Christians lets Get Ecumenical:Ecumenical!

[Gabriel_of_12]

IgnatianPhilo;11921611]This right here shows how different and radically we disagree with each other.

I don’t pretend to radically disagree with you. I have no problem with the Byzantine Rite or Orthodox theology, it remains stagnant in time.

The difference’s are the objection’s that come from those Orthodox who are out of Communion with Peter and with each other.

Catholics fundamentally cannot envision the church as anything apart from the Pope at Rome.

Correction, Jesus will always be with Peter until He returns. That is a promise from Jesus, which we Catholics hold too. When the Orthodox add or subtract from Word’s of Christ. The Rock is never moved by every new opinion or wind of doctrine that comes against Peter and Jesus flock.

Your view of Peter’s Chair is worldly, secular and new, it is never the position of the True Father’s of Orthodoxy, who always held Peter as the Rock.

Your view of Peter’s Chair does not hold up to the biblical writings and the Traditions of the apostles.

Orthodox Can envision the church as apart from the Pope of Rome.

The protestants thought the same thing, now they have shattered into many different self proclaimed man made faith’s without no keys, and no one authority that subjugates them into the sea of many different self made doctrines.

Thank God, you remain stagnant in time to the councils, so as not to fall victim to man made doctrines as the Protestants and separated brethren have done.

My local parish and our bishop do very well apart from the Pope of Rome. Yet we maintain our full communion with every Pope sitting in the Chair of Peter.

No Catholic Church of any rite cannot survive without the Key’s of Peter. To think so, is unbiblical and never Orthodox.

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.

That is a reasonable statement; What remains doctrine is etched in stone. Theology can be an avenue to reach an ecumenical understanding before entering a subject of doctrine. Because theology can be reasoned with, disagreed with, and does not bind us.

But we cannot begin a course of theology, by rejecting one or the other’s theological view, so that neither side is attempting to convert one rite to another’s rite.

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.

I wish that were true, but reality and history proves that has not been the case. Those Orthodox who remain out of full communion with Peter, have heard Peter’s teachings. But reality reveals the Orthodox have rejected to hear the Theological understanding and reasoning that surrounded world events for Peter to exercise the divine keys on earth.

Now those Orthodox with cool heads and good reason have visited Peter and Catholic theologians and have left with an understanding that Rome remains Rock and unchanged in divine doctrine from the revelations of Christ.

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.

Peter and Vatican II has spoken. That is where we go from here. But some Orthodox would not respect the West’s council of matters of faith and have rejected them.

The foundation is laid before us. Vatican put’s it very simple for our communions. We begin first and foremost with the clear understanding that Roman Catholics are not to convert the Byzantines into Latins and vice versa.

When Orthodox can see the wisdom in Vatican II’s ecumenical efforts for our communions, we as the laity can explore each other’s theology ,when the sky becomes the limit and faith in Jesus Christ enhances with out limits or rejection, because we both have true apostolicity.

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.

Oh, I disagree with you. If Jesus can covert the heart of a zealot like Saul of Tarsus. Anything is possible with our Lord Jesus Christ.

My rosary prayer of hope, charity and love never ceases to amaze me.

I am sure glad Jesus gave His mother to John (us), so that her children’s prayers who bear witness to Jesus, can be heard.

Peace be with you

 

[AbideWithMe]

That’s my thought…to the several Catholics who liked IP’s post, how’s that going to work out for you if it’s an Orthodox or Protestant church which ends up succeeding in “destroying the credibility” of your church?

Protestant churches would have to have credibility in the first place for that to happen, so that’s out of the question, and I’m already an Orthodox Christian, so…fine, I suppose?

Dzheremi, I was asking Catholics.

 

[AbideWithMe]

We must not fall into the ad hominem fallacy…

I agree. I didn’t, and neither did you, so I guess we’re all good then.

 

[Discerning13]

Christians lets Get Ecumenical:Ecumenical!

 

[Richard_Feynman]

I agree. I didn’t, and neither did you, so I guess we’re all good then.

I was talking to “IP” and since I agreed with him, I think I did fall into the ad hominem fallacy.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Richard Feynman

 

[AbideWithMe]

I was talking to “IP” and since I agreed with him, I think I did fall into the ad hominem fallacy.
Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Richard Feynman

No problem.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, I was asking Catholics.

Sorry. I misread “Catholics” as “Christians”. My apologies.

 

[Matthew_Light]

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…

No, I want all people to give up the belief that dogmas matter more than love, that condemning those of different religious views is meritorious in the sight of God, and that if we just tear down competing faiths we will achieve something of value.

A world without different faiths and practices and rituals is a poorer world, like a garden with only one species of flower.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Sorry. I misread “Catholics” as “Christians”. My apologies.

No problem, of course.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by dzheremi
We will be reunited only if/when Catholics become Orthodox and the Catholic Church as an entity separate from Orthodoxy ceases to exist.

