Eastern Orthodox - Do they belong in the NC Forum???

[Irenicist]

That’s way too subjective to be part of any credible definition. Who decides what is a “factual point”?

If I were to tell you, for example, that the Pope’s legates at Constantinople did not excommunicate all Easterners in 1054, but merely a small number of “contumacious” bishops and their supporters, and offered you the text of the bulls of excommunication and the statements of the legates in defence of their actions as evidence, but you kept insisting nonetheless that they had excommunicate all Easterners, I think that would qualify. There were other examples, but it was over a year ago and I can’t recall them specifically in any detail. If it doesn’t happen again, then fine, it means we don’t have that problem anymore.

And I won’t be shedding any tears over some of the Roman Catholics who bullied their way around the old forum. Besides, I think you’re being unfair to those who have now been banned. I know of only a couple Orthodox posters who were over-the-top. One was banned on the day (but before) the old forum was shut down.

Well, I don’t know who was banned, so I really can’t say. I will admit, however, that since my return a few a days ago, I haven’t seen much in the way of this previously trollish behaviour by Orhtodox. There have been a few snide comments, but the only post that really crossed the line was followed by a prompt spontaneous apology. Someone else charged in waving the “h” word, but hasn’t repeated it since being corrected. So I guess things are looking up.

This is a change of the doctrine of the ancient Church, which was that a marriage is made sacramental by the blessing of the Church. I suspect that this novel idea comes from the innovative belief of Catholicism that the couple, as opposed to the priest, confects the sacrament of Matrimony.

I used to hold your view until I was corrected by a Church historian. It’s really very easy to project to familiar into the past. I checked it out and he was correct. I cannot speak for the East, but in the West church marriages were very rare until the 13th century. When married pagans were converted there is no evidence they were married again a second time, or that a particular effort was made to bless their marriage separately after their conversion.

Peter was married before becoming an Apostle. Is there any evidence his marriage was subsequently blessed? It might of been, but absence of scriptural evidence to this effect, considering all the Pauline discourse concerning marriage, is telling. Also requiring a priest to confer sacramental validity to a marriage suggests that a community without a priest (or deacon) can have no marriage.

Church blessing of a marriage is certainly an ancient practice, but Paul is quite clear that you are not free to walk away if you both share the faith. He says nothing about Church blessings. If you are not free to walk away, does that not imply your marriage is true in the eyes of God and thus sacramental?

There are also other ways in which East and West differ regarding the sacraments. Catholics believe, for examples, that even pagans can baptize, if they use proper form and matter and have the appropriate intent. I have been told that Orthodox take a more clericalist view of the sacraments, but I stand to be corrected.

Irenicist

 

[Ridgerunner]

In a way, putting EO issues in the NC forum seems a misfit. To American Catholics, the conventional meaning of the term “non-Catholic” equals “protestant”. However, properly speaking, it would include Moslems, Jews, Hindus, etc, as well.

But I think the real question is whether an EO forum is appropriate on a Catholic website. It could have been, perhaps, but wasn’t. I was there a number of times, but left in disgust. I did see a few Catholic attacks on EO that were over-the-top, but with very few exceptions, it appeared to me the anti-Catholicism of the EOs was 'way over the top; worse than most protestants by far. I live in the Bible Belt, and I have never seen anything like that, though I’ve seen a lot.

Many of the EOs seemed to be there (a) to proselytize Catholics (b) to insult and hurt (c) to cause confusion. Some started saying they were Catholic, and I suppose the EO have the right to say that if they want. But it was an exclusivist use. “We’re Catholics and you Latins aren’t”.

Some historical arguments were just plain wrong. Some of those EOs had some kind of historical reference works that so wrong it reminded one of reading a Marxist history; just plain ignoring real history and making up another.

