Christian unity seems to be more focused on Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism rather than Protestant Christians

[Hesychios]

The FIRST thing both churches need to do is lift excommunication off of reception of the Eucharist. This is an absolute travesty since both churches have a valid Eucharist regardless of whatever nonsensical arguments are put forth to discredit this. And I keep hammering the point that it is the EUCHARIST Who will unify the churches, not ecclesial talks.

Well then, I suppose that you could do the same with Lutherans and Anglicans, couldn’t you?

Why don’t you?

Probably one concern would be about introducing protestant theology and practices into your church, unless I missed my guess. Don’t you think conformity of belief is important?

Your church thinks Orthodox have a valid Eucharist…why? Is that because the Orthodox have a similar understanding to the Roman catholic church about the Eucharist, the other sacraments and the sacerdotal ministry?

But how is that possible…it seems like a miracle that the churches of the east have preserved this all important theology and practice! Amazingly, they have accomplished this without ever, in 2000 years…had a Pope.

I think I can agree with you that a shared Eucharist is a key to Christian unity…provided the danger of relativism is avoided…therein lies the rub.

Holy orthodoxy has diligently maintained a discipline of restricting communion and concelebration to those who are in agreement with the theology and canons of the church. This is all that has been necessary to keep Orthodox theology and practice in proper order for centuries, and it works marvelously well (ultimately resulting in Rome’s interest in it as a partner). Holy Orthodoxy is conservative by it’s very nature, and consistantly rejects novelties.

But the Roman Catholic church does not share Orthodoxy’s concerns over theology and practice, it teaches things Orthodoxy cannot subscribe to. Therefore, intercommunion will wait, it’s just that simple

Michael

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well then, I suppose that you could do the same with Lutherans and Anglicans, couldn’t you?

Why don’t you?

Probably one concern would be about introducing protestant theology and practices into your church, unless I missed my guess. Don’t you think conformity of belief is important?

Your church thinks Orthodox have a valid Eucharist…why? Is that because the Orthodox have a similar understanding to the Roman catholic church about the Eucharist, the other sacraments and the sacerdotal ministry?

But how is that possible…it seems like a miracle that the churches of the east have preserved this all important theology and practice! Amazingly, they have accomplished this without ever, in 2000 years…had a Pope.

I think I can agree with you that a shared Eucharist is a key to Christian unity…provided the danger of relativism is avoided…therein lies the rub.

Holy orthodoxy has diligently maintained a discipline of restricting communion and concelebration to those who are in agreement with the theology and canons of the church. This is all that has been necessary to keep Orthodox theology and practice in proper order for centuries, and it works marvelously well (ultimately resulting in Rome’s interest in it as a partner). Holy Orthodoxy is conservative by it’s very nature, and consistantly rejects novelties.

But the Roman Catholic church does not share Orthodoxy’s concerns over theology and practice, it teaches things Orthodoxy cannot subscribe to. Therefore, intercommunion will wait, it’s just that simple

Michael

We CAN’T be that close.

After all, we’re on the NON-CATHOLIC forum with all the Protestants.

And Jews, Muslims, Mormons, JW, Atheists,…

 

[Mannyfit75]

We CAN’T be that close.

After all, we’re on the NON-CATHOLIC forum with all the Protestants.

And Jews, Muslims, Mormons, JW, Atheists,…

Eastern Orthodox are more similiar to Catholicism than all others. Tell me what Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, JW, and Atheist have an Liturgy similiar to those in the Eastern Orthodox Church? None. Not one.

In the Catholic Church there is one Rite that is Latin Rite, while the rest of the 22 rites are Eastern Rite, whose Liturgy is similiar to the Eastern Orthodox. The style of worship is the same, and traditions, as well as beliefs with the exception of the Papacy.

Eastern Orthodox are more closely related to Catholicism than those who do not adhere to four marks of the Church. You know what they are, Isa.

 

[Hesychios]

Then why do you come here to tell Catholics how wrong the Catholic Church is? Nobody asked you to come here. You care all right, but it’s the wrong kind of caring.

We come to talk, not to be shouted at or berated.

Here we are, Orthodox C------c Christians in the great shooting gallery of the Non-Catholic religions forum.

Take aim…and fire!

Maybe you’ll win a prize…

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think I can agree with you that a shared Eucharist is a key to Christian unity…provided the danger of relativism is avoided…therein lies the rub.

The Pope condemns relativism. I don’t think that would be compromised.

Holy orthodoxy has diligently maintained a discipline of restricting communion and concelebration to those who are in agreement with the theology and canons of the church. This is all that has been necessary to keep Orthodox theology and practice in proper order for centuries, and it works marvelously well (ultimately resulting in Rome’s interest in it as a partner). Holy Orthodoxy is conservative by it’s very nature, and consistantly rejects novelties.

But the Roman Catholic church does not share Orthodoxy’s concerns over theology and practice, it teaches things Orthodoxy cannot subscribe to. Therefore, intercommunion will wait, it’s just that simple

I beg to differ in your opinion. For one both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church since Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople, there has been dialogue between us to resolve theological and other practices. It is apparent to me that you don’t want unity. However, your own Church leaders want unification and talks continue. We don’t know how many talks or Synod will come up in the coming future, but you know one thing for certain; we will be One Church.

Sometime in the near future our Two Churches will be One Church like it was before the 1054 Schism.

This is going to happen, whether you like it or not. Jesus Christ prayed for it. It seem to me that you don’t want Jesus prayer to the Father that his Church would be One… Are you going against Jesus? Believe me, I don’t what issue will be resolve but we have to Trust in the Holy Spirit to guide both our Churches to unit it was One Body.

 

[peary]

Well then, I suppose that you could do the same with Lutherans and Anglicans, couldn’t you?

Why don’t you?

Because 1. their understanding of the Eucharist is radically different than what we believe; and, 2. they reject the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the auspices of bread and wine.

Probably one concern would be about introducing protestant theology and practices into your church, unless I missed my guess. Don’t you think conformity of belief is important?

Catholic theology is not protestant theology. Catholic theology parallels orthodox theology because both churches are from the same root, and the understandings are similar - though not all.

Your church thinks Orthodox have a valid Eucharist…why? Is that because the Orthodox have a similar understanding to the Roman catholic church about the Eucharist, the other sacraments and the sacerdotal ministry?

Orthodox have a similar if not same understanding to the Roman Catholic Church about the Eucharist, other sacraments and the sacerdotal ministry. Likewise, the western Church has a similar if not same understanding to the Orthodox about the Eucharist, other sacraments and the sacerdotal ministry.

But how is that possible…it seems like a miracle that the churches of the east have preserved this all important theology and practice! Amazingly, they have accomplished this without ever, in 2000 years…had a Pope.

Recognition of the Chair of Peter was never really an issue until an emphasis on schism by those who wished it. And did it ever occur to you that the reason the east preserved its theology and devotions was because of the Holy Spirit? The same Holy Spirit that protects the western Church.

I think I can agree with you that a shared Eucharist is a key to Christian unity…provided the danger of relativism is avoided…therein lies the rub.

Holy orthodoxy has diligently maintained a discipline of restricting communion and concelebration to those who are in agreement with the theology and canons of the church. This is all that has been necessary to keep Orthodox theology and practice in proper order for centuries, and it works marvelously well (ultimately resulting in Rome’s interest in it as a partner). Holy Orthodoxy is conservative by it’s very nature, and consistantly rejects novelties.

But the Roman Catholic church does not share Orthodoxy’s concerns over theology and practice, it teaches things Orthodoxy cannot subscribe to. Therefore, intercommunion will wait, it’s just that simple.

It may move towards unification quicker than you think. Unfortunately, you might be on the sidelines watching the parade as it passes you by.

 

[Hesychios]

… It is apparent to me that you don’t want unity. …This is going to happen, whether you like it or not…

You apparently do not know what I want.

