Do Orthodox want Communion with Rome?

[Rawb]

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) .

I didn’t say they were perfect, I said they were conservative. The two do not mean the same thing, and I hardly think pointing out scandals in each other’s hierarchies is really going to end favorably for either side.

In the interest of fairness I’ll admit that most homes I’ve been in have been from Slavic traditions, except those few Arabic and Greek homes. Perhaps its our areas. I live in a naturally more conservative area, but, then again, my friends around the country all have Icon corners.

 

[Ken_Taki]

@Rawb

These threads often descend into hopelessness. From your perspective then, there is no hope for reconciliation between the Rome and Orthodoxy bar a complete acquiescence to every point of differentiation between Rome and Orthodox commonunion on every issue you mentioned. I have to believe there is greater hope than that. I pray that one day we will be united whether, at this time, you want it or not. I pray that the RCC is wise enough to walk along side our eastern brothers/sisters as far as we can in order to make unity a reality. Take care and God bless.

Yes the Orthodox are ridiculously polemic on internet forums. This extreme bias comes from cultural differences or hatred for the west and infinitely ignorant understandings of church history(and the fact that they might have been on the wrong side of arguments once in a while). They simply mask it by screaming “The Pope!!” or “Immaculate Conception!” or “Legalism!!” and oh yeah “Heretics!” In truth its just a tribal, nationalistic type hatred. “You are not us! You are wrong!” Theres no charity in them. If theres no love in you, than how can you possibly claim to be the Body of Christ? Even the uber traditionalist Catholics don’t have anything near the spit and venom of some of the angry Orthodox.

I do hear some very clear headed former Catholic Priests who are now Orthodox Priests and they sound nothing like the ignorant bigotry coming out of some Orthodox. This comes I guess from actually studying about things from an objective viewpoint. Who would have known?

The Church was one at one point in time. I in truth still think it is. Its just a matter of men keeping one another divided. Look at miracles from both sides, healings of cancer, Icons crying, statues crying, uncorrupted bodies. Its the same! I honestly dont think Christ sees the church as anything less than one. Divided or segmented, but in truth still one. People who try to perpetuate a less than full communion (for that reason alone, there are legitimate gripes but this is rarely at the heart of the divisive people)
should be taken to task. One shouldnt simply ignore John 17:20-21, or for that matter try to interpret 16:18 or even more so John 21:15-17 because you dont want it to say what you know it does. Its no different than sola scriptura protestants and to me a grave sin.
Kyrie Eleison.

 

[Ken_Taki]

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’

Charitable works are not a strong point in Orthodoxy.

This is said with English understatement; meaning its something akin to a joke. Guess they are too busy explaining why Catholics are heretics to go out and get their hands dirty.

 

[gregdaly]

My proof is that Orthodox clergy and laity have told me that they are not reconcilable. You don’t agree with my proof

Dzheremi, to be honest. I don’t know why anyone would agree with your proof. Appeal to authority by the standards of any professional rhetorician is an invalid form of argumentation. You have to provide reasoned proofs, not just “he said this” or “they said this.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?

As we talked about in the other thread, we’re not talking about subjective perceptions of orthodoxy, but the objective reality of what a certain group is actually teaching.

Group A will say, “Group B teaches X, and we cannot accept X because X is heresy.”

Group B responds, “We have never taught X, but we teach Y, and Y is not heresy.”

The problem I see with the approach of certain people here is that despite Group B’s statements - with proofs - that “We teach Y, not X,” Group A keeps insisting that Group B teaches X.

Unless Group A can demonstrate that Y is heresy, then Group A has no grounds to reject unity with Group B. The problem is that there are those in Group A who will not even bother to address Y, but are content with their misconception that Group B teaches X.

To repeat, I think Marduk’s point is that you/we need to get beyond subjective perceptions of orthodoxy or heresy, but start to address the objective reality of what a certain group is actually teaching.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

Charitable works are not a strong point in Orthodoxy.

This is said with English understatement; meaning its something akin to a joke. Guess they are too busy explaining why Catholics are heretics to go out and get their hands dirty.

