Which church is more open to reuniting??

[Cavaradossi]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Also heretical. Only persons can be damned, not memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Not every use of the word damn has religious connotations, you know.

[Peter J]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Also heretical. Only persons can be damned, not memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Not every use of the word damn has religious connotations, you know.

I do, but I also pride myself on my sense of humor. (Of course, whether I should pride myself is a different question entirely. )

[Peter J]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

[Peter J]

Not every use of the word damn has religious connotations, you know.

"I sure as hell can't tell you we learned about hell unless I say hell can I?"
- Bart Simpson

[Shanghaiski]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

Is this a joke?

[Peter J]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

Is this a joke?

No, that post was serious. The Roman Communion didn't succeed in "swallowing" the Orthodox Communion in 1596 (or any of the other big years for uniatism). That should tell us something.

[Shanghaiski]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

Is this a joke?

No, that post was serious. The Roman Communion didn't succeed in "swallowing" the Orthodox Communion in 1596 (or any of the other big years for uniatism). That should tell us something.

Funny. I don't know what you mean by didn't succeed, since they have did abandon Orthodoxy and adopted novel doctrines on the papacy.

[Cavaradossi]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Also heretical. Only persons can be damned, not memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Not every use of the word damn has religious connotations, you know.

I do, but I also pride myself on my sense of humor. (Of course, whether I should pride myself is a different question entirely. )

I will slink off in shame now for being unable to recognize your humor at first glance.

It seems that you are too subtle and good for the likes of my slow and dense mind.

[Cavaradossi]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Point taken. I could have found a better way to express myself.

You are not entirely correct here.  It was, in the early decades and centuries of the Church more important that the Apostles be apostles.  Even today it is more important to remember them as Apostles.

But to suggest that they were not ALSO known to be bishops is simply not realistic given the rise of the episcopacy and its meaning then, and now.

That's not quite what I was trying to say. Obviously, they had to have been of episcopal rank to consecrate the bishops in the cities they were visiting. But it seems that the earliest fathers avoided ascribing a single place to them. This is why you don't see St. Mark being listed as the first bishop of Alexandria, or Peter as the first bishop of Antioch and Rome early on, because the concept was still very much that a bishop would remain with his flock for life, as opposed to the apostles who traveled, visiting existing Christian communities and establishing new ones.

[Peter J]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Also heretical. Only persons can be damned, not memories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Not every use of the word damn has religious connotations, you know.

I do, but I also pride myself on my sense of humor. (Of course, whether I should pride myself is a different question entirely. )

I will slink off in shame now for being unable to recognize your humor at first glance.

It seems that you are too subtle and good for the likes of my slow and dense mind.

And a bit stingy with my emoticons -- I suspect I was traumatized, when I was young, by certain persons in my life who used a lot of emoticons. But that's a whole different story.

[Peter J]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

Is this a joke?

No, that post was serious. The Roman Communion didn't succeed in "swallowing" the Orthodox Communion in 1596 (or any of the other big years for uniatism). That should tell us something.

Funny. I don't know what you mean by didn't succeed, since they have did abandon Orthodoxy and adopted novel doctrines on the papacy.

Point taken. I suppose you could, if you want, extend the "swallowing" metaphor and say that the Roman Communion "took a big bite out of" the Orthodox Communion in 1596.

[elijahmaria]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned!

Is that just your opinion or is it more widely held in your Church?

That is the logical conclusion of the other person's argument, that we should ignore the first lists, produced by the pre-nicene fathers and base our conclusions off of only what came later. Then why read them at all? Let's just consign them to oblivion, since their opinions are so unimportant and inconvenient. Nice out of context quotation, by the way. Are you always this dishonest when arguing against others?

I thought it was out of character but I read it in a negative light also and was disappointed.  So I am sorry I did not get what you were doing but I think there might have been a better way in any event.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! [SIC]You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Keep your mind on the season and let that flow into your keyboard.  Your opening salvo was absolutely unnecessary and unwelcome and unhealthy for you.

