S
stephraim
Guest
Yes, “successor” was the wrong word: I couldn’t think of the word “contemporary”. I apologize.
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
If you read my earlier posts, I provided a number of Orthodox who use the term Transubstantiation to describe the Eucharist, including a local council.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It should be noted though that a Synod is not the same thing as a Council, and Jerusalem was a Synod.
F
Formosus
Guest
To my knowledge, the only difference is that council (concillium) is a word of latin origin and synod (he sunodos) is a greek word.
A
Aramis
Guest
It has been cited both ways in Orthodox literature.
M
Mickey
Guest
This does not mean that “transubstantiation” is a widely accepted term in the Holy Orthodox Church–far from it.
Many Orthodox Christians object that the language used in this council to denounce the Calvinist heresy, is overly Roman Catholic in tone. Unfortunately, Peter Moghila and Dositheus borrowed heavily on Latin sources. Dositheus’ document was primarily a response to Lukaris’ confession on Calvinism.
“Faced by the Calvinism of Lukaris, Dositheus used the weapons which lay nearest to hand—Latin weapons (under the circumstances it was perhaps the only thing that he could do);”
**Timothy Ware, Kallistos (Bishop of Diokleia) **
B
BcharaK
Guest
Yes of course. In Lebanon, this Easter, in places where there is Catholics and Orthodox, common ceremonies were held. Thank God for our Pope Benedictus, he already mad huge steps toward unity. The Patriarch of Serbia - and Serbians are the most anti-unity- invited him to the coming 1700 anniversary of Constantine’s.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
An EMHC is ‘extraordianary’ ie not a regular minister of communion at least in theory. EMHC’s should only give commuion when no bishops, priests, deacons or instituted acolytes are available. The GIRM quoted above is clearly speaking of the priest being the ordinary minister of communion by intiction, surely it is logical then that extraordinary ministers will give communion by intiction in cases of necessity? Why is it such an issue? BTW don’t forget that EMHC’s are not permitted to purify the sacred vessels
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I know the Russian’s use the term ‘synod’ differently then the Greeks. In the old ROCOR the "Synod’ was just a few bishop that assisted the the Metropolitan in his governing authority. If there was a need for a general all-Russian council this was called a ‘Sobor’, not a Synod. Therefore a Synod had less authority than the Metropolitan, but a Sobor had a greater authority. From what I understand the Greeks mean all the bishops of the jurisdiction when they use the term ‘Synod’.
A
alexander1230
Guest
C
Cristiano
Guest
What do you mean with regular? The definition of extraordinary is simply the alter of ordinary.
That is not completely correct. The use of EMHCs is decided by the presider and it based on specific conditions. Usually the EMHC cannot substitute ordained persons that are present, if that is waht you meant.
EMHC and acolytes cannot distribute communion by intinction. They can only hold the chalice to help the ordained person to distribute.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friends,
An interesting thread! However, the poll’s first question appears to be a “skewed” one, reflecting specifically Latin theological a priori’s. That isn’t good in any discussion about East-West Church reunion.
First of all, the idea that “those Orthodox interested in” suggests the old “Uniate” model of church reunion which has now been categorically rejected by Rome. It also suggests a “take it or leave it” approach by the Latin Catholic Church on this score. Also, the use of “Catholic” in the way it is used here appears to suggest that the Latin Catholic patrimony is a) the only one and b) that Latin forms themselves declare the true faith.
These things have all prevented reunion of the Churches in the past and it is high-time to move beyond them.
So we should be saying that both Churches ought to be “interested” in church reunion and should also be ready to put aside their historic triumphalistic approaches to achieve this. Both sides should recognize that this is the Will of Christ and that it is an imperative etc.
As for what is “essential,” we can say with certainty that Latin theological expressions are not themselves essential and are simply that - Latin Church traditions that concern only the Latin Church.
Next, setting down what the Churches already believe to be true, but in as “theologically neutral” language as possible would be important.
For example, the Latin Church has defined the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary as dogma, that she was free of the stain of Original Sin.
The Orthodox Catholic Church rejects this. Does this mean, from the Catholic POV, the Orthodox believe Mary to have had sin on her soul?
Not in the least! Orthodoxy sees Original Sin not as a “stain” in one sense, but as the impact of that sin on the human nature we inherited from Adam. Orthodoxy celebrates the Mother of God as being holy and sanctified at her Conception (this also holds true for John the Baptist). As a result of her sanctification, she did not feel pain in giving birth to Christ and her death was so light as constituting a “falling asleep” before she was taken, body and soul, to Heaven by her Son.
