Are Catholics afraid of Eastern Orthodox?

[dzheremi]

I think Christ’s explicit desire for his followers is “a substantial reason”- What reason to do anything at all could be more substantial than the will of Our Lord? You can speak of “conditions” and being met on the other side- That’s a very earthly, human and even political manner of looking at something that is very much of supernatural concern. Do you think that the Holy Spirit is incapable of changing hearts on either side, Rome, the East, the Orient and yes, even Protestants? This is the work of God- talking about what our churches will and will not do as conditions is forgetting about the most important player in all this.

The Holy Spirit changes the hearts of many who leave Rome and Canterbury and all these other places and come to the Orthodox faith. For other kinds of movement, I cannot say. And conditions are necessary because doctrine is important. Don’t turn into a filthy hippie every time someone mentions such things. I have never believed that the Roman Catholic faith was pietistic. Or at least it is not traditionally supposed to be.

 

[Marybeloved]

The Holy Spirit changes the hearts of many who leave Rome and Canterbury and all these other places and come to the Orthodox faith. For other kinds of movement, I cannot say. And conditions are necessary because doctrine is important. Don’t turn into a filthy hippie every time someone mentions such things. I have never believed that the Roman Catholic faith was pietistic. Or at least it is not traditionally supposed to be.

Your language is quite strange- Dependence on God to do what is beyond us in not being “a filthy hippie”- If I believed that, I would be atheist. I sense the conversation has taken a nasty turn. I leave you to your convictions, Dzheremi.

Peace.

 

[dzheremi]

Come on my friend- Look at that sentence again. Do you really mean it? You don’t think that we have to be a certain way for the simple reason that Christ said so? Just in obedience?

My point was more that Christ definitely did say it, and we definitely do need to follow it, but merely pointing out the FACT that He said it (as Protestants do, and as Catholics apparently do), without any accompanying action to actually, y’know…DO it, is not helpful. And in the case of ecumenism, it’s the doing part that isn’t happening. Rome is not repudiating any of her unique doctrines, and neither are the Orthodox assenting to them. So once again, here we are. It has nothing to do with ignoring Christ and everything to do with not DOING what He said.

Thankfully, your church disagrees with you because the dialogues are under way. Dailogue is going on

I can only repeat that the Orthodox do not see these dialogues in the same light as RCs do.

 

[Padraig1972]

Afraid? No. I only feel a deep respect for them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They wandered away from the true faith according to who? And “we” preserved the true faith according to who? And for that matter, who is “we”? Because the Byzantines and the OO are not in communion, and the Catholics are not in communion with either, and the Protestants are not in communion with any, nor are the Nestorians…yet all maintain that they have the true faith. So I don’t “we think we have done this” is a very good standard. At least if you make proclaiming the same faith the barometer, you can tell what’s what. Can’t believe in Papal dogmas? You can’t be a Catholic. Can’t agree with the Christological formula promulgated at Chalcedon? You can’t be EO. Can’t disagree with the same? You can’t be OO. Lather, rinse, repeat.

As I said, the Apostolic Traditions we have preserved point that we bear the faith as it has been handed down by the Apostles. If we are worshiping in a way different from how the Apostles worshiped Jesus, then we are wrong. I think it is good that the EO, OO and RC are separated. It validates that we are all living the true faith because we preserved something we all inherited, even if among ourselves we do not agree with one another. Protestants try their best not to imitate the Catholic Church to prove that they are different, to prove that they are right. Apostolic Churches aren’t worried about what the others are doing, they are worried about keeping what they inherited.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you, Constantine. I substantially agree with your reasoning, if not your ultimate point (that we have somehow all preserved the apostolic faith).

 

[rben20]

Thank you, Constantine. I substantially agree with your reasoning, if not your ultimate point (that we have somehow all preserved the apostolic faith).

Wow really? Not too many posts ago you were equating RC with Protestantism. Here’s to fessing up:thumbsup:

 

[Peter_J]

Hi all.

One of the first things I did this morning was to ask myself “I wonder if there are any replies that thread I started last night” and … wow.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by dzheremi
Who says we aren’t trying? I’m very much in favor of trying, but very much not in favor of insisting that thing should just BE a certain way since Christ said so.

