OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 12:05:04 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 14821 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,369


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #540 on: April 17, 2012, 10:05:43 PM »

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?


I don't see how this relates to what I was talking about.  I was not talking about "sneaking" communion.  I was speaking of circumstances where there are actually arrangements made in economy, or where nothing is said in tacit acceptance.

But to answer your personal question: One always hopes that even an unworthy communion is of benefit to soul and body and not to the condemnation of anyone!!

I don't see how it is so different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 10:12:23 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #541 on: April 17, 2012, 10:12:40 PM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,369


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #542 on: April 17, 2012, 10:16:53 PM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
It seems to me the closer analogy would be in a case where there is dissent in praxis contra the teaching of your church.
Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #543 on: April 17, 2012, 10:24:26 PM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
It seems to me the closer analogy would be in a case where there is dissent in praxis contra the teaching of your church.

You may see it that way.  The bishops in question apparently do not and they remain in communion with one another.  That I believe is factual on the face of it.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #544 on: April 17, 2012, 10:27:10 PM »

The Roman rite is in de facto schism and has been for some time over a number of moral issues, liturgical issues, and theological issues. 

I don't believe a rite can be in schism. That's like saying "The first Eucharistic prayer has gone into schism."
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #545 on: April 17, 2012, 10:27:48 PM »

ecclesiastical community

Catchy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,369


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #546 on: April 17, 2012, 10:32:15 PM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
It seems to me the closer analogy would be in a case where there is dissent in praxis contra the teaching of your church.

You may see it that way.  The bishops in question apparently do not and they remain in communion with one another.  That I believe is factual on the face of it.
What do you think about Roman Catholic bishops who are pro-abortion?
Logged

Silly Stars
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: 37,825



« Reply #547 on: April 17, 2012, 10:51:51 PM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
It seems to me the closer analogy would be in a case where there is dissent in praxis contra the teaching of your church.

You may see it that way.  The bishops in question apparently do not and they remain in communion with one another.  That I believe is factual on the face of it.
Not unless they have told their Holy Synod what they have been up to.  Otherwise it's the back, as in "behind the---" that we are talking about, not on the face.
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: 37,825



« Reply #548 on: April 17, 2012, 10:55:33 PM »

WARNING:Do not let wolves pull the wool over your eyes.

True.  You should stop tugging so hard on it, al Misry.  It's no fringe that has used economy to minister to the flock.
Then they would have no problem bringing up in their Holy Synod.
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: 37,825



« Reply #549 on: April 17, 2012, 11:05:44 PM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.

Seems to me that by definition it is sin, and those who actively promote it, on either side, are sinning.
Refusing communion to heretics is a virtue.

Only some Orthodox bishops would say that the Catholic Church is a Church of Heretics.  So all you do here is pull more wool over the fact that Orthodoxy is internally conflicted over the schism.

Which has been my point for taking on this particular subject.  Thanks for helping out here.

M.
Roman Catholic popes have also held variegated views; Pope Honorius comes to mind. Does that fact make your church internally conflicted over monothelitism?

If we are speaking of one...most likely not...If we speak of many over many hundreds of years...yes.

It is not all one-sided however...There are Catholics who hate what I say as well.

Somehow, by God, that too can be over-come so that we all may be one.
That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
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
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: 1,606



« Reply #550 on: April 18, 2012, 02:45:14 AM »

I did all the time when I was Lutheran.  And it wasn't sneaking: everyone knew I was evangelical Lutheran.
Shocked
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
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: 1,606



« Reply #551 on: April 18, 2012, 02:55:21 AM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #552 on: April 18, 2012, 03:36:37 AM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,876


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #553 on: April 18, 2012, 03:40:52 AM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?

Yes.
Logged
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: 1,606



« Reply #554 on: April 18, 2012, 03:57:10 AM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.
Logged

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

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #555 on: April 18, 2012, 04:52:37 AM »

For documentary purposes: the PAOC a few years ago laicised a priest that during his trip to the USA concelebrated with Eastern Catholics.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #556 on: April 18, 2012, 07:30:25 AM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.

If we embraced Oriental Orthodoxy, we would still be separated from the Eastern Orthodox, non?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #557 on: April 18, 2012, 09:39:45 AM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,472


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #558 on: April 18, 2012, 10:30:21 AM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

The road map is there in the papers of the academics. It is a given among them that were organic unity to be reestablished, that Rome would overtly, or tacitly, acknowledge that her councils post 1054 were General Synods of the Western Church and that much of what she promulgated therein were merely theological opinions rather than dogmatic proclamation. Easier said than done however. There are some eighth and ninth century understandings, pre-Charlamagne, which could serve as a road map but again, easier said than done given the course history has taken. At a minimum, Rome would retain some sort of jurisdiction over the historically western church while acknowledging her role as Primus (to be fully defined however in ancient terms) among the ancient sees would not grant her privileges of universality over the churches of the east. Easier said than done.

