Examining Orthodox Theology

[cmforte]

I posted this on another web site but considering on where the discussion in this thread is going, I think is very relevant to this one. It is just “food for thought”:

The Catholic and Orthodox churches were united as one at one time. There is a matter of opinion on who broke from who. Today, many Catholics and Orthodox pray for re-union and even use the term “Cathodox.”

Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes the Apostolic succession of their priests and bishops/patriarches as valid, for this and other reasons they also recognize each other’s Eucharist as valid:catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy :

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together

. Today, the move to re-union is stronger than ever. Eastern Orthodoxy | Catholic Answers:

While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are separate for the moment, what unites us is still far greater than what divides us, and there are abundant reasons for optimism regarding reconciliation in the future. Over the last several decades, there has been a marked lessening of tensions and overcoming of long-standing hostilities.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

It is again becoming possible to envision a time when the two communions will be united and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, fulfill their duty in bringing about Christ’s solemn desire and command “that they may be one” (John 17:11).

scoba.us/articles/2855.html Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future:

1. What We Share. Despite disagreement on the place of the bishop of Rome in the worldwide cohesion of Christianity, however, it seems to us obvious that what we share, as Orthodox and Catholic Christians, significantly overshadows our differences. Both our Churches emphasize the continuity of apostolic teaching as the heart of our faith, received within the interpretive context of the historical Christian community. Both believe our life as Churches to be centered on the Divine Liturgy, and to be formed and nourished in each individual by the Word of God and the Church’s sacraments: baptism, the anointing with chrism, and the reception of the Eucharist mark, in each of our Churches, the entry of believers into the Body of Christ, while ordination by a bishop sets some of them apart for permanent sacramental ministry and leadership, and the marriage of a Christian man and woman within the liturgical community forms them into living signs of the union of Christ and the Church. Both our Churches recognize that “the Church of God exists where there is a community gathered together in the Eucharist, presided over, directly or through his presbyters, by a bishop legitimately ordained into the apostolic succession, teaching the faith received from the apostles, in communion with the other bishops and their Churches” (Joint International Dialogue, Ravenna Statement [2007] 18). Both our Churches, too, recognize the importance of various kinds of primacy, as the Ravenna statement further affirms: “Primacy at all levels is a practice firmly grounded in the canonical tradition of the Church,” even though “there are differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations” (ibid. 43). Both our Churches venerate Mary, the Mother of God, as the foremost among those transformed by the grace of Christ’s redemption, and both also honor a whole range of holy men and women from every age, many of them common to our two traditions. Both our Churches cherish ancient practices that help the faithful grow in holiness, value personal asceticism and fasting, reverence sacred images, promote the monastic life, and set a high value on contemplative prayer. In all of these ways, our lives as Churches are enriched by the same spiritual resources. A significant degree of communion already exists between us.

The only thing really in the way is Papal Supremacy: Papal Primacy — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

…In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God’s Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).[44]

…In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith
.

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthodox-Catholic Vision For The Future | Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas :

1. The Role of the Papacy. In such a communion of Churches, the role of the bishop of Rome would have to be carefully defined, both in continuity with the ancient structural principles of Christianity and in response to the need for a unified Christian message in the world of today. Although the details of that role would have to be worked out in a synodal way, and would require a genuine willingness on both sides to accommodate one another’s concerns, a few likely characteristics of this renewed Roman primacy would be these:

a) The bishop of Rome would be, by ancient custom, the “first” of the world’s bishops and of the regional patriarchs. His “primacy of honor” would mean, as it meant in the early Church, not simply honorific precedence but the authority to make real decisions, appropriate to the contexts in which he is acting. His relationship to the Eastern Churches and their bishops, however, would have to be substantially different from the relationship now accepted in the Latin Church. The present Eastern Catholic Churches would relate to the bishop of Rome in the same way as the present Orthodox Churches would. The leadership of the pope would always be realized by way of a serious and practical commitment to synodality and collegiality.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Vatican | Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Pope’s visit to Constantinople: Part8 - YouTube

From orthodoxwiki.org/OrthodoxWiki:About , orthodoxwiki.org/Fourth_Crusade#Papal_Apology_trthodox_Church

Papal Apology to Orthodox Church

In May of 2001, Pope John Paul II visited Athens, Greece, the first visit of a pope in nearly 1300 years. Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Christodoulos met at the Aereopagus, where the Apostle Paul preached to Athenians 2000 years ago.

