Ecumenical Relativism?

[Shlomlokh]

An Orthodox friend of mine who is dating a RC girl sent me this article on Facebook yesterday. I am wondering what everyone's take is on it.

http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/

I think many of us are familiar with Devin's articles, but this was supposedly written by an Orthodox Christian. From what I can gather in a cursory reading, the author is basically RC at heart and is overlooking so many obvious things (the papacy and anathema's that accompany its rejection, for example). How can we help our fellow Orthodox from hating Rome (after all, she was Orthodox for 1000 years or so) without becoming an ecumenical relativist, downplaying the very real issues separating us? Looking forward to some good discussion.

In Christ,
Andrew

[akimori makoto]

"I met a learned Catholic online who stated that 'I have never met an Orthodox Christian online or in person who actually understands the Catholic faith.'”

I am getting really tired of Latins peddling this meme.

[Shanghaiski]

"I met a learned Catholic online who stated that 'I have never met an Orthodox Christian online or in person who actually understands the Catholic faith.'”

I am getting really tired of Latins peddling this meme.

I've yet to meet a Roman Catholic who can understand or articulate the Roman Catholic faith. That's the trouble with something that changes all the time.

[Nephi]

I mostly read the Rapprochment section and I must say that I don't understand why he remains in schism from the Pope if he believes that he is the Church's "living authority," agreed statement or not.

He seems to really overplay the Pope's role in many of our councils, and underplay the influence of our post-schism councils. There are Orthodox who recognize other councils as ecumenical and not just the famous 7.

Although I do understand the appeal of a "living authority."

[Basil 320]

My two cents. 

You can't easily convince those with strong beliefs in support of rapprochement or absolute segregation between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, to change their opinions.  Without a return to everything that Orthodox tradition maintains, it isn't likely that a consensus will develop within Orthodoxy for acceptance of Rome's innovative theology; neither is it likely that Rome will concede anything of its current beliefs to Orthodoxy.  Of course, I don't deny the possible intervention of the Holy Spirit into the minds of Roman hierarchy, but my comments are restricted to the reality of today that I see.  Without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, does anyone think the Roman's will deny the "infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-cathedra," or the "Immaculate Conception of St. Ann," or for that matter accept the Orthodox understanding of the fallen world vs. their belief in mankind's inheritance of "original sin?" Will they admit to the error that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, that the "filioque" was erroneously added to the "Symbol of Faith?"  In my opinion, our Orthodox leadership should be forthright with the Catholic leadership in our dialogues, and admit that it isn't likely Eastern Orthodoxy will reunite with Roman Catholicism, due to the theological differences, many of which are connected to the authority the Roman Catholic Church has granted over time to the person of His Holiness the Pope.  These differences have much to do with the living tradition of these two churches which have been separated for over a millennium, longer than as long as we were united, as Patriarch Bartholomew articulated to one of the Catholic Universities (Was it Georgetown?) during one of his visits to America during the last decade.  We should pursue dialogue, acknowledging what we agree about, but likewise acknowledging of what we do not agree.  We need to articulate the differences which keep us separated and advise Rome, a consensus will not develop in Orthodox Christianity which can ignore these differences.  However, along with Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism is the closest Christian community to Eastern Orthodoxy.  In today's world, which is so consumed with secular, evil, and heretical forces, including the extremist Moslem scourge, we should forge a foundation for speaking jointly to the world.  We should include in a conference of Christian churches, the few remaining traditional Christian denominations, "Trinitarian Christians," which adhere to basic Christian tradition and theology, denominations that believe in the Holy Trinity, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity, one in essence and undivided,"  whose members are baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, and not include excessively "innovative Christians," including churches that do not oppose ordination of female and homosexual clergy.

Of course, we should pray for the unity of Christendom, i.e. the return of all Christians to the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but until progress is made in that regard, we should maintain loving and respectful relations and have a platform for speaking to the world the message of our Lord and Saviour.

