Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[Mickey]

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.

How old is the Novus Ordo?

If I may use an anology, you are asking for the whole pizza to reduce itself to a slice.

Oh No! Not the dreaded pizza analogy again!

I disagree with this caricature of ecumenism.

Yes. You already mentioned that. And I disagree with you.

Ecumenism can turn heretical and false

Thank you. :tiphat:

I do consider ROCOR to be on the fringe of Eastern Orthodoxy

That is a shame. I believe if you visited their monastery in Jordanville, NY you would not have such a skewed outlook.

Blessings,
Mickey

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

…
Last chapter of John.

 

[Aramis]

Mickey:

the “Peter’s confession” approach to the last two chapters of John’s Gospel doesn’t wash.

If one timelines out the various gospels, the events in the last two chapters of John’s Gospel are weeks after the 10 get “the keys.”

If those events had been before being granted power over sin, I could see your point about balancing the triple denial… but they were not, so it is a logical fallacy.

Only two of the 12 were not granted the power over sin that first week: Thomas, as he was absent, and Judas, as he was dead and not replaced yet.

 

[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.
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.

"What is an Ecumenical Council? By this, I specifically mean the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Why were they held?

Answer: They were political, imperial-sponsored events so as to poll the bishops of the Roman Empire to see what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine. But, was this a Traditional method for determining orthodoxy? No. Rather, it was Constantine’s way of finding out what Christianity taught. And, again, because he had political concerns. He was looking for a glue to hold his Empire together, so it was of monumental importance that all the bishops be in agreement. And, in this, remember Constantine’s situation: The Empire was overflowing with Christians, yet had problems with disunity. By embracing the Church, he assumed that he could fix this in one fell swoop. However, then Constantine found out – much to his surprise – that these Christians weren’t so “unified” after all (i.e., Arianism). And, if that was the case, he needed to find out if Christianity was really (as the orthodox Christians claimed) a universal phenomenon. Otherwise, his plan was pointless.

So, what the bishops taught was never important to the powers behind Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II. Rather, the driving force was what could be agreed on (in order to promote the “One Church, One Empire” agenda) just as it was at the illicit “ecumenical councils” :

Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous “councils” in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism. All these Councils could have been defined historically as “Ecumenical,” if it were not for Rome’s refusal to cooperate with them.

So, what trumps what? A Council, or Rome’s teaching authority? If the Orthodox wanted to be honest about history, it is clearly Rome’s teaching authority – the very thing “Saint” Photius (being an agent of the Empire himself) denied, so as to foster Byzantine primacy through an unTraditional bid to make the P. of Constantinople “Ecumenical Patriarch,” a title which, as I recently found out, was not approved of for the P. of Constantinople until after 1453. It was a title given to him by the anti-Latin TURKS! Not by the Papacy nor by the ancient Church.

But, getting back to my point, the Orthodox have bought into a non-Ecclesial, very imperial notion of what determines orthodoxy via magisterium. Their idea that “all bishops are equal” is really rooted in the Imperial idea of polling bishops so as to see what is taught everywhere. However, while this is sometimes a useful tool it is no replacement for a magisterium. Rather, it is not all that dissimilar to the opinion polls of CNN. The very Achilles Heel of non-representational Greek Democracy. In other words, it doesn’t work. If it did, we would not have had all those illicit “ecumenical councils” I referred to above. And, in this, we see a simple rule for defining orthodoxy:

With Rome = Legitimate Ecumenical Council

Without Rome = Illicit, Heretical Council.

And any honest student of Christian history would have to admit this. The Roman Magisterium made the political exercise of the Ecumenical Council work. Without that Roman Magisterium, there was confusion and heresy. Why? "

 

[byzgirl]

Mickey wrote: The Pope of Rome can define doctrine on his own, without the approval of a council, by virtue of his special charism of infallibility.

"*Contrary to the Orthodox understanding *that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem all share equal authority, basing this on episcopal authority derived from their sees and the *supposed equality *of their sees – It is interesting to note that, in Acts 15, Peter does not act as a bishop of a see. Rather, he is merely a visitor. Yet, his Petrine office and teaching authority are in place – even over the resident reigning bishop (James). Therefore, the idea that the Pope of Rome’s teaching authority is merely that of a bishop is not sensible. If, as the Orthodox maintain, the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter, it therefore follows that he succeeds to Peter’s unique ministry and to a teaching office that is superior to the rest of the episcopate. Therefore, even if the Schism was a 4 to 1 split, as the Orthodox say, they would still be the ones in error. As St. John Chrysostom puts it: "And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan Hom). That’s a Papacy, my friend.

He is not a one-man Council because a Council isn’t what the Orthodox think it is. As with Jerusalem, a Council goes like this:

(A) The bishops meet to examine the matter (Acts 15:6)
(B) They debate (Acts 15:7)
(C) The Petrine office renders a decision **BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DEBATE **(which is what a Council is for). (Acts 15:7-11)
(D) The Petrine position, which is now the official teaching of the Magisterium, is explained for those parties who have trouble understanding it (Acts 15:12-19)
(E) Amendments may be made for the sake of peace (Acts 15:20 and 28-29)
(F) A document is drafted to convey the Council’s decision to the faithful
Therefore, the Orthodox mis-characterization of the Papacy as a “one-man council” does not stand. If one considers the last three ex cathedra declarations by the Pope (The Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and forbidding female priesthood), NONE of them were proclaimed without step B.
With the Immaculate Conception, the Pope polled the bishops to see if there was any reasonable objection. There was none (since it was after 700 years of theological examination of the doctrine), so Peter spoke.
The Pope is not a “one-man council” because he does not speak alone. Not at first, anyway. He must draw his teaching from the debate in question. So, with female priests, the Pope listened to the debate, and ruled in favor of Tradition. “Women cannot be priest because they cannot image Christ the Bridegroom.” Yet, this decision was not made without considering the debate, or even the views of the liberal bishops. Their views, however, did not fit with the truth (Acts 15:7-11). And thus, Peter spoke. This is what the Petrine office does. This is its purpose. So, we have
(1) A Council, the purpose of which is to debate and present all sides.
(2) The Papal Magisterium, the purpose of which is to pick the correct side and champion it. This is where infallibility comes in. The Papacy approves of the orthodox doctrine, and the Council ratifies the Papacy’s teaching for all: signifying that they have all assented to it, coming to agreement on this matter. (Acts 15:22)
So, a Council is only necessary when the matter must be seriously debated, that is, when the matter is not apparently unorthodox (e.g. women priests). Otherwise, the direct magisterium (the Chair of Peter) can act on its own. As it did with the issue of female priests.

However, the Eastern Orthodox, who have reduced the magisterium to Ecumenical Council alone, cannot act in this way and are vulnerable in 2 ways:
(1) They **cannot judge things alien to the Depost of Faith **(i.e., modern birth control, cloning, social justice issues). And
(2) They cannot produce universal agreement on matters within the Deposit of Faith (i.e., one bishop interprets Tradition this way, another that way. Whose position is correct?)
Yet 1 and 2 above are **precisely the description of the Petrine ministry, a ministry established by Christ to guard and proclaim orthodox doctrine and to preserve unity in that truth – the very things Eastern Orthodoxy lacks in its application of the Apostolic Faith."

 

[Mickey]

the “Peter’s confession” approach to the last two chapters of John’s Gospel doesn’t wash.

I believe it washes just fine.

 

[Mickey]

The Roman Magisterium made the political exercise of the Ecumenical Council work.

 

[Mickey]

If, as the Orthodox maintain, the Pope of Rome is the successor of Peter, it therefore follows that he succeeds to Peter’s unique ministry and to a teaching office that is superior to the rest of the episcopate. Therefore, even if the Schism was a 4 to 1 split, as the Orthodox say, they would still be the ones in error. As St. John Chrysostom puts it: “And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ **this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan Hom). **

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

However, the Eastern Orthodox, who have reduced the magisterium to Ecumenical Council alone, cannot act in this way and are vulnerable in 2 ways:

Long winded polemics will not serve you well.

 

[ronyodish]

How old is the Novus Ordo?

Mickey,

We Assyro-Chaldeans don’t celebrate the Novus Ordo, so your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh No! Not the dreaded pizza analogy again!

I take it you don’t like pizza, or perhaps you only like a little bit of it, so enjoy your slice cause that’s all you gonna get in Eastern Orthodoxy

Yes. You already mentioned that. And I disagree with you.

So you disagree with my disagreement, good enough for me
I love disagreeing with anti-ecumenical triumphalists

Thank you.

You’re welcome

That is a shame. I believe if you visited their monastery in Jordanville, NY you would not have such a skewed outlook.

No need to visit some fringe monastery, you represent their brand of Orthodoxy well enough. I do hope though that not all Orthodox Christians in OCA are in league with the anti-ecumenical extremists of ROCOR.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Nicholas82]

No need to visit some fringe monastery, you represent their brand of Orthodoxy well enough. I do hope though that not all Orthodox Christians in OCA are in league with the anti-ecumenical extremists of ROCOR.

Rony

Wow, seriously… way to be offensive in the extreme. I’m blessed to live very close to this beautiful monastery which is well appreciated by the community. The funeral of Metropolitan Laurus was all over the local media. Hardly a fringe group…

 

[ematouk]

I was looking at that list of heretical patriarchs, but I noticed that NONE of them in that list were from Jerusalem. Were there any heretical patriarchs from Jerusalem?

If not, then why isnt the patriarch of Jerusalem infallible? Peter was first bishop of Jerusalem before he was bishop of Rome. Jesus died in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is often called the “mother church” in the early church. Jerusalem was first church to have primacy (Rome could not have had primacy before it was preached to). The Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem recieves the miraculous holy fire EACH YEAR at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Every year the Jordan river flows backwards on the ‘old calender’ theophany (baptism of christ).

If Romans accept the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, then why not the infallibility of the bishop of Jerusalem?

I’m not trying to say the bishop of Jerusalem is infallible, because I do not believe it to be so. But if the Romans claim it for their bishop to the exclusion of all others, then they need to explain why Jerusalem is not.

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

I was looking at that list of heretical patriarchs, but I noticed that NONE of them in that list were from Jerusalem. Were there any heretical patriarchs from Jerusalem?

If not, then why isnt the patriarch of Jerusalem infallible? Peter was first bishop of Jerusalem before he was bishop of Rome. Jesus died in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is often called the “mother church” in the early church. Jerusalem was first church to have primacy (Rome could not have had primacy before it was preached to). The Orthodox bishop of Jerusalem recieves the miraculous holy fire EACH YEAR at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Every year the Jordan river flows backwards on the ‘old calender’ theophany (baptism of christ).

If Romans accept the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, then why not the infallibility of the bishop of Jerusalem?

I’m not trying to say the bishop of Jerusalem is infallible, because I do not believe it to be so. But if the Romans claim it for their bishop to the exclusion of all others, then they need to explain why Jerusalem is not.

I believe two or three of its bishops were monophysite.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ematouk]

Dear brother ematouk,

I believe two or three of its bishops were monophysite.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry, would you be able to supply names so that I may look it up?

I’m not really certain of the issue myself, but ive tried searching on google and I havent found any heretical patriarchs from Jerusalem. In fact, the only patriarch of Jerusalem I have found to even be accused of heresy was St Cyril of Jerusalem (who was accused of being Arian - but in fact was truly Orthodox)

Even during the monothilite heresy, the Patriarch of Jerusalem remained faithful to the truth. Amazing.

I read somewhere on a dodgy website that Arius fled to the patriarchate of Jerusalem for refuge - but it didnt say anything about the patriarch being an Arian.

God bless.

 

[Mickey]

We Assyro-Chaldeans don’t celebrate the Novus Ordo

Lucky you!

enjoy your slice cause that’s all you gonna get in Eastern Orthodoxy

On the contrary–we got the whole pie!

I love disagreeing with anti-ecumenical triumphalists

Oooh. Resorting to ad hominem. That’s impressive. :clapping:

anti-ecumenical extremists of ROCOR.

Oooh! More ad hominem. Double impressive. :clapping:

 

[Mickey]

I’m blessed to live very close to this beautiful monastery which is well appreciated by the community.

Yes Nicholas. It is a holy and blessed place for a pilgrimage. Were you able to venerate the multitude of holy relics?

 

[chrisb]

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.

Grace and Peace,

You appear to projecting the ‘sin’ of Latinization onto Eastern Orthodoxy. Personally, I find that very hard to shallow coming from one who is in communion with Rome. It is true that the Orthodox believe in a ‘right-belief’ as well as Orthopraxi… ‘right-practice’ but please try not to project the ‘sins’ of the Western Church on ‘us’.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace,

You appear to projecting the ‘sin’ of Latinization onto Eastern Orthodoxy. Personally, I find that very hard to shallow coming from one who is in communion with Rome. It is true that the Orthodox believe in a ‘right-belief’ as well as Orthopraxi… ‘right-practice’ but please try not to project the ‘sins’ of the Western Church on ‘us’.

Peace and God Bless.

Actually, the Eastern Orthodox Communion has a strong history of such subordination and elimination of non-Byzantine traditions, and variations of the Byzantine tradition itself. The Antiochian tradition was eliminated, the “Western Orthodox” are a strange hybrid that is quite Byzantinized by design, and the Armenians in the jurisdiction of the Byzantine Empire found themselves terribly persecuted many times in history for their different tradition.

Ronyodish has every reason to have concern about the respect of his tradition, IMO, especially seeing as the “Western Orthodox” phenomena is a current problem, while Latin, by Conciliar decree, in the Catholic Church

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Ronyodish has every reason to have concern about the respect of his tradition, IMO, especially seeing as the “Western Orthodox” phenomena is a current problem, while Latin, by Conciliar decree, in the Catholic Church

Ghosty,

Could you explain the last part of that sentence I didn’t understand what you were trying to say…

 

[Gofer]

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1643/1235782727chiefrule2727cl1.jpg
World trumps Jerusalem.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Like this list has never been seen before.

or answered.