Author Topic: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism  (Read 6161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #135 on: September 14, 2018, 03:03:02 PM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #136 on: September 14, 2018, 03:04:31 PM »
If union with the Pope is the heresy that it is in Orthodox theology, then he deserved his deposition and it wasn't actually a robber council. The Orthodox are guilty only of inconsistency prior to 1724.

Wouldn't you need an ecumenical council to define union with the Pope as heresy?

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2018, 03:11:00 PM »
Until some episcopal conference or ordinary forbids married priests or does some other kind of open display of despise towards Eastern faithful. Maybe this isn't clear in the US anymore due to relatively large numbers, but it has been, and it's still a thing throughout the diaspora.

I don't remember if it was Benedict or Francis, but that directive has been lifted.  Even before it was lifted, it only banned married men from being ordained without permission of the Pope on the continent of North America.  That didn't stop bishops from sending men over to the "old country" to be ordained and then return.  I believe Archbishop Joseph Tawil even ordained a few married men on American soil and simply didn't notify the Pope of it.  He was never censured for it.  As long as he didn't make a stink about it, Rome didn't care, and it just pissed off some triumphalist Latin bishops.  It's a hassle and unfair, to be sure, but it wasn't incredibly difficult to slide through the loopholes.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 03:11:12 PM by melkite »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #138 on: September 14, 2018, 03:13:50 PM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.

But the Pope is not a focal point of unity, he's a focal point of Rome dominating every other Church and letting them continue to exist and operate as they do only at his pleasure. It's nice when he takes their suggestions into account, but he certainly doesn't HAVE to (and of course the fact that this current Pope seems to be determined to stealthily transform the RCC in Anglicanism).

If union with the Pope is the heresy that it is in Orthodox theology, then he deserved his deposition and it wasn't actually a robber council. The Orthodox are guilty only of inconsistency prior to 1724.

Wouldn't you need an ecumenical council to define union with the Pope as heresy?

Apparently not when the Pope can annul and define against councils whenever he wants to. Papal Supremacy is only compatible with the synodality of the Orthodox Churches with some heavy does of sophistry.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,292
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #139 on: September 14, 2018, 03:17:46 PM »
No, there doesn't need to be an ecumenical council to condemn a heresy. There are lots of heresies that haven't been condemned in an ecumenical council- e.g. Calvinism, Mormonism. Now, of course, union with the Pope is not in itself a heresy, if the Pope is orthodox. But Papal supremacy is, and if nothing else, Rome forced the issue at Vatican I by anathematizing anyone who doesn't accept it. In such a situation, one is given the stark choice of accepting it as dogma or rejecting it as heresy.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #140 on: September 14, 2018, 03:29:34 PM »
But the Pope is not a focal point of unity, he's a focal point of Rome dominating every other Church and letting them continue to exist and operate as they do only at his pleasure. It's nice when he takes their suggestions into account, but he certainly doesn't HAVE to (and of course the fact that this current Pope seems to be determined to stealthily transform the RCC in Anglicanism).

Rome may have made a greater case for it than is patristically warranted, but there are a large number of Fathers that can be quoted as pointing to Rome as the locus of unity with no "but only when you're orthodox" rider attached.

Apparently not when the Pope can annul and define against councils whenever he wants to. Papal Supremacy is only compatible with the synodality of the Orthodox Churches with some heavy does of sophistry.

I agree that that is a problem.  Although, I don't give any greater sympathy to the Orthodox sophistry of claiming a council is ecumenical when the whole Church accepts it.  If that were the case, we should all be non-Chalcedonian.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #141 on: September 14, 2018, 03:33:24 PM »
No, there doesn't need to be an ecumenical council to condemn a heresy. There are lots of heresies that haven't been condemned in an ecumenical council- e.g. Calvinism, Mormonism. Now, of course, union with the Pope is not in itself a heresy, if the Pope is orthodox. But Papal supremacy is, and if nothing else, Rome forced the issue at Vatican I by anathematizing anyone who doesn't accept it. In such a situation, one is given the stark choice of accepting it as dogma or rejecting it as heresy.

