Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

I’m only expressing my honestly held views. I’ll bet that a Protestant would find it insulting that someone thinks it an insult to be called a Protestant.

And I don’t think it’s such a bizarre idea. The Orthodox posters here can’t delineate any clear basis of authority. If they say tradition, then they accept some elements of tradition and not others, by which I mean that they accept some of what the fathers say and not others. If they say the Councils, then they insist on doctrinal requirements beyond what is contained in the Councils. When presented with a clear and unambiguous statement by Irenaeus, they either deny that he is saying what he is clearly saying in black and white, or put a qualifier on the statement that is not there, and would be illogical if it was.

In the end, they say that the Orthodox faith is determined by the Orthodox tradition, and the Orthodox tradition is determined by the Orthodox faith. It is that circularity that, in part, causes me to identify Orthodoxy as a kind of Protestantism, because it is just like the Protestants’ the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. The other reason is the emphasis on resisting papal authority that both have. It seems to me to be essential to their point of view.

Now I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. Sincerely. But the way I chose to express myself was the most effective way of making my point.

 

[JackQ]

Certainly, I’ve heard the charge about the Orthodox being Protestants etc. before.

Apart from the issue of courtesy etc., what are the grounds for that charge?

Just interested.

Alex

See my post #685. I don’t think it is a discourtesy to honestly express my views. And wouldn’t a Protestant find it insulting that someone thought it insulting to be called a Protestant? Besides, I don’t notice the Orthodox holding back around here. Wouldn’t it be an insult to them if I did, kind of like I was patronizing them?

 

[josephdaniel29]

In the end, they say that the Orthodox faith is determined by the Orthodox tradition, and the Orthodox tradition is determined by the Orthodox faith. It is that circularity that, in part, causes me to identify Orthodoxy as a kind of Protestantism

Did you leave any room for the Holy Spirit in any of that?

 

[JackQ]

Well, I think I might not have been clear enough that I was talking about the representation of Orthodoxy at Catholic Answers Forums, which is what my exposure to Orthodoxy basically consists of. But no, I didn’t get the same from Timothy Ware’s book, nor do I get it from the Orthodox man who was the best man at my wedding and my current accountant. So to the worldwide Orthodox communion not engaged in the polemics at Catholic Answers forums, my apologies.

 

[JackQ]

Did you leave any room for the Holy Spirit in any of that?

As the Scripture says, the Spirit blows where he wills. The Spirit can work in your Church. He can work in the Baptist Church too.

 

[JackQ]

I don’t know what to say…very tragic indeed.

Would you really want me to shine you on with a view that was not my own? What is tragic is when people can’t speak with each other honestly. Adam and Eve had to put clothes on after they sinned. Unity among all Christians would be great, but we’re not going to get it with marketing tactics.

 

[shaky]

I’m only expressing my honestly held views. I’ll bet that a Protestant would find it insulting that someone thinks it an insult to be called a Protestant.

And I don’t think it’s such a bizarre idea. The Orthodox posters here can’t delineate any clear basis of authority. If they say tradition, then they accept some elements of tradition and not others, by which I mean that they accept some of what the fathers say and not others. If they say the Councils, then they insist on doctrinal requirements beyond what is contained in the Councils. When presented with a clear and unambiguous statement by Irenaeus, they either deny that he is saying what he is clearly saying in black and white, or put a qualifier on the statement that is not there, and would be illogical if it was.

In the end, they say that the Orthodox faith is determined by the Orthodox tradition, and the Orthodox tradition is determined by the Orthodox faith. It is that circularity that, in part, causes me to identify Orthodoxy as a kind of Protestantism, because it is just like the Protestants’ the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. The other reason is the emphasis on resisting papal authority that both have. It seems to me to be essential to their point of view.

Now I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. Sincerely. But the way I chose to express myself was the most effective way of making my point.

You don’t fully understand what Irenaeus is stating. I have explaind in detail everything to you. But i dont get a Answer from you. do you uderstand the difference between primacy and supremacy.

 

[shaky]

You certainly give as good as you get! As an Eastern Catholic, I confess I’ve thought along those same lines . . .

Alex

I understand what you are saying Alex. I have thought along these same lines myself that is why i am leaning towards Eastern catholic. What the teachings were in the beginning with the early church when they where all in union was enough for salvation.
Why do we need the new teachings that the Roman catholic church has brought in.
Then you have the protestants reform from the Roman catholic church with all there different new teachings.

It was the west that caused the split in the first place with their new teachings. I wonder if this was the great falling away what the bible says

 

[JackQ]

You don’t fully understand what Irenaeus is stating. I have explaind in detail everything to you. But i dont get a Answer from you. do you uderstand the difference between primacy and supremacy.

Do you understand the difference between agree and disagree?

