OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 02:55:27 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  
Poll
Question: Is the EO Churches closer to the RC Church or OO Churches?
Roman Catholic Church - 2 (4.3%)
Oriental Orthodox Churches - 44 (95.7%)
Total Voters: 46

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)  (Read 9411 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« on: September 27, 2012, 11:43:25 PM »

Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2012, 11:49:34 PM »

The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.
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.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2012, 01:55:08 AM »

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 02:38:27 AM »

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?
Logged

Forgive my sins.
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 02:38:51 AM »

Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?

Oriental, certainly.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 02:41:59 AM »


Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

 Huh The RCC lumps the ECs with the RCs.


Oriental, certainly.

Agreed. Very little question for me.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 02:43:40 AM by Cognomen » Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2012, 05:41:56 AM »

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 06:29:52 AM »

The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 07:30:33 AM »

The OP is the only one who took option 1?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 08:12:28 AM »

The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?
Difference between EO and OO councils: 4
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2012, 08:16:25 AM »

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Stop lumping yourself with them.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2012, 08:20:16 AM »

I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 08:20:50 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2012, 08:22:01 AM »

I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
Huh, for some reason I was thinking 27.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2012, 08:32:32 AM »

I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

21 I think.
Huh, for some reason I was thinking 27.

Good thing they aren't really ecumenical. Can you imagine how long it would take to read all those acts and definitions?
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,830



WWW
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2012, 08:46:45 AM »

RC for sure.

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2012, 08:50:56 AM »


Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

How do the OO reject Orthodox ecclesiology? At least they haven't set up for themselves an "infallible" pontiff.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2012, 08:52:58 AM »


Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

As they say in /b: 7/10.
Logged
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 965


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2012, 09:14:10 AM »

Oriental Orthodoxy - the same spirituality (feasts and fasts, some prayers and hymnography the same, similarities in the celebration and perceiving of the Divine Liturgy) and (maybe for some controversial) the faith.

As for me the, difference is based only in the history: Ecumenical Councils and saints.
EO and OO for me are just two branches of the same Christian faith - Orthodoxy.


Roman Catholicism has changed the faith and the meaning and importance of the feasts a lot, forgotten about fasting, laxed fasting and prayer rules, shorten services. RC spirituality is very based on some strange revelations and one man - Roman pope. It also tries to perceive and describe Divine things in human way (I mean law, they try to call all things). All this stuff is strange for EO as OO.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2012, 02:13:48 PM »

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?

Yes, we are--hence the "lumping".  Not sure why choy would be surprised about this.
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2012, 02:18:31 PM »

If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2012, 03:02:05 PM »

I voted for option two.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2012, 03:02:13 PM »

If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.

The poll is missing the option I would pick, i.e. "Yes".  So, I'm not voting.  Wink.
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2012, 03:04:18 PM »

If I vote in this poll that vote will depend on which day of the week it is; I've vacillate on this question for years and seem to chance day by day.

The poll is missing the option I would pick, i.e. "Yes".  So, I'm not voting.  Wink.

Exactly!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2012, 04:18:33 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us Smiley

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2012, 04:33:27 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us Smiley

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2012, 04:39:06 PM »

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2012, 04:43:56 PM »

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO.  . . .
Yes, even Grillmeier in his magnum opus "Christ in Christian Tradition" raises questions about how shared the shared Christological vision is between the Greek East and the Latin West.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2012, 04:51:41 PM »

As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2012, 04:57:33 PM »

As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.
Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 04:59:15 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2012, 05:05:45 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today Smiley


Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:06:21 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2012, 05:10:18 PM »

Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion?  Grin But I digress...

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2012, 05:11:42 PM »

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today Smiley
As an Eastern Catholic I do not think I agree.  I would say that the newer Roman liturgy (when it is celebrated well - i.e., without clowns and other bizarre things) has more in common with the Byzantine liturgy.  It does lack solemnity in most cases, but it is still closer to the Byzantine liturgy than the Tridentine (codification) of the Roman Mass.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,830



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2012, 05:13:31 PM »

From another perspective,

Of all the councils we officially and consensually consider ecumenical, RCs agree with 100% of them;

Non-Chalcedonians agree with just 43%.


Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us Smiley

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   Cheesy
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2012, 05:17:44 PM »

Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters.  Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion?  Grin But I digress...
In my opinion Constantinople II (AD 553) was convened for two reasons in particular:  (1) to try and heal the rupture between the Miaphysites and the Chalcedonians by assuring the Miaphysites of the Cyrillian nature of Chalcedon, and (2) because the West often tended to make the two natures of Christ subjects of predication and that ultimately ends in a Nestorian Christology, and that is why the Council issued the anathemas against the "Three Chapters."

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.
Agreed.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:21:36 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2012, 05:20:43 PM »

From another perspective,

Of all the councils we officially and consensually consider ecumenical, RCs agree with 100% of them;

Non-Chalcedonians agree with just 43%.
Good point, but the number of rejected councils between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics is 350% larger than the number of rejected councils between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. 