But the worst part of it was that I think it hurt Orthodoxy. Like a lot of Catholics, I went to that forum thinking of the Orthodox as brothers in the faith. I came out thinking the feeling was far from mutual. The EO posters made it very clear that, in their minds, we were not. But was I even right? Were those posters even representing Orthodoxy accurately, or did were they some unrepresentative, radical subgroup? Clearly, a good number of the EO posters had no use at all for the Patriarch of Constantinople. Some even applied very uncharitable epithets to him; even “heretic”… Does that represent the views of the Orthodox generally? I doubted it, but you couldn’t tell. Some made it abundantly clear that there was no possibility for reunion, ever. But you couldn’t be sure that was the view of Orthodoxy generally when the Patriarch seemed to want it, at least tentatively. It was intensely confusing. After awhile, it seemed not only pointless to engage some of them, but constituted a substantial temptation to anger. Some Catholics, indeed, clearly succumbed to it, and it was hard to blame them. It almost seemed the incitement to anger was the purpose of many of them.

For myself, I even began to doubt this website. Did the moderators not see what was going on? Was this really a radical EO website dedicated to shaking Cathlics in their faith, masquerading as a Catholic one?

So, while putting it within the “Non-Catholic” segment doesn’t quite square with our usual understanding of that term, it at least clarifies that we’re not dealing with Catholics at all, or even something close to Catholics, and need to understand that when conversing with them. Again, I still question whether the main EO posters were representative of Orthodoxy. But maybe they were. If they were, Catholics deserve to be warned to be at least as wary of their words as they would be of radical protestants.

One thing those particular EOs did do for me that was positive, though. I truly did appreciate protestants more after meeting those EO posters. Catholic writer, Flannery O’Connor said she believed Southern Fundamentalists had more in common with Catholics than they did with mainline Protestantism, and felt they were closer to reunion (though as individuals, not as churches) than anyone else. I was better able to see the truth of what she said.

 

[bobzills]

If I were to tell you, for example, that the Pope’s legates at Constantinople did not excommunicate all Easterners in 1054, but merely a small number of “contumacious” bishops and their supporters, and offered you the text of the bulls of excommunication and the statements of the legates in defence of their actions as evidence, but you kept insisting nonetheless that they had excommunicate all Easterners, I think that would qualify.

If a Patriarch or bishop is excommunicated, what is the status of the priests and laity who decide to disobey the Pope and stay instead with this Patriarch and ignore the papal excommunication?

 

[Zooey]

I think the real reason for this change is that CAF at present doesn’t feel that they have the ability to sufficiently moderate the quantity and kind of discussion that the Eastern Christianity forum was generating at the same time as trying to provide a forum specifically for Eastern Catholics. Their responses to suggestions made (at the Suggestion Box forum) that there should be an EO sub-forum have basically been, “Thanks for the suggestion – we don’t have the resources to moderate any additional forums right now”.

I think this is true, too. I noted the same thing…

I do not feel that Orthodox belong in the same forum as non-Christians, such as Muslims. Neither do Protestants. I would like to see subforums in Non-Catholic Religions: one for Orthodox, one for Protestant, and one for non-Christian.​

I think this would be the ideal arrangemnet. There would almost certainly be problems over where Mormons belong, which I do understand. (Being moved in with Muslims comes to mind as something that Mormons would have good reason to resent).

On the other hand…I had given up on the Eastern forum long ago, precisely because the spirit there was so contrary to the charity that is present in the rest of CAF…Except for the occasional influx of trolls (of various kinds–Have you ever noticed that they arrive in:shrug: groups of the same “flavor”?), CAF is a place for vigorous debate but no real meanspiritedness.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If I were to tell you, for example, that the Pope’s legates at Constantinople did not excommunicate all Easterners in 1054, but merely a small number of “contumacious” bishops and their supporters, and offered you the text of the bulls of excommunication and the statements of the legates in defence of their actions as evidence, but you kept insisting nonetheless that they had excommunicate all Easterners, I think that would qualify. There were other examples, but it was over a year ago and I can’t recall them specifically in any detail. If it doesn’t happen again, then fine, it means we don’t have that problem anymore.

Well, I don’t know who was banned, so I really can’t say. I will admit, however, that since my return a few a days ago, I haven’t seen much in the way of this previously trollish behaviour by Orhtodox. There have been a few snide comments, but the only post that really crossed the line was followed by a prompt spontaneous apology. Someone else charged in waving the “h” word, but hasn’t repeated it since being corrected. So I guess things are looking up.

I used to hold your view until I was corrected by a Church historian. It’s really very easy to project to familiar into the past. I checked it out and he was correct. I cannot speak for the East, but in the West church marriages were very rare until the 13th century. When married pagans were converted there is no evidence they were married again a second time, or that a particular effort was made to bless their marriage separately after their conversion.

