Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[byzgirl]

Mickey,

This anathema by ROCOR is mostly non-applicable to the understanding that the Catholic Church has of the Church. The CC does not understand the Church to be composed of “branches” that hold contradictory teachings, teachings that are essentially different from those handed down by Peter and the Apostles. The CC does not teach that the Church does not exist visibly, or that the Church will be formed in the future when various groups come together.

When it comes to Ecumenism, the Catholic understanding is not about doing the above. Ecumenism for Catholics is about fulfilling the prayer of Christ for His disciples, in bringing all Christians into the fullness of communion with the CC (where the Church founded by Christ subsists).

This one Catholic Church is a universal communion of regional Churches. Churches which are essentially one and united in the Faith, Holy Mysteries, and Hierarchy, and legitimitally diversified in liturgical, theological, spiritual, and disciplinary expressions.

There are different levels of closeness to the CC, the Christian Churches of Holy Orthodoxy are already in a deep ecclesial communion with the CC, via Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist, but are not yet in full communion.

Now, as far as the Baptism of heretics, the CC recognizes the presence of a true Baptism among them, so long as they celebrate this Mystery properly. For the Eucharist, the Mystery of the Priesthood is necessary, and so a heretic who has maintained Apostolic Succession and the Priesthood can truely, and when properly done, offer up the Body and Blood of Christ.

I do think that this anathema placed by ROCOR focuses on only the negative side of ecumenism, as if ecumenism is really all that this anathema purports it to be. Ecumenism is about the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17. I think ROCOR’s next anathema should be the prayer in John 17:21 - If anyone shall say “that they may all be one”, Anathema!

God bless,

Rony

 

[Mickey]

the Christian Churches of Holy Orthodoxy are already in a deep ecclesial communion with the CC, via Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist, but are not yet in full communion.

On the contrary…Holy Orthodoxy prays for Catholicism to return to the fold.

I do think that this anathema placed by ROCOR focuses on only the negative side of ecumenism

Yes. That is my point. There is a negative side.

Ecumenism is about the priestly prayer of Jesus in John 17. I

This beautiful prayer is not about false ecumenism…it is about oneness in the true faith.

think ROCOR’s next anathema should be the prayer in John 17:21 - If anyone shall say “that they may all be one”, Anathema!

What a terribly rude and unChristian thing to say! I think my conversation with you is over.

 

[byzgirl]

I see that there is a lot of ‘trying to prove that the Catholic Church has had problems with schism and heretical groups ‘breaking away’ from its fold’. This problem has plagued the Church since its conception, but does not prove a lack of oneness (which the Catholic Church can rightly claim) In contrast, I think it important to point out that the Orthodox have an insurmountable problem, in that they *claim *unity, but have an inability to show that professed 'unity, having never called, in its history as the Orthodox Church (separated from the Roman See)----, its *own *ecumenical council as one Church (the bishops united, to speak as one mouth and one mind).

It would be difficult to achieve such a gathering, as a visible sign of tangible unity (even if one were desired). It should be admitted that there is not sufficient unity to bring one to fruition,…for if one Patriarch would call forth the Orthodox bishops, another would deny his authority in doing so. Therefore, there would be stalmate.

This is contrary to the mark of oneness and professed unity within the Orthodox Churches and patriarchs.

The mark of the Church is it’s being ‘one’ – not just in some sentiment–, but in a visible and tangible manner.

The Catholic Church could call a council, tomorrow…and it would happen…Eastern and Western Catholic bishops, in union with the See of Rome, would take part. They would heed the call, and, in doing so…prove the unity the ‘one Church’ possesses.

 

[Mickey]

having never called, in its history as the Orthodox Church

I have heard this silly claim before. The Orthodox Church has held many local synods, but has never had the need to call an Ecumenical council. They did not have to deal with a reformation.

The Catholic Church could call a council, tomorrow

The Catholic Church does not need to have a council. The Pope of Rome can define doctrine on his own, without the approval of a council, by virtue of his special charism of infallibility.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

The Catholic Church does not need to have a council. The Pope of Rome can define doctrine on his own, without the approval of a council, by virtue of his special charism of infallibility.

Yes, in line with Jesus actually taught, Mickster.

 

[Mickey]

Yes, in line with Jesus actually taught, Mickster.

Whatever you say, Chaldster.