Pope John Paul II stated: “For occasions past and present when the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by actions and omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him.” Many Orthodox regard this as a “political” apology for the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, as well as for other issues, but it was clearly not in any way or form a religious or doctrinal apology on the part of the Roman Catholic Church.

In April 2004, in a speech on the 800th anniversary of the city’s capture, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I formally accepted the apology. “The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred,” he said during a liturgy attended by Roman Catholic Archbishop Philippe Barbarin of Lyon, France. “We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade. It is a fact that a crime was committed here in the city 800 years ago.” Bartholomew said his acceptance came in the spirit of Pascha. “The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection… incites us toward reconciliation of our churches.”

We have more in common than not…and I pray and look forward to our re-union.

-Chris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew did not concelebrate the Eucharist together. I don’t mean to rain on any parades here, but there are still a lot of questions to sort out before union could ever become a reality, and union is not quite as imminent as some would like to think it is.

 

[cmforte]

Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew did not concelebrate the Eucharist together. I don’t mean to rain on any parades here, but there are still a lot of questions to sort out before union could ever become a reality, and union is not quite as imminent as some would like to think it is.

Then somone is really good at making fake videos.

And I never said unity was “imminent.” I just said that the hope for it is very strong.

And please read all of my post and reply to each quote and the source used to back it up. In some cases, I go to some Orthodox churches themselves. Here is one: papalvisit.patriarchate.org/press/articles.php?id=99,papalvisit.patriarchate.org/press/articles.php?id=81

Thanks.

-Chris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Then somone is really good at making fake videos.

And I never said unity was “imminent.” I just said that the hope for it is very strong.

And please read all of my post and reply to each quote and the source used to back it up. In some cases, I go to some Orthodox churches themselves. Here is one: papalvisit.patriarchate.org/press/articles.php?id=99,papalvisit.patriarchate.org/press/articles.php?id=81

Thanks.

-Chris

Concelebration never happened. The Ecumenical Patriarch may have been present at a eucharistic service with Pope John Paul II, but if the eucharist was celebrated, he did not commune nor take place in the consecration, hence, no concelebration. The videos of the 2006 visit of Pope Benedict to the Phanar similarly show that a non-eucharistic service was performed. Notice also how no Canonical Orthodox sources ever make such a claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch has communed with either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI (the only source you gave which claims that this is so is a Catholic Answers tract). This idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch has communed with popes is simply fiction.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, here are rubrics for a liturgy done during Pope Benedict’s 2006 visit. See how the Pope does not appear in the commemorations of hierarchs performed at the time of the Great Entrance. Notice how the Pope is completely absent from the Holy Anaphora, when the consecration happens, only participating in the Our Father after. See also how he is absent from the rubrics when it comes time for the clergy to commune. These omissions cannot be accidental since the other actions of the pope are explicitly spelled out in the rubrics.

 

[cmforte]

Concelebration never happened. The Ecumenical Patriarch may have been present at a eucharistic service with Pope John Paul II, but if the eucharist was celebrated, he did not commune nor take place in the consecration, hence, no concelebration. The videos of the 2006 visit of Pope Benedict to the Phanar similarly show that a non-eucharistic service was performed. Notice also how no Canonical Orthodox sources ever make such a claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch has communed with either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI (the only source you gave which claims that this is so is a Catholic Answers tract). This idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch has communed with popes is simply fiction.

Whether the Pope concelebrated the Eucharist with the Ecumenical Patriarch wasn’t my point anyways. Until I find differently, I’ll concede to you there. My point was that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have much in common (Apostolic succession, a priesthood distinct from the laity, a Divine Liturgy in worship, the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic/Sacred Tradition near or of the same authority as Sacred Scripture, and so on…we even share some of the Church Fathers and saints!!) ( and no, I am not discounting our differences here) and that there is a very strong movement and a large amount of hope for a full re-union, whether the Pope has the Catholic view of primacy or the Orthodox view, either one is fine with me.

-Chris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Whether the Pope concelebrated the Eucharist with the Ecumenical Patriarch wasn’t my point anyways. Until I find differently, I’ll concede to you there. My point was that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have much in common (Apostolic succession, a priesthood distinct from the laity, a Divine Liturgy in worship, the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist, Apostolic/Sacred Tradition near or of the same authority as Sacred Scripture, and so on…we even share some of the Church Fathers and saints!!) ( and no, I am not discounting our differences here) and that there is a very strong movement and a large amount of hope for a full re-union, whether the Pope has the Catholic view of primacy or the Orthodox view, either one is fine with me.

-Chris

I apologize if I came off as harsh. I just find that this idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch has concelebrated the eucharist with the Pope to be (ironically) harmful for the prospects of union, because people wind up believing that Orthodox hierarchs have a positive attitude towards the sharing sacraments, only to become shocked or upset when they discover that the Orthodox opinion of concelebration with those not in communion with Orthodoxy is overwhelmingly negative (the canons forbid it). There was, for example, a Romanian metropolitan who recently was disciplined because he had communed with the Roman Catholics. It is best that this sort of sentiment (the disapproval of concelebration with the non-Orthodox) is left out in the open rather than allowing for people to get the wrong impression and subsequently to become upset or disillusioned when they encounter evidence to the contrary. I did not intend to deny that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have their similarities.

 

[cmforte]

I apologize if I came off as harsh. I just find that this idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch has concelebrated the eucharist with the Pope to be (ironically) harmful for the prospects of union, because people wind up believing that Orthodox hierarchs have a positive attitude towards the sharing sacraments, only to become shocked or upset when they discover that the Orthodox opinion of concelebration with those not in communion with Orthodoxy is overwhelmingly negative (the canons forbid it). There was, for example, a Romanian metropolitan who recently was disciplined because he had communed with the Roman Catholics. It is best that this sort of sentiment (the disapproval of concelebration with the non-Orthodox) is left out in the open rather than allowing for people to get the wrong impression and subsequently to become upset or disillusioned when they encounter evidence to the contrary. I did not intend to deny that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have their similarities.

Thank you. I understand. I have much love and respect for our Orthdox brethren.

-Chris

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m telling you from my own experience, not out of being a snob…

Funny you should bring up being a snob and relate it to yourself.

Right and thats “YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE” which you somehow “confused” with me who “never” said; “Hey” you should go to an EO parish.]

I just explained it in my previous post…

Obviously I missed this or I wouldn’t have politely asked you TWICE now to “Show me”.

Yes…

Yes what? I asked you to supply me a a DL schedule for every Orthodox Chruch in the “WORLD”?

Show me the post then where I specifically asked for this.

One in your area would have ended the conversation and been polite, which you took to a completely different level with “What am I suppose to do. supply every DL schedule worldwide!”

I just answered your question. You asked what is more important than the Church. I don’t know where you got this me trying to separate anything. You asked a question, I gave an answer. It doesn’t mean anything beyond what you asked…

Let me run this conversation by you again, I stated " The Church is the most important aspect of “CHRISTianity” You thought I needed a spelling lesson to begin with in the name “Jesus Christ” which if I spelled wrong, please show me where.

