Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[Harpazo]

Goodness me, you need to find yourself some better sources my friend. Here you make reference to the Robber Council of 869 which began with no more than 18 bishops. By the eighth session a month later they had 38 bishops in attendance, three months later they had 65 and by the last session they had 102 bishops present, of whom many did not sign the acts of the council.
Almost 10 years later, contrary to what your source claims, there was another council held, attended by 383 bishops from all five Patriarchs as well as legates from Rome which reinstated Photius and condemned the earlier council of 869. This latter council was accepted by Pope John VIII and 49 subsequent Popes until the end of the 11th century when Rome did an abrupt about face and reinstated the Robber Council in its place.

How does Rome justify this action and what was the status of the 50 Popes who upheld the 879 Council?

Could this mean that Rome and the Popes of Rome were wrong for nearly 300 years in accepting the 879 Council? Either way, it certainly seems that this puts the Church of Rome in a bind.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[addictedkoala]

Could this mean that Rome and the Popes of Rome were wrong for nearly 300 years in accepting the 879 Council?

In Christ,
Andrew

Seeing as the 879 council was never considered ecumenical, yeah they quite possibly were

 

[steve_b]

Rome clearly had some kind of prestige and respect that other churches didn’t have. I have no problem with admitting that.

Why did it have that prestige?
C:

How much of it was the association with Peter,

Bingo!
C:

how much of it was the fact that it was the capital of the Empire,

Because it’s the Capital ≠ prestige in Church matters

under Nero, Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded, and Christians were dipped in oil, put on stakes , placed along the Appian way and lit on fire to light the road at night. Those emperors that followed Nero were no better towards the Church. Check them out yourself. Ignatius was thrown to the lions, Polycarp was burned alive…

It’s inappropriate even desperate for antagonists to mix pagan Rome with the Church of Rome as a reason for the prestige that the Church of Rome has.
C:

how much of it was the fact that it sent financial aid to other churches–well, you have to look at specific evidence in specific texts to solve this. And in this text there is no such evidence. So the text won’t do what you want it to do.

Since there is no evidence for that point, don’t bring it up.
C:

But since neither I nor the Orthodox questions the historic primacy of Rome, this doesn’t raise any problems at all.

Good.
C:

What I questioned was the claim that Rome had direct jurisdiction over other churches.

Antagonists do with papal juristiction what they do with papal infallibility. They define them THEIR way and not how the Church defines them.
C:

And this doesn’t settle the matter. All your list of other churches they could have called on only shows that they had greater regard for Rome for some reason. It doesn’t tell you why, and it doesn’t tell you that the difference was one of kind rather than degree, let alone what the difference in kind was.

Not regard, but primacy.
C:

From my perspective it’s the RC apologists who are causing themselves huge problems by harping on this text, because the desperate effort to manufacture primacy of jurisdiction makes it evident that you don’t have much to support your case.

if The Church of Rome didn’t show this pattern throughout history and this was an isolated case, then you would have a point. But what Catholics do is take 2000 years of our history and then look backwards to see the origin of Romes primacy and juristiction. We look for early dates, to support materials, to see the pattern and whether the pattern was continuous.
C:

Sorry, but that’s your assumption. It is by no means evident from early Christian texts that they all saw things that way. Clement’s letter itself is full of echoes of Roman ideology (see James Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity). No. What you do instead is take a trajectory of development and read back into earlier stages of that trajectory ideas that are only evident in later stages. That would be OK if you didn’t use the earlier stages to prove the validity of the later ones.

Trajectory in my view is the wrong term. We aren’t flying OVER history. we are boots on the ground walking through history.

When you look at Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus, 2 of which were directly taught by apostles, and quote THEM, that’s not making assumption. Clement was Rome, Ignatius was from Antioch and Irenaeus was from Smyrna. As I said before, since 2 of these bishops were from the East, and Ignatius says Rome holds the presidency, and Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome because that’s the apostolic Tradition, then I’m merely taking THEIR words, I’m not assuming or reading back into history something I want to believe, or over reaching a Western ideology that non Catholics want to charge Catholics with…
C:

You confuse defense with offense–I see this on these forums all the time. This line of argument works well as a defense against folks who say that Roman primacy was something manufactured later. It doesn’t work at all when used to try to convince those of us who say “we accept Roman primacy but at point X we think it went in the wrong direction.”