 

[byzgirl]

I have heard this silly claim before. The Orthodox Church has held many local synods, but has never had the need to call an Ecumenical council. They did not have to deal with a reformation

Yes, it would be difficult to deal with any sort of heresy and heretical gone-astray priest, if the Catholic Church was not unified in its beliefs.

But synods are not a proof of unity, as they are separate ecclesiastical gatherings…and not a meeting of all bishops/patriarchs/Churches of the Orthodox Church. And what synod has made doctrinal decisions/changes that effect the beliefs of the world wide Orthodox? Thank goodness it’s never had to face a major heresy within its ranks…yet.

The Catholic Church still survives, and is a distinct, identifiable Church. And, as pointed out but ignored, the Catholic Church could call an ecumenical council tomorrow (and be able to succeed in its fruition–not just an ideal, but an actual, workable, gathering).

The Catholic Church does not need to have a council. The Pope of Rome can define doctrine on his own, without the approval of a council, by virtue of his special charism of infallibility.

Aside from the unnecessary sarcasm,

"This is in stark contrast to Eastern predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I]. The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”
A council is recognized as ecumenical once its works are approved by a pope. The pope does not need to attend a council for it to be an ecumenical council. The earliest councils were held in the East, and the reigning popes usually sent legates to represent them. Later these popes approved the decrees of the councils, thereby verifying that they were ecumenical councils.

Some councils, such as Ephesus, have been mainly doctrinal in their work; others, such as Vatican II, have been mainly pastoral. Doctrinal definitions are capable of being promulgated infallibly; pastoral decisions, although binding, are not subject to infallibility.

Authority in the Catholic Church is not and never has been the same as authority in the Protestant world. It is important to understand that we are not talking about the authority of a man, the Pope, to assert his opinions as true above the opinions of other men. The Pope is not really the one who decides matters of doctrine. It is God who decides, through the office of the Pope; God, not man, who is guiding the Church in unfolding and explaining the meaning of the deposit of faith. God is the interpreter of scripture and the One who settles matters of doctrine, and He does so infallibly through the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church."

This article, written to a Lutheran pastor, by Mark Bonocore of the Catholic Legate, gives a very good analogy of the Pope as Captain of the team (equal to the other players (as Peter was to the other Apostles)–not owner or coach–but the person who holds the team together).
read it here: catholic-legate.com/dialogues/lutheran_pastor.html

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

 

[Mickey]

“Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I]. The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”

Hmmm? Holy Orthodoxy also loves St Peter. Your quote does not indicate that the bishop of Rome is a supreme infallible pontiff and ruler of the universal Church.

"Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations." (Schmemann, page 163-164)

AMEN!!!

 

[Gofer]

Enough with the doublespeak.

 

[byzgirl]

Hmmm? Holy Orthodoxy also loves St Peter. Your quote does not indicate that the bishop of Rome is a supreme infallible pontiff and ruler of the universal Church.

AMEN!!!

Then why was it said? Obviously they were stating that his approval was the ‘authoritative’, deciding voice.

I like the analogy, of Mark Bonocore, that describes the relationship of the bishops and the Pope (Peter and the other Apostles) as a “team captain”. He is not a dictator or all-seeing, all-knowing ruler (not the owner of the team or the coach)…he is an equal (a player)…but has a special God-given/utilized charism that provides the Church with a tangible way to keep the team together!

Your stance is always bent toward using descriptives that make the Pope’s role one of ‘dictatorship’ and ‘lording over’, and not of a shepherd.
And loving Peter has little to do with understanding and embracing his unique and significant role as the keeper of the keys.

 

[Mickey]

Your stance is always bent toward using descriptives that make the Pope’s role one of ‘dictatorship’, and not of a shepherd.

The Ecumenical council (including Pope or his legates) decided doctrine. Today’s ultramontanist Pope does not need a council.

“Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

 

[byzgirl]

The Ecumenical council (including Pope or his legates) decided doctrine. Today’s ultramontanist Pope does not need a council.

“Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.”
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

I would ask that you refrain from referring to me in derogatory terms (as an ultramontanist), when it has no basis. I have never overexaggerated the Petrine ministry, and you, stubbornly, wish to continue holding to your biased views and referring to me in such terms. Obviously, I don’t mind being considered one, if you also consider our current Pope one too.

Unfortunately, I have spent too much time on the computer today, and have other things, waiting for me, to do. I promise to respond further, later.

byzgirl

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Whatever you say, Chaldster.

