Contemplating Orthodoxy

[Cavaradossi]

The attitude not of Kallistos Ware or the Ecumenical Patriarch, but one that sees Catholicism as just as erroneous or more so than Protestantism. They lump Catholicism with any other Christian heresy. At least Catholicism sees the eastern churches as sisters and holding a authentic and apostolic Tradition, episcopate, liturgy and sacraments.

I wouldn’t fault EO parishes from refusing communion or disagreeing about certain doctrinal issues. But for them to not respect the Catholic church as being apostolic and valid in its sacraments is stupid.

So therefore, all Orthodox who do not conform to the attitude of Metropolitan Kallistos or Patriarch Bartholomew are rabid anti-catholics? You are probably unaware of the history behind this, but the Catholic Church had the same attitude towards the Orthodox only maybe a hundred years ago, when the Orthodox were unabashedly called ‘schismatics’ and ‘heretics’ for their refusal to accept the filioque. The Orthodox likewise thought this of the Catholics. There is no need to be duplicitous about these matters, by denying that these differences exist. Rather, we must be honest and forthcoming about these differences. Many on both sides are probably misguided about what differences truly divide us, but there is a grain of truth in what they say.

 

[Nine_Two]

The attitude not of Kallistos Ware or the Ecumenical Patriarch, but one that sees Catholicism as just as erroneous or more so than Protestantism or Arianism for that matter. They lump Catholicism with any other Christian heresy. Catholicism sees the eastern churches as sisters and holding an apostolic Tradition, episcopate, liturgy and sacraments.

I wouldn’t fault EO parishes from refusing communion or disagreeing about certain doctrinal issues. But for them to not respect the Catholic church as being apostolic and valid in its sacraments is stupid.

You give me two different definitions of anti-Catholic. First you say it is anyone who isn’t in the eccumenist camp, but then you go on to say it is someone who doesn’t accept Catholic sacraments as valid.

On both definitions, yes, we absolutely are overwhelmingly anti-Catholic, but on that second definition you add to your list the two paragons who you held up as not being anti-Catholic in the first place.

We don’t have a formula as to what makes a sacrament valid, our only test is that those who hold the Orthodox faith have valid sacraments. We only know that we have them.

But if that is anti-Catholicism, why should we care, when the Catholic Church is so (by that definition of “anti-”) anti-protestant, and anti-mormon, and anti-every other religion?

We absolutely believe the Catholic Church lacks the completeness of faith, and if you believe that makes us against you, then perhaps it is premature for any discussions of unity to take place.
Don’t you agree?

 

[Cavaradossi]

You give me two different definitions of anti-Catholic. First you say it is anyone who isn’t in the eccumenist camp, but then you go on to say it is someone who doesn’t accept Catholic sacraments as valid.

On both definitions, yes, we absolutely are overwhelmingly anti-Catholic, but on that second definition you add to your list the two paragons who you held up as not being anti-Catholic in the first place.

We don’t have a formula as to what makes a sacrament valid, our only test is that those who hold the Orthodox faith have valid sacraments. We only know that we have them.

But if that is anti-Catholicism, why should we care, when the Catholic Church is so (by that definition of “anti-”) anti-protestant, and anti-mormon, and anti-every other religion?

We absolutely believe the Catholic Church lacks the completeness of faith, and if you believe that makes us against you, then perhaps it is premature for any discussions of unity to take place.
Don’t you agree?

Furthermore, are Catholics anti-Anglican because they deny the validity of Anglican holy orders, while the Anglicans recognize Catholic holy orders? Should Catholics change their teachings on the validity of Anglican orders just so that they will be less anti-Anglican?

 

[Pork_Roll]

So therefore, all Orthodox who do not conform to the attitude of Metropolitan Kallistos or Patriarch Bartholomew are rabid anti-catholics?

I wouldn’t say rabid, but likely hold some anti-catholic attitudes. I find the biggest offenders are protestant converts who have to justify subconsciously not being catholic.