Someone can always say things are going in the wrong direction. Division is condemned in scripture as is the one who divides.
C:

The problem with your concept of development is that it blinds you to the real differences between earlier and later stages. You honestly can’t see that 1 Clement (or Matt. 16) can be interpreted in a number of ways, of which yours is only one.

Clement was pope of Rome. Scripture, was written in, by and for the Catholic Church. Non Catholics take a non Catholic view. I understand that. As a Catholic, I can’t do that.
C:

This is rather pointless, since I’m not disputing that Rome presided, only *how *it presided. And mostly I’m saying that we really don’t know, beyond the fact that it clearly provided financial aid and intervened as an arbitrator in local disputes, and by the later second century was capable of attempting to cut other churches off from the common communion of the whole Church, though since the attempt we know about was successfully resisted by Irenaeus and other bishops, this isn’t unequivocal evidence in favor of present Roman claims.

Popes don’t operate in a vaccuum. As far as present Roman claims, I repeat what I said above. Papal juristiction, papal infallibility, primacy etc gets defined by antagonists THEIR way and not how the Church defines them. So what ends up is a strawman that people argue over.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, Steve

Why did it have that prestige?

Bingo!

Because it’s the Capital ≠ prestige in Church matters

under Nero, Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded, and Christians were dipped in oil, put on stakes , placed along the Appian way and lit on fire to light the road at night. Those emperors that followed Nero were no better towards the Church. Check them out yourself. Ignatius was thrown to the lions, Polycarp was burned alive…

It’s inappropriate even desperate for antagonists to mix pagan Rome with the Church of Rome as a reason for the prestige that the Church of Rome has.

Since there is no evidence for that point, don’t bring it up.

Good.

Antagonists do with papal juristiction what they do with papal infallibility. They define them THEIR way and not how the Church defines them.

Not regard, but primacy.

if The Church of Rome didn’t show this pattern throughout history and this was an isolated case, then you would have a point. But what Catholics do is take 2000 years of our history and then look backwards to see the origin of Romes primacy and juristiction. We look for early dates, to support materials, to see the pattern and whether the pattern was continuous.

Trajectory in my view is the wrong term. We aren’t flying OVER history. we are boots on the ground walking through history.

When you look at Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus, 2 of which were directly taught by apostles, and quote THEM, that’s not making assumption. Clement was Rome, Ignatius was from Antioch and Irenaeus was from Smyrna. As I said before, since 2 of these bishops were from the East, and Ignatius says Rome holds the presidency, and Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome because that’s the apostolic Tradition, then I’m merely taking THEIR words, I’m not assuming or reading back into history something I want to believe, or over reaching a Western ideology that non Catholics want to charge Catholics with…

Someone can always say things are going in the wrong direction. Division is condemned in scripture as is the one who divides.

Clement was pope of Rome. Scripture, was written in, by and for the Catholic Church. Non Catholics take a non Catholic view. I understand that. As a Catholic, I can’t do that.

Popes don’t operate in a vaccuum. As far as present Roman claims, I repeat what I said above. Papal juristiction, papal infallibility, primacy etc gets defined by antagonists THEIR way and not how the Church defines them. So what ends up is a strawman that people argue over.

 

[Mickey]

Hey Micky! Nice to hear from you! How’ve you been?

 

[steve_b]

That could, of course, be taken as evidence that Roman primacy had little to do with Peter at this point.

True. At this point we’re talking about succession to Peter.

Or it could be evidence, as you suggest, that Peter’s authority had passed to Rome and not to Antioch.

True
C:

Or it could be due to the fact that Ignatius wasn’t going to toot his own horn. As you point out, Irenaeus also focuses on Rome and not Antioch–this is quite likely influenced by Rome’s status as the capital of the empire, but he does talk about both Peter and Paul and clearly that had something to do with it too.

