OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 08:32:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 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 15230 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #360 on: April 11, 2012, 11:54:06 AM »

Quote
I've been keeping the Pasch with Orthodoxy for nearly 15 years
A step in the right direction  laugh laugh laugh laugh

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #361 on: April 11, 2012, 11:57:59 AM »

Quote
Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine but you do not believe that the Holy Spirit operates in the election of the pope.

Interestin'....
It depends on which era to which you refer. Before or after the invention of infallibility and supremacy.

PP

The Holy Spirit operates in all cases since Peter's declaration that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

Now you may not accept the teaching of either primacy or of infallibility but you'd be better off if you tried to reconcile the teaching as the Catholic Church intends it, rather than just shutting your eyes and saying "nononononononononono"..... Smiley

Blessed Great and Holy Week!

I will be joining you in spirit and liturgically over the next few days.  It is a great privilege to be allowed to live in the space between two traditions.  Wink

M.
Actually, living in two traditions is most untenable this week. How can you be celebrating the resurrection/pascha this week, and also fasting for Holy Week? Feasting and Fasting at the same time? I think you are great Maria.  Grin

BTW, this is all the more reason why we should work towards all Christians being on the same calendar.

I've been keeping the Pasch with Orthodoxy for nearly 15 years.

I think your phrase "the space between two traditions" confused him.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #362 on: April 11, 2012, 11:58:36 AM »

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Do you believe Papal Infallibility is true?

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine
...

Possibly so, but I prefer to ask rather than assume.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #363 on: April 11, 2012, 12:00:13 PM »

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Do you believe Papal Infallibility is true?

Apparently you not only do not believe in papal doctrine
...

Possibly so, but I prefer to ask rather than assume.

No.

...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 12:04:45 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #364 on: April 11, 2012, 12:06:49 PM »


...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


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


« Reply #365 on: April 11, 2012, 12:10:59 PM »

Quote
I've been keeping the Pasch with Orthodoxy for nearly 15 years
A step in the right direction  laugh laugh laugh laugh

PP

I would think that the *only* right direction is towards God.  And that can be done in either of our Churches, or, even perhaps, outside of both.  But, what do I know?

Papist does raise an interesting question, though.....
Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #366 on: April 11, 2012, 12:14:58 PM »

Quote
No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?
I was under the assumption it was done by synod.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #367 on: April 11, 2012, 12:18:17 PM »


...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?



I wouldn't cite the MP as quite the proper example of Orthodox organization as a more centralized mode of operation has been in place there since the reforms of Peter the Great and the restoration of the Patriarchate in the 20th century. The Holy Synod of any Orthodox Church which is self-ruling has the final say regarding hierarchical appointments. Not withstanding its 'self-ruling' status, the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church had to submit the election of their Major-Archbishop to Rome last year. (Of course, given their size and the politics involved it is dubious if Rome would have rejected their choice - or that they would have chosen one who might not be pleasing to the Vatican.) The clergy of the BCC in Slovakia or the US has no say in the selection of its hierarchs - promises made in the union of Uzhorod notwithstanding.

If the MP were to disallow the choice of his Synod in such a matter it would provoke a crisis within Russian Orthodoxy. No such crisis would occur within the greater body of Roman Catholicism were the pope to reject a Synodal choice.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #368 on: April 11, 2012, 12:22:17 PM »

Quote
No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?
I was under the assumption it was done by synod.

PP

It is but then it is given to the Patriarch to sign off on and it is not complete till that happens.

The idea of the primate overseeing and approving the episcopate for the purposes of maintaining unity in the Church is not one that is restricted to the papal Church.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #369 on: April 11, 2012, 12:25:13 PM »

Quote
No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?
I was under the assumption it was done by synod.

PP

It is but then it is given to the Patriarch to sign off on and it is not complete till that happens.

The idea of the primate overseeing and approving the episcopate for the purposes of maintaining unity in the Church is not one that is restricted to the papal Church.

M.

But you have to concede that while the theory and even the words we use may be similar, the reality of the divergence between the east and west has much to do with the definitions of conciliarity and primacy. Those 'itty bitty' issues have divided our churches for nearly a millenium.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #370 on: April 11, 2012, 12:33:00 PM »

Quote
No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?
I was under the assumption it was done by synod.

PP

It is but then it is given to the Patriarch to sign off on and it is not complete till that happens.

The idea of the primate overseeing and approving the episcopate for the purposes of maintaining unity in the Church is not one that is restricted to the papal Church.

M.