 Cheesy
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2012, 05:22:14 PM »

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins.  However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today Smiley

That is irrelevant, as Vatican II was not even close to the start of the division that eventually solidified (for convenience's sake) in 1054. The Vatican was wrong in 1364 just as it was wrong in 1964, and is wrong in 2012. The fact that it seems to be drifting even further away is problematic, but to hear self-proclaimed Latin "Traditionalists" tell it, getting rid of VII would heal the world and realign the planets, and we would enter into a new Edenic age, and the whole bit. That is silly. VII is not the problem, in itself. It is a symptom of a much, much deeper sickness, and laying too much of the responsibility for division at its feet would be like saying that the Titanic sunk because its deck got wet.

If anything, VII is responsible for many internal divisions and wounds within the RCC, but what do those have to do with us? To echo the point made in the other half of your reply, by that time we were long out of the picture, whether EO or OO.


Quote
Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

Yep... (I'm not sure why this point needs to be addressed directly in response to what I wrote; I didn't mention it explicitly because it is so obvious, I didn't feel it needed to be mentioned.)
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,350


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2012, 10:17:48 PM »

RC for sure.

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.
Caesaropapism
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
christian7777
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 288


« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2012, 11:25:47 PM »

Is the Eastern Orthodox Churches closer to the Roman Catholic Church or Oriental Orthodox Churches?

I'd say the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2012, 11:39:50 PM »

I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,518



« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2012, 11:59:36 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I wonder who's chosen the first option and why did s/he do that.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils.  Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us Smiley

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities.  Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,
habte selassie
That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1.  Three councils in common (43%)
2.  Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1.  Seven councils in common (33%)
2.  Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.   Cheesy

Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that.  Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again).  In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians.  In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC.  Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc.  However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go.  Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away. 
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #40 on: September 29, 2012, 12:27:01 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that.  Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again).  In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians.  In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC.  Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc.  However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go.  Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away. 


Thank you Father, a sound and concise analysis Smiley



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2012, 09:17:09 AM »

Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2012, 09:19:58 AM »

Bearing in mind, of course, the the RCC's Eighth (869) and ours (879) are not the same.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2012, 09:22:24 AM »

I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.

Hehehe. I didn't see that one coming.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,643



« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2012, 01:58:02 PM »

Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.

How concrete is this, though? Do Eastern Catholics recognize as many ecumenical councils as their Latin coreligionists? I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2012, 03:47:26 PM »

IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2012, 05:55:49 PM »

I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.

LARP-ing.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2012, 06:35:46 PM »

The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.

more councils?

It was a combo of councils AND dogma. While we share more of the 7 councils w/RCs, we share more actual dogmatic belief w/OOs because they, unlike RCs, have not added new dogma and ignored old dogma.
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.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2012, 07:37:59 PM »

IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.

I wouldn't go that far. I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2012, 07:44:19 PM »

What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2012, 08:04:37 PM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2012, 08:21:38 PM »

We have more practice in common with OO, more history and common tradition with RC. We have fewer differences in belief with OO, but the main dividing issue is Christological (which I don't see a difference between us, even though it continues to be a dividing issue). We have more differences in faith with RC, but they are not Christological. EO and OO are traditionally geographically and culturally closer to each other, where RC is traditionally geographically and culturally different giving opportunity for differences that may have developed, in some case, more out of expression than substance.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2012, 08:31:25 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.



Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2012, 08:33:06 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.



Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time Wink


Yeah, but we do it together.  Cool
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,402



WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2012, 08:47:36 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.



Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time Wink


Yeah, but we do it together.  Cool

Just remember- when this Ark hits 88 MPH, you're gonna see some serious....
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!
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2012, 09:26:39 PM »

There's something wrong with your gauge, it keeps going back to 451  Grin
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #56 on: September 29, 2012, 10:06:13 PM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2012, 10:08:31 PM »

What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2012, 10:12:13 PM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #59 on: September 29, 2012, 10:24:06 PM »

What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?

Huh How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #60 on: September 30, 2012, 02:24:40 AM »

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.

And #1 says that the RC Church is heterodox today.  So I do not know how someone can be #1 and #2 at the same time, today.
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #61 on: September 30, 2012, 02:28:33 AM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #62 on: September 30, 2012, 02:41:17 AM »

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #63 on: September 30, 2012, 02:43:35 AM »

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #64 on: September 30, 2012, 02:45:08 AM »

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

Title 3, Canons 42 to 54 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches describe the Holy Father's role and authority in relation to the Eastern churches in communion with him
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #65 on: September 30, 2012, 02:50:53 AM »

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

Hello Constantinople! Wink
Logged
BayStater123
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Church
Posts: 52


« Reply #66 on: September 30, 2012, 02:51:37 AM »

Lol
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #67 on: September 30, 2012, 06:32:01 AM »

#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".

Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.


"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.

And that is a shame.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 06:32:25 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #68 on: September 30, 2012, 08:15:39 AM »

What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?

Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?

Huh How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.

An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #69 on: September 30, 2012, 08:21:58 AM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.

See my earlier statement:

Quote
I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.

That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.

I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


Well yeah, there is that.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #70 on: September 30, 2012, 09:00:21 AM »

The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
Exactly so.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2012, 11:06:49 AM »

An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.

Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2012, 04:56:25 PM »

An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.

Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.

I thought I was talking about it ... well, unless you mean literally talking, as distinct from writing.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2012, 05:01:56 PM »

You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is", which was my question, so... Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #74 on: September 30, 2012, 05:55:03 PM »

You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is",

Yes, I only say that it (that there are 7 ecumenical councils I mean) is true. Perhaps someone else will say what the point of that statement is, but I'm not going to try to.

which was my question, so... Huh

So ... ?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #75 on: September 30, 2012, 06:09:09 PM »

So there is virtually no connection between the councils and the beliefs of the Eastern Catholics, since they are required to hold to all the dogmas declared by their Roman masters at later councils that Eastern Catholics themselves don't even recognize.

Pretty lame, Milhouse.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2012, 08:58:40 PM »

Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs

Aren't you people in communion?

Perhaps the question we should ask is, Is the meaning of "Roman Catholics" up for discussion?
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2012, 10:12:53 PM »

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 10:13:10 PM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2012, 11:48:45 PM »

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2012, 11:50:02 PM »

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #80 on: October 13, 2012, 12:11:07 AM »

Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #81 on: October 13, 2012, 12:32:14 AM »

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #82 on: October 13, 2012, 12:33:11 AM »

Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.

Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #83 on: October 13, 2012, 12:36:52 AM »

It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #84 on: October 13, 2012, 12:46:02 AM »

It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.

How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #85 on: October 13, 2012, 12:55:38 AM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #86 on: October 13, 2012, 01:10:15 AM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).

My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #87 on: October 13, 2012, 01:17:43 AM »

I don't understand the idea that it is fine because the Romans' understanding requires it. If that Roman understanding is wrong (and as far as understand EO teaching on sin, it is), then it would follow that it is not fine, even if it makes sense given (wrong) RCC prepositions.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #88 on: October 13, 2012, 01:22:48 AM »

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #89 on: October 13, 2012, 05:37:29 AM »

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.


I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).

My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 05:38:04 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #90 on: October 13, 2012, 06:58:09 AM »

It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.

How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.

choy,
I hope you realize how weak this reads.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #91 on: October 13, 2012, 08:09:07 AM »

OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him.

Your experience must be very limited then. I recall many times when Orthodox have insisted on "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" being interchangeable. (I can give examples if you'd like.)

But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

I can't say "why" universally, but regarding my own close acquaintances I would say that they are actually trying (albeit going about it in a questionable way) to make the point that it's wrong to use "Roman Catholics" to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?

That's a good question. The usual answer is that you should call us "Catholics", but I can understand your objections to that. So perhaps it would be best you and like-minded persons to say "Latin and Eastern Catholics" or something of that sort.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #92 on: October 13, 2012, 08:33:05 AM »

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

Choy, I too am puzzled by your saying it's "necessary to define it". :puzzlement:
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 08:33:54 AM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #93 on: October 13, 2012, 08:39:44 AM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 13, 2012, 10:47:59 AM »

Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.

Pope is superior to your major archbishop.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #95 on: October 13, 2012, 12:28:40 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #96 on: October 13, 2012, 12:29:40 PM »

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #97 on: October 13, 2012, 12:31:46 PM »

Pope is superior to your major archbishop.

Sure.  But we are still a separate Church.  Its kind of like the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada.  Canadians aren't British just because Queen Elizabeth is our monarch.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #98 on: October 13, 2012, 12:37:21 PM »

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #99 on: October 13, 2012, 12:40:15 PM »

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2012, 12:41:18 PM »

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2012, 12:45:53 PM »

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #102 on: October 13, 2012, 12:49:06 PM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me. As Αριστοκλής pointed out, Choy's defense of the ECs relation to Rome, which I take it is fairly mainstream as far as EC defenses go (i.e., he's certainly not the first one I've heard that from), reads rather weak. At least the Latins believe in their wrong dogma, rather than paying lip-service to it as appropriate for them but not actually correct.
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #103 on: October 13, 2012, 12:57:04 PM »

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?

Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 12:57:45 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2012, 01:01:48 PM »

Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.

Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?

Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.

