Do Orthodox want Communion with Rome?

[Aramis]

Wow! I think Aramis was just trying to help by way of explanation. Don’t be so touchy !

In Christ,
Jeff

He’s an EO on a Catholic site, here with no intention to learn…

In short, he’s a polemicist, or a right proper simulation of one.

 

[Ahimsa]

Wow! I think Aramis was just trying to help by way of explanation. Don’t be so touchy !

In Christ,
Jeff

The simple fact is that the filioque was not a result of Council. End of Story.

 

[lax16]

I’m honestly not sure the average size. I know the Greeks generally have larger parishes. If a parish gets “too big” (probably “too big” is at the discretion of the bishop) they split the parish and start another one. Only one Liturgy is allowed per parish per Sunday, so everyone has to come to the same place at the same time.

I know on the West Coast the OCA is “suffering” from a surplus of priests, but besides that I do not know.

There is not a shortage of priests, it does not seem.
What training do they receive?

No I didn’t think your bishops did, I just knew some of your monks did so I wanted to make sure you knew ours didn’t do that. Whereas some of your monks are devoutly religious (excuse the not-correct terminology but it comes close to what I mean) social workers, none of ours are. All of ours are ‘contemplatives’. Contemplatives are a very different calling than ‘actives’. Imagine if all your bishops had first been Contemplative Benedictines and you’ll come close to our hierarchy. See what I mean?

Okay.

No, our bishops aren’t married. That’s technically a discipline, something we formed later (largely like your own celibacy rules)

Can priests marry?

Here’s an answer from Ft. John Matusiak He says a good estimate is between 2 and 3 Million in North America.

A manageable number, it seems, with enough priests.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Catholics affirm that certain Orthodox are wrong because they misrepresent Catholic teaching.

Some Orthodox affirm the Catholics are wrong. Period.

You feign that I must be fair and accept that some Orthodox just do not see it the way Catholics do.

But you don’t offer the same benefit of the doubt to Catholics and say that the Orthodox must be fair and accept that Catholics just do not see it the way Orthodox do.

Please help me understand your logic which on the face is full of inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

The fact is, one side has a different position/premises than the other. THAT’S A GIVEN.

I accept that difference in perspectives, and seek to convince certain Orthodox that there is a way to unity through understanding. Inherent in this Catholic paradigm is the hope and belief that the differences are reconcilable.

Some Orthodox here also accept that difference in perspectives, and seek to convince Catholics that the only way to unity is through conversion. Inherent in this particular Orthodox paradigm (which is not shared by all Orthodox) is that there is no hope for reconciling the differences.

So why don’t we focus on discussing the particular doctrines that divide or seemingly divide us. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of constantly whining about which phronema is correct, let’s get to the real meat of the matter - the doctrines themselves.

Let us discuss those doctrines civilly. Let’s see whose position is correct.

Are these doctrines truly IRreconcilable? Prove it.
Are these doctrines reconcilable? Prove it.

These are the only things that should concern us. Going on and on and on as you do just about the mere CONCEPT of reconcilability or irreconcilability does absolutely nothing to advance the dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

The topic of the thread is not “Entertain Mardukm in his never-ending quest to prove that all disagreements with Rome are the result of non-Roman misunderstandings of what Rome is really saying”. It is “Do the Orthodox want communion with Rome”.

In another thread it is was basically acknowledged (here) that Rome’s doctrinal claims and its supposed orthodoxy are essentially independent in your mind for purposes of argument, so why is it now necessary to prove Rome’s unorthodoxy with reference to those same claims? If Rome’s positions can be understood, but the supposed orthodoxy of those claims rejected, then why do you keep up this charade?

To recap: Union with Rome is not a goal in and of itself such that it is desired in the absence of a shared faith that would sustain that union. So long as the Orthodox remain unconvinced of Rome’s supposed orthodoxy, it is just not happening. Not coincidentally, that period of time is exactly as long as Rome insists upon the acceptability and necessity of the particular doctrines that separate it from Orthodoxy.

