bartholomew-to-reinvigorate-dialogue-with-catholics

[RKO]

Question. If someone here was discussing a reunion between say Calvinists and the Church, and the Calvinist insist that first the Catholic must back-down on the doctrine of the Real Presence… and the Catholic said that no, that will never happen, the Church will never do that… would you be saying what you said above?

Papal infallibility, the Bishop of Rome’s authority over the Church, the Marian dogmas, etc. are on the same level as the doctrine of the Real Presence.

I’m perfectly within my liberty to say that the Church will never abandon these teachings. Anymore that tomorrow the Pope would release an encyclical denying the Real Presence in union with every Catholic bishop in the world!

You are missing the point. The point is it is highly uncharitable for you to be so arrogant and definitive on what the Catholic Church will or won’t do. because as I said before, you are not in a position to say. Your every comment seems to bely an underlying sentiment :“I’m a better catholic than those who question what I believe about the administration of the Church.”
Fortunately the Church has rarely been as unyielding as its most fundamental members, nor as “breezy” as its most liberal.

yes, you are perfectly at liberty to espouse your opinions. You are NOT at liberty to tell me or anyone else we are “not in a sound orthodox position.” I’m just pointing out that these opinions that you are throwing around with such self-appointed weight are just that. Your opinion. You seem not to be aware of that.

EDIT- I guess you CAN say I’m not in sound orthodox position. It doesn’t mean you have the first clue of what you speak.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

You seem not to be aware of that.

No. You are missing the point. I can definitely, absolutely and beyond all doubt state what the Church’s dogmas are and that She will never abandon them or not require the faithful to hold to them… because She Herself has already said this. What on earth do you think happened in 1950?

Papal infallibility and universal authority must be accepted. The Marian dogmas must be accepted. I can say that they must be because the Church has said they must be. I’ve repeated nothing less than what the Church has.

They cannot be ignored. They cannot be reversed. They cannot be swept aside. They must be accepted. There can be no communion with the Bishop of Rome, whether Orthodox or Catholic, if one dissents from them or says that they should not be binding.

They are binding. And they will never, though the entire world rise against the Church, ever, be dropped.

 

[RKO]

No. You are missing the point. I can definitely, absolutely and beyond all doubt state what the Church’s dogmas are and that She will never abandon them or not require the faithful to hold to them… because She Herself has already said this. What on earth do you think happened in 1950?

Papal infallibility and universal authority must be accepted. The Marian dogmas must be accepted. I can say that they must be because the Church has said they must be. I’ve repeated nothing less than what the Church has.

They cannot be ignored. They cannot be reversed. They cannot be swept aside. They must be accepted. There can be no communion with the Bishop of Rome, whether Orthodox or Catholic, if one dissents from them or says that they should not be binding.

They are binding. And they will never, though the entire world rise against the Church, ever, be dropped.

So all of the verbage that the Church has given to discussing infallibility in a new light is a lie?

 

[Mickey]

Some people take honesty seriously

You continue to harp on a trivial post…which was corrected (albeit my point still being valid).

That is borderline harrasment. You are on my ignore list.

 

[chimo]

The greatest of all dogmas is love. Everything else flows from this. Knowledge says St. Paul is useless and even dangerous when it is done without love. For instance the devil has more knowledge of God than anyone of us but he uses it against us not for us because he does not love. Our Lord will want us to fall in love with Him or more precisely grow in love with Him. No dogma can do better than that. When I teach the children at my Orthodox Church I will use the Divine Liturgy as my platform and work from that perspective. The children will get to know Jesus through the Eucharist and understand His love with much affection and strength. One of the children when I asked them who did you receive today answered " I received love!" She was 6 years old at the time.

In the Orthodox Church and I do believe in the Eastern Catholic Churches (someone can correct me on this if I am wrong) all the people can receive Jesus in the Eucharist no matter their age. This enables for instance the children to experience God from an earlier age to help build up their relationship with their Lord with simplicity and foreknowledge. Once their relationship with the Lord Jesus is fully expressed and revealed then it is easier for them to understand the other dogmas and teachings we have in the Church.

It is my observations from living in both worlds, Eastern and Western that the two Churches go about teaching their children differently. The East goes from direct experiences into theory and the West goes from theory to direct experiences. Of course in anyone’s life we need to have a balance of the two (theory and experiences) for our spiritual growth to find expression and fullfillment. It is my observation the West relies more on theory and the East relies more on experiences. We need to find the right balance for the two to work together for everyone.

The Orthodox and Eastern Churches alongside Rome can give this excellent balance we need for our children to grow into love with our Lord, His Holy Mother and the Church so we can learn to help and love all our brothers and sisters in the world no matter who they are.

