F
Faithdancer
Guest
But Catholics and Orthodox could also be reunited under Rome. Either way, it’s reunification.
- Status
R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
Oh and I have an extremely high respect for the Orthodox Church and its members.
I honestly don’t know if the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church will ever come together again. I wish we did, we were the originals! Richard Feynman
D
dzheremi
Guest
No. Orthodoxy does not permit this idea that Rome or any other single bishop should be the locus around which unity is expressed, solidified, or manifested. That is not Orthodox ecclesiology, and we do not accept it. That is not reunification.
R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
So how are Coptic and Greek united?
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I thought the Anabaptists were the originals. Or at least, the closest to the originals in worship style.Oh and I have an extremely high respect for the Orthodox Church and its members.
Richard Feynman
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
No, what divides Christians from Muslims, Jews, Baha’i, et al. is our belief that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, incarnate of the virgin Mary, died for our sins, rose again, etc. So it does have much to do with doctrine.
D
dzheremi
Guest
What? They’re not. Neither embrace the un-Orthodox ecclesiology of the Roman communion, though, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
M
Matthew_Light
Guest
I don’t see the divisions as real.
And I know many Muslims, Catholics, Hindus and others who don’t see them as real either.
And I don’t actually disagree with the doctrines you listed either, although I might understand them in a different way…
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Then they aren’t faithful to what their own religions teach. At least, not as understood througout history. Not to mention schizophrenic.
If you understand them differently than how Scripture and the church teaches them, then they aren’t the same, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. I’m not saying you don’t have a right to do that, of course. However, it doesn’t change the fact that either Christ is who the Scriptures and Christians proclaim Him to be or He is not.
R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
I just figured that since the respective churches were called Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox, they were united because they share the Orthodox in their names.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Ah. No, they’re not, unfortunately. It’s sort of like how there are churches that call themselves Catholic (e.g., “Old Catholic” churches in Europe and elsewhere) who are not in communion with Rome. With the exception of mixed Coptic-Greek marriages and baptisms in the patriarchal territory of Alexandria proper, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox will generally not intercommune due to their differing Christological views vis-a-vis Chalcedon, and some other matters (I think we look at councils in a different way, too, and of course we have many traditions that do not abide by Byzantine ways of doing things, e.g., the Trisagion, the Armenian use of unleavened bread, the Tewahedo use of the drum in paraliturgical services, etc.; I’m not sure whether all of these would be seen as issues by every EO person, but I’ve interacted with more than enough who apparently do see them as problems, so take that as you will. We’re not changing anyway, so…
)
R
Richard_Feynman
Guest
Thank you for the patience.Ah. No, they’re not, unfortunately. It’s sort of like how there are churches that call themselves Catholic (e.g., “Old Catholic” churches in Europe and elsewhere) who are not in communion with Rome. With the exception of mixed Coptic-Greek marriages and baptisms in the patriarchal territory of Alexandria proper, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox will generally not intercommune due to their differing Christological views vis-a-vis Chalcedon, and some other matters (I think we look at councils in a different way, too, and of course we have many traditions that do not abide by Byzantine ways of doing things, e.g., the Trisagion, the Armenian use of unleavened bread, the Tewahedo use of the drum in paraliturgical services, etc.; I’m not sure whether all of these would be seen as issues by every EO person, but I’ve interacted with more than enough who apparently do see them as problems, so take that as you will. We’re not changing anyway, so…
This is very interesting! I will read into this.Richard Feynman
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
First of all, this whole thread is premised upon Vatican II’s proclamation on Christian unity and ecumenism.
The underline above is never ecumenism. For one; Vatican II’s ecumenical efforts is never to convert Orthodox or those Catholics who follow the Byzantine rite to the Latin rite.
Any Orthodox who are making an ecumenical effort by trying to convert Latin Catholics’ into Byzantine Catholics’ are living their Catholic faith all wrong. We are all Catholic.
The Orthodox have set a barrier against ecumenism with the Latin Church, due to your relentless rejection of never willing to learn what the Roman Catholic Church truly teaches on the subject’s which you were falsely taught or given to reject. For example; today I have yet to find an Orthodox who can correctly define the Filioque, never mind infallibility or the ancient sacred Tradition of Peter’s Chair which all Catholics held to for the first 1000 years.
We Roman Catholics have the freedom and liberty to learn the Byzantine rite and or Orthodox theology. But do the Orthodox have the freedom and liberty to learn Catholicism from Catholicism without prejudices?
Ecumenism can begin here with the laity.
When it comes to our separated brethren, the same holds true. it simple really. Learn your 2000+ year old Christian faith first correctly from the Catholic Church before rejecting or protesting her, from a bias or prejudiced view.
I would love to hear the rejection from those Orthodox in schism with the Chair of Peter and our separated brethren who know and understand the correct biblical and Sacred Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
As of yet, I have not met one Orthodox or Separated brethren who has rejected the doctrines of the Catholic faith, with a true understanding of the Catholic doctrine explained and defined by the Catholic Church.
