Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Harpazo]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I feel like this is a good summary of what the Orthodox position on the matter is. I know that it is a hard pill to swallow for most, if not all Roman Catholics, but this is how a majority of Orthodox Christians see it.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dvdjs]

Less than a year later Fr. Hopko published this:

doy.org/viewpast.asp?ID=2027

Some key points:

Orthodox … don’t even want unity. … The Orthodox leadership, and most of the Orthodox people, don’t want unity with others, and they are not ready to give up anything… even the smallest little thing that is clearly not essential to the faith. I feel very strongly that this is true.

This remark is a criticism of the mentality, not an endorsement.

There are some issues, especially between Orthodox and Catholics, that Orthodox would have to be ready to tolerate …

Things like the “filioque” clause in the Creed]… If Rome would say it was not there originally … we now can agree on certain aspects – I think the Orthodox would have to say, “OK, let them keep it” rather than insist that every last church in Portugal drop the “filioque” before we can have unity.
…
Other things we disagree on? Unleavened bread…Communion in one kind. Communion from reserved Sacrament. Celibacy of the clergy. … Baptism by pouring water… we believe baptism involves immersion. Multiple Masses by the same priest. Confirmation as a separate ritual. Holy Communion for children. Issues about divorce and remarriage. There are plenty of issues that don’t fall into the category of “absolutely essential” or “absolutely non-essential.”

Does this perspective seem to different from that expressed in the article posted by Harpazo?

 

[CDNowak]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I feel like this is a good summary of what the Orthodox position on the matter is. I know that it is a hard pill to swallow for most, if not all Roman Catholics, but this is how a majority of Orthodox Christians see it.

In Christ,
Andrew

From my understanding, most things on the list in this article are virtually non-issues from the Catholic side. I doubt that the Vatican would waste any time in clarifying filioque, Immaculate Conception, Assumption, “debt-of-punishment” theology, re-condemning modalism, and even examining in communion with the East the exact meaning of papal supremacy circa 1000AD.

Purgatory would be a sticking point, as would indulgences due to different understandings of sin between the East and West (arising, IMHO, out of the locally dominant philosophies).

The imposing by the Orthodox, on the Latin Church, their own structure, however, is as much as a non starter as the opposite. The addition of a ratifaction by the Patriarchs of the Papal election is possible, but the abolishing the college of cardinals wholesale is highly unlikely. That said, the Orthodox would likely retain the election of their bishops, and the Papacy would only intervene in disputes beyond beyond the local Church and Synod (or with the request of the same).

The liturgical ideas are likewise mixed between non-starters and non-issues. The fact is, to the extent that the Roman Rite dates prior to the Schism, there are no grounds for the East to force change. (ie leavened vs unleavened bread) In other areas, where Roman practice has varied from Roman teaching (ie reception from the Eucharist consecrated in the particular liturgy), the Papacy would likely immediately correct, as this is an ongoing process.

Actually, there is a significant gap between what the Orthodox want the Pope to change, which would necessitate an unprecedented amount of meddling in local Churches in the Latin Rite, and what they are willing to accept. In this aspect, I think that Latin Catholics desiring unity are more inclined to believe that in practice the Church should be a unity of Local and Ritual Churches, with uniformity in the essentials but diversity where possible.

 

[Ignatios]

“They have not feared to hold a heretical council of their own authority, without your permission; whilst they could not hold even an orthodox one without your knowledge, according to ancient custom… Give ear to our prayers, O thou chief and prince of the apostles, chosen by God himself to be the pastor of the speaking flock; for thou art really Peter, since thou holdest and dost render brilliant the see of Peter. To thee Jesus Christ said: ‘Confirm thy brethren.’ Behold, then, the time and the place to exercise thy privileges; aid us, since God has given thee power to do so, for it is to that end thou art prince of all.” - St. Theodore Studites, in a letter to Pope Leo III

In the same epistle he remarks, that the “thrice blessed and divine double star of Peter and Paul rose in the East and shed its rays in every direction;” in connection with which it must be remembered that he was at that time seeking protection in Leo, and he always says of the “great city of Antioch,” that it has the “throne of Peter.”576576 Epist. 86.