Not whatever I say, whatever Christ has said:

17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”



He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”



You know in Hebrew there is no superlatives?
So if you wanted to say bigger you said “big big” and if you wanted to say biggest you said, “big big big”, and this is why God is “Holy, Holy, Holy”. The thrice repretition of Christs command signifies Peter’s primacy over others since none other is charged in this way.

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I see that there is a lot of ‘trying to prove that the Catholic Church has had problems with schism and heretical groups ‘breaking away’ from its fold’. This problem has plagued the Church since its conception, but does not prove a lack of oneness (which the Catholic Church can rightly claim) In contrast, I think it important to point out that the Orthodox have an insurmountable problem, in that they *claim *unity, but have an inability to show that professed 'unity, having never called, in its history as the Orthodox Church (separated from the Roman See)----, its *own *ecumenical council as one Church (the bishops united, to speak as one mouth and one mind).

It would be difficult to achieve such a gathering, as a visible sign of tangible unity (even if one were desired). It should be admitted that there is not sufficient unity to bring one to fruition,…for if one Patriarch would call forth the Orthodox bishops, another would deny his authority in doing so. Therefore, there would be stalmate.

This is contrary to the mark of oneness and professed unity within the Orthodox Churches and patriarchs.

The mark of the Church is it’s being ‘one’ – not just in some sentiment–, but in a visible and tangible manner.

The Catholic Church could call a council, tomorrow…and it would happen…Eastern and Western Catholic bishops, in union with the See of Rome, would take part. They would heed the call, and, in doing so…prove the unity the ‘one Church’ possesses.

The Orthodox Church has called several Pan-Orthodox Councils, one (Constantinople IV 879) even before the Vatican went her way. Others were Constantinople V (over the Palamites) and the Synod of Jerusalem (on the Protestants). So as for calling councils, that hasn’t proved a problem, historically speaking.

Before you chortle on that “unity,” look at the Councils of Pisa, Siena and Constance. You may be shocked.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have heard this silly claim before. The Orthodox Church has held many local synods, but has never had the need to call an Ecumenical council. They did not have to deal with a reformation.
The Catholic Church does not need to have a council. The Pope of Rome can define doctrine on his own, without the approval of a council, by virtue of his special charism of infallibility.

[SIGN]GAME POINT[/SIGN]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Then why was it said? Obviously they were stating that his approval was the ‘authoritative’, deciding voice.

I like the analogy, of Mark Bonocore, that describes the relationship of the bishops and the Pope (Peter and the other Apostles) as a “team captain”. He is not a dictator or all-seeing, all-knowing ruler (not the owner of the team or the coach)…he is an equal (a player)…but has a special God-given/utilized charism that provides the Church with a tangible way to keep the team together!

Your stance is always bent toward using descriptives that make the Pope’s role one of ‘dictatorship’ and ‘lording over’, and not of a shepherd.
And loving Peter has little to do with understanding and embracing his unique and significant role as the keeper of the keys.

I’ve already posted that Leo’s tome wasn’t accepted by the Fathers of Chalcedon until a committee of 200 had examined it for Orthodoxy, and subscribed to it in writing. It wasn’t rubber stamped because Rome sent it.

 

[Allyson]

So is this also a farce?..something misreprentative of history (in order to ‘bolster a position while sprouting some diatribe’?)

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

Patriarchal / See / Patriarch / Years / Heresy
Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
Antioch Eulalius c.322 Arian
Antioch Euphronius c.327-c.329 Arian
Constantinople Eusebius c.341-42 Arian
Constantinople Macedonius c.342-60 Semi-Arian
Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
Antioch Peter the Fuller 470,475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
Antioch John Codonatus 477,488 Monophysite
Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
Antioch Sergius c.542-c.557 Monophysite
Antioch Paul “the Black” c.557-578 Monophysite
Alexandria Damianus 570-c.605 Monophysite
Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
Antioch Anthanasius c.621-629 Monothelite
Alexandria Cyrus c.630-642 Monothelite
Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
Antioch Macedonius 640-c.655 Monothelite
Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
Antioch Macarius c.655-681 Monothelite
Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.

Without the Roman See, we’d all be heretics now.

Like this list has never been seen before.

 

[byzgirl]

The Orthodox Church has called several Pan-Orthodox Councils, one (Constantinople IV 879) even before the Vatican went her way. Others were Constantinople V (over the Palamites) and the Synod of Jerusalem (on the Protestants). So as for calling councils, that hasn’t proved a problem, historically speaking.

