OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 15, 2014, 09:10:48 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 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox-Catholic Reunification - a few proposals  (Read 5504 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 3,087


« Reply #225 on: May 30, 2013, 08:08:07 PM »

How does a doctrine like the IC become binding on a part of the Church? How does that even make sense? If a doctrine is necessary for salvation, it doesn't matter which part of the world you live in.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 08:08:24 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #226 on: May 30, 2013, 08:12:41 PM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
Lol, fair point. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the Orthodox believed that Mary was sinless, although I have heard some diversity as to when she was sinless (ie when she was pregnant with The Lord).

Mary was sinless. We just don't think that she was born in a state higher than humanity, because we don't believe in the "original sin" that she would have needed to be saved from at birth.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #227 on: May 30, 2013, 08:14:48 PM »

Praying with heretics and schismatics is condemned a few times here and there.

Is it really condemned for an Orthodox Christian to say a prayer with a Roman Catholic? How serious a crime is it? Will an Orthodox Christian go to hell for that, if he does not repent of this sin? Is the rule still in effect today, or has it been thrown out, so that it is no longer regarded as a sin?

It is in the Apostolic Canons, IIRC. Either way, it's a canon also recognized by the Roman Catholics. As canons go, they need to be enforced. So, if a priest goes and prays with heretics or schismatics, it would lie with his bishop to discipline him. If a bishop, with the synod. As for the spiritual consequences, the canon IIRC says that clergy should be deposed and laymen excommnicated. However, canons do not, I don't think, enforce themselves. An ecclesiastical trial would need to be held. And for a trial, there must be some kind of accusation of wrongdoing. And for an accusation, there must be some kind of common understanding--of the holy canons, or propriety, of ecclesiology, etc.


Oh my !! I guess I am a deep pile of trouble in light of the fact that my wife is Roman Catholic and I am Eastern Orthodox and we pray with one another.  This kind of crap is the type of thing that is enough for me to throw up my arms in despair and be done with organized religion and just go into the woods and worship God as best as I can.  Thank heavens no one enforces this kind of thing any longer.

Viking



Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services.

So who do we talk to about disciplining our Ecumenical Patriarch? Roll Eyes

« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 08:15:01 PM by lovesupreme » Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #228 on: May 30, 2013, 08:15:36 PM »

How does a doctrine like the IC become binding on a part of the Church? How does that even make sense? If a doctrine is necessary for salvation, it doesn't matter which part of the world you live in.
Hence, why I said the acknowledgment of Mary's sinlessness (unless I didn't say that ITT and CAF instead). There would be room for variations with regard to the formula in which a particular church expresses this.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #229 on: May 30, 2013, 08:18:21 PM »

Oh, and that guy in the hood! I don't know who he is, but he sure as purgatory doesn't look like he belongs there!!!
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #230 on: May 30, 2013, 08:21:14 PM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
Lol, fair point. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the Orthodox believed that Mary was sinless, although I have heard some diversity as to when she was sinless (ie when she was pregnant with The Lord).

Mary was sinless. We just don't think that she was born in a state higher than humanity, because we don't believe in the "original sin" that she would have needed to be saved from at birth.
It is fine to disagree, but all that the RC means is that Mary did not have a weakened will from the onset like the rest of us have, rather she was intact like Adam and Eve before us. And in that sense she can be said to be 'more human' rather than 'superhuman.'

And while I am just one person in my church, all that I see as necessary to acknowledge with regard to the IC dogma is the sinlessness of Mary: she never sinned. However, if churches believe that Mary sinned then Inthink that would be enough to halt any reunion proposal if and when that would come about.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,359


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #231 on: May 30, 2013, 08:23:35 PM »

I do hope and pray that someday this will be mended. However, I've realized I am the least qualified to say how it should be done, so lots more prayer will be the primary thing I try to do. The Holy Spirit is the one who knows what to do, not me. Smiley
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 satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #232 on: May 30, 2013, 08:25:36 PM »

Quote
"Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services."