But you have to concede that while the theory and even the words we use may be similar, the reality of the divergence between the east and west has much to do with the definitions of conciliarity and primacy. Those 'itty bitty' issues have divided our churches for nearly a millenium.

Unfortunately the two [horizontal and vertical] aspects of ecclesia have been set up as being polar opposites when in fact they both operate in the west and the east. 

There's a divergence of emphasis between east and west, and the Catholic Church has condemned conciliarISM...but they have never accused Orthodoxy of practicing conciliarism, nor condemned their conciliar system.  Part of the reason that the Catholic Church does not accuse Orthodoxy of conciliarism is because primatial power is in evidence and the east visibly works to keep that balance between the horizontal and the vertical,  just as the west engages in the same struggle.

M.
Logged

Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #371 on: April 11, 2012, 06:46:42 PM »

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking. 

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

He is, but that fact should not have been dogmatized -- at least that's what Newman thought.

It had to e dogmatized to end the debates among the faithfull of the Church.

Saying it need to be dogmatized to end the debate isn't presenting an argument. That's like if I said I need to go to the store, and you asked why, and I replied "In order to get there."

The time for debates was over, after centuries of endless talks, it was good to end all of this.  YOu may not like the argument but the fact remains.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
Samson4ll
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantium
Posts: 22



« Reply #372 on: April 11, 2012, 06:49:05 PM »

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Well your argument is very interesting, and coherent from an autocephalous perspectiv. But from a catholic one, it is not. Because dogmatized or not, it was nonetheless part of the catholic faith, and could not be reformed.
Logged

"God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."
St. Augustine
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #373 on: April 12, 2012, 07:49:55 AM »

No, not exactly, it was an idea of: How did we exist pre-schism inspite of our "small T" traditions?  Granted the split didnt happen in one event but over the course of time.  Im sure there were many non religious factors involved: distances, language differences, customs, cultural, and ethnicity issues, and the like which may have factored into what we  have today.  As a former RC I have always had issues with the Pope's claim of Infallibility and Supremacy.  And I know the RCC's argument that they werent coming up with new innovations, but " only reasserting what was already accepted in the western church".  I think this was a mistake to make this dogma, and I think this is where the problem lies.  But this is only me thinking.  

Actually, even Cardinal Newman said that dogmatizing Papal Infallibility had been a very bad idea -- even though he believed it. For what it's worth.

Cardinal Newman was wrong on this. The dogmatization of Papal Infallibility in fact came after centuries of debates between Gallicans and ultramontanes. The dogmatization ended all the debates. And it is the logical conclucion of the Papacy. Why the need for a visible and perpetual head to the Church if this head is not infallible in some way?

I would suggest that Cardinal Newman was correct.

History tells us that the selection of Popes and Patriarchs as well as Bishops and Kings has not always been conducted in a manner in which a man best suited for the task assumes the throne. By dogmatizing the teachings regarding the papacy, the Roman Church is at risk of collapse from within should a man of questionable moral or political character assume the papal  throne. It has happened in the past - who is to say that it can not happen again?

If a Patriarch of say, Constantinople or Moscow were to be viewed as a morally compromised or failed man, his church could (albeit with great difficulty and certainly with much harm befalling the Church) rid themselves of him and his regime and explain it away over time. The issues of supremacy, infallibility and the role of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth would make dealing with such a horrible situation all the more difficult - if not impossible.

While the modern likelihood of a pope like a Borgia or Medici assuming the papal throne is remote, we should not delude ourselves as in our recent past we have seen princes of that church in important sees fall because of either their political insensitivity or moral blindness on certain issues. The psychic harm and spiritual damage that this has caused remains to be calculated. Imagine if a Pope were in similar straits.

Well your argument is very interesting, and coherent from an autocephalous perspectiv. But from a catholic one, it is not. Because dogmatized or not, it was nonetheless part of the catholic faith, and could not be reformed.

Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #374 on: April 12, 2012, 11:05:20 AM »


Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)

All primatial power and authority [and in that I would include monastic superiors though they are not strictly primatial] is of spiritual benefit to the entire Ecclesia.  From it comes great opportunity for humility born on the back of obedience.  Faith is that movement of the nous which brings us into direct contact with the divine, and  faith, Jesus tells us, cannot be fully exercised without humility. 

So indeed the wholeness of the Church, east and west, is bound in obedience to the reality of primatial power [brought by the Holy Spirit] and authority [passed on by the Apostles.]

