S
Seraphim73
Guest
And the Orthodox Churches are in communion. Not sure what point you are trying to make. And saying that Rome is consistent is irrelevant when addressing inconsistencies between Rome and some Eastern Catholics.
- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Irony much?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome. Thats the point. Otherwise as sated we have a different understanding. How Catholics inside the Church view this is very different as they may have to ascend and accent to the teaching.
The first Church is Rome and as stated it has no equals.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Rome has no ranking as it is not part of the Orthodox Church.The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome. Thats the point. Otherwise as sated we have a different understanding. How Catholics inside the Church view this is very different as they may have to ascend and accent to the teaching.
The first Church is Rome and as stated it has no equals.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yeah, no kidding.
After all the accusations hurled against the pope, the Pan-Orthodox council may or may not occur due to jockeying for positions of honor among the invitees.
Things have not changed all that much, apparently, since the days of Cerularius.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Thats because in this historic model of the primacy of which only one can exist and does exist, you have not arrived at consensus. I hear you, you see, the point of the past page of dialogue begins on #268.
Seraphim73 when we are talking about dogma and doctrine and not teaching, we are talking about a very long list of truths which have always existed in this one Church of many cultural and ethnic communities. As indicated on this thread to move it back to the filioque is that the teaching leads to what is “de-fide” its “infallible” Its the absolute truth and always was and is and will be. The premise of all conversation begins on this point in relation to understanding clearly how the Church thinks and speaks. So as to the trinity there are “infallible truths” not only Rome believes but “all orthodox” believe because we are all professing these same infallible truths. For example Randy made a very good point in relation to this, Mary has always been the Mother of God. But there was a time when this truth was in its infancy of understanding, but the truth never changed only the clarity.
The filioque is the same and begins with Dogma, Jesus Christ is the True God and True Son of God is a infallible teaching for example, and in your Church also. The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person and this is infallible and cannot change nor in your Church. This leads to another infallible truth, Christ was free from all sin, from original sin as well as from all personal sin that to is infallible Dogma. Point being for example is denial of original sin is denial of the truth we all agree on and is infallible, death is the punishment for sin, thus the Creed, no salvation and so forth.
The language, the culture, and ethnicity doesn’t change infallible truth. What indeed happens and from understanding, then you must understand it happened in “your” Church also, is that at various points in history these truths were clarified and often due to a real need. And such was the case with the filioque, but the truth is still the truth. Or in the case of “ancestral sin” there is no such words but a developed understanding of a always held truth.
And what we have here is various levels of grasping the truth and thats not to be confused as the truth, but attempts to comprehend it. Which gets back to my point of assuming heterodox, as truly thats a two way street in lacking comprehension and a fruitless conversation.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Seraphim73 here’s another post in relation to what I am speaking about on the developed doctine thread below by [Ad Orientem]
So what we are talking about is level of teaching in regards to three points of Dogma, Doctrine and teaching believed to be true. As correctly stated above there’s a very long list and in your Church also because your Church is collectively “our” Church as in “all” of us. However in Rome the understanding proceeds as, Dogmas which is called De Fide and is infallible, Doctrines which is “Sent. Certa” this is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of “De Fide” this would be for example the Marion doctrine of mediatrix which is often discussed in the Church and is in fact the truth always held and could for example be read in Maximus the Confessor-Life of the Virgin pg-154 (which I’ll post to read) Teachings includes, Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior. These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible. An example here would be as Randy and I slightly touched on in regards to the Assumption of Mary. This is often confused by the Orthodox in suggesting Catholics believe various ideas that Mary died and Mary didn’t die and so forth. The point being is the teaching that Mary died is not infallible. And from the course of conversation we would have to assume its infallible in your Church? Nevertheless that Mary suffered a temporal death is (Sent. communior.) and is a widely held belief in which on the other thread I addressed the complexity of this issue. To date its a teaching which is not infallible, its a held belief. So Catholics have various levels of understanding in regards to the above. However, my point is that your Church is claiming this is infallible be it not the words used but the message conveyed. The complexity of this is not yet revealed to us by God. Body and Soul is the point, again for example Maximus the Confessor states “Soul (then) Body” so you can see the on-going conversation from that point.
Thus we see historic understanding of a always held belief which is exactly what Rome is discussing in this regard. Saint Maximus proceeds in various ways about this throughout his writing.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Can I humbly suggest that what I see perhaps incorrectly is an infallible axiom in which there is some continuing dialogue about infallible and why I can’t begin to understand, However, if one is to suggest an infallible axiom which is apparent, then I would so kindly ask how are the theorems arrived at in relation to for example soul then body? We have implication to the application to be accepted as infallible yet there is no offered understanding of the implications of theorems which lead to the axiom in relation to chalcedon definitions
In the case of the filioque we have the same axiom and a continuity of theorems which unless you can you prove otherwise I could only suggest and humbly that they are stating the same theology and further extend into mystery thus Gods essence. In any case in regards to this Creed all profess and which application may be ultimately professed, we should be mindful of this entire conversation as it is part of the whole truth as I see it.
Now in regards to the IC we are offering Axiom and Theorems which we are confronted with by our always held Chalcedon doctrines which we are all bound by. If we are to say the west is different than the east in regards, than the east must have a axiom and theorem, and if its the same as Romes which it is then the debate is the same debate held in the Church of Rome with Duns Scotus, and if not this debate then we can only ask what then?
In the case of the filioque we have the same axiom and a continuity of theorems which unless you can you prove otherwise I could only suggest and humbly that they are stating the same theology and further extend into mystery thus Gods essence. In any case in regards to this Creed all profess and which application may be ultimately professed, we should be mindful of this entire conversation as it is part of the whole truth as I see it.
Now in regards to the IC we are offering Axiom and Theorems which we are confronted with by our always held Chalcedon doctrines which we are all bound by. If we are to say the west is different than the east in regards, than the east must have a axiom and theorem, and if its the same as Romes which it is then the debate is the same debate held in the Church of Rome with Duns Scotus, and if not this debate then we can only ask what then?
W
wynd
Guest
It makes sense in a way, but the rest of the items in your list (I’m assuming where you write “Peter” you mean “the Pope”) appear to me to be points of continued division, as opposed to this item which is one thing we flat out CAN agree on with no debates or nuances. I myself have cited Munificentissimus Deus both here and elsewhere to try and underline the point about the death of the Theotokos.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
One down…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:nope:
That’s the Big Myth.
catholicworldreport.com/Item/3001/the_fragile_promise_of_the_panorthodox_council.aspx
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I don’t see how the article you’ve linked demonstrates that the Orthodox Churches are not in communion. It certainly points to disputes of a sort that having one bishop with universal ordinary jurisdiction and supremacy would prevent, but it does not demonstrate a lack of communion among the Orthodox Churches.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ryan-
Thank you for reviewing that article. On the one hand, I agree it does not expose a lack of formal communion - at least not on paper, anyway. On the other hand, with friends like these, who needs enemies, right?
Kinda like saying the US has diplomatic ties with Russia. Technically, yes. Are we allies? :nope: That’s a bit of hyperbole…but we’ll see how much I have exaggerated in 2016.As an Eastern Catholic, I’m sure you understand the politics of these situations far better than I do, but may I just point out that EO routinely claim that Peter could not be the head of the Church because of the smack-down Jesus gave to James and John who asked to sit at Jesus’ right and left? “See?”, they say. “The Pope can’t have a position of leadership because Jesus didn’t give those places of honor to James and John.” (cf. Mk 10:35-45)
Aside from the obvious problem with quoting that specific passage as a proof-text against the papacy, there is the more apt passage wherein Jesus observes the Jews carefully choosing the places of honor at the banquet. (cf. Lk 14:7-9) That is exactly the kind of posturing that we see among these Eastern “brothers”.
It’s been what? 1,000 years since their last Ecumenical Council? And this one may not happen because of petty turf wars! But heaven forbid that I should ever mention the blatant xenophobia that has prevented the EO from fulfilling the Great Commission and thus qualifying as the one, true Church founded by our Savior.
No, sir. I’m not gonna do it.
P
prodromos
Guest
Since my family and I who belong to a Greek jurisdiction parish, often receive Holy Communion in a Russian parish with the blessing of our spiritual father, I can assure you with no reservations whatsoever that our being in communion with one another is no myth.
You have made a false accusation and should retract and apologise for misrepresenting our Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I apologize for not posting more of the document I was writing today which included the following quotes from Russian Orthodox writers:
“We live in the poisoned atmosphere of anathemas and excommunications, court cases and litigations, dubious consecrations of dubious bishops, hatred, calumny, lies! But do we think about the irreparable moral damage all this inflicts to our people? How can they respect the Hierarchy and its decisions? What meaning can the very concept of canonicity have for them? Are we not encouraging them to consider all norms, all regulations, all rules as purely relative? One wonders sometimes whether our bishops realize the scandal of this situation, whether they ever think about the cynicism all this provokes and feeds in the hearts of Orthodox people? Three Russian jurisdictions, two Serbian, two Romanian, two Albanian, two Bulgarian…A split among the Syrians…the animosity between the Russians and the Carpatho-Russians…the Ukrainian problem!..We teach our children to be ‘proud’ of Orthodoxy, we constantly congratulate ourselves about all kinds of historic events and achievements, our church publications distill an almost unbearable triumphalism and optimism, yet, if we were true to the spirit of our faith we ought to repent in ‘sackcloth and ashes,’ we ought to cry day and night about the sad, the tragical state of our Church…Nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts among Christians. But for the first time in history, division belongs to the very structure of the Church.” (Alexander Schmemann, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964; pp. 67-84).