 

[JackQ]

You don’t fully understand what Irenaeus is stating. I have explaind in detail everything to you. But i dont get a Answer from you. do you uderstand the difference between primacy and supremacy.

Oh, and no disrespect is intended if I didn’t respond to you. I’m swinging at a lot of pitches in this thread.

 

[shaky]

What I don’t understand is the notion that “Uniatism” is a model that should no longer be followed. What does that mean? If an Orthodox church wanted to become Catholic, why wouldn’t we allow that? What are we supposed to do if a particular Church wants to become Catholic, tell them to wait until the Moscow Patriarch is good with it? Or do we tell them to wait until all of the Orthodox Churches reeunite with the Catholic Church, “all” including the churches governed by the Patriarch of Moscow?

And what is there to negotiate, anyway? How about the Patriarch not objecting if the Pope comes to Russia for starters. And with the Moscow Patriarchate being so avidly concerned about its territory I’m sure that issue will be high on the Russians’ version of the agenda. What will they want? They will want jurisdiction over the Ukraine, of course. Meanwhile the Western Church has developed such a fetish for unity that we don’t mind excluding Eastern Catholic bishops from meetings. So, if I were an Eastern Catholic, I would probably be concerned that my church was going to be converted to legal tender for the purchase of unity with the Orthodox Church. Given the fact that it was the Eastern Catholics who suffered the most under communism, having their churches seized and given to the Orthodox, I think the Church should eschew adding insult to their injury.

Having said all that, I’m not sure why certain Eastern Catholics would ever consider leaving the Catholic Church, and becoming members of Orthodoxy. I know that Orthodox liturgies look more like the way they worship than does the Western mass. But they have to know that, once they do that, within 10 seconds they will become subject to the Patriarch of Moscow. Besides, being in unity with Peter’s Chair is the right thing to do. Breaking unity with Peter’s Chair is the wrong thing to do. The Eastern Catholics know this.

So, in sum, I agree with many Eastern Catholics that they have been the recipient of shoddy treatment as of late. But I can’t see the wisdom or intelligence in their taking themselves hostage as a response.

Breaking unity with Peter Chair was caused by Rome. Do you think it was Right that Rome in 1054 AD decided to elevate there Pope from primacy to supremacy. Then Forcing
This on the Eastern church along with the filioque:shrug:
Then to strengthen the split Rome Since has brought in a load more new teachings.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just giving an accurate rendition of my views.

While I appreciate your truthfulness in your views, it does indicate a certain level of ignorance either regarding what Protestants are, or what Orthodox are. If a Protestant is simply someone who rejects the supreme authority of the pope, then yes, guilty as charged, but so are a great number of Catholics throughout the ages, possibly the majority. Ultramontanism is indeed a rather new movement which as far as I can tell, only originated in the Italy of the 18th century.

You are of course welcome to your views.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m only expressing my honestly held views. I’ll bet that a Protestant would find it insulting that someone thinks it an insult to be called a Protestant.

Many Protestants do find the term insulting.

And I don’t think it’s such a bizarre idea. The Orthodox posters here can’t delineate any clear basis of authority. If they say tradition, then they accept some elements of tradition and not others, by which I mean that they accept some of what the fathers say and not others. If they say the Councils, then they insist on doctrinal requirements beyond what is contained in the Councils. When presented with a clear and unambiguous statement by Irenaeus, they either deny that he is saying what he is clearly saying in black and white, or put a qualifier on the statement that is not there, and would be illogical if it was.

Then it is true, you didn’t pay attention to anything I was saying regarding tradition?

I put a questionmark there but it isn’t a question.

In the end, they say that the Orthodox faith is determined by the Orthodox tradition, and the Orthodox tradition is determined by the Orthodox faith. It is that circularity that, in part, causes me to identify Orthodoxy as a kind of Protestantism, because it is just like the Protestants’ the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. The other reason is the emphasis on resisting papal authority that both have. It seems to me to be essential to their point of view.

Funny, you admitted coming in here believing we saw something as a central authority, were told otherwise, seemed to accept that, but now are going on about how we do infact accept something as a central authority.

Now I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. Sincerely. But the way I chose to express myself was the most effective way of making my point.

You have expressed yourself just fine. Now having read this post I must conclude your ignorance is willful, having put in place of the things you were told, the things which you believed prior to entering this thread.

 

[shaky]

I will adopt what the Catechism says:

“246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration… And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. the use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). the introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”

I’ve always taken this to mean that both ways of stating the procession of the Holy Spirit are legitimate provided that those doing the stating have the foregoing in view. I suppose that means that the Latin Church could drop the Filioque, but I honestly don’t think that the Orthodox would want to reunify with us just because we did that. If we did drop it, I would approach the Eastern Catholic section of these forums with some trepidation since I would bet you dinner that the next argument we’d hear from the Orthodox posters would be that we had admitted error and, thus, cannot be the true Church. So, without more, the primary effect of dropping the Filioque from the Creed would be to provide a polemical aid for the Orthodox on Catholic Answers Forums.

To answer what I think is the point of one of your questions, the addition of the Filioque was specifically condemned in the Orthodox version of the Fourth Council of Constantinople. That Council, of course, was never accepted by the Western Church. So Rome didn’t exactly overrule the Council on that one point. Rome never accepted the legitimacy of the Council at all. (The Orthodox bishops did, however, agree with the Council of Florence, at least until they got home.)

Now if you want my honest, frank, and psychologically nude opinion about all this, I don’t think the Filioque wars have in any way assisted in the effort to let our light shine before men, but rather has given the appearance before men of an obsessive compulsive disorder projected beyond the borders of the cosmos. So, absolutely, I’m willing to stop saying the Filioque in the Creed, and given my power to effect change in the practices of the Catholic Church, you can expect that willingness to result in nothing whatsoever.

OK if the procession of the holy Spirit came from both the father and the Son Simultaneously. Does that mean Jesus Christ the ‘‘Word’’ became flesh also with the father Impregnate his own mother When the holy spirit Impregnated Mary??
Or did the holy spirit Just proceed from the Father when it (name removed by moderator)regnated Mary

 

[Madaglan]

If one only has to agree with the Roman Church when it is Orthodox (as determined by who?), then what’s the point of saying that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church? Why didn’t Irenaeus simply say that everyone should agree with the Orthodox position? Moreover, if Irenaeus means that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church because it is Orthodox, and by implication saying that one would not have to agree with Rome if it stopped being Orthodox, then why does he give special mention to the Roman Church at all? Wouldn’t the same be true of any Church?

The Roman Church was a beacon of right belief even before a strict monarchical episcopal structure became the norm. It was where St. Paul and St. Peter were both martyred, and where numerous Christians had suffered for the true Faith.

St. Irenaeus does precede his comment on Rome with reference to Apostolic succession in all the Churches. He adds that due to space limitations he will only focus on the great Church of Rome, founded by the two glorious Apostles, St. Paul and St. Peter.

 

[Madaglan]

I’m only expressing my honestly held views. I’ll bet that a Protestant would find it insulting that someone thinks it an insult to be called a Protestant.

And I don’t think it’s such a bizarre idea. The Orthodox posters here can’t delineate any clear basis of authority. If they say tradition, then they accept some elements of tradition and not others, by which I mean that they accept some of what the fathers say and not others. If they say the Councils, then they insist on doctrinal requirements beyond what is contained in the Councils. When presented with a clear and unambiguous statement by Irenaeus, they either deny that he is saying what he is clearly saying in black and white, or put a qualifier on the statement that is not there, and would be illogical if it was.

In the end, they say that the Orthodox faith is determined by the Orthodox tradition, and the Orthodox tradition is determined by the Orthodox faith. It is that circularity that, in part, causes me to identify Orthodoxy as a kind of Protestantism, because it is just like the Protestants’ the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. The other reason is the emphasis on resisting papal authority that both have. It seems to me to be essential to their point of view.

Now I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. Sincerely. But the way I chose to express myself was the most effective way of making my point.

The same kind of circularity may be charged against Catholics for that matter. The Pope says he has supreme authority because it is Catholic Tradition since the beginning that Christ gave St. Peter the keys, etc. Yet who delineates what is this Catholic Tradition, how it is to be interpreted, and the authority given in it? The Popes. I would think Catholics, however, understand a mystery greater than this logic.

Truth has authority, and those who speak in truth speak with authority. The people marveled at Christ, who spoke with authority, unlike the Pharisees and the scribes. It is important that we not switch the precedence of truth and authority and make truth a function of authority.

 

[JackQ]

Breaking unity with Peter Chair was caused by Rome. Do you think it was Right that Rome in 1054 AD decided to elevate there Pope from primacy to supremacy. Then Forcing
This on the Eastern church along with the filioque:shrug:
Then to strengthen the split Rome Since has brought in a load more new teachings.

I’m not ignoring you. I’ll have to try to get back with you tomorrow.

 

[JackQ]

Okay, everybody. I’m going to have to put off all replies until tomorrow. See you then.

 

[shaky]

So, everyone will have to agree with the Roman Church when everyone has to agree with the Roman Church (and not a minute before). I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Irenaeus didn’t say that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church unless and until there is a split between the eastern and western Church.

When Irenaeus was alive. There was no such thing as Rome being Supreme Also i am sure he would have not have liked the Attitude of Rome in 1054 AD

 

[shaky]

Do you understand the difference between agree and disagree?

This is not a answear to my Question!! Cant you answer questions?.

I see you putting you points and Questions Across. You get a response and qustions back. But you rarely Respond the same. It seems like debating with a closed minded person.