Then YOU concluded no its not, Jesus Christ is. Which I see as seperating Christ from His Church for no good reason. Why would you even make such a comment…oh right to dismiss the idea that Daily Mass and the CC is of value. Which is what we were talking about, and to somehow think your are upholding the EO postion by doing so. That “is” the context of this conversation in case your having trouble following along.

I’m no travel expert, but I’ve never seen anything happen beyond Mass in the average RC parish. I’m open to being refuted by evidence. .

Consider yourself refuted; “Christian meditation performed in the presence of the Eucharist ‘outside of Mass’ is called Eucharistic meditation”

However, this wasn’t the issue we were speaking about. Your comment was in relation to what “could-not” be done in NORTH AMERICA, in relation to the “Mass” since they were not available daily in your area. Which BTW I don’t believe and that certainly is not indictive of North America. We we speaking about the “Daily Mass” .

As far as being a Travel Expert perhaps you can venture out into your own area and see what is offered by the CC.

whatever floats your boat .

Yours also

Because of the state of what it is here today, it’s hard to see beyond what is there…

The Sacraments aid

Sacrament is an aid thus it does do something, You stated it does “Nothing” by itself.

Very Good! It aids in the process, so it does do something thus it does “accomplish” something. You stated it does “nothing by itself”. Which I simply stated is “incorrect” and as we now see you agree.

You seem to have an issue with the Catholic Daily Mass and seem to want to downplay its significance. Why is that, and why not just get straight to the point here?

 

[GaryTaylor]

For Coptic Orthodox people, the fast is a minimum of 9 hours, or from midnight of the previous night. In practice, it is basically always midnight of the previous night, as we err on the side of whichever is longer, and a normal liturgy (with nothing special attached) beginning at 8:30-9 AM will mean the people will receive the Eucharist around 11-11:30 AM or so, so 9 hours from that is what…two in the morning? I don’t think anyone is going to be eating in the slim space between midnight and two in the morning, so everybody I know just takes midnight as the start of the fast, which practically makes it a twelve-hour fast.

Let’s just say that the orban (the blessed bread given out at the conclusion of the liturgy) is the single most delicious thing that you will ever eat in your life.

Thank You for the insight.

 

[dvdjs]

How else would one “articulate” such a thing, other than with words?

Thee can be many formulae of words that express one faith.

 

[dvdjs]

Not universally.

A strong Metropolitan within his synod is not the same thing as Universal Jurisdiction.

To see this as comparable one have to at least provide evidenced that the Pope of Alexandria can control the Jacobite and Armenian churches, write their canons for them and regulate their liturgical practices. Plus one would have to have evidence of a claim that the Popes of Alexandria could (or would) do this for any church not yet under their influence

In pre-nicean times?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thee can be many formulae of words that express one faith.

Suggesting that different formulation of the Creed are OK?

 

[dvdjs]

Suggesting that different formulation of the Creed are OK?

This is what we have been talking about.
Notwithstanding all of the discussion of “filioque” , “God from God” has never, AFAIK, been raised as a point of contention between the EOC and the CC.

Different words that are thought to mean a different faith are disputed. It was expressions that articulate a different faith that were anathematized.

I appreciate the fact that some say that any changing of a word is anathema, but given all the little variations that occur with a multiple translations, or the silence about “God from God”, it is clear that that idea is not correct - a point worth noting.

 

[jlhargus]

How about the idea that the pope was/is never more than a “first among equals” without the charism of infallibility or universal jurisdiction? To the CC, that is certainly a false and erroneous belief/teaching.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
That unfortunately is what is so confusing to me. We are told that we are only in schism, and not in heresy, but wouldn’t the two be virtually the same thing after the First Vatican Council, since being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is tantamount to rejecting his supremacy over all other churches?

Yes, it certainly is very confusing to me too. But the confusion is not peculiarly catholic. It’s present for any system of belief with the “one true church” doctrine that also recognizes bodies in schism with itself that are supposedly not also automatically heretical. What is peculiarly catholic is the more precise definition of the “one true church” structure, right up to the singular point of unity in the pope.

JL: I’m just guessing here but I would say the Orthodox are in schism because they have never went into hersay by authoritativly defining any dogma since breaking with Rome. They may hold different theological opinions, but that’s all they are opinions. They are not dogma till an ecuminical council defines those opinions and makes them binding on all Orthodoxy.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is what we have been talking about.
Notwithstanding all of the discussion of “filioque” , “God from God” has never, AFAIK, been raised as a point of contention between the EOC and the CC.

Different words that are thought to mean a different faith are disputed. It was expressions that articulate a different faith that were anathematized.

I appreciate the fact that some say that any changing of a word is anathema, but given all the little variations that occur with a multiple translations, or the silence about “God from God”, it is clear that that idea is not correct - a point worth noting.

Indeed, but it wasn’t quite clear where you were heading. And yes, the Deum de Deo is generally not seen as problematic and is hardly mentioned other than to prompt dicussions such as this.

Translations are always a challenge and inevitably become contentious, if not immediately then as vernacular language evolves in usage and form. Surely translations need to be faithful to the original text yet current s as to be understood in current vernacular as originally intented.

I guess where the discussion truly breaks down and becomes debate is when considering (i) changes made in the “language of record” (Greek or Latin) to a base text or (ii) where translation yields a potentially erroneous (perhaps unintended) meaning, either actively or with the passage of time.

One generally would not argue that the “Filioque” was simply wordsmithing …

 

[Hesychios]

In pre-nicean times?

Now what are you talking about?

 

[josie_L]

It is true that Orthodox do not teach that there is any one single human person who is ‘head’ of the church. This is a teaching unique to Roman Catholicism and no other Apostolic church.

The Orthodox belief is that Christ is head of the church, and that is what is taught.

Of what Orthodox do teach, what is not true?

I’m not too sure about that:

I. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church
HIS HOLINESS THE PATRIARCH MORAN MOR IGNATIUS ZAKKA I

II. Presiding Hierarch of the Church in India
HIS BEATITUDE THE CATHOLICOS ABOON MOR BASELIOS THOMAS I

III. Metropolitans of the Universal Syriac Orthodox Church

[a] Middle East
(i) Patriarchate
(ii) Syria
(iii) Iraq
(iv)

Holy Land
(v) Lebanon
(vi) Turkey
** India/Malankara . . . . . . **

syrianchurch.org/bio/SyriacOrthodox/Metropolitans.htm

Moreover, we too teach that the Head of our Universal, that is, Catholic Church, is Jesus Christ, however, as per the Church here on earth, his representative is the pope, i.e., the
successor to St. Peter (leader of the apostles).

 

[dzheremi]

What on earth…?

What could HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas possibly have to do with supporting Roman claims? That makes no sense at all.

Do you realize, Josie, that the excerpt you’ve quote is relating the Patriarch’s leadership to HIS OWN PARTICULAR CHURCH (that is to say, the Syriac Orthodox Church), not the entire Orthodox Church throughout the world? So it’s not really comparable to Rome’s Papal claims at all? It would be if Rome concerned itself only with the governance/overseeing of Latin/Roman churches within its traditional territories (i.e., the West, which the Roman Pope is rightly called the Patriarch of), but that’s not what Rome claims.

 

[Cider]

I would like to know what the most important thing is for someone examining Orthodoxy to consider.

I had a really great experience at a local Orthodox Church this past Sunday and am very intrigued.

As my name on here suggests “Come Home to Rome”, I am very partial to my Catholic Church.

After my shockingly positive experience, at the very least I will examine the Orthodox Churches.

In the process, don’t want to leave a single rock unturned.

If you want an Orthodox perspective on Catholic teachings I suggest Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr Damick. There is a podcast version of his talks on itunes and he has a book by the same name. You can find the book on Amazon. I think he lays out the differences pretty clearly.