[Cyrillic]

"I met a learned Catholic online who stated that 'I have never met an Orthodox Christian online or in person who actually understands the Catholic faith.'”

But the Orthodox Christians have the Catholic faith 

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

[orthonorm]

Did I read Devin Rose?

Really the discussion stops there.

[NicholasMyra]

Did I read Devin Rose?

Really the discussion stops there.

Perhaps this fellow was partial inspiration for his novel.

[Shanghaiski]

My two cents. 

You can't easily convince those with strong beliefs in support of rapprochement or absolute segregation between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, to change their opinions.  Without a return to everything that Orthodox tradition maintains, it isn't likely that a consensus will develop within Orthodoxy for acceptance of Rome's innovative theology; neither is it likely that Rome will concede anything of its current beliefs to Orthodoxy.  Of course, I don't deny the possible intervention of the Holy Spirit into the minds of Roman hierarchy, but my comments are restricted to the reality of today that I see.  Without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, does anyone think the Roman's will deny the "infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex-cathedra," or the "Immaculate Conception of St. Ann," or for that matter accept the Orthodox understanding of the fallen world vs. their belief in mankind's inheritance of "original sin?" Will they admit to the error that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, that the "filioque" was erroneously added to the "Symbol of Faith?"  In my opinion, our Orthodox leadership should be forthright with the Catholic leadership in our dialogues, and admit that it isn't likely Eastern Orthodoxy will reunite with Roman Catholicism, due to the theological differences, many of which are connected to the authority the Roman Catholic Church has granted over time to the person of His Holiness the Pope.  These differences have much to do with the living tradition of these two churches which have been separated for over a millennium, longer than as long as we were united, as Patriarch Bartholomew articulated to one of the Catholic Universities (Was it Georgetown?) during one of his visits to America during the last decade.  We should pursue dialogue, acknowledging what we agree about, but likewise acknowledging of what we do not agree.  We need to articulate the differences which keep us separated and advise Rome, a consensus will not develop in Orthodox Christianity which can ignore these differences.  However, along with Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism is the closest Christian community to Eastern Orthodoxy.  In today's world, which is so consumed with secular, evil, and heretical forces, including the extremist Moslem scourge, we should forge a foundation for speaking jointly to the world.  We should include in a conference of Christian churches, the few remaining traditional Christian denominations, "Trinitarian Christians," which adhere to basic Christian tradition and theology, denominations that believe in the Holy Trinity, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Trinity, one in essence and undivided,"  whose members are baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, and not include excessively "innovative Christians," including churches that do not oppose ordination of female and homosexual clergy.

Of course, we should pray for the unity of Christendom, i.e. the return of all Christians to the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but until progress is made in that regard, we should maintain loving and respectful relations and have a platform for speaking to the world the message of our Lord and Saviour.

Basil, AFAIK, you have stated here (brilliantly) all that I know of every single ecumenical meeting at which Orthodox speak (and not just bang their heads against the wall and pray for mercy or death).

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

[J Michael]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

[J Michael]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

 

[Cyrillic]

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

That doesn't say anything. If I'd get a penny evertime some out of communion with Rome would call himself Catholic I'd be rich.

[J Michael]

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

That doesn't say anything. If I'd get a penny evertime some out of communion with Rome would call himself Catholic I'd be rich.

Are you implying that Devin Rose is *not* in communion with Rome, despite the fact that he identifies himself as a Catholic, calls himself a lay Catholic apologist, has a Catholic blog, and has written this book http://www.amazon.com/If-Protestantism-True-Reformation-Meets/dp/0615445306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354296907&sr=1-1&keywords=devin+rose ?

I know, why don't you log onto his blog and ask him if he is in communion with Rome? That ought to settle it.

Or are you just wishful thinking about money  ?

[orthonorm]

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

That doesn't say anything. If I'd get a penny evertime some out of communion with Rome would call himself Catholic I'd be rich.