 

[chimo]

Chimo,
I’m so glad you have joined this forum and in particular, this thread. Your deep understanding and reason are much needed.
By the way, you spoke of “teaching” at your Church. Are you by chance a priest?

Thank you. I am not a priest but my experiences combining with my theology has given me some teaching tools when I teach the children and the young people. I will like to be a sub deacon in my Church and if God willing a permament deacon but as yet I am not married and I do wish to start a family. I do love children. Since the Orthodox Church will not permit you to marry after ordination I decided to postpone it until I do marry.

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox and Eastern Churches alongside Rome can give this excellent balance we need for our children to grow into love with our Lord, His Holy Mother and the Church so we can learn to help and love all our brothers and sisters in the world no matter who they are.

I have experienced both East and West. For me, the East already has the perfect balance.

 

[dvdjs]

A nice article that looks at all the numbers (up to 80) and gives a reality check on thinking “that it is Russia who will convert the rest of the world”.

Window on Eurasia: 80, 41 or 5 –What Percentage of Russians are Orthodox Christians?

The Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church frequently say that 80 percent of the population of the Russian Federation consists of Orthodox Christians, but a new survey finds that only 41 percent of Russians in fact identify themselves as members of the Church and only five percent say they are active members of their local parishes…

Reacting to the Sreda-Public Opinion Foundation figures, Vakhtang Kipshidze, an official of the Synod’s Information Department, said that the Patriarchate uses the higher figure “not because we do not read sociological studies but because these people [the 70 to 80 percent rather than the 41 or five percent] carry in themselves the signs of Orthodox identity; that is, they potentially belong to Orthodox culture”…

windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2012/12/window-on-eurasia-80-41-or-5-what.html

 

[Mickey]

A nice article that looks at all the numbers

I expect that everyone needs to practice their faith a little more. How often we hear that people in America who identify themselves as Catholics…are not really Churchgoers…or practicing Catholics at all.

But one thing is for certain. Russia certainly does not need to be converted to anything…except maybe a return to a stronger practice of Holy Orthodoxy.

But after the scourge of communism…the faith of Russia is an example to the world…and I will stand by my thoughts about Russia converting the world!

Socialism has come to America…and she should look at lessons of history before she also faces the waves of persecutions.

 

[chimo]

I have experienced both East and West. For me, the East already has the perfect balance.

I am glad that you found that. For me living in the West was an opportune time to know her and I did this throughout my early years. When I became an adult and was exposed to the methods, teachings and experiences of the Eastern Church this helped me as well, even more, for I developed within myself an Eastern and Western mind if you can say. Even though I am grateful to the West for her upbringng I am also so grateful to the East for she had helped balanced what I needed. I am more an Easterner in my personality and coming home became for me a stronger vocation then if I had only lived out all my life there. That is why I do appreciate my Western upbringing. It gave to me another life so I can now use it when teaching to the Orthodox children and youth. I find my heart actually burns more when I am in the East. That does not mean it does not burn for the West. It just burns with more intensisty when I am in the East but a longing to present if you can the West when I can.

I sense it is like more when you grow up within your family. You love your family but then inside your heart there is a burning to want something that can be for you a deeper longing for. That can be an anology for marriage. You love your first family but God gives you this burning desire to enter into a relationship with someone that will be for you a deeper and more anchored structure. The West became my first family and now I entered even to a more deeper relationship when I discovered I was Orthodox. This does not take away my relationship with the West but further enhances it. It has helped me to appreciate the West and now more the East and all the gifts God can give to us.

 

[Mickey]

I am glad that you found that. For me living in the West was an opportune time to know her and I did this throughout my early years. When I became an adult and was exposed to the methods, teachings and experiences of the Eastern Church this helped me as well, even more, for I developed within myself an Eastern and Western mind if you can say. Even though I am grateful to the West for her upbringng I am also so grateful to the East for she had helped balanced what I needed. I am more an Easterner in my personality and coming home became for me a stronger vocation then if I had only lived out all my life there. That is why I do appreciate my Western upbringing. It gave to me another life so I can now use it when teaching to the Orthodox children and youth. I find my heart actually burns more when I am in the East. That does not mean it does not burn for the West. It just burns with more intensisty when I am in the East but a longing to present if you can the West when I can.

I sense it is like more when you grow up within your family. You love your family but then inside your heart there is a burning to want something that can be for you a deeper longing for. That can be an anology for marriage. You love your first family but God gives you this burning desire to enter into a relationship with someone that will be for you a deeper and more anchored structure. The West became my first family and now I entered even to a more deeper relationship when I discovered I was Orthodox. This does not take away my relationship with the West but further enhances it. It has helped me to appreciate the West and now more the East and all the gifts God can give to us.

