J
JJ452
Guest
I wouldn’t say they were doing “just fine”; but I can’t disagree with your point.
Thank You
- Status
Thank You
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The Orthodox Church considers that in a reunited Church the Bishop of Rome would be the first among equals according to:Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Oxford: Penguin, 1993), 214–17.
Also according to Catholic answers magazine:
“The bishop of Rome, according to the Orthodox, is simply “first among equals” (primus inter pares). They readily concede to him a “primacy of honor,” which they say was acknowledged in early centuries.”
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter-and-the-eastern-orthodox
R
RyanBlack
Guest
You wrote this: “Of course there’s some peaceful Muslims, maybe .0000000000000001%. Almost every criminal act, every terrorist act in the world is committed by Muslims.” Really, only .0000000000000001% of Muslims are peaceful? Almost every criminal act, every terrorist act in the world is commited by Muslims? These remarks are so hyperbolic that they are beyond absurd.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
What they concede and what Rome accepts is the issue. However, it seems today with Pope Francis, he is a bit more open minded imo. Patriarch Bartholomew was at St Peters square with him this morning. They all get on well now, I can’t see what they are waiting for. Bishop Ware is a good read.
A
AnthonyJ
Guest
I saw the Patriarch of the Antiochian Orthodox Church at the Mass as well. It does seem like relations between the Churches are getting better.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well I have not read any news that says that
I don’t believe that you accomplish anything good by making those claims, but it might hurt those of us who make legitimate complaints against atrocities by Muslims.
J
JJ452
Guest
I certainly agree, and it was wonderful to see it.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
In the Eastern Church traditionally a Patriarch was head of a Church that was in the Byzantine Empire, while a Catholicos was the head of a Church like Georgia, that was outside of the Empire. Of course in modern times the title Patriarch has been recognized for Moscow which was not in the Empire, but claimed to be the heir to the Byzantine Empire.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
His Beatitude John X the new Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was in Rome last week to visit the Pope.
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
An Ecumenical Council teaching Heresy?
So a Pope can toss out pieces of an Ecumenical Council on a whim? I suppose in Latin eyes this justifies the addition of The Filoque in flagrant violation of a Council…it also explains why the Latin Church was fuzzy on which councils were “Ecumenical” for centuries.
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
What we are “waiting for” is for all of these theological issues to be hammered out. Old Rome has a 1000 years of Innovations which we are trying to work on, some which can be discussed and some of which are serious blocks to resuming Communion.
+HAH Bartholomew is a good and holy man, and our relations are friendly, HOWEVER this doesn’t mean that Communion is ready to be resumed. Many in the Latin Church Misinterpret +HAH…He is not the “Orthodox Pope”…he doesn’t have jurisdiction beyond the Canonical territory of Constantinople.
theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2013/09/ecumenical-patriarch-we-are-not-betraying-orthodoxy-we-are-not-ecumenists/
Here is the big quote:
"Addressing Patriarch Neophyte of Bulgaria, who is making a peaceful visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Bartholomew said among other things that he is neither betraying Orthodoxy nor is he supportive of ecumenistic concepts, as they say.
“Through this strategy we are not betraying Orthodoxy, as criticized, nor do we support ecumenistic concepts, but we proclaim to the heterodox and to all the truth of Orthodoxy,” he said characteristically.
The Ecumenical Patriarch made extensive references to the reactions that exist regarding theological dialogue both in Bulgaria and other countries, noting that these actions are aimed at mutual understanding and for the acceptance in time “by the heterodox of the one Orthodox faith.”
This certainly doesn’t mean that he is against all Ecumenical Dialogue, as his visits with the Latin Pope show. What it means, is that like many in the Latin Church he is against “false ecumenism”…
We view it in the same way as you do…Dialogue to bring everyone to the one true Faith, in Love and Charity…for us, this means Orthodoxy. This should not be a shock to our Latin neighbors, as the Latin Church asserts the same.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
Western Rite Orthodox are mostly converts from Anglicanism.
Almost every Eastern Catholic I have known has resented what they consider the Latin domination of their Church. The Uniates are not a model for Orthodox Catholic reunion. In fact the Unia is a barrier to reunion. The only valid model is a return to the way things were before 1054. That is an agreement by both sides to the belief and practices of the ancient undivided Church with the Bishop of Rome having a primacy of honor, but not jurisdiction and Rome accepting the authority of an Ecumenical Council as the highest authority of the Church. We were united on that basis for 1,000 years and could be again.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I have to admit that both sides have been stubborn at times. On the filioque, there are two separate issues. It is true that the Orthodox Church cannot accept any changes in the Creed as approved by the first two Ecumenical Councils. However, there is a way to explain the doctrine of the filioque as the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son or through the Son that is quit acceptable to Orthodox theology. On papal infallibility, that has only been Roman Catholic dogma since 1870. I would not think that union that would mean absorption of Orthodoxy by Roman Catholicism, but union between equals with the West keeping its distinctive forms of worship and organization, and Eastern Orthodox keeping their distinctive forms of worship and organization just as they did before 1054. There are actually very few doctrines that divide us. Many of these are really only different expressions of the same concept that can be resolved by a little flexibility on both sides. We both agree on the same basic dogma.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
It is nice to have hope, of course, but I find that Roman Catholics tend to believe that there is agreement on basic issues, whereas Eastern Orthodox disagree. To see how well the Churches get along, one can look at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre which is occupied by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Armenians. When an Eastern Orthodox priest asked a Franciscan if he could kindly shut a door so that the Eastern Orthodox faithful who were having a parade would not be distracted, the RC Franciscan refused and a bloody fight broke out, sending Orthodox priests to the hospital with bloody noses and broken bones. That is the type of charity and good will that exists in situations like that.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Everyone is waiting on something, and on salvation. Rome is waiting on something also.
