OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 01:39:23 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 15586 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2012, 05:35:05 PM »

. Wouldnt you rather have your child learn about the Creation of Man according to Christian belief instead of the "Evolution" of Man.
Evolution is not a belief, but a scientific fact.

LOL. That's rather dogmatic.
That has been stated by leading Orthodox biologists, such as Prof. Dobzhansky.
So?
Also, the Vatican seems to accept evolution, at least since Humani Generis in 1950.
And?
If you want your children to be taught the unscientific Evangelical Protestant doctrine of "creationism", send them to an Evangelical Protestant school, not a Roman Catholic one.
I got cured of evolution "the scientific fact" taking evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago.  It was founded by Baptists, but hardly an Evangelical Protestant school, much less a "Roman Catholic" one.
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #91 on: April 04, 2012, 05:36:38 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)
Because Vatican I says all or nothing.  So nothing it is.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #92 on: April 04, 2012, 06:12:59 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

That's where I disagree, because RC could accept b .
« Last Edit: April 04, 2012, 06:13:40 PM by stanley123 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2012, 06:13:33 PM »

by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching

I think both sides will have to accept both their own and each others councils that were held in isolation of each other as "local", if for no ther reason because they were held in isolation of each other. I don't think reunion could really happen any other way. This shouldn't be too big of an issue for most Orthodox because while we have considered our councils to be authoritive and bear witness to the truth, few refer to any of them (and even then only two of them) to be "ecumenical".
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #94 on: April 04, 2012, 06:18:35 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)

And I don't really follow the question. How can a 'yes or no' question ('does this teaching accurately reflect what was taught from the beginning') be anything but 'all-or-nothing'?

(If your answer is 'it can partially reflect', 'partially reflects'=no. Every condemned heresy in history has partially reflected what came before. When the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils declared something, it was because 'This is the Faith of our Fathers'--not 'this is based on/partially reflects the Faith of our Fathers'.)

Can you provide a compromise position that either a) includes the language of V1 but is acceptable to Orthodox, or b) rejects the language of V1 but is acceptable to Roman Catholics?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #95 on: April 04, 2012, 06:19:32 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

That's where I disagree, because RC could accept b .

How? If you (theoretically) admit that V1 was in error and Rome has been teaching error as dogma for a century, how do you maintain any claim that Rome is *the* Church?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #96 on: April 04, 2012, 06:54:41 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)

And I don't really follow the question. How can a 'yes or no' question ('does this teaching accurately reflect what was taught from the beginning') be anything but 'all-or-nothing'?

(If your answer is 'it can partially reflect',

No, that's not what I'm going to say. Rather, you're assuming that there must have been either: a consensus in favor of what VI taught, or a consensus that contradicts what VI taught. Isn't there a third possibility: that neither of those 2 consensuses existed?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #97 on: April 04, 2012, 06:56:32 PM »

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)
Because Vatican I says all or nothing.  So nothing it is.

Interesting. I'll have to be sure to bookmark that post, for use as precedent.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 1,637



« Reply #98 on: April 04, 2012, 07:01:02 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)

And I don't really follow the question. How can a 'yes or no' question ('does this teaching accurately reflect what was taught from the beginning') be anything but 'all-or-nothing'?

(If your answer is 'it can partially reflect',

No, that's not what I'm going to say. Rather, you're assuming that there must have been either: a consensus in favor of what VI taught, or a consensus that contradicts what VI taught. Isn't there a third possibility: that neither of those 2 consensuses existed?

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #99 on: April 04, 2012, 07:09:53 PM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus

I don't follow your logic. Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? (Possibly you've answered that before and I just don't remember.)

And I don't really follow the question. How can a 'yes or no' question ('does this teaching accurately reflect what was taught from the beginning') be anything but 'all-or-nothing'?

(If your answer is 'it can partially reflect',

No, that's not what I'm going to say. Rather, you're assuming that there must have been either: a consensus in favor of what VI taught, or a consensus that contradicts what VI taught. Isn't there a third possibility: that neither of those 2 consensuses existed?

