Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

[Dee_Dee_King]

The sheer irony of accusing people of being too proud to submit to the humility that is the Catholic Church…

the orthodox have no means of entering into communion with the catholic church as the orthodox have no center of authority. either the laity or one of the churches can throw any attempt of union into disarray. what the catholic church offers is a seat of unity in the see of peter.

There seems to have been some positive steps since Vatican II to address these problems, but far too slowly and unevenly in my opinion. Why would the Orthodox want reunion when historically this is what it has looked like? I don’t say this out of spite, and I personally would love to see more dialogue toward the goal of reunion, but these are things that concern me, and have been a significant source of contention for Eastern Catholics.

i agree with you and these are legitimate problems with the current catholic church.

 

[Hesychios]

the orthodox have no means of entering into communion with the catholic church as the orthodox have no center of authority…

What you should more accurately say is that the the Orthodox have all the means in the world to enter and maintain communion with any church that holds tenaciously to the Faith Once Handed through the Apostles, and the proof is the longstanding practice of nearly 2,000 years doing just that.

Today the Communion is composed of 15 self governed churches (and a few daughter churches), and it would have no problem admitting a 16th self governing church to the fold, if it were ready.

 

[Nine_Two]

the orthodox have no means of entering into communion with the catholic church as the orthodox have no center of authority. either the laity or one of the churches can throw any attempt of union into disarray. what the catholic church offers is a seat of unity in the see of peter.

We’ve done fine for centuries without a center of authority, we don’t need to borrow yours. As long as you insist on refusing to see any other perspectives, unity is impossible.

 

[Hesychios]

I’d love to eventually see another non-Western Pope. Italians had that position on lockdown for the longest time! Finally a Slav and a German, and maybe someday a Greek or Armenian or Russian?

Greeks, Armenians and Russians have Patriarchs and other Metropolitans.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

What you should more accurately say is that the the Orthodox have all the means in the world to enter and maintain communion with any church that holds tenaciously to the Faith Once Handed through the Apostles, and the proof is the longstanding practice of nearly 2,000 years doing just that.

As aforesaid, Michael, you beg the question. It sounds great and it’s certainly what you wish fervently to believe, but the evidence on the historical record doesn’t agree with your implications.

Today the Communion is composed of 15 self governed churches (and a few daughter churches), and it would have no problem admitting a 16th self governing church to the fold, if it were ready.

Clever. Let’s take it from the other direction. If the Patriarch of Constantinople and his flock wished to enter into full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and if they are free to do so, does that mean all other Orthodox Church enter with them? The answer clearly is ‘no’ so how is it more accurate to say, as you did, “the Orthodox have all the means in the world to enter and maintain communion with any church, etc.”

“The Orthodox” means all of the Orthodox Churches, doesn’t it? You seem to be saying they all act in union when it is also clear they don’t. I’m not trying to start an argument, but I’d like some clarity in these statements you make which seem to me to be contradictory. Thanks.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

We’ve done fine for centuries without a center of authority, we don’t need to borrow yours. As long as you insist on refusing to see any other perspectives, unity is impossible.

That’s at least the second time you’ve said that in recent weeks, Nine_Two. “Done fine for centuries” can mean anything from 'no one’s been assassinated (which may not be true), to ‘we’ve lived in perfect peace and agreement in service to Christ and His Gospel’ or something in between. So what does “done fine for centuries” mean?

Almost every social entity in the world has a center of authority, so the concept must have some benefits. What are your pros and cons to a central authority in the Church?

It’s not that the Catholic Church refuses to see another perspective, and I’m disappointed you think we do. We’ve seen the other perspective, as you say, for centuries. The difference is, we see the need for a center of authority and you, apparently, do not. The need we see is not one of domination/submission as you repeatedly insist, but one of unity of doctrine and purpose and a guarantor of truth irrespective of whether the Orthodox make a similar claim.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Greeks, Armenians and Russians have Patriarchs and other Metropolitans.