Shouldn’t be a “shock” either that we consider it " Catholicism" and the exercise here has been on “innovation” and yours. And its not the only one either as shocking as that me be for you.
None of this is a shock to me. What’s a shock is how either side always insists they are “absolutely” right. In fact I find it laughable. As far as communion, there’s nothing false about my take on this. When everyone steps off the high horse and descends back to earth I believe from level ground then anything is possible.
And yes I hear you about that uppity Eastern chant about innovations, and btw that’s exactly why I trotted out the history lesson on “First Among Equals”. That’s an innovation of the “East”. You may want to argue otherwise in ignorance and insist this is indeed history. But what will NOT occur here is a historic link provided from the Ecumenical Councils nor and Early Church Father, though I already envision attempts to dig up some like thinking to pass off as proof. However I read this history also.
I’m convicted by the very factual reality that who the Son sets free is free indeed. That didn’t occur for me inside the Divine Liturgy nor the TLM, though I was raised in the TLM. So yes, I do see this a bit more open minded. So no I don’t feel God is restricted by either nor confined to either.
Everyone has made mistakes out here. That’s the paradox, sinners who must not sin. There is no exception to the rule. If it sooths the soul and gives great relief for one to believe Rome made more than others, then by all means add a couple extra notch’s to Romes side. But remember the paradox.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I’m with you Gary. I’m a neophyte on subjects like what it would really take to reconcile the east and west churches. But, I’ve always heard that the word “Catholic” really means “universal” and I’m pretty sure that it was what Jesus wanted. I think He wanted --or accepted perhaps–that there would be Christians and Jews and probably Hindus and muslims–but to have his own church–Christians–divided into so many factions was not His wish I imagine. And in the very beginning it it wasn’t that way! There were Roman Christians and Christians in Jerusalem and so on and they had their own inherent cultures and difference–and some were poor and some more wealthy–they ate different foods, Jewish Christians were still more kosher and churches in the gentile world not kosher–but they all were Christians! How awesome would it be if everyone would come together in humility, agree on the important issues, leave the things like liturgy etc alone as much as possible so that each culture could draw from the best of what we each have–and again be simply Christians? Just Christians—with no other adjective required?
M
MorEphrem
Guest
And I think this is a major impediment towards the unification with the OO: Grecocentric dialogue of unification
. As my peers say, “er’ryday.”
P
Peter_J
Guest
On a side note, curiously I have found that speaking with Orthodox over the last dozen years or so has helped me to relate to my friends in the Church of England when they ask why they and we can’t be in full communion. (You’ll note, of course, that I say “relate to” not “agree with”. My answer to them remains the same: we can’t be in full communion with them until they accept Catholic teaching.)
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
Answer to Gary:
“Shouldn’t be a “shock” either that we consider it " Catholicism” and the exercise here has been on “innovation” and yours. And its not the only one either as shocking as that me be for you."
----We too also call ourselves Catholic. We regard the application of the word “Catholic” to Old Rome exclusively as unfortunate and inaccurate.
“None of this is a shock to me. What’s a shock is how either side always insists they are “absolutely” right. In fact I find it laughable. As far as communion, there’s nothing false about my take on this. When everyone steps off the high horse and descends back to earth I believe from level ground then anything is possible.”
----And what exactly is our High Horse? I will completely concede that the Polemics on the Orthodox Side have been oftentimes just as heated, and just as uncharitable. We are all sinners, this is not new. All we are wanting is a return to the way things were before. The Creed unaltered and the acknowledgement of the dignity and EQUALITY of the various Patriarchates and Episcopal thrones is a start, as that is how it was from early on. We are not the ones who attempted to assert Jurisdiction over Rome. It was the other way around.
“And yes I hear you about that uppity Eastern chant about innovations, and btw that’s exactly why I trotted out the history lesson on “First Among Equals”. That’s an innovation of the “East”. You may want to argue otherwise in ignorance and insist this is indeed history. But what will NOT occur here is a historic link provided from the Ecumenical Councils nor and Early Church Father, though I already envision attempts to dig up some like thinking to pass off as proof. However I read this history also.”
----Uppity? Since you already dismiss out of hand any rebuttal I would attempt to make, I won’t bother. You read the histories, well so do I…what does that prove?