Polemicists and apologists, west and east, have done much to convince us of the vastness of the divide over other issues, but, in time, most could be reconciled .

Such a unity would result in a 'true' Roman Church  who would separate from Rome in schism as well as various 'true' Orthodox communities who would separate from the body of what is now canonical Orthodoxy. Whether such 'unity' is worth further divide is another serious issue. Preserving the status quo with a closer level of respect and understanding may be best end result that continuing dialogue can accomplish for the short and medium term.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 10:36:22 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #559 on: April 18, 2012, 10:45:40 AM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

How dare you be a gatekeeper of the Catholic Church! Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #560 on: April 18, 2012, 10:48:15 AM »

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

How dare you be a gatekeeper of the Catholic Church! Wink

Because he is just as western and legalistic as everyone else around here.   Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #561 on: April 18, 2012, 11:25:24 AM »

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #562 on: April 18, 2012, 11:58:08 AM »

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.
True. But out of reverance for the precious gifts, this should not be the case.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,147


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


« Reply #563 on: April 18, 2012, 12:12:03 PM »

For documentary purposes: the PAOC a few years ago laicised a priest that during his trip to the USA concelebrated with Eastern Catholics.

The Pan-African Ornithological Congress has priests??

Ohhhh......sorry....you must've meant the Pentacostal Assemblies Of Canada   Grin Grin.  Surely they have priests, no?
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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #564 on: April 18, 2012, 12:17:31 PM »

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.
True. But out of reverance for the precious gifts, this should not be the case.

I guess there's 3 (or mainly 3) different positions a Catholic could take:
1. agreeing with the rules
2. disagreeing with the rules but following them anyhow
3. not following the rules

I'm guessing (1) describes you. I'm kind of on-the-fence of (1) and (2).
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #565 on: April 18, 2012, 12:26:16 PM »

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.

When I speak of the Orthodox-Catholic relationship, I am not speaking of those cases which are indicative of indifference or worse.

I am speaking of those cases where there is mutual recognition of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments on both sides and, in the cases of Ukrainians and Ruthenians as well as those in the Middle east, there is genuine inter-communion, and not just an isolated case of a Catholic being allowed to receive because of an over-riding spiritual concern.

So you can toss all kinds of examples around and pretend as though we are talking about the same thing, but I think not.  

We have yet to accept Apostolic Succession for the Anglo-Catholics and certainly not for any of the Lutheran variations, and it fades rapidly from there.

At any rate, what you are talking about here is a far cry from what I have been referencing.

M.
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: 37,825



« Reply #566 on: April 18, 2012, 02:24:40 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
They need not be Eastern, just Orthodox in practice and belief.

If we embraced Oriental Orthodoxy, we would still be separated from the Eastern Orthodox, non?
Not really: Alexandria and Antioch have intercommunion agreements between OO and EO.
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: 37,825



« Reply #567 on: April 18, 2012, 02:28:17 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #568 on: April 18, 2012, 02:31:52 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate
Which is just Eastern Orthodoxy wearing pretty western clothes.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,825



« Reply #569 on: April 18, 2012, 02:36:09 PM »

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.

When I speak of the Orthodox-Catholic relationship, I am not speaking of those cases which are indicative of indifference or worse.

I am speaking of those cases where there is mutual recognition of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments on both sides and, in the cases of Ukrainians and Ruthenians as well as those in the Middle east, there is genuine inter-communion, and not just an isolated case of a Catholic being allowed to receive because of an over-riding spiritual concern.

So you can toss all kinds of examples around and pretend as though we are talking about the same thing, but I think not.  

We have yet to accept Apostolic Succession for the Anglo-Catholics and certainly not for any of the Lutheran variations, and it fades rapidly from there.

At any rate, what you are talking about here is a far cry from what I have been referencing.
No, it's the same: you disregard the canons, and they disregard your canons.  Your pseudo Orthodox enablers could be defrocked if brought before their Holy Synod. I suspect the priests giving your communion to protestants could be disciplined, although I don't know, given that the pedophile scandal has shown how much the Vatican is willing to overlook.