 

[Joel_PF]

Rawb:

The Orthodox Archbishop of Great Britain, Kallistos Ware, looks favorably on the ordination of women. directionstoorthodoxy.org/n/lambeth_interview_with_the_most_rev_kallistos_ware_archbishop_of.html

(Ok, a positive endorsement cannot be concluded from the interview; but he has certainly NOT rejected the idea outright)

In my experience, the few Orthodox I know personally are, even though very secularized and generally non-practicing, still a little bit more spiritual than the most secularized catholics.

Maybe it can be said that the Orthodox put a stronger emphasis on being orthodox while the Catholics are more universal, accepting everyone in unity with a very tolerant attitude. This insight I got from Aidan Nichols, from his wonderful book “Rome and the Eastern Churches”.

 

[Rawb]

There is not a shortage of priests, it does not seem.
What training do they receive?

I believe it’s the same as your seminaries. They get a bachelors degree (in what it doesn’t generally matter, mine has a degree in Psychology for example). They then go to Seminary for a three year Masters of Divinity (St. Vladimir’s in New York is probably the most well known, the other two ‘big names’ are St. Tikhon’s in Pennsylvania and Holy Cross in…New Jersey?)

Can priests marry?

Married men can become priests. After Ordination you cannot get married. My priest has two grown sons. Same rules for Deacons.

 

[Celticnovice]

We have active and contemplative monks, many being a combination of both. They respond to various and sometimes specific needs. This is why some are more “active” while others are more “contemplative” and some are both. I believe there are historical reasons for this.

 

[Rawb]

Rawb:

The Orthodox Archbishop of Great Britain, Kallistos Ware, looks favorably on the ordination of women. directionstoorthodoxy.org/n/lambeth_interview_with_the_most_rev_kallistos_ware_archbishop_of.html

(Ok, a positive endorsement cannot be concluded from the interview; but he has certainly NOT rejected the idea outright)

I think you’re really stretching things here. Aren’t they at an Anglican conference? If you want a ringing rejection of women priests read what Metropolitan JONAH said at the founding of the ACNA.

In my experience, the few Orthodox I know personally are, even though very secularized and generally non-practicing, still a little bit more spiritual than the most secularized catholics.

Maybe it can be said that the Orthodox put a stronger emphasis on being orthodox while the Catholics are more universal, accepting everyone in unity with a very tolerant attitude. This insight I got from Aidan Nichols, from his wonderful book “Rome and the Eastern Churches”.

Actually I think a large part if might come from the fact that Orthodoxy has stringent expectations outside of the temple. Our fasting schedule demands that there will be SOME change of diet at times of the year, and Orthodox are told to pray every morning and evening before their Icon corner (which is also present in almost every Orthodox home).

Catholicism used to have these things, and that popular piety I think helps sustain the faith outside of the Liturgy, but it’s very much been lost in the past few decades.

 

[Rawb]

We have active and contemplative monks, many being a combination of both. They respond to various and sometimes specific needs. This is why some are more “active” while others are more “contemplative” and some are both. I believe there are historical reasons for this.

I know. I did not mean to imply that one was more correct than the other, just explaining the difference here. We don’t have actives, only contemplatives.

 

[Celticnovice]

Its all good Rawb, I just wanted to explain that for those who don’t know.

 

[Celticnovice]

I think you’re really stretching things here. Aren’t they at an Anglican conference? If you want a ringing rejection of women priests read what Metropolitan JONAH said at the founding of the ACNA.

Actually I think a large part if might come from the fact that Orthodoxy has stringent expectations outside of the temple. Our fasting schedule demands that there will be SOME change of diet at times of the year, and Orthodox are told to pray every morning and evening before their Icon corner (which is also present in almost every Orthodox home).

Catholicism used to have these things, and that popular piety I think helps sustain the faith outside of the Liturgy, but it’s very much been lost in the past few decades.

God willing its making a comeback! I’m moving this fall, and I have already ensured that my new house will have an Icon corner and I’m a Latin Catholic.

 

[Joel_PF]

Most Catholic homes also have images of saints.

Notice that in the interview it was an Orthodox archbishop speaking (yes, speaking about an Anglican gathering; one which he viewed very favorably). I know the Orthodox Church rejects the ordination of women; but the consensus is not so strong as you imply.

 

[Rawb]

Most Catholic homes also have images of saints.

Perhaps, but as art usually. They are not often set up as a shrine where to pray. Some do, and I think it used to be more prevelant in the past and should and will increase in the future, but those Catholics I’ve met before who have statues of saints do so as part of the decor of their home. Art is different from Icons.

Notice that in the interview it was an Orthodox archbishop speaking (yes, speaking about an Anglican gathering; one which he viewed very favorably). I know the Orthodox Church rejects the ordination of women; but the consensus is not so strong as you imply

Not just an Orthodox Archbishop, a very well respected and listened to Archbishop. Nevertheless I still think you’re stretching.

When I asked questions, when become Orthodox from having been Catholic, about Orthodox practice I had to explain what a Liturgical dancer was - they’d never heard of it. The idea of women priests, to everyone I asked whether online, laity or priests in parishes, or what have you, was off the radar. It’s considered a Western problem usually and dismissed out of hand. The idea of it isn’t even in our minds so when someone asks us about it the answers are short and dismissive without concern because it’s not a problem in our Church. I had to explain what an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion was - the idea of laity handling Holy Communion hadn’t even occurred to the people I spoke to.

That’s why there’s not a huge outcry against it - it’s not generally even considered. Maybe some priests and bishops know the issue and can explain more, but seriously, it’s not even on the radar for the average Orthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

You feign that I must be fair and accept that some Orthodox just do not see it the way Catholics do.

I’d like that, yeah, although that wasn’t really my point in the post you were responding to.

But you don’t offer the same benefit of the doubt to Catholics and say that the Orthodox must be fair and accept that Catholics just do not see it the way Orthodox do.

Of course I do. What do you think the point of affirming others’ unique experiences as their own and equally valid as my own (or any Orthodox persons’) is, if not to say “Catholics have their own way of viewing things”? And all that stuff about the different mindsets, etc.? But again, this wasn’t really what I was getting at in my reply, which was to say “this thread is not to discuss how Orthodox should understand ____ according to Catholics, but just whether or not Orthodox want reunion with Rome” (regardless of what Catholics think of the underpinnings of EO/OO positions).

Please help me understand your logic which on the face is full of inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

Please help me understand when you’ve stopped beating your wife…

The fact is, one side has a different position/premises than the other. THAT’S A GIVEN.

I accept that difference in perspectives, and seek to convince certain Orthodox that there is a way to unity through understanding. Inherent in this Catholic paradigm is the hope and belief that the differences are reconcilable.

I understand that this is your view, and share it to a great degree (everything before the “differences are reconcilable” part; some probably are, but I don’t know if that means all are).

Some Orthodox here also accept that difference in perspectives, and seek to convince Catholics that the only way to unity is through conversion. Inherent in this particular Orthodox paradigm (which is not shared by all Orthodox) is that there is no hope for reconciling the differences.

I used to worry about that whole “conversion or destruction” idea inherent in union with the Orthodox when I was Catholic (you could probably find it in some of my earliest posts here on CAF, I would think), but now I don’t really see it that way. It only seems like conversion to something new because it’s been so long since the RCC communion lived as the Orthodox do. But, in reality, you did once do that (well, and YOU specifically definitely did, as an ex-OO), so it is not really threatening you with a foreign idea. But if you do not see your roots in the pre-Schism church, then that is for you to work out by yourself (or, likewise, if you see the modern RCC as identical in all relevant aspects to that same church, that is certainly for you to work out, since I can’t imagine many Orthodox giving you the time of day if that’s what you’re thinking).

So why don’t we focus on discussing the particular doctrines that divide or seemingly divide us. Put your money where your mouth is. Instead of constantly whining about which phronema is correct, let’s get to the real meat of the matter - the doctrines themselves.

Frankly, because this never goes anywhere due to your unshakable a priori position that the doctrines are reconcilable with Orthodoxy even though the Orthodox themselves say no way. This is mirrored, I suppose, in an equally steadfast Orthodox position that the doctrines of the RCC really aren’t Orthodox, but since this is the situation as we experience it, we must decide who we will trust – Orthodox talking about Orthodox positions vis-a-vis Catholicism (which they may get wrong when describing the Catholic position) or Catholics talking about Orthodox positions vis-a-vis Catholicism (which they may get wrong when describing the Orthodox position)? I know which one I trust and which one I don’t, and I don’t think it’s the result of any particular malice on either side. You really do see the Catholic positions as reconcilable with Orthodoxy. That’s fine. I just don’t agree with you, and it’s not because I haven’t read your explanations of the Catholic doctrines a thousand times over by now.

Let us discuss those doctrines civilly. Let’s see whose position is correct.

One more round is just more wasted bandwith. No.

Are these doctrines truly IRreconcilable? Prove it.
Are these doctrines reconcilable? Prove it.

My proof is that Orthodox clergy and laity have told me that they are not reconcilable. You don’t agree with my proof and show me many documents of agreed statements between the OO and the RCC, and when I tell you that the OO don’t give those documents the same weight that you do, you generally present more documents as though the superiority of your Googling skills or whatever should be reason enough alone for me to discard what actual Orthodox tell me about their own churches. Let’s not do this again, please.

These are the only things that should concern us. Going on and on and on as you do just about the mere CONCEPT of reconcilability or irreconcilability does absolutely nothing to advance the dialogue.

You just asked me to prove reconcilability or irreconcilability!

Mardukm, I love you as a brother in Christ, but it’s the kind of love that exists regardless of being able to talk to you about anything in a way that advances much of anything… I think that might be expecting too much from our exchanges. Would that it were some other way, but I think prayer would do us both better than endless arguments.

 

[ciero]

Well, part of it is that our priests know us. Our parishes are purposefully kept small, and your priests calls you by name for all the Sacraments, when you receive Communion, absolution, etc. If someone unknown approaches the priest will refuse them Communion or ask who their bishop is. If he doesn’t know their bishop he’ll refuse them. It’s general practice, if you’re going to be visiting a parish where the priest doesn’t know you, to email or call ahead and let him know.

Then our bishops have more authority in general, and they often start out as monks. Our monks live very strict lives, and NONE of them work in hospitals, orphanages, or schools. Their entire life is devoted to fasting and prayer. I think that the hardness of such a life naturally draws a certain type of person who is going to be more conservative and adherence to the truth of Orthodoxy is stressed. I found a website, once, that was a group of Orthodox women who may have been in favor of women’s ordination (they never said as much, but hinted at maybe being in favor of re-instituting Deaconesses) but I mean, everyone knows Orthodoxy doesn’t change, so most people I think look at is pointless to try and just leave if they don’t believe it.

Of course, the fact that we’re so small here in America must not be overlooked.

If you would like I could point out a number of Orthodox monks who work in hospitals,schools and even as police chaplains. Just sayin’

 

[ciero]

I think you’re really stretching things here. Aren’t they at an Anglican conference? If you want a ringing rejection of women priests read what Metropolitan JONAH said at the founding of the ACNA.

Actually I think a large part if might come from the fact that Orthodoxy has stringent expectations outside of the temple. Our fasting schedule demands that there will be SOME change of diet at times of the year, and Orthodox are told to pray every morning and evening before their Icon corner** (which is also present in almost every Orthodox home). **

Catholicism used to have these things, and that popular piety I think helps sustain the faith outside of the Liturgy, but it’s very much been lost in the past few decades.

You would be hard pressed to find an icon corner in MOST Orthodox homes…just as you would be hard pressed to find any religious images in MOST RC homes…time to pull your head out of the sand

 

[ciero]

I know. I did not mean to imply that one was more correct than the other, just explaining the difference here. We don’t have actives, only contemplatives.

Most Orthodox monasteries have a nice mixture of active and contemplative monks living in the same monastery. Granted in Orthodoxy you do not have either active “orders” or contemplative “orders” but monks are given the room to find their own way. To say all Orthodox monks are contemplative is living in fantasyland.