Thus far, all I have heard in private life and in public, these have rejected what they never come to know, but have viewed them with a prejudiced, bias and misinformed view of Catholicism.
Ecumenism and reconciliation comes from those who truly are seeking Truth at any cost. Ecumenism is never to convert the other, and real reconciliation is truly learning from the one who is being rejected, not forcing one to accept another’s point of view, so that Truth is never hindered with prejudices or bias opinions.
Peace be with you
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Your changing the subject (like bahai do) to the bahai religion itself. This is about inter Christian ecumenism. We cannot disregard our theology or our beliefs concerning who God is as unimportant like you can. To us the incarnation, the message of the gospel of what Christ did is the most important aspect along with living out the gospel. Our theology goes on to inform our morality and practice. The two are not interdependent from each other, but rather one is a consequence of the other. For instance the sacramental theology of hte church, what does that mean practically? It means the creation can be sanctified and made holy and how do we know it can be made holy? That this matter is not doomed to death and destruction like the gnostics and bahai preach? Because Christ Jesus came down from heaven and took on a body like our own and lived perfectly.
If you want to argue our theology is unimportant, this is not the thread for you to do it. I invite you to open a thread and show how we Christians have corrupted the true Gospel if you have the courage to do so. No bahai does have that courage because no bahai can make that case, because bahais do not care about the history of the Christian church. you do not care about how we regard theology, you do not care for what Christian teachers have said over two thousand years. Thats natural being of a different religion but I must then ask what entitles you to comment and dismiss all of this?
No Christian, contrary to what you believe is going to deny that we are to do those things you laid out. Atheists can do those things but it isn’t enough, if you only want good social order then you might as well advocate atheism and the dispensing of all religion. No, in reality you just want the Christians to become bahai and abandon their creeds. If who God is doesn’t matter to you, that’s fine, but don’t expect the Christian to take you too seriously.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
By destroy each other, I do not literally mean destroy each other, but rather show the other side’s approach to Christianity for the most part is wrong. That is what we should be attempting to do in these ecumenical discussions. If you read what I said closely I despise the tactic of some debaters or people who think they know enough in completely denying the Christianity of some, like for instance radical protestants denying roman Catholics being Christian.
I am an advocate for confronting our differences and making them known and forcing people to choose between them not because they might prefer the other but because they are convinced of the truth of one particular system. I mentioned the Pope and his Holiness being in Jeruselum to pray, what will this accomplish? Nothing and we will remain divided.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
This right here shows how different and radically we disagree with each other. Catholics fundamentally cannot envision the church as anything apart from the Pope at Rome. Orthodox Can envision the church as apart from the Pope of Rome. I don’t think this is the thread to discuss these theological issues in of themselves, but rather this thread is to discuss how we should go about discussing these clear differences and contradictions.
It should be done while trying to understand the other’s position which I think you are mistaken on, that I believe orthodox have understood Rome’s claims and have rejected those claims based on what Rome has taught. So where to from there? A clear as possible exposition of our positions would help. A public ally disclosed talk between our heirachs perhaps which actually has them discussing these issues? Or if the heirachs are too busy those they choose to represent them.
This goes to to my point that we cannot avoid our differences and hope for communion. Its not going to happen. Take in mind also, true communion might never happen.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Which orthodox objects tot he Trisagion? I hear it repeatably within the liturgy and in the prayer book.Ah. No, they’re not, unfortunately. It’s sort of like how there are churches that call themselves Catholic (e.g., “Old Catholic” churches in Europe and elsewhere) who are not in communion with Rome. With the exception of mixed Coptic-Greek marriages and baptisms in the patriarchal territory of Alexandria proper, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox will generally not intercommune due to their differing Christological views vis-a-vis Chalcedon, and some other matters (I think we look at councils in a different way, too, and of course we have many traditions that do not abide by Byzantine ways of doing things, e.g., the Trisagion, the Armenian use of unleavened bread, the Tewahedo use of the drum in paraliturgical services, etc.; I’m not sure whether all of these would be seen as issues by every EO person, but I’ve interacted with more than enough who apparently do see them as problems, so take that as you will. We’re not changing anyway, so…
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
D
dzheremi
Guest
Eastern Orthodox do not object to the Triasgion itself, but some do object to the Oriental Orthodox tradition that it is to be understood as a Christological hymn, as that contradicts the later tradition developed in Constantinople that some Eastern Orthodox identify as being Orthodox tradition in toto. We have had at least one thread on this matter in the past, though I cannot locate it. It ended with an Eastern Orthodox priest wrongly asserting that the Oriental tradition is an unacceptable innovation and refusing to address correction of that idea when presented evidence to the contrary from the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch Ephrem of Amida (who identifies the Christological triasgion as common to those of Antioch and Syria, as compared to his native Mesopotamia), so I do not wish to revisit it.
- Status