That IS funny.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes the Orthodox are ridiculously polemic on internet forums. This extreme bias comes from cultural differences or hatred for the west and infinitely ignorant understandings of church history(and the fact that they might have been on the wrong side of arguments once in a while). They simply mask it by screaming “The Pope!!” or “Immaculate Conception!” or “Legalism!!” and oh yeah “Heretics!” In truth its just a tribal, nationalistic type hatred. “You are not us! You are wrong!” Theres no charity in them. If theres no love in you, than how can you possibly claim to be the Body of Christ? Even the uber traditionalist Catholics don’t have anything near the spit and venom of some of the angry Orthodox.

I do hear some very clear headed former Catholic Priests who are now Orthodox Priests and they sound nothing like the ignorant bigotry coming out of some Orthodox. This comes I guess from actually studying about things from an objective viewpoint. Who would have known?

The Church was one at one point in time. I in truth still think it is. Its just a matter of men keeping one another divided. Look at miracles from both sides, healings of cancer, Icons crying, statues crying, uncorrupted bodies. Its the same! I honestly dont think Christ sees the church as anything less than one. Divided or segmented, but in truth still one. People who try to perpetuate a less than full communion (for that reason alone, there are legitimate gripes but this is rarely at the heart of the divisive people)
should be taken to task. One shouldnt simply ignore John 17:20-21, or for that matter try to interpret 16:18 or even more so John 21:15-17 because you dont want it to say what you know it does. Its no different than sola scriptura protestants and to me a grave sin.
Kyrie Eleison.

Be careful lest you become that which you despise.

 

[Rawb]

I seem to have misunderstood the type of people I was conversing with, or any perceived welcome given to Orthodox posters.

I’ll just go huddle in my tribal cave, avoiding doing any charitable works and spitting anytime I hear the word “Roman”. That’s what we do, right?

My participation in this thread is done. Enjoy affirming yourself in your anti-Orthodox bigotry.

 

[ciero]

I seem to have misunderstood the type of people I was conversing with, or any perceived welcome given to Orthodox posters.

I’ll just go huddle in my tribal cave, avoiding doing any charitable works and spitting anytime I hear the word “Roman”. That’s what we do, right?

My participation in this thread is done. Enjoy affirming yourself in your anti-Orthodox bigotry.

I have been attending both Catholic & Orthodox churches for more years then you are alive…and I really think you need to get a grasp on what the REAL Orthodox church is…and it is certainly NOT what you represent it to be…would that it was…ever heard of Rose colored glasses?

 

[Trinityisgod]

I have to say, the church (Catholic church) is NOT heretical. Different understandings, perhaps, but not heretical. Since there are some Orthodox here, what would it take for a full communion to take place?

 

[Apotheoun]

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.

I’m not Eastern Orthodox, but this is a great post.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, to be honest. I don’t know why anyone would agree with your proof. Appeal to authority by the standards of any professional rhetorician is an invalid form of argumentation. You have to provide reasoned proofs, not just “he said this” or “they said this.” Perhaps I am misunderstanding you

What is apostolic Christianity but “they said this”, compounded throughout the centuries of Christian tradition and faith? I’m sorry, but at no point in my life as a Christian (and I’ve been some sort of Christian for my entire life) has there ever been any other means of learning. We don’t just make things up by way of sophistry as though we are arguing Greek philosophy or what have you. If I cannot point to some authority greater than myself, then my position is much weaker, even if it can be argued much more tidily by some other means. It must be so because this is what apostolic Christianity is: I learned from my priest/mentor, and he learned from someone of similar knowledge and authority, and he learned from someone, and he learned from someone, on and on, back to the time of the holy apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ Himself. If I were to suddenly decide that this was not good enough because it didn’t convince people on the internet, then I’d be throwing out this most valuable means of transmission for basically nothing. I’m sorry, but if priests and laymen of the Orthodox churches, who know their faith much better than I do, are not good enough for you, then why do you think I should be able to do better?