I think it is just too darned easy to pass all that off...We, east and west, have very serious...what do they call it?....issues with authority.
Logged

JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,156


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


« Reply #375 on: April 12, 2012, 11:33:58 AM »


Well, I guess, as Orthodox we will have to continue to follow our faith and it's fullness regardless of any unity.

All the blessings of this Holy Week.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


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


« Reply #376 on: April 12, 2012, 12:07:43 PM »


Well, I guess, as Orthodox we will have to continue to follow our faith and it's fullness regardless of any unity.

All the blessings of this Holy Week.

Interesting turn of phrase.  Hmm....I guess you're saying that Orthodox will remain Orthodox (and by implication, Catholics will remain Catholic in the fullness of our faith) whether there is "unity" or not.  I would think that would go without saying, but you said it anyway  Wink.

Hope you're having a blessed Holy Week!

Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #377 on: April 12, 2012, 12:33:45 PM »


Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)

All primatial power and authority [and in that I would include monastic superiors though they are not strictly primatial] is of spiritual benefit to the entire Ecclesia.  From it comes great opportunity for humility born on the back of obedience.  Faith is that movement of the nous which brings us into direct contact with the divine, and  faith, Jesus tells us, cannot be fully exercised without humility. 

So indeed the wholeness of the Church, east and west, is bound in obedience to the reality of primatial power [brought by the Holy Spirit] and authority [passed on by the Apostles.]

I think it is just too darned easy to pass all that off...We, east and west, have very serious...what do they call it?....issues with authority.

It is the defining of primatial power and the exercise thereof which has caused so much hurt to the body of the Church.
Logged
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,156


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


« Reply #378 on: April 12, 2012, 12:44:10 PM »

Absolutely, to give up our Orthodoxy is to give up our faith...........Blessings
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #379 on: April 12, 2012, 12:49:07 PM »


Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)

All primatial power and authority [and in that I would include monastic superiors though they are not strictly primatial] is of spiritual benefit to the entire Ecclesia.  From it comes great opportunity for humility born on the back of obedience.  Faith is that movement of the nous which brings us into direct contact with the divine, and  faith, Jesus tells us, cannot be fully exercised without humility. 

So indeed the wholeness of the Church, east and west, is bound in obedience to the reality of primatial power [brought by the Holy Spirit] and authority [passed on by the Apostles.]

I think it is just too darned easy to pass all that off...We, east and west, have very serious...what do they call it?....issues with authority.

It is the defining of primatial power and the exercise thereof which has caused so much hurt to the body of the Church.

I was speaking of both east and west, are you?

And the exercise thereof?    Are you speaking of abuse or the correct exercise?

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #380 on: April 12, 2012, 12:52:53 PM »

Quote
I've been keeping the Pasch with Orthodoxy for nearly 15 years
A step in the right direction  laugh laugh laugh laugh

PP

 Smiley...The only way I know how to get close enough to speak of both traditions is to live the one that did not raise me.  So I keep an Orthodox calendar, fast and attend Orthodox liturgies.   If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

M.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 12:54:02 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #381 on: April 12, 2012, 01:05:17 PM »


Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)

All primatial power and authority [and in that I would include monastic superiors though they are not strictly primatial] is of spiritual benefit to the entire Ecclesia.  From it comes great opportunity for humility born on the back of obedience.  Faith is that movement of the nous which brings us into direct contact with the divine, and  faith, Jesus tells us, cannot be fully exercised without humility.  

So indeed the wholeness of the Church, east and west, is bound in obedience to the reality of primatial power [brought by the Holy Spirit] and authority [passed on by the Apostles.]

I think it is just too darned easy to pass all that off...We, east and west, have very serious...what do they call it?....issues with authority.

It is the defining of primatial power and the exercise thereof which has caused so much hurt to the body of the Church.

I was speaking of both east and west, are you?

And the exercise thereof?    Are you speaking of abuse or the correct exercise?



For a non-attorney, you are adept at parsing words and phrases!  Smiley Obviously from my context I was referring to us all. There are enough examples of the abuse of power in the history of The Church - regardless of which 'side' one views 'the' Church as residing. Restating them in an accusatory manner merely keeps old wounds open and festering.

Defining the 'correct' exercise is the problem - you define it in a different manner than do I - and my fellow Orthodox.

