OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 07:06:40 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  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the Catholic Church Catholic?  (Read 3825 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,200



« on: February 03, 2013, 04:25:10 PM »

We know they aren't exactly Orthodox these centuries, but are they still Catholic (outside of meaning under Roman leadership)?
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 04:28:00 PM »

Coca-Cola is catholic, McDonalds...
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,217


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 04:37:40 PM »

Some Orthodox would argue that part of being catholic is having a "wholeness," and because of what they've lost that Roman Catholicism is not really catholic. I believe it was Khomiakov and others who spoke this way.
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 952


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 06:10:00 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2013, 06:33:39 PM »

yes
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 03:42:16 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!


Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,217


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 03:47:33 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!

But it's less than 5 characters, so it's disqualified!  Tongue
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 11:51:32 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!

But it's less than 5 characters, so it's disqualified!  Tongue

Yes it is Catholic.
 Tongue
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 11:52:19 AM by J Michael » 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 (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 12:18:42 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
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.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2013, 12:25:26 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.

How 'bout you start, by backing up your statement  Cool.  (I am, by the way, in partial agreement with you, but I also think it's a frivolous, divisive, and basically irrelevant discussion.)
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 (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 12:28:28 PM »

Time to insert predictable Orthodox response:

"Is the Catholic Church Catholic? Of course we are....if you are referring to the ROMAN Catholic Church, then no."
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2013, 12:31:39 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2013, 02:30:53 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2013, 02:43:30 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
Jeez, stop using curse words to attack other posters.  I consider that two infractions in one.  -username! Orthodox-Catholic Section moderator...hello to you too. :/
 You are being placed on two weeks' post moderation.  I consider the language to be two infractions.  One for the language itself and the other for attacking another poster.  In the future please refrain from doing so.
-Username! Section Moderator of the Orthodox-Catholic forum.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 04:51:17 PM by username! » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM »

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?

New name for the Vatican?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2013, 04:59:03 PM »

But Voltaire, how is it not Roman?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,950



« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2013, 05:23:22 PM »

The Orthodox was refered as the Catholic Church by the Councils and Early Fathers and therefore if we want to nitpick the RCC is not the Catholic Church. However in day-to-day speech and on internet forums the RCC must be refered as the Catholic Church since everything else would be silly.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2013, 05:37:21 PM »

The Orthodox was refered as the Catholic Church by the Councils and Early Fathers and therefore if we want to nitpick the RCC is not the Catholic Church. However in day-to-day speech and on internet forums the RCC must be refered as the Catholic Church since everything else would be silly.

Not to mention the fact that it *is* Catholic  Wink.  And, according to Catholics, The Church (or at the very least, a part of The Church).  Wink  (Yes, yes, I know...according to Orthodox, it is not The Church, or a part thereof--big sigh.)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 05:38:36 PM by J Michael » 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 (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2013, 06:15:04 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.

How 'bout you start, by backing up your statement  Cool.  (I am, by the way, in partial agreement with you, but I also think it's a frivolous, divisive, and basically irrelevant discussion.)

Well good. It was a take-off on "Coffee Talk" anyway.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2013, 06:17:25 PM »

Time to insert predictable Orthodox response:

"Is the Catholic Church Catholic? Of course we are....if you are referring to the ROMAN Catholic Church, then no."

But the Orthodox Church IS the ROman Catholic Church.
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.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2013, 06:48:58 PM »

The sense of being geographically widespread is a secondary development from the original meaning of "Catholic" that is preserved in the Orthodox Church and by Orthodox Christians. It's sort of like how "apostolic" can be used to mean "founded by an apostle" and "handed down from the apostles" (in the case of doctrine). One is much more meaningful to me as an Orthodox Christian, so I frankly don't care if those in union with Rome want to use the other, less meaningful definitions (since who could argue that Rome-affiliated churches are more widespread throughout the world?) in order to claim that they are "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic". Sure, you guys are everywhere, and St. Peter was certainly an apostle... Smiley

Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2013, 08:06:31 PM »

The sense of being geographically widespread is a secondary development from the original meaning of "Catholic" that is preserved in the Orthodox Church and by Orthodox Christians. It's sort of like how "apostolic" can be used to mean "founded by an apostle" and "handed down from the apostles" (in the case of doctrine). One is much more meaningful to me as an Orthodox Christian, so I frankly don't care if those in union with Rome want to use the other, less meaningful definitions (since who could argue that Rome-affiliated churches are more widespread throughout the world?) in order to claim that they are "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic". Sure, you guys are everywhere, and St. Peter was certainly an apostle... Smiley



LOL
Gotta love that "we are geographically everywhere therefore we are the true Church" argument.  Does that mean the true Church didn't exist in the First Millennium when there was no Christian Church in the Pacific Islands, Australia, South East Asia, Japan, etc.?  Also there is a cult in the Philippines, an LDS knock-off, which this is one of the things they are trying to achieve to prove the authenticity of their faith.  That they have a temple in every country and a member from every nationality and ethnicity.  They will often brag about their missions in Africa and South America and show-off photos of foreigners (ie. non-Filipinos) being part of their religion.  I never knew that the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to such petty, cultish thought.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2013, 08:30:47 PM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 08:33:23 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 10:19:46 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 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 (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 11:20:13 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 Grin

What did you honestly expect? The two-lung theory?
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.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 11:47:48 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 Grin



What did you honestly expect? The two-lung theory?

Works for me!  Grin  But then, I *am* CATHOLIC, just not Roman  Wink

Maybe one day, with an abundance of God's grace, we will restore full communion between us.  Until then, I can but pray, and try *not* to engage in the endless, circular bickering that we seem so good at.
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 #26 on: February 05, 2013, 12:01:02 PM »

The two lung theory doesn't fit in with the Eucharistic view of the Church.  The two lung theory suggests that:

a. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is of equal dignity as all the other non-Roman/Latin/Vatican Churches combined
b. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is only half the Church and half the Truth without the other Churches
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 12:04:07 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 12:06:37 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?

He wrote extensively on it but I believe he wasn't the first one to float that idea.  I could be wrong.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2013, 12:48:40 PM »

The two lung theory doesn't fit in with the Eucharistic view of the Church.  The two lung theory suggests that:

a. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is of equal dignity as all the other non-Roman/Latin/Vatican Churches combined
b. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is only half the Church and half the Truth without the other Churches

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense? 

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2013, 12:51:11 PM »

I would simply say it depends upon what one means by catholic, and that I can respect those who answer in a different manner than I will in good conscience according to their own faith and tradition, and I hope others can find it in their hearts to reciprocate even if disagreeing.

We are faced with two types of usage: the early patristic and etymological usage as wholeness, fullness, completeness [compare the Heb. word shalom/peace often with the meaning of wholeness] and the later historical usage with geographical emphasis, which has also come into common use in modern languages. Roman Catholics emphasize the latter; Orthodox often emphasize the former

The Greek word, καθόλου (katholou) is a composite of two other Greek words:
κατά meaning "according to," and
όλος meaning "whole."