Yeah, but wouldn’t it get really interesting if the Partriarch of the Ukranian Orthodox Church, for example, was elected the next pope by a conclave of Catholic bishops?

 

[trophybearer]

Yeah, but wouldn’t it get really interesting if the Partriarch of the Ukranian Orthodox Church, for example, was elected the next pope by a conclave of Catholic bishops?

Why not president Obama? He’s not RC either.

 

[Timothy17]

This conversation would be much more enlightening if someone posted the history of Orthodoxy, starting with the creation of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, a huge break with Apostolic tradition, due to political pressures a few hundred years after the Apostles had died and gone to Heaven. The constant obsession so many of these Patriarchs had with political power, and their fierce jealousy of Rome’s perogatives, might explain that certain spirit that still lingers in the Orthodox communities regarding Rome.

We can then continue by showing the machinations that went on between the Roman emperors and their pet Patriarchs, or the Patriarchs and their pet emperors, whichever the crowd prefers. We can then talk about Orthodoxy’s shameful tendency to submit everywhere to secular machinations, as in or especially as seen in Imperial Russia, the “Third Rome,” following Constantinople’s demise, which was the “Second Rome.”

It’s a modern phenomenon that the Orthodox churches haven’t had a center of authority, which has traditionally been the Christian rulers of their nations, who served as mini-Popes, and, of course, encouraged the nationalization of their churches. You can’t speak of or understand Orthodoxy without speaking of a litany of national movements and governments, and how these relationships played out.

So, frankly, this whole fiction of imagining some pure and undefiled history of tradition on one hand in Orthodoxy, which rose out of a break with Apostolic Tradition, and the fiction of any actual real unity among the Orthodox outside of a convention of common anti-Catholic animus, jealousies or tendencies is fool-hearted in my opinion. They are an example of pure, unadultered schism - the only example, and the reasons for it are manifest to everyone. That they shamefully lambast us for some break with Tradition is the height of hypocrisy to be sure, for too accept that we’d have to imagine that they were originally correct in ascribing the the temporal power such disordinate authority and influence in and over the Church, which - seeing as all three Romes lost that power - would prove that obviously the temporal power is not the Rock of the Church.

Now, this being said, the creation of some special, perhaps even extraordinary Rite or Rites to accomodate the Orthodox and their Tradition and traditions would benefit both them and us, and Christians everywhere, as the flow of Peter’s God-given sovereignty and independence infused itself into the Orthodox communion and cultures, which thing is a heavenly boon.

Pax,
Tim

 

[JohnVIII]

You’re an “angry” ex-Orthodox, aren’t you?

No, I am not. Why would you think that?

You sometimes remind me of one of those guys or gals who left the RCC and take every opportunity they can find to degrade or speak Ill of their former faith and co-religionists. I sense an awful lot of contempt for the Orthodox Church… would you like to talk about it?

Nope. I have no bad feeling about Orthodox at all. I love the Orthodox faith, I’m especially fond of the Russian Orthodox. You’re imagining things I think.

 

[Nine_Two]

This conversation would be much more enlightening if someone posted the history of Orthodoxy, starting with the creation of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, a huge break with Apostolic tradition, due to political pressures a few hundred years after the Apostles had died and gone to Heaven. The constant obsession so many of these Patriarchs had with political power, and their fierce jealousy of Rome’s perogatives, might explain that certain spirit that still lingers in the Orthodox communities regarding Rome.

We can then continue by showing the machinations that went on between the Roman emperors and their pet Patriarchs, or the Patriarchs and their pet emperors, whichever the crowd prefers. We can then talk about Orthodoxy’s shameful tendency to submit everywhere to secular machinations, as in or especially as seen in Imperial Russia, the “Third Rome,” following Constantinople’s demise, which was the “Second Rome.”

It’s a modern phenomenon that the Orthodox churches haven’t had a center of authority, which has traditionally been the Christian rulers of their nations, who served as mini-Popes, and, of course, encouraged the nationalization of their churches. You can’t speak of or understand Orthodoxy without speaking of a litany of national movements and governments, and how these relationships played out.