Peter was married before becoming an Apostle. Is there any evidence his marriage was subsequently blessed? It might of been, but absence of scriptural evidence to this effect, considering all the Pauline discourse concerning marriage, is telling. Also requiring a priest to confer sacramental validity to a marriage suggests that a community without a priest (or deacon) can have no marriage.

Church blessing of a marriage is certainly an ancient practice, but Paul is quite clear that you are not free to walk away if you both share the faith. He says nothing about Church blessings. If you are not free to walk away, does that not imply your marriage is true in the eyes of God and thus sacramental?

There are also other ways in which East and West differ regarding the sacraments. Catholics believe, for examples, that even pagans can baptize, if they use proper form and matter and have the appropriate intent. I have been told that Orthodox take a more clericalist view of the sacraments, but I stand to be corrected.

You mean a more Christian view.

How someone not a member of the Body of Christ can make some a member of the Body of Christ has never made sense. I see nothing in Scripture nor the Fathers to support it.

As for the marriage question, the biggest “historians” saying Church marriage was rare also advocate that the Church’s position on divorce is also “recent,” with equally convincing documentation.

St. Ignatius in 104 states that no marriage should take place without the bishop’s blessing. Orthodoxy has held to the same dogma since then, and before.

In the East, the emperor abolished civil marriage. When the muslims came, Chrisitans could contract marriage only through the Church.

You are right though, that the roots of the Latin view are deep, they are based on Roman Law, and the view of marriage as a contract. The ceremony (and its theology) reflect this.

The Orthodox ceremony is based on baptism (it is one of only three, Eucharist, Baptism, Marriage, which begins “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”): the spouses are baptized into one another. If you have seen a crowning, you will notice the similarities (and the procession too). No one baptizes himself.

Also, the rite as it exists now, the first part includes the remnants of the civil ceremony. You bring your marriage to be offered to the Church, who unites you. This is why converts do not need to have their marriages blessed (though many do): they bring them to the Church with themselves. Btw, this is also why a man must be married before ordination (and why in the Antiochean Patriarchate, and perhaps others, a convert must have his marriage specifically blessed by the Church before ordination).

As for walking away, note that Paul states that the is the choice only of the unbeliever, the basis of your Pauline and Petrine privileges.

 

[Irenicist]

If a Patriarch or bishop is excommunicated, what is the status of the priests and laity who decide to disobey the Pope and stay instead with this Patriarch and ignore the papal excommunication?

To begin with 1054 did not involve a “papal excommunication.” The Pope had died, and the mandate of the legates had run out. They issued the excommunication on their own authority. This is not an idle distinction. Patriarch Michael in response only excommunicated the legates and went no further, for example. There are a lot of myths surrounding this episode.

In any case to answer your hypothetical question, keeping faith with an excommunicate leaves you open to excommunication, but doesn’t automatically excommunicate you. It’s up to the issuing authority, and the legates made it clear that the scope of the excommunication was narrow. In practice, Easterners in general were still admitted to the Latin eucharist, if they sought it, until the end of the 11th century. The current rules effectively return to the practice of that time period.

Irenicist

 

[Edwin1961]

Eastern Catholics have more in common with the Orthodox Church than any other (I’m already including the Latin Rite because we were all ONE in the beginning).

Yet with what happened to the Eastern Christianity Forum, we still have a lot to learn about each other. In my heart, I never took the Schism seriously but now I feel my heart has been broken with the Orthodox members of our Forums either gone or in limbo.

I have even wondered if I even what to post on the Eastern Forum any more. (I posted the Saints of the Day as a benefit bor BOTH Eastern Catholics and Orthodox to show that we have many Saints in common and other we can learn from.

I just seem lost right about now.

 

[bogoljub]

In a way, putting EO issues in the NC forum seems a misfit. To American Catholics, the conventional meaning of the term “non-Catholic” equals “protestant”. However, properly speaking, it would include Moslems, Jews, Hindus, etc, as well.