You need an ecumenical council to define that something is or isn't a heresy.  You've never had a council to define that papal supremacy is an objective heresy.  Calvinism and Mormonism can be condemned because they espouse things that were condemned as heresy in one of the 7 ecumenical councils.  But the 7 never touched on the official role of the pope or just what authority he did and did not have.  So at best you can say you don't agree, which would have meant the deposition of Patriarch Cyril was illegitimate since there was no heresy to point to to justify his deposition.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,292
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #142 on: September 14, 2018, 03:43:34 PM »
You need an ecumenical council to define that something is or isn't a heresy. 

No, you don't. We don't get to invent doctrines just because they don't fall under some conciliar condemnation. Only by a fair amount of extrapolation could one argue that Calvinist soteriological doctrine was already condemned in the 7 ecumenical councils- but then, the same can be done for Papal supremacy.

Quote
So at best you can say you don't agree, which would have meant the deposition of Patriarch Cyril was illegitimate since there was no heresy to point to to justify his deposition.

Not only was there a heresy but it's quite debatable whether Cyril Tanas' elevation to the patriarchate was legitimate. There's a reason Rome took a long time to accept Cyril as patriarch.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #143 on: September 14, 2018, 04:04:53 PM »
No, you don't. We don't get to invent doctrines just because they don't fall under some conciliar condemnation. Only by a fair amount of extrapolation could one argue that Calvinist soteriological doctrine was already condemned in the 7 ecumenical councils- but then, the same can be done for Papal supremacy.

Then how do the Orthodox officially define something as heretical?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,292
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #144 on: September 14, 2018, 04:28:17 PM »
We have bishops with the authority to teach. On some issues they meet in councils, issue encyclicals, etc. But not everything needs to be official.  I understand Catholics have this anxiety that, if everything isn't spelled out in a book somewhere, then we're all going to become raving chaos cultists with tentacles growing out of our heads. But you can't go through life like that.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #145 on: September 14, 2018, 04:39:45 PM »
We have bishops with the authority to teach. On some issues they meet in councils, issue encyclicals, etc. But not everything needs to be official.  I understand Catholics have this anxiety that, if everything isn't spelled out in a book somewhere, then we're all going to become raving chaos cultists with tentacles growing out of our heads. But you can't go through life like that.

I actually would prefer less to be defined as heresy and more opened up to a hazy "we don't know".  I think doctrinal minimalism would have been good for the Church and would have prevented many unnecessary schisms.  Still, if one of your bishops does or doesn't teach something as heresy, and another takes the opposite view, then there is no place for the Orthodox to point to this or that undefined heresy and anathematize them.  I certainly hope your anathemas are based on more than the opinions of a few.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #146 on: September 14, 2018, 04:50:29 PM »
But the Pope is not a focal point of unity, he's a focal point of Rome dominating every other Church and letting them continue to exist and operate as they do only at his pleasure. It's nice when he takes their suggestions into account, but he certainly doesn't HAVE to (and of course the fact that this current Pope seems to be determined to stealthily transform the RCC in Anglicanism).

Rome may have made a greater case for it than is patristically warranted, but there are a large number of Fathers that can be quoted as pointing to Rome as the locus of unity with no "but only when you're orthodox" rider attached.

I think it's safe to say that such a rider is always implied. Not even a Bellarmine or a Cajetan would say that the Pope could suddenly declare Arianism or something and everybody would have to accept it as the truth of God.

Apparently not when the Pope can annul and define against councils whenever he wants to. Papal Supremacy is only compatible with the synodality of the Orthodox Churches with some heavy does of sophistry.

I agree that that is a problem.  Although, I don't give any greater sympathy to the Orthodox sophistry of claiming a council is ecumenical when the whole Church accepts it.  If that were the case, we should all be non-Chalcedonian.

As I understand it, that's a minority position.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #147 on: September 14, 2018, 07:02:10 PM »
I think it's safe to say that such a rider is always implied. Not even a Bellarmine or a Cajetan would say that the Pope could suddenly declare Arianism or something and everybody would have to accept it as the truth of God.

I was thinking after I wrote that that it would better convey what I meant if I had said "as long as you're orthodox as I believe it to be."  Of course, if a Pope becomes a heretic, he loses the seat, he's no longer part of the Church.  But what does the Church, or what ought it do, if the Pope is a heretic on an issue that has yet to be defined as such?