Right.  I go to Mass with her on occasion but do not say their creed but do pray with while I am there.   I am calm BTW  if I was really ticked off you would know it.

Viking
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #233 on: May 30, 2013, 08:26:59 PM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
Lol, fair point. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the Orthodox believed that Mary was sinless, although I have heard some diversity as to when she was sinless (ie when she was pregnant with The Lord).

Mary was sinless. We just don't think that she was born in a state higher than humanity, because we don't believe in the "original sin" that she would have needed to be saved from at birth.
It is fine to disagree, but all that the RC means is that Mary did not have a weakened will from the onset like the rest of us have, rather she was intact like Adam and Eve before us. And in that sense she can be said to be 'more human' rather than 'superhuman.'

Sure, I think most Orthodox would say that God certainly prepared Mary from (and long before) her birth. I don't really understand the IC doctrine enough to comment more.
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #234 on: May 30, 2013, 08:28:20 PM »

Quote
"Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services."

Right.  I go to Mass with her on occasion but do not say their creed but do pray with while I am there.   I am calm BTW  if I was really ticked off you would know it.

Viking

When she goes to Divine Liturgy with you, does she shout "AND THE SON!" over everyone else during Our Creed? Cheesy
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #235 on: May 30, 2013, 08:35:43 PM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
Lol, fair point. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the Orthodox believed that Mary was sinless, although I have heard some diversity as to when she was sinless (ie when she was pregnant with The Lord).

Mary was sinless. We just don't think that she was born in a state higher than humanity, because we don't believe in the "original sin" that she would have needed to be saved from at birth.
It is fine to disagree, but all that the RC means is that Mary did not have a weakened will from the onset like the rest of us have, rather she was intact like Adam and Eve before us. And in that sense she can be said to be 'more human' rather than 'superhuman.'

Sure, I think most Orthodox would say that God certainly prepared Mary from (and long before) her birth. I don't really understand the IC doctrine enough to comment more.
That's a great start for dialogue. I honestly think that there are actually different details about how this happened, much of which probably has to do with the IC's detailed explanation of the preparation of Mary, but I don't think that it is a divisive issue if we all agree that Mary was (is) sinless.
Logged
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #236 on: May 30, 2013, 08:37:39 PM »

Quote
When she goes to Divine Liturgy with you, does she shout "AND THE SON!" over everyone else during Our Creed?


Nahhhhh.  She has not been back at my church in some time.  She is disabled and can't deal with our long services. 

Viking
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 08:53:13 PM by converted viking » Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #237 on: May 30, 2013, 08:39:24 PM »

That's a great start for dialogue. I honestly think that there are actually different details about how this happened, much of which probably has to do with the IC's detailed explanation of the preparation of Mary, but I don't think that it is a divisive issue if we all agree that Mary was (is) sinless.

Yeah, I think it's safe to assume (no pun intended, lol) that the Orthodox revere Mary just as much as (orthodox) Catholics do. We definitely don't think she was just some ordinary woman who provided the womb for Jesus to be born from. She's our greatest intercessor, and the Queen of Heaven.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #238 on: May 30, 2013, 08:45:36 PM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.

Even if the world lasts for, say, another 500 years or more?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #239 on: May 30, 2013, 08:46:06 PM »

Praying with heretics and schismatics is condemned a few times here and there.

Is it really condemned for an Orthodox Christian to say a prayer with a Roman Catholic? How serious a crime is it? Will an Orthodox Christian go to hell for that, if he does not repent of this sin? Is the rule still in effect today, or has it been thrown out, so that it is no longer regarded as a sin?

