A
ajpirc
Guest
But, what is Eastern Catholicism considered?
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
Oops. I missed that. My apologies.
It is my understanding that the Creed has been present in all Latin Rite masses since 1014 (under Benedict VIII, apparently at the request of King Henry II). That it was inserted unilaterally is not really controversial, is it? It certainly was not accepted into the Eastern Catholic Churches (as there weren’t any at this time to accept it, and those who came to use it later have since wisely been asked to discard it), and it’s not as though the Pope consulted with any EO or OO before doing so anymore than the council of Toledo would have before they originally adopted the phrase. I don’t know why you’re taking this as a slight. What is the point of investing so much power in the Pope as the Latin church alone does if not to substantiate such actions by his own unique authority? I don’t get it.
Okay. If that’s the case, then why are you constantly referring back to the OO as though they are a sort of model for how the EO should be in union with the RCC? The OO are not in union with the RC, nor do they seem particularly likely to be at any point in the near or distant future.
My only point is that it is not a very good example. I’m not here to slander the EO.
I have never heard any OO of any jurisdiction use this “High Petrine” distinction that you use. As we discovered last time you trotted out this distinction, it seems to be more or less confined to this messageboard, particularly to threads you post in…
I have. That’s precisely why I am not convinced by your interpretations of them. I just don’t see what you do in these dialogues or the documents that come out of them.
I have a better idea: Please explain to me just what you’re trying to say if not that, because I’m not deliberately misquoting you (in fact, I’m not quoting you at all). What is the point of talking about common faith and understanding and looking beyond theology and all this business if not to propose that there is some essential sameness in the RCC and OOC and EOC (or whatever groups) that somehow rises above the divisions that is of such a profound depth that we ought to unite by the principles that you embrace?
Conversely, I could say that the problem is that YOU pretend that they are not, when they very clearly are. This, however, is not a helpful way of going about things. (The fact that you apparently consider the LCC to be one of the OC’s does say a lot, though. The “other” OCs? Did you mean to write “actual”?)
I think you are misunderstanding me. I take it as a fact that since the churches have met and worked out issues to whatever degree necessary in order to issue the documents you reference, then the resulting understandings that come from these meetings can no longer be classed as “misunderstandings”. So if, for instance, the Syrians come out of a dialogue with Rome with a nice new document reflecting the common understanding that they have reached, and yet still find Rome to be unorthodox and hence unsuitable for communion, then there must be something more to this determination than simple “misunderstandings”.
I’m not aware of such agreements, nor that anyone has ever claimed that such agreements exist already.
Perhaps I phrased something incorrectly. I am referring to the documents you asked me earlier to read, such as those found at CNEWA.
No…
There is a difference between having a dialogue about particular issues (as the churches are doing) and declaring that such-and-such a church is orthodox and communion should be reestablished (or heterodox and communion should not be reestablished).
Wow. Now who’s building a straw man…?
M
mardukm
Guest
Eastern, of course. The Catholic Church today simply reflects the reality of the early Church. Just imagine yourself in the early Church. Were ALL Catholics in communion with Rome “Western”?
NOTE: Though the Catholic Church reflects the reality of the early Church, there are some who believe that the novel Absolutist Petrine view is evident in the Catholic Church today at least to SOME degree. IMO, this is only evident because schism still exists. Once the schism ceases to exist, I sincerely believe these particular evidences will also cease to exist. It’s only natural that where there is conflict among family members, the head of the family may exhibit a stronger hand than usual in the hopes of maintaining unity in the family. This will probably entail, in talks among the various apostolic Churches, a sort of nuptial agreement on the canons explicitly spelling out, “If we are reunited, this particular canon will no longer be necessary.” I personally feel there are certain canons that lean towards an Absolutist Petrine position, but, as mentioned, I also believe these exist only because the Schism still exists, and have hope in the Lord that they will disappear once unity is fully realized.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
CONTINUED
That’s actually not true. It’s the other way around. Before 1014, The Creed with filioque was recited/sung in almost ALL the Latin Churches EXCEPT the Church in Rome. In fact, the Creed was not recited in the Church in Rome AT ALL until 1014. Think about that, brother. Seriously. If the Creed was so absolutely important in the early Church, why would all the Churches have been in communion with the Church in Rome where the Creed was not even recited at all? It’s apparent to me that it was a common FAITH, not a common Creed, that was the unifying factor in the early Church before the Schism.