Indeed, this ^^ tune is very familiar. We Catholics spent centuries, beginning with the Union of Brest and other such “unions”, trying to get the Orthodox to become Catholic. Heck, we even see it in our own day, to the extent that there are still some Catholics who see Eastern Catholicism as a means for proselytizing the Orthodox.

Now of course, I have to grant that what you called for goes in the opposite direction (i.e. wanting all Catholics to become Orthodox) but other than that I see little difference.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, I want all people to give up the belief that dogmas matter more than love, that condemning those of different religious views is meritorious in the sight of God, and that if we just tear down competing faiths we will achieve something of value.

A world without different faiths and practices and rituals is a poorer world, like a garden with only one species of flower.

I’ve responded to this in private message. Stop changing the subject.

 

[Per_Crucem]

No, I want all people to give up the belief that dogmas matter more than love

That sounds like a dogma

 

[Faithdancer]

Hi Matthew,

Do you disagree with this?

Jon

I can’t speak for Matthew but I’m down with the Athanasian creed. Of course by small-c catholic is meant all Christians.

Thanks for posting it, it’s quite comprehensive and- lengthy, compared to the Nicene or Apostle’s creeds. I can imagine what the reception from the pews would be if a Western church suddenly insisted that the Athanasian Creed be recited every Sunday.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think y’all should c’mon out here to the rodeo and be Cowboy Christians for the day. There won’t be bells and smells but there’ll sho nuff be barbecue and bull ridin’ and barrel racin’ and broncs. Come to think of it, there will be smells, rather earthy ones.

Anyway take a day off from fussin’ an’ a feudin’ and enjoy the rodeo. The differences will still be there, but might not seem so great after a coupla beers!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

There has been significant ecumenical progress between Catholics and other Christians. Pope John Paul identified 2 “milestones” in the contemporary Church as:

1] The mutual anathemas (excommunications) of 1054, marking the Great Schism between Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches of Christianity, a process spanning several centuries, were revoked in 1965 by the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.

2] The Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification in 1999 and that the condemnations of the Council of Trent no longer apply.

 

[Peter_J]

Of course by small-c catholic is meant all Christians.

I admit that’s a fine *sounding *idea, but ultimately I have to go with the traditional usage: Catholic meaning just those of us who in the Roman Communion (not the “Roman Church”, mind you, since there is no such thing) and catholic meaning us, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, etc.

Even if I were to accept the idea of catholic meaning all Christians, we would still have issue like whether Oneness-Pentecostals and Mormons should be included.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

IgnatianPhilo;11921611] 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.

We should not leave out the negative demeanor’s of ones character that gives rise to objection or who run from the discussion when the root of the evil is revealed. Keeping in mind the differences between an opinionated view from a fact is very helpful in such dialogue.

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.

To begin an ecumenical dialogue, one need not begin with the opinion of lost hope for full communion. That type of sentiment never engages in True ecumenical dialogue. Your horse and carriage never leave the barn.

The goal is to strip off the pride and the barriers which are preventing true ecumenical efforts, which begin with but not limited to; Language, interpretation, true understanding of those things in question, by using reason, faith and charity. When it appears all of these are failing, we must re-engage with Love flanked by prayer.

dzheremi;11921116]So in that sense, IgnatianPhilo’s comment makes perfect sense: We will be reunited only if/when Catholics become Orthodox and the Catholic Church as an entity separate from Orthodoxy ceases to exist. **That’s literally the only way that this will happen. **

If dzheremi and Ignatian Philo’s ecumenical efforts are to try and convert Latin Catholics into Byzantine Catholics, as you have stated above. Then your attempts at ecumenism have failed, which reveals that your Orthodox opinion’s serve no purpose in ecumenism.
No matter how much you coat it with sugar.

Ecumenism between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox out of communion with Peter. Has to **first begin with the understanding of one never trying to tear down one another’s expression of the apostolic Catholic faith, this diversity of each rites faith expression, **whether from doctrine or liturgy through the sacraments reveals the beauty and strength of our diversity of languages and multiple cultures being one in the body of Christ.

Knowing this, we do not need to compete with one another as if to convert each other. Realizing our diversities reveal Christ crucified in every language, nation, tongue, tribe and peoples every where in every age.

Vatican II’s ecumenical efforts reveal that we should not reject another’s expression of the Christian faith, so long as it does not remove itself from the revelations of Jesus Christ and the writings and oral teachings of the apostles. Which she received first hand from the apostles.

For the Orthodox to reject Rome’s expression of the Catholic faith, when she was present with the original apostles, is never ecumenism.
Peace be with you

 

[cheezey]

WOW Two awesome posts. **Ecumenism will only occur when we put aside our theological differences and join together to serve this world. **

Too often we focus on “Im right, you’re wrong…” “My church is the True church and yours is nothing more than an ecclesial community”. “Only we the " real Jesus! You might have a spiritual presence…MIGHT HAVE that is.”

We share a Common Lord, we share a Living Christ.

In the story of the last judgement, no where were they asked what church they belonged to nor were they asked if the correct words were spoken at their water baptism…no much more pressing concerns did the Judge have…“I was hungry. I was thirsty, I was alone in prison and you did not visit me.”

God works thru those who are open to His leadings…he works they willing hearts.

Until we recognize we do not “own” Truth, we will not “hear” one another or learn from each other.

I think y’all should c’mon out here to the rodeo and be Cowboy Christians for the day. There won’t be bells and smells but there’ll sho nuff be barbecue and bull ridin’ and barrel racin’ and broncs. Come to think of it, there will be smells, rather earthy ones.

Anyway take a day off from fussin’ an’ a feudin’ and enjoy the rodeo. The differences will still be there, but might not seem so great after a coupla beers!

'sho nuff there will be smells. I lived in Amish country and could always tell when the fields were being prepped. Whew!!

 

[dzheremi]

If dzheremi and Ignatian Philo’s ecumenical efforts are to try and convert Latin Catholics into Byzantine Catholics, as you have stated above. Then your attempts at ecumenism have failed, which reveals that your Orthodox opinion’s serve no purpose in ecumenism.
No matter how much you coat it with sugar.

What on earth are you talking about? Byzantine Catholics? I can’t speak for IgnatianPhilo, but I’m Coptic Orthodox – we’re not even in communion with the non-Catholic Byzantines, so what Catholic Byzantines have to do with anything is beyond me. I’m not talking about external form or a particular tradition. What I mean is that Catholics (of all rites, traditions, and particular churches) will have to become Orthodox. I’m not sugarcoating anything.

Ecumenism between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox out of communion with Peter. Has to first begin with the understanding of one never trying to tear down one another’s expression of the apostolic Catholic faith, this diversity of each rites faith expression, whether from doctrine or liturgy through the sacraments reveals the beauty and strength of our diversity of languages and multiple cultures being one in the body of Christ.

This is just silly. If we think you’re wrong about this or that point of doctrine, then of course you’d have to change it or repudiate it as necessary – no differently than how people coming into the Roman Catholic communion have to affirm what Rome tells them to if they want to be in communion with that church. You seem to be trying to make it about preserving diversity because you’re focusing on the external forms of things (languages and cultures), not doctrine. I don’t care if Catholics would want to preserve the way in which they worship, but again, they’d have to confess the Orthodox faith, which they do not currently do (probably after recovering that, which is their true patrimony, they’d want to put a stop to some of the liturgical changes that have affected their church in the past few decades, but that’d be up to them).

Knowing this, we do not need to compete with one another as if to convert each other. Realizing our diversities reveal Christ crucified in every language, nation, tongue, tribe and peoples every where in every age.

We’re already not competing with you, so that’s neither here nor there. There is something to be said, if it hasn’t been said already, for our different ecclesiologies. It seems that to Catholics, since they somehow see every other church as descending from them and somehow (I don’t really understand how, but I’ve read it over and over on this forum) being a part of them or imperfectly united to them or however you want to put it, there is a sort of competitiveness with the Orthodox, as Orthodox are treated as upstarts or something. Meanwhile, for Orthodox, once you’re not a part of the Church (i.e., not in communion with it), you’re out…and we do not speculate on the status of other churches, since we’re not in communion with them in the first place, so it doesn’t matter. We’re no more in competition with Catholics than Catholics would be with Oneness Pentecostals, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else who is outside the bounds of Christianity. We’re completely separate communions, and while the majority of Orthodox would recognize Catholics as fellow Christians at some base level, there is no competition between the true Church (the Orthodox Church) and not-the-true-church (everything that is not the Orthodox Church). We try to guard against our own people being affected with heterodox ideas through proper catechesis, preaching, etc. (same as Catholics do), but competition would imply that (a) we’re out to get Catholics, which we’re not, and/or (b), we recognize Catholicism as somehow an equal alternative expression of the Christian faith, which we don’t. We’re not in competition. We’re our own thing and you’re your own thing. That’s why we’re not in communion in the first place.

Peace be with you

And with your spirit.

 

[Faithdancer]

I admit that’s a fine *sounding *idea, but ultimately I have to go with the traditional usage: Catholic meaning just those of us who in the Roman Communion (not the “Roman Church”, mind you, since there is no such thing) and catholic meaning us, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, etc.

Even if I were to accept the idea of catholic meaning all Christians, we would still have issue like whether Oneness-Pentecostals and Mormons should be included.

I believe that St. Athanasius’ intent was all Christians. All the denominational names you’ve mentioned simply did not exist at that time. As far as the Oneness-Pentecostals and the Mormons, I think we could apply the standard of what constitutes Christian theology as this is set forth in the Athanasian Creed itself.