I will just say that Scripture taught long before the Christian era that David told believers that it is good for brothers to dwell in unity. Both west and east pray for unity of the faith. As we are about to go dark in anticipation of the Great Feast, the Pascha of our Lord - we ought to leave it at that. regards!
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 01:06:05 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #382 on: April 12, 2012, 01:12:11 PM »


Thank you for your cogent comment which succinctly puts this debate into perspective - one in which it has found itself for the better part of a millennium! Frankly I am comfortable at this point in my life in admitting that our two churches have to coexist in this realm and agree to disagree on this subject while recognizing the historical and intellectual underpinnings of the other's point of view on this issue. If all else were to be put aside, the papacy issue would still remain. (Of course we Orthodox would say that the role of the pope is not part of the Catholic faith - as we hold that faith to mean - but that will just make the merry go round go round and round!)

All primatial power and authority [and in that I would include monastic superiors though they are not strictly primatial] is of spiritual benefit to the entire Ecclesia.  From it comes great opportunity for humility born on the back of obedience.  Faith is that movement of the nous which brings us into direct contact with the divine, and  faith, Jesus tells us, cannot be fully exercised without humility.  

So indeed the wholeness of the Church, east and west, is bound in obedience to the reality of primatial power [brought by the Holy Spirit] and authority [passed on by the Apostles.]

I think it is just too darned easy to pass all that off...We, east and west, have very serious...what do they call it?....issues with authority.

It is the defining of primatial power and the exercise thereof which has caused so much hurt to the body of the Church.

I was speaking of both east and west, are you?

And the exercise thereof?    Are you speaking of abuse or the correct exercise?



For a non-attorney, you are adept at parsing words and phrases!  Smiley Obviously from my context I was referring to us all. There are enough examples of the abuse of power in the history of The Church - regardless of which 'side' one views 'the' Church as residing. Restating them in an accusatory manner merely keeps old wounds open and festering.

Defining the 'correct' exercise is the problem - you define it in a different manner than do I - and my fellow Orthodox.

I will just say that Scripture taught long before the Christian era that David told believers that it is good for brothers to dwell in unity. Both west and east pray for unity of the faith. As we are about to go dark in anticipation of the Great Feast, the Pascha of our Lord - we ought to leave it at that. regards!

Good note to leave on. 

Blessed Pascha!

In Christ,

M.
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #383 on: April 12, 2012, 03:37:18 PM »


...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?



AFAIK he doesn't do that for Japan, Ukraine and ROCOR.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #384 on: April 12, 2012, 03:51:08 PM »


...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?



AFAIK he doesn't do that for Japan, Ukraine and ROCOR.

I don't know but your point is well taken and where there are Patriarchs there should be no need for papal oversight over the episcopate.  In fact it seems to me that is the direction in which things are headed, and I have heard both our past and present pontiff make those kinds of noises from time to time.

The curia has a great deal to do with the continued resistance to change.  I know that is an tired old canard but it is true and there needs be change there if we are to resume without confusion.

I think these things can be made to change when the will and need are imminent. 

In Christ,

M.
Logged

LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #385 on: April 12, 2012, 05:01:07 PM »

Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,235


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


« Reply #386 on: April 12, 2012, 05:16:15 PM »

Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.

Guess you missed the first part of her sentence, i.e. "If we were to resume communion..."  If that were to happen, there would be ONE Church, not her Church (and mine) and "another church", i.e. the Orthodox Church.  I think that's what resuming communion means--Orthodox would be Catholic and Catholics would be Orthodox.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 05:16:58 PM by J Michael » Logged

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,444


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #387 on: April 12, 2012, 05:35:47 PM »

Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.

Guess you missed the first part of her sentence, i.e. "If we were to resume communion..."  If that were to happen, there would be ONE Church, not her Church (and mine) and "another church", i.e. the Orthodox Church.  I think that's what resuming communion means--Orthodox would be Catholic and Catholics would be Orthodox.



Someone who is not part of the Orthodox church has stated she will not "leave Orthodoxy". She is not part of the Orthodox Church, despite her frequent claims of observing certain Orthodox practices and devotions. Heck, only a day or so ago, she stated she observed Orthodox Holy Week and Easter as well as the observances of her own church. Go figure how a Roman/Byzantine Catholic can observe Easter and Palm Sunday at the same time, and Holy Week during Catholic Bright Week.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #388 on: April 12, 2012, 06:39:18 PM »

Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.

Guess you missed the first part of her sentence, i.e. "If we were to resume communion..."  If that were to happen, there would be ONE Church, not her Church (and mine) and "another church", i.e. the Orthodox Church.  I think that's what resuming communion means--Orthodox would be Catholic and Catholics would be Orthodox.

Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Someone who is not part of the Orthodox church has stated she will not "leave Orthodoxy".