As I understand it, that's a minority position.

I don't see how that's relevant.  The Orthodox Church teaches that a council is ecumenical when the whole body of faithful accepts it as such.  All the faithful who became the Oriental Orthodox were part of the faithful Orthodox Catholic Church at the time of the council, so their rejection of it, by Eastern Orthodoxy's own standards, should have rendered the council not ecumenical, even with the miaphysite position being held by a minority.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,292
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #148 on: September 14, 2018, 07:26:21 PM »
“The Orthodox Church teaches that a council is ecumenical when the whole body of faithful accepts it as such.”

That’s a modern opinion, borne from apologetics. There is no basis to claim that the Orthodox Church teaches this. It often goes along with the assumption that ecumenical= infallible which is again a modern apologetic posture.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,222
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ruins of Constantinople, Met. of Atlanta
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #149 on: September 14, 2018, 07:41:39 PM »
I give up.

What's a good definition of 'ecumenical' that doesn't make the Ecumenical Patriarch either someone with universal jurisdiction, infallible, or the last remaining official of the Roman Empire (population: 1)?
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #150 on: September 14, 2018, 07:45:06 PM »
“The Orthodox Church teaches that a council is ecumenical when the whole body of faithful accepts it as such.”

That’s a modern opinion, borne from apologetics. There is no basis to claim that the Orthodox Church teaches this. It often goes along with the assumption that ecumenical= infallible which is again a modern apologetic posture.

You likely know about more about it than I do.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #151 on: September 14, 2018, 07:52:42 PM »
I give up.

What's a good definition of 'ecumenical' that doesn't make the Ecumenical Patriarch either someone with universal jurisdiction, infallible, or the last remaining official of the Roman Empire (population: 1)?

I'd say that conversant to Chalcedon 28, he's got universal appellate jurisdiction (as opposed to ordinary, etc), just not in some weird quasi-Roman "beginning of the Orthodox Church" manner.


The worst thing about this whole Ukrainian mess, by my lights, is that the KP is a schismatic body that had already broken off from the MP and thus should have no right to be treated like an equal by an Orthodox bishop. I think it would be a different situation if Met. Onuphry were the one appealing to Constantinople, instead this ball got started rolling by secular politicians AFAICT.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,012
  • It's raw!
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #152 on: September 14, 2018, 08:08:19 PM »
I give up.

What's a good definition of 'ecumenical' that doesn't make the Ecumenical Patriarch either someone with universal jurisdiction, infallible, or the last remaining official of the Roman Empire (population: 1)?

I'd say that conversant to Chalcedon 28, he's got universal appellate jurisdiction (as opposed to ordinary, etc), just not in some weird quasi-Roman "beginning of the Orthodox Church" manner.

I used to think this as well, at least as a 'final court of appeal' in the East... but this may be incorrect. One of the links in the other thread went into this a bit.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #153 on: September 14, 2018, 08:16:13 PM »
I give up.

What's a good definition of 'ecumenical' that doesn't make the Ecumenical Patriarch either someone with universal jurisdiction, infallible, or the last remaining official of the Roman Empire (population: 1)?

I'd say that conversant to Chalcedon 28, he's got universal appellate jurisdiction (as opposed to ordinary, etc), just not in some weird quasi-Roman "beginning of the Orthodox Church" manner.

I used to think this as well, at least as a 'final court of appeal' in the East... but this may be incorrect. One of the links in the other thread went into this a bit.

Oh, ok. Well, it's just my untutored opinion, I could be wrong. I'll have to track that link down.

Do you think there's any sense in which "Ecumenical Patriarch" is a salvageable title?
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,012
  • It's raw!
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #154 on: September 14, 2018, 08:25:41 PM »
Oh, ok. Well, it's just my untutored opinion, I could be wrong. I'll have to track that link down.

There were a lot of links so I went back to find it, it was this one:

http://orthochristian.com/115685.html

“The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism”

Quote
Do you think there's any sense in which "Ecumenical Patriarch" is a salvageable title?