Protestants are Christians, which confuse people within the Church.  Even today you'd see Catholics, and I bet even some Orthodox, buy into some Protestant teachings.  Its better for the Church to clearly state what she teaches over the heresy coming from outside.  Even though I personally don't totally agree with IC, I fully understand the reason why the Church had to dogmatize it.  I know the Orthodox said it wasn't necessary to dogmatize it, but they weren't hit as hard with the Protestant Reformation as the West was.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #105 on: October 13, 2012, 01:11:37 PM »

Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?

My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.

I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.

Actually the translation "full of grace" can't be found in all bibles -- not even all Catholics bibles, iirc.

P.S. I mean it can't be found in Luke 1 in all bibles. Not talking about the passage that says that Christ is full of grace.

There are other posts I want to respond to, but I won't have time till this evening.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #106 on: October 13, 2012, 01:27:28 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #107 on: October 13, 2012, 01:37:11 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #108 on: October 13, 2012, 01:44:29 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #109 on: October 13, 2012, 01:50:02 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

 Undecided

I see...
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #110 on: October 13, 2012, 01:54:46 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #111 on: October 13, 2012, 02:13:59 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:14:39 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 13, 2012, 02:17:06 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:18:02 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #113 on: October 13, 2012, 02:18:05 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oreintal Orthodox don't you?

Yes, I do. AFAIK the Orientals are orthodox.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:18:56 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #114 on: October 13, 2012, 02:20:36 PM »

NVM!

You answered my question already.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:22:02 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #115 on: October 13, 2012, 02:23:31 PM »

NVM!

You answered my question already.

I did? I remember myself dodging it, actually.
Logged

On a OC.net diet.
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #116 on: October 13, 2012, 02:45:26 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 02:45:34 PM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #117 on: October 13, 2012, 02:53:59 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. Wink
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #118 on: October 13, 2012, 02:55:11 PM »

Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.

How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?


I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?

Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. Wink

Heh. Lost track with all the quotes. Carry on...
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #119 on: October 13, 2012, 06:49:00 PM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.

What, Catholic with a minus?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #120 on: October 13, 2012, 06:49:45 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

I was going to respond to this, but then I discovered that my brain melted while reading it.  Embarrassed

But anyhow, how did you come to the conclusion that if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2012, 06:50:33 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #121 on: October 13, 2012, 09:05:23 PM »

I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.

I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.

I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.

What, Catholic with a minus?

Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

I don't know. Eastern Catholicism is neither fish nor fowl.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #122 on: October 13, 2012, 09:10:52 PM »


Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #123 on: October 13, 2012, 09:11:57 PM »

Sure, I guess would make sense within the context in which I originally wrote that (the difference between believing in something vs. not believing in it but letting others do so; I guess you could call that a "minus" in that it's "Catholic, minus a particular belief of the Latin church that you don't share", though this is not what I originally intended when I wrote that).

I don't know. Eastern Catholicism is neither fish nor fowl.

'cause we're the meat!  100% AAA-grade beef!  Catholicism, only better Wink
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #124 on: October 13, 2012, 09:22:52 PM »

Uh huh...  Roll Eyes

Your baloney has a first name, it's V-A-T-I-C-A-N.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #125 on: October 13, 2012, 09:36:18 PM »

That's it, I'm turning the car around right now.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #126 on: October 13, 2012, 09:58:32 PM »

And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.

There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.

If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."

No, we're just "The Catholic Church".

I quite understand the idea that we who are in communion with Rome should be called "Catholics" rather than "Roman Catholics". But what I don't get is that people still use "Roman Catholics" but make it synonymous with "Latin Catholic", often by fiat.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #127 on: October 13, 2012, 11:15:30 PM »


Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.

We're not preventing you from calling yourselves whatever. That is the title which our bishops have assigned for ourselves regardless.

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #128 on: October 14, 2012, 03:24:24 PM »

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #129 on: October 14, 2012, 04:25:53 PM »

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?

I'm not sure you're going to get anywhere. Seems to me that Orthodox want to "have their cake and eat it too", as it were: they object to us being called "Catholic", and at the same time they also feel perfectly free to use "Roman Catholic" interchangeably with "Latin Catholic".

I've pointed out before (but to no avail of course) that this forum's description says "Discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome)." thus implying that "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #130 on: October 14, 2012, 04:38:05 PM »

If Roman Catholic ≠ Latin Catholic, then does that mean that Latin Catholics are not Roman Catholic?

It seems like you guys are twisting around every which way to avoid the association that your forefathers willingly took on by being united with Rome in the first place (i.e., the older documents found in the Vatican itself before the modern PC-ism took over that use what are now bad words like "uniate", etc). If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority? If I wanted to distance myself from some undesirable group (e.g., the "Coptic" idiot who made the amateurish anti-Islam film and all his evangelical cronies), it'd be pretty silly of me to defend my relation to it, much less affirm union with it, and even much less show up at meetings in defense of it and for the propagation of union with it among people who do not accept such things. Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #131 on: October 14, 2012, 05:25:55 PM »

If Roman Catholic ≠ Latin Catholic, then does that mean that Latin Catholics are not Roman Catholic?