Speaking for myself, I surely won't leave Orthodoxy (whether we resume communion or not).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,156


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


« Reply #389 on: April 12, 2012, 10:38:16 PM »

Someone who is not part of the Orthodox church has stated she will not "leave Orthodoxy".

Speaking for myself, I surely won't leave Orthodoxy (whether we resume communion or not).
[/quote]

Thats a big bump for me too.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #390 on: April 14, 2012, 10:12:21 PM »

Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

LARP-ing.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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


« Reply #391 on: April 14, 2012, 10:15:18 PM »


...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?



AFAIK he doesn't do that for Japan, Ukraine and ROCOR.

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).
Logged

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

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

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #392 on: April 14, 2012, 10:16:04 PM »

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).

I mean their dioceasan bishops.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #393 on: April 14, 2012, 10:58:17 PM »

Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

LARP-ing.

Not really. I was speaking of the hypothetical situation that elijahmaria and J Michael mentioned: "If we were to resume communion... there would be ONE Church".
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #394 on: April 15, 2012, 08:25:46 PM »

Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

LARP-ing.

Not really. I was speaking of the hypothetical situation that elijahmaria and J Michael mentioned: "If we were to resume communion... there would be ONE Church".
I agree. If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy either. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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


« Reply #395 on: April 15, 2012, 10:14:08 PM »

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).

I mean their dioceasan bishops.

Technically, I believe, the Pope does not confirm diocesan bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Rather, I believe, the synod a diocese belongs to submits a list of names to the Pope, and then he eliminates those names he finds unacceptable.  The synod can then elect any of those people without any further relation to the Pope.  Or, they could elect someone not on the list of approved persons, in which case the Pope's consent has to be obtained.
Logged

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

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

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #396 on: April 16, 2012, 12:59:47 AM »

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).

I mean their dioceasan bishops.

Technically, I believe, the Pope does not confirm diocesan bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Rather, I believe, the synod a diocese belongs to submits a list of names to the Pope, and then he eliminates those names he finds unacceptable.  The synod can then elect any of those people without any further relation to the Pope.  Or, they could elect someone not on the list of approved persons, in which case the Pope's consent has to be obtained.

Why should he be involved at all? Are the Eastern Catholics incapable of screening out bad candidates for the episcopacy?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 01:04:24 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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


« Reply #397 on: April 16, 2012, 01:29:29 AM »

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).

I mean their dioceasan bishops.

Technically, I believe, the Pope does not confirm diocesan bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Rather, I believe, the synod a diocese belongs to submits a list of names to the Pope, and then he eliminates those names he finds unacceptable.  The synod can then elect any of those people without any further relation to the Pope.  Or, they could elect someone not on the list of approved persons, in which case the Pope's consent has to be obtained.

Why should he be involved at all? Are the Eastern Catholics incapable of screening out bad candidates for the episcopacy?

Well now, that is a valid question.  I was only addressing the assumption that the Pope exerts as much authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches as he does over the Latin Church (of course, he retains full authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I don't think any of the Catholics here would disagree with that, but in practice less is used).
Logged

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

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

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #398 on: April 16, 2012, 09:09:37 AM »

Technically, I believe, the Pope does not confirm diocesan bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Rather, I believe, the synod a diocese belongs to submits a list of names to the Pope, and then he eliminates those names he finds unacceptable.  The synod can then elect any of those people without any further relation to the Pope.  Or, they could elect someone not on the list of approved persons, in which case the Pope's consent has to be obtained.

Not necessarily. It depends which diocese/eparchy. In some cases the Pope isn't involved in the selection process.
Logged

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

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #399 on: April 16, 2012, 10:23:43 AM »

Actually, all of them being autonomous churches, their primal bishop IS confirmed by the autocephalous church (in all three of those cases, this would be Russia), though I am not entirely certain that the Patriarch necessarily has final say (though, I know that at the very least he enthroned the Metropolitan of the Japanese church).

I mean their dioceasan bishops.

Technically, I believe, the Pope does not confirm diocesan bishops in the Eastern Catholic Churches.  Rather, I believe, the synod a diocese belongs to submits a list of names to the Pope, and then he eliminates those names he finds unacceptable.  The synod can then elect any of those people without any further relation to the Pope.  Or, they could elect someone not on the list of approved persons, in which case the Pope's consent has to be obtained.

Why should he be involved at all? Are the Eastern Catholics incapable of screening out bad candidates for the episcopacy?

