Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[1Tim215Mommy]

Keep in mind Ephesus at this point in time was not a city. It was a miserable little village that had long lost its glory and population. Mark was not an important bishop at all. The only reason the village still had a bishop was because of its tradition with Mary and the Evangelist. He was making a name for himself and that was all.

And Jesus was born in a stable and lived as a foreigner in Egypt so he must not have been important either because of his humble circumstances.

And Joseph was only a slave, so he shouldn’t have amounted to anything so the fact that he ran Egypt as second in command is worthless because of his humble beginnings, after all he was 11th child born to his father.

I could go on to show how silly your false accusations are to an Orthodox Saint are, but I won’t.

Please, you really need to quit with the insults, it’s highly offensive. Plus, God-willing, some day you will be lucky enough to meet St. Mark in heaven, you don’t want that to be an akward moment where you have to apologize to him for insulting him and slandering his good name and his holy works:blush:, you might as well make amends now with him and the rest of us that you’ve insulted by insulting him. We’re all family, Orthodox living and reposed.

 

[joe371]

Keep in mind Ephesus at this point in time was not a city. It was a miserable little village that had long lost its glory and population. Mark was not an important bishop at all. The only reason the village still had a bishop was because of its tradition with Mary and the Evangelist. He was making a name for himself and that was all.

Why would you say that about saint Mark?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Why would you say that about saint Mark?

Maybe Irenaeus is trying pick a fight with St. Mark? Maybe there’s MMA in heaven & he wants to duke it out with him? :slapfight:

In all seriousness, thank you for correcting your fellow Catholic. I hope he takes the correction and make an apology as it’s truly insulting to bash another Church’s Saints. Do unto others, right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Keep in mind Ephesus at this point in time was not a city. It was a miserable little village that had long lost its glory and population. Mark was not an important bishop at all. The only reason the village still had a bishop was because of its tradition with Mary and the Evangelist. He was making a name for himself and that was all.

What is the point? The value of a bishop to the entire Church is not based on the size of the city he is a bishop of. All bishops are equals. St. Mark of Ephesus is not highly regarded because of the “of Ephesus” part. We just refer to him as “of Ephesus” simply to distinguish him from the many other St. Marks out there, not because being of Ephesus has any bearing.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

You’ve just proved the point, the false union was purely a political move damanded by the Patriarch and sealed by unfaithful bishops. Thanks be to God for holy St. Mark of Ephesus who at great personal loss held firm to the Faith of the Apostles.

Furthermore, Constantinople still exists and our Patriarch is still there, the secular city is called Istanbul. The Christian Faith is still alive despite Islam just as it was before there was a Christian Empire when the city was still called Byzantium. Empires come & go, but the Orthodox Faith remained fully “Orthodox” in Faith due to the amazing St. Mark of Ephesus and the Orthodox Christian Faithful who would not accept anything less than “Orthodox” Orthodoxy.

P.S. - I’m sure you would want someone calling Catholic Saints evil, so I do hope you apologize for the trendous offense you have cause all Orthodox Christians by calling one of our Saints “evil”. Shame on you! I hope you will print an apology.

I said the deed was evil, and I stand by it. Love seeks unity, i.e. that is why we want to be with our friends, spouses, children, that is why we desire communion with God. Love always seeks unity. Secondly, to say that all of your bishops and patriarchs were unfaithful is an amazing statement. To say they are all more interested in politics than orthodoxy is an even worse admission. So if they were all heretics how did they produce valid holy orders for succession? As bishops and patriarchs they must have ordained most if not all of the priests, not mention all that chrism oil, that was not really blessed. I don’t believe they were heretics, but to disregard all of the theological discussion and distill it to military support lacks any credibility. Furthermore, Istanbul as Constantinople may be geographically correct, but its pretty obvious what i meant by its non-existence in that society. If there is no mission to convert people to Christ, there is no church there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I said the deed was evil, and I stand by it. Love seeks unity, i.e. that is why we want to be with our friends, spouses, children, that is why we desire communion with God. Love always seeks unity. Secondly, to say that all of your bishops and patriarchs were unfaithful is an amazing statement. To say they are all more interested in politics than orthodoxy is an even worse admission. So if they were all heretics how did they produce valid holy orders for succession? As bishops and patriarchs they must have ordained most if not all of the priests, not mention all that chrism oil, that was not really blessed. I don’t believe they were heretics, but to disregard all of the theological discussion and distill it to military support lacks any credibility. Furthermore, Istanbul as Constantinople may be geographically correct, but its pretty obvious what i meant by its non-existence in that society. If there is no mission to convert people to Christ, there is no church there.

There is such a thing as false unity. Unity for the sake of unity is not true unity. You are trying to paint St. Mark as an evildoer just because he opposed a union based solely on political gain and not true theological and spiritual communion? Such a union wouldn’t have lasted long anyway because it is built on such shaky ground. St. Mark was correct to oppose it.

 

[jimmy]

I wonder how it is though that the Eastern Patriarch and the Emperor, thought they had an agreement then, because the council did not end with a stalemate.

Thhey might have thought they had an agreement, but unlike in the west the signature of one man isn’t infallible, so it doesn’t matter how strong their feelings of agreemment were.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Thhey might have thought they had an agreement, but unlike in the west the signature of one man isn’t infallible, so it doesn’t matter how strong their feelings of agreemment were.

The West does not claim signatures are infallible. Secondly, councils are not ended on feelings.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

What is the point? The value of a bishop to the entire Church is not based on the size of the city he is a bishop of. All bishops are equals. St. Mark of Ephesus is not highly regarded because of the “of Ephesus” part. We just refer to him as “of Ephesus” simply to distinguish him from the many other St. Marks out there, not because being of Ephesus has any bearing.

My point was captured in my last sentence and it was about ambition. He was making a name for himself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My point was captured in my last sentence and it was about ambition. He was making a name for himself.

Oh, but you can make that accusation on anyone who is “famous” today. Was Peter simply making a name for himself when he keeps trying to get Jesus’ attention? Was John making a name for himself by calling himself the disciple Jesus loved the most? Was St. Maximos the Confessor, a simple lay monk, simply making a name for himself when he went against virtually all the bishops of the East who were teaching monothelitism?

C’mon now, it’s easy to hurl ad hominens just to try and discredit someone.

 

[jimmy]

The West does not claim signatures are infallible. Secondly, councils are not ended on feelings.

Regardless, Florence meant nothing to the east because it was rejected. The fact is that the authority of a few bishops at a council isn’t absolute in the OC. Just because they signed off on the council doesn’t mean that the Orthodox accepted it. It means a few bishops and the emperor did, and that is all. In the OC there is a far more organic relationship between the church and the bishop. The whole church is necessary, not just the bishop. Simply because the bishop signs something doesn’t make it true.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Love seeks unity, i.e. that is why we want to be with our friends, spouses, children, that is why we desire communion with God. Love always seeks unity.

Love may seek unity, but not at all costs. Truth utterly repels Falsehood. There can be no authentic unity with falsehood.

Secondly, to say that all of your bishops and patriarchs were unfaithful is an amazing statement.

This statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the Orthodox Church. There have been plenty of unfaithful bishops, that isn’t the end of the world for the Church because Orthodoxy always prevails even when taken to near extintion, as it did during the Arian heresy for example.

Furthermore, Istanbul as Constantinople may be geographically correct, but its pretty obvious what i meant by its non-existence in that society. If there is no mission to convert people to Christ, there is no church there.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is alive and well, persecuted but alive an well with missions and churches all over the world. And I even own a set of 3 dvds “Papal Voyage to the Ecumenical Patriarch” of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to our Patriarch Bartholomew from 11.29.2006 to 12.01.2006 in Constantinople where your Pope attended an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

My point was captured in my last sentence and it was about ambition. He was making a name for himself.

Making a name for himself? Are you joking? Have you Any idea of the tremendous hardships he endured for refusing to reject Orthodoxy? Please quit your bashing of Saints.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Regardless, Florence meant nothing to the east because it was rejected. The fact is that the authority of a few bishops at a council isn’t absolute in the OC. Just because they signed off on the council doesn’t mean that the Orthodox accepted it. It means a few bishops and the emperor did, and that is all. In the OC there is a far more organic relationship between the church and the bishop. The whole church is necessary, not just the bishop. Simply because the bishop signs something doesn’t make it true.

Yes, what you’ve written here is true.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

There is such a thing as false unity. Unity for the sake of unity is not true unity. You are trying to paint St. Mark as an evildoer just because he opposed a union based solely on political gain and not true theological and spiritual communion? Such a union wouldn’t have lasted long anyway because it is built on such shaky ground. St. Mark was correct to oppose it.

