Calling All Orthodox!

[Jon_S_1]

Apostolic succession isn’t of question its what Catholics call communion with the Church. Orthodox are in communion with their Church. So the issue remains being in communion with each other.

I feel the same way, but it sounds like the Orthodox may view it differently?

 

[dzheremi]

Yes that’s true.

It sounds like something similar to the lifting of the ex communications would need to occurr.

That already happened for the Byzantines and the RC, and yet nothing changed. It was a first step, not a last step.

Something in which the Orthodox Church grants in their process the validity of roman apostolic succession, while the Catholic Church cakes some concession to the Orthodox " rite" in some way.

Haven’t you read where every Orthodox person in this thread has written that “validity” is a non-concept in Orthodoxy? I hate to sound negative, but this really is a good illustration of why union will not happen. Rome and those of that tradition are so enamored of their own ideas about how the Church must work that they cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and hence continue to think of union only in and on their own terms, which completely alienates the Orthodox, since they are no more able to become as Romans are than Romans are able to become as Orthodox are. Again, a complete transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, and the only thing that will bring about union.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I feel the same way, but it sounds like the Orthodox may view it differently?

They believe there is no salvation outside the church, same as Rome. Difference being the residing theological and historic issues. So they both make the same claim in this sense. Romes claim is everyone must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox claim the Bishop of Rome needs to return to the way they claim the Church has always functioned. In either case both claim there is no salvation out side of the Church.

 

[fhansen]

That already happened for the Byzantines and the RC, and yet nothing changed. It was a first step, not a last step.

Haven’t you read where every Orthodox person in this thread has written that “validity” is a non-concept in Orthodoxy? I hate to sound negative, but this really is a good illustration of why union will not happen. Rome and those of that tradition are so enamored of their own ideas about how the Church must work that they cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and hence continue to think of union only in and on their own terms, which completely alienates the Orthodox, since they are no more able to become as Romans are than Romans are able to become as Orthodox are. Again, a complete transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, and the only thing that will bring about union.

So apostolic succession is a meaningless, or useless, term to Orthodox? Or any Christian church can rightfully lay claim to it so its no sign of unity in itself?

 

[fhansen]

That already happened for the Byzantines and the RC, and yet nothing changed. It was a first step, not a last step.

Haven’t you read where every Orthodox person in this thread has written that “validity” is a non-concept in Orthodoxy? I hate to sound negative, but this really is a good illustration of why union will not happen. Rome and those of that tradition are so enamored of their own ideas about how the Church must work that they cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and hence continue to think of union only in and on their own terms, which completely alienates the Orthodox, since they are no more able to become as Romans are than Romans are able to become as Orthodox are. Again, a complete transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, and the only thing that will bring about union.

But if a transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, according to you, aren’t you doing the same thing, then, demanding that others tow the Orthodox line, thinking of union only in and on their own terms?

 

[Jon_S_1]

But if a transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, according to you, aren’t you doing the same thing, then, demanding that others tow the Orthodox line, thinking of union only in and on their own terms?

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[dzheremi]

But if a transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, according to you, aren’t you doing the same thing, then, demanding that others tow the Orthodox line, thinking of union only in and on their own terms?

Absolutely. There’s no other way around it. Neither side will give up what they see as true, but this does not mean that I would view them both as being on equal footing just because they’re “doing the same thing”. I would not be Orthodox myself if I did not believe it to be uniquely true, and hence I judge everything according to its standard as proclaimed through every Orthodox liturgy (we take that whole “lex orandi, lex credendi” thing very seriously, as you might guess). Make no mistake about it: Either Rome will return to Orthodoxy, or there will be no union.

Sorry if that was not clear in previous posts.

 

[josie_L]

But if a transformation in Rome’s way of being Christian is what is needed, according to you, aren’t you doing the same thing, then, demanding that others tow the Orthodox line, thinking of union only in and on their own terms?

I hate to sound negative, but this really is a good illustration of why union will not happen. Constantinople and those of that tradition are so enamored of their own ideas about how the Church must work that they cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and hence continue to think of union only in and on their own terms, which completely alienates Catholics, since they are no more able to become completely byzantine than byzantines are able to become completely Catholic.

 

[josie_L]

Absolutely. There’s no other way around it. Neither side will give up what they see as true, but this does not mean that I would view them both as being on equal footing just because they’re “doing the same thing”. I would not be Orthodox myself if I did not believe it to be uniquely true, and hence I judge everything according to its standard as proclaimed through every Orthodox liturgy (we take that whole “lex orandi, lex credendi” thing very seriously, as you might guess). Make no mistake about it: Either Rome will return to Orthodoxy, or there will be no union.

Sorry if that was not clear in previous posts.

I’ll leave it to God to sort out the mess, i.e., I have enough humility to pray for union without giving God orders on how it’s going to be done.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would recognise the historical connection of the roman catholic church to that of the apostles (if anyone doubts it they only need to look at history), but the content of the faith which I think is essential for aposotlic succession is also required and the Orthodox would say that the roman church lacks that content of the faith. So are you apostolic? I think the Orthodox view would be thus, you can trace your history and succession of Bishops to the apostles, but you cannot trace your faith.

