OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 02:27:30 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 10051 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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 Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
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 Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,227


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
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 Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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 Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 6,123



« 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: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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: 6,123



« 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
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,204


« 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: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« 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: 6,123



« 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 Catholic
Posts: 10,126


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

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

Posts: 9,227


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« 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

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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
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 0.145 seconds with 74 queries.