My experience was different. I was born and raised in the Latin Church and stayed there for decades. But as soon as I was exposed to the East…it was like a revelation. I have found the completeness of the faith there.

 

[chimo]

My experience was different. I was born and raised in the Latin Church and stayed there for decades. But as soon as I was exposed to the East…it was like a revelation. I have found the completeness of the faith there.

I am glad and happy for you.

 

[dvdjs]

Economy cannot be used to exceed what is afforded in the canons.

Not sure what you mean here. By economy, the letter of the law is set aside. One could consider this action as going beyond the canons, or could assert that by adhering to the spirit of philanthropos and good care of the household one is not exceeding “what is afforded in the canons”. This argument is just semantical.

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.

I am not so quick to judge the situation.
I am reluctant to judge that the EPs during that long era had anything but the best interests of his flock at heart, and coped as best as they could with a terribly hostile regime to support their flock with the love of Christ.

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.

I am not entirely sure what to make of this canon - was its meaning ever really spelled out? Was it ever received by the whole church? I understand there there continues to be discussion within the EOC to this day about what this canon means, and whether the EP is over-reaching.

But the existence of this canon tells an interesting story. If all Bishops are equal, why did Constantinople grasp beyond autocephaly, to a Patriarchate, to second place in dignity, to “all the privileges afforded to Old Rome”? What does this mean?

… 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…

I am not entirely sure of your point here, except to a perhaps agree that idea that the fear of the imperial papacy ought to be tempered by examination of the actual history of the EP. Your idea that EP could used the Emperor’s might to further its power is interesting. I think that from the establishment of Constantinople, many of the EP’s did reach for that. The gravity of Rome, however, made that difficult. Moreover, during the first millenium and beyond, there are examples of overreaching by the EP that put them in collision with both Pope and Emperor. In the end, there was really only one way to best Rome.

 

[RyanBlack]

Your profile field reads Eastern Catholic. I presumed you were a Catholic in communion with Rome. If you are… well it’s clearly obvious that you care more for being paly with the Eastern Orthodox than you do for the truths of the Faith.

Are you always this rude and insulting? And do you think that you will actually persuade me of anything by approaching me in this manner?

I suppose, when he was just a mere cardinal, that it was obvious that Pope Benedict cared more for being paly with the Eastern Orthodox than he did for the truths of the Faith when he suggested that reunion should take place on the basis of the shared faith of the first millenium. Care to be so rude and insulting to him as you have been to me?

 

[CopticChristian]

And the divinity of the Son was not put beyond question until the First Ecumenical Council in the 300s!

It is so necessary now to believe because the Church in Her wisdom has so decided that it must be believed. It’s always been a reality. And the Church has simply decided to put the matter beyond any question. It must be believed because the Church has told us that it must. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

I’ve read conflicting accounts. If it is merely a matter of semantics—which many believe it to be—then my comment was entirely valid. If it is a case of a denial of the double-procession of the Holy Ghost as from one principle… then certainly the problem goes beyond semantics.

In that case instead of recommending a Latin dictionary I would rather prescribe prayer and fasting that they may abandon their error and assent to the immemorial teaching of the Church.



Your profile field reads Eastern Catholic. I presumed you were a Catholic in communion with Rome. If you are… well it’s clearly obvious that you care more for being paly with the Eastern Orthodox than you do for the truths of the Faith.

LD,

Your profile reads…

Current job
Wandering the internet hunting the infidel and the heretic!

How’s that workin for ya?

 

[dvdjs]

But after the scourge of communism…the faith of Russia is an example to the world…and I will stand by my thoughts about Russia converting the world!

Many countries withstood the scourge of Communism. Many stood steadfastly against the communist authorities and their collaborators. You will find people in those countries to bbe far more invested in religious practice than the 5% in Russia. These countries are a far better example to the world.

 

[lax16]

Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church are bishops of patriarchal sees. As bishops, they certainly have a teaching role.

There are teachings that the Orthodox consider to be matters of dogma, and are therefore binding on the faithful. So yes, there are teachings that must be followed by the Eastern Orthodox faithful.

Most Orthodox parish priests are married; however, a priest is not permitted to marry after ordination. Orthodox bishops are not married.