That you accept our Apostolic Succession may be of concern to you.  It doesn't interest us at all, and hence we care even less what you think of Anglo-Catholic and Lutheran Apostolic Succession/Orders.  We don't recognize yours, something shown when the more ecumenically minded refused to state for the record that we recognize the Vatican's baptism as "valid."

Your indifference is worst: at least the Protestant communers are consistent and in agreement.
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: 37,825



« Reply #570 on: April 18, 2012, 02:37:19 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate
Which is just Eastern Orthodoxy wearing pretty western clothes.
and Western Divine Liturgies.  That's the idea.  To be in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, not to fool the locals.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #571 on: April 18, 2012, 02:37:48 PM »


As is Metropolitan Kallistos' "eucharistic center."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #572 on: April 18, 2012, 02:41:30 PM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened. What did happen in 1054 was in invalid pile of papal bull (from a pope everyone knew was dead) being served against only Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy (which included only Constantinople's local church--not the rest of the Orthodox world or the population of Constantinople), and the retaliatory anathema against Humbert and cronies--not the whole Roman church. Besides that, everyone forgot about the 1054 event by 1098's reunion council. There is no mention of it at all in the East.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #573 on: April 18, 2012, 02:44:13 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate
Which is just Eastern Orthodoxy wearing pretty western clothes.

No. I swear there's an anathema against man lace.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #574 on: April 18, 2012, 03:02:12 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate
Which is just Eastern Orthodoxy wearing pretty western clothes.
and Western Divine Liturgies.  That's the idea.  To be in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, not to fool the locals.
To the question of whether or not a Roman Catholic must embrace Eastern Orthodoxy in order to be in communion with you, you said, "No." Now you are saying, "yes." Which is it?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #575 on: April 18, 2012, 03:04:29 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate

Which is like me telling an Orthodox "No, you don't need to become LC. You can become EC."
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #576 on: April 18, 2012, 03:10:56 PM »

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.

When I speak of the Orthodox-Catholic relationship, I am not speaking of those cases which are indicative of indifference or worse.

I am speaking of those cases where there is mutual recognition of Apostolic Succession and grace in sacraments on both sides and, in the cases of Ukrainians and Ruthenians as well as those in the Middle east, there is genuine inter-communion, and not just an isolated case of a Catholic being allowed to receive because of an over-riding spiritual concern.

So you can toss all kinds of examples around and pretend as though we are talking about the same thing, but I think not.  

We have yet to accept Apostolic Succession for the Anglo-Catholics and certainly not for any of the Lutheran variations, and it fades rapidly from there.

At any rate, what you are talking about here is a far cry from what I have been referencing.
No, it's the same: you disregard the canons, and they disregard your canons.  Your pseudo Orthodox enablers could be defrocked if brought before their Holy Synod. I suspect the priests giving your communion to protestants could be disciplined, although I don't know, given that the pedophile scandal has shown how much the Vatican is willing to overlook.

That you accept our Apostolic Succession may be of concern to you.  It doesn't interest us at all, and hence we care even less what you think of Anglo-Catholic and Lutheran Apostolic Succession/Orders.  We don't recognize yours, something shown when the more ecumenically minded refused to state for the record that we recognize the Vatican's baptism as "valid."

Your indifference is worst: at least the Protestant communers are consistent and in agreement.

I don't know the particulars of the cases being referenced here (which is well) but to follow up on "the latter [receiving] hasn't been discussed here", it is worth noting the Catholic canon law doesn't allow receiving communion from any non-Catholic minister if it is possible (physically and morally) to approach a Catholic minister.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #577 on: April 18, 2012, 03:15:13 PM »

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence.  Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #578 on: April 18, 2012, 03:39:50 PM »


No, it's the same: you disregard the canons, and they disregard your canons.

There are few canons, east or west, that are held to so slavishly that they are not able, in economy, to be relaxed for the salvation of souls.

Any other situation to your liking and you'd be rushing to embrace economia.

So I am not impressed by your refusal to do so in this instance, and it matters little in any event.  Clearly you don't know particulars so you cannot say what any particular synod would do or not do, or even whether or not they are aware.

M.

Logged

stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #579 on: April 18, 2012, 04:06:26 PM »

Protestants not infrequently sneak communion in Roman Catholic churches, and Catholic priests have been known to knowingly serve communion to Protestants in open violation of Roman Catholic teaching; how do you feel about this?

I don't see how it isn't different. Say a liberal Lutheran who resents Roman Catholic teaching on closed communion re. Reformation Protestants who takes communion in a Roman Catholic church with the approval of the priest or a dissenting bishop.

