Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

  • Thread starter Thread starter DJLake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
I made no such proclamation. However, he is an Orthodox Metropolitan and his views have not been called into question by his Synod. If you criticize the trueness of his Orthodoxy, on whatever basis, that is your prerogative.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Metropolitan Kallistos has apparently said a few questionable things (not related to the RC-EO dialogue) that haven’t been addressed by a synod, so I wouldn’t take his authority too far.
 
jimmy said:
I never read romanides. I have a vague recollection that bishop Ware thought the IC was acceptable. I assume Romanides opposed it.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did say it. Although I’ve yet to read the entire context by how he said that the IC was acceptable. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a plain, “the Immaculate Conception is acceptable in Orthodoxy.”
 
neokarny said:
To be fair, Metropolitan Kallistos has apparently said a few questionable things (not related to the RC-EO dialogue) that haven’t been addressed by a synod, so I wouldn’t take his authority too far.
Click to expand...
I don’t suggest that his opinion is what is held by all Orthodox. But he does evidence allowable opinion within the EOC. A person in his position whose teachings were unacceptable, would be sanctioned.
 
jimmy said:
I never read romanides. I have a vague recollection that bishop Ware thought the IC was acceptable. I assume Romanides opposed it.
Click to expand...
Yes…he opposed it…and rightly so. Much of what he says is excellent despite dvdjs’ dislike of his writings.

Nevertheless, the IC is not an infallible doctrine in the Holy Orthodox Church.
 
dvdjs said:
I don’t suggest that his opinion is what is held by all Orthodox. But he does evidence allowable opinion within the EOC. A person in his position whose teachings were unacceptable, would be sanctioned.
Click to expand...
Given how swift the Orthodox Church moves, I’m pretty sure he’ll be sanctioned in 500 years.
 
neokarny said:
To be fair, Metropolitan Kallistos has apparently said a few questionable things (not related to the RC-EO dialogue) that haven’t been addressed by a synod, so I wouldn’t take his authority too far.
Click to expand...
Correct. He considers the IC to be theologoumenon because it was never condemned by an Orthodox synod. This is flawed thinking by His Grace. There are many heterodox innovations that have not been addressed by an Orthodox synod. 🤷
 
Mickey said:
Yes…he opposed it…and rightly so. Much of what he says is excellent despite dvdjs’ dislike of his writings.
Click to expand...
“There are many heterodox opinions:that have not been addressed by an Orthodox synod.” That doesn’t apply to Romanides?

So then you are weighing in with your own opinion?
 
ConstantineTG said:
People only accuse the Orthodox for having a chip on their shoulder because of their firm belief in their faith. It seems that people expect us to just roll over and accept anything others teach because they think they are right. Thats not how it works. Our refusal to accept such definition is from our firm belief on the truth. It is not about arrogance or whatever. Just because we don’t accept your definition, it doesn’t mean we’re crazy.

And no, ECs are not like the Orthodox. There is more to the faith than just the externals. I do not see how ECs and Orthodox have the same faith when the ECs believe in Pastor Aeternus, that the Filioque is okay, and all other things the RCs believe in that are contrary to what the Orthodox believe in. If the ECs believe that East and West are compatible, and the Orthodox don’t, how can they be believing in the same thing?
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I’m talking about. When I discuss these matters with the Orthodox, what it comes down to is “no, no, the orthodox don’t believe in the immaculate conception! they just believe… that mary… was conceived… er… without sin.” Or “no, the orthodox don’t believe in purgatory! they just believe that… well… there is a ‘period’ after death where people are, you know, cleansed…” Or “No, the Orthodox definitely do NOT believe in transubstantiation! They just believe… er… that Jesus’ body and blood and person are… um… really present in the Eucharist.”
Mmmmhmmm… :rolleyes:
 
But the opinion to be held is any opinion before the Incarnation is fine:D.

