thrown me a little bit.  Would you mind explaining in simple terms what you mean by "ontological damage", and what the damage is that has been done to the Church?  Also, if you could explain for this simpleton what you mean by "we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history" and what that fullness is, I'd really appreciate it  Smiley!

Thanks!

Ontology is the study of existence or being or manner of being, the reality of a things is-ness.  Not all reality is susceptible to the senses, thereby allowing us to speak of Eucharist as the real presence, for example.

So ontological damage is damage to the is-ness of a thing, or its manner of being, or its reality, as it is experienced by the sense, or not. 

If the wound that is sustained by the Church on account of the schism, in history, is a real wound then it changes the reality of Church, or its manner of being, or its reality in history.

If the Church is wounded or damaged, in history, then it is not complete, whole, perfect as it should be as we are called to be: Ut Unum Sint.

We are without the unity indicated in the following: and in the case of Orthodoxy we are without unity with a graced ecclesial bodies bearing the blessing of Apostolic Succession:

http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/jp2utunu.html

Quote
In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.[10] The faithful are <one> because, in the Spirit, they are in <communion> with the Son and, in him, share in his <communion> with the Father: "Our <fellowship> is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 <Jn> 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, the <communion> of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own <communion>, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (<Eph> 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "<Ut unum sint">.


Got it.  Many, many thanks!
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #151 on: April 05, 2012, 01:09:03 PM »


Got it.  Many, many thanks!

Welcome
Logged

Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #152 on: April 05, 2012, 01:40:54 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Which is ironically interesting since the word "papacy" does not appear until the 11th century.

Yes like the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible nor until Theophilus of Antioch. Apostles did not use it, st Ignatius of Antioch etc didn not use this word. The word used is irelevant, only the concept matters.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 01:43:43 PM by Samson4ll » Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #153 on: April 05, 2012, 02:16:58 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary
If you believe that, then you don't believe in the Creed, which states clearly that the Church is One. Moreover, this viewpoint that you are espousing is disrespectful to Eastern Catholics with whomb we share communion. The Byzantine Liturgical/Spiritual tradition is part of our one Church by means of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #154 on: April 05, 2012, 02:18:35 PM »

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (CCC paragraph 838)

I am presenting this to show that we do not view ourselves as in full communion with Eastern Orthodox. While the communion that does exists "lacks little" it still lacks something that does not permit a common celebration the Eucharist.



What it lacks is the mutual agreement of the hierarchs, and the consent of the faithful.
 
In a later clarification the Holy Father has said both east and west are wounded by the schism and that the west 'cannot complete ecclesiastical fullness in history'...I paraphrase....and that phrasing is a nod to the terms subsistit used in the Second Vatican Council.  Orthodoxy does not concede that she is wounded, and so we are up against that wall.

But the fact of the matter is that we COULD concelebrate sacramentally if there were an agreement among the primates.

M.
1. The wound is not an ontological one, but an accidental one. We are still the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church without the Eastern Orthodox. However, we suffer the accidental loss of not being united to the particular Christians.

This is not going to hold up when it is possible to say that the Catholic Church cannot complete it ecclesiastical fullness in history...as long as, during that history, the Catholic Church is in schism from the Orthodox Church.

You go too far and are not paying close enough attention to explanatory texts.  It is not that we are wounded that is essential to that statement but the fact that we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history.  That tells me that there's been ontological damage done, in history, to the Church.

Mary

Up to now I've followed this thread fairly well, and I think I've understood most of the posts.  But this one has thrown me a little bit.  Would you mind explaining in simple terms what you mean by "ontological damage", and what the damage is that has been done to the Church?  Also, if you could explain for this simpleton what you mean by "we cannot complete our ecclesial fullness in history" and what that fullness is, I'd really appreciate it  Smiley!

Thanks!

Ontology is the study of existence or being or manner of being, the reality of a things is-ness.  Not all reality is susceptible to the senses, thereby allowing us to speak of Eucharist as the real presence, for example.

So ontological damage is damage to the is-ness of a thing, or its manner of being, or its reality, as it is experienced by the sense, or not. 

If the wound that is sustained by the Church on account of the schism, in history, is a real wound then it changes the reality of Church, or its manner of being, or its reality in history.

If the Church is wounded or damaged, in history, then it is not complete, whole, perfect as it should be as we are called to be: Ut Unum Sint.