Point taken. I could have found a better way to express myself.

You are not entirely correct here.  It was, in the early decades and centuries of the Church more important that the Apostles be apostles.  Even today it is more important to remember them as Apostles.

But to suggest that they were not ALSO known to be bishops is simply not realistic given the rise of the episcopacy and its meaning then, and now.

That's not quite what I was trying to say. Obviously, they had to have been of episcopal rank to consecrate the bishops in the cities they were visiting. But it seems that the earliest fathers avoided ascribing a single place to them. This is why you don't see St. Mark being listed as the first bishop of Alexandria, or Peter as the first bishop of Antioch and Rome early on, because the concept was still very much that a bishop would remain with his flock for life, as opposed to the apostles who traveled, visiting existing Christian communities and establishing new ones.

Agreed all 'round!!...

Mary

[stanley123]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned!

Is that just your opinion or is it more widely held in your Church?

That is the logical conclusion of the other person's argument, that we should ignore the first lists, produced by the pre-nicene fathers and base our conclusions off of only what came later. Then why read them at all? Let's just consign them to oblivion, since their opinions are so unimportant and inconvenient. Nice out of context quotation, by the way. Are you always this dishonest when arguing against others?

OK. I see. It was supposed to be something that followed from an argument given by someone else, not your comment.
You know, communicating through the internet can lead to misunderstandings. It is not the same as face to face.

[Cavaradossi]

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned!

Is that just your opinion or is it more widely held in your Church?

That is the logical conclusion of the other person's argument, that we should ignore the first lists, produced by the pre-nicene fathers and base our conclusions off of only what came later. Then why read them at all? Let's just consign them to oblivion, since their opinions are so unimportant and inconvenient. Nice out of context quotation, by the way. Are you always this dishonest when arguing against others?

OK. I see. It was supposed to be something that followed from an argument given by someone else, not your comment.
You know, communicating through the internet can lead to misunderstandings. It is not the same as face to face.

Yes, that is true. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We only have 19 faces available to us here at OC.net, but I think I sometimes wind up too quickly assuming that the one on the other end is this one, . Imagining everybody looking like this, , would probably be better.

[Michał Kalina]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

It took place in 1720.

[Peter J]

I have not followed this thread because I thought the answer was rather obvious. Now that it has gone on and on, I think may be I should throw my two cents in. The answer is: the Roman Church because She is in a stronger position in numbers and organization. I do not see how the big fish does not eventually swallow the little fish, even if it may be an accident.

The fact that it didn't happen in 1596 should tell us all something.

It took place in 1720.

What the Roman Communion swallowed up the Orthodox Communion? (I'm guessing you're talking about something different.)

[Michał Kalina]

Synod of Zamość. Forced latinisations of the Eastern Catholic Church.

[Peter J]

OIC. Different little fish.

[elijahmaria]

Synod of Zamość. Forced latinisations of the Eastern Catholic Church.

Zamostye

...speaking of Polonizations!!

[Michał Kalina]

Zamość is in Poland.

[elijahmaria]

Zamość is in Poland.

  You've made my point.

[Samson4ll]

@Cavaradossi

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

First, i adressed the argument. I showed that for the pre-schism period, tha Tradition is clearly that st Peter is the First bishop of Rome. Second, in the Bible, St Peter is called an "elder", Episkopos, meaning a bishop, as it is also used by st Ignace of Antioche:

A bishop (English translation of the biblical Greek επίσκοπος episcopos "supervisor, protector").
"Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc

The ambiguous words of the earliest times are not a problem if interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. But here, the earliest is st Peter's epistle, where he's called a bishop.

And also, it is not because we have writings from st John Chrysostom of st Basil in wich they claim that the blessed virgin Mary sinned, that you believe it. Since it contradicts the whole tradition of  the CHurch. THen you must apply the same standard to the priesthood of st Peter in Rome.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Well you are arguing from Silence against st Jerome, simply for polemical purposes, and with no proof at all that st Jerome forged it.