Why would the Pope need to consult with anyone to do something for his local diocese, or his Patriarchate, for that matter?
Exactly!!! This liturgical matter was up to LOCAL authorities. If the Church in Spain wanted to add it, and it reflected a totally Orthodox belief, what business is it of any other Church? To repeat, in the early Church, it was the FAITH that counted, not so much textual uniformity.
What makes you say that?
You’re making statement on the premise that it was the Pope who added the filioque to the Latin Creed. As explained above, that’s an unhistorical assumption. So papal primacy has nothing to do with this issue, and what I don’t get is why you should inject it into the issue.
Three reasons: (1) Because many of the circumstances that the EOC reject about the RCC also exist in the OOC. (2) So no one can claim that the EOC is any closer to the OOC than the CC is to the OOC. (3) If EOC are willing to overlook these matters with regards to the OOC, then they should be fair and not use those same matters as a basis for disunity with the CC, because God hates scales and balances.
Who said they were?
Theologically speaking, the filioque is a good example.
I have no problem with EO apologists. It’s the EO polemicsts that need to be corrected.
The “High Petrine,” “Low Petrine,” and “Absolutist Petrine” distinctions are just convenient terms. It is the ideas behind those terms that are relevant. For example, like the Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church considers the office of head bishop as a DOCTRINAL matter, not merely ecclesiastical, that is directly based on the model of the Petrine headship among the Apostles through Apostolic Succession. That would be in opposition to the opinion expressed by many EO that the office of head bishop is merely ecclesiastical and was instituted by the Ecumenical Councils for the sake of mere administration. The Syriac Orthodox position is a classic “High Petrine” position, while the position expressed by many EO is a classic “Low Petrine position.” Even if you take away those terms, the difference still exists and is very real.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
Blessings,
Marduk
Just to assert that there is ALREADY much in common. That is all. Do you find anything wrong with that belief? I don’t know what basis you have for stating that I claimed there is NO difference between Rome and Alexandria - and that is exactly what you stated. Doesn’t it seem like you are trying to knock down a straw man?
Again, look at the partial list I gave of all the items that the OOC-CC agreements have covered. Can you deny that in those matters, the OOC admits that the CC are Orthodox? Please respond to that.
There have been numerous discussion about filioque, the IC, Purgatory, etc. that demonstrate the Orthodoxy of those teachings. Apparently, the OO’s and the EO’s don’t believe each or the other is Orthodox either, because there is no communion between them, right? Will you admit that? So you have no proof that the CC is any less Orthodox than the EO in the eyes of the OO, correct?
That doesn’t make sense at all. If what was once NOT considered a mere misunderstanding - and each Church was hurling anathemas at the other Church - can NOW be considered a misunderstanding (i.e., Christology), on what basis do you believe that those matters that still separate us now can never in the future be seen to have been a misunderstanding after all?
Whoever said or even implied that communion should be reestablished RIGHT NOW (there is obviously more work that needs to be done)? Seems like another straw man? You are trying to deny or refute something that was never claimed. (Please note that I am using the term “straw man” academically, and not as an insult)
How is that a straw man? You claim that communion can NEVER be established because of some inherent heterodoxy in the CC. If that is so, then it doesn’t make sense that the OOC’s and CC should agree not to try to win converts from each others’ Churches. Recall also the Balamand Agreement which entailed a similar non-proselytization agreement between the EOC and the CC. Many EO objected to that, but there are obviously those within the hierarchy of the EOC, like in the OOC, who believe that Catholics are Orthodox enough that unity should not be based on trying to convert Catholics to the Eastern Orthodox Church.Wow. Now who’s building a straw man…?
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
The paragraphs in the Wikipedia article about the adoption of the filioque at Rome says:
*It was only in 1014, at the request of the German King Henry II who had come to Rome to be crowned Emperor and was surprised at the different custom in force there, that Pope Benedict VIII, who owed to Henry his restoration to the papal throne after usurpation by Antipope Gregory VI, had the Creed, with the addition of Filioque, sung at Mass in Rome for the first time.
Since then the Filioque phrase has been included in the Creed throughout all the Latin Rite except where Greek is used in the liturgy,[4][4][140][140] although it was never adopted by Eastern Catholic Churches.[9]*
This is what I was essentially trying to say. It wasn’t until 1014 that the Filioque was adopted at Rome, and from there it gained a certain legitimacy that it hadn’t had before, to the extent that it eventually became as it is today: an apparently indispensable part of the Creed in the Latin church.