As we talked about in the other thread, we’re not talking about subjective perceptions of orthodoxy, but the objective reality of what a certain group is actually teaching.

No, in this thread we’re (supposed to be) talking about whether or not the Orthodox want communion with Rome, which isn’t actually all that related to what Romans think about their own teachings.

To repeat, I think Marduk’s point is that you/we need to get beyond subjective perceptions of orthodoxy or heresy, but start to address the objective reality of what a certain group is actually teaching.

And my point is that if Mardukm or anyone else can’t see why their focus on anything OTHER than the orthodoxy of a given position is NOT going to amount to a hill of beans with the Orthodox, then there’s absolutely no point in continuing any conversation. Like I wrote earlier, it’s not as though I haven’t read Mardukm’s explanations (and those of many other people here of similar theological acumen). I just don’t agree with the conclusions drawn from them…

 

[dzheremi]

I’m not Eastern Orthodox, but this is a great post.

Haha. It’s okay, my friend. Neither am I.

 

[Vico]

I’ve Just curious; do any of the Orthodox actually want communion with Rome? I know some individuals might; but what about Patriarchs and Bishops?

Yes because it is the desire of Christ the we all be one, and is expressed in scripture.

 

[milidrag]

Group A will say, “Group B teaches X, and we cannot accept X because X is heresy.”

Group B responds, “We have never taught X, but we teach Y, and Y is not heresy.”

The problem I see with the approach of certain people here is that despite Group B’s statements - with proofs - that “We teach Y, not X,” Group A keeps insisting that Group B teaches X.

Unless Group A can demonstrate that Y is heresy, then Group A has no grounds to reject unity with Group B. The problem is that there are those in Group A who will not even bother to address Y, but are content with their misconception that Group B teaches X.

This is quite a nice misconception of yours.

It should read like this:

Group A says: “We believe X, Group B believess Y, and we cannot accept Y because Y contradicts X and is a heresy.”

Group B says: “We have never believed Y, but we believe Z, which is not different from yours X.”

Group A: “Really? But in Lyons you clearly professed that Z is actually Y+n1; hence, it’s heretical because it contains Y that contradicts our X”.

Group B: “Oh, you don’t understand. We have further explained it in Ferrara-Florence that we did say in Lyons that Z is actually Y+n1, but what we actually meant is that Z is actually Y+n2!”

Group A: “We have already said that we don’t accept it, because Y contradicts our teaching X and is thus heretical.”

Group B: “You don’t understand. We don’t have a word for X, thus wee need to use the word Y when we mean Z which is the same as your X.”

Group A: “Well, as long as Z doesn’t include the meaning of Y+n1, or Y+n2, or Y+nx, it could be fine. Does Z exclude the meaning of Y+n1/Y+n2/Y+nn?”

Group B: “Well, No.”

Group A: “But Y a heresy!”

Group B: “You don’t understand. It’s not, because we mean if Z is Y+n1/Y+n2/Y+nn, then Y+n1/Y+n2/Y+nn are not heresises but legitimate differencies.”

Group A: “Every Y is a heresy”

Group B: “You don’t understand. Y+n1/Y+n2/Y+nn are not the same as Y!”

Group A: “Fine. Condemn Y as heresy!”

Group B: “You don’t understand…”

Continued ad infinitum.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I don’t know, it seems obvious to me that unity for both sides simply means annexation.

Dogmatic purgatory, immaculate conception, and the Catholic view of salvation are all irreconciliable (from the Orthodox view) with Orthodoxy. Rome would have to renounce all of these, at least in dogmatic terms, for any kind of unity. This without even the filioque, which thought some Orthodox might be more lenient on it, many others see it as entirely heretical. It’s a standstill.

Call me a pessimist but when both sides claim to be correct 100% you can’t get a compromise that will lead to union.

I don’t mean this to be disparaging, I hope that’s clear. But it’s obvious that if both sides claim to have the fullness of the Christian faith, neither side is going to accept a situation of unity where elements of the faith are compromised. Why would they?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother FabiusMaximus,

I don’t know, it seems obvious to me that unity for both sides simply means annexation.