The Latin Church proclaims a Purgatory. The Orthodox Church does not use that language but certainly believes that the church’s prayer can help souls come closer to Christ in the afterlife and has its own eschatological tradition in this respect.
The Latin Church believes in the Filioque because of its focus on the internal relations of the Persons of the Trinity. Orthodoxy focuses on the “economic Trinity” and so the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. Both Churches believe that “Begetting” and “Proceeding” are what differentiate the Son’s and the Spirit’s “identity” - let’s leave it at that and leave the Filioque of the original Creed out.
And so on.
The questions posed in this poll, I’m afraid, are not true ecumenical questions at all - they are “conditions” given to the Orthodox that “if you want to join the true Church, do this.”
We’ve gone beyond that.
Alex
An interesting thread! However, the poll’s first question appears to be a “skewed” one, reflecting specifically Latin theological a priori’s. That isn’t good in any discussion about East-West Church reunion.
First of all, the idea that “those Orthodox interested in” suggests the old “Uniate” model of church reunion which has now been categorically rejected by Rome. It also suggests a “take it or leave it” approach by the Latin Catholic Church on this score. Also, the use of “Catholic” in the way it is used here appears to suggest that the Latin Catholic patrimony is a) the only one and b) that Latin forms themselves declare the true faith.
These things have all prevented reunion of the Churches in the past and it is high-time to move beyond them.
So we should be saying that both Churches ought to be “interested” in church reunion and should also be ready to put aside their historic triumphalistic approaches to achieve this. Both sides should recognize that this is the Will of Christ and that it is an imperative etc.
As for what is “essential,” we can say with certainty that Latin theological expressions are not themselves essential and are simply that - Latin Church traditions that concern only the Latin Church.
Next, setting down what the Churches already believe to be true, but in as “theologically neutral” language as possible would be important.
For example, the Latin Church has defined the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary as dogma, that she was free of the stain of Original Sin.
The Orthodox Catholic Church rejects this. Does this mean, from the Catholic POV, the Orthodox believe Mary to have had sin on her soul?
Not in the least! Orthodoxy sees Original Sin not as a “stain” in one sense, but as the impact of that sin on the human nature we inherited from Adam. Orthodoxy celebrates the Mother of God as being holy and sanctified at her Conception (this also holds true for John the Baptist). As a result of her sanctification, she did not feel pain in giving birth to Christ and her death was so light as constituting a “falling asleep” before she was taken, body and soul, to Heaven by her Son.
The Latin Church proclaims a Purgatory. The Orthodox Church does not use that language but certainly believes that the church’s prayer can help souls come closer to Christ in the afterlife and has its own eschatological tradition in this respect.
The Latin Church believes in the Filioque because of its focus on the internal relations of the Persons of the Trinity. Orthodoxy focuses on the “economic Trinity” and so the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son or the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. Both Churches believe that “Begetting” and “Proceeding” are what differentiate the Son’s and the Spirit’s “identity” - let’s leave it at that and leave the Filioque of the original Creed out.
And so on.
The questions posed in this poll, I’m afraid, are not true ecumenical questions at all - they are “conditions” given to the Orthodox that “if you want to join the true Church, do this.”
We’ve gone beyond that.
Alex
D
dcointin
Guest
I would like to offer some thoughts on this issue which I posted in another forum. These thoughts are practical in nature and reflect some issues that I feel are as important in discussing reunion as theological ones. I do not say this out of hatred for Catholicism, and I hope that I don’t offend anyone with them.
One, if the historical example of the Sui Uris Catholic Churches is an indication of what a Catholic/Orthodox reunion would look like, there are some significant problems. Eastern Catholics complain frequently, and with good cause, that their churches have been Latinized, stripped of their historic rights, and treated with disdain by the Roman Catholic Church. People in this forum cite examples of this again and again, and they appear to be contemporary problems, not just things that happened in the past. I would not be willing to enter into reunion until I was certain this would not continue. Two, the Catholic Church is fighting an enormous pedophilia scandal that makes me doubt its commitment to protecting its members from abuse, and frankly makes me concerned about the safety of my future children interacting with Roman Catholic priests. The closest parish to my house had two priests removed for accusations of pedophilia, and the next closest had a priest arrested during a sting operation for trying to have sex with a teenager. The thing that is most disturbing about this scandal is the cover ups that took place for so long with priests being relocated rather than removed from ministry. I would like to believe that things have changed, but I would need to see more evidence of that. Three, the liturgical culture of the Roman Catholic Church has in my experience become Protestantized and alien to Orthodoxy. I realize that I wouldn’t be attending a Roman Catholic parish, but I doubt the wisdom of reunion when this attitude is so prevalent. I’ve been attending services with my Catholic girlfriend, and was shocked at how contemporary most of them have been. I fear that this might influence Orthodox parishes, or worse, that the Pope would impose liturgical reforms in the spirit of Vatican II on us as he did on the Roman churches. The liturgy is a significant reason that Orthodoxy has remained so steadfast over the centuries, and any attack on liturgy is also an attack on its identity. I wonder if reunion might be better considered after the Catholic Church has dealth with these issues more fully.
One, if the historical example of the Sui Uris Catholic Churches is an indication of what a Catholic/Orthodox reunion would look like, there are some significant problems. Eastern Catholics complain frequently, and with good cause, that their churches have been Latinized, stripped of their historic rights, and treated with disdain by the Roman Catholic Church. People in this forum cite examples of this again and again, and they appear to be contemporary problems, not just things that happened in the past. I would not be willing to enter into reunion until I was certain this would not continue. Two, the Catholic Church is fighting an enormous pedophilia scandal that makes me doubt its commitment to protecting its members from abuse, and frankly makes me concerned about the safety of my future children interacting with Roman Catholic priests. The closest parish to my house had two priests removed for accusations of pedophilia, and the next closest had a priest arrested during a sting operation for trying to have sex with a teenager. The thing that is most disturbing about this scandal is the cover ups that took place for so long with priests being relocated rather than removed from ministry. I would like to believe that things have changed, but I would need to see more evidence of that. Three, the liturgical culture of the Roman Catholic Church has in my experience become Protestantized and alien to Orthodoxy. I realize that I wouldn’t be attending a Roman Catholic parish, but I doubt the wisdom of reunion when this attitude is so prevalent. I’ve been attending services with my Catholic girlfriend, and was shocked at how contemporary most of them have been. I fear that this might influence Orthodox parishes, or worse, that the Pope would impose liturgical reforms in the spirit of Vatican II on us as he did on the Roman churches. The liturgy is a significant reason that Orthodoxy has remained so steadfast over the centuries, and any attack on liturgy is also an attack on its identity. I wonder if reunion might be better considered after the Catholic Church has dealth with these issues more fully.
S
sidbrown
Guest
But it is only to get some idea of what people on this board think about reunion. There is a response: “Orthodox Churches are fully accepted under no pre-conditions.” So I don;t agree with your last statements.
S
sidbrown
Guest
You know what? I think that your objections here are serious and have merit. Basically, I agree with you.
K
Kallipolis
Guest
I am in FULL support. It is not a black and white issue though. Given what I know of it, I think there should be some compromise met. I am a papist, but I think papal supremacy needs to be re-interpreted.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
OK, fair ball. I’m a sociologist and deal with polls, questionnaires etc. all the time.
From that POV, it’s simply bad form to frame a question from a “loaded” perspective.
The first question is done in such a way that would present grave difficulties for an Orthodox Christian or even an Eastern Catholic to even consider or want to engage in. It would appear to us as a type of Latin “proselytism lite.”
The fact that 40% of (I assume Latin Catholic) respondents agree with it would also cause concern for Orthodox Christians. The question as phrased then becomes a social measure of the extent to which Roman Catholics continue to maintain what Eastern Christians see as the old triumphalist attitude towards the Orthodox. That doesn’t invalidate the question or the poll - it only measures something other that what I think it was intended to measure.
Alex
S
Seamus_L
Guest
I suspect in the real world, a majority of RC’s would choose the first option, just as a majority of Orthodox would pick the third.
J
Jahk
Guest
Yes.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Just one more thought about how badly skewed this poll is 
, the third option is one that already exists i.e. the RC Church already accepts every point of the Orthodox faith - it is just that the RC Church professes more than that which is what the Orthodox take issue with.
Pope Benedict once said that union between the Churches could be achieved if the Orthodox wouldn’t regard the later Latin doctrines as heretical and the Latins didn’t condemn the East as being in the wrong for not accepting those doctrines.
In addition, there is so much overlap between the Latin doctrines and Orthodox faith that most RC’s aren’t aware of what the Orthodox truly do believe.
This is why the first point is skewed as well.
Alex
, the third option is one that already exists i.e. the RC Church already accepts every point of the Orthodox faith - it is just that the RC Church professes more than that which is what the Orthodox take issue with.Pope Benedict once said that union between the Churches could be achieved if the Orthodox wouldn’t regard the later Latin doctrines as heretical and the Latins didn’t condemn the East as being in the wrong for not accepting those doctrines.
In addition, there is so much overlap between the Latin doctrines and Orthodox faith that most RC’s aren’t aware of what the Orthodox truly do believe.
This is why the first point is skewed as well.
Alex
- Status