So, frankly, this whole fiction of imagining some pure and undefiled history of tradition on one hand in Orthodoxy, which rose out of a break with Apostolic Tradition, and the fiction of any actual real unity among the Orthodox outside of a convention of common anti-Catholic animus, jealousies or tendencies is fool-hearted in my opinion. They are an example of pure, unadultered schism - the only example, and the reasons for it are manifest to everyone. That they shamefully lambast us for some break with Tradition is the height of hypocrisy to be sure, for too accept that we’d have to imagine that they were originally correct in ascribing the the temporal power such disordinate authority and influence in and over the Church, which - seeing as all three Romes lost that power - would prove that obviously the temporal power is not the Rock of the Church.

Now, this being said, the creation of some special, perhaps even extraordinary Rite or Rites to accomodate the Orthodox and their Tradition and traditions would benefit both them and us, and Christians everywhere, as the flow of Peter’s God-given sovereignty and independence infused itself into the Orthodox communion and cultures, which thing is a heavenly boon.

Pax,
Tim

I’d be careful throwing stones in glass houses. The West was no less political and at the time of the creation of Constantinople (which wasn’t a break with tradition, many Patriarchies had been created before, and some have been created since - in both the East and the West), the Pope of the time was an appointee of the Emperor, and they only managed to break from this when they became Vassals of the newly created Holy Roman Empire.

You’re also incorrect in calling the Patriarchs “Mini-popes”, as ultimate ecclesiastical power has always been in the hands of the Holy Synods, and not the Patriarchs. There is no equivalent of a Pope in the East. Even the man who holds the title “Pope” who is in communion with us doesn’t hold any real power.

Bottom line, don’t think your Church is exempt from Politics, if you want to claim we are wrong and in violation of Apostolic legitimacy because of politics, then you’re going to have to admit your own Church is also wrong.

The irony of course that you make the sweeping statement that Orthodox are anti-Catholic is quite anti-orthodox. Every single argument you made can be turned on you, the hight of hypocricy.

 

[Pakesh]

This conversation would be much more enlightening if someone posted the history of Orthodoxy, starting with the creation of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, a huge break with Apostolic tradition, due to political pressures a few hundred years after the Apostles had died and gone to Heaven. The constant obsession so many of these Patriarchs had with political power, and their fierce jealousy of Rome’s perogatives, might explain that certain spirit that still lingers in the Orthodox communities regarding Rome.

We can then continue by showing the machinations that went on between the Roman emperors and their pet Patriarchs, or the Patriarchs and their pet emperors, whichever the crowd prefers. We can then talk about Orthodoxy’s shameful tendency to submit everywhere to secular machinations, as in or especially as seen in Imperial Russia, the “Third Rome,” following Constantinople’s demise, which was the “Second Rome.”

It’s a modern phenomenon that the Orthodox churches haven’t had a center of authority, which has traditionally been the Christian rulers of their nations, who served as mini-Popes, and, of course, encouraged the nationalization of their churches. You can’t speak of or understand Orthodoxy without speaking of a litany of national movements and governments, and how these relationships played out.

So, frankly, this whole fiction of imagining some pure and undefiled history of tradition on one hand in Orthodoxy, which rose out of a break with Apostolic Tradition, and the fiction of any actual real unity among the Orthodox outside of a convention of common anti-Catholic animus, jealousies or tendencies is fool-hearted in my opinion. They are an example of pure, unadultered schism - the only example, and the reasons for it are manifest to everyone. That they shamefully lambast us for some break with Tradition is the height of hypocrisy to be sure, for too accept that we’d have to imagine that they were originally correct in ascribing the the temporal power such disordinate authority and influence in and over the Church, which - seeing as all three Romes lost that power - would prove that obviously the temporal power is not the Rock of the Church.

Now, this being said, the creation of some special, perhaps even extraordinary Rite or Rites to accomodate the Orthodox and their Tradition and traditions would benefit both them and us, and Christians everywhere, as the flow of Peter’s God-given sovereignty and independence infused itself into the Orthodox communion and cultures, which thing is a heavenly boon.