Dogmatic purgatory, immaculate conception, and the Catholic view of salvation are all irreconciliable (from the Orthodox view) with Orthodoxy. Rome would have to renounce all of these, at least in dogmatic terms, for any kind of unity. This without even the filioque, which thought some Orthodox might be more lenient on it, many others see it as entirely heretical. It’s a standstill.

Call me a pessimist but when both sides claim to be correct 100% you can’t get a compromise that will lead to union.

I don’t mean this to be disparaging, I hope that’s clear. But it’s obvious that if both sides claim to have the fullness of the Christian faith, neither side is going to accept a situation of unity where elements of the faith are compromised. Why would they?

The talks between the OO and CC on the matter of Christology prove that both sides can claim to be 100% correct, and still come to agreement. This was a 1500 year dispute that came to be resolved because of the spiritual fruit of understanding, and neither side had to give anything up.

The fact that there are Eastern and Oriental Churches in union with Rome also demonstrates this paradigm does work. As I had exhorted brother Dzheremi, just claiming “you are wrong we are right” (or “it’s reconcilable”/“no it’s not”) is vacuous and senseless. Each side has to be willing to actually focus and study the issues instead of spouting off these empty slogans.

If empty slogans are not your cup of tea, and you are interested in finding out how the different theological expressions of East, West, and Orient can actually be reconciled, this is the place to ask.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t know, it seems obvious to me that unity for both sides simply means annexation.

Dogmatic purgatory, immaculate conception, and the Catholic view of salvation are all irreconciliable (from the Orthodox view) with Orthodoxy. Rome would have to renounce all of these, at least in dogmatic terms, for any kind of unity. This without even the filioque, which thought some Orthodox might be more lenient on it, many others see it as entirely heretical. It’s a standstill.

Call me a pessimist but when both sides claim to be correct 100% you can’t get a compromise that will lead to union.

I don’t mean this to be disparaging, I hope that’s clear. But it’s obvious that if both sides claim to have the fullness of the Christian faith, neither side is going to accept a situation of unity where elements of the faith are compromised. Why would they?

Dear FabiusMaximus,

“Annexation” - you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head! Historically, the Unias with Rome have been precisely that - annexations of portions of Orthodox jurisdictions that created the EC churches.

Rome has repented of that “model of church unity” as it realized (soon after Brest) that the unia model could not possibly achieve union with the ROC and the rest of Orthodoxy.

Personally, I see Purgatory et alia as Latin expressions of what is the same faith of the universal Church.

The problem in the past is that the Latin Church insisted on imposing its teachings/theologoumena on the Eastern Catholic churches coming under it.

One possible reason for this is “post-schism.” After Rome and the East parted company, Rome became the only Apostolic See in the (Latin) Catholic Church. Some might say there was a blurring between Rome as the chief See and final court of appeal in Christendom and Rome as a Particular Church (in its own Rite) .

This is why there was such a tremendous pull toward Latinization with respect to the EC Churches - it was not enough to confess the Roman faith (including the Filioque, Purgatory etc.), one needed to approximate as closely as possible the Roman Rite (whether this was done to the EC Churches by external RC sources or from within by Latinized EC bishops).

I have a Slavonic Greek Catholic Trebnyk from the 19th century where the rules of intercommunion between Roman and Greek Catholics are outlined (!). Roman Catholics, the rules say, are not to commune at GREEK CATHOLIC parishes without special permission etc.

Eastern Catholics were looked upon with suspicion by RC’s because of their “Orthodox (read: schismatic) Rite.”

Fr. Irenaeus Nazarko wrote a book on Kyivan Metropolitans where he discussed two Polish RC synods held in the 18th century which expressed contempt (to put it mildly) for certain EC practices such as beards, long-sleeved black robes, the wearing of pectoral crosses by priests etc. This kind of inter-ritual bickering was the order of the day.