The capital had zero to do with it. Peter and Paul, and apostolic tradition as Irenaeus says, had EVERYTHING to do with it.
C:

This is a classic example of “special pleading.” When you don’t find what you need, you use the fact that it’s not there as an argument in favor of your position

since we have 2000 years of history to support the point, this is NOT special pleading. If we did NOT have all that history, and you were new here, THEN you’re right, it would be special pleading.
C:

This last sentence can be translated quite differently. “Convenire” can indeed mean “agree,” but it can also mean “come together.” And the Latin does not say “its pre-eminent authority everywhere.” The Latin phrase is “propter potiorem principatum”: “on account of more powerful principality.” It doesn’t say whose–it could be that of the church of Rome, but the language seems better to fit the city of Rome as capital of the Empire. So the point may simply be that Christians from all over the Empire can be found in Rome, making Rome the place to go if you want to understand what the Church as a whole teaches.

I hope what I’m going to say will correct your thinking for ALL time

Who does Irenaeus start naming? The names specifically identifies the Church and the points Irenaeus makes. He names Peter and Paul then he starts naming bishops in succession from Peter and Paul at Rome. He doesn’t name emperors. This is NOT a secular argument for the city of Rome OR the empire… Those bishops he names are in the list of popes of the Church of Rome. THIS Church, the Church of Rome is the one all must agree with because of THIS line of succession Irenaeus names, and those bishops EVERYWHERE who maintain faithfully this union with Rome.

Parsing words “come together with” or “agree with” for convenire, the meaning is the same.

Philip Schaff an Anglican, which I think you’re refering to regarding translating this word, says in his translation of Irenaeus, what Irenaeus writes here (convenire) is problematic…

IOW, for a non Catholic reading Irenaeus, Irenaeus is definitely Catholic and his writing fully supports the Catholic Church understanding of primacy and succession.
C:

Because of the international nature of the Church in Rome, some scholars believe that the Quartodeciman controversy (the attempt by Pope Victor to excommunicate the Asian churches, to which I refer above) was actually a local conflict within the Church at Rome (that the Asians he was trying to excommunicate lived in Rome but practiced the customs of their native province). I’m not convinced by that, but since you brought up Irenaeus I thought I’d mention that it is the opinion of some scholars.

I think we went over that before on another thread
C:

Indeed. But crazzeto chose to bring up 1 Clement, claiming that it established that Rome had jurisdiction over Corinth. It doesn’t. It only proves that Rome was respected to much that Christians at Corinth would appeal to it to help resolve conflicts within their own congregation.

Edwin

Would you agree that

• Corinth expected Rome to solve the problem or they wouldn’t ask?
• If Rome had no authority to intervene and expect results from their intervention at Corinth, they wouldn’t have been asked for help by Corinth ?
• Rome wouldn’t waste time getting involved if they had no authority to do so.?

Clement closes his letter

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.”

Did the matter get settled? Yes.

 

[steve_b]

Goodness me, you need to find yourself some better sources my friend. Here you make reference to the Robber Council of 869 which began with no more than 18 bishops. By the eighth session a month later they had 38 bishops in attendance, three months later they had 65 and by the last session they had 102 bishops present, of whom many did not sign the acts of the council.
Almost 10 years later, contrary to what your source claims, there was another council held, attended by 383 bishops from all five Patriarchs as well as legates from Rome which reinstated Photius and condemned the earlier council of 869. This latter council was accepted by Pope John VIII and 49 subsequent Popes until the end of the 11th century when Rome did an abrupt about face and reinstated the Robber Council in its place.

How does Rome justify this action and what was the status of the 50 Popes who upheld the 879 Council?

You asked for ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm

 

[Mickey]

What I’m looking for is reasons why I should accept the Roman Catholic view on doctrinal development vs. the EO view. I would also like EO members to post their views/retorts so I can make sure there’s no strawmen going on.

This was a problem for me also before I converted to Holy Orthodoxy. Frankly, any innovation can be declared and rationalized as “doctrinal development” (even something as unknown to the undivided Church as papal supremacy/infallibiliy and universal jurisdiction).

But when someone tells me that I am in a calcified and stagnant Church–I respond by saying, “Thank you very much”.

 

[steve_b]

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic

Your conclusion is incorrect.
A:

and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

When you say in your identification, “Catholic I think” what’s really going on?

Why are you struggling with living your faith?