 

[dzheremi]

I hate to sound negative, but this really is a good illustration of why union will not happen. Constantinople and those of that tradition are so enamored of their own ideas about how the Church must work that they cannot conceive of any other way of thinking, and hence continue to think of union only in and on their own terms, which completely alienates Catholics, since they are no more able to become completely byzantine than byzantines are able to become completely Catholic.

You have no idea how much I as an Oriental Orthodox person agree with this general reworking of my post. As I was just explaining to another person, from an OO perspective Constantinople and Rome are very close in this regard. (I don’t know that EO would even disagree with that, depending on what context it is invoked in; Constantinople is, after all, “New Rome”. )

 

[josie_L]

You have no idea how much I as an Oriental Orthodox person agree with this general reworking of my post. As I was just explaining to another person, from an OO perspective Constantinople and Rome are very close in this regard. (I don’t know that EO would even disagree with that, depending on what context it is invoked in; Constantinople is, after all, “New Rome”. )

Don’t forget Russia is “new new Rome”!

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, sure, fine…everyone is Rome. We have no particular ecclesiology wrapped up in claiming Rome in the first place, so…

 

[fhansen]

Absolutely. There’s no other way around it. Neither side will give up what they see as true, but this does not mean that I would view them both as being on equal footing just because they’re “doing the same thing”. I would not be Orthodox myself if I did not believe it to be uniquely true, and hence I judge everything according to its standard as proclaimed through every Orthodox liturgy (we take that whole “lex orandi, lex credendi” thing very seriously, as you might guess). Make no mistake about it: Either Rome will return to Orthodoxy, or there will be no union.

Sorry if that was not clear in previous posts.

I wouldn’t expect you to feel any different-since its the way most Catholics feel as well, if they’re at all interested in and aware of the issue to begin with.

 

[josie_L]

Yes, sure, fine…everyone is Rome. We have no particular ecclesiology wrapped up in claiming Rome in the first place, so…

So you guys don’t have Rome envy and/or a Roman complex?

 

[dzheremi]

So you guys don’t have Rome envy and/or a Roman complex?

Nope. As the joke goes (from famous German Coptologist and Lutheran pastor Otto Meinardus), God will take care of His people, the Copts, and will judge all others accordingly.

And if you’re ever confused about where the center of the world is, just as ask an Alexandrian…geez…

 

[chimo]

Hey Orthodox brothers and sisters,

I have been discussing with an Orthodox Christian in the comments on another site, and she said some things that surprised me. I’d love to get more opinions on these:

Do Orthodox believe Catholics have lost Apostolic Succession?

From my Orthodox friend;

"Orthodox define apostolic succession a little differently than either RC or Anglican (and obviously from other Protestants). It must include not only ordination by Orthodox bishops (bestowed through laying on of hands) traceable through the “diptychs” (lists of bishops in their succession, as with RC) back to the apostolic era, but also depends upon a bishop maintaining the dogmatic faith as once delivered intact and maintaining Eucharistic communion within the community that ordained him. Dogma intact means for the Orthodox, among other things, accepting the decrees and definitions, etc., of the first seven “Ecumenical Councils” of the first-millennium undivided apostolic and orthodox Church (including the tenets of the original version of the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed, i.e., without the “filioque” clause, as originally defined in their own context).

By this definition, I believe Orthodox consider only the canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches remain in the apostolic succession today (sorry Jon!). As the Scriptures teach, there is “one Church, one faith, one baptism,” just as the is only “one God and Father of us all” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” “Can Christ be divided?,” the Apostle Paul asks in 1 Corinthians–implying, no, but those who are members and even hierarchs within that Body can, through the sins of schism and disobedience to the fullness of the faith (heresy) be severed from that one Body."

So, I know Catholics believe orthodox have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. We can even utilize them in a pinch.

But does the same hold true for Orthodox? Is reunification further away from an Eastern point of view?

The basis for the arguments on the Orthodox side are not binding since the Orthodox do not have any authority to say that the Catholic Church have lost any Apostolic succession at all. And this can be said of the Catholic Church which also has no authority to say about the Orthodox if they choose to do so. I cannot see that either Church can say about each other regarding this when both Churches surely because of their histories and saints do possess Apostolic authority and succession. The Orthodox argument really has no strength because in their words they are forgetting the important history, development and sanctity of the Catholic Church’s saints. This important witness of saints is a guarantee of any Church’s Apostolic witness. It is very sad in these present days that both our Churches will not acknowledge the other just because the other has certain teachings that are not within the realm of each other. I sense our disunity came because we will not acknowledge the other to their right to the discovery of what truths that can be discovered within their Apostolic witness. I have often reflected on Catholic teachings and do not see them as a deterrent to my own fellowship and communion with them. I sense our unity may be more difficult to establish because we will not go by the politics and yes even to our own familiarity that we have grown up with.

