Which church is more open to reuniting??

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

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.

Here are the two biggest culprits today

They think that they and their curias can speak instead of a Synod of the Church.

[Papist]

Christ is risen!

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.

Here are the two biggest culprits today

They think that they and their curias can speak instead of a Synod of the Church.

Izzy, this is a beautiful picture. Thank you for sharing.

[Papist]

Christ is risen!

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.

If that is all that is needed, then you should return to the Orthodox Church, to communion with Rome.  

[Papist]

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.

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."

The hope is that it would be nothing like Florence. Our hope is that this time, once we resume communion, that you will remain in the Church, rather than going back into schism . 

[J Michael]

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.

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."

The hope is that it would be nothing like Florence. Our hope is that this time, once we resume communion, that you will remain in the Church, rather than going back into schism . 

Wow, you're on roll  !

And you're right--the picture *is* beautiful!

[ialmisry]

Christus resurrexit!

Christ is risen!

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.

If htat is all that is needed, then you should return to the Orthodox Church, to communion with Rome. 

I am in communion with Rome.

Cristos a inviat!

I have also communed in the Orthodox Western Rite of the Catholic Church, coming to you:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Groups.html

New Mexico
Monastery of St. George
2521 N. Main St., Unit 1, #198
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001  USA
575 636 0366
Fr. Hieromonk Joshua (Anna)

As for the Vatican, I've been there too, and communed with it. But that when I was a Lutheran and didn't know better, before my Orthodox chrismation into the Catholic Church.  I don't, and will not, EVER, take communion from a priest who does not confess the Orthodox Faith and whose bishop is not in the diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

[Papist]

Christus resurrexit!

Christ is risen!

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.

If htat is all that is needed, then you should return to the Orthodox Church, to communion with Rome. 

I am in communion with Rome.

Cristos a inviat!

I have also communed in the Orthodox Western Rite of the Catholic Church, coming to you:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgy/Groups.html

New Mexico
Monastery of St. George
2521 N. Main St., Unit 1, #198
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001  USA
575 636 0366
Fr. Hieromonk Joshua (Anna)

As for the Vatican, I've been there too, and communed with it. But that when I was a Lutheran and didn't know better, before my Orthodox chrismation into the Catholic Church.  I don't, and will not, EVER, take communion from a priest who does not confess the Orthodox Faith and whose bishop is not in the diptychs of the Catholic Church.

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

I'll have to visit that Western Rite Parish the next time I am in Las Cruces.

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Christ is risen!

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.

Here are the two biggest culprits today

They think that they and their curias can speak instead of a Synod of the Church.

Izzy,

Who?

this is a beautiful picture. Thank you for sharing.

No problem.  I have pictures of (other) angels of light if you like.  Lots of angels like to assUme authority not theirs.  That is how they fall.

[elijahmaria]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

My apologies!

Christ is Risen!

[Papist]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

My apologies!

Christ is Risen!

Do the EO and EC bishops allow this?

[Schultz]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

[elijahmaria]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

Most eastern Catholics understand that Orthodoxy says one thing on one hand, and turns a blind eye of economy on the other, and rightly so in most cases.  So I am not hearing you here...You want be gatekeepers, as far as you are able...fine.  You have nothing to do with my life.

[Papist]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

What exactly do you mean here?

[stanley123]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

[xariskai]

[J Michael]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

My apologies!

Christ is Risen!

Let me ask this, if I may:  *IF* and when the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (semantics of some posters notwithstanding) reunite and become again one Church will all those who have been baptized and confirmed/chrismated in either be automatically considered as already full members of that one Church without further sacramental rites of initiation?

*IF* the answer to that is "yes", then the concerns voiced by LBK would be irrelevant, would they not?

And if the answer to that is "no", well...what kind of "union" would that be?

And if the answer is neither "yes" nor "nor", that seems almost like no answer at all, and could put us back right where we are.  Or so it seems.