So if I understand your question right, it's basically equivalent to "If Russian Orthodox ≠ Eastern Orthodox, then does that mean that Russian Orthodox are not Eastern Orthodox?"
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #132 on: October 14, 2012, 05:34:02 PM »

If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority?

Because I don't see a justification to break off communion from my bishop, and my bishop is in communion with Rome. Ergo, I continue to be in communion with Rome.

Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 05:35:15 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #133 on: October 14, 2012, 05:38:32 PM »

I suppose you're willing to refer to Pope Michael's Church as simply "the Catholic Church" too then?

So the Orthodox should stop using "Catholic" because no one but themselves refers to them as Catholic.  Do you agree?

No. I'm not asking you to stop calling yourselves Catholic. I'm asking you to stop complaining when others qualify that term in relation to you. Peter J has offered "Latin and Eastern Catholics," which is unwieldy, but at least acknowledges the problem. What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #134 on: October 14, 2012, 05:51:57 PM »

What those who insist on just "Catholics" are doing is comparable to a hypothetical Orthodox Christian who thinks the Orthodox are the only true Christians and therefore refuses to call the Orthodox Church anything but the Christian Church and gets offended when other people do not follow him in this.

Hmm, I wonder what ialmisry is doing these days. Time was, he was one of the most regular contributors here.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #135 on: October 14, 2012, 05:59:29 PM »

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

"In the year 1720 Peter the Great, to whom modern Russia owes not only its capital, but much besides, instituted for the government ot [sic] the Greek Orthodox Church of Russia a Holy Legislative Synod." (emphasis mine)

From Under three tsars: liberty of conscience in Russia, 1856-1909

Retrieved from http://archive.org/stream/underthreetsarsl00lati/underthreetsarsl00lati_djvu.txt
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #136 on: October 14, 2012, 06:11:37 PM »

If you want so badly to be distinguished from Rome, then why are you part of a church that has Rome at the center of its ecclesiology and teaching authority?

Because I don't see a justification to break off communion from my bishop, and my bishop is in communion with Rome. Ergo, I continue to be in communion with Rome.

You don't see Rome-centered ecclesiology as important when it's the entire reason why you are counted as being of the Romans? (i.e., the reason for the thing you are complaining about?) That's my point: It's your fault (~the fault of your accepted ecclesiology) that it is this way, but you don't do anything about it because without it being as it is, you wouldn't feel right calling yourselves "Catholic" (hence why it is not accepted by RCs or their EC brethren that the Orthodox call themselves Catholic -- the difference being that Orthodox generally don't whine that Romanists won't play by their naming conventions).

Quote from: Peter J
Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.

claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy... (cf. earlier conversations between me and Choy when he wondered why it can't be that the ECCs guide Rome to Orthodoxy/model Orthodoxy to the Romans or some such)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2012, 06:12:18 PM by dzheremi » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #137 on: October 14, 2012, 06:21:26 PM »

Quote from: Peter J
Yet Eastern Catholics do all of these things, because to not do them threatens their "Catholicity" (read: their Rome-centered ecclesiology that forces them into the schizophrenic relation they are forced to live in, claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy).

Overgeneralization. "Orthodox in union with Rome" only applies to a fraction of Eastern Catholics of Byzantine Rite, and an even smaller fraction of Eastern (Oriental) Catholics of non-Byzantine Rite.

claiming to be "Orthodox in Union with Rome" or to otherwise uphold Orthodoxy... (cf. earlier conversations between me and Choy when he wondered why it can't be that the ECCs guide Rome to Orthodoxy/model Orthodoxy to the Romans or some such)

I would still see that as a little bit of an overgeneralization. "Eastern Catholic" (or even "Byzantine Catholic") does not intrinsically mean that someone claims to uphold Orthodoxy (unless of course you mean "claims to uphold orthodoxy", but then that would apply to all Catholics).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #138 on: October 14, 2012, 06:30:41 PM »

Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #139 on: October 14, 2012, 06:37:28 PM »

Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.

I think what Peter meant to do was distinguish between right doctrine (which Catholics believe they have) and the communions calling themselves Orthodox (mainly the non-Chalcedonian and Eastern Orthodox communions). While I believe that the Orthodox are orthodox, I readily grant that the definitions of the terms are different and while we need, perhaps, a clearer way to express it, the distinction is not to be dismissed so lightly.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #140 on: October 14, 2012, 06:45:13 PM »

I disagree. If you are "Orthodox", you are "orthodox" as well. The opposite does not hold (since, like you say, RCs and others believe that they are "orthodox" without being "Orthodox"), but that doesn't matter if you don't make such a distinction in the first place.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #141 on: October 14, 2012, 06:47:21 PM »

Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."