Jordan Bajis's Common Ground contains a good discussion:
Quote from: Jordan Bajis
"The ancient Church understood catholicity to mean wholeness, fullness, integrity, and totality. This is the primary meaning of the Greek word katholou (καθόλου), catholic. Another popular misunderstanding of the word catholic is 'universal,'[1] as in 'the church which exists throughout the world. This was not at all the early Christian understanding of the word. The Church of the first centuries used the word catholic as a synonym for the fullness of Truth, not as a geographical description. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 (the first Christian father to use the term in reference to the Church) states that the Church is catholic because in her assembly, the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all His Truth. The idea of a universal Church as being constituted by all "churches" throughout the world, never occurred to Ignatius... Actually it was not until the 5th century  -and then only in the West- that catholicity began to take on a geographical emphasis.
For centuries 'catholicity' never implied the sum total of all individual local churches, but was a reference to the Church's inner being. Catholicity is a matter of the Church's inward unity in wholeness, not her outward administrative structure throughout the world...  If the Church is catholic in her very being, and not because of her existence as a world-wide structure, then it follows that the unity of the Church is realized through a shared Faith and a shared life, not just an shared administration.[2] The early Church did not believe that her doctrine was catholic because she existed everywhere, but because the very nature of Truth is catholic. Her unity was based on Truth, not on form or politics. The Church was one by virtue of her possessing the one, identical, and whole Faith of the Church, not because each Local Church submitted to a central bureaucratic structure" (Jordan Bajis, Common Ground, pp. 160f). [such central bureacratic structure would be an historical anachronism for the earliest centuries of the Church in any case despite amateur apologetic arguments to the contrary].
_______
[1]"In the West, it [the word Catholic] was generally understood as 'universal.' However if this was the meaning of the word, it is not quite clear... why the early Latin translators of the creeds [like the Nicene where it reads 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church'] kept in the text the Greek form catholica ecclesia instead of using universalis... The reason for this phenomenon is that the various translators were aware of the difficulty of translating katholike by a single word in any language. If katholikos is ever to be translated by 'universal' it still does not have a geographical but a philosophical connotation [where it would mean 'all inclusive']. As applied to the Church, 'catholic' first of all implies the idea of fullness; etymologically it derives from the adverb kathelon, 'on the whole,' opposed to kata meros, 'partially'" (John Meyerendorff, "The Orthodox Concept of the Church," St. Vladimir's Quarterly, Vol 6, No 2, p. 61).
[2]"The idea of the visible Church and its unity has been prominent in the East since the time of Victor of Rome (AD 190) when, having attempted to excommunicate the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter after their own reckoning, he was reproved by Irenaeus for introducing into the Church the idea that a rigid uniformity, rather than a common faith, was the bond of union. In the West, however, Cyprian's conception of the Church was dominant. Although he regarded the church as a spiritual entity, he approached it with a practical and legalistic attitude, 'owing much in analogies borrowed from Roman Law and conditioned by the problems created by the Novationist schism'" (Methodios Fouyas, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism (Oxford University Press, 1972), 117, citing J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 294).

If one as an Orthodox Christian affirms Orthodoxy truly contains the "fullness" of the faith, they are essentially claiming Orthodoxy is the true "catholic" faith (or fullness of the faith, same meaning). Roman Catholics will disagree, but I think a fair-minded Roman Catholic can at least give a nod to the idea that Orthodox Christians who affirm that are simply being true to their/our claim to the fullness of the faith (being true to their conscience). If we did not affirm that, we would not be Orthodox. In that sense, at least, we would not say that Roman Catholicism is the fullness of the faith (else we would probably not be Orthodox, but Roman Catholic).

No insult is intended to my/our Roman Catholic friends who disagree! As an Orthodox Christian I affirm Orthodoxy  the fullness (catholicity) of Christianity, and do not think of Roman Catholicism as possessing catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic. But I don't hesitate to use the appellation Roman Catholic for historical reasons and just plain to get along, though I also sometimes also use the term Latin Catholic (not in reference to rites etc., but in the literal geographical sense of Latium, i.e. Rome), again, never with disrespect intended.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 01:07:50 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2013, 01:12:17 PM »

I would simply say it depends upon what one means by catholic, and that I can respect those who answer in a different manner than I will in good conscience according to their own faith and tradition, and I hope others can find it in their hearts to reciprocate even if disagreeing.

We are faced with two types of usage: the early patristic and etymological usage as wholeness, fullness, completeness [compare the Heb. word shalom/peace often with the meaning of wholeness] and the later historical usage with geographical emphasis, which has also come into common use in modern languages. Roman Catholics emphasize the latter; Orthodox often emphasize the former

The Greek word, καθόλου (katholou) is a composite of two other Greek words:
κατά meaning "according to," and
όλος meaning "whole."

Jordan Bajis's Common Ground contains a good discussion:
Quote from: Jordan Bajis
"The ancient Church understood catholicity to mean wholeness, fullness, integrity, and totality. This is the primary meaning of the Greek word katholou (καθόλου), catholic. Another popular misunderstanding of the word catholic is 'universal,'[1] as in 'the church which exists throughout the world. This was not at all the early Christian understanding of the word. The Church of the first centuries used the word catholic as a synonym for the fullness of Truth, not as a geographical description. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 (the first Christian father to use the term in reference to the Church) states that the Church is catholic because in her assembly, the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all His Truth. The idea of a universal Church as being constituted by all "churches" throughout the world, never occurred to Ignatius... Actually it was not until the 5th century  -and then only in the West- that catholicity began to take on a geographical emphasis.
For centuries 'catholicity' never implied the sum total of all individual local churches, but was a reference to the Church's inner being. Catholicity is a matter of the Church's inward unity in wholeness, not her outward administrative structure throughout the world...  If the Church is catholic in her very being, and not because of her existence as a world-wide structure, then it follows that the unity of the Church is realized through a shared Faith and a shared life, not just an shared administration.[2] The early Church did not believe that her doctrine was catholic because she existed everywhere, but because the very nature of Truth is catholic. Her unity was based on Truth, not on form or politics. The Church was one by virtue of her possessing the one, identical, and whole Faith of the Church, not because each Local Church submitted to a central bureaucratic structure" (Jordan Bajis, Common Ground, pp. 160f). [such central bureacratic structure would be an historical anachronism for the earliest centuries of the Church in any case despite amateur apologetic arguments to the contrary].
_______
[1]"In the West, it [the word Catholic] was generally understood as 'universal.' However if this was the meaning of the word, it is not quite clear... why the early Latin translators of the creeds [like the Nicene where it reads 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church'] kept in the text the Greek form catholica ecclesia instead of using universalis... The reason for this phenomenon is that the various translators were aware of the difficulty of translating katholike by a single word in any language. If katholikos is ever to be translated by 'universal' it still does not have a geographical but a philosophical connotation [where it would mean 'all inclusive']. As applied to the Church, 'catholic' first of all implies the idea of fullness; etymologically it derives from the adverb kathelon, 'on the whole,' opposed to kata meros, 'partially'" (John Meyerendorff, "The Orthodox Concept of the Church," St. Vladimir's Quarterly, Vol 6, No 2, p. 61).
[2]"The idea of the visible Church and its unity has been prominent in the East since the time of Victor of Rome (AD 190) when, having attempted to excommunicate the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter after their own reckoning, he was reproved by Irenaeus for introducing into the Church the idea that a rigid uniformity, rather than a common faith, was the bond of union. In the West, however, Cyprian's conception of the Church was dominant. Although he regarded the church as a spiritual entity, he approached it with a practical and legalistic attitude, 'owing much in analogies borrowed from Roman Law and conditioned by the problems created by the Novationist schism'" (Methodios Fouyas, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism (Oxford University Press, 1972), 117, citing J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 294).