You give me two different definitions of anti-Catholic. First you say it is anyone who isn’t in the eccumenist camp, but then you go on to say it is someone who doesn’t accept Catholic sacraments as valid.

It’s Christ himself who explicitly calls us to be one. It’s mostly the EO who are putting barriers IMO from this being a reality. For orthodox to not make distinctions between various Christian sects is stupid and fundamentalist. The respect and humility for the ancient and pre-eminent see of Rome where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred is absent in fundamentalist to EO converts.

 

[Nine_Two]

I wouldn’t say rabid, but likely hold some anti-catholic attitudes. I find the biggest offenders are protestant converts who have to justify subconsciously not being catholic. It’s Christ himself who explicitly calls us to be one. It’s mostly the EO who are putting barriers IMO from this being a reality. For orthodox to not make distinctions between various Christian sects is stupid and fundamentalist. The respect and humility for the ancient and pre-eminent see of Rome where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred is absent in fundamentalist to EO converts.

Christ called on us all to be one, but it is the fault of Eastern Orthodox that we aren’t all one, even though the Catholic Church insists on keeping itself seperated from other Christian groups, such as anabaptists, and evangelicals.

Seems to me we have a bit of a double standard.

Which brings me back to my question. Why should we care what the Catholic Church says about this, toward us, when it holds the exact same position in relation to other Christian groups? To me that isn’t anti-Catholicism, so much as an attempt to define the argument in terms of Catholicism.

As I said in my other post, if you can’t accept that we disagree with you, then it is far too early for discussion.

 

[Hesychios]

I wouldn’t say rabid, but likely hold some anti-catholic attitudes. I find the biggest offenders are protestant converts who have to justify subconsciously not being catholic. It’s Christ himself who explicitly calls us to be one. It’s mostly the EO who are putting barriers IMO from this being a reality. For orthodox to not make distinctions between various Christian sects is stupid and fundamentalist. The respect and humility for the ancient and pre-eminent see of Rome where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred is absent in fundamentalist to EO converts.

You have accused the Orthodox of stupidity twice now.

But your perspective is very much based in the Latin Catholic perspective that a person outside of the church can be a bishop with the ability to pass on the office to others *outside *of the church. This has resulted in some widely unacceptable situations, like the phenomena of vagante bishops for example and Anglicans scrambling around for some magical “Dutch Touch”.

Well, for Orthodox it doesn’t work that way. If one is out of the church one is simply not a bishop of the church. Bishops (even Metropolitans and Patriarchs) are deposed for heresy and schismatic acts (as well as more minor offenses). The bishop of Rome doesn’t get a free pass here. He is not entitled to special consideration if he falls off the wagon. The fact that some of his predecessors were devout and Orthodox men doesn’t excuse him.

So no, the Orthodox are not putting up unnecessary barriers to unity. Unity is as easy as dropping a spoon, just believe and worship rightly. Prove it and I can assure you the Holy Orthodox churches will happily let you all come back into the communion.

 

[Pork_Roll]

As I said in my other post, if you can’t accept that we disagree with you, then it is far too early for discussion.

If the EO are unwilling to succeed that the Catholic church has a valid priesthood and sacraments and that the protestants do not, then there will never be any union. It takes both sides to give up something if there is true dialogue.

Furthermore, are Catholics anti-Anglican because they deny the validity of Anglican holy orders

Catholics at least use logic and reasoning when they say most Anglican orders are invalid. Orthodox basically say they either don’t know at best or say no because we say so at worst. In the latter case, it’s just stupid.

Unity is as easy as dropping a spoon, just believe and worship rightly. Prove it and I can assure you the Holy Orthodox churches will happily let you all come back into the communion.

Again, this mentality will never lead to union. You draw a line in the sand and say you must come over here. We are right, you are wrong. This is a stupid.