RB - Is there a “catechism” that explains all of the dogmatic teachings of Orthodoxy?
Can a priest counsel a couple and grant permission for certain things (that may or may not be dogma) such as birth control or permission to miss church on Sundays due to a busy work week?
(I know an Orthodox family and this is their situation. What I am wondering is 1. are these things dogma in Orthodoxy and 2. can an Orthodox priest have this much “power” to instruct on these matters on a one to one basis?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Which is what he has been doing except that it is not his habit to veto the voice of his bishops. On the other hand it is his prerogative to veto any heretic teaching and declaration, he being the defender of the Church.

Pastor Aeternus says the contrary. Even if we say the Pope would require a council to decide on a matter, he is still the only infallible voice. Even if all bishops agree to something and the Pope would object, if he on his own will decides not to declare something infallibly, then it is not declared infallible for whatever reason.

And there is that issue of universal ordinary jurisdiction which the Orthodox bishops will never ever agree to.

Plus there have been other decrees from the Vatican which places the Pope above all other bishops. In whatever capacity that may be, that is unacceptable to the Orthodox.

 

[CalCatholic]

I haven’t read all 12 pages of the usual ‘bickering’ that follows a tread like this one, but as I was preparing to read in mass for this Sunday, the second reading from St. Paul to the Colossians seemed appropriate to this thread:

“Put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved,
heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
bearing with one another and forgiving one another;
if one has a grievance against another;
as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.
And over all these put on love,
that is, the bond of perfection.
And let the peace of Christ control your hearts,
the peace which you were also called into one body.
And be thankful.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,
as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another,
singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs
with gratitude in your hearts to God.
And whatever you do, in word or in deed,
do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:12-17)

Take a deep breath, and let us pray for unity and the restoration of the Body of Christ!!!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not sure what you mean here. By economy, the letter of the law is set aside. One could consider this action as going beyond the canons, or could assert that by adhering to the spirit of philanthropos and good care of the household one is not exceeding “what is afforded in the canons”. This argument is just semantical.

A bishop cannot just take upon himself prerogatives in dealing with other bishops which are not afforded to him in the canons. That would be chaos.

I am not so quick to judge the situation.
I am reluctant to judge that the EPs during that long era had anything but the best interests of his flock at heart, and coped as best as they could with a terribly hostile regime to support their flock with the love of Christ.

I am sure that is what Patriarch Sergius and the monothelites were thinking too, when they used imperial power to support their heresy. Similarly, I am sure that when entire Episcopalian parishes go into schism, the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy thinks that they are just doing what is best in suing to retain their property. That does not, however, excuse the fact that using civil authority to enforce matters of church governance contradicts the Scriptures. It is a grave matter which causes scandal and makes a mockery of Christ.

I am not entirely sure what to make of this canon - was its meaning ever really spelled out? Was it ever received by the whole church? I understand there there continues to be discussion within the EOC to this day about what this canon means, and whether the EP is over-reaching.

It is rather open ended, but since the only canonical prerogative given to Rome that I can recall was appellate jurisdiction, it makes sense to interpret it this way.

But the existence of this canon tells an interesting story. If all Bishops are equal, why did Constantinople grasp beyond autocephaly, to a Patriarchate, to second place in dignity, to “all the privileges afforded to Old Rome”? What does this mean?

All bishops are equal in terms of the inherent power of the episcopacy. Were patriarchs unequal, we would ordain them by a different rite.

I am not entirely sure of your point here, except to a perhaps agree that idea that the fear of the imperial papacy ought to be tempered by examination of the actual history of the EP. Your idea that EP could used the Emperor’s might to further its power is interesting. I think that from the establishment of Constantinople, many of the EP’s did reach for that. The gravity of Rome, however, made that difficult. Moreover, during the first millenium and beyond, there are examples of overreaching by the EP that put them in collision with both Pope and Emperor. In the end, there was really only one way to best Rome.

That is not at all what I had written. I made no comment on the bishop of Constantinople trying to “further its power.” It is an error to interpret history teleologically, especially when it comes to attributing some sort of motive to an extra-personal entity. It would be like saying that the American presidency deliberately expanded its power beyond what is constitutional, when in fact it was a gradual process of expansion which occurred only under certain presidents, and even then, it is not as if growing in power were the united purpose or goal of the American presidency that each American president strived for. It is ridiculous then to set up a fantastical struggle of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to “take power” (as if this were some united purpose of the Ecumenical Patriarchate throughout history), which set it on a collision course with Rome. This ignores the fact that there were strong bishops of Constantinople, weak bishops, bishops who had favorable attitudes towards Rome, and bishops who had hostile attitudes towards Rome, even after the conventional date of the schism. The history of the EP is far from consistent, and given the fact that these extra prerogatives picked up by the EP were never added to canon law, it can hardly be used to justify to us the current position of the papacy both dogmatically and in canon law.