If one as an Orthodox Christian affirms Orthodoxy truly contains the "fullness" of the faith, they are essentially claiming Orthodoxy is the true "catholic" faith (or fullness of the faith, same meaning). Roman Catholics will disagree, but I think a fair-minded Roman Catholic can at least give a nod to the idea that Orthodox Christians who affirm that are simply being true to their/our claim to the fullness of the faith (being true to their conscience). If we did not affirm that, we would not be Orthodox. In that sense, at least, we would not say that Roman Catholicism is the fullness of the faith (else we would probably not be Orthodox, but Roman Catholic).

No insult is intended to my/our Roman Catholic friends who disagree! As an Orthodox Christian I affirm Orthodoxy  the fullness (catholicity) of Christianity, and do not think of Roman Catholicism as possessing catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic. But I don't hesitate to use the appellation Roman Catholic for historical reasons and just plain to get along, though I also sometimes also use the term Latin Catholic (not in reference to rites etc., but in the literal geographical sense of Latium, i.e. Rome).

Not that I'm Roman Catholic ( Cheesy), but as a Catholic no insult was taken by your excellent post.  Until such time as we are able to resolve our differences as Orthodox and Catholic, and resume full communion with one another, I'm willing to take the position that we must agree to disagree with each other about some things, all the while maintaining the fullest and deepest respect for each other.  Without such respect, we shouldn't even be talking with each other. 

As a non-Roman Catholic, my understanding has always been that the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church (in all its various parts) does indeed possess "catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word 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 (?)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2013, 01:14:29 PM »

^Well said and, I take it (as usual with you), in a true spirit of friendliness.
Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2013, 01:26:07 PM »

^Well said and, I take it (as usual with you), in a true spirit of friendliness.

Absolutely! 
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 #34 on: February 05, 2013, 02:44:17 PM »

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.  So I don't know why, even within the Catholic Communion where the East is composed of 22 sui juris Churches and the West is just one sui juris, one would think that the two lung theory espouses equal dignity when it clearly states that half of the fullness of Church is in Rome itself, and the other half is found in all other non-Roman Churches.  So the Russian Church is just a percentage of the half together with the Greeks, Antioch, Alexandria, Malankara, etc.

Orientale Lumen states that the full catholicity of the Church is expressed not by one tradition or one Church, but by all traditions and all Churches together.  Which again begs the above question, why is the West one lung by itself, and the East which is composed of many Churches just one lung all together?

b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense?

Sure, but again that model is not Eucharistic.  Even if you would say that each Church is an equal part of a whole, it goes against the Eucharistic model of the Church where each Church is the fullness of the Kingdom of God in itself, and each Church in communion with one another form the One Church.  The same way that the Body of Christ is not any less the body of Christ if one or two people are not part of it.  The Body of Christ is full and complete whether there is one believer in it or 10 billion.  Communion is a mystery where the fullness is present regardless of the number of physical members.  It cannot be divided and the multitude come together as one.

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  Wink.

I think the Eucharistic model makes the most sense and doesn't break down at all.  The Eucharist itself is central to our faith and the understanding of communion applies to all aspects of our faith.  From the Trinity to the Church to our Salvation, all is by Communion.  How can be 3 persons be one God?  Communion.  How can a multitude be one body?  Communion.  How can several Churches scattered geographically around the world each headed by its own bishop be one Church?  Communion.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2013, 02:55:10 PM »

The problem of the two-lung theory vs. the Eucharistic model is that in the event of a schism, such as the one at 1054 (or whatever year you subscribe to), you lose the other lung.  In this model you then believe that the Church is gasping for air, it is incomplete.  It can still live, but it lacks the fullness.  People who live on one lung certainly cannot perform as well as those who have both lungs.

In the Eucharistic model, one is as good as many.  So the Church is full and complete even if there is only one bishop heading one Church professing the true faith against everyone else who has schismed or apostatized.  This is not to say that we don't need anyone else, of course we do.  But it does not mean that we become anything less without the others if they decide to believe in heresy and deviate from the true faith.  The same way is that is one piece of bread of the Eucharist more Jesus than the other?  No.  The biggest piece and the smallest particle contains the fullness of Christ, the same way a Church that is true to the faith is the fullness of the Kingdom of God on Earth even if another Church schisms or falls into heresy.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2013, 02:59:18 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,217


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2013, 03:02:57 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

I certainly had several Catholics (online) speak to me as though the two lungs theory meant Orthodox, not just Eastern Catholics. Though that was in the days of Pope John Paul II, and the same people spoke as though a "reunion" would be happening any day.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2013, 03:04:50 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

I certainly had several Catholics (online) speak to me as though the two lungs theory meant Orthodox, not just Eastern Catholics. Though that was in the days of Pope John Paul II, and the same people spoke as though a "reunion" would be happening any day.

That's sort of my point. I just am not sure that is what was/is meant. Not back then, not now.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2013, 03:10:43 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?
That would would be the Romanian Orthodox Church, but it is in Rome now.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2013, 03:12:01 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2013, 03:20:42 PM »

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.  So I don't know why, even within the Catholic Communion where the East is composed of 22 sui juris Churches and the West is just one sui juris, one would think that the two lung theory espouses equal dignity when it clearly states that half of the fullness of Church is in Rome itself, and the other half is found in all other non-Roman Churches.  So the Russian Church is just a percentage of the half together with the Greeks, Antioch, Alexandria, Malankara, etc.

Orientale Lumen states that the full catholicity of the Church is expressed not by one tradition or one Church, but by all traditions and all Churches together.  Which again begs the above question, why is the West one lung by itself, and the East which is composed of many Churches just one lung all together?

Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth  Embarrassed Embarrassed.  I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep  Grin) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them.  And no, I'm not kidding  Cool.

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ.  You and xariskai are both Orthodox.  You are both also individuals.  As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic.  We are both also individuals.  As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ.  I hope I'm making sense  Wink.

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion".  The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion".  The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell.  That's the schism between us.  Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense?  Anyway, that is my understanding.


b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense?

Sure, but again that model is not Eucharistic.  Even if you would say that each Church is an equal part of a whole, it goes against the Eucharistic model of the Church where each Church is the fullness of the Kingdom of God in itself, and each Church in communion with one another form the One Church.  The same way that the Body of Christ is not any less the body of Christ if one or two people are not part of it.  The Body of Christ is full and complete whether there is one believer in it or 10 billion.  Communion is a mystery where the fullness is present regardless of the number of physical members.  It cannot be divided and the multitude come together as one.

And...

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  Wink.

I think the Eucharistic model makes the most sense and doesn't break down at all.  The Eucharist itself is central to our faith and the understanding of communion applies to all aspects of our faith.  From the Trinity to the Church to our Salvation, all is by Communion.  How can be 3 persons be one God?  Communion.  How can a multitude be one body?  Communion.  How can several Churches scattered geographically around the world each headed by its own bishop be one Church?  Communion.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be.  