I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox

"In the year 1720 Peter the Great, to whom modern Russia owes not only its capital, but much besides, instituted for the government ot [sic] the Greek Orthodox Church of Russia a Holy Legislative Synod." (emphasis mine)

From Under three tsars: liberty of conscience in Russia, 1856-1909

Retrieved from http://archive.org/stream/underthreetsarsl00lati/underthreetsarsl00lati_djvu.txt

"Upon accession to the Throne, the sacred coronation and anointment are performed according to the rite of the Greco-Russian Orthodox Church. The date for this solemn ritual is set at the discretion of the Emperor and is given nationwide publicity in advance." (emphasis mine)

From the 1906 Russian Constitution, Chapter 5, retrieved from http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/royalty/russia/rfl.html

Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #142 on: October 14, 2012, 08:14:31 PM »

Orthographic arguments do not work in many of our traditional languages, Peter, and so seem rather weak in English as well. "Orthodoxy" is "orthodoxy" and any kind of "C/catholicism" that is in union with Rome, with its "infallible" Pope, is neither.

Well, okay I guess. Then I should have just said, Catholics in general (whether Eastern or Western) claim to be orthodox in union with Rome and to uphold orthodoxy. It's not schizophrenic.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #143 on: October 14, 2012, 08:22:08 PM »

I can respect that.

Just so we're clear, though, the "schizophrenic" thing doesn't have to do with believing you're orthodox or not (at least not in the way that I'm using it), but rather the kind of situation that Choy described beautifully in response to one of my posts, where he said that he's not sure whether or not his church really accepts the IC, but that it's okay for Latins to believe it because it makes sense from their point of view (or some such; sorry, Choy, if that's not exactly it, but that's what I remember without looking it up...if I'm wrong, please correct me). That to me is schizophrenic because it is trying to embrace contradictory ideas (i.e., Orthodox theology, if the ECs are going to claim it as their own by virtue of it it being their theological patrimony, does not accept the IC), without really committing to anything in particular. This is what I meant when I said EC-ism is neither fish nor fowl. "We don't REALLY believe such and such (or we're not sure), but others can because we can see where they're coming from." Orthodox can see where the Latins are coming from too (or at least converts from Latin Catholicism can, like me), but we're not confused as to what we believe, and we won't say that others can believe in it so long as it makes sense to them. That's the difference I'm trying to capture by using that term.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #144 on: October 14, 2012, 08:35:41 PM »

I disagree. If you are "Orthodox", you are "orthodox" as well. The opposite does not hold (since, like you say, RCs and others believe that they are "orthodox" without being "Orthodox"), but that doesn't matter if you don't make such a distinction in the first place.

But the distinction is necessary. You can't just "not make it," any more than you can just "not make" the distinction between Oriental Orthodoxy and revealed truth. You may believe that Oriental Orthodoxy contains and is the fullness of revealed truth. You may even be right. That doesn't make Oriental Orthodoxy and revealed truth the same concept. Likewise, Orthodoxy in the sense of the EO/OO communions and their faith is not a priori identical with orthodoxy in the sense of right doctrine.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #145 on: October 14, 2012, 08:42:45 PM »

I can respect that.

Just so we're clear, though, the "schizophrenic" thing doesn't have to do with believing you're orthodox or not (at least not in the way that I'm using it), but rather the kind of situation that Choy described beautifully in response to one of my posts, where he said that he's not sure whether or not his church really accepts the IC, but that it's okay for Latins to believe it because it makes sense from their point of view (or some such; sorry, Choy, if that's not exactly it, but that's what I remember without looking it up...if I'm wrong, please correct me). That to me is schizophrenic because it is trying to embrace contradictory ideas (i.e., Orthodox theology, if the ECs are going to claim it as their own by virtue of it it being their theological patrimony, does not accept the IC), without really committing to anything in particular. This is what I meant when I said EC-ism is neither fish nor fowl.

I agree in part -- like I said before, I wouldn't apply that to Eastern Catholics in general, or even to "Byzantine" Catholics in general. But I agree that those few of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are a bit of an anomaly -- Eastern Catholic with a plus, as I like to say.

That's part of the reason I always say that I wouldn't switch from Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism (if I were in a position to do so), but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to switch from Eastern Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #146 on: October 15, 2012, 01:47:24 PM »

So how do we resolve this?  Self designation doesn't work because the other side doesn't want to agree on what we want to call ourselves.  The other side can't come up with a term that justifies the true position and existence of the other.

How about just call each other "Heretic Schismatics".  If an Orthodox person says that, he means the Catholics.  If a Catholic person says that, he means the Orthodox.  And then we're done!  Grin
Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #147 on: October 15, 2012, 01:52:06 PM »

What's to be "resolved" in the first place? You call yourselves what you believe you are, we call ourselves what we believe we are. This is already the state of affairs.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #148 on: October 15, 2012, 02:32:33 PM »

What's to be "resolved" in the first place?