I suppose? "Ecumenical" could be taken as "civilized" or "inhabited" world as much as the empire, and Constantinople already considers itself "the spiritual father of 300 million Orthodox" or whatever... so I could see how they'd say the honorific is still valid, and if others object they can say "well we're not saying we're the exclusive spiritual father!"  The best outcome might be dropping it in humility, but the likelihood of that...  :-\  When all this stuff first popped up I thought of how even in the Gospels the Apostles were already fighting over this kind of stuff. Who's greatest, who gets the prime spots, etc.

(fwiw, if you haven't seen this post, it has a good bit of info on the use of the term 'ecumenical')

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #155 on: September 14, 2018, 08:48:31 PM »
Thanks!

I forgot all about that thread.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Justin Kolodziej

  • Goths and rivetheads are entering the Kingdom of God before me
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,222
  • Screwing up the Church since 2017
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ruins of Constantinople, Met. of Atlanta
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #156 on: September 14, 2018, 09:41:24 PM »
Oh, ok. Well, it's just my untutored opinion, I could be wrong. I'll have to track that link down.

There were a lot of links so I went back to find it, it was this one:

http://orthochristian.com/115685.html

“The Apotheosis of Eastern Papism”

Quote
Do you think there's any sense in which "Ecumenical Patriarch" is a salvageable title?

I suppose? "Ecumenical" could be taken as "civilized" or "inhabited" world as much as the empire, and Constantinople already considers itself "the spiritual father of 300 million Orthodox" or whatever... so I could see how they'd say the honorific is still valid, and if others object they can say "well we're not saying we're the exclusive spiritual father!"  The best outcome might be dropping it in humility, but the likelihood of that...  :-\  When all this stuff first popped up I thought of how even in the Gospels the Apostles were already fighting over this kind of stuff. Who's greatest, who gets the prime spots, etc.

(fwiw, if you haven't seen this post, it has a good bit of info on the use of the term 'ecumenical')
That is helpful. Of course in the Gospels Christ's answer was "Let the greatest be the one who serves." And I would hope His All-Holiness remembers that, and what St. Nikodemos said, and even the council in Crete he chaired which said "The Orthodox Church expresses her unity and catholicity "in Council". Conciliarity pervades her organization, the way decisions are taken and determines her path."
Too many theologists, not enough theologians.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2018, 12:51:41 AM »
I think it's safe to say that such a rider is always implied. Not even a Bellarmine or a Cajetan would say that the Pope could suddenly declare Arianism or something and everybody would have to accept it as the truth of God.

I was thinking after I wrote that that it would better convey what I meant if I had said "as long as you're orthodox as I believe it to be."  Of course, if a Pope becomes a heretic, he loses the seat, he's no longer part of the Church.  But what does the Church, or what ought it do, if the Pope is a heretic on an issue that has yet to be defined as such?

As I understand it, that's a minority position.

I don't see how that's relevant.  The Orthodox Church teaches that a council is ecumenical when the whole body of faithful accepts it as such.  All the faithful who became the Oriental Orthodox were part of the faithful Orthodox Catholic Church at the time of the council, so their rejection of it, by Eastern Orthodoxy's own standards, should have rendered the council not ecumenical, even with the miaphysite position being held by a minority.

I haven't read the other stuff linked to yet, but this line from John Anastasiou that Asteriktos quotes in his thread strikes me as very good, especially the final paragraph:

Quote
We have already seen the characteristics which Athanasius attributes to the Ecumenical Council. Kedrenus gives a short definition of an Ecumenical Council which runs as follows: “they were named ecumenical, because bishops of the whole Roman Empire were invited by imperial orders and in each of them and especially in these six synods there was discussion of the faith and a vote, i.e. dogmatic formulae were promulgated."