Long as its not Dogma. 😉
 
CompSciGuy said:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. When I discuss these matters with the Orthodox, what it comes down to is “no, no, the orthodox don’t believe in the immaculate conception! they just believe… that mary… was conceived… er… without sin.” Or “no, the orthodox don’t believe in purgatory! they just believe that… well… there is a ‘period’ after death where people are, you know, cleansed…” Or “No, the Orthodox definitely do NOT believe in transubstantiation! They just believe… er… that Jesus’ body and blood and person are… um… really present in the Eucharist.”
Mmmmhmmm… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
👍 🤷

They need a Synod. 😃
 
CompSciGuy said:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. When I discuss these matters with the Orthodox, what it comes down to is “no, no, the orthodox don’t believe in the immaculate conception! they just believe… that mary… was conceived… er… without sin.” Or “no, the orthodox don’t believe in purgatory! they just believe that… well… there is a ‘period’ after death where people are, you know, cleansed…” Or “No, the Orthodox definitely do NOT believe in transubstantiation! They just believe… er… that Jesus’ body and blood and person are… um… really present in the Eucharist.”
Mmmmhmmm… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What do you want us to say? Yes, we believe in it even if we don’t? Just so you guys won’t get your feelings hurt?
 
I should mention, Constantine, that I am not suggesting that EC and Orthodox are indeed the same. Communion with the pope is a big deal. But the Eastern Catholic churches are a gold mine for those who appreciate eastern Christianity and don’t want to forsake the Catholic Church. As you may have many qualms about the prospects of becoming Catholic, a Catholic naturally has qualms about the prospect of becoming Orthodox.
 
ConstantineTG said:
What do you want us to say? Yes, we believe in it even if we don’t? Just so you guys won’t get your feelings hurt?
Click to expand...
You miss my point… my point is that from discussing Catholic/Orthodox differences in theology, the Orthodox essentially do believe what the Catholics do, they just rephrase these dogmas in such a tedious, painstaking way that it sounds dreadfully like they are trying to believe the doctrines without them sounding too much like what the Romans believe. In other words, reactionary theology. This is what I find unconvincing.
 
Oh and one quick mention about “stain” and sin. We would love to credit the West here but its impossible since that honor goes to the East. 🤷

Origen “The Church received from the Apostles, the Tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of Divine mystery, knew that there is in everyone the innate “STAINS” of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”

Commentaries on Romans, 244-AD
 
CompSciGuy said:
You miss my point… my point is that from discussing Catholic/Orthodox differences in theology, the Orthodox essentially do believe what the Catholics do, they just rephrase these dogmas in such a tedious, painstaking way that it sounds dreadfully like they are trying to believe the doctrines without them sounding too much like what the Romans believe. In other words, reactionary theology. This is what I find unconvincing.
Click to expand...
No they are not. What we believe in are not rephrases, they are not merely difference in emphasis, they are not just being mystical as opposed to being scholastic. Such statements only come from people who do not understand what the Orthodox faith is about. If the Eastern Catholics believe that their faith is no different from the Roman Catholic faith, then that is their faith. That is not the Orthodox faith. Yes, we do agree on a lot of things, but we also disagree on a number of things, and these disagreements aren’t merely semantics.
 
CompSciGuy said:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. When I discuss these matters with the Orthodox, what it comes down to is “no, no, the orthodox don’t believe in the immaculate conception! they just believe… that mary… was conceived… er… without sin.” Or “no, the orthodox don’t believe in purgatory! they just believe that… well… there is a ‘period’ after death where people are, you know, cleansed…” Or “No, the Orthodox definitely do NOT believe in transubstantiation! They just believe… er… that Jesus’ body and blood and person are… um… really present in the Eucharist.”
Mmmmhmmm… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Except that what we believe isn’t the definition of those doctrines.

Yes Mary was born without sin, but we don’t believe anyone is born with sin. So I guess if you want to define it that way, everyone is immaculately conceived. But that isn’t how your church defines it.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Yes, we do agree on a lot of things, but we also disagree on a number of things, and these disagreements aren’t merely semantics.
Click to expand...
You mean like the “opinion” on when Mary was preserved? All good. Apparently the disagreement is simply “Dogma”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top