It seems like you take those words dogmatically, knowing your background we do not wonder why. you must remember that the Greeks and the people of that region spoke with flowery words, again you must do some studies about this.

(1) Even when a council was called by the Emperor, the Pope was given credit for calling the council in the lives of the saints - for example, the Orthodox synaxary for Pope St. Sylvester gives him credit for calling the Council of Nicaea, which in factual history was actually called by St. Constantine.

Again you forgetting the flowery words of the Greek, unfortunately we have the RCs to take every flowery word about their Rome and their Pope as a dogma, However who was given the credit for 2nd E.C. 3rd the 4th the fifth etc…

(2) Papal legates were given primacy at all councils, and when they signed the documents on a doctrinal matter, the cry “Peter has spoken through Leo” spontaneously arose at the Council of Ephesus.

Not all the times, Primacy of Honor that is.

here is the full context of the above:
"After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: `That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus! the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was not that read at Ephesus (at the Robber Synod)? dioscurus kept it hidden.’")

(3) Name an Ecumencial Council done against the Pope’s will or without his knowledge, or when “things fell apart” when the Pope didn’t exercise his authority.

Oh boy you are showing lots of ignorance here ( lack of knowledge i.e. not offensively)
How about the 2nd E.C was without the knowledge of the Pope, also the First he was not invited to it, the fourth E.C. was done despite the insistence of Pope LEO that they should hold it for a better time but the emperor went ahead and did it anyhow, or how about Pope Vigilius was tacitly anathemized by the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope was even against but he went back and acknowledged it and he wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople asking him to reconcile him back into the unity of the Church : look under this>>> THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL

(Actually, things fell apart when he DIDN’T, as evidence by the quote from Studites, and this one from St. Basil the Great, from Letter 66, written to St. Athanasius:

“I have also known and realized for a long time from the moderate understanding which I have of the affairs that the one way of sustaining our churches is union with the Western bishops. If they should be willing to show f…

How do you see the above as support to your quest.?
Pope Victor I, interfere, and he got rebuked sharply by all the Bishops
likewise Pope stephen by St Cyprian, likewise St Meletius was in schism with Rome when he presided over the E.C…and to make long story short, how about when the Pope tried to interfere in Constantinople’ affairs, we got schism and then, in 1054 when again the Pope interfered we got another schism that lasted to your time and mine, and then it didn’t seem like he could have avoided his church another schism (Reformation) and then another with the Anglican and another with Vatican I(Old Catholic) and another with Vatican II ( SSPX)… NO SIR, you keep your pope and may your pope keep you.

My purpose was not to denigrate the Orthodox Church, but to point out that there is no consistent way to solve the problems - you say you’re Orthodox, they say they are, and who made you an authority?

loool… excuse my laughter … Is there a consistency of solving a problems in your church??? let me ask you this one question out of thousands… how come the pedophile priests controversy went on for decades and still we see them coming out and we still see controversies being covered up. ?

 

[Ignatios]

I am perfectly aware of the widespread heresies and apostasy prevalent in the Catholic Church in America today, making it almost impossible to find orthodox priests and liturgies (I drive half an hour to an hour to get to Sunday Liturgy though with a good wind I can spit from my front door to the porch of a church), and I have in fact heard of Archbishop Weakland. I’m a traditionalist; I’m pretty aware and disgruntled about the state of the mystical body of Christ after Vatican II. But we DO have a Pope to tell us that we’re Catholic and the womenpriests aren’t. Anyone who hasn’t been explicitly condemned hasn’t been so only because the Pope is failing to do his job - your solution would tell him not to condemn ANYONE.

If the pope had failed or not to do his job, this doesn’t change the fact that things in your church are a chaos, and to stand there and point out the Issues that the Orthodox Church have, and consider us as a failures because some jurisdictional issues that was the results of a breakup in the USSR and then some who did not want to change their calendar, where you totally closed your eyes on your side that it involve worship at pagans alters and the many Catholics groups all the way to pedophile priests, is totally absurd.