[biro]

@Cavaradossi

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

First, i adressed the argument. I showed that for the pre-schism period, tha Tradition is clearly that st Peter is the First bishop of Rome. Second, in the Bible, St Peter is called an "elder", Episkopos, meaning a bishop, as it is also used by st Ignace of Antioche:

A bishop (English translation of the biblical Greek επίσκοπος episcopos "supervisor, protector").
"Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc

The ambiguous words of the earliest times are not a problem if interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. But here, the earliest is st Peter's epistle, where he's called a bishop.

And also, it is not because we have writings from st John Chrysostom of st Basil in wich they claim that the blessed virgin Mary sinned, that you believe it. Since it contradicts the whole tradition of  the CHurch. THen you must apply the same standard to the priesthood of st Peter in Rome.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Well you are arguing from Silence against st Jerome, simply for polemical purposes, and with no proof at all that st Jerome forged it.

Thank you.

[elijahmaria]

@Cavaradossi

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

First, i adressed the argument. I showed that for the pre-schism period, tha Tradition is clearly that st Peter is the First bishop of Rome. Second, in the Bible, St Peter is called an "elder", Episkopos, meaning a bishop, as it is also used by st Ignace of Antioche:

A bishop (English translation of the biblical Greek επίσκοπος episcopos "supervisor, protector").
"Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc

The ambiguous words of the earliest times are not a problem if interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. But here, the earliest is st Peter's epistle, where he's called a bishop.

And also, it is not because we have writings from st John Chrysostom of st Basil in wich they claim that the blessed virgin Mary sinned, that you believe it. Since it contradicts the whole tradition of  the CHurch. THen you must apply the same standard to the priesthood of st Peter in Rome.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Well you are arguing from Silence against st Jerome, simply for polemical purposes, and with no proof at all that st Jerome forged it.

Dear Samson,

Why don't you and Cavaradossi start over.  Introduce yourselves and see if you cannot see in one another what I see in both of you...real and genuine goodness, sincere faith and intelligence.

Then see if you cannot discussion things so that your interaction maximizes illumination.  In fact this discussion between the two of you has indeed been illuminating save for the tightness and tension in your respective notes to one another.  Get rid of that tension, and we may have quite a pair of discussants here...something that is going to be a real pleasure to read in future.

Looking forward in Christ,

Mary

[Samson4ll]

@Cavaradossi

May the memories of the apostolic fathers be damned! You are all over the place here and not addressing the argument. We know that after the fourth century, this convention changed (hence we start seeing claims that St. Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria, St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome and Antioch, etc.). My point is that in the very earliest times it was not conventional to include the founder of a see as its first bishop.

First, i adressed the argument. I showed that for the pre-schism period, tha Tradition is clearly that st Peter is the First bishop of Rome. Second, in the Bible, St Peter is called an "elder", Episkopos, meaning a bishop, as it is also used by st Ignace of Antioche:

A bishop (English translation of the biblical Greek επίσκοπος episcopos "supervisor, protector").
"Presbyter and episkopos appear to be used interchangeably at other points in the New Testament and in I Clement. This usage makes it difficult to accept the thesis that Peter would not have been considered a bishop or episkopos while resident in Rome."
www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc

The ambiguous words of the earliest times are not a problem if interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the Church. But here, the earliest is st Peter's epistle, where he's called a bishop.

And also, it is not because we have writings from st John Chrysostom of st Basil in wich they claim that the blessed virgin Mary sinned, that you believe it. Since it contradicts the whole tradition of  the CHurch. THen you must apply the same standard to the priesthood of st Peter in Rome.

As for the Eusebius/Jerome thing. Given that we already have another work by Eusebius in which he calls Linus the first bishop, are we then to assume that Eusebius was inconsistent or that Jerome (whom we already know believed that St. Peter was thee first bishop of Rome from his other writings) edited Eusebius' book? We don't know what Jerome's additions are to that book, because no extant Greek version of Eusebius' original book remains.

Well you are arguing from Silence against st Jerome, simply for polemical purposes, and with no proof at all that st Jerome forged it.

Dear Samson,

Why don't you and Cavaradossi start over.  Introduce yourselves and see if you cannot see in one another what I see in both of you...real and genuine goodness, sincere faith and intelligence.

Then see if you cannot discussion things so that your interaction maximizes illumination.  In fact this discussion between the two of you has indeed been illuminating save for the tightness and tension in your respective notes to one another.  Get rid of that tension, and we may have quite a pair of discussants here...something that is going to be a real pleasure to read in future.

Looking forward in Christ,

Mary

Hello. If he had said this,

"That's not quite what I was trying to say. Obviously, they had to have been of episcopal rank to consecrate the bishops in the cities they were visiting. But it seems that the earliest fathers avoided ascribing a single place to them. This is why you don't see St. Mark being listed as the first bishop of Alexandria, or Peter as the first bishop of Antioch and Rome early on, because the concept was still very much that a bishop would remain with his flock for life, as opposed to the apostles who traveled, visiting existing Christian communities and establishing new ones. "

from the beggining, we would have certainly come to an agreement.

Christ is in our midst, God bless.

[xariskai]

The RC is far more open to reunification, because to them, they've done little to nothing wrong.

If Rome wants to come back, they just have to do what Fr. Hopko said. Become Orthodox again. Anything short of that is a waste of time.

PP

it seems to me Fr. Hopko is as "open to re-uniting" as anyone -if the terms are right from an Orthodox P.O.V.

The question is not who is more open to re-uniting but what the terms of such reunion should be.

[elijahmaria]

Christ is in our midst, God bless.

I am aware it is always easier if...

Thanks for considering the possibilities!

Cavaradossi is one of my favorite OC.net folks.  He's a good fellow...S'truth!

Mary

[Cavaradossi]

Christ is in our midst, God bless.

I am aware it is always easier if...

Thanks for considering the possibilities!

Cavaradossi is one of my favorite OC.net folks.  He's a good fellow...S'truth!

Mary

I'm not so sure that I am deserving of such kind words.

As for Samson4ll, I'm sorry, perhaps I could have been more eirenic. I've been spending too much time on a certain other forum lately where the posters, while 'charitable' are not always so nice.

[Samson4ll]

Christ is in our midst, God bless.

I am aware it is always easier if...

Thanks for considering the possibilities!

Cavaradossi is one of my favorite OC.net folks.  He's a good fellow...S'truth!

Mary

Hristos a înviat!  Almost everything is possible today  

[Samson4ll]

Christ is in our midst, God bless.

I am aware it is always easier if...

Thanks for considering the possibilities!

Cavaradossi is one of my favorite OC.net folks.  He's a good fellow...S'truth!

Mary

I'm not so sure that I am deserving of such kind words.

As for Samson4ll, I'm sorry, perhaps I could have been more eirenic. I've been spending too much time on a certain other forum lately where the posters, while 'charitable' are not always so nice.

I know what you mean, and i'm sorry too if have appeared to be rude or arogant or anything like that. Christ is risen!

[biro]

Cavaradossi, I would like to apologize for getting angry. I realize we may disagree, but it's best not to let my temper get the best of me.

Don't want the purple baddies to sabotage anyone's Lent!   

[Peter J]

As for Samson4ll, I'm sorry, perhaps I could have been more eirenic. I've been spending too much time on a certain other forum lately where the posters, while 'charitable' are not always so nice.

I've noticed that at some forums (fora) anyone who doesn't subscribe to their ideology tends to appear impolite or even uncharitable. Pretty strange phenomenon, but I've observed it more than once.

[stanley123]

Hristos a înviat!  Almost everything is possible today  

Adeverat a inviat!

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, I would like to apologize for getting angry. I realize we may disagree, but it's best not to let my temper get the best of me.

Don't want the purple baddies to sabotage anyone's Lent!   

Thank you biro, please accept my apologies too.

On the topic of purple baddies, does anybody know if noetic beings count as lenten food?

[J Michael]

Cavaradossi, I would like to apologize for getting angry. I realize we may disagree, but it's best not to let my temper get the best of me.

Don't want the purple baddies to sabotage anyone's Lent!   

Thank you biro, please accept my apologies too.

On the topic of purple baddies, does anybody know if noetic beings count as lenten food?

I think the standard Orthodox answer is--"have you asked your priest?" 

I'd speculate that if they're not animal protein.....chow down, my friend!  But not greedily 

[Wyatt]

At first it seemed to me that our Church was more open to reuniting. However, in terms of online communications it is difficult to tell because there are radicals on both sides. I would personally like to see a Christianity that was void of doctrinal divisions (as would Christ), but I know that likely won't happen this side of the grave.

[Timon]

At first it seemed to me that our Church was more open to reuniting. However, in terms of online communications it is difficult to tell because there are radicals on both sides. I would personally like to see a Christianity that was void of doctrinal divisions (as would Christ), but I know that likely won't happen this side of the grave.

I believe this is the unfortunate reality.

[elijahmaria]

Cavaradossi, I would like to apologize for getting angry. I realize we may disagree, but it's best not to let my temper get the best of me.

Don't want the purple baddies to sabotage anyone's Lent!   

 

Looking forward to some excellent discussion as time goes on...

M.

[Timon]

What about the idea that rather than one church being right or wrong, theyre just different?  I mean, over time as they spread into different regions of the world, isnt it natural that the Church would operate a little differently in different areas based on the different cultures?

Every time I talk to Catholic friends, Anglican friends or any non-protestant friend who leans 'western', my brain starts thinking.  Forgive me.  However, I do appreciate the discussion. 

[Peter J]

What about the idea that rather than one church being right or wrong, theyre just different?  I mean, over time as they spread into different regions of the world, isnt it natural that the Church would operate a little differently in different areas based on the different cultures?

Every time I talk to Catholic friends, Anglican friends or any non-protestant friend who leans 'western', my brain starts thinking.  Forgive me.  However, I do appreciate the discussion. 

Anglicans are, of course, famous for their tolerance of different beliefs. This would be fine, if we don't mind pretending that, for example, the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 never happened. 

[Samson4ll]

What about the idea that rather than one church being right or wrong, theyre just different?  I mean, over time as they spread into different regions of the world, isnt it natural that the Church would operate a little differently in different areas based on the different cultures?

Every time I talk to Catholic friends, Anglican friends or any non-protestant friend who leans 'western', my brain starts thinking.  Forgive me.  However, I do appreciate the discussion. 

Hi.
It contradicts Tradition, canons, saints etc. If we accept it, then we can throw everything in the garbage and become protestants.

[Punch]

The RC is far more open to reunification, because to them, they've done little to nothing wrong.

If Rome wants to come back, they just have to do what Fr. Hopko said. Become Orthodox again. Anything short of that is a waste of time.

PP

it seems to me Fr. Hopko is as "open to re-uniting" as anyone -if the terms are right from an Orthodox P.O.V.

The question is not who is more open to re-uniting but what the terms of such reunion should be.

It really is just a matter of the terms.

[J Michael]

The RC is far more open to reunification, because to them, they've done little to nothing wrong.

If Rome wants to come back, they just have to do what Fr. Hopko said. Become Orthodox again. Anything short of that is a waste of time.

PP

it seems to me Fr. Hopko is as "open to re-uniting" as anyone -if the terms are right from an Orthodox P.O.V.

The question is not who is more open to re-uniting but what the terms of such reunion should be.

It really is just a matter of the terms.

Isn't it always?  Seems to me the problem, assuming both "sides" *want* to reunite, is defining those terms and deciding whether they're acceptable or not.  Simple, isn't it  ?

[Papist]

Absolutely. I think both sides desire reunion. The problem is that means different things for each side. The Catholics want the Orthodox to convert. The Orthodox want the Catholics to convert.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Which church is more open to reuniting??