If you accept the testimony of Eastern Orthodox posters on the internet, then there's nothing to be resolved.

I refer you to this post from OCnet:

There is no big deal.  Peter J needs to get off the internet and stop worrying about the contentious ramblings some mouthbreather sitting in front of a computer surrounded by icons and/or "religious paintings" in his parents' basement (whether in reality or because such a person hasn't matured past adolescence).  The only people who are offended by or insist on using the term "Roman Catholic" to differentiate it from the term "Orthodox Catholic" are people who need to shut up, grow up, grow a pair, and go live life and pray instead of reading about both.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #149 on: October 15, 2012, 02:38:26 PM »

I agree with Schultz. I am not offended by those in communion with Rome using the term "Catholic" to refer to themselves. After all, they believe they are the Catholic Church, so why wouldn't they use it? I don't go around calling myself "Orthodox Catholic", but when I say the Nicene Creed in church or at home and it gets to the "Catholic" part, I know what Church I am and am not referring to. That's good enough for me.
Logged

OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #150 on: October 15, 2012, 03:19:52 PM »

So how do we resolve this?  Self designation doesn't work because the other side doesn't want to agree on what we want to call ourselves.  The other side can't come up with a term that justifies the true position and existence of the other.

How about just call each other "Heretic Schismatics".  If an Orthodox person says that, he means the Catholics.  If a Catholic person says that, he means the Orthodox.  And then we're done!  Grin

Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #151 on: October 15, 2012, 03:26:35 PM »

Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #152 on: October 15, 2012, 03:29:03 PM »

Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)

Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #153 on: October 15, 2012, 03:32:48 PM »

Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".

I always get the, "you're not Ukrainian, why do you go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church?"  And I always give the, "well, you don't exactly look like a Roman to me."
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #154 on: October 15, 2012, 03:53:27 PM »

Precisely why I refer to myself as "Catholic" rather than as "Byzantine Catholic".

I always get the, "you're not Ukrainian, why do you go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church?"  And I always give the, "well, you don't exactly look like a Roman to me."

Good reply!
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #155 on: October 15, 2012, 04:10:18 PM »

Well, "Eastern Orthodox" is a perfectly acceptable, unambiguous, nonpartisan term you can use to refer to us.

Since you don't like "Roman Catholic" because you think it means "Latin Catholic," how about "Latins" and "Collaborators with the Latins"?

I jest.

How about "Filioquist Catholic Church"? Or "Lateran Catholic Church" (Since Lateran I is the first Council accepted by the Catholic Church (notice that here I have no problem using that term, as it's clear who I'm talking about) that isn't accepted by the Orthodox (except Constantinople IV, but we have our own Constantinople IV, so that won't work.))

Well, we're Ukrainian Catholics and we're fine with that.  I guess its the all-encompassing term that is in dispute.  That is why we just want to use "Catholic" without qualifiers because it is what is common to us all (Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, etc.)

Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #156 on: October 15, 2012, 04:35:44 PM »

Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #157 on: October 15, 2012, 04:37:14 PM »

Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #158 on: October 15, 2012, 04:45:48 PM »

Well, the all-encompassing term is one issue, but there's also the issue of whether "Roman Catholic" = "Latin Catholic".

I think one of the best answers I've heard to that is that "Roman Catholic" is short for "Roman-Rite Catholic".

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #159 on: October 15, 2012, 04:46:16 PM »

Well, the Roman Rite is the Mass.  There is no such thing as Roman Rite Catholic.  The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

What about the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rite?

They are under the Roman Church, they are not a sui juris like the Eastern Churches.  Athough they are separate Rites similar to the Rites that some Religious Communities may have (like Dominican Rite).  So Roman can refer to the Church that all these other Rites belong to, but the Roman Rite is just the OF and EF (no official word if the Anglican Use is just another use of the Roman Rite, but I suspect it is) and these are just other Rites within the Roman Church.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #160 on: October 15, 2012, 04:46:45 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #161 on: October 15, 2012, 04:51:37 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

LOL!
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
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #162 on: October 15, 2012, 04:54:31 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #163 on: October 15, 2012, 04:58:39 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Gotta throw a fly in the ointment, dontcha?   Grin Grin
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
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #164 on: October 15, 2012, 05:00:59 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

Hey, hey, hey...watch it. That's us, not you. Don't make Mina angry. You wouldn't like him when he is angry.

Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #165 on: October 15, 2012, 05:12:24 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Hhhmm... makes me think now.  I wonder how many ECs actually accepted Pastor Aeternus (for those already in communion with Rome by Vatican I)?  I think having a prime overseer such as the Pope is not beyond Orthodoxy granted that it is agreed that it is something of a development of ecclesiology (such as having Metropolitans and Patriarchs) rather than some divinely instituted authority.  I wonder if the ECs were, "well, there's no going back to the Orthodox now, might as well go along with this," or did they actually believe in the RC teaching and see it as orthodox?
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #166 on: October 15, 2012, 05:44:33 PM »

See how much easier it is to just say, "Catholic"?  Grin

I'm more in favor of "Papist Orthodox"  Grin

I would actually accept that, though I think some of my coreligionists would rather give that title to the EP...