[J Michael]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Piece of cake  !

[witega]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

What exactly do you mean here?

That Elijahmarie regularly "sources' her claims about what is acceptable to Orthodoxy to personal experiences and private conversations with 'priests and bishops' none of which are available on the public record.

Or to put it another way, the official position of every synod of the Orthodox Church on intercommunion is readily available. elijahmaria claims to know those who secretly violate the public position and that her knowledge of such disobedient clergy invalidates the official teaching (rather than the other way around).

[JoeS2]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Thats good for starters...........ha ha

[J Michael]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

What exactly do you mean here?

That Elijahmarie regularly "sources' her claims about what is acceptable to Orthodoxy to personal experiences and private conversations with 'priests and bishops' none of which are available on the public record.

Or to put it another way, the official position of every synod of the Orthodox Church on intercommunion is readily available. elijahmaria claims to know those who secretly violate the public position and that her knowledge of such disobedient clergy invalidates the official teaching (rather than the other way around).

Haven't we had this conversation before, about whether or not Orthodox priests or bishops in this country and elsewhere knowingly commune those vile Catholics?  Seems like "dejavu all over again"  .

[podkarpatska]

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.

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."

The hope is that it would be nothing like Florence. Our hope is that this time, once we resume communion, that you will remain in the Church, rather than going back into schism . 

Wait a minute - we would hope that you would not go back into schism after resuming communion - not the other way around!

[elijahmaria]

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.

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."

The hope is that it would be nothing like Florence. Our hope is that this time, once we resume communion, that you will remain in the Church, rather than going back into schism . 

Wait a minute - we would hope that you would not go back into schism after resuming communion - not the other way around!

The chances of a one TRUE Orthodox Church emerging after the resumption of communion is far more likely.  Just as happened with resumption of ROCOR communion with the ROC.  So...spit in one hand and hope in the other...

[J Michael]

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.

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."

The hope is that it would be nothing like Florence. Our hope is that this time, once we resume communion, that you will remain in the Church, rather than going back into schism . 

Wait a minute - we would hope that you would not go back into schism after resuming communion - not the other way around!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!  Round and round we go, and where we'll stop, nobody knows.  Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

 

[podkarpatska]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

[elijahmaria]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

I would say that in a schism where intercommunion is far more common than the average protestant or Catholic convert to Orthodoxy cares to admit, and not nearly the state secret that they'd like it to be....I would say that schism is something of a skin deep cut...I don't ask you to say that...Just using this as an excuse for me to say that.

M.

[J Michael]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

You are right, of course.  I think stanley123 is just expressing his frustration about what seems to be the opinion of some of the more, shall we say, intransigent Netodox based on what they write here, and perhaps elsewhere.

[J Michael]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

I would say that in a schism where intercommunion is far more common than the average protestant or Catholic convert to Orthodoxy cares to admit, and not nearly the state secret that they'd like it to be....I would say that schism is something of a skin deep cut...I don't ask you to say that...Just using this as an excuse for me to say that.

M.

I believe that unless and until some Orthodox see and place their fingers in the "skin deep cut", they will *never* believe that such inter-communion exists or is tolerated, much less permitted.

[elijahmaria]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

I would say that in a schism where intercommunion is far more common than the average protestant or Catholic convert to Orthodoxy cares to admit, and not nearly the state secret that they'd like it to be....I would say that schism is something of a skin deep cut...I don't ask you to say that...Just using this as an excuse for me to say that.

M.

I believe that unless and until some Orthodox see and place their fingers in the "skin deep cut", they will *never* believe that such inter-communion exists or is tolerated, much less permitted.

Tell me why those who would seek to destroy it would be encouraged to "see" it?

[ialmisry]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

Most eastern Catholics understand that Orthodoxy says one thing on one hand, and turns a blind eye of economy on the other, and rightly so in most cases.  So I am not hearing you here...You want be gatekeepers, as far as you are able...fine.  You have nothing to do with my life.

As long as you stay out of the Churches of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, we should have nothing to do with your life.

As for a blind eye, someone recently got a black eye turning that. 

Bucharest, Romania, Jul 11, 2008 / 06:03 am (CNA).- The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has decided to “forgive” two Orthodox bishops for their participation in religious rites with Eastern Catholics. However, it warned that no Orthodox cleric may celebrate sacraments or blessings with ministers of other religions on pain of excommunication...Patriarch Daniel reportedly intended to reassert the fundamental principle of Orthodox ecclesiology and ecumenism. He said that such gestures of “so-called inter-communion” in fact “reduce the dogmatic differences between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church and undermine the unity of faith as the foundation of the reconstruction of the communion between the two Churches.”

The Patriarch reiterated that it is forbidden for Orthodox believers to receive the Eucharist in a different Church.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romanian_orthodox_synod_disciplines_bishop_for_intercommunion_with_catholics/
People should be careful what they assUme.

[ialmisry]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

I would say that in a schism where intercommunion is far more common than the average protestant or Catholic convert to Orthodoxy cares to admit, and not nearly the state secret that they'd like it to be....I would say that schism is something of a skin deep cut...I don't ask you to say that...Just using this as an excuse for me to say that.

M.

I believe that unless and until some Orthodox see and place their fingers in the "skin deep cut", they will *never* believe that such inter-communion exists or is tolerated, much less permitted.

"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
— St. Augustine of Hippo
I read that somewhere.

[elijahmaria]

The fact that inter-communion occurs between Orthodox and Catholic as a matter of economy, does not in any way negate the fact that we are in material schism, but it does admit to a truth that tends not to exist in the same way between Orthodoxy and any other Christian group, or between the Catholic Church and any other group except maybe the Oriental Orthodox.  Occasionally I've seen an Anglo-Catholic commune in a Roman rite liturgy but never in the numbers that occur in the Middle East or among the Ukrainians or Ruthenians, for example.

M.

[ialmisry]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

I would say that in a schism where intercommunion is far more common than the average protestant or Catholic convert to Orthodoxy cares to admit, and not nearly the state secret that they'd like it to be....I would say that schism is something of a skin deep cut...I don't ask you to say that...Just using this as an excuse for me to say that.

M.

"It's just a flesh wound!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=5RHP1HhymXU

[ialmisry]

Which of course indicates that the Orthodox are the most open to reuniting: they accept anyone who accepts the basis of unity founded by and on Christ, which was manifested throughout the last two millenia.

Of course it all depends on what it means to accept the basis of unity. From what I heard it would only involve a few small things such as rebaptism by triple immersion of each and every Roman, re-education and retraining of each and every Roman clergyman, including the Pope, and subsequent reordination of same by an Eastern Orthodox bishop, banning of all statues and replacing them with officially approved icons (no western style unapproved icons allowed), acceptance of the Julian calendar and Orthodox date of Easter, reformation of the Roman Mass along the Byzantine lines, rejection of papal prerogatives such as infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc.  

Stan, Stan, Stan, there you go again.

I suspect you didn't hear that from any of the clergy, bishops and professors appointed by their respective Churches to represent the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches representing say, either the International Roman Catholic/Orthodox Theological Consultation or its North American counterpart did you?

Gosh if you did hear personally from any of them PLEASE, do us a big favor and let us know - NAMES, dates etc... since such is contrary to what they have been publishing over the past three decades or so and if they are telling you this directly, the rest of us need to contact the Bishops etc.. and let them in on this.

Anyone who makes this entire issue seem 'easy' or, on the other hand 'forever impossible' - is a fool as I see it. You can't take a fifteen hundred year old problem and wish it away - or give up on it because it has been that way for fifteen hundred years or so.