Do I deny that the Orthodox Church has some problems ? NO, we do we always did from the beginning, shall I refer you to the book of acts where Paul and Barnabas separated because of Mark? what then, they are not worthy, or maybe they should have united themselves to the Pope?

Of course - my point was that they were from the East, which is not immune to producing heretics.

Show me where I claimed otherwise? it is only your mind.

If the Pope says they’re not Catholic, then they’re not - regardless of what they say. The non-canonical Orthodox don’t have any Pope to excommunicate them, and their word is as good as yours.

Does the word “NON-CANONICAL” means anything to you, laying claims to Orthodoxy makes the claimer an orthodox as much as it makes the Old catholics or the SSPX the legitimate RCC.
besides the Orthodox Church does approach the non-canonical churches with very careful care, since the separation is political and again the results of the break up of the USSR, and it is not dogmatic, like it is in your case.
So as we speak steps are being taking and hopefully things will get back on track again. why should we excommunicate them and legitimize the schism where we have the way to bring them back, things just take time.

By Pope I mean the Universal and Supreme Pontiff, not just “pope” in generic sense as “papa”. I don’t understand your reference to Archbishop Weakland - was it related to Pope Shenouda, or were you just trying to insult me?

No, but if you want a specific answer you question must be specific, that is all.

The True Orthodox Church of Greece. Here is the declaration by three Old Calendarist bishops that the Greek Orthodox were “schismatic”:

Those who now administer the Church of Greece have divided the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation, and have split the Greek Orthodox People into two opposing calendar parts. They have not only violated an Ecclesiastical Tradition which was consecrated by the Seven Ecumenical Councils and sanctioned by the age-old practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but have also touched the Dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore those who now administer the Greek Church have, by their unilateral, anticanonical and unthinking introduction of the Gregorian calendar, cut themselves off completely from the trunk of Orthodoxy, and have declared themselves to be in essence schismatics in relation to the Orthodox Churches which stand on the foundation of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Orthodox laws and Traditions, the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Serbia, Poland, the Holy Mountain and the God-trodden Mountain of Sinai, etc…That this is so was confirmed by the Commission made up of the best jurists and theologian-professors of the National University which was appointed to study the calendar question, and one of whose members happened to be his Blessedness the Archbishop of Athens in his then capacity as professor of Church History in the National University…Since his Beatitude the Archbishop of Athens has by his own signature declared himself to be a Schismatic, what need do we have of witnesses to demonstrate that he and the hierarchs who think like him have become Schismatics, in that they have split the unity of Orthodoxy through the calendar innovation and divided the Ecclesiastical and ethnic soul of the Greek Orthodox People?" (Cited in Moss, New Zion in Babylon, Part 3, p. 92)

I myself cited this from orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Calendarists, which also lists the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (three of them, actually), the Holy Synod in Resistance, the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, Holy Synod of Milan, Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America, Holy Orthodox Church in North America,Genuine Orthodox Church of America, Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (with an American counterpart as well), and individual parishes, and others. There are links to the webpages, which clearly state their schism from the plain-old Greek Orthodox Church (orthodox-christianity.net/) run by these people, if you don’t trust the word of a third-party webpage.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

ok, again, those Churches, are not at dogmatic false, they are Orthodox but they some of them chose to separate themselves, and right now many of them are receiving from our churches and vise versa, they are kind of relaxed on those issues and hopefully in time they will come back to the fold.
But what is the point of all this, is it to say that we do not have a handle over things…if that is your standard then how much more it is your church with all the problems I pointed out for you before, and the key here that your problems are not in line with the canon and involve pedophiles, in which in some of them the Pope is the one who is doing them…
Besides what about the very many Catholic churches that are not in communion with you any more, like I said before what is on our side is multiplied on your side:
Catholics Churches not in communion with the RCC

Polish National Catholic Church
pncc.org/who_beliefs.htm

canc.org.uk/ CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC

Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
Eucharistic Catholic Church
Free Catholic Church
Reformed Catholic Church
true Catholic Church


Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the national church of the People's Republic of China
Philippine Independent Church, also called the Aglipayan Church, a national church in the Philippines
Polish National Catholic Church, a Polish national church in the United States and Canada


Community of the Lady of All Nations (Army of Mary)
Married Priests Now!
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God
Reformed Society of Jesus, an organization within the Reformed Catholic Church
Roman Catholic Womenpriests

Only because we have an authoritative way of telling the difference.