 

[StevieD]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush. This came as a great suprise to me as I had always been taught that we and they were very close in belief and practice. Another notable thing is that their apologists make claims that the Marian apparitions are some kind of Catholic conspiracy. This also suprised me but I realised that they have little choice than to say this as to accept the truth of the Fatima apparitions for example is to accept purgatory and other claimed ‘innovations’ (mentioned by Our Lady). Even the atheistic anti-Catholic Portuguese press of the time had to accept that something at least akin to a miracle occurred on 13 October 1917 but not our EO friends who likewise denigrate Saint Bernadette who is incorrupt which is supposed to be a certain sign of sainthood in the EO (but not in Catholicism).
There is also their problem of lack of unity (e.g. the ROC bans contraception but the GC permits it where a priest has given permission) and of competition outside their national church areas of influence which is unknown in the Catholic Church.
A lot of the EO hate Catholicism but I have never met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy - By their fruits?

 

[Hesychios]

How does Rome justify this action and what was the status of the 50 Popes who upheld the 879 Council?

This is not an answer to the question.

 

[Hesychios]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush…

Orthodox care, there is no anti-anything going on here.

It’s only because we want Truth in the church.

Can you explain why fifty Popes approved the “wrong” infallible Ecumenical Council? … or was it right then, and wrong now?

 

[steve_b]

This is not an answer to the question.

He wanted ecumenical councils.

I asked John for more information on the other stuff he posted, before I answered him.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6680224&postcount=272

 

[Mickey]

Orthodox care, there is no anti-anything going on here.

It’s only because we want Truth in the church.

Can you explain why fifty Popes approved the “wrong” infallible Ecumenical Council? … or was it right then, and wrong now?

 

[LionHeart777]

Can you explain why fifty Popes approved the “wrong” infallible Ecumenical Council? … or was it right then, and wrong now?

Can someone tell me if the Popes were speaking under the Catholic definition of infallibility in these cases? I honestly would like to know. If not, it shouldn’t be an issue from our point of view.

 

[StevieD]

Orthodox care, there is no anti-anything going on here.

It’s only because we want Truth in the church.

Can you explain why fifty Popes approved the “wrong” infallible Ecumenical Council? … or was it right then, and wrong now?

Can you explain my points?

 

[Nine_Two]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush. This came as a great suprise to me as I had always been taught that we and they were very close in belief and practice. Another notable thing is that their apologists make claims that the Marian apparitions are some kind of Catholic conspiracy. This also suprised me but I realised that they have little choice than to say this as to accept the truth of the Fatima apparitions for example is to accept purgatory and other claimed ‘innovations’ (mentioned by Our Lady). Even the atheistic anti-Catholic Portuguese press of the time had to accept that something at least akin to a miracle occurred on 13 October 1917 but not our EO friends who likewise denigrate Saint Bernadette who is incorrupt which is supposed to be a certain sign of sainthood in the EO (but not in Catholicism).
There is also their problem of lack of unity (e.g. the ROC bans contraception but the GC permits it where a priest has given permission) and of competition outside their national church areas of influence which is unknown in the Catholic Church.
A lot of the EO hate Catholicism but I have never met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy - By their fruits?

I find it interesting that you accuse us of being anti-Catholic and then proceed to make gross generalizations about what Orthodox think. Sounds rather anti-Orthodox.
First the Orthodox Churches don’t make any claim at all regarding Marian Apparitions. Like most things the Church itself does not comment. Individuals within the Church may, but unless you have an account of the Holy Synod of the Church commenting on a matter, no Church in the communion has commented.
Second there is nothing which makes a certain sign of sainthood, including an incorrupt body. That is foolishness. It may be used as an argument for, but it does not make it certain.
Thirdly we do not count unity the same way you do. We do not believe one Church is subject to another on matters of practice. Additionally the whole contraception thing is brought up by Catholics again and again, and it has been answered by Orthodox on this forum again and again, so I’m not going to touch it. However what I will touch is “Competition outside their Church areas, which is unknown in the Catholic Church” Really? So why are there Latin Churches in countries with established Eastern Catholic Churches (Like Ukraine), and just what Church holds jurisdiction in North America?

