OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 05:35:01 PM *
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 9433 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,724



« 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.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
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
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,724



« 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.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
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 0.152 seconds with 75 queries.