 

[dzheremi]

I wouldn’t have thought that the distinction between active and contemplative would be a part of Orthodox monasticism to begin with. I don’t recall ever reading or hearing about it in connection to Egyptian monasticism anyway. St. Anthony the Great, the Father of the Monks, said “do not trust in your own righteousness, do not worry about the past, but control your tongue and your stomach.” St. John the Dwarf said “A monk is toil. The monk toils at all he does.” One seems relatively ‘contemplative’ (in that it does not involve physical toil so much as deprivation), while the other seems definitely ‘active’ (though no doubt is also applied to the contemplative matters). Both are no doubt right. Why is this a useful distinction for the Orthodox?

 

[Rawb]

If you would like I could point out a number of Orthodox monks who work in hospitals,schools and even as police chaplains. Just sayin’

Most Orthodox monasteries have a nice mixture of active and contemplative monks living in the same monastery. Granted in Orthodoxy you do not have either active “orders” or contemplative “orders” but monks are given the room to find their own way. To say all Orthodox monks are contemplative is living in fantasyland.

I’ve connected these together because they’re the same issue, and it was my mistake. I should have made clear that I meant, as you rightly said, there are no “orders” devoted to these things.

What I meant is, and the entire reason it was brought up, is that Orthodox monastics do not ‘sign on’ thinking that they will be a teacher, or a nurse. There are Roman Catholic orders where the person signing up knows they will be, as I said before, a religious social worker. The kind of person attracted to that type of work is not generally the type attracted to Orthodox monastics. It’s a different mind set and the ENTIRE reason it was brought up was so that I could try and explain to those who were asking the type of person who generally becomes an Orthodox Bishop, which help explains the conservative attitude of Orthodox Bishops, which helps explain why the issues present in your Church are not present in ours.

You would be hard pressed to find an icon corner in MOST Orthodox homes…just as you would be hard pressed to find any religious images in MOST RC homes…time to pull your head out of the sand

They exist in all Orthodox homes I’ve been in, and are expected by my priest. My head is perfectly fine thank you, and I live in the United States of America, California. You can clearly see my location on my profile and it does not say “fantasyland”. I’d appreciate it if in the future if you would speak to me more charitably. I’d hate to add yet another Roman Catholic to the list of people who’s posts I can’t read because of their consistently rude attitude.

 

[ciero]

I’ve connected these together because they’re the same issue, and it was my mistake. I should have made clear that I meant, as you rightly said, there are no “orders” devoted to these things.

What I meant is, and the entire reason it was brought up, is that Orthodox monastics do not ‘sign on’ thinking that they will be a teacher, or a nurse. There are Roman Catholic orders where the person signing up knows they will be, as I said before, a religious social worker. The kind of person attracted to that type of work is not generally the type attracted to Orthodox monastics. It’s a different mind set and the ENTIRE reason it was brought up was so that I could try and explain to those who were asking the type of person who generally becomes an Orthodox Bishop, which help explains the conservative attitude of Orthodox Bishops, which helps explain why the issues present in your Church are not present in ours.

They exist in all Orthodox homes I’ve been in, and are expected by my priest. My head is perfectly fine thank you, and I live in the United States of America, California. You can clearly see my location on my profile and it does not say “fantasyland”. I’d appreciate it if in the future if you would speak to me more charitably. I’d hate to add yet another Roman Catholic to the list of people who’s posts I can’t read because of their consistently rude attitude.

I did not mean to be rude or un charitable…but as with most converts to Orthodoxy (and RC for that matter), folks tend to think everyone in the church live up to the ideal. This is hardly the case in Orthodoxy or the RCC. I too live in California in the US of A, and MOST Orthodox folks I know do NOT have icon corners…or even an icon for that matter. Most of these folks are Greeks and Arabs…In my experience icon corners tend to be more prevalent in Slavic homes.

As for Orthodox bishops being more conservative…I think looking at the present scandal in the OCA might help burst that bubble. (look at the last 2 Metropolitans) .