L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
I must admit, you got me with that one!LD,
The first concession is that you will not be available as a delegate for any talks about unity…then we can go from there
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
From a study quoted in Wiki
5 ^ a b c Olga Filina (Ogonek Magazine). Mapping Russia’s Religious Landscape. Russia and India Report. Retrieved 24-09-2012.
6 ^ Верю — не верю. “Ogonek”, № 34 (5243), 27/08/2012. Retrieved 24-09-2012.
7 ^ “Most Baha’i Nations (2005)”. QuickLists > Compare Nations > Religions >. The Association of Religion Data Archives. 2005. Retrieved 2010-05-03.
Religion in Russia (2012)
Russian Orthodox (41%)
Muslim (6.5%)
Unaffiliated Christian (4.1%)
Other Orthodox (1.4%)
Neopagan and Tengrist (1.1%)
Other religions (2.4%)
Spiritual but not religious (25.1%)
Atheist and non-religious (12.9%)
Undecided (5.5%)
L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
Impossible. It will never happen.
A non-issue. If you or any Orthodox has trouble understanding what it means then learn Latin. If you object to Rome’s authority to insert it into the Credo… well then, again, we wont budge on the principle that Rome had that authority.
Impossible. It will never happen.
The Church, by her authority, has made it so now though. Just because the Eastern Orthodox left the Church doesn’t mean we need to back track a millennium for them to play catch-up.
And I don’t care whether you’re Greek or Latin. No orthodox Catholic can state that the Catholic Church should concede all of the above and still remain in a sound orthodox position.
D
dvdjs
Guest
And we have. Properly disposed Orthodox Christians are welcomed to partake of the Eucharist in Catholic Churches.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Yet, somehow, papal infallibility, as a matter of dogma, seemed not to be necessary until the 19th century. Why is it so necessary now, as a matter of dogma, that must be believed?
This sort of respons is intolerably arrogant. The Orthodox are so stupid that they’ve just understood. Really? That just won’t fly, particularly in light of the fact that the CCC (246) itself affirms that the filioque teaches exactly that to which the Orthodox object, namely, that the Son, together with the Father, is the source of the Holy Spirit, as from one principle.
Yet, again, these beliefs were not held to be necessary as a matter of dogma, until very recently. Why the necessity, as a matter of dogma, now?
This sort of triumphalistic rhetoric gets us nowhere. What purpose does it serve, other than to make us Catholics look insufferably arrogant?
And I couldn’t care less about your judgment as to whether I “remain in a sound orthodox position.” Your hypertriumphalistic, ultramontane, anti-Orthodox venom renders your judgments utterly meaningless to me.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
By the way, there are some things I believe the Orthodox should concede. First of all, I think that the primacy of the Pope of Rome is more than merely a primacy of honor. I do not believe the Orthodox will ever accept universal ordinary jurisdiction, but I do believe they should accept that the primacy of the Pope of Rome includes some sort of “appellate” role that goes beyond a mere primacy of honor. While I do not believe that the Orthodox should be expected to accept the dogmatic status of the filioque and the Marian dogmas, I do believe that they should accept both the filioque (with certain clarifications) and the Immaculate Conception as legitimate western theological expressions.
R
RKO
Guest
This is directed toward anyone here who can stand to hear it. NONE of us here are in any position to say “my church won’t budge!” or to decide whether someone else is in good standing with his church based on their level of agreement with the originator’s opinion or belief. You are not in a position to make that decision. Your positions on each and every item of discussion are based on your own personal understanding. Admittedly, your understanding is probably deeper than mine, but I do know that you are not the one to say what a Church will or won’t ever do or who is or is not a 'catholic (or Orthodox) in good standing." It’s been said on this forum that if the early Christians saw the Church today they wouldn’t recognize it. Granted there are matters that won’t change, like for example, the real presence, etc. However the Churches have shown that some things can change (yes, even in the Orthodox Church) over time.
We all get each other’s fervor for his or her faith, nobody is questioning that. A little reason and kindness would go a long way.
We all get each other’s fervor for his or her faith, nobody is questioning that. A little reason and kindness would go a long way.
M
Mickey
Guest
Not that this has anything to do with the thread…except for an opportunity for you to jump all over one of my posts…as per usual.
But I did misspeak…About 95% of the registered Orthodox parishes in Russia belong to the Russian Orthodox Church while there are a number of smaller Orthodox Churches.
Numbers are easily manipulated. I am sure I can find different studies that show different numbers…but I’m not going to waste my time because it’s not important. What is important is that someone made a mention that Russia needs to be consecrated to Our Lady…Whereas Our Lady is already intimately woven into the fabric of Holy Russia.
M
Mickey
Guest
Good point.
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.”
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press]
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Economy cannot be used to exceed what is afforded in the canons. You will have to excuse me if I find incredible the claim that the abuse of the non-canonical position of the head of the Rum Millet contrary to what is permitted in the sacred canons could be justified as a wise use of economy. Using civil authority to settle disputes is condemned in the Scriptures and has no place in Church governance, despite the long history of its abuse in the past.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is afforded all of the privileges of old Rome, by canon 28 of Chalcedon, and to my knowledge, appellate jurisdiction is the only universal jurisdiction explicitly afforded to the bishop of Rome in canon law. Again, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was for centuries in a place where it could use the arm of the law, either at the high points of the Eastern Roman Empire or as the head of the Greek millet under the Turks, opportunities for abusing civil power on a wide scale which the Roman Pope never quite had.
R
RKO
Guest
Amen.Thanks be to God!!!
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Please abide by CAF rules in regard to respect for non-Catholic religions.
M
mardukm
Guest
The Orthodox Churches (both Eastern and Oriental) are separated along ethnic and nationalistic lines only administratively. However, ALL Eastern Orthodox share the same FAITH, just as ALL Oriental Orthodox share the same FAITH (just as all Catholics share the same FAITH, despite different theological expressions of it). No individual Church within any particular Communion has the authority to make up doctrines opposed to the Faith shared by all others in that one Communion of Faith.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
They can be corrected by their brother bishops. If they do not submit to their correction, they they can be summoned to a synod and tried by the synod and then deposed by the synod. The authority isn’t unilateral, no one bishop will hold the authority over another. You don’t need to go far back to see how this works, look at how Metropolitan Jonah was “ousted” by his own synod of the OCA. I put quote marks there because they synod asked him to step down and he complied. It was presented in a very civil manner. They could have just simply booted him out, but that wasn’t the case.
If the issue is between bishops that do not belong to the same synod, for example Greek Orthodox vs. Russian Orthodox, the two Churches will sever communion from one another and then try to resolve differences before resuming communion. Other Churches can help out to resolve the issues. If a council of Churches is needed, then they would convene what is today called a “Pan-Orthodox council”.
M
mardukm
Guest
I agree. But the idea that many Catholics have (Absolutist Petrine advocates) that it is the Pope ALONE who is infallible, or that he is the source of infallibility in the Church (a belief which actually existed at Vatican 1, but was crticized by the official Relatio of Vatican 1) I believe needs to be dogmatically corrected and clarified.
That’s rather triumphalistic. Latins need to grow in understanding on what Orthodox teach as well. There is absolutely nothing theologically wrong with the statements made by, for example, St. Photius and Mark of Ephesus, regarding filioque - IF you understand what they were actually trying to say according to their own theological presuppositions.
What do you mean by “Rome’s authority to insert it into the Credo.” Do you
mean the bishop of Rome had the authority to insert it into the UNIVERSAL Creed unilaterally? If so, when did this happen? If you mean he has the authority to insert it in the LOCAL Creed of the Latins, I agree.
I should note that the proscriptions contained in the Marian dogmas are not anathemas.
The Ecumenical dialogue does not have the approach “the Church said so.” The Churches are trying to unite by virtue of understanding each others’ positions, not by virtue of uniatism (trying to impose one’s belief on the other party).
The Latin Church also had its obvious faults in the schism. Who left who is a very subjective matter.
I basically agree with you on this. But there is also the question of whether the teachings of the Catholic Church are being presented properly by the the run-of-the-mill Catholic. This improper presentation is a great source of the disunity. As someone else had written, the bishops need our help. I do believe that unity is a grass-roots movement and effort that cannot be simply imposed by higher authority. We need to build understanding at the grass-roots level even while our hierarchs are doing the same in their official capacities.
Blessings,
Marduk
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I doubt this will do either. These were not the reason for the schism. If today these are conceded the Orthodox still have to accept the supremacy of the Pope. Will they prepare to do this? I think the cause of the division is more than just those theological differences which can be understood better if given the chance for humility and acceptance of what they truly are. The biggest obstacles to reconciliation is still the wound due to the reality of history and petty nationalism. Both parties need to arise above that. That’s why they have to surrender to the unify action of the Holy Spirit.
C
captainmike
Guest
so, the pope would be like the supreme court, having final say, if necessary? if not, what do you mean?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The correction in the second paragraph is not what you said earlier. It could be misleading if not been pointed out.
C
captainmike
Guest
what about this as a possible compromise on papal infallibility?
the pope can’t, by himself, declare anything infallibly.
however, he has veto power over anything that the other bishops might collectively want to declare as an infallible teaching.
just a thought.
the pope can’t, by himself, declare anything infallibly.
however, he has veto power over anything that the other bishops might collectively want to declare as an infallible teaching.
just a thought.
- Status