Prior to that it had spread to varying degrees among the local churches. Some used it (Charlemagne, for instance, used the Spanish text and advocated the singing of it in the churches in his territories, but not all did so), some did not.
Why then was the Creed ever agreed upon in the first place? I had been taught (by Catholics, no less!) that it was in order to clarify the common faith that we hold. It may not have been always recited, but it had to be held to.
Hmm. How does this square with the Latin acceptance of the First Council of Ephesus, where any further changes to the Creed were forbidden? (Is this another “EO polemical point”? I have read the canons of Ephesus and it really does seem to be saying that new things are not to be added or taught.)
Let me rephrase it, as that is not what I meant: It is as a result of the Pope’s approval and insertion of the Creed with the filioque clause in it that it since that time and today has been accepted into the Latin church as a whole. As I am sure you know, previous Popes had disapproved of the insertion of the filioque clause into the Creed. But once those doors were opened, they were not closed, and with the codification of the idea of papal infallbility centuries later it has become even more difficult (perhaps impossible?) to be rid of it, or to restore it to the level of a local addition, as it once was.
What? Are the participants in the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox dialogues nobodies to you? Since you are all about official pronouncements, I recommend that you read the agreed statements from Eastern-Oriental Orthodox dialogues, particularly those from the 1989 and 1990 meetings in Egypt and Geneva. Therein you will find statements such as this one: “Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries.” If you can find any such similar statement from an Orthodox source regarding the RCC, I would delight in reading it.
I am not an EO, and I realize that there is some difference of opinion on this among various EO camps, but I would put forth the idea that it is not out of unfairness that they might consider the RCC dialogue on a completely different level and to a much more limited degree than their dialogue with the OO.Rather, there is an understanding in the dialogues between the EO and the OO that they share substantially the same faith. Again from the agreed statement: “We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition.” I don’t believe that either the EO or OO see the RCC in the same light, because they have told me that they do not. Whether you (or I, or anyone) find that fair or not doesn’t really matter.
D
dzheremi
Guest
No. In fact, I share it. But I do not share all of your understandings of what should follow from that agreement, apparently.
Until I hear or read an Orthodox Patriarch stating that Rome is “Orthodox”, I will not believe it. I have not yet met any Orthodox person, of any rank or jurisdiction, who believes that it is possible for orthodoxy to be compartmentalized in this way, such that Rome can be defined as “Orthodox” simply by focusing on similarities.
Yes, there is still much work to do. But I will say that people on both sides of the Orthodox divide seem much more hopeful about the eventual reunion of the Orthodox communions than either are about the prospects for reunion with the RCC. Take that as you will.
Well, I have what they themselves say. Is that good enough?
On what basis do you believe that I believe that? (Did I absentmindedly use the word “never” somewhere? If so, that was a mistake. Everything is possible with the Lord.)on what basis do you believe that those matters that still separate us now can never in the future be seen to have been a misunderstanding after all?
It’s not so much a straw man as both us apparently reading things into the other’s position that aren’t really there. I think that’s a sign that we should part rather than drag this out any more.
Where?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
As requested, here is proof that the OOC and CC likewise share a faith in common beyond the Christological agreements:
Coptic Orthodox and CC:
In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God-bearer. She intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her dignity all angelic hosts.
We have, to a large degree, the same understanding of the Church, founded upon the Apostles, and of the important role of ecumenical and local councils. Our spirituality is well and profoundly expressed in our rituals and in the Liturgy of the Mass which comprises the centre of our public prayer and the culmination of our in corporation into Christ in His Church. We keep the fasts and feasts of our faith. We venerate the relics of the saints and ask the intercession of the angels and of the saints, the living and the departed. These compose a cloud of witnesses in the Church. They and we look in hope for the Second Coming of our Lord when His glory will be revealed to judge the living and the dead.
Syriac Orthodox and CC:
The Pope and the Patriarch have recognized the deep spiritual communion which already exists between their Churches. The celebration of the sacraments of the Lord, the common profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man for man’s salvation, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both Churches, the great Fathers and Doctors, including Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who are their common masters in the faith – all these testify to the action of the Holy Spirit who has continued to work in their Churches even when there have been human weakness and failings.