But I think the real question is whether an EO forum is appropriate on a Catholic website. It could have been, perhaps, but wasn’t. I was there a number of times, but left in disgust. I did see a few Catholic attacks on EO that were over-the-top, but with very few exceptions, it appeared to me the anti-Catholicism of the EOs was 'way over the top; worse than most protestants by far. I live in the Bible Belt, and I have never seen anything like that, though I’ve seen a lot.

Many of the EOs seemed to be there (a) to proselytize Catholics (b) to insult and hurt (c) to cause confusion. Some started saying they were Catholic, and I suppose the EO have the right to say that if they want. But it was an exclusivist use. “We’re Catholics and you Latins aren’t”.

Some historical arguments were just plain wrong. Some of those EOs had some kind of historical reference works that so wrong it reminded one of reading a Marxist history; just plain ignoring real history and making up another.

But the worst part of it was that I think it hurt Orthodoxy. Like a lot of Catholics, I went to that forum thinking of the Orthodox as brothers in the faith. I came out thinking the feeling was far from mutual. The EO posters made it very clear that, in their minds, we were not. But was I even right? Were those posters even representing Orthodoxy accurately, or did were they some unrepresentative, radical subgroup? Clearly, a good number of the EO posters had no use at all for the Patriarch of Constantinople. Some even applied very uncharitable epithets to him; even “heretic”… Does that represent the views of the Orthodox generally? I doubted it, but you couldn’t tell. Some made it abundantly clear that there was no possibility for reunion, ever. But you couldn’t be sure that was the view of Orthodoxy generally when the Patriarch seemed to want it, at least tentatively. It was intensely confusing. After awhile, it seemed not only pointless to engage some of them, but constituted a substantial temptation to anger. Some Catholics, indeed, clearly succumbed to it, and it was hard to blame them. It almost seemed the incitement to anger was the purpose of many of them.

For myself, I even began to doubt this website. Did the moderators not see what was going on? Was this really a radical EO website dedicated to shaking Cathlics in their faith, masquerading as a Catholic one?

So, while putting it within the “Non-Catholic” segment doesn’t quite square with our usual understanding of that term, it at least clarifies that we’re not dealing with Catholics at all, or even something close to Catholics, and need to understand that when conversing with them. Again, I still question whether the main EO posters were representative of Orthodoxy. But maybe they were. If they were, Catholics deserve to be warned to be at least as wary of their words as they would be of radical protestants.

One thing those particular EOs did do for me that was positive, though. I truly did appreciate protestants more after meeting those EO posters. Catholic writer, Flannery O’Connor said she believed Southern Fundamentalists had more in common with Catholics than they did with mainline Protestantism, and felt they were closer to reunion (though as individuals, not as churches) than anyone else. I was better able to see the truth of what she said.

God bless!

I only want to tell u that I am orthodox and of course think that the orthodox church is the right one - if I would not I would have another confession.
We did not come here to convert others but we come here for discussion !
We love our church with our whole hearts - but this has nothing todo with Protestantism or Fundamentalism ! I think every christian should love God and his church with his whole heart - this is the christian “goal” and not fundamentalism- if it would- than all church fathers and Saints are great fundamentalists !

Catholics only can learn from orthodox - because they will lead to their own old faith and not anything new or contrary. Protestantism is new but not orthodoxy !
I know many rcc wich are very interested in orthodoxy not because they want to convert but because they want discover their own old church ! In western europe u will find thousends of books every year published by rcc about orthodox topics. Every Catholic who is against orthodoxy is against his own believe of old !

In CHRIST

 

[Zooey]

Eastern Catholics have more in common with the Orthodox Church than any other (I’m already including the Latin Rite because we were all ONE in the beginning).

Yet with what happened to the Eastern Christianity Forum, we still have a lot to learn about each other. In my heart, I never took the Schism seriously but now I feel my heart has been broken with the Orthodox members of our Forums either gone or in limbo.

I have even wondered if I even what to post on the Eastern Forum any more. (I posted the Saints of the Day as a benefit bor BOTH Eastern Catholics and Orthodox to show that we have many Saints in common and other we can learn from.

I just seem lost right about now.

It is very sad…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I’m a Latin Catholic and I don’t really feel comfortable labeling the Orthodox as non-Catholic. While I believe that the Catholic Church is present in all the local churches in communion with the Pope, in their faith and practices the Orthodox have kept the catholic faith handed down to them even though they’re not in communion with us. There are differences between our churches but putting them into the same category as Protestants and other non-Catholic religions is definitely wrong, imho.