It is in the Apostolic Canons, IIRC. Either way, it's a canon also recognized by the Roman Catholics. As canons go, they need to be enforced. So, if a priest goes and prays with heretics or schismatics, it would lie with his bishop to discipline him. If a bishop, with the synod. As for the spiritual consequences, the canon IIRC says that clergy should be deposed and laymen excommnicated. However, canons do not, I don't think, enforce themselves. An ecclesiastical trial would need to be held. And for a trial, there must be some kind of accusation of wrongdoing. And for an accusation, there must be some kind of common understanding--of the holy canons, or propriety, of ecclesiology, etc.


Oh my !! I guess I am a deep pile of trouble in light of the fact that my wife is Roman Catholic and I am Eastern Orthodox and we pray with one another.  This kind of crap is the type of thing that is enough for me to throw up my arms in despair and be done with organized religion and just go into the woods and worship God as best as I can.  Thank heavens no one enforces this kind of thing any longer.

Viking



Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services.

So who do we talk to about disciplining our Ecumenical Patriarch? Roll Eyes



Guys hugging each other? What the ... ?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #240 on: May 30, 2013, 08:52:38 PM »

Quote
When she goes to Divine Liturgy with you, does she shout "AND THE SON!" over everyone else during Our Creed? Cheesy


Nahhhhh.  She has not been back at my church in some time.  She is disabled and can't deal with our long services.  

Viking
There are perks to the Novus Ordo  Wink
Logged
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 858



« Reply #241 on: May 30, 2013, 08:54:05 PM »

Quote
When she goes to Divine Liturgy with you, does she shout "AND THE SON!" over everyone else during Our Creed? Cheesy


Nahhhhh.  She has not been back at my church in some time.  She is disabled and can't deal with our long services. 

Viking
There are perks to the Novus Ordo  Wink

If by "perks" you mean a one-way ticket straight to hell! Everybody knows that God is judging us based on how many minutes we stand on Sunday.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 08:54:23 PM by lovesupreme » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #242 on: May 30, 2013, 09:05:05 PM »

Praying with heretics and schismatics is condemned a few times here and there.

Is it really condemned for an Orthodox Christian to say a prayer with a Roman Catholic? How serious a crime is it? Will an Orthodox Christian go to hell for that, if he does not repent of this sin? Is the rule still in effect today, or has it been thrown out, so that it is no longer regarded as a sin?

It is in the Apostolic Canons, IIRC. Either way, it's a canon also recognized by the Roman Catholics. As canons go, they need to be enforced. So, if a priest goes and prays with heretics or schismatics, it would lie with his bishop to discipline him. If a bishop, with the synod. As for the spiritual consequences, the canon IIRC says that clergy should be deposed and laymen excommnicated. However, canons do not, I don't think, enforce themselves. An ecclesiastical trial would need to be held. And for a trial, there must be some kind of accusation of wrongdoing. And for an accusation, there must be some kind of common understanding--of the holy canons, or propriety, of ecclesiology, etc.


Oh my !! I guess I am a deep pile of trouble in light of the fact that my wife is Roman Catholic and I am Eastern Orthodox and we pray with one another.  This kind of crap is the type of thing that is enough for me to throw up my arms in despair and be done with organized religion and just go into the woods and worship God as best as I can.  Thank heavens no one enforces this kind of thing any longer.

Viking



Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services.

So who do we talk to about disciplining our Ecumenical Patriarch? Roll Eyes



People have tried. Sadly, there are no mobs of Orthodox left in Constantinople. He has little to fear.
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.
converted viking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 198


« Reply #243 on: May 30, 2013, 09:05:18 PM »

Quote
When she goes to Divine Liturgy with you, does she shout "AND THE SON!" over everyone else during Our Creed? Cheesy


Nahhhhh.  She has not been back at my church in some time.  She is disabled and can't deal with our long services.  

Viking
There are perks to the Novus Ordo  Wink

If you say so. Grin

Viking
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 09:07:36 PM by converted viking » Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #244 on: May 31, 2013, 12:13:07 AM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.

Even if the world lasts for, say, another 500 years or more?

Especially if it does. Look at how far apart we've drifted over the *last* 500 years.  Cool
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #245 on: May 31, 2013, 12:29:05 AM »

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
It really is wonderful that people are attempting to work out in their own minds possibilities or ways that would make a Catholic Orthodox reunion possible. But I have to agree with you about the realities of life versus the utopian dreams that we might have. Unfortunately, I don't see Roman Catholics budging one bit from their doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. And Orthodox have too many other objections to reunion. Neither side is willing to compromise. It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #246 on: May 31, 2013, 12:36:30 AM »

6) Immaculate Conception will be binding on the Western Churches as a local tradition, but all churches in communion must assert the sinlessness of Mother Mary.

We can't even get everyone in this Forum to agree on that, and you think it's possible for all of Christendom?  Roll Eyes

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
Lol, fair point. I thought, I guess mistakenly, that the Orthodox believed that Mary was sinless, although I have heard some diversity as to when she was sinless (ie when she was pregnant with The Lord).

Mary was sinless. We just don't think that she was born in a state higher than humanity, because we don't believe in the "original sin" that she would have needed to be saved from at birth.
It is fine to disagree, but all that the RC means is that Mary did not have a weakened will from the onset like the rest of us have, rather she was intact like Adam and Eve before us. And in that sense she can be said to be 'more human' rather than 'superhuman.'

And while I am just one person in my church, all that I see as necessary to acknowledge with regard to the IC dogma is the sinlessness of Mary: she never sinned. However, if churches believe that Mary sinned then Inthink that would be enough to halt any reunion proposal if and when that would come about.
I thought that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception and held that Mary was cleansed from sin shortly after conception while still in the womb.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,942


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #247 on: May 31, 2013, 12:38:36 AM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #248 on: May 31, 2013, 12:39:03 AM »

Praying with heretics and schismatics is condemned a few times here and there.

Is it really condemned for an Orthodox Christian to say a prayer with a Roman Catholic? How serious a crime is it? Will an Orthodox Christian go to hell for that, if he does not repent of this sin? Is the rule still in effect today, or has it been thrown out, so that it is no longer regarded as a sin?

It is in the Apostolic Canons, IIRC. Either way, it's a canon also recognized by the Roman Catholics. As canons go, they need to be enforced. So, if a priest goes and prays with heretics or schismatics, it would lie with his bishop to discipline him. If a bishop, with the synod. As for the spiritual consequences, the canon IIRC says that clergy should be deposed and laymen excommnicated. However, canons do not, I don't think, enforce themselves. An ecclesiastical trial would need to be held. And for a trial, there must be some kind of accusation of wrongdoing. And for an accusation, there must be some kind of common understanding--of the holy canons, or propriety, of ecclesiology, etc.


Oh my !! I guess I am a deep pile of trouble in light of the fact that my wife is Roman Catholic and I am Eastern Orthodox and we pray with one another.  This kind of crap is the type of thing that is enough for me to throw up my arms in despair and be done with organized religion and just go into the woods and worship God as best as I can.  Thank heavens no one enforces this kind of thing any longer.

Viking



Dude, calm down. I think if you actually examined the context you would see it refers to religious services.
So there is nothing wrong with an Orthodox Christian praying privately with a Roman Catholic?
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #249 on: May 31, 2013, 12:48:48 AM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #250 on: May 31, 2013, 01:02:03 AM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
Doesn't seem like much of a union if the two sides can't agree on a date for Easter.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #251 on: May 31, 2013, 06:05:33 AM »

Whether we, Catholics and Orthodox, like it or not it is essential for the sake of the Church that the East and West reunite.

Essential that we jettison the teachings of the one true faith just so that we can say we're one when in actuality we are nothing but?  Yeah, right.

Yeah. "For the sake of the Church?" The Orthodox Church? The Roman Catholic Church? Or that weird body which has two lungs in separate bodies but exist mentally in the heads of those who don't know ecclesiology?