Giving thanks for this glorious opportunity which has been granted them to meet together in His love in order to strengthen further the relationship between their two sister Churches, the Church of Rome and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
The Sacraments, which the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch hold together in one and the same succession of Apostolic ministry, i.e. Holy Orders, Matrimony, Reconciliation of penitents and Anointing of the Sick, are ordered to that celebration of the holy Eucharist which is the centre of sacramental life and the chief visible expression of ecclesial communion.
Armenian Apostolic and CC:
Faithful to the tradition handed down by the Apostles and the Fathers, and at the same time, aware of the demands of a world seeking God in the new developments of our age, they will be able to open up new avenues which will overcome the differences that still exist and bring their Churches to a more perfect unity in the profession of their faith in the face of the world.
this collaboration must be based on the mutual recognition of the common Christian faith and the sacramental life, on the mutual respect of persons and their Churches.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I recognize the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the Bishops, clergy and lay faithful of their Churches. It is a communion which finds its roots in the common faith in the Holy and Life-giving Trinity proclaimed by the Apostles and transmitted down the centuries by the many Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Bishops, priests, and martyrs who have followed them.
Malankara Orthodox and CC:
We found our common ground in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, held by the one and undivided Church of the early centuries, the faith in Christ always affirmed by both sides.
Blessings,
Marduk
As requested, here is proof that the OOC and CC likewise share a faith in common beyond the Christological agreements:
Coptic Orthodox and CC:
In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God-bearer. She intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her dignity all angelic hosts.
We have, to a large degree, the same understanding of the Church, founded upon the Apostles, and of the important role of ecumenical and local councils. Our spirituality is well and profoundly expressed in our rituals and in the Liturgy of the Mass which comprises the centre of our public prayer and the culmination of our in corporation into Christ in His Church. We keep the fasts and feasts of our faith. We venerate the relics of the saints and ask the intercession of the angels and of the saints, the living and the departed. These compose a cloud of witnesses in the Church. They and we look in hope for the Second Coming of our Lord when His glory will be revealed to judge the living and the dead.
Syriac Orthodox and CC:
The Pope and the Patriarch have recognized the deep spiritual communion which already exists between their Churches. The celebration of the sacraments of the Lord, the common profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God made man for man’s salvation, the apostolic traditions which form part of the common heritage of both Churches, the great Fathers and Doctors, including Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who are their common masters in the faith – all these testify to the action of the Holy Spirit who has continued to work in their Churches even when there have been human weakness and failings.
Giving thanks for this glorious opportunity which has been granted them to meet together in His love in order to strengthen further the relationship between their two sister Churches, the Church of Rome and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.
The Sacraments, which the Catholic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch hold together in one and the same succession of Apostolic ministry, i.e. Holy Orders, Matrimony, Reconciliation of penitents and Anointing of the Sick, are ordered to that celebration of the holy Eucharist which is the centre of sacramental life and the chief visible expression of ecclesial communion.
Armenian Apostolic and CC:
Faithful to the tradition handed down by the Apostles and the Fathers, and at the same time, aware of the demands of a world seeking God in the new developments of our age, they will be able to open up new avenues which will overcome the differences that still exist and bring their Churches to a more perfect unity in the profession of their faith in the face of the world.
this collaboration must be based on the mutual recognition of the common Christian faith and the sacramental life, on the mutual respect of persons and their Churches.
Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I recognize the deep spiritual communion which already unites them and the Bishops, clergy and lay faithful of their Churches. It is a communion which finds its roots in the common faith in the Holy and Life-giving Trinity proclaimed by the Apostles and transmitted down the centuries by the many Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the Bishops, priests, and martyrs who have followed them.
Malankara Orthodox and CC:
We found our common ground in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, held by the one and undivided Church of the early centuries, the faith in Christ always affirmed by both sides.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
dzheremi:
from there it gained a certain legitimacy that it hadn’t had before
What makes it was more legitimate for any local Church just because Rome adopted it? Wasn’t it already legitimate in nearly all the Latin Churches even before Rome adopted it? I mean if almost all the Latin Churches already used it, they must already have considered it legitimate, correct?
CONTINUED
from there it gained a certain legitimacy that it hadn’t had before
What makes it was more legitimate for any local Church just because Rome adopted it? Wasn’t it already legitimate in nearly all the Latin Churches even before Rome adopted it? I mean if almost all the Latin Churches already used it, they must already have considered it legitimate, correct?