You can’t tell the difference because of your authoritative way, speaking about your dogmas

If simply pushing the membership numbers were our aim, we would have permitted divorce and birth control - and dozens of other concessions. The Catholic Church isn’t known for having popular doctrines.

You have, you only call the divorce “annulment” and then you can get married as many times as you want.
and you allow the birth control, although you call it natural family planning.

And that is why one of the things that many are coming to the Orthodox Church, because people are not accepting this wishy washy things, you change the names of it and then you think people will swallow it.

The Orthodox have multiple jurisdictions in the same region - ROCOR and the Orthodox Church of America, for example.

the Multiple Jurisdiction on the American soil was not the results of braking the rules, but it was the results of Immigrant who came over and they brought everything with them including their Churches, thus with time it became a problem, but even this it is on its way out since now new generations English speaking and the converts are becoming the majority, already many Churches gained self governing as a step towards one Orthodox American Church, and things has moved now from talking about it to meeting about it and establishing, groups, evangelism missions together etc…

Continue…

 

[a_priori]

I was Orthodox for a dozen years and now I’m Catholic. The Orthodox I worshipped with don’t want reunification. They think Orthodoxy is correct (no pun) and Catholicism is compromised. They feel there is nothing to gain by accepting a watering-down of their Church. There is no incentive in their minds, to say nothing of the 600-pound gorilla in the room, ethnocentrism.

 

[Cecilianus]

But what is the point of all this, is it to say that we do not have a handle over things…if that is your standard then how much more it is your church with all the problems I pointed out for you before, and the key here that your problems are not in line with the canon and involve pedophiles, in which in some of them the Pope is the one who is doing them…

No comment.

In all seriousness, though, while you’re not claiming that the Pope is a pedophile, has it occurred to you that in the three main divisions of Christianity, Catholicism has the SMALLEST problem with sexual crimes committed by priests - followed by the Orthodox and then the Protestants?

 

[Cecilianus]

Does the word “NON-CANONICAL” means anything to you, laying claims to Orthodoxy makes the claimer an orthodox as much as it makes the Old catholics or the SSPX the legitimate RCC.
besides the Orthodox Church does approach the non-canonical churches with very careful care, since the separation is political and again the results of the break up of the USSR, and it is not dogmatic, like it is in your case.
So as we speak steps are being taking and hopefully things will get back on track again. why should we excommunicate them and legitimize the schism where we have the way to bring them back, things just take time.

They say they are canonical and the Greek Orthodox are non-canonical. The Greek Orthodox say it’s the other way around. I call them the “non-canonical” Orthodox because you are a member of the other body. Why should I believe you rather than them, however, regarding who is truly Orthodox - because your church is bigger?

If that’s the criterion for the truth, then compare the numbers between the Catholic Church and the 216 Orthodox Churches and use that to determine which is the true Church of Christ.

 

[Ignatios]

My point was that the Melkites I know are orthodox. I am aware that some of the bishops are not entirely so.

As Orthodox to the Zoghby Intiative? yes, only 2 bishops out of the whole synods sided with Rome.

I hate schism and schismatic attitudes.

See I was right about you, anyhow feelings are mutual, I also hate schism, I also hate schismatics “AND” HERETICS attitude.

I love the entire richness of Orthodox spirituality and history.

You should it is the roots of your church as well.