I too am puzzled by this statement of dzheremi’s. The rest of what he’s been saying here makes sense to me – not that I agree with it (I believe that the Orthodox need to come-on-home as it were) but it makes sense to me.

 

[Peter_J]

…So, no substantial reason, then? I’m sorry, Constantine, but I’ve had too many Protestant groups use that kind of logic on me, and without some substantial details to actually explain what you mean, it doesn’t really mean anything to me. “Christ prayed that all be one!”, they would say. And, indeed, it is right that the Good Shepherd should call back His wandering flock…but what this has to do with Rome in particular (which is the sticking point in all this: Rome’s view of itself vs. every other apostolic church’s view of Rome), I do not know. Again, so long as Rome does not teach and live the apostolic faith, we do not need to unite with it any more than with the Lutherans, Methodists, or any other of its spiritual sons and daughters.

Sorry if that’s a bit on the harsh side,
…

Harsh? No it isn’t harsh. You just don’t agree that the Roman Communion is the one true church, so you don’t believe that you need to be in that communion. That’s not harsh, it’s just a disagreement.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by dzheremi
Why would you refrain from joining a church communion with which you agree completely in matters of theology, ecclesiology, praxis, etc. because not all of them share your commitment to ecumenism?

Hi dzheremi and Constantine,

When I read the (above-highlight) statement from dzheremi, I immediately thought “No, that’s not it; Constantine isn’t saying that the only reason he doesn’t become Orthodox is because they aren’t ecumenical enough.” But then, reading Constantine’s own reply to that, I’m not so sure. Constantine, can you clarify?

 

[Hesychios]

There should be a visible union. Why should we accept that there isn’t? There was a time where we all were one.

I wonder, what constitutes visible union?

I don’t think the term is necessarily objectionable to anyone, but it is a loaded phrase. We bring our own definition and assumptions to the conversation.

We need a Church united in faith.

This I can agree with without reservation.

 

[Peter_J]

I wonder, what constitutes visible union?

I don’t think the term is necessarily objectionable to anyone, but it is a loaded phrase. We bring our own definition and assumptions to the conversation.

True. For Catholics, we’re thinking of union with the Pope. Orthodox, as I understand it, think of a sort of mutual union with one another.

 

[dzheremi]

I too am puzzled by this statement of dzheremi’s. The rest of what he’s been saying here makes sense to me – not that I agree with it (I believe that the Orthodox need to come-on-home as it were) but it makes sense to me.

I thought I went into further detail with Marybeloved, but I’ll try again:

As the Protestants and others also use Jesus’ words to try to make the argument that we (Catholics and Orthodox) should be “united” as they are, rather than in our own exclusive communions, it is obviously not enough to say (unqualified) that “Jesus said X, Y, Z, therefore you should _____”, as though the Bible is self-interpreting, as many Protestants believe it to be. When you look at the traditions of the Orthodox and the RC communion regarding what union means, you don’t see the same interpretations at work in both camps. That’s why I’m emphasizing the work that would need to be done in order to actually have communion – because Catholics and Orthodox do not start from the same understandings of what it means to be in communion, there will need to be some changes in understanding, leading to concrete action, on the part of the actors in the reunion effort. And once we get to that level, the reality that we see is not the Catholic communion becoming more “Orthodox”(in their understanding of communion or the Orthodox communion becoming more “Catholic” in theirs, but rather both sides sticking to their guns: Catholics repeating how we somehow need to be in union with Rome, and Orthodox insisting that we need to have a common faith in order to be in communion.

So, yes, Christ said it, and we both believe He meant it and we must do it, but merely appealing to the words do not help us.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi dzheremi and Constantine,

When I read the (above-highlight) statement from dzheremi, I immediately thought “No, that’s not it; Constantine isn’t saying that the only reason he doesn’t become Orthodox is because they aren’t ecumenical enough.” But then, reading Constantine’s own reply to that, I’m not so sure. Constantine, can you clarify?

Of course not. Who knows, I could be Orthodox by next week

I never put forward that my choice of Church is based on the ecumenical philosophy of that Church. I think personally I will be the same way wherever I would go. If I leave Catholicism for Orthodox, I’d still pray for union and try in my own little way to make that happen.

I wonder, what constitutes visible union?

As what Peter said, there are different views from all sides on how that should happen. We need to work that out as well. I don’t want to say one thing and make it seem it is the only solution. As a Catholic, of course my view is to rally behind the Pope. But a desire for union means I should be open to all other possibilities. It can never be “my way or the highway,” for any side.

 

[dzheremi]

If you, as a church, have the fullness of the faith without the errors of those who are outside of your communion, then how can it be anything but “my way or the highway”? There’s no compromise to be made on the truth, right?

 

[Peter_J]

I thought I went into further detail with Marybeloved, but I’ll try again:

As the Protestants and others also use Jesus’ words to try to make the argument that we (Catholics and Orthodox) should be “united” as they are, rather than in our own exclusive communions, it is obviously not enough to say (unqualified) that “Jesus said X, Y, Z, therefore you should _____”, as though the Bible is self-interpreting, as many Protestants believe it to be.

OK, I see what you’re saying. It was a little confusing the way you put it the first time; but I agree that nobody can simply say “My kind of ecumenism is obviously right, Jesus said so.”

When you look at the traditions of the Orthodox and the RC communion regarding what union means, you don’t see the same interpretations at work in both camps. That’s why I’m emphasizing the work that would need to be done in order to actually have communion – because Catholics and Orthodox do not start from the same understandings of what it means to be in communion,

Exactly! I do want unity, but not in the same way that you guys (Orthodox) want unity. That is, possibly, the thing that is hardest for most people to understand.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you, as a church, have the fullness of the faith without the errors of those who are outside of your communion, then how can it be anything but “my way or the highway”? There’s no compromise to be made on the truth, right?

I personally believe that the things we need to achieve unity involves things not part of the Deposit of Faith, thus we can compromise on it. I believe the number 1 reason we are not united is Pride. I’m pretty sure we can compromise on that.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Hi dzheremi and Constantine,

You can’t clarify? Or you can’t clarify for another 2 hours?

Who knows, I could be Orthodox by next week

I never put forward that my choice of Church is based on the ecumenical philosophy of that Church. I think personally I will be the same way wherever I would go. If I leave Catholicism for Orthodox, I’d still pray for union and try in my own little way to make that happen.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

True. For Catholics, we’re thinking of union with the Pope. Orthodox, as I understand it, think of a sort of mutual union with one another.

Or, more precisely, the Orthodox Catholic view is that there is a collegiality of the primates of the Churches in union with one another, with a precedence of honour beginning with Rome etc.

For real unity to have a chance, both Churches need to see that they are less as Churches without one another and that they both have issues that need to be changed/ reformed before they can embrace one another.

The Orthodox are (rightly) suspicious that Rome talks a “good talk” about ecumenism, but that it ultimately has its own geopolitical agenda to “bring” the Orthodox into its own orbit without changing anything about its ecclesiology. Is this true? I believe it is. Ultimately, Rome sees nothing wrong with itself with respect to the Orthodox which, in its eyes, are “almost but not quite there.”

The fact that Rome and RC’s see themselves as the sole inheritors of Peter’s authority is itself a big problem for the East - St Peter established quite a few Sees there. So what makes Rome different from the rest and what justifies the papal doctrines? That is the start of the debate which is, as Mary has emphatically and correctly stated, going on at different levels now.

Getting back to the original question, I find that when I converse with Orthodox, I’m viewed with much more suspicion than RC’s would be from their POV. They “see me coming” in other words.

And when I agree with so much of Orthodox theology etc., that brings their backs up against the wall even more. “So what is the difference between you and us?” they ask. I respond, “Our communion with Rome . . .” And that sets off a whole new set of arg. . . er, discussion . . .

Several times, I have also just been told to join the Orthodox Church. One Presbytera in Buffalo went at me to make me promise I would become Orthodox when I returned home.

It’s much better to speak with an Orthodox professor/theologian than with the zealous ranks!

Alex