On the basis of this examination we could say how the word ecumenical was used for these particular synods. In such a synod the whole Church, the ecumenical Church, had to be represented. The Church is comprised also of parishes outside the confines of the Roman Empire. In case there was no total representation the synod should be accepted by the whole Church. They should be convoked without eh use of force and should be distinguished for their piety; they should be convoked only for a reasonable and serious matter, that is for matters concerning the faith of the Church. The resolutions should be make known to the whole Church and the particular churches should agree with them. The resolutions should also be orthodox and in agreement with the teachings of Christ, the apostles and the tradition of the Fathers. They should express quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. The custom had prevailed that these synods were to be called by the emperors. Those synods that were assembled as ecumenical and had not all or some of the elements of an ecumenical synod were not accepted as such. Synods, however, that were not originally assembled as ecumenical, but possessed the characteristics of ecumenical synods were accepted as such. Thus an ecumenical synod was a synod which expressed the generally accepted orthodox faith, the faith of the oikumene i.e. the faith of Christ. What Athanasius said of the synod of Nicaea is valid for every synod that it expressed the word of the Lord, which remains the same in eternity.

The Fathers of the synods believed that the Holy Spirit guided them to make the right decisions and express the orthodox faith. This belief goes back to the Apostolic Synod, where they said “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us” (Acts 15:28). This belief is expressed in the hymns of the Orthodox Church, and we sing “having summoned all knowledge of the soul and having consulted with the Divine Spirit…, the venerable Fathers,” and “have accepted within us the spiritual splendour of the Holy Spirit… but God’s inspiration decreed the preachers of Christ… having received from above their rehabilitation and been enlightened, expounded the God-taught faith.”

There was no particular authority finally to define a synod as ecumenical. The synods that were decreed ecumenical were done so by the conscience of the whole Church and the conscience of the Church judged on the basis of the characteristic elements of their deeds and of Orthodoxy. Thus the first four synods were compared to the four Gospels and the four rivers of paradise, and the seven synods of the undivided Church were taken by the Orthodox Church to mean the seven columns of wisdom and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, on which the right formulation of the orthodox teaching was based and accepted by the ecumenical Church.

So, from this it seems that there's definitely a certain amount of messiness in what gets to be called ecumenical. On the one hand it isn't quite democratic across the entire Church as you said, but at the same time this is also a far cry from Pastor Aeternus's "...irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church."

So, it seems like in and of itself you can't really solve something like the EO/OO split by just appealing to this or that Council. You likely have to look at the two Churches as a whole, which I guess is what people do when they say that the faiths are essentially the same (maybe).

I need to look at more of the material right now, though.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 12:52:34 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2018, 06:57:34 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2018, 06:59:30 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Er-HEM?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 07:00:22 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #160 on: September 15, 2018, 07:00:13 AM »
I just want to point out the Antiochian Church had no right to remove Cyril Tanas as Patriarch, as he did not embrace any heretical doctrines.

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #161 on: September 15, 2018, 07:04:15 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Er-HEM?
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 07:04:58 AM by Al Masihi »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #162 on: September 15, 2018, 07:18:48 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Er-HEM?
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

So? There's Orthodox Churches in Rome, at least. If, say, the Romanian Met. Joseph declared himself the true Patriarch of Rome you'd complain that it was as bad as replacing Pat. Cyril Tanas.

Why should Orthodoxy be in communion with a Pope that they consider heretical? If you're converting because you agree with Papal Supremacy, just say so. This "Orthodoxy needs the RCC" stuff is just kind of a pointless diversion imo.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 07:20:17 AM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #163 on: September 15, 2018, 07:24:49 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Er-HEM?
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

So? There's Orthodox Churches in Rome, at least. If, say, the Romanian Met. Joseph declared himself the true Patriarch of Rome you'd complain that it was as bad as replacing Pat. Cyril Tanas.

Why should Orthodoxy be in communion with a Pope that they consider heretical? If you're converting because you agree with Papal Supremacy, just say so. This "Orthodoxy needs the RCC" stuff is just kind of a pointless diversion imo.
If a Patriarch is elected then removed despite committing no heresy, I’d get pretty upset wouldn’t you. There’s Orthodox Churches in Rome, it’s not a union with the western branch of Christianity though. I don’t know on what basis we regard it as heretical primacy was once accepted by the Eastern Church. The Orthodox even united with Rome at Florence, then broke communion again after the Islamic invasion of Constantinople.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #164 on: September 15, 2018, 07:46:50 AM »
Which only serves to make my point for me. How is that the "connection with the West" that he's looking for? It's nominal and pointless.

I can't speak for Al Masihi, but for me, it's not a desired connection with the West specifically, but communion with the entire Church, which is only represented in the bishop of Rome as the focal point of unity.  I believe that is what Al Masihi is speaking to as well when he says connection with the West, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding him.
Your quite correct, I desire union with the whole Church, and the West is missing from our Church.

Er-HEM?
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

So? There's Orthodox Churches in Rome, at least. If, say, the Romanian Met. Joseph declared himself the true Patriarch of Rome you'd complain that it was as bad as replacing Pat. Cyril Tanas.

Why should Orthodoxy be in communion with a Pope that they consider heretical? If you're converting because you agree with Papal Supremacy, just say so. This "Orthodoxy needs the RCC" stuff is just kind of a pointless diversion imo.
If a Patriarch is elected then removed despite committing no heresy, I’d get pretty upset wouldn’t you. There’s Orthodox Churches in Rome, it’s not a union with the western branch of Christianity though. I don’t know on what basis we regard it as heretical primacy was once accepted by the Eastern Church. The Orthodox even united with Rome at Florence, then broke communion again after the Islamic invasion of Constantinople.

There's no honest way to say that Pastor Aeternus is even remotely the same thing as whatever Roman Primacy there was in the first millennium, Unam Sanctam pushes things to the breaking point already. It's not Orthodoxy's fault that the "Western Branch" has cut itself off. At least things like the Western Rite indicate some proper recovery.

And no, the Orthodox didn't unite with Rome at Florence. A handful of individual bishops did.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #165 on: September 15, 2018, 08:03:44 AM »
If deosnr matter if a handful of bishops united with Rome at Florence the point is, the Orthodox Church did officially unite with Rome in Florence.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #166 on: September 15, 2018, 08:15:33 AM »
If deosnr matter if a handful of bishops united with Rome at Florence the point is, the Orthodox Church did officially unite with Rome in Florence.

But it was conditional on the ratification by their synods at home, which never happened. At most you can say they personally became Catholic at that point. And then of course St. Mark of Ephesus never did.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,317
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #167 on: September 15, 2018, 09:43:42 AM »
Al Masihi, it sounds like you already know what you want to do.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Al Masihi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #168 on: September 15, 2018, 11:11:05 AM »
Al Masihi, it sounds like you already know what you want to do.
It sounds like that, but I’m trying to make fair assessments of the case on both sides, I’m also currently asking questions about Roman Catholicism on a Roman Catholic forum, it sounds like I’ve chosen sides with Catholicism however this is not the case I’m still in a middle ground.

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,317
  • Unbreakable! He's alive, dammit! It's a MIRACLE!
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: In Hell I'll be in good company
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #169 on: September 15, 2018, 11:12:37 AM »
Al Masihi, it sounds like you already know what you want to do.
It sounds like that, but I’m trying to make fair assessments of the case on both sides, I’m also currently asking questions about Roman Catholicism on a Roman Catholic forum, it sounds like I’ve chosen sides with Catholicism however this is not the case I’m still in a middle ground.

Ah, I understand.
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #170 on: September 15, 2018, 12:54:04 PM »
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

And Eastern Catholics operate under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church.

If you don't believe the Papal dogmas defined at Vatican I, I'm not quite sure why you'd want to jump ship for Catholicism. Although if you do, then it makes sense.

I wish I could comment on the situation of Eastern Catholicism, but I've only ever seen one Eastern Catholic parish in real life. And I was on my way to visit the relics of St. John of San Francisco a block away so I just walked past... here in the US I don't think most Roman Catholics have heard of their Eastern brethren.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,056
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #171 on: September 15, 2018, 12:55:12 PM »
You must choose. Orthodoxy doesn't need heresy. It's intellectually unsustainable at this point that both sides are orthodox. If you think the RCC is orthodox and the EOC is heretical, our predominance of the Easteen rite is irrelevant and so is your choice of Western/Eastern rite, theologically speaking. If you think the EOC is orthodox and the RCC is heretical, the timidness of our Western rite is irrelevant, just like the timidness of the Russian Catholic Church is (seriously, if the EOC gets so much BS for the few millions of Western converts, what's up for the total irrelevance of the RCC among natives in the largest Old World Christian nation?).
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,056
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #172 on: September 15, 2018, 12:57:23 PM »
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