 

[Peter_J]

Furthermore, are Catholics anti-Anglican because they deny the validity of Anglican holy orders, while the Anglicans recognize Catholic holy orders? Should Catholics change their teachings on the validity of Anglican orders just so that they will be less anti-Anglican?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I’ll venture a suggestion. Since I was just informed that “to not respect the Catholic church as being apostolic and valid in its sacraments is stupid”, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Anglicans are stupid for considering their own sacrament as valid.

 

[Nine_Two]

If the EO are unwilling to succeed that the Catholic church has a valid priesthood and sacraments and that the protestants do not, then there will never be any union.

I don’t see how that follows. The Catholic Church says the Anglican Church has no sacraments, and yet union is happening there. If you think that is preconditional to talks then you should stop talking about it with us. We are quite open about this belief.

It takes both sides to give up something if there is true dialogue. Catholics at least use logic and reasoning when they say most Anglican orders are invalid. Orthodox basically say they either don’t know at best or say no because we say so at worst. In the latter case, it’s just stupid.

No, you don’t. The Papal bull was issued in an attempt to scare fence sitting Anglicans back into Rome. It backfired. My source on this, by the way, is a book writen by a Catholic, Pius XII: The Hound of Hitler.
Our side certainly is logical. When you don’t know, you say “I don’t know.” It is illogical to try to come up with reasons one way or another when you really can’t know.

Again, this mentality will never lead to union. You draw a line in the sand and say you must come over here. We are right, you are wrong. This is a stupid.

Why is it stupid when we do it, but not when you guys do it?

 

[Hesychios]

If the EO are unwilling to succeed that the Catholic church has a valid priesthood and sacraments and that the protestants do not, then there will never be any union…

What makes you think you are entitled to some kind of exception?

Orthodox are very simple and direct about it.

If I for some reason do not believe everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches, or I am not spiritually prepared I am not entitled to communion. This goes for any Orthodox anywhere.

The same rule applies to you (and your Pope). If you do not believe everything Holy Orthodoxy teaches or are not prepared, you are not entitled to communion in an Orthodox church.

If you want Holy Orthodoxy to make an exception on your behalf it isn’t going to happen, there are no exceptions for any of us.

 

[Hesychios]

… this mentality will never lead to union. …

What does unity mean to you?

How do you define it?

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see how that follows. The Catholic Church says the Anglican Church has no sacraments, and yet union is happening there.

If you’re referring to the ordinariates, it’s actually a pretty small percentage of Anglicans who are swimming the Tiber.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you’re referring to the ordinariates, it’s actually a pretty small percentage of Anglicans who are swimming the Tiber.

Perhaps the Catholics are just being obstructionist, and they don’t want to have union with the Anglicans.

 

[Nine_Two]

If you’re referring to the ordinariates, it’s actually a pretty small percentage of Anglicans who are swimming the Tiber.

I agree, but it is happening, and these are very real negotiations that are going on - I know some people who are a member of a church which is part of this movement (I’m not sure if they have officially moved yet, or if they are just close). Pork Roll’s contention was that negotiation is impossible unless we start out fully recognizing Rome as orthodox. The counter given here is that Rome has managed to negotiate with others without giving that concession, so why should we have to?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Anglicans split from Rome and lost holy orders etc

Who did Rome split from?

Does the Elder/Senior Roman Bishop ,the Pope have to answer or submit to any other bishop or Eastern Bishop?

So they split from “Holy Orthodox Faith” ?
is that it?

im pretty sure most Catholics believe their teachings are ‘orthodox’ and dont have a problem with them

so because some or all ‘eastern Orthodox’ christians believe Rome isnt "orthodox’ is that final?

is that it? has God spoken? because EO believe this ,does that mean thats the final say and that it is the truth?

Lord have mercy

 

[Nine_Two]

Anglicans split from Rome and lost holy orders etc

Who did Rome split from?

Does the Elder/Senior Roman Bishop ,the Pope have to answer or submit to any other bishop or Eastern Bishop?

So they split from “Holy Orthodox Faith” ?
is that it?

im pretty sure most Catholics believe their teachings are ‘orthodox’ and dont have a problem with them

so because some or all ‘eastern Orthodox’ christians believe Rome isnt "orthodox’ is that final?

is that it? has God spoken? because EO believe this ,does that mean thats the final say and that it is the truth?

Lord have mercy

The Catholic argument against Anglican Holy Orders isn’t based on the fact that they left the Catholic Church. As Hesychios pointed out, the Roman Catholic view is that Apostolic succession continues outside the communion. Which is why Rome continues to believe we have it. We believe it is attached to the Faith, which is why we have doubts about anyone else.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

. We believe it is attached to the Faith, which is why we have doubts about anyone else.

So for Catholics who believe their church is ‘orthodox’ are they decieved?

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps the Catholics are just being obstructionist, and they don’t want to have union with the Anglicans.

We can reason as follows:

1. On the one hand the Orthodox refuse to accept the pope’s judgment that Catholic sacraments *are *valid.
2. On the other hand, Anglicans refuse to accept the pope’s judgment that Anglican sacraments aren’t valid.
3. Now, if (1) is stupid, it seems safe to say, conversely, that (2) is stupid as well.
4. Since Anglicanism is stupid, Catholics are *not *being obstructionist at all. The stupidity of Anglicanism in not accepting that their sacraments are invalid is the real reason they can’t achieve union with Rome.

 

[Vico]

Catholic Teaching on Apostolic Succession (1973)

(exerpt)

The charism of apostolic succession is received in the visible community of the Church. It presupposes that someone who is to enter the ministry has the Faith of the Church. The gift of ministry is granted in an act that is the visible and efficacious symbol of the gift of the Spirit, and this act has as its instrument one or several of those ministers who have themselves entered the apostolic succession.

Thus the transmission of the apostolic ministry is achieved through ordination, including a rite with a visible sign and the invocation of God (epiklesis) to grant to the ordinand the gift of his Holy Spirit and the powers that are needed for the accomplishment of his task. This visible sign, from the New Testament onward, is the imposition of hands (see LG 21). The rite of ordination expresses the truth that what happens to the ordinand does not come from human origin and that the Church cannot do what it likes with the gift of the Spirit.

The Church is fully aware that its nature is bound up with apostolicity and that the ministry handed on by ordination establishes the one who has been ordained in the apostolic confession of the truth of the Father. The Church, therefore, has judged that ordination, given and received in the understanding she herself has of it, is necessary to apostolic succession in the strict sense of the word.

…

1. In spite of a difference in their appreciation of the office of Peter, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox church, and the other churches that have retained the reality of apostolic succession are at one in sharing a basic understanding of the sacramentality of the Church, which developed from the New Testament and through the Fathers, notably through Irenaeus. These churches hold that the sacramental entry into the ministry comes about through the imposition of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and that this is the indispensable form for the transmission of the apostolic succession, which alone enables the Church to remain constant in its doctrine and communion. It is this unanimity concerning the unbroken coherence of Scripture, Tradition, and sacrament that explains why communion between these churches and the Catholic Church has never completely ceased and could today be revived.

…

Thus through the centuries, the imposition of hands either by men already ordained or by others was often in practice abandoned. Where it did take place, it did not have the same meaning as in the Church of Tradition. This divergence in the mode of entry into the ministry and its interpretation is only the most noteworthy symptom of the different understandings of Church and Tradition. There have already been a number of promising contacts that have sought to reestablish links with the Tradition, although the break has so far not been successfully overcome.
In such circumstances, intercommunion remains impossible for the time being, because sacramental continuity in apostolic succession from the beginning is an indispensable element of ecclesial communion for both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1973_successione-apostolica_en.html

 

[Nine_Two]

So for Catholics who believe their church is ‘orthodox’ are they decieved?

Deception is a loaded concept. The implication is that some mastermind, who knows the position is wrong is telling people it is correct, and they believe him. No, I certainly do not believe Catholics are decieved in this manner. I believe the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to be quite sincere.

However we do not believe Catholics have the fullness of faith, and therefore cannot be said to be Orthodox. If you were, we would already have union.