If there was no consensus, then that's still "Does this teaching accurately reflect what was taught from the beginning" Answer: "No."
If there was no teaching, then V1 obviously can't reflect it.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 04, 2012, 07:30:07 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #101 on: April 04, 2012, 07:36:54 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #102 on: April 04, 2012, 07:39:05 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #103 on: April 04, 2012, 07:39:38 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

M.

And a lot of other Christians share the RCC's position (although that may not be much help in terms of convincing Orthodox).
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #104 on: April 04, 2012, 07:49:16 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

A good example, regarding my last statement, is Nestorianism. Not much of an issue, since Orthodoxy and Catholicism both reject it, but consider: if (b) is true, then Orthodoxy is right and Catholicism wrong on that particular issue, but it doesn't logically follow that Orthodox Christology is right and Nestorianism is wrong.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #105 on: April 04, 2012, 08:46:58 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

This thread was started by someone asking about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, it has been conducted between Orthodox and RC/BC posters, and exists on a board called 'Orthodox-Catholic' discussion. Therefore my post was framed and should reasonably be read within the understanding of ecclesial continuity which is shared by those two groups. Quite obviously if one wants to bring in a different frame (e.g, Mohammed was  a prophet of God, the Apostolic Church fell into apostasy when it came out of the catacombs and became the state church of Rome) then 'a or b' is an irrelevent question. My assumption is that one believes that the united Church which existed before 1054, the one both modern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism historically come from, was 'the Church'. In that case ones options are Rome (by which I mean all those who consider themselves part of the Roman communion), Orthodoxy--or the Protestant option of stopping worry about the historical community and setting up your own church.

The Melkites are currently part of the Roman communion. Thus they share the correctness or incorrectness of Rome with regards to the question. If in the future they decide they were incorrect in submission to Roman teaching on the role of the Pope, their options will be to return to Orthodoxy or split off and form a new independent group--doing the latter would be to argue that both Rome and Orthodoxy are incorrect and there has been no correct Church for the last several centuries (an even more fundamental rejection of their current ecclesiology than simply separating from the Pope would be).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #106 on: April 04, 2012, 08:49:30 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

A good example, regarding my last statement, is Nestorianism. Not much of an issue, since Orthodoxy and Catholicism both reject it, but consider: if (b) is true, then Orthodoxy is right and Catholicism wrong on that particular issue, but it doesn't logically follow that Orthodox Christology is right and Nestorianism is wrong.

See above. If you think that Ephesus was wrong in its condemnation of Nestorius and that the COE was correct in its cutting itself off from the rest of the Church, then that doesn't invalidate my point. It means you're wanting to have a whole different conversation.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: April 04, 2012, 09:03:12 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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

Cantor Krishnich
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Pan-Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 545


Mar Ahmed the Daftadar


« Reply #108 on: April 04, 2012, 09:17:31 PM »

One day, I would love to see the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Rome, and the Pope of Alexandria, all celebrating liturgy together in communion at the Basilica of Hagia Sofia in Constantinople (Istanbul), that would be amazing (yet it seems almost impossible).
Logged

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!
Cantor Krishnich
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Pan-Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 545


Mar Ahmed the Daftadar


« Reply #109 on: April 04, 2012, 09:28:36 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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


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

Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy Upon Me a Sinner!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #110 on: April 04, 2012, 09:40:35 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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


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

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #111 on: April 04, 2012, 09:41:10 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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

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

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #112 on: April 04, 2012, 09:53:20 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

This thread was started by someone asking about Orthodoxy and Catholicism, it has been conducted between Orthodox and RC/BC posters, and exists on a board called 'Orthodox-Catholic' discussion. Therefore my post was framed and should reasonably be read within the understanding of ecclesial continuity which is shared by those two groups. Quite obviously if one wants to bring in a different frame (e.g, Mohammed was  a prophet of God, the Apostolic Church fell into apostasy when it came out of the catacombs and became the state church of Rome) then 'a or b' is an irrelevent question. My assumption is that one believes that the united Church which existed before 1054, the one both modern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism historically come from, was 'the Church'. In that case ones options are Rome (by which I mean all those who consider themselves part of the Roman communion), Orthodoxy--or the Protestant option of stopping worry about the historical community and setting up your own church.

The Melkites are currently part of the Roman communion. Thus they share the correctness or incorrectness of Rome with regards to the question. If in the future they decide they were incorrect in submission to Roman teaching on the role of the Pope, their options will be to return to Orthodoxy or split off and form a new independent group

Not at all. If the Melkite Church ceased its communion with Rome (not that I'm at all expecting that to happen*) there would be no need to "split off and form a new independent group". It could simply continue to be what it already is, just not in communion with Rome. (Conversely, Rome would simply continue to be what it already is, just not in communion with the Melkites.)

*The Melkite stance, as I see it, is to be in communion with both Rome and Orthodoxy if possible; if not, then they'd prefer to be in communion with one side -- namely Rome -- rather than to be in communion with neither side.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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: 1,637



« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2012, 10:10:07 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

I can't speak for Witega, but I personally didn't decide on Orthodoxy by rationally proving to myself that it's the true Church. I'm not so sure such a thing is possible. Smiley
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,532


« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2012, 10:19:56 PM »

I can't speak for Witega, but I personally didn't decide on Orthodoxy by rationally proving to myself that it's the true Church. I'm not so sure such a thing is possible. Smiley

It's possible to convince yourself that you should convert because of what seems like rational proof that Orthodoxy is the true Church. Now... staying Orthodox is an entirely different matter  angel
Logged

Large Marge sent me...
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,765


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2012, 10:30:30 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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


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

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

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2012, 10:31:15 PM »

I got all my "must-be-excruciatingly-rationalized" angries out in the RCC (well, they probably added a lot of them, honestly). Burned through them completely, God willing.
Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #117 on: April 04, 2012, 10:39:13 PM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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


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

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

great question...
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #118 on: April 04, 2012, 10:43:10 PM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

I can't speak for Witega, but I personally didn't decide on Orthodoxy by rationally proving to myself that it's the true Church. I'm not so sure such a thing is possible. Smiley

I think it is possible to decide that Orthodoxy is true based on rational proof/evidence. I think this is possible because Truth is not subjective, and all truths can be determined in this manner. However, we cannot truly experience Orthodoxy by using the rational approach alone.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #119 on: April 05, 2012, 01:47:38 AM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

That's where I disagree, because RC could accept b .

How? If you (theoretically) admit that V1 was in error and Rome has been teaching error as dogma for a century, how do you maintain any claim that Rome is *the* Church?
In the same way that people on this board say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church. For example, is it not true that at one point in time the Orthodox Church taught that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. Did not the Orthodox Church change its moral teaching and today teaches against slavery and that slaves should not submit themselves to harsh masters?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on women wearing headcovering in Church? If not, then why do I not see women wearing headcovering in the Orthodox Churches that I have visited in the USA and I did not hear any objection? 
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,766



WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2012, 01:55:39 AM »

Hmmm... I would say yes, the RC church at this point seems to be making more overtures toward reuniting.

But the RC is much bigger than the OC church and thus appears to have a stronger hand. So it is like asking whether the European Union, which to a significant extent sets members' economic policies, is more open toward uniting with the independently-prosperous country of Norway. Or whether striking sweatshop workers in a third world country are more open to coming to terms with a multinational company. In other words, if one group is making more overtures toward reuniting, it may simply be that thy have a stronger hand.

Another reason may be that the RC church is in the western countries, which in the centuries since the Reformation period have grown to have a less closed religious outlook, which can make them give less importance to religious differences.

But to get back to what I said about a stronger hand- should the OC church at this point reunite with the RC church, it would seem to make the OC church abandon its own beliefs to that of Rome, since the RC church sees the Patriarchs as the Pope's direct subordinates. And it is hard to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

It is like a Christian woman marrying a nonChristian, where one officially says the other must obey him/her in everything, including religion, while the other disagrees on this point. Admittedly in marriage you really don't have to agree about everything.

But in the Church's idea of communion, you are spiritually one church. So you would have a situation where the senior leader officially considers everyone his direct complete subordinates, and the other Patriarchs disagree. But being the senior leader, it still seems his word would carry somewhat more weight than any other leader's. And in reuniting they would be acknowledging his authority, which would suggest also acknowledging the kind of authority he has announced for himself. It would mean organizationally uniting with and recognizing the authority of someone who considers their authority to place you as their complete subordinate. That is why I think the OC church cannot organizationally unite with the RC church and still "agree to disagree" about this.

So to better understand who is really more open to uniting, you may consider who is more open to giving up their position on this point.
Is the Pope really open to giving up his claimed status as complete leader? If not, then strong moves to unity by the RC church would appear to me to be overtures to organizational acquisition by the RC church.
Are the Orthodox open to accepting him as their complete leader? If not, then it appears they are would be going against their beliefs and subordinating themselves.

I mean, if you agree to buy someone's car and you say that as part of the deal you pay only $5,000 and the seller says that you must pay $10,000, then what kind of agreement do you have? If you fool yourselves into thinking you can "agree to disagree" and go ahead with it and never pay the full $10,000, then it is really only the contract you said it was.

Or imagine the US and the British Empire reuniting around the time of WWI, in a situation where the US recognized the stronger, larger British Empire as its "big brother", but the two disagreed over whether the US would be controlled by the British empire or whether they were equals. LOL.

Now, admittedly, uniting the Churches should be a goal, I believe, since they are also other Christians. And this goes beyond buying a car or joining countries together. But considering the organizational inequality, it doesn't seem to make sense, if not logically then at least practically so long as the RC church and OC church disagree over whether the Pope controls the other Patriarchates as his complete subordinates.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 02:01:57 AM by rakovsky » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #121 on: April 05, 2012, 02:51:26 AM »

How? If you (theoretically) admit that V1 was in error and Rome has been teaching error as dogma for a century, how do you maintain any claim that Rome is *the* Church?
In the same way that people on this board say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church. For example, is it not true that at one point in time the Orthodox Church taught that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. Did not the Orthodox Church change its moral teaching and today teaches against slavery and that slaves should not submit themselves to harsh masters?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on women wearing headcovering in Church? If not, then why do I not see women wearing headcovering in the Orthodox Churches that I have visited in the USA and I did not hear any objection?  

That's not just comparing apples and oranges, that's comparing apples and watermelons and baseball bats. It's also totally non-responsive. But I'll answer your questions even though you haven't answered mine.

First, it was not 'the Orthodox Church' that taught that slaves should submit to their masters--it was St. Paul. And I am unaware of any authoritative decision by the Orthodox Church claiming to cancel St. Paul's teaching. (Which is not to say that Orthodoxy believes slavery to be a moral institution--St. Paul also said to submit to the pagan Roman empire and both teachings are based on Christ's own teaching 'do not resist the evil person').

Secondly, again, there is no decision by 'the Orthodox Church' changing the teaching on head-covering. In the New World, it's true, observance of the practice is generally left between a woman's conscience and her confessor, but the teaching is still there (and observed by the majority of Orthodox). Further and far more importanly, no one, including St. Paul, ever said 'head-coverings' were necessary to salvation--he said women should cover their heads, not they must cover their heads or they cannot be saved. Which is why trying to compare this to the discussion of Rome's teaching on Papal infallibility and universality is apples and baseball bats. Rome has said believing those two things is *necessary* to salvation. If those teachings are not actually necessary to salvation (i.e., if Rome takes back V1) then the Roman magisterium is quite literally guilty of teaching a different Gospel. If you cannot trust your Church on one point of the fundamentals of salvation, how can you trust them on any ('Okay, so they got that wrong, but I'm still going to trust they knew what they were doing when they added the filioque or excommunicated Luther')?

So, I'll ask again--instead of demonstrating that you don't understand Orthodoxy's teachings, please explain how *you* would reconcile that the True Church could one day say, 'you must believe the Pope is infallible to be saved' and the next 'oops, no we take it back'?

« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 02:54:12 AM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #122 on: April 05, 2012, 03:19:24 AM »

I can't speak for Witega, but I personally didn't decide on Orthodoxy by rationally proving to myself that it's the true Church. I'm not so sure such a thing is possible. Smiley

I think some things within Christianity that are subject to rational thought and some that are not. There is certainly an aspect of belief in 'the Church' which is faith-based--otherwise it wouldn't be in the Creed with an "I believe in" parallel to other revealed truths that cannot necessarily be reached by reason alone. I do think that once one believes in "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" that rational argumentation and historical demonstration can play an important role in recognizing which of the various claimants are actually faithful to the Tradition of that Church.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #123 on: April 05, 2012, 03:43:36 AM »

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

That's where I disagree, because RC could accept b .

How? If you (theoretically) admit that V1 was in error and Rome has been teaching error as dogma for a century, how do you maintain any claim that Rome is *the* Church?
In the same way that people on this board say that the Orthodox Church is the true Church. For example, is it not true that at one point in time the Orthodox Church taught that slaves should submit themselves to their masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. Did not the Orthodox Church change its moral teaching and today teaches against slavery and that slaves should not submit themselves to harsh masters?
Has the Orthodox Church changed its teaching on women wearing headcovering in Church? If not, then why do I not see women wearing headcovering in the Orthodox Churches that I have visited in the USA and I did not hear any objection? 
"Economy" is a lovely word when not applied to fiscal matters.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


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


« Reply #124 on: April 05, 2012, 03:48:05 AM »

I can't speak for Witega, but I personally didn't decide on Orthodoxy by rationally proving to myself that it's the true Church. I'm not so sure such a thing is possible. Smiley

It's possible to convince yourself that you should convert because of what seems like rational proof that Orthodoxy is the true Church. Now... staying Orthodox is an entirely different matter  angel

Quite true
Logged

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

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

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,446



WWW
« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2012, 03:53:50 AM »

But that would require considering more than two options. That's too hard; make brain hurt Sad

Then you'll hate what I have to say next.

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

Such studies have been going on pretty much since 1054, I'm not sure why there is any reason to believe they will come to some earth-shattering new conclusion.

I basically agree with Papist, and think there are only two possible conclusions to such studies:
a) they find, as Roman scholars have been doing for quite some time, that V1 accurately reflects the pre-1054 consensus understanding (or at least a necessary consequence of that pre-1054 understanding when pushed to conclusion) and therefore Rome has been right all along.
b) they find, as non-RC scholars have been doing for quite some time,  that V1 does not accurately reflect the pre-1054 consensus--in which case Orthodoxy will never accept it, and the only possible path to 'reunion' would be for Rome to back down from V1--but if Rome backs down from V1 (for example, by redefining it as a 'local council' and therefore not infallible and possibly containing errors) then they have opened the door to backing down from *every* post-schism ecumenical council and/or authoritative teaching--meaning Orthodoxy's been right all along to reject any innovations produced by those councils.

If you believe a), you become RC. If you believe b), you become Orthodox. There really isn't a 'compromise' position (other than a 'plague on both your houses' and fleeing a historically based Church altogether).

Therein lies the biggest problem I have with Orthodoxy: supposing, hypothetically, that (b) is true, why do you assume you're the only ones capable of seeing the truth? For example, who's to say that the Melkite Church might not, in a few years, decide on (b)?

Also, if (b) is true, it certainly doesn't logically follow that all other Orthodox teachings are right.

You would be hard pressed, following the best of post-Reformation High Church (in the most inclusive sense of the word) tradition, to find an Orthodox teaching that is wrong. It is why stanley's (a) and (b) is essentially the same thing many Orthodox (including myself) have said on this thread- according to the Roman Catholic Church, the only area where the Orthodox Church is wrong is (a), whereas the Orthodox Church sees a great deal wrong with the Roman Catholic Church, but attribute most of it to a disordered view of authority (does Papal Supremacy lead to filioque or vice versa? An interesting debate for another thread).

The best example of a non-Orthodox (b) would be Anglo-(or Luthero) Catholicism and Branch Theory.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #126 on: April 05, 2012, 07:41:04 AM »

the RC church sees the Patriarchs as the Pope's direct subordinates. And it is hard to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Haven't we done that in communion with each other before? Rome tries to assert authority that it believes it has while the other churches don't recognize the authority of Rome to go the extent claimed while still maintaining communion? The only difference would be that Rome did not officially dogmatize it's stance on the subject before the schism, and when it was dogmatized it was done in isolation from those who they knew reject it.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 07:41:18 AM by Melodist » Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,194


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


« Reply #127 on: April 05, 2012, 09:44:58 AM »

the RC church sees the Patriarchs as the Pope's direct subordinates. And it is hard to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Haven't we done that in communion with each other before? Rome tries to assert authority that it believes it has while the other churches don't recognize the authority of Rome to go the extent claimed while still maintaining communion? The only difference would be that Rome did not officially dogmatize it's stance on the subject before the schism, and when it was dogmatized it was done in isolation from those who they knew reject it.

It is humanly natural for anyone in power to push the boundaries of his office to see if anyone flinches, the Pope, pre-Schism notwithstanding.  I can imagine Rome at the time wanting more power simply because each preceeding pontiff felt the need to do so.   Somewhere, this want of power went out of control to the extent that it was now the accepted method of running that office.  A re-examination of the conditions prior to the Schism is needed to indentify just what the west and east felt about the seat of Peter and it's spiritual responsibilities.  Clearly, even with differences there was still a 'united' church, whatever that meant back then.  It would be interested to know just what were the conditions then.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2012, 09:48:06 AM by JoeS2 » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: April 05, 2012, 10:21:41 AM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

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


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

Ah yes...the old...communion without communion.  Unity in the midst of hatred and missed-understandings.  I got that.

If we can receive at the chalice with a member of the Orthodoxy clergy whose orders are graced by the Holy Spirit, then we can con-celebrate.

We do not as a concession to the Orthodox who think and do as we observe...here....on this Forum.

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: April 05, 2012, 10:26:33 AM »

Hmmm... I would say yes, the RC church at this point seems to be making more overtures toward reuniting.

Now, admittedly, uniting the Churches should be a goal, I believe, since they are also other Christians. And this goes beyond buying a car or joining countries together. But considering the organizational inequality, it doesn't seem to make sense, if not logically then at least practically so long as the RC church and OC church disagree over whether the Pope controls the other Patriarchates as his complete subordinates.

Agreed!...fully...

...amazing... Smiley

But I do not believe the RC Church sees the Patriarchs as their complete subordinates.  There are enough bishops who would disagree with me, either loudly or tacitly, to make resumption of full communion something that will have to be worked out very carefully.

Many Roman bishops would see their own power bases being threatened by such a resumption of communion.  Those are the ones we need to be wary of far more than the man in the Chair of Peter.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #130 on: April 05, 2012, 10:36:16 AM »

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

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

Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #131 on: April 05, 2012, 10:47:26 AM »

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

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



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

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

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #132 on: April 05, 2012, 10:54:21 AM »

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

Which is ironically interesting since the word "papacy" does not appear until the 11th century.
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: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #133 on: April 05, 2012, 10:58:03 AM »

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

Thats a good point.

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

Tags editted - MK.

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

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

And yet when strange Romanian Metropolitans walk into Eastern Catholic Churches to commune at the altar to make a statement (and that statement is, "I'm an ecumaniac."), it's okay.
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: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #134 on: April 05, 2012, 11:00:00 AM »

One day, I would love to see the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope of Rome, and the Pope of Alexandria, all celebrating liturgy together in communion at the Basilica of Hagia Sofia in Constantinople (Istanbul), that would be amazing (yet it seems almost impossible).

Impossible especially since the pope of Rome is not Orthodox. Remember what happened the last time Roman Catholics celebrated in Haghia Sophia?
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 0.224 seconds with 72 queries.