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes  Grin), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that  Cool!).  That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc.  Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew!  Now I need a drink and a nap  Grin Grin.



Now, if none of what I just wrote is acceptable or understandable, then just refer to my post in reply #31 above and we can just leave it at that.  Wink  Now for that drink and a nap  Grin Grin.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 03:26:06 PM by J Michael » 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: 6,170



« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2013, 03:28:54 PM »

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating

If only Bill O'Reilly would invite you on his show ...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2013, 03:29:26 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?

I don't care much for the offal metaphor.  Sad
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2013, 03:30:31 PM »

But anyhow ...

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church.

Hence why we (Catholics, I mean) call ourselves "the Catholic Church", not "one part of the Catholic Church".
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #45 on: February 05, 2013, 03:33:28 PM »

Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth  Embarrassed Embarrassed.  I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep  Grin) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them.  And no, I'm not kidding  Cool.

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ.  You and xariskai are both Orthodox.  You are both also individuals.  As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic.  We are both also individuals.  As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ.  I hope I'm making sense  Wink.

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion".  The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion".  The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell.  That's the schism between us.  Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense?  Anyway, that is my understanding.

How you understand it is how I understand it, and I disagree with that understanding.  That is why I said, the Church breathes fully regardless of who is there.  Is the body of Christ divided?  No.  It is full and complete and perfect always.  And those who schism are removed from the body without literally cutting off any part of the body that renders the body imperfect and incomplete.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be. 

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes  Grin), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that  Cool!).  That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc.  Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew!  Now I need a drink and a nap  Grin Grin.

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.  We Church is not the Borg.  We come into communion by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and become members of the body.  So we either are a part of the body or not.  I don't understand how imperfect communion works.  Your body has all the organs as part of it.  If you transplant an organ to your body, your body either accepts it or rejects it.  There is no, "yeah, keep it attached and it is useful in some way but in other ways we'll reject it."  I think the Catholic Church is using the scholastic meaning of Communion, that is that we are of one mind.  So imperfect Communion means "we mostly agree but there are things we don't so its not 100%."  But that is not what the Mystery of Communion is about.  It is sort of an all or nothing afair, we either are Christians or we're not.  We are either in heaven or in hell.  We are either part of the Church or not.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #46 on: February 05, 2013, 03:40:46 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.


If I read you correctly, as you do, applying only to his communion, not to us Orthodox.

Where did the lung-thing originate, btw?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #47 on: February 05, 2013, 03:41:54 PM »

Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth  Embarrassed Embarrassed.  I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep  Grin) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them.  And no, I'm not kidding  Cool.

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ.  You and xariskai are both Orthodox.  You are both also individuals.  As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic.  We are both also individuals.  As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ.  I hope I'm making sense  Wink.

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion".  The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion".  The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell.  That's the schism between us.  Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense?  Anyway, that is my understanding.

How you understand it is how I understand it, and I disagree with that understanding.  That is why I said, the Church breathes fully regardless of who is there.  Is the body of Christ divided?  No.  It is full and complete and perfect always.  And those who schism are removed from the body without literally cutting off any part of the body that renders the body imperfect and incomplete.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be. 

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes  Grin), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that  Cool!).  That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc.  Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew!  Now I need a drink and a nap  Grin Grin.

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.  We Church is not the Borg.  We come into communion by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ and become members of the body.  So we either are a part of the body or not.  I don't understand how imperfect communion works.  Your body has all the organs as part of it.  If you transplant an organ to your body, your body either accepts it or rejects it.  There is no, "yeah, keep it attached and it is useful in some way but in other ways we'll reject it."  I think the Catholic Church is using the scholastic meaning of Communion, that is that we are of one mind.  So imperfect Communion means "we mostly agree but there are things we don't so its not 100%."  But that is not what the Mystery of Communion is about.  It is sort of an all or nothing afair, we either are Christians or we're not.  We are either in heaven or in hell.  We are either part of the Church or not.

Okay, now you've gone and done it--I really need the drink and a nap   Grin Grin.  PLEASE refer all comments to my reply #31 above.

I do understand what you mean, and for the most part tend to agree with you.  I guess when it all comes down to it, our basic disagreement is on where the Church is.  That's why you call yourself "Orthodox" and I call myself "Catholic".  See my post #31 above.  You know, post #31 above  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 (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2013, 03:44:17 PM »


Okay, now you've gone and done it--I really need the drink and a nap   Grin Grin.  PLEASE refer all comments to my reply #31 above.

I do understand what you mean, and for the most part tend to agree with you.  I guess when it all comes down to it, our basic disagreement is on where the Church is.  That's why you call yourself "Orthodox" and I call myself "Catholic".  See my post #31 above.  You know, post #31 above  Grin Grin.

Well, I must state that I do disagree with the Catholic understanding, otherwise I would have remained Catholic if I agreed with it  Grin

To me this is a bigger issue than the Papacy which convinced me to convert.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2013, 03:45:25 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.


If I read you correctly, as you do, applying only to his communion, not to us Orthodox.

Where did the lung-thing originate, btw?

Here, maybe?
Quote
54. The other event which I am pleased to recall is the celebration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus' (988-1988). The Catholic Church, and this Apostolic See in particular, desired to take part in the Jubilee celebrations and also sought to emphasize that the Baptism conferred on Saint Vladimir in Kiev was a key event in the evangelization of the world. The great Slav nations of Eastern Europe owe their faith to this event, as do the peoples living beyond the Ural Mountains and as far as Alaska.

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 04:05:27 PM by J Michael » 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 (?)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2013, 04:12:54 PM »

Thanks. It's sort of clearer, and then again...perhaps these are often just related but not exactly talikng about the same thing.

(It's been a tough day wallowing around in Greek irregular verbs, sorry).

Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2013, 04:18:30 PM »

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2013, 04:25:20 PM »

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2013, 06:14:11 PM »

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2013, 06:16:22 PM »

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

Man, you are painting with WAY too broad of a brush here.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2013, 06:22:38 PM »

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

I don't think anyone is pretending there is some sort of communion with the Oriental Orthodox.  I don't think EOs are lining up to recieve Communion from their Coptic neighbor.  There is just some recognition at this point that the faith is at a point that union is possible, but at the same time acknowledging that we are not there yet.  For Catholics, much work is still left to be done.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


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


« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2013, 06:29:20 PM »

But Communion is like pregnancy.  You either are pregnant or not.  A woman with a 1 month old baby in her belly isn't less pregnant than one who is at 38 weeks.  You either are in communion or not.  I know Rome came up with this "imperfect Communion" concept, but it violated the Patristic understanding of what Communion is.  I know they're just trying to tell all the other Churches and Protestant communities that we are all part of the same body even though you (meaning us who are not Catholic) aren't exactly 100% part of that body.  Then you are making the body of Christ some sort of Frankenstein Monster where there are parts that are not fully integrated but are otherwise attached in some sort of way.

That's one of the things that are so baffling about this forum. (Also one of the reasons I miss a certain Orthodox priest I used to know, whose name started with an A.)

What is?

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

NVM, choy put way better.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 06:33:45 PM by sheenj » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,690



« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2013, 07:31:21 PM »

I don't think anyone is pretending there is some sort of communion with the Oriental Orthodox.  I don't think EOs are lining up to recieve Communion from their Coptic neighbor.  There is just some recognition at this point that the faith is at a point that union is possible, but at the same time acknowledging that we are not there yet.  For Catholics, much work is still left to be done.
+1

As much as I would love to commune at an OO church (without exceptional permission), we are not yet in communion with them - regardless of their being Orthodox.

The difference with other groups is that they're not only out of communion, but they're not Orthodox either. Now I don't mean "Orthodox" in a dismissive truth claim sense, nor do I mean that unity shouldn't be strived for.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 07:32:58 PM by Nephi » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #58 on: February 05, 2013, 07:39:37 PM »

Posters on this forum always rail -- rail I say -- against "ecumenism" (read that as "ecumenism toward Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, etc.") but then it's all "Oh those Oriental Orthodox are Orthodox just like us." (Same with OOs regarding EOs.)

Apparently, "You either are in communion or not" applies only when it is convenient.

They say prayer is the last refuge of the scoundrel, but it often seems that RCs on the internet use the OO for that purpose instead. Maybe if you guys put more effort into responding to the substance of what EOs (and OOs, if you care at all beyond using us to take potshots at the Orthodox Church) say would improve RC-Orthodox relations instead of just pointing to Chalcedon as though its aftermath somehow speaks to the utter reasonableness and/or purity of your communion, you wouldn't have to trot out the OO/EO divide as insulation from the criticism that your ecclesiology makes no sense.

As I'm sure I've written here before, whether EO (individually or collectively) see OO as Orthodox or not, the Roman Catholic Church isn't Orthodox. Whether OO (individually or collectively) see EO as Orthodox or not, the Roman Catholic Church isn't Orthodox. The OO and EO could resume communion officially tomorrow (hypothetically), and the Roman Catholic Church and all in communion with it would still not be Orthodox.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2013, 08:13:50 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.  The first time I talked to my priest and he told me that Eastern Catholics are not "Orthodox", I was almost in tears.  Actually, I was, I just held back.  This is because Rome keeps telling her flock that "we believe in the same things (the Orthodox) but we just express them in different ways."  So when an Orthodox tells one who is Catholic that such a claim is false, its hurtful.  Its like you loved this girl only for her to tell you she doesn't love you back.  But the truth is there are differences and we need to work on them.  I hope the Catholic side would recognize this because we can't work on something we don't believe it is not there.  If they think there are no differences, then there is nothing for them to work on.  How can talks progress?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2013, 09:53:07 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

At the moment I'm a trifle more annoyed by the hit-and-run (if you will): you guys love to pontificate stuff like "You either are in communion or not"*, but we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2013, 10:00:33 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

At the moment I'm a trifle more annoyed by the hit-and-run (if you will): you guys love to pontificate stuff like "You either are in communion or not"*, but we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

Actually this discussion on "communion or not" was from CAF.  And I agree.  I mean, is partial communion even communion?  How do you even determine that?  How much similarity is similar enough?  Who sets the guidelines?

I really don't have much to say about the EO/OO.  I don't have much experience with the OO in anything.  But at least for communion, I'm quite firm in my belief that it is an all or nothing thing.  It's like, "do we agree or not?"  How can we say we believe in the same Jesus if we can't agree in all points about Him?  And even if there are 100 points and we only disagree on one, how can we say that we are talking about the same Jesus?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 10:01:00 PM by choy » Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2013, 10:09:04 PM »

we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

Did you happen to read why I wrote that, Peter J -- how the EO/OO divide has no impact on your church's (or any of those other churches' that you mentioned) standing in the eyes of either communion, so it's a non-point? You think it's an argument against Orthodox ecclesiology, but it isn't. Both communions, in fact, affirm that you're either in communion or not...hence we're not in communion (nobody on either side is in denial about that; an individual saying that to him it doesn't matter if one is EO or OO isn't the same as saying that EO and OO are in communion). If we ever are in communion again, I'll wager dollars to donuts that we'll all still live by that principle.
Logged

Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,200



« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2013, 10:15:35 PM »

It is my understanding from several sources of articles and forum threads that the two-lung theory of which Pope John Paul II spoke meant that the Roman rites (and traditions) were one lung and the Eastern Catholics (with their traditions and rites) were the other, without the Orthodox. If you know of a reputable and trustworthy source citing otherwise, please let me know.

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently.  I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,690



« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2013, 10:19:19 PM »

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")
I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

Many EO likewise consider Old Calendarists and schismatic Old Believers to be Orthodox, but would not commune at their churches.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #65 on: February 06, 2013, 01:13:52 AM »

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")
I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

Many EO likewise consider Old Calendarists and schismatic Old Believers to be Orthodox, but would not commune at their churches.

Isn't this also the same for the RCs?
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.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,690



« Reply #66 on: February 06, 2013, 01:18:44 AM »

Isn't this also the same for the RCs?
Do you mean how EO view RC, or how RC view EO?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #67 on: February 06, 2013, 01:21:44 AM »

Isn't this also the same for the RCs?
Do you mean how EO view RC, or how RC view EO?

Neither. How each view various schismatics from their communion. EO/Old calendarists, RC/SSPX
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.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #68 on: February 06, 2013, 03:49:28 AM »

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently.  I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.
I don't think it's strictly either/or. We also view the Eucharist as communion with each other (those who make up the Church) as well as with Christ.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #69 on: February 06, 2013, 04:16:01 AM »

It is my understanding from several sources of articles and forum threads that the two-lung theory of which Pope John Paul II spoke meant that the Roman rites (and traditions) were one lung and the Eastern Catholics (with their traditions and rites) were the other, without the Orthodox. If you know of a reputable and trustworthy source citing otherwise, please let me know.

Interesting discussion on the meaning of Catholic and differences in ecclesiology. I never imagined we were so difference until recently.  I read somewhere online recently that the Catholics view their unity as under Rome and we view ours by communion/eucharist, or something basically to that effect comparing those two things.

Page 1, Reply#40, quoted from Orientale Lumen
Logged
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,200



« Reply #70 on: February 06, 2013, 06:24:21 AM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it.  Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,449



« Reply #71 on: February 06, 2013, 10:39:37 AM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.


Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,057


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 06, 2013, 10:51:31 AM »

Catholic Church just tries to be Catholic by adding sui iuris Churches that act like autocephalus Churches but in reality they are just "rites". So they "have" Churches from every tradition (various Greek-Catholics, malankara, assyrian=chaldean, etc.) to show that Roman Church is the proper Catholic Church, while it is not. And it doesn't matter for them that some of these sui iuris Churches have very few believers (e.g many Copts don't know there are Catholic ones) and lose their own traditions and spirit.


Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it. Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

I think that pope John Paul II by "the eastern lung" meant Orthodox Churches, but by the appeal to "begin breathing with two lungs" he probably meant Orthodox Churches after the finish of ecumenical process = unityon the basis of Catholic Church rules, so that they would become something like Eastern Catholic Churches.