Pax,
Tim

I’m a Catholic, and I don’t know where to begin with all this. Full of innuendo, BAD History, polemics and stone throwing:shrug:
God Bless, Pakesh

 

[Aramis]

Yeah, but wouldn’t it get really interesting if the Partriarch of the Ukranian Orthodox Church, for example, was elected the next pope by a conclave of Catholic bishops?

According to most EO, HB isn’t Orthodox. The Kyiv Patriarchate isn’t in communion with Moscow nor Constantinople…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’d be careful throwing stones in glass houses. The West was no less political and at the time of the creation of Constantinople (which wasn’t a break with tradition, many Patriarchies had been created before, and some have been created since - in both the East and the West), the Pope of the time was an appointee of the Emperor, and they only managed to break from this when they became Vassals of the newly created Holy Roman Empire.

The irony of course that you make the sweeping statement that Orthodox are anti-Catholic is quite anti-orthodox. Every single argument you made can be turned on you, the hight of hypocricy.

If you incuded specifics with this allegation, perhaps it would engender a debate. All it is now is an unsubstantiated allegation.

I know you have read my messages to you. If you have no response to my questions, I’ll stop asking them, though I may needle you about them from time to time. Like when you make your general papal complaint about power, dominence and submission.

Peace.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m a Catholic, and I don’t know where to begin with all this. Full of innuendo, BAD History, polemics and stone throwing:shrug:
God Bless, Pakesh

Then take it apart point by point. Right now your complaint seems to be more of the same.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I wouldn’t mind seeing it regress into an actual debate with valid quotes and historical facts from verifiable, primary sources. I agree there’s too much posturing and strutting.

How about you getting the ball rolling?

 

[prodromos]

I wouldn’t mind seeing it regress into an actual debate with valid quotes and historical facts from verifiable, primary sources. ** I agree there’s too much posturing and strutting.**

you mean like the following statement?

It sounds great and it’s certainly what you wish fervently to believe, but the evidence on the historical record doesn’t agree with your implications.

 

[Nine_Two]

If you incuded specifics with this allegation, perhaps it would engender a debate. All it is now is an unsubstantiated allegation.

I know you have read my messages to you. If you have no response to my questions, I’ll stop asking them, though I may needle you about them from time to time. Like when you make your general papal complaint about power, dominence and submission.

Peace.

I do hit the “view message” button every once and a while and view your posts when I see someone post something to indicate you may have said something “interesting”. As it is I included enough specifics for you to get started on if you have an actual rebuttal. Work on what I’ve already included and if you seem like you’re actually open to a discussion rather than posturing and name calling, I’ll expand as needed.

 

[Timothy17]

I’d be careful throwing stones in glass houses. The West was no less political and at the time of the creation of Constantinople (which wasn’t a break with tradition, many Patriarchies had been created before, and some have been created since - in both the East and the West), the Pope of the time was an appointee of the Emperor, and they only managed to break from this when they became Vassals of the newly created Holy Roman Empire.

You’re also incorrect in calling the Patriarchs “Mini-popes”, as ultimate ecclesiastical power has always been in the hands of the Holy Synods, and not the Patriarchs. There is no equivalent of a Pope in the East. Even the man who holds the title “Pope” who is in communion with us doesn’t hold any real power.

Bottom line, don’t think your Church is exempt from Politics, if you want to claim we are wrong and in violation of Apostolic legitimacy because of politics, then you’re going to have to admit your own Church is also wrong.

The irony of course that you make the sweeping statement that Orthodox are anti-Catholic is quite anti-orthodox. Every single argument you made can be turned on you, the hight of hypocricy.

Mea culpa ; my apologies, I wrote out of anger and frustration.

Pax, and God bless,
Tim

 

[Pakesh]

Then take it apart point by point. Right now your complaint seems to be more of the same.

How about the crazy claim that the Constantinople Patriarchate being a break with Apostolic Tradition? How can one say that when the Catholic Church has never taught that!
God Bless, Pakesh