Unity must be based on Truth. But you cannot say that all of your bishops and patriarchs, and the emperor were all heretics for agreeing as a matter of faith, purgatory, filioque, primatial structures, etc, etc. They individually signed it as truth. It’s not credible to say it was not based on truth or you have to say they were all heretics. Furthermore, there must have been agreement at the council, or it would not have ended with everyone thinking there was unity. It just does not work that way. How Mark of Ephesus fits into this, I can only deduce that his signature was not needed until later when the East suddenly claimed they had to have an Orthodox Synod to ratify.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Regardless, Florence meant nothing to the east because it was rejected. The fact is that the authority of a few bishops at a council isn’t absolute in the OC. Just because they signed off on the council doesn’t mean that the Orthodox accepted it. It means a few bishops and the emperor did, and that is all. In the OC there is a far more organic relationship between the church and the bishop. The whole church is necessary, not just the bishop. Simply because the bishop signs something doesn’t make it true.

It was composed of 700 not a few as you say. Or do you think the Byzantine Emperor (who really wanted unity) and Patriarch were on an Italian vacation, and decided to bring only a few so as to accomplish nothing.

 

[Pilosopo]

My point is that Eastern Catholics and Orthodox are not the same. Telling people that they are getting Orthodoxy in the Eastern Catholic Church is misleading them. You think you are preventing them from becoming Orthodox, but it is a more sure fire way that they become Orthodox. Because they go to the Eastern Catholic Church and find out what they are looking for is not there, so where else do they go to but the Orthodox Church.

Thanks, this sounds right. At least I seem to find a cogent explanation.

I also mean to reply to the OP that I don’t think Catholic practice was meant to be matched with other faiths, and I know at some point attempts to make some type of mix and reconciliation was officially discouraged if not outright wrong. [With that said, a little more research into official teachings is in order.]
Do we experiment or explore? I guess we do, with the goal of finding the one true faith, what we can truly embrace in an authentic manner.

 

[Mickey]

Regardless, Florence meant nothing to the east because it was rejected. The fact is that the authority of a few bishops at a council isn’t absolute in the OC. Just because they signed off on the council doesn’t mean that the Orthodox accepted it. It means a few bishops and the emperor did, and that is all. In the OC there is a far more organic relationship between the church and the bishop. The whole church is necessary, not just the bishop. Simply because the bishop signs something doesn’t make it true.

Amen. That “council” was rife with scandal. The Great Synaxaristes of the Holy Orthodox Church has a superb account of the many problems associated with Florence. Thank God for St Mark of Ephesus.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

 

[dvdjs]

There was an interruption. Have you forgotten that Barbarians were knocking at the door of Rome for decades, even the Pope himself had to fell to Constantinople for the time to avoid the conflict. The West at this time largely didn’t even exist. How can there be advancements in the West? It’s funny when people use this period to accuse the East of being the bedrock of heresy. How can the West come up with heretical ideas where there aren’t as much thought given to the faith as there was in the East when the West was mostly barbarian?

Yes, of course the Dark Ages existed. And the capacity for intellectual pursuits was limited. But the idea that the East was “brushed off” is not supportable. (And the “largely didn’t even exist” part is … whatever.)

The work that did go on, and the pre-renaissance resurgence of activity with the schoolmen, maintained intellectual links to the East, and that linkage has continued up the present times. It also began the intellectual traditions that are championed throughout the world. I think it is very obvious that the disconnect is in the other direction. The East has had a very narrow view, and a strong NIH (not-invented-here) bias. It will be interesting to see if the East, as it arises now from its own Dark Ages, has the capacity to liberate itself from its reactionary brushing off of the West.

 

[dvdjs]

Amen. That “council” was rife with scandal. The Great Synaxaristes of the Holy Orthodox Church has a superb account of the many problems associated with Florence.

The rejection of the the council in the East is a fact of history. So is the chrononlogy.
After Florence, there was immediate controversy among the Byzantines, but the pro-union party had the upper hand, and ultimately had the union ratified and publicly promulgated. It was only after the fall, when the Sultan appointed anti-union Patriarch and forced the issue that the union was abandoned. In Russia, it was the unilateral decision of the czar to reject the union. At these decision-making levels, the impetus to reject the union were thoroughly political. Bishop Tikhon of OCADoW writes here and there about these histories, skewering those who present the party-line mythos as though it were actual history.