We are without the unity indicated in the following: and in the case of Orthodoxy we are without unity with a graced ecclesial bodies bearing the blessing of Apostolic Succession:

http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/jp2utunu.html

Quote
In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.[10] The faithful are <one> because, in the Spirit, they are in <communion> with the Son and, in him, share in his <communion> with the Father: "Our <fellowship> is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (1 <Jn> 1:3). For the Catholic Church, then, the <communion> of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own <communion>, which is his eternal life. Christ's words "that they may be one" are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father's plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see "what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (<Eph> 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: "<Ut unum sint">.


Got it.  Many, many thanks!
The Reason why we cannot say that the Catholic Church has suffered ontological damage as a result of the schism, is that it would mean that it is no longer the Body of Christ in the same way that it was before the schism. But the the Church is always complete and whole. Christ is not divided.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,963


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #155 on: April 05, 2012, 02:20:53 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Which is ironically interesting since the word "papacy" does not appear until the 11th century.

Yes like the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible nor until Theophilus of Antioch. Apostles did not use it, st Ignatius of Antioch etc didn not use this word. The word used is irelevant, only the concept matters.
+1. Though I would like to add that the exercise of papal powers has varied throughout history, even though the essence of the Papal office has never changed. We still agree with St. Iraneaus of Lyons:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3:3:1–2).

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #156 on: April 05, 2012, 03:25:12 PM »

First, it was not 'the Orthodox Church' that taught that slaves should submit to their masters--it was St. Paul. And I am unaware of any authoritative decision by the Orthodox Church claiming to cancel St. Paul's teaching.
Oh. I thought it was both St. Peter and St. Paul. See: 1 Peter 2:18.  And was not St. Peter one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church?
So, does the Orthodox Church still teach that slaves should submit themselves to their masters, even those who are harsh? I thought that the Orthodox Church of today opposed the enslavement of the black African female by the white European male as has happened in the past.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #157 on: April 05, 2012, 03:28:43 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,992



« Reply #158 on: April 05, 2012, 03:33:31 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

The Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and then bishop of Rome.
Your second question has already been answered. (Though I admit I'm a little bit creeped out that you only characterize slavery as white master and black slave. Which was not the case with Philemon.)
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #159 on: April 05, 2012, 03:38:23 PM »

"Economy" is a lovely word when not applied to fiscal matters.
Does the Orthodox Church teach that priests must wear beards? Did it ever teach so?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #160 on: April 05, 2012, 03:49:04 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

The Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and then bishop of Rome.
Your second question has already been answered. (Though I admit I'm a little bit creeped out that you only characterize slavery as white master and black slave. Which was not the case with Philemon.)
So, since the Orthodox Church has existed from the time of St. Peter, is it correct to say that St. Peter was a bishop in the Orthodox Church?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on whether or not slavery is morally allowable? My impression is that in the early Church, it was considered to be morally allowable, but now it is not? Please correct me if this is wrong.
The point is that in the history of the Church, there have been made changes in some teachings, so it would not be all that shocking if the RCC were to make a modification in some of its teachings.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #161 on: April 05, 2012, 03:51:30 PM »

If you ask any Orthodox Christian whether or not we "lack" any fullness in our faith you will find a puzzled stare.  What lacking?  For Orthodox Christians have the fullness and perfection of faith, a faith dating back to Christ Himself.  
It seems to me that there are some differences, as mentioned above, or, for example,
according to theological principles, should you use the Julian or the revised Julian calendar.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #162 on: April 05, 2012, 03:52:13 PM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.

So, Mary, since we are as Orthodox invited to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church today without being required to accept the concepts of papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction and the Pope as Christ's representative here on Earth - why would any Roman or Greek Catholic feel compelled to accept the same terms of discipline?

To me, Rome's entire 'raison d'etre' collapsed when the invitation to the Orthodox to communion was so offered. Perhaps we are the fools for turning our back since there does not seem to be a logical syllogism to answer the dilemma.

Any takers with a response?
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 05, 2012, 03:53:14 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters?  

The Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and then bishop of Rome.
Your second question has already been answered. (Though I admit I'm a little bit creeped out that you only characterize slavery as white master and black slave. Which was not the case with Philemon.)
So, since the Orthodox Church has existed from the time of St. Peter, is it correct to say that St. Peter was a bishop in the Orthodox Church?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on whether or not slavery is morally allowable? My impression is that in the early Church, it was considered to be morally allowable, but now it is not? Please correct me if this is wrong.
The point is that in the history of the Church, there have been made changes in some teachings, so it would not be all that shocking if the RCC were to make a modification in some of its teachings.

Moral defenses of slavery were never dogmatic declarations, but papal supremacy is dogmatic post Vatican 1. I also have no problem viewing all of the popes, well allmost all, prior to the great schism as Orthodox and all saints of the pre-schism era as recognized by the Orthodox - at least those whose sanctity was recognized at the time of the schism.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 03:56:06 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #164 on: April 05, 2012, 03:55:55 PM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.

So, Mary, since we are as Orthodox invited to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church today without being required to accept the concepts of papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction and the Pope as Christ's representative here on Earth - why would any Roman or Greek Catholic feel compelled to accept the same terms of discipline?

To me, Rome's entire 'raison d'etre' collapsed when the invitation to the Orthodox to communion was so offered. Perhaps we are the fools for turning our back since there does not seem to be a logical syllogism to answer the dilemma.

Any takers with a response?
I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #165 on: April 05, 2012, 03:58:54 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters?  

The Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and then bishop of Rome.
Your second question has already been answered. (Though I admit I'm a little bit creeped out that you only characterize slavery as white master and black slave. Which was not the case with Philemon.)
So, since the Orthodox Church has existed from the time of St. Peter, is it correct to say that St. Peter was a bishop in the Orthodox Church?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on whether or not slavery is morally allowable? My impression is that in the early Church, it was considered to be morally allowable, but now it is not? Please correct me if this is wrong.
The point is that in the history of the Church, there have been made changes in some teachings, so it would not be all that shocking if the RCC were to make a modification in some of its teachings.

Moral defenses of slavery were never dogmatic declarations, but papal supremacy is dogmatic post Vatican 1. I also have no problem viewing all of the popes, well allmost all, prior to the great schism as Orthodox and all saints of the pre-schism era as recognized by the Orthodox - at least those whose sanctity was recognized at the time of the schism.


But in any event, the teaching on slavery has been changed.
A clarification of a teaching might involve a reevaluation of the various categories and levels of understanding.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,992



« Reply #166 on: April 05, 2012, 04:43:09 PM »

There is a difference between dogma and teaching, although one may certainly teach dogma.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,992



« Reply #167 on: April 05, 2012, 04:46:59 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #168 on: April 05, 2012, 04:58:56 PM »

I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

A priest who did so would be in error, unless for some unforeseen reason, in a pastoral situation,( I really can't think of any possible reason, but the Bishop has the responsibility of making the decision), he had the permission of his Bishop to do so. If he was doing it without his Bishop's knowledge and permission, he would probably learn very quickly what the words "Spiritual Court" really mean, once his Bishop found out.

I think that in the mideast, economia may cause this type of situation to be 'overlooked' based upon circumstances. MOst of us in the States really have no real contact with or particular knowledge of the OO's, but I suppose in some areas, this is changing.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #169 on: April 05, 2012, 04:59:10 PM »

...So think the Papacy will remain a church dividing issue until the end.
Currently there are studies going on about how the papacy was viewed in the pre-1054 Church.

Which is ironically interesting since the word "papacy" does not appear until the 11th century.

Yes like the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible nor until Theophilus of Antioch. Apostles did not use it, st Ignatius of Antioch etc didn not use this word. The word used is irelevant, only the concept matters.

Yes. And the concept of the papacy, as Roman Catholics know it, did not begin to appear until the late 11th century and the Gregorian Reformation. It was revolutionary.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #170 on: April 05, 2012, 05:01:35 PM »

Quote
Like it was said in another thread, the EO/OO problem should be handled first and foremost.

Thats a good point.

Just curious, are there any Catholics who would like to comment?  Im not trying to start a war here, I just wouldnt mind hearing another perspective.

Tags editted - MK.

It seems to me the fact that the chalice in the Catholic Church is open for Orthodox believers...even if it is not received...indicates that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodoxy in communion already.  So the question of desire is really answered in the willingness to enter into communion, as is.

M.

So, Mary, since we are as Orthodox invited to receive the Eucharist in a Roman Church today without being required to accept the concepts of papal infallibility, papal universal jurisdiction and the Pope as Christ's representative here on Earth - why would any Roman or Greek Catholic feel compelled to accept the same terms of discipline?

To me, Rome's entire 'raison d'etre' collapsed when the invitation to the Orthodox to communion was so offered. Perhaps we are the fools for turning our back since there does not seem to be a logical syllogism to answer the dilemma.

Any takers with a response?
I understand that there are Eastern Orthodox priests who allow Oriental Orthodox to receive Holy Communion?
Would this be strictly forbidden and against the rules, or if not, then what is the logical answer to the dilemma that the two Churches, EO and OO are not united, but OO are in some cases allowed the Sacrament?

Your analogy is not really responsive as neither the EO church nor the OO church espouses a position vis-a-vis receipt of the Eucharist akin to that of the Church of Rome. As Mary stated, the RCC would freely permit an RCC priest to commune a practicing EO Christian should such a person present him or herself at the chalice.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #171 on: April 05, 2012, 05:10:29 PM »

First, it was not 'the Orthodox Church' that taught that slaves should submit to their masters--it was St. Paul. And I am unaware of any authoritative decision by the Orthodox Church claiming to cancel St. Paul's teaching.
Oh. I thought it was both St. Peter and St. Paul. See: 1 Peter 2:18.  And was not St. Peter one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church?
So, does the Orthodox Church still teach that slaves should submit themselves to their masters, even those who are harsh? I thought that the Orthodox Church of today opposed the enslavement of the black African female by the white European male as has happened in the past.

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that slaves should rebel against their masters and overthrow them? I thought Liberation Theology was not officially endorsed.

I know of no Church Father, East or West, who spoke of slavery as some wonderful institution. "Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery. Anyone who says it is is guilty of twisting the Apostle's words and will have to answer to him for it.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #172 on: April 05, 2012, 05:12:15 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #173 on: April 05, 2012, 05:13:23 PM »

"Economy" is a lovely word when not applied to fiscal matters.
Does the Orthodox Church teach that priests must wear beards? Did it ever teach so?

Gosh. All this red herring. I understand you eat fish in Lent, but it's rather difficult for us to digest.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 516



WWW
« Reply #174 on: April 05, 2012, 05:14:21 PM »

Another article of interest to this thread:  "The Myth of Schism" by David B. Hart.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #175 on: April 05, 2012, 05:15:18 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters?  

The Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and then bishop of Rome.
Your second question has already been answered. (Though I admit I'm a little bit creeped out that you only characterize slavery as white master and black slave. Which was not the case with Philemon.)
So, since the Orthodox Church has existed from the time of St. Peter, is it correct to say that St. Peter was a bishop in the Orthodox Church?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on whether or not slavery is morally allowable? My impression is that in the early Church, it was considered to be morally allowable, but now it is not? Please correct me if this is wrong.
The point is that in the history of the Church, there have been made changes in some teachings, so it would not be all that shocking if the RCC were to make a modification in some of its teachings.

Moral defenses of slavery were never dogmatic declarations, but papal supremacy is dogmatic post Vatican 1. I also have no problem viewing all of the popes, well allmost all, prior to the great schism as Orthodox and all saints of the pre-schism era as recognized by the Orthodox - at least those whose sanctity was recognized at the time of the schism.


But in any event, the teaching on slavery has been changed.
A clarification of a teaching might involve a reevaluation of the various categories and levels of understanding.

No. The teaching on slavery has not been changed. There was no teaching on slavery in the first place. "Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery, but an instruction on how to be a Christian in a situation.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,626



« Reply #176 on: April 05, 2012, 05:31:48 PM »

Another article of interest to this thread:  "The Myth of Schism" by David B. Hart.
somewhere father we dealt with this article here before, Father.
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 #177 on: April 05, 2012, 06:00:33 PM »

"Slaves obey your masters" is not an endorsement of slavery. Anyone who says it is is guilty of twisting the Apostle's words and will have to answer to him for it.
How then do you explain the enslavement of Roma (gypsies) in Orthodox monasteries in Romania?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #178 on: April 05, 2012, 06:01:43 PM »

--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings,...
This is why I am on this board, to try to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Does the Orthodox Church believe that St. Peter was one of the first bishops in the Orthodox Church or not? Does the Orthodox Church today believe that slaves should submit to their harsh masters? 

If you want to understand the teachings of the Orthodox Church, I would not recommend the Internet.

The Orthodox Church venerates St. Peter as an apostle. Bishops rank below apostles. Canonically, bishops cannot be rulers of several different sees, as St. Peter was Apostle in Antioch and Rome.

You are not seeking the Church's teachings, but throwing out red herrings.
Was St. Peter a bishop in the Orthodox Church?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #179 on: April 05, 2012, 06:13:30 PM »

There was no teaching on slavery in the first place.
According to: "Slavery As Moral Problem: In the Early Church and Today"
By Jennifer A. Glancy
there was a Church Council or Synod at Gangra in 340 AD which leads one to the conclusion that the New Testament compels Christians to support the institution of slavery.  What is then your interpretation of the teachings at the Council of Gangra, 340 AD and why would you disagree with Glancy?
http://books.google.com/books?id=jz_emYLEnCcC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=slavery+and++Gangra&source=bl&ots=Cu4ismTgA4&sig=9OTQQxA-HCeTqNsk4n0Fs6QDSkI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Qhh-T46uHYmriQLE-qWcDg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=slavery%20and%20%20Gangra&f=false
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   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 0.194 seconds with 72 queries.