I think you are over estimating the state and progress of the talks. I am trying to help keep everyone grounded and informed, the things I write about are serious concerns that need to be addressed. It would certainly do no one any good to lose themselves in wild fantasies.

Holy Orthodoxy is not like Roman Catholicism. It’s ecclesiology is much older and things don’t happen with a simple poof some bishops have recommended a change…and we are nowhere near that point either. The process is a long one, full of stops and backups.

Roman Catholicism has thus far not changed one thing about how it operates or what it believes since the anathemas were lifted, not one thing. There would have to be substantial “clarification” (I hate that word) or re-definition of the role of the bishop of Rome, just for starters! This will be the focus of future talks, as we have barely even laid the groundwork for a theoretical primacy.

Then all the rest of the mess will have to be sorted out. You think that because I bring these issues to the fore I am against reconciliation. Far from it.

But I won’t lie to you, it will be a lot of work, and the Roman Catholic public has little to no idea of how much would have to change, it’s like they are living in a bubble.

So before you go calling me Mr. Negative I think you should ponder this a little bit: I am not the glee club. I am an ordinary Christian like you are. I have hopes and dreams for the church and a united witness before this world.

But I am not going to lie about any of it just to make you feel good, you (plural y’all) need to hear the truth about everything or we as two churches will NOT progress toward that unity everyone claims to want.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You apparently do not know what I want.

I think you are over estimating the state and progress of the talks. I am trying to help keep everyone grounded and informed, the things I write about are serious concerns that need to be addressed. It would certainly do no one any good to lose themselves in wild fantasies.

The issues discussed between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism will continue and guided by the Holy Spirit, the two will become One.

Yes, I don’t know what you want. I want unity because Jesus prayed for it. I dislike disunity.

Holy Orthodoxy is not like Roman Catholicism. It’s ecclesiology is much older and things don’t happen with a simple poof some bishops have recommended a change…and we are nowhere near that point either. The process is a long one, full of stops and backups.

I beg to differ. The Early Church was Only, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. The Early Church consist of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are the same age.

Roman Catholicism has thus far not changed one thing about how it operates or what it believes since the anathemas were lifted, not one thing. There would have to be substantial “clarification” (I hate that word) or re-definition of the role of the bishop of Rome, just for starters! This will be the focus of future talks, as we have barely even laid the groundwork for a theoretical primacy.

Re-definiting doctrines and dogma was necessary to clarify issue and does not contradict Divine Revelation which has been revealed by Jesus Christ through his Apostles and the active working of the Holy Spirit.

Then all the rest of the mess will have to be sorted out. You think that because I bring these issues to the fore I am against reconciliation. Far from it.

But I won’t lie to you, it will be a lot of work, and the Roman Catholic public has little to no idea of how much would have to change, it’s like they are living in a bubble.

I have read Eastern Catholicism and they note several changes done by the Latins. I didn’t agree with many of the abuses the Latin has done, but those events are in past. We can learn from it and prevent it from happening again. We can’t dwell too much in pass mistakes. God wants us to reconcil, and be merciful. The 101 Q&A of Eastern Catholicism notes that Eastern Orthodox still dislike Roman Catholic Church because of their involvement in the Crusades. It’s like it happen in the past. It’s time for forgive and reconcile.

Tell me is Rome better now than it was during the time of the Crusades? You should be at least grateful we have good Popes like Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John XIII, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

Many of the changes involve disciplinary Church law, and practices. The essential theological issue has not changed and remain the same. They were given more detailed prespective such as transubstantiation, purgatory, etc.

So before you go calling me Mr. Negative I think you should ponder this a little bit: I am not the glee club. I am an ordinary Christian like you are. I have hopes and dreams for the church and a united witness before this world.

I never call you Mr. Negative. I think the term would be uncharitable. I pray for Christian unity every day. I believe the issue of Papal Primacy in Ravenna, Italy is the first step. It is a pity that the Patriarch of Russia had to step out of it.

But I am not going to lie about any of it just to make you feel good, you (plural y’all) need to hear the truth about everything or we as two churches will NOT progress toward that unity everyone claims to want.