The possibility of growth and yes even our spiritual growth must not be confine to any particular church. The potential of our spiritual growth will expand greatly when as Orthodox we will go beyond our own into the life and witness of the Catholic Church and this can be said of the Catholic as well who can also broaden their own experiences by discovering what is good and beneficial within the Orthodox communion. We have a lot more to share with each other if we only take this risk to find it for ourselves.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The basis for the arguments on the Orthodox side are not binding since the Orthodox do not have any authority to say that the Catholic Church have lost any Apostolic succession at all. And this can be said of the Catholic Church which also has no authority to say about the Orthodox if they choose to do so. I cannot see that either Church can say about each other regarding this when both Churches surely because of their histories and saints do possess Apostolic authority and succession. The Orthodox argument really has no strength because in their words they are forgetting the important history, development and sanctity of the Catholic Church’s saints. This important witness of saints is a guarantee of any Church’s Apostolic witness. It is very sad in these present days that both our Churches will not acknowledge the other just because the other has certain teachings that are not within the realm of each other. I sense our disunity came because we will not acknowledge the other to their right to the discovery of what truths that can be discovered within their Apostolic witness. I have often reflected on Catholic teachings and do not see them as a deterrent to my own fellowship and communion with them. I sense our unity may be more difficult to establish because we will not go by the politics and yes even to our own familiarity that we have grown up with.

The possibility of growth and yes even our spiritual growth must not be confine to any particular church. The potential of our spiritual growth will expand greatly when as Orthodox we will go beyond our own into the life and witness of the Catholic Church and this can be said of the Catholic as well who can also broaden their own experiences by discovering what is good and beneficial within the Orthodox communion. We have a lot more to share with each other if we only take this risk to find it for ourselves.

I like the visual that we are the two lungs of the church EAST and WEST. We are unique and different but together the great vitality we can give the faith would be do much greater than trying to separately.

 

[dzheremi]

I cannot see that either Church can say about each other regarding this when both Churches surely because of their histories and saints do possess Apostolic authority and succession.

And you commune with that mouth? Lord have mercy.

The possibility of growth and yes even our spiritual growth must not be confine to any particular church. The potential of our spiritual growth will expand greatly when as Orthodox we will go beyond our own into the life and witness of the Catholic Church

I don’t know who you are actually in communion with, but I can’t imagine that they teach this kind of de-materialized, pseudo-cosmic ecclesiology. Again, Lord have mercy that anyone should read your words and mistake them for the witness of Orthodox Christianity, which (generally speaking, anyway) has very clear boundaries that you apparently do not respect or perhaps do not understand.

and this can be said of the Catholic as well who can also broaden their own experiences by discovering what is good and beneficial within the Orthodox communion. We have a lot more to share with each other if we only take this risk to find it for ourselves.

Need you be reminded that the Orthodox Church is truly Catholic? I’m not even EO and I know that’s the stance of your Church. It is that of mine, as well, as our ancient texts confirm: We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of Mankind, Remember O Lord the Peace of Your One only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… (from the Litany of Peace of the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Cyril; according to the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology, we, the Orthodox Church, are the Church that is referred to in that passage, not the Roman Catholic Church.)

Again, I really hope nobody here takes Chimo’s post as evidence that Orthodox somehow believe that the Church somehow includes Rome despite the very clear fundamental differences in faith that keep us from union. Would that those differences did not exist so that we could once again partake of the same cup, but such unity will only occur at such a time as those differences no longer exist, and anything else is wishful thinking that is frankly damaging and scandalous to hear from anyone claiming to be Orthodox. There is one Church, not two or three or more.

 

[Jon_S_1]

And you commune with that mouth? Lord have mercy.

I don’t know who you are actually in communion with, but I can’t imagine that they teach this kind of de-materialized, pseudo-cosmic ecclesiology. Again, Lord have mercy that anyone should read your words and mistake them for the witness of Orthodox Christianity, which (generally speaking, anyway) has very clear boundaries that you apparently do not respect or perhaps do not understand.

Need you be reminded that the Orthodox Church is truly Catholic? I’m not even EO and I know that’s the stance of your Church. It is that of mine, as well, as our ancient texts confirm: We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of Mankind, Remember O Lord the Peace of Your One only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… (from the Litany of Peace of the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Cyril; we are the Church that is referred to in that passage.)

Again, I really hope nobody here takes Chimo’s post as evidence that Orthodox somehow believe that the Church somehow includes Rome despite the very clear fundamental differences in faith that keep us from union. Would that those differences did not exist so that we could once again partake of the same cup, but such unity will only occur at such a time as those differences no longer exist, and anything else is wishful thinking that is frankly damaging and scandalous to hear from anyone claiming to be Orthodox. There is one Church, not two or three or more.

What are your thoughts on the lifting of excommunication? Why lift the excommunication if the Patriarch felt as you do?

Serious question!