Again we pray that this arrangement is to the benefit of all.  But in this case that you offer there is no sneaking, only putative dissension.

Actually I know of cases where Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Lutherans do receive communion in a Catholic parish with the blessing of bishops who are not dissenting and they do so by economy for the salvation of souls.  I think this is a better arrangement and closer to the examples that I am thinking of in Orthodoxy.
Wow. not good.

There's a significant amount of disregard of the Catholic rules concerning intercommunion -- in terms of both giving and receiving, although the latter hasn't been discussed here.
True. But out of reverance for the precious gifts, this should not be the case.
Would you then criticise the Pope who has given Holy Communion to Protestants?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #580 on: April 18, 2012, 04:16:06 PM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened. What did happen in 1054 was in invalid pile of papal bull (from a pope everyone knew was dead) being served against only Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy (which included only Constantinople's local church--not the rest of the Orthodox world or the population of Constantinople), and the retaliatory anathema against Humbert and cronies--not the whole Roman church. Besides that, everyone forgot about the 1054 event by 1098's reunion council. There is no mention of it at all in the East.
But the fact is that there was a schism or separation between the two Churches. This can be seen from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not, in the end, accept the Council of Florence. Although it may be difficult to pin down the exact date of the schism, many people take the events of 1054 to be a critical turning point.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #581 on: April 18, 2012, 04:20:50 PM »

That's easy: embrace Orthodoxy.
So to sum up, is it true that reunion of East and West could only be achieved if the Roman Church embraces Eastern Orthodoxy?
No:
http://www.antiochian.org/western-rite
http://www.facebook.com/RocorWesternRiteVicariate

Which is like me telling an Orthodox "No, you don't need to become LC. You can become EC."

Latin Catholic and Eastern Catholic are weird appellations based on cultural constructions.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #582 on: April 18, 2012, 04:21:58 PM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

The road map is there in the papers of the academics. It is a given among them that were organic unity to be reestablished, that Rome would overtly, or tacitly, acknowledge that her councils post 1054 were General Synods of the Western Church and that much of what she promulgated therein were merely theological opinions rather than dogmatic proclamation. Easier said than done however. There are some eighth and ninth century understandings, pre-Charlamagne, which could serve as a road map but again, easier said than done given the course history has taken. At a minimum, Rome would retain some sort of jurisdiction over the historically western church while acknowledging her role as Primus (to be fully defined however in ancient terms) among the ancient sees would not grant her privileges of universality over the churches of the east. Easier said than done.

Polemicists and apologists, west and east, have done much to convince us of the vastness of the divide over other issues, but, in time, most could be reconciled .

Such a unity would result in a 'true' Roman Church  who would separate from Rome in schism as well as various 'true' Orthodox communities who would separate from the body of what is now canonical Orthodoxy. Whether such 'unity' is worth further divide is another serious issue. Preserving the status quo with a closer level of respect and understanding may be best end result that continuing dialogue can accomplish for the short and medium term.
There is a lot to like about this excellent summary of many of the issues involved here.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #583 on: April 18, 2012, 04:23:46 PM »

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened.

Did schism did happen in 1054, as proved by the fact that we had 8 ecumenical councils between then and the Council of Florence.  Wink

You mean that, after you left with your papal antichrist and formed a new church in the late 11th century, crucifying Christ a second time for the sake of papal superiority over all life, you happened to have 8 councils before the one in which you hoped to lure Christ's church into your folly? (One of them at Lyon can't really be classified as an attempt to lure since it was more like an attempt to get the Orthodox to take dictation.)
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #584 on: April 18, 2012, 04:26:18 PM »


Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.

Really?  I have.  Others have.  It is hardly a secret.  Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.

The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?

It's politics.
To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.

That and the fact that what was referenced in 1965 was a lifting of anathemas that never happened. What did happen in 1054 was in invalid pile of papal bull (from a pope everyone knew was dead) being served against only Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his clergy (which included only Constantinople's local church--not the rest of the Orthodox world or the population of Constantinople), and the retaliatory anathema against Humbert and cronies--not the whole Roman church. Besides that, everyone forgot about the 1054 event by 1098's reunion council. There is no mention of it at all in the East.
But the fact is that there was a schism or separation between the two Churches. This can be seen from the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not, in the end, accept the Council of Florence. Although it may be difficult to pin down the exact date of the schism, many people take the events of 1054 to be a critical turning point.

I was referring to citing the bizarre event of 1965 as lifting anathemas of 1054. Neither 1054 nor 1965 meant what some people think they meant--whether people today or the principal actors in 1965.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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 0.182 seconds with 72 queries.