And Eastern Catholics operate under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church.
Precisely. This cannot be understated. Also, being "under a Patriarch" in the EOC implies faaaaar less authority than being under the Pope in the RCC. Synodality.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 549
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #173 on: September 15, 2018, 02:52:41 PM »
The idea that the Orthodox Church is "missing" the Western Church is misleading. Yes, Orthodoxy is reduced in the West, and, yes, the native rites of the Orthodox West have largely disappeared, but that doesn't mean that the missing part is the RCC. By papal pride and self-aggrandizement spanning many centuries, the RCC has separated itself from the Orthodox faith. It is not an estranged part of the Orthodox Church – it is not part of the Church.

The RCC taught exactly the same thing about "the Eastern schismatics" until the middle of the 20th century, namely, that the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church, having separated themselves from the true church through schism. This was a position thoroughly consistent with their ecclesiology. Now, however, Orthodox churches are true churches, though "deficient," but this is not an intrinsic problem for the salvation of their members. The two ideas are irreconcilable on their face. Either what they had always officially and dogmatically taught for centuries is false, or what they now officially and dogmatically teach at and since Vatican II is false.

The fact that the RCC now teaches something different is a serious problem, unless of course one chooses simply to ignore it, which seems to be the course of action for 99% of the Catholic world. The fact that some, many, or even most Orthodox bishops signed a union with Rome doesn't matter in the way it does for Catholics when the popes promote novel teaching; the union was rejected at home, and whatever may have been said on paper has had very little bearing on reality. The union did not *actually* happen.

But the contradiction in Catholic teaching *has* happened. How in the world does one reconcile Pope Eugene IV's bull Cantate Domino at the Council of Florence:

Quote
[The sacrosanct Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

with Nostra Aetate at Vatican II and virtually everything the post-V2 popes have said? It's amazing that Pope Francis can set off a firestorm by suggesting a divorced-and-remarried person could receive Holy Communion, but a purported ecumenical council and five subsequent popes can perpetuate doctrine that is completely foreign to the dogmatic tradition of their own church, and the only ones complaining are people in and to the right of the SSPX.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 540
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #174 on: September 15, 2018, 03:04:55 PM »
The Western Rite operates under the authority of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. There is no Patriarch of Rome.

And Eastern Catholics operate under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church.
Precisely. This cannot be understated. Also, being "under a Patriarch" in the EOC implies faaaaar less authority than being under the Pope in the RCC. Synodality.
Sigh. In theory, you may be right. In practice, many Catholic bishops do as they please, pretty much ignoring what the bishop of Rome says. From where I am standing, the centralization and power monopoly of the bishop of Rome which is so often described on this board as one of the main issues with Catholicism is not an issue at all, quite to the contrary: For instance, in my country, Catholic bishops are on the verge of open opposition, all but risking a schism. I would claim that Orthodox bishops likely pay closer attention to what their patriarchs say than my bishop what the Pope said and says (John Paul II, Benedict, Francis).
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 03:12:42 PM by Lepanto »
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #175 on: September 15, 2018, 04:27:06 PM »
You must choose. Orthodoxy doesn't need heresy. It's intellectually unsustainable at this point that both sides are orthodox. If you think the RCC is orthodox and the EOC is heretical, our predominance of the Easteen rite is irrelevant and so is your choice of Western/Eastern rite, theologically speaking. If you think the EOC is orthodox and the RCC is heretical, the timidness of our Western rite is irrelevant, just like the timidness of the Russian Catholic Church is (seriously, if the EOC gets so much BS for the few millions of Western converts, what's up for the total irrelevance of the RCC among natives in the largest Old World Christian nation?).

'Cause Fatima?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 04:27:19 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline platypus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #176 on: September 15, 2018, 08:21:43 PM »
Sigh. In theory, you may be right. In practice, many Catholic bishops do as they please, pretty much ignoring what the bishop of Rome says. From where I am standing, the centralization and power monopoly of the bishop of Rome which is so often described on this board as one of the main issues with Catholicism is not an issue at all, quite to the contrary: For instance, in my country, Catholic bishops are on the verge of open opposition, all but risking a schism. I would claim that Orthodox bishops likely pay closer attention to what their patriarchs say than my bishop what the Pope said and says (John Paul II, Benedict, Francis).