I don't see the urgency here.
Whether it is 'urgent' in your mind or not, you should see the importance of at least fostering good relationships with other Christians for the sake of unity, even if that unity never is actualized in the form of full communion.

No, I don't see the importance of that at all. I see a lot of touchy-feeliness and some sinister opportunism, and a lot of disconnection with tradition.

Questions like "Should we proselytize among the Orthodox?" don't seem touchy-feely to me.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #252 on: May 31, 2013, 09:04:09 AM »

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
It really is wonderful that people are attempting to work out in their own minds possibilities or ways that would make a Catholic Orthodox reunion possible. But I have to agree with you about the realities of life versus the utopian dreams that we might have. Unfortunately, I don't see Roman Catholics budging one bit from their doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. And Orthodox have too many other objections to reunion. Neither side is willing to compromise. It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

Yes, that's right, it's all the Catholics' fault. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that for me.  Roll Eyes   Roll Eyes   Roll Eyes 
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #253 on: May 31, 2013, 09:04:33 AM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
Doesn't seem like much of a union if the two sides can't agree on a date for Easter.
Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 09:06:04 AM by Surnaturel » Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,112


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #254 on: May 31, 2013, 10:35:07 AM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
Doesn't seem like much of a union if the two sides can't agree on a date for Easter.
Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

One could say that after the Council of Toledo in the 5th century there has been an incremental drifting apart of East and West.  The ebb and flow of union after the adoption of the Filioque was an indicator of things to come.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,942


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #255 on: May 31, 2013, 11:01:34 AM »

Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

What exactly are you referring to?  Other than the disparity in Paschal dates really early on, with the Quartodecimans and the like (which was settled in council), I'm not recalling any continued, centuries-long disparity. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


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


« Reply #256 on: May 31, 2013, 11:19:16 AM »

Oh, and that guy in the hood! I don't know who he is, but he sure as purgatory doesn't look like he belongs there!!!

Looks like HH Karekin II of Etchimiadzin.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #257 on: May 31, 2013, 11:40:36 AM »

Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

Actually they (the 318) agreed it's not.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #258 on: May 31, 2013, 12:45:21 PM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
[/quote
Plus, I think many Orthodox Christians would view a change in the Latin date for Easter as nothing more than a sleight of hand. We have to just be honest with ourselves and realize that the doctrinal difference are just too large to overcome, unless of course there is some miracle of God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #259 on: May 31, 2013, 04:03:53 PM »

Look, I like to dream as much as anyone but the more I get to know (and love  Grin ) the Orthodox, the less I think there's even a chance in Purgatory of any reunification in this world.
It really is wonderful that people are attempting to work out in their own minds possibilities or ways that would make a Catholic Orthodox reunion possible. But I have to agree with you about the realities of life versus the utopian dreams that we might have. Unfortunately, I don't see Roman Catholics budging one bit from their doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. And Orthodox have too many other objections to reunion. Neither side is willing to compromise. It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

Yes, that's right, it's all the Catholics' fault. That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for clarifying that for me.  Roll Eyes   Roll Eyes   Roll Eyes 
No. I think it is a situation where both sides have problems with compromising with the other.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #260 on: May 31, 2013, 05:08:59 PM »

No. I think it is a situation where both sides have problems with compromising with the other.

True.

And, arguably, "compromise" is one of the main things that has made protestants the way they are.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #261 on: May 31, 2013, 08:07:28 PM »

It seems like if Catholics were so interested in reunion, they would have at least agreed to the Orthodox date for Easter, so that both sides could celebrate Easter on the same date?