Which Council is this canon from? Whichever one it is, it probably isn’t binding any more, and certainly wasn’t binding on Pope Benedict. You can’t depose a Pope, and if the Pope chooses to do something previously forbidden, then by virtue of that action it becomes okay, provided it doesn’t violate the natural or divine law. There is nothing intrinsically sinful about praying in a synagogue or mosque - what is sinful is adopting a false religion. As the head of the Church, the Pope is also a diplomat, and has to visit people of other religions. I don’t see the problem.

I have put down for you what canon,( Roman letters?) it is the Apostolic Canon …if you bother to read.

Besides it seems that you skipped over this:
" Here is a photo from The Indian Express in which the aforementioned “Cardinal” Dias is burning incense to the Hindu deity Ganesha (right)"
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/H.O.W._of_JP2s_hierarchy_and_members.html

Humility is holy, but I don’t like the ambiguity here either.

I did not write this one down it was by some of your brothers Catholic “groups” who are against what the Pope is doing.

Big deal.

I and many think it is

As he should have. Removing one’s shoes is a gesture of reverence before the sacred - and should frankly be done in any place sanctified by prayer, the Christian temple much more so than the Moslem mosque. The question is not why did the Pope remove his shoes at a mosque, but why don’t we at Liturgy.

(Yeah, okay, it’s just a gesture of reverence which doesn’t happen to be part of our tradition. But it IS part of the Muslim tradition and culture.)

Why not? Is it a sin to learn about other religions? I would love an opportunity like that.

Also, you’re forgetting about the Syrian monks who turned to Sufi sheikhs for spiritual direction when they had no Christian directors available - not that this was what the Pope was doing, though.

You can pray in any direction you want to - but the most proper direction for the Christian is East, which also happens to be in the direction of Mecca.

Not making the Sign of the Cross was probably out of respect for the Muslims present, or a desire not to be murdered on the spot. The posture of tranquility, however, is a beautiful and true posture of reverence and prayer. The Orthodox also cross their arms to receive Communion - and when you’re in a Latin-rite church trying to make it more discrete so as not to make it look like you want a blessing instead of Communion, the posture for Communion looks a lot like the posture of tranquility.

SIR, Go and read the Apostolic Canons, and then ask question to your church .

according to the canons your Pope is in apostasy when he does such things.

It only looks like apostasy if you want to interpret it that way. Anyone remotely familiar with the Pope’s writings and job description knows that he’s Catholic.

There was not even one sign of him being a Christian there.

No, I don’t agree. We have a Pope who excommunicates the heretics. You have no such recourse.

when there is a heretic we do excommunicate him, the history is the best evidence, would you like me to give you an account of couple of them

GOD bless †††

 

[Ignatios]

No comment.

In all seriousness, though, while you’re not claiming that the Pope is a pedophile, has it occurred to you that in the three main divisions of Christianity, Catholicism has the SMALLEST problem with sexual crimes committed by priests - followed by the Orthodox and then the Protestants?

I like to see the “SMALLEST” number

They say they are canonical and the Greek Orthodox are non-canonical. The Greek Orthodox say it’s the other way around. I call them the “non-canonical” Orthodox because you are a member of the other body. Why should I believe you rather than them, however, regarding who is truly Orthodox - because your church is bigger?

If that’s the criterion for the truth, then compare the numbers between the Catholic Church and the 216 Orthodox Churches and use that to determine which is the true Church of Christ.

Likewise the very many separated catholic churches they claim they are , and you say they are not, as an Orthodox who the word of the pope does not mean much more than those from the other side… and I call them by whatever names because you are memeber of the other body as well… as for the number the same goes to you just because you church is bigger does not mean that you are right… or you compare the number between the Catholic Churches to include those who separated from in the past 500 years …welll… the number would be in the thounsands …

Like I always said to you what is on our side is multiplied by number and wrongful doing on your side.

GOD bless †††

 

[aspirant]

Also, in his Orthodox Way, [Bishop Kallistos] quotes Blessed Julian of Norwich amongst Orthodox saints, even though she is post-schism and, to my knowledge, not venerated in any of the Orthodox Churches (save, perhaps, by Western Rite Orthodox)…

Another good example. I do not think it is reasonable to call Bishop Kallistos anti-Catholic.