For someone who started their post by saying Orthodox are “Anti-Catholic” you sure came out swinging and making very anti-Orthodox statements. If you haven’t met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy I suggest you look in the mirror because that is the message you are conveying. If it isn’t the one you wished to convey, well judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Hesychios]

Can someone tell me if the Popes were speaking under the Catholic definition of infallibility in these cases? I honestly would like to know. If not, it shouldn’t be an issue from our point of view.

It would be like fifty Popes in a row saying Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council every Catholic should subscribe to, and then it wasn’t.

I don’t know what the Catholic church says about Vatican II or Vatican I or Trent, but that is what the basic issue is. You will have to get the answer from a reliable Catholic source.

Can a new Pope overturn an Ecumenical Council (like Lateran IV or Vatican II) after fifty Popes and many generations of Catholics (millions of people) have known it to be an Ecumenical Council?

Can a Pope suddenly approve and recognize an old Council that fifty Popes had refused to recognize?

It is an interesting question.

 

[Hesychios]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush. This came as a great suprise to me as I had always been taught that we and they were very close in belief and practice.

But that is not so true these days and I am surprised by what you were taught. But a bit more surprised by your conclusions after your initial disappointments. I will call them opinions.

Our churches were once very close, because we were in communion long ago. Then your church left communion with Holy Orthodoxy and continued to redefine what it means to be a Catholic.

Can you explain my points?

I don’t know why you got this impression. Orthodox on CAF are usually very respectful, even when they disagree.

This also suprised me but-] I realised that they have little choice than to say this as to accept the truth of the Fatima apparitions for example is to accept purgatory and other claimed ‘innovations’ (mentioned by Our Lady)./-]

Even Roman Catholics are not bound to believe in these apparitions. And they are allowed to have any reason whatever for this opinion.

The simple fact is the Latin Catholic church, in ancient agreement with Holy Orthodoxy (and even the non-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians) that the age of revelation is closed since the death of the last Apostle. This is an example of one of the ancient things that would make us close, if anything. That is why Montanism was condemned (which made the great Latin Catholic thinker Tertullian a heretic) and that is why your church cannot make belief in any message an apparation may leave to anyone binding upon the faithful. Different people have different reasons why they dont believe in messages like that. Orthodox are normally taught (legacy of the desert fathers) to not even listen to angels, for the devil is crafty in his disguises Since these apparitions talk, and they are not in the church, Orthodox would usually dismiss such things without a second thought. If pressed for a response by someone like you who doesn’t understand the Orthodox view, the automatic knee-jerk honest answer would be the one we would use if an apparition came talking to me as an Orthodox Christian: it could be the devil.

If Saint Mary appeared to a Lutheran would you feel compelled to believe the message?

friends who likewise denigrate Saint Bernadette who is incorrupt

I know that thread, and there were a whole lot of people posting, including agnostics and Anglicans, and me.

I pointed out that if she has to wear a wax mask she is not in fact incorrupt. Then K G went on about how that doesn’t matter because one can see her holiness despite the wax mask, and the whole thread, which was supposed to be about incorrupt saints went down a rabbit hole over her sanctity, which was just a red herring. No one who is not a devotee of hers really cares about how holy she was, the subject was incorrupt saints and she wears a mask. I lost interest and stopped reading the thread so I don’t know what else might have been said by anyone. I have no horse in that race, but IMO the appropriate thing to do would be rebury her and stop misrepresenting her as incorruptible.

I do believe incorruption could be a sign of holiness, but some Orthodox historically have thought that a rapid corruption was a sign of holiness too. People also see a lot of strange things and smell marvelous odors when someone holy dies. Let’s call them wonders.

There is also their problem of lack of unity (e.g. the ROC bans contraception but the GC permits it where a priest has given permission) and of competition outside their national church areas of influence which is unknown in the Catholic Church.

Here you are showing an anti-Orthodox bias.

I understand that because when I was a Catholic I shared these same feelings for decades. If you want to start a thread on these points we can address your concerns. Or you may go to an Orthodox forum and lay it all out for them.

A lot of the EO hate Catholicism but I have never met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy - By their fruits?

This is what I answered in my earlier post. The Orthodox here do not hate Latin Catholicism, we are your brothers in Christ.