An interesting point, though it's complicated.  Agreeing on using the Orthodox date for Easter is one thing, but without addressing the rest of the calendar, it really does mess things up.  The more consistent solution is for everyone to return to the Julian calendar for the calculation of all feasts, fixed and movable, or for everyone to move to the Gregorian calendar for all feasts.  The "Revised Julian" calendar that many Orthodox use is, IMO, stupid.  
I am not so sure that either RC or OO/EO should be forced to accept the date of Easter since the Easter controversies in the past between East and West (Popes Anicetus and Victor I) ultimately did not break communion or consider the date of Easter to be grounds for severing communion (although Pope Victor at first considered it).
Doesn't seem like much of a union if the two sides can't agree on a date for Easter.
Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

One could say that after the Council of Toledo in the 5th century there has been an incremental drifting apart of East and West.  The ebb and flow of union after the adoption of the Filioque was an indicator of things to come.
Right, but the controversy over when to celebrate Easter existed from the 2nd century onward....
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #262 on: May 31, 2013, 08:14:26 PM »

Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

Actually they (the 318) agreed it's not.
Actually, I was referring to St. Polycarp and St. Pope Anicetus who both agreed that it was not a matter of schism.
Logged
Surnaturel
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 147


« Reply #263 on: May 31, 2013, 08:29:15 PM »

Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

What exactly are you referring to?  Other than the disparity in Paschal dates really early on, with the Quartodecimans and the like (which was settled in council), I'm not recalling any continued, centuries-long disparity.  
Yes, I was talking about the centuries before Nicaea and in particular the Quartodeciman controversy. I know of Nicaea's ruling on the matter, but I was just stating that there was a precedent and an agreement between Apostolic hierarchs from East + West.

Also, I am not that familiar with Orthodox (OO or EO) calendar(s) but isn't there an old and new Julian calendar which separates dates between churches that are in full communion?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 08:34:08 PM by Surnaturel » Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,690


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #264 on: May 31, 2013, 09:59:17 PM »

Quote
but isn't there an old and new Julian calendar which separates dates between churches that are in full communion?

Only for fixed feasts. Movable feasts which are based on the Paschal cycle are celebrated by all Orthodox at the same time.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,942


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #265 on: May 31, 2013, 10:01:59 PM »

Only for fixed feasts. Movable feasts which are based on the Paschal cycle are celebrated by all Orthodox at the same time.

Except the Finns.  And the Armenians.  And the Indians.  And perhaps the Latin American converts the Syrians took in.  Maybe a couple of other groups, I don't know.  Tongue
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,690


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #266 on: May 31, 2013, 10:11:26 PM »

Only for fixed feasts. Movable feasts which are based on the Paschal cycle are celebrated by all Orthodox at the same time.

Except the Finns.  And the Armenians.  And the Indians.  And perhaps the Latin American converts the Syrians took in.  Maybe a couple of other groups, I don't know.  Tongue

I didn't include the Finns, as their situation is a genuine and unique anomaly, and one which should be corrected. I also spoke from the EO perspective, as Surnaturel mentioned churches using variants of the Julian calendar but in full communion.  police
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 10:11:39 PM by LBK » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 16,942


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #267 on: May 31, 2013, 10:41:35 PM »

Even so, and leaving the OO out of this particular equation, it's not really the case that "Movable feasts which are based on the Paschal cycle are celebrated by all Orthodox at the same time."  Overwhelming majority, "exception that proves the rule", sure.  But currently, it's just a wee bit more complicated, which is all I was getting at. angel 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #268 on: June 01, 2013, 06:10:57 AM »

Then I guess for hundreds of years in the first millennium the Church wasn't really united since they agreed that it was acceptable to celebrate Easter on different days according to their traditions...

Actually they (the 318) agreed it's not.
Actually, I was referring to St. Polycarp and St. Pope Anicetus who both agreed that it was not a matter of schism.

Ecumenical council is more important than their agreement.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,118



« Reply #269 on: June 01, 2013, 07:55:12 PM »

b) I do not feel comfortable with modern RC happy worship due to estethical reasons.

I understand that doc and sleepy weren't too comfortable with the idea either.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   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 0.172 seconds with 72 queries.