 

[sidbrown]

In my personal opinion it is not too helpful in the discussion for Catholics to quote from the “True Orthodox” Church or for the Orthodox to quote from the Most Holy Family Monastery. It seems to me that both of these groups do not represent the mainstream thought in their respective Churches.

 

[Cecilianus]

Besides it seems that you skipped over this:
**" Here is a photo from The Indian Express in which the aforementioned “Cardinal” Dias is burning incense to the Hindu deity Ganesha **(right)"
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/H.O.W._of_JP2s_hierarchy_and_members.html

Cardinal Dias was burning incense to Ganesha? I couldn’t tell what he was doing - the photo was pretty fuzzy. The “Monastery” you got it from is hardly a reliable source of information, however. Even the rest of the article you got the photo from horribly misrepresented Dias’ actual words, as you can tell simply by clicking on the link they provide.

In response to someone else, citing the “Most Holy Family Monastery” is not comparable with citing the Old Calendarists. I cited the Old Calendarists because they claim to be Orthodox - an example of a schism within Orthodoxy. Catholicism is governed by the teaching authority of the Pope, however, and groups like the Dimond brothers that reject his authority are by that standard not Catholic. We have a way of knowing that Peter and Michael Dimond (the two guys who form “Most Holy Family Monastery”) are not Catholic; we do not have this criterion for determining that the Old Calendarists are not Orthodox.

SIR, Go and read the Apostolic Canons, and then ask question to your church .

The Apostolic Canons have long since superseded (and some of them were never binding to begin with - Pope St. Gelasius I condemned many of them, and whether they were ever binding to begin with is in doubt. The current canons in force for the Church is the 1983 Code of Canon Law; there have been many collections of canons in the mean-time that have held authority.

It seems that neither of us is understanding each other very well - I don’t know if you’re understanding the point of my arguments. I’m having a lot of trouble with your English, so I might be missing the point of what you’re saying also.

 

[Cecilianus]

Another good example. I do not think it is reasonable to call Bishop Kallistos anti-Catholic.

Well, the first two chapters of his book “The Orthodox Church” were so anti-Catholic I couldn’t finish it. He can be when he wants to be.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

If the RCC is willing to come back to the prior schism and claim her most honorable seat amongst her equals and brethren, we as Orthodox lift our hands and hearts to GOD and thank Him for bringing our most beloved brothers and sisters back to their own home amongst us, as for us Orthodox there is nothing that we can do to move towards where Rome is today NOT EVEN AN INCH, other than keep lifting up the prayers and invocation to GOD.
Tell me how could I go and receive communion from the RCC when they hold the Precious blood and give me only HIS Precious flesh, or how would go by accepting the Pope as the HEAD of the Church Dogmatically when it is clear from the Bible that the Head of the Church is JESUS CHRIST ALONE Dogmatically, No, GOD forbid that I would do such things.

And there you have it, folks. My mother’s family was Lebanese/Greek Orthodox. Many in the community were anti-Catholic bigots, including members of my family. I have always felt the greatest bar to Catholic/Orthodox unity is the Orthodox laity and this person proves it in the pride and arrogance he exhibits.

It is, according to him, the Catholic Church who must submit, to cease to be the Catholic Church, and that will never happen as long as Scripture says Peter has the Keys to the Kingdom, as long as the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church to all truth, (Jn. 16:13) and as long as the Lord will be with His Church until the end of time (Mt. 28:20).

The last two popes have ben trying to find a way acceptable to the Orthodox hierarchy to exercise their patristic mission and obligations. Both sides are working on it. They will eventually come to an agreement. This guy, and others like him, will either come to the agreement kicking and screaming, or become a separate sect.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

NOT at all, he was “serving” CHRIST after he was “COMMANDED”

Which is exactly the Pope’s function. Do you deny it?

 

[Ignatios]

Cardinal Dias was burning incense to Ganesha? I couldn’t tell what he was doing - the photo was pretty fuzzy. The “Monastery” you got it from is hardly a reliable source of information, however. Even the rest of the article you got the photo from horribly misrepresented Dias’ actual words, as you can tell simply by clicking on the link they provide.