Are you implying that Devin Rose is *not* in communion with Rome, despite the fact that he identifies himself as a Catholic, calls himself a lay Catholic apologist, has a Catholic blog, and has written this book http://www.amazon.com/If-Protestantism-True-Reformation-Meets/dp/0615445306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354296907&sr=1-1&keywords=devin+rose ?

I know, why don't you log onto his blog and ask him if he is in communion with Rome? That ought to settle it.

Or are you just wishful thinking about money  ?

I have no idea what Cyrillic is going on about. According to any measure one can conduct on the internet, Devin Rose is an RC.

If you want to laugh a lot, I recommend his blog and video clips of his testimony.

[Justin Kolodziej]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

[J Michael]

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

That doesn't say anything. If I'd get a penny evertime some out of communion with Rome would call himself Catholic I'd be rich.

Are you implying that Devin Rose is *not* in communion with Rome, despite the fact that he identifies himself as a Catholic, calls himself a lay Catholic apologist, has a Catholic blog, and has written this book http://www.amazon.com/If-Protestantism-True-Reformation-Meets/dp/0615445306/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354296907&sr=1-1&keywords=devin+rose ?

I know, why don't you log onto his blog and ask him if he is in communion with Rome? That ought to settle it.

Or are you just wishful thinking about money  ?

I have no idea what Cyrillic is going on about. According to any measure one can conduct on the internet, Devin Rose is an RC.

If you want to laugh a lot, I recommend his blog and video clips of his testimony.

Laughing is excellent.  One should do it daily.  Good for the heart and the soul. 

Yeah, I don't know what Cyrillic is going on about, either. 

[Cyrillic]

Yeah, I don't know what Cyrillic is going on about, either. 

Me neither.

[J Michael]

Yeah, I don't know what Cyrillic is going on about, either. 

Me neither.

LOL!

Your candor is refreshing. 

[Apotheoun]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

[Cavaradossi]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

Perhaps we should introduce him to a particular poster on CAF...

[Peter J]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't know much about Devin Rose or the other guy, but I do know one ex-Orthodox who is Melkite, and another who wants to become Melkite.

On a side note, have any of you ever found that often times when someone identifies themselves as ex-Orthodox, there's a subtext of "... so you should make me your point man for ecumenism with the Orthodox"?

[Justin Kolodziej]

Perhaps he ought to share these thoughts with his priest and bishop. Needless to say, I think he is in error, for asserting, as he has, that we have been in error for centuries, and also for dismissing the "party" of St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Photius as if they acquired the title 'Pillar of Orthodoxy', for nothing. With such a dismissal, he wars against the orthodox faith, which generations have confirmed was taught by Ss. Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. The "party" he so nonchalantly dismisses is the orthodox faith itself. His desire for eirenicism and reconciliation is good, but it is misplaced.

This is the misguided way to conduct Ecumenism: denying that one's own church possesses the fullness of the truth, and rehabilitating erroneous teachings. We have already seen this sick thinking infect the scholarly world which has seen attempts to rehabilitate Nestorius' and Theodore of Mopsuestia's heretical doctrines (for sure, a true mark of impiety). This sickness seems, unfortunately, to be common now. I am all for attempting to reconcile differing theologies (I think it is possible, in most cases), but not in this manner, which involves undermining the orthodox faith as a misguided means for achieving that end.

Great post!

Someone in the comment section of the blog mentioned that the author should become Byzantine Catholic, but I hope he doesn't, because Eastern Catholics have enough problems already.  It would make more sense for Devon Rose to become Roman Catholic.  I think he will be happier that way.

Devin already *is* Catholic, although he doesn't specifically say "Roman".  See this: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/about/

The author of the linked post in the OP self-identifies as Orthodox:

"I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Protestant (please see my About Me page" http://quiesincaelis.wordpress.com/about/

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

That one I had to look up. I don't see the opposition either to be honest, they both say the Spirit derives His existence from the Father alone

Anyway, to get back to the point we were trying to talk about, at the very least saying Churches are really in communion that still have anathemas against each other on the books kind of denies reality, don't you think?

[Apotheoun]

Yes, my apologies for mis-identifying the author of the article blog name; but nevertheless, I still hope that the author of the text in question does not become Byzantine Catholic, because - at least based upon what he has written - it is clear to me that he would make a better Roman Catholic.  He most certainly would not be a good Melkite.  

I don't know much about Devin Rose or the other guy, but I do know one ex-Orthodox who is Melkite, and another who wants to become Melkite.

On a side note, have any of you ever found that often times when someone identifies themselves as ex-Orthodox, there's a subtext of "... so you should make me your point man for ecumenism with the Orthodox"?

A point of clarification:  I did not say that all Orthodox Christians, in every instance, make bad Melkites; instead, I said that this particular Orthodox Christian, based upon what he said in his blog article, would not make a good Melkite.  

[Apotheoun]

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

Perhaps we should introduce him to a particular poster on CAF...

Are you referring to a certain CAF poster whose screen name reminds me of the name of a Great Dane cartoon character from a popular comic strip?  If so, I think that would be a bad idea, because it would just add to the blog author's confusion, and to the confusion of others in general.

[Apotheoun]

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

That one I had to look up. I don't see the opposition either to be honest, they both say the Spirit derives His existence from the Father alone

That is also my take on that particular issue.

Anyway, to get back to the point we were trying to talk about, at the very least saying Churches are really in communion that still have anathemas against each other on the books kind of denies reality, don't you think?

Rome does all sorts of things that suite its own purposes.  That the Melkite Catholic Church has officially endorsed, and never rescinded, the so-called Zogbhy Initiative is a matter that Melkites in general find interesting, but that Rome itself basically ignores.  Sure Cardinal Ratzinger said it was not workable years ago, but the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod have ignored him on the issue, and have maintained their support of the Initiative.  Alas, it must not be that important to Pope Benedict, because when he visited Lebanon recently he chose not to press the issue.  I guess both sides like the status quo.

[Apotheoun]

Anyway, to get back to the point we were trying to talk about, at the very least saying Churches are really in communion that still have anathemas against each other on the books kind of denies reality, don't you think?

This makes sense to me.  Ecumenism needs a dose of reality.  Heck relations between the various Catholic sui juris Churches needs a dose of reality.

[Cavaradossi]

I don't get it  

edit: Do you mean thinking the Pope should be the main authority, when the Melkites basically say "We're in communion with Rome but the Pope is not the boss of us?"

That would be one of the issues.  But the general approach and outlook expressed in the blog article is not Eastern (either Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic).  For example, the author evinces ignorance about the nature of the Spirit's procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), which is clear in his comment that implies opposition between St. Photios and the teaching of the Blachernae Council.  There are other things in addition to the two mentioned here, but it would take a while to write them all out, and I do not feel like doing that at the present time.  That said, the author of the article would not fit well into the Melkite Catholic Church, but would clearly fit well in the Roman Church.

Perhaps we should introduce him to a particular poster on CAF...

Are you referring to a certain CAF poster whose screen name reminds me of the name of a Great Dane cartoon character from a popular comic strip?  If so, I think that would be a bad idea, because it would just add to the blog author's confusion, and to the confusion of others in general.

You read my mind. The two of them think so alike that it's hard for me to believe that they are two different people.

[Cyrillic]

At least the blog author didn't underline/bold/color random words and sentences, unlike his theological twin brother.

[Cavaradossi]

At least the blog author didn't underline/bold/color random words and sentences, unlike his theological twin brother.

 

[Wyatt]

I don't hate Rome and I'm completely orthodox.

[Basil 320]

Same here.  And I'll add, I disagree with ALL of Rome's innovations and everything about the Church of Rome that separates them from Eastern Orthodox Christianity.  And I have a good deal of respect for the Church of Rome, other than what they believe and practice that deviates from Orthodoxy.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Ecumenical Relativism?