In an article published in Catholic World Report, Fr. Cyril Hovorun, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), makes it painfully obvious that the situation has not improved in the fifty years since Schmemann penned those words. Describing the obstacles to the proposed 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council, Fr. Hovorun notes:
That the Pan-Orthodox council has been scheduled for 2016 is of great significance. The question remains, however, as to how effective it will be in addressing the issues that really matter for the Orthodox Church. There also remains also a real possibility that the council can and will be postponed. A postponement would take place if the tensions between local Orthodox churches become more intense, or something transpires within inter-Orthodox relations making council impossible. Simply put, the inter-Orthodox peace is still very fragile. (Fr. Cyril Hovorun, “The Fragile Promise of a Pan-Orthodox Council”, Catholic World Report, March 14, 2014).
And notice that Fr. Hovorun calls it the “inter-Orthodox peace” and not the “intra-Orthodox peace”.
Yeah, everything is hunky-dory.
P
prodromos
Guest
And yet despite all the administrative disputes, WE ARE IN COMMUNION. That is the fact of the matter. It is not, as you falsely put it, “the myth”.I apologize for not posting more of the document I was writing today which included the following quotes from Russian Orthodox writers:
“We live in the poisoned atmosphere of anathemas and excommunications, court cases and litigations, dubious consecrations of dubious bishops, hatred, calumny, lies! But do we think about the irreparable moral damage all this inflicts to our people? How can they respect the Hierarchy and its decisions? What meaning can the very concept of canonicity have for them? Are we not encouraging them to consider all norms, all regulations, all rules as purely relative? One wonders sometimes whether our bishops realize the scandal of this situation, whether they ever think about the cynicism all this provokes and feeds in the hearts of Orthodox people? Three Russian jurisdictions, two Serbian, two Romanian, two Albanian, two Bulgarian…A split among the Syrians…the animosity between the Russians and the Carpatho-Russians…the Ukrainian problem!..We teach our children to be ‘proud’ of Orthodoxy, we constantly congratulate ourselves about all kinds of historic events and achievements, our church publications distill an almost unbearable triumphalism and optimism, yet, if we were true to the spirit of our faith we ought to repent in ‘sackcloth and ashes,’ we ought to cry day and night about the sad, the tragical state of our Church…Nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts among Christians. But for the first time in history, division belongs to the very structure of the Church.” (Alexander Schmemann, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1964; pp. 67-84).
In an article published in Catholic World Report, Fr. Cyril Hovorun, a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), makes it painfully obvious that the situation has not improved in the fifty years since Schmemann penned those words. Describing the obstacles to the proposed 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council, Fr. Hovorun notes:
That the Pan-Orthodox council has been scheduled for 2016 is of great significance. The question remains, however, as to how effective it will be in addressing the issues that really matter for the Orthodox Church. There also remains also a real possibility that the council can and will be postponed. A postponement would take place if the tensions between local Orthodox churches become more intense, or something transpires within inter-Orthodox relations making council impossible. Simply put, the inter-Orthodox peace is still very fragile. (Fr. Cyril Hovorun, “The Fragile Promise of a Pan-Orthodox Council”, Catholic World Report, March 14, 2014).
And notice that Fr. Hovorun calls it the “inter-Orthodox peace” and not the “intra-Orthodox peace”.
Yeah, everything is hunky-dory.
If you wish to stay on record as making false statements about the Orthodox Church then by all means let everyone see you for the lier you are. Otherwise, retract and apologise.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Just out of curiosity, did you actually read what Schmemann wrote?
“Nothing can justify the bare fact: Our Church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts among Christians. But for the first time in history, division belongs to the very structure of the Church.”
So, basing my statement on the assessments of not one but two Orthodox authors writing half a century apart, I did not lie.
P
prodromos
Guest
You said that Orthodox Churches being in communion was “the myth”. That is a lie. You have posted the opinions of two Orthodox authors and I have given you the reality of the situation.
Let me spell it out for you.
I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church be it Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian, Ukranian, Greek, Cypriot, Palestinian, Antiochian, Japanese etc. as long as I contact the priest there beforehand.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m not speaking of “receiving” communion in other churches; I’m talking about being “in” communion with other churches.
And while the 13? 15? autocephalous churches that make up the Orthodox “communion” have agreed on receiving communion, there appears to be much that prevents them from being in communion with one another on broader and deeper levels.
- Status