“I’m convicted by the very factual reality that who the Son sets free is free indeed. That didn’t occur for me inside the Divine Liturgy nor the TLM, though I was raised in the TLM. So yes, I do see this a bit more open minded. So no I don’t feel God is restricted by either nor confined to either.”
----So your personal experience is supposed to be authoritative? What you experienced is what YOU experienced, it is at best anecdotal and I would say that the opposite occurred for me. I grew closer to God at the Divine Liturgy than I ever did at the Pauline Mass. That is my experience, but that isn’t exactly an ironclad proof of anything. You write as if I am “less open minded”…I am not sure what you mean.
“Everyone has made mistakes out here. That’s the paradox, sinners who must not sin. There is no exception to the rule. If it sooths the soul and gives great relief for one to believe Rome made more than others, then by all means add a couple extra notch’s to Romes side. But remember the paradox.”
----This isn’t about some invisible tally of slights. This is about an Apostolic See that went astray…this is about reconciliation. We admit our sins, Metropolitan Kallistos documents them fairly well in his book the Orthodox Church…perhaps we bear some responsibility in the Latin Church’s slip into schism…Rome was ignored and treated as a cultural backwater, and in turn it went into the arms of the Frankish Kings and all sorts of shenanigans resulted. We will freely talk about all of this. What Rome has to do in return, is acknowledge the novelty of which Universal Jurisdiction stands (among other teachings) and how far from Orthodoxy they have strayed in the last 1000 years. I would say that part of that is our fault. It doesn’t justify schism, but it certainly lessens the bitterness.
What say you?
“Shouldn’t be a “shock” either that we consider it " Catholicism” and the exercise here has been on “innovation” and yours. And its not the only one either as shocking as that me be for you."
----We too also call ourselves Catholic. We regard the application of the word “Catholic” to Old Rome exclusively as unfortunate and inaccurate.
“None of this is a shock to me. What’s a shock is how either side always insists they are “absolutely” right. In fact I find it laughable. As far as communion, there’s nothing false about my take on this. When everyone steps off the high horse and descends back to earth I believe from level ground then anything is possible.”
----And what exactly is our High Horse? I will completely concede that the Polemics on the Orthodox Side have been oftentimes just as heated, and just as uncharitable. We are all sinners, this is not new. All we are wanting is a return to the way things were before. The Creed unaltered and the acknowledgement of the dignity and EQUALITY of the various Patriarchates and Episcopal thrones is a start, as that is how it was from early on. We are not the ones who attempted to assert Jurisdiction over Rome. It was the other way around.
“And yes I hear you about that uppity Eastern chant about innovations, and btw that’s exactly why I trotted out the history lesson on “First Among Equals”. That’s an innovation of the “East”. You may want to argue otherwise in ignorance and insist this is indeed history. But what will NOT occur here is a historic link provided from the Ecumenical Councils nor and Early Church Father, though I already envision attempts to dig up some like thinking to pass off as proof. However I read this history also.”
----Uppity? Since you already dismiss out of hand any rebuttal I would attempt to make, I won’t bother. You read the histories, well so do I…what does that prove?
“I’m convicted by the very factual reality that who the Son sets free is free indeed. That didn’t occur for me inside the Divine Liturgy nor the TLM, though I was raised in the TLM. So yes, I do see this a bit more open minded. So no I don’t feel God is restricted by either nor confined to either.”
----So your personal experience is supposed to be authoritative? What you experienced is what YOU experienced, it is at best anecdotal and I would say that the opposite occurred for me. I grew closer to God at the Divine Liturgy than I ever did at the Pauline Mass. That is my experience, but that isn’t exactly an ironclad proof of anything. You write as if I am “less open minded”…I am not sure what you mean.
“Everyone has made mistakes out here. That’s the paradox, sinners who must not sin. There is no exception to the rule. If it sooths the soul and gives great relief for one to believe Rome made more than others, then by all means add a couple extra notch’s to Romes side. But remember the paradox.”
----This isn’t about some invisible tally of slights. This is about an Apostolic See that went astray…this is about reconciliation. We admit our sins, Metropolitan Kallistos documents them fairly well in his book the Orthodox Church…perhaps we bear some responsibility in the Latin Church’s slip into schism…Rome was ignored and treated as a cultural backwater, and in turn it went into the arms of the Frankish Kings and all sorts of shenanigans resulted. We will freely talk about all of this. What Rome has to do in return, is acknowledge the novelty of which Universal Jurisdiction stands (among other teachings) and how far from Orthodoxy they have strayed in the last 1000 years. I would say that part of that is our fault. It doesn’t justify schism, but it certainly lessens the bitterness.
What say you?
M
malphono
Guest
In re the OO, it seems to me that an official and formal clarification, on the part of both Rome and the EO, regarding Chalcedon would go a long way. At the least, I think it’s a necessary first step.And I think this is a major impediment towards the unification with the OO: Grecocentric dialogue of unification
- Status