And that’s what I stated. It was the FAITH that was important, not the wording of the Creed itself. It was the FAITH that was important, not the text.
Yes, I believe that is a polemic EO point. The term pistin eteran of the Third Ecum has been polemically used by many MODERN EO to refer to the TEXT of the Creed, instead of the FAITH that the Creed contains. This is obviously not how the early Church, the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have historically understood that phrase from the Third Ecum. Do you want me to offer proof of the truth of my statement (I had already given a part of that proof in a previous post, though)?
But your final sentence disproves your very point. If the authority of Rome was insufficient to keep the Creed from being used before 1014 in almost the entire Latin Church, what grounds do you have to believe that it was Rome’s adoption of the text that caused it to have more legitimacy?
Filioque was already used and cherished in most of the Latin Church long before Rome adopted it. Infallibility has nothing to do with it.
See previous post.
The problem with your opinion here is that there are also similar statements from Oriental Orthodox Churches that the Faith they share with the CC is likewise not limited to the issue of Christology.
CONTINUED
M
mardukm
Guest
CONTINUED
A “pipe dream” is defined as an impossible or vain plan or hope. That’s as close to “never” as you’ll get without using the actual word.
Blessings,
Marduk
What do you claim I am claiming should “follow from that agreement”?
Yes, it is defined by full communion in the Eucharist, which neither the EO nor the CC currently have with the OO. So, again, I don’t find any basis for your claim that the EO are objectively closer to the OO than the CC are.
Yes. SOME EO and SOME OO pretend that there is more in common between EO and OO than between Catholics and OO, but there is no formal Eucharistic sharing that they can point to to demonstrate it. There is just as much INformal Eucharistic sharing between EO and OO as there are between Catholics and OO.
Certainly. Balance that with the formal statements I provided, and you have an even footing.
You stated: “reunion with Rome is a pipe dream, unfortunately”
A “pipe dream” is defined as an impossible or vain plan or hope. That’s as close to “never” as you’ll get without using the actual word.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
I am unmoved from my previous position. Nowhere in any of these statements is it held that the RCC and the OOC hold the same faith in any way beyond a common faith in _____ (some aspect that is rather general to any church with apostolic foundations). Rome, having once been Orthodox, no doubt shares some of the Orthodox faith. Again, the problem is not in the commonalities, but in the differences that are irreconcilable with the Orthodox faith as understood by Orthodox Christians themselves (not me, not you, not the Pope of Rome). If that were not the case, we’d already be in communion with one another.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I’m not saying that you’ve claimed this, but it does seem to me that you do not see the faith as it is currently promulgated from Rome as a significant barrier to reunion. You seem to argue that it is substantially or completely orthodox, but I don’t know any Orthodox person (EO or OO) who would agree with that.
Again, the fact that they say it is is enough for me.
Why is it that when the EO and the OO say that there is more in common between them than between either and the Catholics, this is “pretend” even though this is what their OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS say? See “Recommendations on Pastoral Issues”, 1990, linked previous via the “Orthodox Unity” website; specifically point 11:
- There are crucial issues in which our two families agree fundamentally and have disagreements with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches.***
Read the documents on the site I linked to in my previous post.
You’ve taken that phrase out of context to make it seem like I’m saying something other than what I originally wrote. Here it is, as I wrote it:
“And I maintain that not all dogmas can or should be kept, if Rome is serious about reunion. I have always felt that Rome is in an unenviable position with regard to these talks, as Rome has much to give up that the Orthodox do not, since they never adopted these strange understandings and doctrines to begin with. I think that this is why reunion with Rome is a pipe dream, unfortunately. I don’t expect Rome to stop believing in its distinctive doctrines any time soon.”
In other words, reunion with Rome is a pipe dream so long as Rome does not renounce the doctrines that separate it from the Orthodox faith. This is not at all the same as what you have understood of my position (that Rome is somehow inherently incapable of being Orthodox). Rome could be Orthodox TOMORROW if it were somehow able to see how it currently isn’t. Granted, this is not how things work in the real world, and if the Pope actually came out and said “Yeah, we’ve been wrong for hundreds of years, and we repudiate X, Y, Z completely and forever from here on out” I imagine that the vast majority of the RC world would have a coronary. Still, it’s at least theoretically possible, given that the Pope has the final say on everything.