Your answer comes with no surprise at all, Just what I expected, if it was about Orthodox and the picture was fuzzy you would have made out of it more than what it appears to be.

In response to someone else, citing the “Most Holy Family Monastery” is not comparable with citing the Old Calendarists. I cited the Old Calendarists because they claim to be Orthodox - an example of a schism within Orthodoxy. Catholicism is governed by the teaching authority of the Pope, however, and groups like the Dimond brothers that reject his authority are by that standard not Catholic. We have a way of knowing that Peter and Michael Dimond (the two guys who form “Most Holy Family Monastery”) are not Catholic; we do not have this criterion for determining that the Old Calendarists are not Orthodox.

Well, according to them, they claim you are not Catholic, and for us non-Catholic, we have their claim which it seems to be based on some strong ground, and we have the word of your Church or your Pope that it says they are not Catholic, Nothing is clear, however for you, Just because you chose to go by the Pope does not make you right and make them wrong,we have no way that we can tell, In short a parallel to the Old calendarist.

But out of prejudice, you can only see one way of the street.

The Apostolic Canons have long since superseded (and some of them were never binding to begin with - Pope St. Gelasius I condemned many of them, and whether they were ever binding to begin with is in doubt. The current canons in force for the Church is the 1983 Code of Canon Law; there have been many collections of canons in the mean-time that have held authority.

that is what we mean when we say that your church is no longer the same, you cannot recognize the early Church in it any more, nor the Church of the Holy Fathers, Also that is what we mean when we say that your church is ever moving away and ever changing, as some former RC said that the RCC right now is no more than 80 years old.

It seems that neither of us is understanding each other very well - I don’t know if you’re understanding the point of my arguments. I’m having a lot of trouble with your English, so I might be missing the point of what you’re saying also.

Not at all, your point I understand, but your concept of perceiving things one way, that I don’t understand.

lets try next time to stay away from those subjects, for in such subjects the building of hate is increased and the building of knowledge is decreased.
and as I ask GOD to forgive the transgressions of others, I ask the others to forgive my transgression as well.
GOD bless you all †††

 

[Ignatios]

Which is exactly the Pope’s function. Do you deny it?

That is the function of all the Bishops. do you deny it?

 

[Ignatios]

And there you have it, folks. My mother’s family was Lebanese/Greek Orthodox. Many in the community were anti-Catholic bigots, including members of my family. I have always felt the greatest bar to Catholic/Orthodox unity is the Orthodox laity and this person proves it in the pride and arrogance he exhibits.

It is, according to him, the Catholic Church who must submit, to cease to be the Catholic Church, and that will never happen as long as Scripture says Peter has the Keys to the Kingdom, as long as the Holy Spirit will continue to guide the Church to all truth, (Jn. 16:13) and as long as the Lord will be with His Church until the end of time (Mt. 28:20).

The last two popes have ben trying to find a way acceptable to the Orthodox hierarchy to exercise their patristic mission and obligations. Both sides are working on it. They will eventually come to an agreement. This guy, and others like him, will either come to the agreement kicking and screaming, or become a separate sect.

Next time provide us a good way to give you a good answer, for all the above, you have showed nothing but bigotry, IAW, it is the RC way or you are a bigots or you are a RC hater because you do not accept our ways.
If they reached an agreement and I pray and hope that they will than I will follow, so long there is no compromise of the faith set by the Holy Fathers. and I would go further even to say that the Pope of Rome deserve to be granted the Primacy of Honor over again and to be the First among equal, and to have the first seat at the E.C.s.

My Dear Lebanese Friend I am Lebanese my self from the Apostolic City of Beirut, I say, that, as an Orthodox we cannot change nor expand the boundary that it was set for us by the Holy Fathers of the Church, the faith is not ours to change OR compromise, and whoever does he will cut himself off from the Church, and the past is the best evidence of that, the Church of GOD will continue its coarse regardless the number of its faithful.

GOD Bless you †††