With no names mentioned, there were some that claimed that discussion of Eastern heritage and theology was regulated to the ‘ghetto’ of the old Eastern forum. Now that it’s changed, we see people ranting and raving to bring it back. Our moderator team has a lot to wade through with this board already, and when the same things kept popping up over and over with the same people in that forum, I can see how it could cause the moderator team a lot of headache. A lot of the bickering and infighting on that board was really getting out of hand and I do commend our brother Joe for doing what he could with it, while trying to let everyone get their opinion out there as freely as possible within the forum rules. Hopefully the new Eastern Catholicism forum will bring more unity and understanding between Western and Eastern Catholics and if someone wants to research Orthodoxy, they can either search through the archive, post here, or elsewhere. That’s my not so humble opinion…

 

[bogoljub]

With no names mentioned, there were some that claimed that discussion of Eastern heritage and theology was regulated to the ‘ghetto’ of the old Eastern forum. Now that it’s changed, we see people ranting and raving to bring it back. Our moderator team has a lot to wade through with this board already, and when the same things kept popping up over and over with the same people in that forum, I can see how it could cause the moderator team a lot of headache. A lot of the bickering and infighting on that board was really getting out of hand and I do commend our brother Joe for doing what he could with it, while trying to let everyone get their opinion out there as freely as possible within the forum rules. Hopefully the new Eastern Catholicism forum will bring more unity and understanding between Western and Eastern Catholics and if someone wants to research Orthodoxy, they can either search through the archive, post here, or elsewhere. That’s my not so humble opinion…

God bless!

What u are calling “ghetto” was an interesting discusssion board!
There must not be “unity” like we are all completethe same and all have the same opinion - that’s not really christian. We are free children of God - and it is good to discuss and say what u think - like I have said christianity is not a softy - lofty sweet sentimental group. Did not the even the Apostels had discussions and different understanding ?
Do u not read St. Jerome what he wrote about St. Ambrose ? I think they also had a “living” discussian !

This way of acting was not ok ! How can catholics say they want more union between the churches and act like this ! I was against ecumenism before but now my opinion was proofed by such behavier. You do not really want to understand others you only accept your little understanding and everything else is wrong and unacceptable !
To call the Mysteries of orthodox invalid is a sin against God-Christs and the Allholy Mother of God who is unceasingly appearing and miracleworking in orthodoxy ! I witnessed such incredible miracles by own! You know that it is a sin against the Holy Spirit to deny this. It is a sin agianst our Holy Saviour Christ -God.

Your behavier was spiritually destroying and against any christian rule !!
Like I have said I know many orthodox forums and they are not so afraid of rcc particiiapting there. Why should we be afraid when we discuss topics of our faith ? We do not hide anything - are u perhaps that u are so afraid ?

In CHRIST

You only prooved what I had long thought ! That many rcc are intolerant and ignorant ! I think this is the reason whay thousend’s of people here in western europe leave that church - I am not surprised!
You can bann me if u want - but can u bann truth ?

 

[Apotheoun]

Eastern Catholics have more in common with the Orthodox Church than any other (I’m already including the Latin Rite because we were all ONE in the beginning).

Yet with what happened to the Eastern Christianity Forum, we still have a lot to learn about each other. In my heart, I never took the Schism seriously but now I feel my heart has been broken with the Orthodox members of our Forums either gone or in limbo.

I have even wondered if I even what to post on the Eastern Forum any more. (I posted the Saints of the Day as a benefit bor BOTH Eastern Catholics and Orthodox to show that we have many Saints in common and other we can learn from.

I just seem lost right about now.

I share your sorrow.

Sadly, many of the new threads at the Eastern Catholicism forum appear to be motivated by a desire to force Eastern Catholics to embrace Latin doctrinal formulations.

 

[Alexius]

I share your sorrow.

Sadly, many of the new threads at the Eastern Catholicism forum appear to be motivated by a desire to force Eastern Catholics to embrace Latin doctrinal formulations.

Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen for me. The pope himself said for us Easterners to return to our true roots without the Latinizations. That is how it should be…I don’t mind saying the Rosary and such, but that is a personal choice…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius