S
sidbrown
Guest
This is interesting. Do you have a reference or a link for the official documents on this. Thanks a lot.
- Status
C
Cecilianus
Guest
However, the Catholics DO accept the common teaching of the Fathers as laid out by the first seven ecumenical councils - however, the faith has been defined more clearly in other areas as well.Of course both Churches want reunion of their own terms. The biggest difference I see is Catholics demand that we personally submit to a their patriarch, which seems arrogant and condescending (although I know they don’t mean it that way), and the Orthodox demand that we all submit to the common teaching of the Fathers as laid out by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.
During the time of the Councils there was no dogma of Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and no filioque in the Creed at Rome. All Rome has to do is return to the teachings that we once held in common and we could have unity.
Yours in Christ
Joe
And there was a doctrine of papal infallibility. “It is necessary that every church agree with this church on account of its pre-eminent authority,” as St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the Adversus Haereses.
And likewise, the Immaculate Conception. Origen in his first homily said that "This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” St. Ambrose of Milan called her "a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30). She had “no stain of her own”, according to St. Proclus, the Patriarch of Constantinople in Homily 1, and complete purification was taught by St. Gregory the Theologian in Homily 38.
As far as papal supremacy goes, calling the pope the “Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops” (Tertullian, De Pudicitia) seems pretty clear.
And the filioque cannot be interpreted in any sense which contradicts the prior teaching of the Holy Spirit as defined at Nicea and Constantinople. “We Latins… say… that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,… not… with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of the whole divinity, of the Son namely and of the Holy Spirit,” in the words of the Council of Florence. As St. Maximos the Confessor (whose feast it was today!) explained in defense of his Latin brethren, “They were not making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they know one cause of son and Spirit, the Father, of the one by generation, of the other by Procession, but so as to show that he comes forth through him and in that way to establish the conjunction and the immutability of the essence.”
I do not happen to have any quotes regarding purgatory at my fingertips, but I have read no shortage of them - not to mention the Biblical evidence and the fact that it is tradition, and it is a church teaching defined at a number of councils which for all intensive purposes look to me the same as your “Seven Ecumenical Councils”. You can’t reject an ecumenical council just because you refused to show up - and, as I recall, the Orthodox DID attend Florence, which taught a doctrine of purgatory, and therefore should be considered an Ecumenical Council by the standards you use for rejecting the rest of them.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Her husband, not being Orthodox, isn’t bound by Orthodox canons. However, if both parties are bound to raise their children within their own communion, then we have a pretty intractable problem - which can only be solved with reunion. More reason for ending the schism!
As far as I can tell, however, the Eastern Catholics are Orthodox who DID end the schism by embracing union with Rome without renouncing Orthodoxy - if union is what we desire, then Eastern Catholicism is what we are working towards. I wish more Orthodox would follow your example and enter into communion with Rome as well. Unity can’t exist if someone refuses to hold communion with you.
(I personally will be in communion with anyone willing to be in communion with me, and therefore with the Pope as well. I have a standing challenge - which I posted on another thread - for someone to point out a single teaching defined by the Orthodox Church which I reject which would make me a heretic worthy of breaking communion with. I’m still waiting.)
S
sidbrown
Guest
Do you accept Purgaotry and indulgences?
Do you accept the filioque?
Do you accept the infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction of the Pope?
Do you accep the use of statues?
Do you accept divorce and permission to use artificial birth control under certain limited circumstances?
H
Hesychios
Guest
On the surface it looks like that.
But in my home parish back in Chicago (OCA) we have a family that is mixed. The father is a Latin Catholic deacon (2006), he is married to a Greek Orthodox. All the children (now mostly college and high school aged) were raised Orthodox. They attend both churches but the father respectfully never presents himself for communion when he worships with the family in our parish.
I am almost positive that they were married in the Orthodox church, but I did not know them then. It may seem odd that the Cardinal knew he was raising his children Orthodox and interviewed his Orthodox wife and yet found him to be a suitable candidate for the diaconate. Both Cardinal George and our (late) Archbishop were well informed of the situation.
After he was ordained we had a nice celebration at our parish. Father even gave the opinion that we should call the Mrs. “Pani”, and we all congratulated him after liturgy.
It was a very warm feeling. I admired him in his vocation. We were proud of the family. It just doesn’t seem as intractable a problem up close.
Aren’t we all schismatics? (to paraphrase Archbishop Zoghby). It is relative after all.
I could say that I have personally ended schism by becoming Orthodox, and someone else might say that they have personally ended schism by becoming Catholic, but those viewpoints are flawed. In no case was the schism ended by people shifting around allegiances, exchanging one patriarch for another. The division is still there, just moving around like a meandering river.
Schism in the body of Christ is a reality we have to face honestly before we can heal it.
Uh … no.
A formula that has succeeded only in creating more division and strife. There has to be another way.
Sharing communion has always been predicated upon a commonly shared Faith. It follows, does not precede, theological agreement.
Surely some Anglicans will be glad to know this!
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Simiar agreements were reached between Ven John Paul and His Holiness Mar Dinkha of the Assyrian Church of the East (not really Nestorian).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
There are probably a number of opinions concerning what this Church would need to do and that one. As I mentioned before, i am not familiar with the opinions of the heirarchies of the various Orthodox Churches. Indeed, I don’t know what the Vatican negotiators have in mind either.
However, and based almost entirely on impressions gathered from reading a lot of Orthodox statements on CAF, I would say the general Orthodox position is a lot closer to “my way or the highway” than is the Catholic position. If one knew nothing other than that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments while the Orthodox do not reciprocate, one can still reasonably conclude that the Orthodox position is more refractory than the Catholic position.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t have much to add to the discussion at this point, but I just wanted to give my total support to this statement by brother Michael.
I know that many Catholics (can’t speak for the Orthodox) labor under the impression that somehow the Schism “doesn’t apply to us”, but obviously this can’t be true. We are fortunate to have a Pope and other leaders in the Church who do not seem to be as blinded by this false impression, but we have a long way to go towards fully cleansing ourselves of the schismatic mindset that has continued to cut at the heart of Christ.
Peace and God bless!
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Yes, following the example of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Like the Orthodox I pray for those who have fallen asleep and need purification. I don’t believe in physical combustion in purgatory (the Orthodox complaint about the Catholic doctrine), and I don’t think anyone else was ever naive enough to do so either. That objection sounds like the ancient Roman claim that the Christians were committing cannibalism by eating the Body of Christ.
Sure, meaning by the doctrine the same thing that the Orthodox mean when they say that He proceeds “from the Father” alone as the source of principle of the whole divinity. “We Latins… say… that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,… not… with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of the whole divinity, of the Son namely and of the Holy Spirit," as the Council of Florence defined. The reason why we add filioque was explained by St. Maximos the Confessor: “They were not making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they know one cause of son and Spirit, the Father, of the one by generation, of the other by Procession, but so as to show that he comes forth through him and in that way to establish the conjunction and the immutability of the essence.”
Yes, following the example of St. Theodore Studites, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Bartholomew of Simeri, Sts. Kyrill and Methodius, St. Volodymry, St. Irenaeus, St. George the Hagiorite, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ephrem of Syria, St. Constantine the Great-Martyr, and dozens of other saints who in practice acted in communion with and under the authority of the “Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops” (in Tertullian’s words). I would not necessarily go as far in my ultramontanism as they did; I do believe (unlike St. Cyprian of Carthage) that those in schism from the Pope still possess valid baptisms, because this is what the Pope teaches. These are all Orthodox saints, whose example the Orthodox Church enjoins us to follow (by virtue of the fact of their sanctity).
I don’t find them helpful for prayer, but I’m not going to whine if somebody else does - and they look pretty in a room as a reminder to bring the mind to religious things. Where has the Orthodox Church officially and formally said that statues are wrong? That’s a lot stronger than just saying they don’t belong in a temple (church) using the Byzantine liturgy - which I strongly believe (because of the symbolism of the temple architecture and the iconastasis).
No, and neither did the Orthodox until very recently. They wouldn’t even permit remarriage after the death of one’s spouse. And it is still considered to be an evil.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Cardinal George however is notorious for his apathy regarding doctrinal matters - it was he who did absolutely NOTHING when it was publicly revealed that a Dominican “nun” was working at an escort at an abortion mill and who subsequently made some very blasphemous comments about Our Lady making a “choice” at the Annunciation.
In schism from each other, yes, but culpable for schism, no, and what is required is that we not be in schism from the Body of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church, and with which the Orthodox Churches are in an imperfect and wounded communion (otherwise known as schism). St. Basil the Great spoke of the necessity of rejecting communion with heretics - does that make him a “schismatic”?
By renouncing the schism that caused the separation of the Eastern Churches from Rome, the Eastern Catholics ceased to be schismatics - the Orthodox continue to be schismatics by refusing to renounce that schism.
How do you want to heal it? By ending the schism entirely? Yes or no?
Only because the Orthodox refuse to join them in ending the schism. It is they who are creating the division and strife, when the rest of us are trying to heal.
Yes - but there is considerably more theological agreement than the Orthodox are willing to admit. Most of the Orthodox theological literature I’ve read has heavily attempted to show distinctions between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that aren’t there, claims that Catholicism has rejected Orthodox teachings (like theosis) that it hasn’t, and in other ways misrepresenting Catholic teachings (like the filioque) or taking specific theologoumena proposed by different Catholic schools of theological thought as Catholic doctrine (which they aren’t, and which you have no duty to accept).
And once they return to the commonly shared Faith (which we have with you, but not with them), to the Sacraments, and to the Church, I’ll be glad too! I’m very happy about the Anglican provision that Pope Benedict just made.Surely some Anglicans will be glad to know this!
I
Ignatios
Guest
The commentary was on the same website, Maybe if you went by your own advice and used decaf you would have had some patients to notice and comprehend equally.
Communion is unity, but the unity in the RCC is in submission to the Pope, so for the Orthodox this is not the unity desired by the CHRIST JESUS nor the Apostles, for according the later unity is in the faith, and that is why Orthodox are not interested in the RCC so called unity.
Unity is in the faith not through submission to the Papacy you achieve unity.
Was there any excommunication or a step directed against those groups within the Catholic church to cut them off?
There is a true and genuine Pope in the Orthodox Church, as a matter of fact he predate your Pope. The Pope of Alexandria that is.
Last time a checked the SSPX were still not in communion with the RCC.
And the old Catholics many of them went under the Jurisdictions of the Orthodox Churches and other went waaaaaay off the track.
As for the Old Calendarists, they are in communion I receive from their Churches and I know few who visit with us from time to time and they receive from our parish.
as for the Old believers, likewise I receive from them and they from us. and the non-canonicals are not canonical:shrug:
Bickering? loool… why don’t you have that in your church? would you like me to bring up some evidences for that from your church, the difference is, that in your church, most of the beckering is over some shameful disasters such as the children abuse, would you like to get into this? if not then watch your words and remove the log out of your eye before you try to remove the splinter out of the others eye.
I see that someone else set the records straight concerning this silly attempt, so I shall not waist time over it.
loool, If any thing the Melkites are bound to Orthodoxy, my friend, read this:
shweir.com/churches.htm
things are already happening, just make sure you scroll down to the English text.
Then read this:
…Today the Melkite bishops, including Patriarch Maximos IV, support the idea that, in the event of a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, their church should be reintegrated into the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. A bilateral commission for dialogue between the Melkites and Antiochene Orthodox was established in 1995, and both sides expressed the firm intention to heal the schism of 1724 [see the Patriarchate of Antioch]. faswebdesign.com/ECPA/Byzantine/Melkite.html
Or what about the “Zoghby Initiative”? maybe you forgot about it?
the SSPX thinks otherwise.
continue…
I
Ignatios
Guest
Jurisdictional issues have been a problem within the Church from the early centuries my friend, read the 6th canon of the 1st E.C. then do some history study on the Church prior to that you will see how off you are.
Thank you for acknowledging that even Rome was involved in the bickering too. as for movement towards autocephaly, shall we start copying and pasting events from both sides concerning this or other events that is equal to it or maybe similar.
I mean… all your claims that you are attributing to the Orthodox Church are also in your church but on greater magnitude, the difference that the RCC down play them and/or they make a new rules to contain them as they are or they don’t oppose them nor affirm them, I will not mention those issues so I would not flare up the thread, but if you push it, then maybe I will, I suggest, you do some researching about those issues.
where you people coming up with all those fallacies from, did the RCC came up with new teaching in the last few days that I did know about, maybe I should update myself more often since changes is always on the move there.
I hope that if I offended anybody, that they may accept my apology, I do not desire this kind of discussion so much, but on the ground that some may be misled by all this, I answered with as little as I can, and trust me there is a whole lot more to be said .
GOD bless you all †††
Thank you for acknowledging that even Rome was involved in the bickering too. as for movement towards autocephaly, shall we start copying and pasting events from both sides concerning this or other events that is equal to it or maybe similar.
I mean… all your claims that you are attributing to the Orthodox Church are also in your church but on greater magnitude, the difference that the RCC down play them and/or they make a new rules to contain them as they are or they don’t oppose them nor affirm them, I will not mention those issues so I would not flare up the thread, but if you push it, then maybe I will, I suggest, you do some researching about those issues.
My dear friend, we the Arabs don’t need confessions of whatever to know what is in the hearts, because your words says more about you and your intentions. in another word, your posts already spoke what you feel.
We did not bring up anything, you guys did.
Where in the world are you getting your info from, Please do you understand what schism is? Is the Holy Church of Antioch, not in communion with the Holy Church of Jerusalem, or the Russian or the Serbian? or the Community of Mt. Athos is not in communion with the Romanian Orthodox Church?
where you people coming up with all those fallacies from, did the RCC came up with new teaching in the last few days that I did know about, maybe I should update myself more often since changes is always on the move there.
Pagan Priests??? go figure this out.
…and those who are not Christians not to mention also allowing pagans to worship on your alters or the other way around… in a word you guys are real universal you include and accept everything and everybody, we know that.
In short, organized confusion.
I hope that if I offended anybody, that they may accept my apology, I do not desire this kind of discussion so much, but on the ground that some may be misled by all this, I answered with as little as I can, and trust me there is a whole lot more to be said .
GOD bless you all †††
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Patristic?Apparently you don’t understand the point I was making.
The practice St Basil outlines is almost identical to Orthodox practice today. St Basil said divorce was a grievous sin, the Orthodox Church believes it is a grievous sin. St Basil allowed for digamy (second marriage) and trigamy (third marriage). The Orthodox Church, just like St Basil, allows for a second and in extreme circumstances a third marriage. St Basil prescribes one year excommunication for a second marriage and three or four years for a third. Orthodox bishops often prescribe one year excommunication for second and third marriages. In fact the guilty party may not be granted the right to remarry and certainly must exhibit repentance before being allowed to receive again.
After reading this from St Basil, who was only reflecting practice at the time, can anyone possibly say Orthodox practice is not patristic?
- *]St. Justin the Martyr
Chapter 15. What Christ himself taught
Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart before God. And, If your right eye offend you, cut it out; for it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire. And, Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, commits adultery. And, There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying. Matthew 19:12 So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.
*]Athenagoras
Chapter 33. Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage.
… For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,— that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery; Matthew 19:9 not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. …
*]Origen
Homilies on Luke - Homily 17 (The Faith of the Early Fathers vol 1 - Jurgens pp201)
Now, indeed, second and third and fourth marriages, I will be silent about even more, - are entered upon; are we not ignorant that such unions cast us out from the Kingdom of God. …
That kind of patristic?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
You are right, and we never disagreed with you - unity is in faith. Sometimes, however, there are heretics in the Church, and that’s why we have an authority - the Pope - to correct them and root out their errors. If you are too good for a Church full of sinners and people who may be led astray theologically and need correction, then I think you need to come down a peg. Or do you think the Eastern Church has never seen heretics? Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches…
Yes. The Old Catholics are not part of the Catholic Church any more than the Lutherans are - a separate group of sects entirely, despite the use of the term “Catholic”, and Womenpriests was excommunicated by Papal bull (since they performed their “ordinations” on a boat in a river between two dioceses so the local bishops couldn’t excommunicate them as had happened before). The Church is VERY clear on its teachings regarded sexuality, and people who do not live Christian lives in this regard cannot approach Communion.
You are confusing the meaning of the Papal office with the word “Pope”. The word “Pope” just means “Father” - “Papa” in Latin. Any priest can legitimately be called “Pope” etymologically speaking; we just don’t happen to use the word that way. You’re arguing about words, not about the realities we were trying to discuss.
That was my point. They removed themselves from communion with a visible sign and seal of unity - the Pope of Rome.
If you think that the Raskolniki are not in schism from Moscow, then I recommend you study the matter deeper. Many of them deny that you have valid sacraments, and believe that you are the Antichrist, etc. There are a number of Old Calendarist churches not in communion with mainstream Orthodoxy - in Greece for example. There is an American Old Calendarist diocese in Etna, California not in communion with any of the other American Orthodox churches.
Sure we have dissent - and a final authority to tell us what true Catholic teaching is.
Kindly do me a favor out of Christian charity and point me where it was? I would like to read it.
Your point? Of course they want to heal the schism, and of course they would be reintegrated under the Patriarchate of Antioch. How does that not make them orthodox Catholics?
That’s why I mentioned “the historical tendency within the Melkite hierarchy towards reluctance on these doctrines”.
That’s a red herring. The SSPX will not be regularized until they accept Vatican II’s authority, and until then they’re not in perfect communion with the Church. What they really reject is the false “spirit of Vatican II”, which is a complete apostasy from Catholicism.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
I would be more convinced if you gave at least a few historical examples rather than telling me to go study.
Not sure what you mean here. Are you insisting that you are the judge of my soul, and have better knowledge of it than I do? “Judge not that you may not be judged.”
None of those are Old Calendarist groups.
What new teaching? What in the world are you talking about? Would you mind trying to discuss the arguments being presented, instead of being sarcastic? We may be more likely to have a meeting of our minds.
The Julian Calendar was developed by Egyptian priests under the direction of Julius Caesar in 45 BC - a pre-Christian development.
What in the world are you talking about? Whoever let pagans worship on our altars or whatever? Do you seriously care about listening to what we are saying and discerning or discovering the truth together, or just insulting us? If you are so cock-sure of yourself, why do you feel the need to resort to obvious falsehoods regarding Catholic belief and practice?
In short, organized confusion.
What is organized confusion? Excommunicating a bishop and some priests who were disobedient? The Orthodox would have done no less.
Ignatios, can I ask you a question? The title of this thread was “Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?”. Do you personally want reunification? I would like to ask this of all the other Orthodox posting here as well, since this is the actual issue we were supposed to be discussing. Having a few actual Orthodox answer for themselves rather than ignoring the question would satisfy my curiousity regarding the answer to the question immensely, since that’s whom the question was directed towards, and most of you haven’t mentioned whether you actually do want reunification or not.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I might be misreading this, but it looks to me like it allows intercommunion only at the marriage celebration. “On the occasion of these celebrations, the couple as well as their family members belonging to these two Churches are allowed to participate in the Holy Eucharist in the Church where the sacrament of matrimony is celebrated.”
I don;t see where it allows intercommunion later on.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I am not sure that the Catholics can dismiss out of hand the differences in faith that the Orthodox are talking about.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Examples?
I
Ignatios
Guest
1)Well obviously the first seven Ecumenical councils, were not called by the Pope nor were headed by the pope, as matter of fact at least two of them the Pope was not notified about them, one or two were done on the contrary of the wishes of the Pope one of them a Pope was declared heretic etc…so it seems like the Church handled herself pretty good( Thanks be to CHRIST Her HEAD) with out the Papacy, as a matter of fact when the Pope thought that he is to handle everything by his authority, things fell apart.
2)I don’t think I said nor have I implied that I am too good for a Church full of sinners, but it is you who is implying that your church is perfect by pointing out and magnifying a thousand times some issues in the Orthodox Church forgetting all the horrible problems in your church.
3)Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches… all those heretics came out of the one unified Church, which your church the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH that is, was a member of this communion, where those heretics came out of.
I am sure that they are not in line with the RCC teaching, But, they think that they represent the Genuine CC, and they can put up an argument too.
SO would you say that they are non-canonical any more, despite that they call themselves Catholic?, If yes then, the same applies to the non-canonical Orthodox as well. I hope you got what I am pointing to here…
…What I am pointing to, is that you have also problems in your church, and if we have some dispute within the Orthodox Church, at least it is not a problem over homosexuals, feminists, infestation of pedophile priests for decades now, with the full knowledge of the heirarch not to mention that some of your Bishops were involved in those issues and some were victims and they were threatening to sue the Church that they head !!! I think that you should come down a couple pegs.
No sir I am not confusing anything, it is you who is confusing the words here,
Please back track yourself:
you said that the Orthodox don’t have a Pope, and I responded, yes we do and the Genuine one that also predate your pope.
Now you are paddling back away from it and you are trying to confuse it with the Papal Office, if it was the later then you would have said so.
Besides, can you tell me again who occupy the Papal Office? is it the
Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee archdiocese ??? do you know who is he? or is it the Pope???
In which it means problems of the same sort exist in your church as well.
Do you really miss the point all the time?
The Raskolniki you are talking about( as there are sects of them), held on to strange beliefs out of ignorants and some inheritance of paganism from their beginning, so in a way they were separated from the beginning but they did not appear until things evolved, in short.
continue…
- Status