Your church really has no choice but to acknowledge Holy Orthodoxy as a legitimate Apostolic church with valid bishops and liturgies according to your own understanding. We are your past, and hopefully your future, as you guys work it out.

Pax et Bonum,

 

[Hesychios]

What I find notable about the EO is that they are generally anti-Catholic enough to make a Southern Baptist blush. This came as a great suprise to me as I had always been taught that we and they were very close in belief and practice.

But that is not so true these days and I am surprised by what you were taught. But a bit more surprised by your conclusions after your initial disappointments. I will call them opinions.

Our churches were once very close, because we were in communion long ago. Then your church left communion with Holy Orthodoxy and continued to redefine what it means to be a Catholic.

Can you explain my points?

I don’t know why you got this impression. Orthodox on CAF are usually very respectful, even when they disagree.

This also suprised me but-] I realised that they have little choice than to say this as to accept the truth of the Fatima apparitions for example is to accept purgatory and other claimed ‘innovations’ (mentioned by Our Lady)./-]

Even Roman Catholics are not bound to believe in these apparitions. And they are allowed to have any reason whatever for this opinion.

The simple fact is the Latin Catholic church, in ancient agreement with Holy Orthodoxy (and even the non-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians) that the age of revelation is closed since the death of the last Apostle. This is an example of one of the ancient things that would make us close, if anything. That is why Montanism was condemned (which made the great Latin Catholic thinker Tertullian a heretic) and that is why your church cannot make belief in any message an apparation may leave to anyone binding upon the faithful. Different people have different reasons why they dont believe in messages like that. Orthodox are normally taught (legacy of the desert fathers) to not even listen to angels, for the devil is crafty in his disguises Since these apparitions talk, and they are not in the church, Orthodox would usually dismiss such things without a second thought. If pressed for a response by someone like you who doesn’t understand the Orthodox view, the automatic knee-jerk honest answer would be the one we would use if an apparition came talking to me as an Orthodox Christian: it could be the devil.

If Saint Mary appeared to a Lutheran would you feel compelled to believe the message?

friends who likewise denigrate Saint Bernadette who is incorrupt

I know that thread, and there were a whole lot of people posting, including agnostics and Anglicans, and me.

I pointed out that if she has to wear a wax mask she is not in fact incorrupt. Then K G went on about how that doesn’t matter because one can see her holiness despite the wax mask, and the whole thread, which was supposed to be about incorrupt saints went down a rabbit hole over her sanctity, which was just a red herring. No one who is not a devotee of hers really cares about how holy she was, the subject was incorrupt saints and she wears a mask. I lost interest and stopped reading the thread so I don’t know what else might have been said by anyone. I have no horse in that race, but IMO the appropriate thing to do would be rebury her and stop misrepresenting her as incorruptible.

I do believe incorruption could be a sign of holiness, but some Orthodox historically have thought that a rapid corruption was a sign of holiness too. People also see a lot of strange things and smell marvelous odors when someone holy dies. Let’s call them wonders.

There is also their problem of lack of unity (e.g. the ROC bans contraception but the GC permits it where a priest has given permission) and of competition outside their national church areas of influence which is unknown in the Catholic Church.

Here you are showing an anti-Orthodox bias.

I understand that because when I was a Catholic I shared these same feelings for decades. If you want to start a thread on these points we can address your concerns. Or you may go to an Orthodox forum and lay it all out for them.

A lot of the EO hate Catholicism but I have never met a Catholic who hates Orthodoxy - By their fruits?

This is what I answered in my earlier post. The Orthodox here do not hate Latin Catholicism, we are your brothers in Christ.

Your church really has no choice but to acknowledge Holy Orthodoxy as a legitimate Apostolic church with valid bishops and liturgies according to your own understanding. We Orthodox have a slightly different understanding about orders outside of our own church (which is now slowly taking hold in your own church too because of Archbishop Milingo). Because of this and in view of the doctrinal disputes we cannot automatically view your orders and bishops in the same way as ours, but maybe someday we will come to a mutual understanding down the road once the doctrinal issues are resolved. I and my Orthodox friends pray for Christian unity.

We Orthodox are in your past, and hopefully in your future, as you guys work it out for the present.

Pax et Bonum,