H
hazcompat
Guest
Romans 14:1 Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you: not in disputes about thoughts.
peace
peace
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
a) the position and role of the woman in the life of the Church and our common Orthodox response to the contemporary problem of other Christian communities concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood,
(b) pastoral care for mixed marriages between Orthodox and heterodox Christians,
(c) marriages between Orthodox Christians and members of other religions,
(d) the Orthodox position on dissolution or annulment of marriage, divorce and separation of married couples,.
(e) abortion
As anyone can see, the only point here that is different from the Catholic position is (d).
Besides, how do you appeal to a document that has not even received any full and formal Synodal acceptance from the EOC’s? Please explain that. At least the documents that I referred to are already official and binding between the CC and the OOC’s. So, again, please don’t pretend that the EOC is any closer to the OOC than the CC is to the OOC.
It is also a fact, though you may not be aware of it at this stage of your study of Oriental Orthodoxy, that there are DOCTRINAL matters on which the OO are much closer to the CC (and the Latin CC in particular) than they are with the EO -
(1) Doctrine on the Justice of God;
(2) Doctrine of the Atonement
(3) Baptism and Original Sin;
(4) High Petrine ecclesiology (particularly with the Syriac Orthodox, for which it is a DOCTRINAL matter, and not merely an ecclesiastical/canonical matter)
(5) The phrenoma of having unity in the Faith, rather than in expressions of the Faith.
(6) The unity of God (though OO use the Essence/Energy language, Orientals DO NOT believe it is applicable to the internal life of the Trinity, unlike the EO - the Eastern and Oriental Catholics have more in common with the OO on this point than modern EO).
(7) The necessity of Penance.
This is not a complete list.
Blessings,
Marduk
Yes, I believe there is no substantial difference, and there is no significant barrier to reunion. But I recognize that dialogue needs to continue. What is wrong with that position?
The OO say the same things with regard to their relationship with the CC, and that is enough for me as well.
Here’s a perfect example why I believe some EO or OO just pretend they are closer to each other than with the CC (of course, you yourself are not EO or OO, but your belief is representative of SOME EO and OO). You quote this portion as if it was a general statement on all issues aside from Christology. But you have taken it out of context. The document from which this comes immediately gives those issues that the EO and OO have in common following that statement you give above, and they are NOT doctrinal issues, but moral/pastoral issues. I will give them here, in case you missed it in your reading:
a) the position and role of the woman in the life of the Church and our common Orthodox response to the contemporary problem of other Christian communities concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood,
(b) pastoral care for mixed marriages between Orthodox and heterodox Christians,
(c) marriages between Orthodox Christians and members of other religions,
(d) the Orthodox position on dissolution or annulment of marriage, divorce and separation of married couples,.
(e) abortion
As anyone can see, the only point here that is different from the Catholic position is (d).
Besides, how do you appeal to a document that has not even received any full and formal Synodal acceptance from the EOC’s? Please explain that. At least the documents that I referred to are already official and binding between the CC and the OOC’s. So, again, please don’t pretend that the EOC is any closer to the OOC than the CC is to the OOC.
It is also a fact, though you may not be aware of it at this stage of your study of Oriental Orthodoxy, that there are DOCTRINAL matters on which the OO are much closer to the CC (and the Latin CC in particular) than they are with the EO -
(1) Doctrine on the Justice of God;
(2) Doctrine of the Atonement
(3) Baptism and Original Sin;
(4) High Petrine ecclesiology (particularly with the Syriac Orthodox, for which it is a DOCTRINAL matter, and not merely an ecclesiastical/canonical matter)
(5) The phrenoma of having unity in the Faith, rather than in expressions of the Faith.
(6) The unity of God (though OO use the Essence/Energy language, Orientals DO NOT believe it is applicable to the internal life of the Trinity, unlike the EO - the Eastern and Oriental Catholics have more in common with the OO on this point than modern EO).
(7) The necessity of Penance.
This is not a complete list.
As demonstrated above, your evidence is rather weak.
I have, and they do not prove your claim.
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but, TBH, the alternative is not much better.
This reflects an uniatism that is not part of the phrenoma of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. We are working at unity through understanding first, not by trying to force others to give up their beliefs.Rome could be Orthodox TOMORROW if it were somehow able to see how it currently isn’t. Granted, this is not how things work in the real world, and if the Pope actually came out and said “Yeah, we’ve been wrong for hundreds of years, and we repudiate X, Y, Z completely and forever from here on out” I imagine that the vast majority of the RC world would have a coronary. Still, it’s at least theoretically possible, given that the Pope has the final say on everything.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
See, that’s just it, Mardukm: I have the exact same type of evidence that you have, as far as documents are concerned. You don’t see the documents I have produced as evidence of my own stances, just as I do not believe the documents that you have produced are evidence of what you say they are. We have essentially the same position, but hold to opposing conclusions.
I understand that you feel that your position is stronger,with reference to official documents and whatnot. That’s fine with me, as this is your own standard. For me, I am not particularly guided by anything that the RCC says, even if it is in consultation with the OOC or EOC. That they should come together to discuss some issue that divides them is right and good, and I do support it, but at the end of the day I believe as they tell me they believe: These documents are for furthering the efforts of Christian understanding in mutual respect and love, but do not in and of themselves substantiate any claim to a shared faith beyond or above doctrinal divisions, which remain so long as Rome’s doctrines separate it from the other apostolic communions.
I understand that you feel that your position is stronger,with reference to official documents and whatnot. That’s fine with me, as this is your own standard. For me, I am not particularly guided by anything that the RCC says, even if it is in consultation with the OOC or EOC. That they should come together to discuss some issue that divides them is right and good, and I do support it, but at the end of the day I believe as they tell me they believe: These documents are for furthering the efforts of Christian understanding in mutual respect and love, but do not in and of themselves substantiate any claim to a shared faith beyond or above doctrinal divisions, which remain so long as Rome’s doctrines separate it from the other apostolic communions.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dzheremi,
This is a fair conclusion. I just have one comment on the highlighted portion below.
I accept you feel our positions are opposing, but I am not inclined to accept that conclusion.
Your position is that the EOC is closer to the OOC than the CC is to the OOC.
The opposite position would be that the CC are closer to the OOC than the EOC is to the OOC. But that is not my position.
My position, to be concise, is simply that you do not have a solid basis for your claim. I believe, as stated earlier, that the “closeness” is on equal footing.
Blessings,
Marduk
This is a fair conclusion. I just have one comment on the highlighted portion below.
I accept you feel our positions are opposing, but I am not inclined to accept that conclusion.
Your position is that the EOC is closer to the OOC than the CC is to the OOC.
The opposite position would be that the CC are closer to the OOC than the EOC is to the OOC. But that is not my position.
My position, to be concise, is simply that you do not have a solid basis for your claim. I believe, as stated earlier, that the “closeness” is on equal footing.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dzheremi
Guest
I wasn’t really referring to that. The closeness (or not) of the OOC and the EOC is a side issue. I was referring to your idea that Rome’s faith is essentially orthodox and compatible with the faith of the Orthodox churches. I do not believe that this is true, for two reasons: (1) The Orthodox do not see it that way; (2) I personally do not see it that way.
Based on what you’ve presented to me in this thread, I would suspect that you would disagree or at least qualify (1) [perhaps SOME Orthodox say this…], and completely disagree with (2). This is what I mean by coming to opposite conclusions.
Based on what you’ve presented to me in this thread, I would suspect that you would disagree or at least qualify (1) [perhaps SOME Orthodox say this…], and completely disagree with (2). This is what I mean by coming to opposite conclusions.
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
From my perusal of Western Orthodox parish websites (which a convenient directory can be found here: members.cox.net/frnicholas/parishes.htm ), it would seem that it is a common occurrence for the Stations of the Cross to be prayed on Lenten Fridays. Also certain parishes seem to also practice Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction. These include (but are not limited to)-
Holy Incarnation, Detroit, MI
Emmanuel Orthodox, Warren, MA
St. Benedict of Nursia, Wichita Falls, TX
I also know for a fact that amongst all Western Rite Orthodox, the Rosary is heavily promoted and encouraged.
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not talking about Stations of the Cross during Pascha, which I think is pretty common in the Eastern Churches. I’m talking about Stations of the Cross as a regular feature like it is in the Latin Church. The commonness of the Stations of the Cross in the Latin Church is an indication of a different kind of spiritual and theological outlook than the Easterns.
I’m not sure if these are particularly unique to the Latin Church anyway.
Blessings,
Marduk
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
Ah, I see. I really had no idea that other Eastern churches besides Eastern Catholics prayed the Stations at all. Shows what I know!
I merely speak of my limited knowledge of things. Alas, I am but a man!
- Status