You're quite right, and I suspect that RC bishops here in the US would get along quite well with your German bishops. But if we're to judge Roman Catholicism by what happens in practice, rather than it's official teachings... I don't think you'd want that.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,056
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #177 on: September 15, 2018, 08:26:17 PM »
Sigh. In theory, you may be right. In practice, many Catholic bishops do as they please, pretty much ignoring what the bishop of Rome says. From where I am standing, the centralization and power monopoly of the bishop of Rome which is so often described on this board as one of the main issues with Catholicism is not an issue at all, quite to the contrary: For instance, in my country, Catholic bishops are on the verge of open opposition, all but risking a schism. I would claim that Orthodox bishops likely pay closer attention to what their patriarchs say than my bishop what the Pope said and says (John Paul II, Benedict, Francis).
Well, the Pope is always standing at a very difficult position due to the diversity in the Roman Catholic Church. He has to be a middle ground. In my personal opinion, that's why they chose a Jesuit as the new Pope: fluidity, political virtue, etc., something that a polemicist conservative like Cardinal Bagnasco, or a (perceived) liberal like Cardinal O'Malley would have a very hard time accomplishing. That being said, Pope Francis can be and has been authoritarian on bishops that oppose his power, while in the bosom of autocephalous Orthodox churches, the primate ideally and usually lacks any canonical means to do so.
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,056
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #178 on: September 15, 2018, 08:29:18 PM »
You must choose. Orthodoxy doesn't need heresy. It's intellectually unsustainable at this point that both sides are orthodox. If you think the RCC is orthodox and the EOC is heretical, our predominance of the Easteen rite is irrelevant and so is your choice of Western/Eastern rite, theologically speaking. If you think the EOC is orthodox and the RCC is heretical, the timidness of our Western rite is irrelevant, just like the timidness of the Russian Catholic Church is (seriously, if the EOC gets so much BS for the few millions of Western converts, what's up for the total irrelevance of the RCC among natives in the largest Old World Christian nation?).
'Cause Fatima?
I think Fatima should solve this elephant in the room rather than cause it.  :laugh:  Also, I haven't checked the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Russia has far less Catholics now than in the time of Fatima, both due to Atheistisation (secularisation is not a proper way to call what happened in the USSR), the emigration of Catholic ethnic minorities (or genocide/deportation, I don't know the dimension of the shameful persecution against Eastern European Germans within Russia itself) and the destruction of the Russian Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 08:32:33 PM by RaphaCam »
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

May the Blessed Light shine Forth

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,902
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: Moving towards Eastern Catholicism
« Reply #179 on: September 15, 2018, 08:48:59 PM »
You must choose. Orthodoxy doesn't need heresy. It's intellectually unsustainable at this point that both sides are orthodox. If you think the RCC is orthodox and the EOC is heretical, our predominance of the Easteen rite is irrelevant and so is your choice of Western/Eastern rite, theologically speaking. If you think the EOC is orthodox and the RCC is heretical, the timidness of our Western rite is irrelevant, just like the timidness of the Russian Catholic Church is (seriously, if the EOC gets so much BS for the few millions of Western converts, what's up for the total irrelevance of the RCC among natives in the largest Old World Christian nation?).
'Cause Fatima?
I think Fatima should solve this elephant in the room rather than cause it.  :laugh:  Also, I haven't checked the numbers, but I'm pretty sure Russia has far less Catholics now than in the time of Fatima, both due to Atheistisation (secularisation is not a proper way to call what happened in the USSR), the emigration of Catholic ethnic minorities (or genocide/deportation, I don't know the dimension of the shameful persecution against Eastern European Germans within Russia itself) and the destruction of the Russian Catholic Church.
There are about 140,000 Catholics in Russia.  There were 500,000 before the Soviets.  Most of the Germans, Ukrainians, Poles and Belarusians deported to Siberia returned to their home countries.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2018, 08:49:19 PM by Deacon Lance »
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.