Whether unity comes in our generation or in the future, I will support it. I trust that the Holy Spirit will eventually bring the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church as One Church, the One Church Jesus prayed for to Our Father.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Eastern Orthodox are more similiar to Catholicism than all others. Tell me what Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, JW, and Atheist have an Liturgy similiar to those in the Eastern Orthodox Church? None. Not one.

In the Catholic Church there is one Rite that is Latin Rite, while the rest of the 22 rites are Eastern Rite, whose Liturgy is similiar to the Eastern Orthodox. The style of worship is the same, and traditions, as well as beliefs with the exception of the Papacy.

Eastern Orthodox are more closely related to Catholicism than those who do not adhere to four marks of the Church. You know what they are, Isa.

 

[Mannyfit75]

 

[Hesychios]

It may move towards unification quicker than you think.

**It may, but do you know quick I think it will happen? Do I know how quick you think it will happen?

Everything is relative…to something… “quicker than you think” is meaningless. **

Do you have a date in mind?

Unfortunately, you might be on the sidelines watching the parade as it passes you by.

**Why or how you could even imagine that I would be on the sidelines is beyond me…

But we might all be in the next life by then, smiling down upon it all.
**

 

[Mannyfit75]

**It may, but do you know quick I think it will happen? Do I know how quick you think it will happen?

Everything is relative…to something… “quicker than you think” is meaningless. **

Do you have a date in mind? **Why or how you could even imagine that I would be on the sidelines is beyond me…

But we might all be in the next life by then, smiling down upon it all.
**

I’m very certain that when it does happen, we in heaven would rejoice that day for Jesus’ prayer that his believers be One will come to pass.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mannyfit,

I’m very certain that when it does happen, we in heaven would rejoice that day for Jesus’ prayer that his believers be One will come to pass.

I too share your optimism, especially with the Oriental Orthodox. At the same time I am apprehensive about union with the Eastern Orthodox, to be honest. Unlike our Eastern Catholic brethren, Eastern Orthodox, do not seem to have any respect for anything Latin, including those portions of Oriental Orthodoxy that are too “Latin” for their tastes. They simply ignore them in Oriental Orthodoxy or work hard at trying to subvert that part of our identity. As I have noted in the past, I have never met a Coptic Catholic who tried to convert a Coptic Orthodox, but I have met
many Coptic EO or EO who have translated to Coptic Orthodoxy who try to influence my Oriental Coptic brethren to deny their particular heritage and spirituality.

Unless our Eastern Orthodox brethren look beyond their dogmatism and focus on the CONTENT of the faith rather than the different expressions of it, I do not see much hope of ecclesiastical reunion with them.

But, like I said, I am very hopeful of a reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Dear brother Mannyfit,

I too share your optimism, especially with the Oriental Orthodox. At the same time I am apprehensive about union with the Eastern Orthodox, to be honest. Unlike our Eastern Catholic brethren, Eastern Orthodox, do not seem to have any respect for anything Latin, including those portions of Oriental Orthodoxy that are too “Latin” for their tastes. They simply ignore them in Oriental Orthodoxy or work hard at trying to subvert that part of our identity. As I have noted in the past, I have never met a Coptic Catholic who tried to convert a Coptic Orthodox, but I have met
many Coptic EO or EO who have translated to Coptic Orthodoxy who try to influence my Oriental Coptic brethren to deny their particular heritage and spirituality.

Unless our Eastern Orthodox brethren look beyond their dogmatism and focus on the CONTENT of the faith rather than the different expressions of it, I do not see much hope of ecclesiastical reunion with them.

But, like I said, I am very hopeful of a reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m still trying to discover anything good that’s Latin about the OO, besides the Armenians unleveaned Eucharist (which I’ve communed, so I don’t have a problem with it per se) and their miters (also something I don’t get excited about, I’ve also seen Coptic priests wear something similar, especially on Christmas).

Besides that, I’ve never found anything paritcularly Latin about them, except the Western wannab art and other Latinizations (and Protestantizations, like the canon that’s popularly used by the Copts, the use of Biblical verses with the verse number prominently displayed, etc) which they (and we EO) can do without. And yes, I’ve seen a streak of influence of New Rome in Coptic art that I can’t say I’m 100% OK with (I am EXTREMELY found of neo-Coptic art/iconography).

Btw, the father of my son’s godmother is a Copt (actually the whole family is, although they became EO, he is ordained a deacon and the daughters married Greek and Arab Orthodox), remarked once on the “byzantine” influence on vestments now, among other things he doesn’t approve of, despite the fact that he serves in a “byzantine” Church. I see his point (and in the main, agree). His brother is a Coptic Orthodox monk.

The essence/energy debate I think is knew for the OO, but I could be wrong on that. That they believed and taught it, but it simply did not come up. There is a sense in which the OO and the EO who are Arab in the Middle East both would like to tell Old and New Rome a pox on both your houses.

This EO influence in Coptic thought is brought on by the fact that the Copts are getting into the theological game: they have never been great producers of theological thought. Devotions and the pragmatic, down to earth child like expressions of Faith that the Desert Fathers so epitomize has been their forte. Their great thinkers (in the philosophical sense) come from the bi-cultural: Athanasius and Cyril, for example, who were both 100% Coptic but expressed that through the medium of Greek culture. The Syriac were the great thinkers as a whole among the OO (the Armenians, the Historians).

A number of OO have discussed this issue on orhtodoxchristianity.net, and they don’t see the similarities with the Latins. And the sticking point is Chalcedon as for any reunion: since the uniate Copts, for instance, have a reference to the Fathers officially stuck in their DL, that isn’t going to be a small point for a reunion. How they would by pass the EO and go with Rome, I don’t see it. Btw, as I have stated before, I’m quite optomistic about EO and OO reunion.

 

[bengland]

But what is the effect of the lifting of these excommunications? Really nothing because if a Catholic converts to Orthodox, he is excommunicated. It is so, isn’t it?

Even if it’s so, so what?
Because of the Orthodox position to the Catholic Church if you convert to Orthodoxy you, by default, reject the Catholic Church and are therefore excommunicated. This has everything to do with the Orthodox and nothing to do with the Catholic Church except for rejection of the latter by the convert. A convert to the Orthodox Church rejects communion with the Catholic Church by conversion. That person knowingly excommunicates the Catholic Church from themselves. That is the very heart of excommunication and of this conversion process.

 

[bobzills]

Even if it’s so, so what?
Because of the Orthodox position to the Catholic Church if you convert to Orthodoxy you, by default, reject the Catholic Church and are therefore excommunicated. This has everything to do with the Orthodox and nothing to do with the Catholic Church except for rejection of the latter by the convert. A convert to the Orthodox Church rejects communion with the Catholic Church by conversion. That person knowingly excommunicates the Catholic Church from themselves. That is the very heart of excommunication and of this conversion process.

“Even if it’s so, so what?”
As I have pointed out, the lifting of the excommunications was largely symbolic and really did not accomplish all that much, since a Catholic is still excommunicated if he joins the Orthodox Church.

 

[bengland]

“Even if it’s so, so what?”
As I have pointed out, the lifting of the excommunications was largely symbolic and really did not accomplish all that much, since a Catholic is still excommunicated if he joins the Orthodox Church.

From what I can tell it led to a change in Code of Canon Law allowing the distribution, within certain parameters, of Sacraments to Orthodox faithful by Catholic priests, and vice versa. Many Orthodox probably would have nothing to do with this, but I have heard examples of this going both ways after consultation between priests and bishops of their respective Churches.
That’s partial communion. The code of canon law in 1917 seems to have forbid this. I don’t know whether this was possible prior to the 1965 declaration or not.
Since this is only partial, not perfect, communion it’s not the same as merely changing Rites within the Catholic or Orthodox Traditions, but a rejection of the authority of the Church to which you already belong, even if the sacraments of both are recognized.