You are right, of course.  I think stanley123 is just expressing his frustration about what seems to be the opinion of some of the more, shall we say, intransigent Netodox based on what they write here, and perhaps elsewhere.

You mean Patriarch Daniel of All Romania and his Holy Synod?

[elijahmaria]

When there's really no argument of substance left...

[ialmisry]

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.

When I need to discuss any of this I will go to a priest or bishop, not you.  There are too many eastern Catholics who commune in Orthodoxy for me to take much of anything you have to say seriously.

You do realize LBK can say the same thing right back at you, only she actually has the written documentation from said priests and/or bishops as opposed to your alleged private conversations with the same.

What exactly do you mean here?

That Elijahmarie regularly "sources' her claims about what is acceptable to Orthodoxy to personal experiences and private conversations with 'priests and bishops' none of which are available on the public record.

Or to put it another way, the official position of every synod of the Orthodox Church on intercommunion is readily available. elijahmaria claims to know those who secretly violate the public position and that her knowledge of such disobedient clergy invalidates the official teaching (rather than the other way around).

Haven't we had this conversation before, about whether or not Orthodox priests or bishops in this country and elsewhere knowingly commune those vile Catholics?  Seems like "dejavu all over again"  .

Only because some people can't take "no" for an answer.

[Peter J]

Ialmisry, I have to confess that oftentimes I read a post from you and then think to myself (even if I don't say it) "Yeah, I've heard that before." :roll-eyes-indifferently:

But not so with this one:

As long as you stay out of the Churches of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, we should have nothing to do with your life.

Honestly, I had no idea that you feel that way about the Oriental Orthodox.

[elijahmaria]

Only because some people can't take "no" for an answer.

Not at all.  We come back to it because intercommunion does indeed happen as a matter of economy regardless of the general response to the schism.  But that it happens AT ALL is significant, and says something about the reality and depth of the schism.

Mary

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen...

When there's really no argument of substance left...

...you keep posting your argument, with no substance forthcoming.

[Peter J]

Let me ask this, if I may:  *IF* and when the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (semantics of some posters notwithstanding) reunite and become again one Church will all those who have been baptized and confirmed/chrismated in either be automatically considered as already full members of that one Church without further sacramental rites of initiation?

To paraphrase Prof John Frink, I have visited the future and yes they will.

[Peter J]

Only because some people can't take "no" for an answer.

And some can't take "yes" for an answer.

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry, I have to confess that oftentimes I read a post from you and then think to myself (even if I don't say it) "Yeah, I've heard that before." :roll-eyes-indifferently:

But not so with this one:

As long as you stay out of the Churches of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, we should have nothing to do with your life.

Honestly, I had no idea that you feel that way about the Oriental Orthodox.

Yeah, if she goes in their Churches, then it becomes an issue for us.

[Peter J]

"It's just a flesh wound!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=5RHP1HhymXU

  No need to click on the link, I remember that well enough.

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Only because some people can't take "no" for an answer.

And some can't take "yes" for an answer.

Someone taking a "no" for a "yes," yeah, can't take that for an answer.

[Peter J]

Ialmisry, I have to confess that oftentimes I read a post from you and then think to myself (even if I don't say it) "Yeah, I've heard that before." :roll-eyes-indifferently:

But not so with this one:

As long as you stay out of the Churches of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, we should have nothing to do with your life.

Honestly, I had no idea that you feel that way about the Oriental Orthodox.

Yeah, if she goes in their Churches, then it becomes an issue for us.

An issue? Doesn't "we should have nothing to do with [their] life" imply exactly the opposite?

[ialmisry]

Christ is risen!

Only because some people can't take "no" for an answer.

Not at all.  We come back to it because intercommunion does indeed happen as a matter of economy regardless of the general response to the schism.  But that it happens AT ALL is significant, and says something about the reality and depth of the schism.

Mary

or the laxity of some clergy and the relavitism of some Orthodox, things to be remedied, not emulated.

[Tags:]

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