In addition, the EC’s that came under Rome were “looked after” by the same Vatican Congregation that dealt with the conversion of Muslims and pagans . . . The current Congregation for the Eastern Churches is a descendant of that same congregation.

And the idea that the EC’s were anything but a “rite” and not sui juris Churches was quite foreign to Rome before Vatican II. And this was also the result of Rome’s confusion noted above.

Alex

 

[dzheremi]

Hey Mardukm, I know we don’t agree on basically anything, but do you think you could try to be a little less rude in your disagreement with me? I don’t call your argumentation “empty slogans”, even as I disagree with you. To call what I’ve presented in my understanding of the Orthodox position (however flawed it may be) “empty slogans” is a real insult to everyone who is teaching me, and that includes current priests and bishops, as well as the historical writers who have upheld the Orthodox faith against the various positions of the RCC that are seen as being at variance with it (whether you think they’re right or not). I don’t think any of these people deserve such treatment just because the Orthodox here have proven less receptive to your argumentation than you would like them to be.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

Hey Mardukm, I know we don’t agree on basically anything, but do you think you could try to be a little less rude in your disagreement with me? I don’t call your argumentation “empty slogans”, even as I disagree with you.

Thank you for the exhortation. I apologize if it sounds rude. How about “slogans without anything to back them up”? I am perfectly willing to apply it to myself if I am not willing or able to give the reasons for my statements.

In any case, I do not see how you can perceive my statement to apply to your sources. I am certain your sources give reasons for their statements. The phrase only refers to those who come on here with these claims without themselves giving any reasons for them.

To call what I’ve presented in my understanding of the Orthodox position (however flawed it may be) “empty slogans” is a real insult to everyone who is teaching me, and that includes current priests and bishops, as well as the historical writers who have upheld the Orthodox faith against the various positions of the RCC that are seen as being at variance with it (whether you think they’re right or not).

But you’ve never given anything that actually explains these Orthodox positions that you have “presented.” Saying, “That Catholic teaching is a heresy” with no explanation is an empty slogan. Do your sources give explanations? I’m sure they do, so then present them here so we can discuss them. Otherwise, they are empty slogans - not with respect to your sources, but with respect to you simply stating it without any explanation or reasoning.

I don’t think any of these people deserve such treatment just because the Orthodox here have proven less receptive to your argumentation than you would like them to be.

I don’t mind at all if they are not receptive. But if they come on here to a Catholic apologetics website making claims about the heterodoxy of Catholicism, then they’d better be willing and able to give the reasons. And if we Catholics respond to those claims, and those Orthodox reject the answers, they should be willing and able to give reasons why they think those Catholic answers are insufficient. If they are not willing or able to do that, why should we suffer their insults? If they can give valid rejoinders, then they wouldn’t be insults, but would be legitimate POV’s. But there have been numerous occasions when that has not been the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MrPip]

In an earlier post, directly addressing the OP, I mentioned Orthodox not being in communion with other Orthodox. I also said that before Orthodoxy can speak with one voice about resuming communion with Rome, they had better resolve their own differences.

Many people think that Orthodoxy is one big happy family and that when “the Orthodox” say something about anything, it somehow represents a consensus of opinion, if not outright unanimity. This is clearly not the case, however.

Have a look here:*** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Orthodox_Churches***

By my count there are 23 Eastern Orthodox “churches” not in communion with the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy. Then there are 11 Oriental Orthodox churches, which, because they are Oriental Orthodox and not Eastern Orthodox, I might assume are also not in communion with the first 23 EO churches. And here in the U.S. there is the whole ridiculous, un-canonical issue of multiple “jurisdictions”. Oy Vey!

The Orthodox house is very much not in order. Is it any wonder (any disorder amongst Catholics notwithstanding) that it is so difficult for them to consider communion with Rome?

So, supposed theological, ecclesiological, philosophical, cultural, and practical differences between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church aside…It truly will take the intervention of the Holy Spirit AND willingness amongst the rank and file to put differences aside for us to achieve re-union this side of Eternity.

In Christ,
Jeff