BTW, this quotation about the 2 lungs is often cited by Polish media and Roman Catholics.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2013, 11:11:56 AM »


I think that pope John Paul II by "the eastern lung" meant Orthodox Churches, but by the appeal to "begin breathing with two lungs" he probably meant Orthodox Churches after the finish of ecumenical process = unityon the basis of Catholic Church rules, so that they would become something like Eastern Catholic Churches.


As I remember reading elsewhere exactly what those rules are I daresay you are correct and that this just will not happen.

Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2013, 01:03:40 PM »

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")
I think being out of communion and EO/OO being Orthodox are not mutually exclusive.

I guess I would be fine with that explanation, if it weren't for the first statement, "It [Orthodoxy -- which apparently includes both EO and OO] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t."
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: 10,238


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


« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2013, 01:18:12 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.


Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.

Nothing to forgive, katherineofdixie  Wink.

I've come to accept (for the most part, anyway) that that is true.  The rub comes in discussing differences and similarities with some Orthodox who relish in a kind of very prideful triumphalism accompanied by a nasty or snarky tone and an attitude of "all aspects of the schism are the fault and responsibility of the Catholics and we Orthodox remain totally unsullied by fault, blame, or responsibility, and if you want to be part of THE CHURCH, you MUST become Orthodox--our way or the highway".  This is demeaning and insulting, especially in conversation where others are trying to discuss and maybe even resolve the differences between us with good will and friendship.

So...my position will remain as I stated in reply #31 above:  "Until such time as we are able to resolve our differences as Orthodox and Catholic, and resume full communion with one another, I'm willing to take the position that we must agree to disagree with each other about some things, all the while maintaining the fullest and deepest respect for each other.  Without such respect, we shouldn't even be talking with each other.

As a non-Roman Catholic, my understanding has always been that the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church (in all its various parts) does indeed possess "catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic.""
  And, as a Catholic, I will continue to maintain and believe that the Catholic Church is The Church and has the full fullness of the faith.  As for the Orthodox....I'll take the Orthodox position and say, "I don't know". Wink 

Please forgive me if I have offended or upset anyone by saying the above--it was certainly NOT my intention to do so.  Wink
 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,217


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #76 on: February 06, 2013, 01:44:12 PM »

As for the Orthodox....I'll take the Orthodox position and say, "I don't know". Wink 

Just for clarification, this is not the Orthodox position. It is perhaps an Orthodox position, but not the position.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #77 on: February 06, 2013, 01:47:56 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.


Forgive me, but we (Catholics and Orthodox) don't believe the same thing. That may be a disapointment to find it out, or feelings may be hurt, but most of the time, it is not intended to be mean, just a statement of fact.

Nothing to forgive, katherineofdixie  Wink.

I was almost going to say that (or some variation thereon).
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: 10,238


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


« Reply #78 on: February 06, 2013, 02:18:14 PM »

As for the Orthodox....I'll take the Orthodox position and say, "I don't know". Wink 

Just for clarification, this is not the Orthodox position. It is perhaps an Orthodox position, but not the position.

LOL!  (I was just waiting for someone to say something like that  Wink.)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #79 on: February 06, 2013, 03:45:06 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it.  Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

The Orthodox is the other lung.  That is why Pope John Paul II is calling for us to reunite so that "the Church may breathe with both lungs".  Essentially he is saying both Churches are lacking right now, breathing only with one lung until we reunite.  Which is where the criticism of this analogy comes from.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2013, 04:46:51 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.

Ok, the traditions may be shared by Eastern Catholics and by Orthodoxy, but a body does not breath with a lung that is outside of its body, and having those traditions in the Eastern Catholic Churches does not necessitate that the Orthodox be part of it.  Calling us brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply we are the other lungs, does it? I thought maybe others were called that too.

At any rate, I suppose that is relatively irrelevant. Even if the Orthodox are the Eastern lung, that doesn't mean they think we are fully breathing.

The Orthodox is the other lung.  That is why Pope John Paul II is calling for us to reunite so that "the Church may breathe with both lungs".  Essentially he is saying both Churches are lacking right now, breathing only with one lung until we reunite.  Which is where the criticism of this analogy comes from.

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2013, 04:50:34 PM »

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus).  So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2013, 06:17:03 PM »

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus).  So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.

He's definitely talking about the Orthodox there; but even so, he isn't necessarily saying that the EOC is "a lung".

My best guess (fwiw) is that JPII never really identified the "Eastern lung" with a group, making it more of a slogan than an actual term.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2013, 06:31:42 PM »

I've been involved with more conversations about JPII and "two lungs" than I care to think about, and I've never seen anyone substantiate either claim (that he meant ECs, or that he meant EOs). Just saying.

The one time Pope John Paul II uses the two-lung analogy in Ut Unum Sint, he was talking about Church unity with Byzantium and the Slavs (in reference to the anniversary of the Baptism of Rus).  So it definitely a reference to the Orthodox.

He's definitely talking about the Orthodox there; but even so, he isn't necessarily saying that the EOC is "a lung".

My best guess (fwiw) is that JPII never really identified the "Eastern lung" with a group, making it more of a slogan than an actual term.

So why then say "both lungs" and then "Rome and Byzantium"?  Why can't he just say one heart or one body?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2013, 06:45:29 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #85 on: February 06, 2013, 06:49:59 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,425


fleem
WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 06, 2013, 07:03:34 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #87 on: February 06, 2013, 07:04:36 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,425


fleem
WWW
« Reply #88 on: February 06, 2013, 07:06:05 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Uh, I've never met or spoken to an actual Eastern Catholic in my entire life.

Keep wishing.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #89 on: February 06, 2013, 07:07:44 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Uh, I've never met or spoken to an actual Eastern Catholic in my entire life.

Keep wishing.

We've spoken on this forum before Theophany, right?  There you go Wink
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,425


fleem
WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 06, 2013, 07:09:10 PM »

So you say. I have to wait for the Pope's call. Tonight, he gives me the secret coded message about the lizard overlords and the banking cabals.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #91 on: February 06, 2013, 07:53:49 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Maybe in your world.  Not in mine.  And I'm Eastern Catholic.  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #92 on: February 06, 2013, 08:45:21 PM »

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Then what are Mozarabic Catholics for?
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #93 on: February 06, 2013, 09:26:10 PM »

Guess I don't know why.

Why do so many people around here wish that CAF still had an "Eastern Christianity Forum"?

Its just easier to discuss certain issues.  Like if one wants to talk about the Divine Liturgy, should there be a differentiation between the one served at a Catholic parish as opposed to an Orthodox one?  The problem is if a conversation becomes Orthodox-centric, it gets moved to the Non-Catholic Forum.

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Maybe in your world.  Not in mine.  And I'm Eastern Catholic.  Wink

Not anymore, I've been suspended from that world Tongue
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #94 on: February 06, 2013, 09:27:02 PM »

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Then what are Mozarabic Catholics for?

To give Roman Catholics another Liturgy to desire  Grin
Logged
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #95 on: February 06, 2013, 09:31:48 PM »

I have to stay on this board, just so you have someone to yell at in Orth.-Cath. D. I mean, what are Roman Catholics for?

Roman Catholics are there to tell Eastern Catholics what they should believe. Cheesy

Then what are Mozarabic Catholics for?

A dying relic that Rome couldn't completely stamp out, so Rome eventually left them to their half a dozen churches. Don't you remember the famous trial by fire?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #96 on: February 06, 2013, 10:00:01 PM »

Are you kidding? Who doesn't remember it??

(Anybody? I don't want to be the only one.)
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: 10,238


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


« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2013, 10:29:22 AM »

Are you kidding? Who doesn't remember it??

(Anybody? I don't want to be the only one.)

Ah, crap!  Another hole in my education exposed  Grin.  Not only do I not remember it, I never knew it in order to forget it  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 (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #98 on: February 08, 2013, 05:54:00 PM »

I think the issue here is that Catholics find it hurtful for the Orthodox to say that we do not believe in the same thing.

Sure, it's a big disappointment, but I got used to it about 8 or 9 years ago.

At the moment I'm a trifle more annoyed by the hit-and-run (if you will): you guys love to pontificate stuff like "You either are in communion or not"*, but we Catholics (or, presumably, Anglicans, or Lutherans, or whoever else) had better not "trot out the OO/EO divide" in response.

* Or as Kerdy said two weeks ago, "It [Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t." (Three days later he said "It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.")

Actually this discussion on "communion or not" was from CAF.  And I agree.  I mean, is partial communion even communion?  How do you even determine that?  How much similarity is similar enough?  Who sets the guidelines?

I really don't have much to say about the EO/OO.  I don't have much experience with the OO in anything.  But at least for communion, I'm quite firm in my belief that it is an all or nothing thing.  It's like, "do we agree or not?"  How can we say we believe in the same Jesus if we can't agree in all points about Him?  And even if there are 100 points and we only disagree on one, how can we say that we are talking about the same Jesus?

For the record, my own views about C-EO-OO have changed somewhat from 6 or 7 years ago. When I first joined this forum, I basically figured Sure, there are big disagreements between Catholics and EOs, but not much bigger than the disagreements between EOs and OOs. But then over the next year or two I came to see that they are a good deal bigger.

P.S. This isn't very closely related, but I just noticed that the song I'm hearing on Pandora is from an album called "Hallelujah EP".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
erimos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



« Reply #99 on: March 08, 2013, 07:36:29 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.
Logged
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #100 on: March 13, 2013, 09:38:57 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

We should invade half of the world and convert them by force to be truly universal  Grin
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #101 on: March 13, 2013, 11:09:49 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 
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 #102 on: March 13, 2013, 11:23:32 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #103 on: March 13, 2013, 11:44:18 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

 Roll Eyes  Whatever...(I guess, then, so do you until you are chrismated in the OC.) 
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: 6,170



« Reply #104 on: March 13, 2013, 12:08:12 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

Half-right. He belongs to the Roman Communion.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #105 on: March 13, 2013, 12:13:20 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
you basing that on extensive research around the world, or just on your prejudice?

Brave words from someone for whom the vast majority of his coreligionists have no idea of the existence of his "sui juris" ecclesial community.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #106 on: March 13, 2013, 12:18:27 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct.  

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

 Roll Eyes  Whatever...(I guess, then, so do you until you are chrismated in the OC.)  

Nope, by virtue of my being accepted as a Catechumen, I am already a Roman Apostate Wink

SELF ANATHEMA!  Grin
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 12:18:42 PM by choy » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #107 on: March 13, 2013, 12:18:51 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

Half-right. He belongs to the Roman Communion.

Thank you!
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 #108 on: March 13, 2013, 12:19:18 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

Half-right. He belongs to the Roman Communion.

Which does mean he BELONGS to the Roman Church Wink
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #109 on: March 13, 2013, 12:22:37 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
you basing that on extensive research around the world, or just on your prejudice?

Brave words from someone for whom the vast majority of his coreligionists have no idea of the existence of his "sui juris" ecclesial community.

We Byzantine Catholics can be quite brave.  The fact that our "...coreligionists have no idea of the existence of..." our "...sui iuris ecclesial community." is irrelevant to how many people who are not Orthodox or do not live in mainly Orthodox countries are aware of the existence of Orthodoxy.  Besides, it's a pretty stupid thing to argue about, imho.
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 (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #110 on: March 13, 2013, 12:27:14 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

Half-right. He belongs to the Roman Communion.

Which does mean he BELONGS to the Roman Church Wink

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)
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 #111 on: March 13, 2013, 12:31:29 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #112 on: March 13, 2013, 12:37:58 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)
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 #113 on: March 13, 2013, 12:44:27 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)

According to Unam Sanctam, you have to belong to the Pope to be saved Wink
As a Catholic, you have to believe in that.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #114 on: March 13, 2013, 12:48:04 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)

According to Unam Sanctam, you have to belong to the Pope to be saved Wink
As a Catholic, you have to believe in that.

I think, at least in my case, it'll take something greater than just "belonging" to the Pope (which, again  Roll Eyes, I don't have a problem with.)---you know, like a lot of God's Grace and my willingness to accept His gift.



(Just out of curiosity, what is it that you're attempting to accomplish with the constant picking?  If I didn't know better [do I, though?], I might surmise [perish the thought!] that you're attempting to somehow justify your self-admitted apostasy  Wink.  But I'm almost certain you're going to tell me I'm wrong about that--which I'm perfectly okay with, btw.  Wink)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 12:52:02 PM by J Michael » 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 #115 on: March 13, 2013, 01:01:54 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)

According to Unam Sanctam, you have to belong to the Pope to be saved Wink
As a Catholic, you have to believe in that.

I think, at least in my case, it'll take something greater than just "belonging" to the Pope (which, again  Roll Eyes, I don't have a problem with.)---you know, like a lot of God's Grace and my willingness to accept His gift.



(Just out of curiosity, what is it that you're attempting to accomplish with the constant picking?  If I didn't know better [do I, though?], I might surmise [perish the thought!] that you're attempting to somehow justify your self-admitted apostasy  Wink.  But I'm almost certain you're going to tell me I'm wrong about that--which I'm perfectly okay with, btw.  Wink)

That is all fine and well.  I'm commenting on the insistence of ECs that, "they are not under the Pope, they are in communion with him," and that the Pope doesn't run their Church.  Both false claims.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


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


« Reply #116 on: March 13, 2013, 01:07:13 PM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)

According to Unam Sanctam, you have to belong to the Pope to be saved Wink
As a Catholic, you have to believe in that.

I think, at least in my case, it'll take something greater than just "belonging" to the Pope (which, again  Roll Eyes, I don't have a problem with.)---you know, like a lot of God's Grace and my willingness to accept His gift.



(Just out of curiosity, what is it that you're attempting to accomplish with the constant picking?  If I didn't know better [do I, though?], I might surmise [perish the thought!] that you're attempting to somehow justify your self-admitted apostasy  Wink.  But I'm almost certain you're going to tell me I'm wrong about that--which I'm perfectly okay with, btw.  Wink)

That is all fine and well.  I'm commenting on the insistence of ECs that, "they are not under the Pope, they are in communion with him," and that the Pope doesn't run their Church.  Both false claims.

Have fun.
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 (?)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #117 on: March 13, 2013, 02:14:44 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
you basing that on extensive research around the world, or just on your prejudice?

Brave words from someone for whom the vast majority of his coreligionists have no idea of the existence of his "sui juris" ecclesial community.

We Byzantine Catholics can be quite brave.
 
Except when it comes to the Roman Curia.

The fact that our "...coreligionists have no idea of the existence of..." our "...sui iuris ecclesial community." is irrelevant to how many people who are not Orthodox or do not live in mainly Orthodox countries are aware of the existence of Orthodoxy.  Besides, it's a pretty stupid thing to argue about, imho.
which is about the same level as worrying about who in the world knows about the Orthodox Church.  Who heard about Our Lord in His lifetime on earth?

A couple of days ago the were interviewing people in New York City about what they thought about the new "Roman pontiff."  And people went into detail their thoughts about the new pope, including one that thought it was cool that he was from the US.  This, in one of the Vatican's largest diocese's in the world, with nearly half of the population at large in the area covered, with a cardinal who is a front runner in the conclave stakes.  Those interviewed included a woman from the Vatican's flock (at least that's what she claimed) who stated she learned about the new pope's election from her parish's facebook.

You might want to worry about what's going on in the depths of that ignorance in the thick of your ecclesial community about that pontifical office you're focused on, before worrying who does or does not know about the Orthodox. Bttw, between the Russian and Greek Orthodox, I'm sure we are comparable with recognition as the sovereign of the Vatican.  Even those who never heard of the Latvian Orthodox Church:
Quote
The Church plays a major role in "The Conversion" episode of the popular American television sitcom Seinfeld. The writer of the episode, Bruce Kirschbaum, later revealed that he was unaware when he wrote it that such a church actually existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Orthodox
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #118 on: March 13, 2013, 02:33:16 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.

Only someone belonging to the Roman church would insult the Catholicity of the Orthodox Church the way this person has done.

He doesn't "belong to the Roman church".  He is a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic who is in communion with Rome.  If you take his comments as an insult, I suggest you are hyper-sensitive.  From what I can tell, too, he is correct. 

So he does belong to the Roman Church Wink

Half-right. He belongs to the Roman Communion.

Which does mean he BELONGS to the Roman Church Wink
Oh, now I get it. You don't mean "belongs" = "is a member of".

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.

Oh that. It's just a birthmark. And I'll thank you not to stare.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #119 on: March 13, 2013, 02:36:51 PM »

P.S.

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends. 

Oh that. It's just a birthmark. And I'll thank you not to stare.

Caution: Simpsons
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: 10,238


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


« Reply #120 on: March 13, 2013, 03:00:37 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
you basing that on extensive research around the world, or just on your prejudice?

Brave words from someone for whom the vast majority of his coreligionists have no idea of the existence of his "sui juris" ecclesial community.

We Byzantine Catholics can be quite brave.

Except when it comes to the Roman Curia.

The fact that our "...coreligionists have no idea of the existence of..." our "...sui iuris ecclesial community." is irrelevant to how many people who are not Orthodox or do not live in mainly Orthodox countries are aware of the existence of Orthodoxy.  Besides, it's a pretty stupid thing to argue about, imho.
which is about the same level as worrying about who in the world knows about the Orthodox Church.  Who heard about Our Lord in His lifetime on earth?

A couple of days ago the were interviewing people in New York City about what they thought about the new "Roman pontiff."  And people went into detail their thoughts about the new pope, including one that thought it was cool that he was from the US.  This, in one of the Vatican's largest diocese's in the world, with nearly half of the population at large in the area covered, with a cardinal who is a front runner in the conclave stakes.  Those interviewed included a woman from the Vatican's flock (at least that's what she claimed) who stated she learned about the new pope's election from her parish's facebook.

You might want to worry about what's going on in the depths of that ignorance in the thick of your ecclesial community about that pontifical office you're focused on, before worrying who does or does not know about the Orthodox. Bttw, between the Russian and Greek Orthodox, I'm sure we are comparable with recognition as the sovereign of the Vatican.  Even those who never heard of the Latvian Orthodox Church:
Quote
The Church plays a major role in "The Conversion" episode of the popular American television sitcom Seinfeld. The writer of the episode, Bruce Kirschbaum, later revealed that he was unaware when he wrote it that such a church actually existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Orthodox

I'll "worry" about what I choose to "worry" about.  My "ecclesial community" Church will manage just fine with or without me and my worries (or yours).  But...thanks for your concern  Wink.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 03:24:46 PM by J Michael » 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: 6,170



« Reply #121 on: March 14, 2013, 10:29:29 AM »

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes  Like I said...WHATEVER...

I am Byzantine Catholic.  I consider my self to be an Eastern Catholic Christian in communion with Rome.  If you or anybody else wants to say that I "belong" to the Roman Church, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Kiss  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it  Sad.)

Even with my short time as an EC, I quickly realized that we all have "Property of the Vatican" stamped on our rear ends.  You are just fooling yourselves if you believe otherwise.  You do not have the same ecclesiology as the Orthodox, ECs are not separate Churches, they are not even separate jurisdictions.  They are under the Roman Curia.  When the Pope summons his bishops, the Patriarchs show up along with other diocesan RC bishops from around the world.  Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are not the equals of the Pope.


Like I said...frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.  Kiss  I, for one, do not have a problem with that.  Because, at the end of the day, I belong to God (though I don't always act like it   Sad.)

According to Unam Sanctam, you have to belong to the Pope to be saved Wink
As a Catholic, you have to believe in that.

I think, at least in my case, it'll take something greater than just "belonging" to the Pope (which, again  Roll Eyes, I don't have a problem with.)---you know, like a lot of God's Grace and my willingness to accept His gift.



(Just out of curiosity, what is it that you're attempting to accomplish with the constant picking?  If I didn't know better [do I, though?], I might surmise [perish the thought!] that you're attempting to somehow justify your self-admitted apostasy  Wink.  But I'm almost certain you're going to tell me I'm wrong about that--which I'm perfectly okay with, btw.  Wink)

That is all fine and well.  I'm commenting on the insistence of ECs that, "they are not under the Pope, they are in communion with him," and that the Pope doesn't run their Church.  Both false claims.

I don't think it's that black-and-white. ECs don't have as much independence as I would like, but still more than WCs -- who are, after all, automatically part of the LC.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #122 on: March 14, 2013, 11:01:55 AM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
you basing that on extensive research around the world, or just on your prejudice?

Brave words from someone for whom the vast majority of his coreligionists have no idea of the existence of his "sui juris" ecclesial community.

We Byzantine Catholics can be quite brave.

Except when it comes to the Roman Curia.

The fact that our "...coreligionists have no idea of the existence of..." our "...sui iuris ecclesial community." is irrelevant to how many people who are not Orthodox or do not live in mainly Orthodox countries are aware of the existence of Orthodoxy.  Besides, it's a pretty stupid thing to argue about, imho.
which is about the same level as worrying about who in the world knows about the Orthodox Church.  Who heard about Our Lord in His lifetime on earth?

A couple of days ago the were interviewing people in New York City about what they thought about the new "Roman pontiff."  And people went into detail their thoughts about the new pope, including one that thought it was cool that he was from the US. 

I saw some of that. Basically just copycatting Jay Leno's "Jaywalking".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.416 seconds with 151 queries.