Hhhmm... makes me think now.  I wonder how many ECs actually accepted Pastor Aeternus (for those already in communion with Rome by Vatican I)?  I think having a prime overseer such as the Pope is not beyond Orthodoxy granted that it is agreed that it is something of a development of ecclesiology (such as having Metropolitans and Patriarchs) rather than some divinely instituted authority.  I wonder if the ECs were, "well, there's no going back to the Orthodox now, might as well go along with this," or did they actually believe in the RC teaching and see it as orthodox?

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 05:45:00 PM by OrthoNoob » Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #167 on: October 15, 2012, 05:50:56 PM »

The Rite of the Roman Church is called the Latin Rite.

It's the other way around: the Roman Rite is a rite of the Latin Church.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2012, 05:51:32 PM by Peter J » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #168 on: October 15, 2012, 09:25:38 PM »

So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  laugh
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #169 on: October 15, 2012, 09:37:54 PM »

So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  laugh

Thank you!  Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #170 on: October 15, 2012, 09:45:28 PM »

So in conclusion, who cares what we call eachother?  laugh

Thank you!  Smiley

I can think of some things you probably wouldn't want me (or EOs for that matter) calling you. Cheesy
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #171 on: October 15, 2012, 10:05:31 PM »

Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... Lips Sealed Tongue
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,140


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #172 on: October 16, 2012, 09:42:01 AM »

Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... Lips Sealed Tongue
Cheesy
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,041



« Reply #173 on: October 16, 2012, 09:54:15 AM »

Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... Lips Sealed Tongue

Fair enough ... I should have said I can think of something we are not allowed to call you.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #174 on: October 16, 2012, 10:28:50 AM »

Pfft. If I was that thin skinned, why would I have joined the Coptic Church of all places? I don't care what any of you crypto-Nestorians call me.

Oops... Lips Sealed Tongue

LOL!  laugh laugh laugh
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #175 on: October 16, 2012, 10:47:09 AM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,715



« Reply #176 on: October 16, 2012, 10:51:35 AM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.

Making it a God-revealed dogma is a legitimate development?  Huh

Edit: NVM, didn't bother to read the last sentence.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 10:52:13 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #177 on: October 16, 2012, 11:12:08 AM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

I think I'd have to disagree. I can't see how a universal bishop can ever be a legitimate development. If the Pope is universal bishop then surely no other bishop is really bishop at all. I can absolutely see a single bishop as head bishop within (not over) the Church as a possibly acceptable development (which is I guess what we would say the primacy of Rome should be) but he still needs to be subject to the Church and not the other way around.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #178 on: October 16, 2012, 11:31:43 AM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

But Metropolitans and Patriarchs are just bishops tasked with presiding at meetings of particular local synods. There have always been bishops, and there have always been synods. But the idea of a Pope, to whom all other bishops are essentially auxiliaries, is a fundamental attack on Orthodox ecclesiology. Look up the outcry when the Patriarchate of Antioch made all its bishops (not all the bishops in the world, as you seem to be advocating, just all its own bishops) essentially auxiliaries.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #179 on: October 16, 2012, 12:49:08 PM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.

Making it a God-revealed dogma is a legitimate development?  Huh

Edit: NVM, didn't bother to read the last sentence.

No, I said without making it as if it is a divine mandate.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 12:49:36 PM by choy » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #180 on: October 16, 2012, 12:52:43 PM »


I think I'd have to disagree. I can't see how a universal bishop can ever be a legitimate development. If the Pope is universal bishop then surely no other bishop is really bishop at all. I can absolutely see a single bishop as head bishop within (not over) the Church as a possibly acceptable development (which is I guess what we would say the primacy of Rome should be) but he still needs to be subject to the Church and not the other way around.

James

Sorry, I don't men universal in that way.  But universal that he is somewhat a "Patriarch of Patriarchs".  Definitely not in the current authority of the Pope of Rome, but similar to what a Patriarch is today, but over the whole Church.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #181 on: October 16, 2012, 12:53:06 PM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

But Metropolitans and Patriarchs are just bishops tasked with presiding at meetings of particular local synods. There have always been bishops, and there have always been synods. But the idea of a Pope, to whom all other bishops are essentially auxiliaries, is a fundamental attack on Orthodox ecclesiology. Look up the outcry when the Patriarchate of Antioch made all its bishops (not all the bishops in the world, as you seem to be advocating, just all its own bishops) essentially auxiliaries.

Then there is the ROC Patriarch.
Logged
Tags: Holy councilism Orthodoxy=7 Caesaropapism 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   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 0.484 seconds with 211 queries.