Well now, that is a valid question.  I was only addressing the assumption that the Pope exerts as much authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches as he does over the Latin Church (of course, he retains full authority over the Eastern Catholic Churches, and I don't think any of the Catholics here would disagree with that, but in practice less is used).

It would be interesting to hear how the Melkite hierarchy sees it. I wouldn't be surprised if they see it differently. I would think that they see themselves as being in union with me the pope but not under him. I also wouldnt be surprised if they considered their Holy Synod as being the highest autority in the MELKITE Church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #400 on: April 16, 2012, 10:26:55 AM »

Christ is risen!
Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

LARP-ing.

Not really. I was speaking of the hypothetical situation that elijahmaria and J Michael mentioned: "If we were to resume communion... there would be ONE Church".
I agree. If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy either. Smiley
It would be like at Florence: there was One Church before, and afterwards the One Church remained, just short a couple of bishops (actually she was short a little before:Moldavia had the foresight to depose its metropolitan just for going).  That's why the Vatican tried the piecemeal approach at Brest and elsewhere, the old Roman "divide and conquer."
Logged

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

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



« Reply #401 on: April 16, 2012, 10:29:49 AM »

Christ is risen!
Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

LARP-ing.

Not really. I was speaking of the hypothetical situation that elijahmaria and J Michael mentioned: "If we were to resume communion... there would be ONE Church".
Yes, really.  Michael was speaking of the realistic situation of what elijahmaria and J Michael were talking about.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #402 on: April 16, 2012, 10:32:37 AM »

Christ is risen!
Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.

Guess you missed the first part of her sentence, i.e. "If we were to resume communion..."  If that were to happen, there would be ONE Church, not her Church (and mine) and "another church", i.e. the Orthodox Church.  I think that's what resuming communion means--Orthodox would be Catholic and Catholics would be Orthodox.

Or they would be Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

Someone who is not part of the Orthodox church has stated she will not "leave Orthodoxy".

Speaking for myself, I surely won't leave Orthodoxy (whether we resume communion or not).
One has to come to leave.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 10:33:08 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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



« Reply #403 on: April 16, 2012, 10:39:42 AM »

Christ is risen!
Quote
If we were to resume communion, I would not leave Orthodoxy.  I would simply begin to commune.

EM, observing certain aspects of Orthodox praxis does not make you part of the Orthodox Church if your baptism and reception of communion is in another church.

Guess you missed the first part of her sentence, i.e. "If we were to resume communion..."  If that were to happen, there would be ONE Church, not her Church (and mine) and "another church", i.e. the Orthodox Church.  I think that's what resuming communion means--Orthodox would be Catholic and Catholics would be Orthodox.
Orthodox are Catholic, and Catholics are Orthodox.  There is ONE Church.  If another church wants to join, it needs to confess the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church and THEN their would be resumption of communion.  Resumption of communion will occur if and ONLY if the non-Orthodox return to the Catholic Church. Of course, the WRO have already done that.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #404 on: April 16, 2012, 10:47:46 AM »

Christos Voskrese!

...and as to EM;s comment about understanding infallibility and supremacy in a manner  'how the (Roman) church intends it'  begins a descent down a long and slippery slope for the average layperson..... Give us a call the next time a local synod of the Latin church elects a Bishop, enthrones him and fails to let the Pope know beforehand. (and don't bother giving us examples of the underground church in China or Ukraine under communism. They don't count.)

No Orthodox Church [the MP for example] looks to the Patriarch for final approval of new bishops in their election and assignment?



AFAIK he doesn't do that for Japan, Ukraine and ROCOR.

I don't know but your point is well taken and where there are Patriarchs there should be no need for papal oversight over the episcopate.  In fact it seems to me that is the direction in which things are headed, and I have heard both our past and present pontiff make those kinds of noises from time to time.

The curia has a great deal to do with the continued resistance to change.  I know that is an tired old canard but it is true and there needs be change there if we are to resume without confusion.

I think these things can be made to change when the will and need are imminent. 

In Christ,

M.
Well, but you are stuck with your Roman Curia.  From the Codex Canones Ecclesiarum Orientalium:
Quote
Canon 46 - §1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
 §2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 47 - When the Roman see is vacant or entirely impeded nothing is to be innovated in the governance of the entire Church; however, special laws enacted for those circumstances are to be observed.

Canon 48 - In this Code the term "Apostolic See" or "Holy See" applies not only to the Roman Pontiff but also, unless it is otherwise prescribed by the law or the nature of the matter indicates otherwise, dicasteries and other institutes of the Roman curia.
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
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 0.189 seconds with 72 queries.