Before you chortle on that “unity,” look at the Councils of Pisa, Siena and Constance. You may be shocked.

Shocked by what, exactly? That there were anti-Popes that were claiming to hold the primacy of Peter’s seat? No one denies that there were anti-Popes. The problem would be if the rightful heir of the Seat of Peter were forever occupied by the wrong persons. That didn’t happen. The Councils that you mentioned, corrected and removed the counterfeits and settled the disputes…The unity of the Church was not destroyed.

. You seek to throw up dust to obscure the problems with the Orthodox patriarchs seeking ‘primacy’ over another…and each denying the other’s authority to speak for the Orthodox Church as a whole. Therefore, it is not a whole in any real way, but remains divided into separated Churches and ethnic dividing lines.

The Orthodox Church has had a number of its own ‘synods’ or “Pan-Orthodox councils” which have been declared ‘false’ by other Orthodox patriarchs/churches (Council of New York, Council of Athens, . Some Orthodox declare them legitimate, and other Orthodox declare false (because they didn’t like the outcome). But because there is no one to settle the dispute–no one who stands as the heir of Peter, there is no one to declare, with final authority, the ‘decisions’ of those councils, as binding on the Church, as a whole entity. That’s not exactly unifying, is it?

In fact, the Council of Mansonville (2001 A.D.), convened and presided over by Metropolitan Vitaly, and attended by 3 bishops, declared it had no eucharistic communion with the Moscow and Belgrade Patriarchates; repudiates the 1994 communion with the Cyprianites; confirms the 1983 anathema against ecumenism; and condemns the Laurites (those who accept the false council of 2000 and are paving their way towards union with the ecumenists).

 

[ronyodish]

On the contrary…Holy Orthodoxy prays for Catholicism to return to the fold.

Mickey,

Unlike the Holy Catholic Church, Holy Eastern Orthodoxy has no room for the Apostolic Churches that utilize the Assyro-Chaldean, Antiochene, Alexandrian, Armenian, and Latin traditions. Holy Eastern Orthodoxy utilizes the Constantinopolitan (Greek, Byzantine) tradition (theology, liturgy, spirituality, disciplines) that spread out of Constantinople. If Catholics were to “return to the fold”, that would be tatamount to asking all Catholics who are not of the Constantinopolitan tradition to adopt this particular tradition, the tradition utilized by the Eastern Orthodox.

If I may use an anology, you are asking for the whole pizza to reduce itself to a slice. You see, an Assyro-Chaldean can be Catholic because Catholicism is universal, not limited to any one particular tradition, but an Assyro-Chaldean can not be Eastern Orthodox without loosing his Assyro-Chaldean tradition, since Eastern Orthodoxy is equated with Constantinopolitan Greek Christianity, and we Assyro-Chaldeans are not and never were of that tradition.

When Catholics pray for full communion of all Apostolic Christians with the Catholic Church, they mean full unity between counterpart Churches (Churches of the same tradition), and full communion between all Apostolic Churches (of various traditions), including the necessary full communion with the Church that presides in love, the Church of Rome, whose bishop holds the Primacy.

Yes. That is my point. There is a negative side.

Ah, but the anathema equates ecumenism with the negative aspects by calling ecumenism a heresy. I disagree with this caricature of ecumenism. Ecumenism can turn heretical and false, but in itself, it is neutral. When properly used, in the original sense of “ecumenical”, it is meant to fulfill the prayer of Jesus.

This beautiful prayer is not about false ecumenism…it is about oneness in the true faith.

I don’t disagree here. It is not about false ecumenism, but about true ecumenism, oneness not only on the True Faith, but oneness on the Holy Mysteries, and oneness on the Hierarchy (which includes the necessary full communion with the Bishop of Rome).

This oneness is not uniformity, it is oneness on the essentials, not the non-essentials (one in essence, many in forms). It is not acceptable to uniform all Christians into adopting the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Constantinopolitan, Byzantine). It is not acceptable to “reduce the pizza into a slice”.

What a terribly rude and unChristian thing to say! I think my conversation with you is over.

I apologize. I do consider ROCOR to be on the fringe of Eastern Orthodoxy, a group of anti-ecumenical triumphalists. They most likely consider me to be a graceless heretic, but I do consider them to be Christians, and I’m sorry for my uncharitable remark towards them.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Mickey]

18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

Refers to St Peter’s confession of faith.

He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

A triple affirmation for St Peter’s triple denial.

Peter’s primacy over others

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: