Actually, brother, from my understanding, the Latin Catholic mystics do. However, I would agree that such spirituality is considered “specialized” within Latin Catholicism, whereas in the Eastern Tradition, it is normative for all.
Given that this forum seems to consider Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental) to be distinct religions, it seems apostasy is appropriate.
The OP already asked this question, in essence, when she asked what Eastern Catholicism offered that Orthodoxy doesn’t. Of course that thread was merged into the thread where she asked the opposite question, but people still tried to answer it.
Ok, but we don’t accept Florence, so why should we accept that councils must be approved by Rome.
And we do believe it applies to each apostle, and from there to all in a position of authority. But it does not protect them from error. Arius was a bishop and a successor to the apostles, yet he became a heresiarch. In so doing he lost all authority he had once been given. And because we believe in an equality of bishops we do not believe that the See of Rome, by virtue of its occupant, is exempt from this.
Good point. However, I would assume that dzheremi’s point (not, of course, that I can speak for you dzheremi
) was that length-of-time in a church/communion can be made out to mean something that it doesn’t. Perhaps you’ll understand his point better if you consider how many years Pierre Teilhard de Chardin spent in the Catholic Church.
Even disregarding the fact that he makes a false claim about affiliation every time he posts with this “Orthodox in communion with Rome” hooey in his profile (which, as I’ve said elsewhere, is totally his right to do, if that’s how he conceives things), the issue to me is not length of experience. That’s just a historical fact that is neither here nor there, and I would never argue as he seems to think I have (from what I can see of what other people have quoted) that I somehow have more experience than he does in my short time being Orthodox compared to his long time of having been Orthodox. My point is rather this: If you are not Orthodox, regardless of how long you were Orthodox, your opinion on Orthodox matters is to be considered on the same level as any other non-Orthodox person’s opinion. Why? Because Orthodoxy is not someone’s intellectual, cultural, or other form of personal property. You don’t take it with you when you leave. Orthodoxy is – in addition to the mindsets, approaches and stances that Mardukm likes to claim that he has preserved even after coming into union with Rome (hence, “Orthodox in communion with Rome”) – actual, real, physical, tangible communion with those who hold and guard the Orthodox faith. To be Orthodox requires continual communion in and with the actual Orthodox Church. Leaving it for something else, as posters Mardukm and Copticsolider as well as other have done, means you’re not Orthodox anymore. Period.
It is logical that the See of Rome is not exempt, and that is also the teaching of the Catholic Church (refer to Vatican I), that the Pope cannot act over and against the entire tradition of the Church. However, today, the Pope is being excluded as teaching authority, which I believe is intended by the eastern Church to provide a remedy for error.
The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church [55] , cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion [56] ."The holy Roman church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]"The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church." [58]The Pope is excluded as a teaching authority because he is not a member of our Communion. He absolutely does not have any more teaching authority than say the Dalai Lama. He may have some wisdom to share but his opinion on the teachings of our church doesn’t matter.
Just because some Greeks agreed with something is not the same as the entire Orthodox Church agreeing. You mention four councils that we explicitly do not recognize as part of Holy Tradition. What Greeks said there is of no more accord than what the Pope may declare regarding councils.
Yet the Pope is not a member of your Communion for a reason.
What did they agree with, why & when?
Do you and most Orthodox really believe that an apophatic approach to theology is the deciding factor when comparing theologies? The Latin West and the East always took a different approach on this issue, even when in full communion…was our faith completely distinct and heretical, when compared to Orthodoxy, even before the Great Schism? Who cares if the approach is similar on some level if the faith is completely different. From a Catholic perspective, I can list literally HUNDREDS of distinct heresies professed by the various Protestant bodies, but when I (and the bishops of my Church) look at Orthodoxy, we see a handful of “heretical” beliefs at best (your rejection of papal primacy being the main one)…everything else is a difference of approach, theology, discipline, or spirituality, but not of fundamental Truth. Certainly you will find similarities between aspects of Catholicism and various Protestant bodies, but I don’t understand why the Orthodox consider such things as the Real Presence, the Eucharistic sacrifice, the necessity of sacraments, the institution of a priesthood, apostolic succession, the intercession of saints, the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, the veneration of icons, the deification of man, unimportant in these discussions. These are all things that are vital to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, which we share (even if we approach them differently), which Protestants reject. For Catholics the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith - as the mystical extension of the Incarnation - and for the Orthodox this also seems to be true…yet most Protestant bodies reduce it to a symbolic commemoration at best. Do you think the average Latin Catholic has ever heard the term “scholastic”? Of course not. All he or she knows is that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and that this is also true for the Orthodox but not for Protestants.
I can’t speak for Orthodoxy, but the “signposts”, to use your term, that the bishops of my Church emphasize suggest that Orthodoxy and Catholicism share much in common than do Catholicism and Protestantism. I can only speak from the perspective of my Church. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith - it is the mystical continuation of the Incarnation - it is the re-presentation of the very sacrifice of Christ…it is a true encounter with the living Christ. From a Catholic perspective, Protestantism lacks this…and in fact, the vast majority of Protestants don’t even claim to have any such thing. We do, however, believe that you Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, encounter the same Risen Christ and offer the same Eucharistic sacrifice…when it comes down to it, all of these other comparisons are moot, for everything else pales next to the Eucharist and the other mysteries / sacraments which flow from the Eucharistic Christ. This is the very heart of our faith, and we believe we share it with the Orthodox but not with Protestants.For all I know, this is true (about modern Evangelicals). I do not keep up with all the permutations of that belief, so there is probably some really wacky stuff out there. I was probably subconsciously thinking of mainline Protestants, since that’s historically what Protestantism consists of. Of course I guess these newer mainline denominations are themselves generally offshoots of mainline denominations, aren’t they? So the same principle still applies, it just results in something that is even more diluted.
To that end, there is something to be said for the relativity of it all. I’ve had similar discussions off board with Oriental Christians of various churches (Catholic and Orthodox) wherein the conclusion was basically that if the EO and OO did not both have Rome to compare each other to, it is possible that we would not see one another as being very close at all. But that’s not the world as it is, I suppose. (I mean that as no offense to Rome or its believers; it’s just another way of looking at this question of the relative closeness of one communion or church to another.)
Sure, but is this in comparison to the Pentecostals you mentioned, or an observation of both in their own right? That’s kinda what I’m getting at here – it depends on what the standard of comparison is. Certainly, I would say that Orthodoxy has more in common with Roman Catholicism if I was to adopt your signposts as a measurement of relative distance or closeness (e.g., do the have some developed theology regarding the Eucharist, or do they celebrate Easter, etc). But on my own (or, rather, separate from that standard), I don’t really have any reason to do so. Certainly the Orthodox Church is not minimalist such that any developed theology is taken as an automatic point of contact, so we’d have to look at and compare the substance of what is believed, and that is precisely why I mention the idea of differing approaches; as in the Lutheran consubstantiation example, Western Christianity whether Catholic or Protestant often concerns itself with things that the East does not. I don’t think that’s an accident, and I also do not think that it is something that makes Catholicism similar to Orthodoxy just because Protestants don’t generally know enough or bother to do the same.
So I guess I agree with you in some ways, but still agree most with me.
That is a question that is worth thinking about. Let’s go back to the time before the schism of 1054. Now the R Catholics say that the Roman Pope was the supreme and infallible head of the whole Church and had universal jurisdiction. That is the unchangeable RC doctrine according to Vatican I and was supposedly the doctrine before 1054 because RC doctrine can never change. But why then, when Cerularius was excommunicated in 1054, did all of the other Patriarchs of the whole Christian Church, with the exception of the Roman Patriarch, follow Cerularius and remain in communion with him. If they had believed that the Roman Pope had supreme authority, it seems that they would have remained in communion with the Roman Pope and not with Cerularius and his successors?
Actually, it was rather gradual, and 1054 is not the actual date of schism. It is easily proven that, for example, the Russian Orthodox and the Antiochene Patriarchate had good relations with Rome a few centuries beyond this point. I think what really did it was the slaughter of many Latin Catholics by Eastern Orthodox, and the subsequent slaughter of many Eastern Orthodox by Latin Catholics (i.e., the Crusaders) in the 13th century.
Correct. It was gradual. However, the point still holds - the other Patriarchs and their successors remained in communion with the successors of Cerularius and not in communion with the Roman Pope who supposedly has infallible and universal jurisdiction and universal primacy over the whole Christian Church.
Let’s look at that heresy you accuse Orthodoxy of having. The rejection of Papal Primacy.
I’ve been quite close to Pentecostals, attending their service (yes, even in the third world where they are semi-underground). I would even say that I have experienced the Holy Spirit at these events.
Absolutely. You could also point to evidence of a cataphatic mindset in the East (The Nicene Creed is very cataphatic), but it is not the way problems are approached, leading to a gulf between us that I don’t think exists between Catholics and Protestants (even the biggest wingnuts) since you are still approaching the problem largely the same way.
If I might piggyback on that, those who criticize ECs for being both Eastern and Catholic make as much sense as those who criticize WRO for being both Western and Orthoodox … which is not much in my opinion.
When in a frivolous mood, I respond to that with “Welcome to the Internet.”
The major part of it was the filioque controversy. That was simply unfortunate because both sides simply did not have a good understanding of the different linguistic and theological presuppositions of the other side.