How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
steve-b:
"For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic
So according to the Vatican, the Orthodox bishops are not lawfully ordained?
Example: putting this in a direct application

Canon law explains http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2015/07...d-an-orthodox-liturgy-instead-of-sunday-mass/
 
Is it possible that there is a mis-communication here between asking about Eastern Orthodox and citing the rule for Orthodox not in communion with the Holy See? A terminological confusion?
 
Is it possible that there is a mis-communication here between asking about Eastern Orthodox and citing the rule for Orthodox not in communion with the Holy See? A terminological confusion?
Without a specific example, That’s a distinction without a difference
 
OK. I’ve seen “Eastern Orthodox”, on line, used to refer both to those in communion with Rome, and to (generically) Greek, Russian, etc Orthodox.

Is there possibly a confusion in this exchange, or are you saying that the rules for Latin Rite Catholics, with respect to either Orthodox in communion with Rome and Orthodox not in communion with Rome, are the same ?

Added: After 3-4 mins cogitating I have an idea what the point might be.

If I’m right, I’ll post a smiley.

If I’m wrong, I’ll not say a word.
 
Last edited:
Steve,

I realize this thread is about Protestants, but since you bring up the Orthodox Church, let’s talk. It amazes me that you refuse to give credit to Orthodoxy’s self-understanding, though as a Catholic triumphalist, I probably shouldn’t expect anything different.
Orthodoxy got its start in a similar fashion as Protestantism did. Rejection of the authority Jesus gave to His Church He builds on Peter and those in union with Peter. They separated as a result
Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.
schisms heresies, etc from the Catholic Church is a big sin (mortal) not a little sin (venial). Speaking of the Orthodox, now the Russians ~60%+ of Orthodoxy are now in schism with the rest of Orthodoxy.
You continually assert your point about Orthodoxy being in schism from itself, with the actions of Russia. Yet you refuse to understand how we operate. We are indeed ONE Church, comprised of a number of administratively independent churches. All share the same faith. When jurisdictional issues come up between churches, communion may, for a time, be broken, as Russia has now done with Constantinople. Such a break in communion is in response to questions of jurisdiction, not faith. No one believes matters of faith are in question. While regrettable, this is the primary means by which the Orthodox call each other’s attention to a very serious matter. Indeed, many meetings are being had between primates, bishops, theologians, etc. to work through the issues between Russia, Constantinople, and Ukraine. The primates of Cyprus, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch have met. We also don’t work quickly, but rather work slowly and deliberately. Sure, it’s frustrating in this modern world where everything happens in an instant at our very fingertips, that we are so slow, but I’ll tell you, I don’t want a hasty response either.

If the schism of the Orthodox is a mortal sin, why are we permitted, according to Canon 844.3 to receive communion from a Catholic priest?
To make the point of authority even more specific for THEM, the Orthodox can’t even get together in council as individual Churches with each other , over the last 900+ years. The one PAN Orthodox (as in all the Orthodox) getting together, attempted in 2016, couldn’t happen because the Russians and 2 other churches boycotted.
You’re forgetting about the pan-Orthodox councils in Constantinople (1341-51), Jassy (1642), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople (1872).
Orthodoxy got its start rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, put in place by Jesus. And authority issues remain with them to this day even among themselves individually… as with Protestantism of every stripe
Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.
 
OK. I’ve seen “Eastern Orthodox”, on line, used to refer both to those in communion with Rome, and to (generically) Greek, Russian, etc Orthodox.

Is there possibly a confusion in this exchange, or are you saying that the rules for Latin Rite Catholics, with respect to either Orthodox in communion with Rome and Orthodox not in communion with Rome, are the same ?

Added: After 3-4 mins cogitating I have an idea what the point might be.

If I’m right, I’ll post a smiley.

If I’m wrong, I’ll not say a word.
I’ll let an Eastern bishop emeritus, answer your question. » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?
 
I know you’re aware of this but not all of us are “triumphalists.” And while I’m not a fan of the Great Schism, I know you aren’t either. There is no way in heck I, or most Catholics, would fault any Orthodox Christian for it today. (Pope Francis certainly doesn’t.)Pope in Romania: I come as a pilgrim of brotherhood - Vatican News
Totally - the majority are not. There are only a small handful I’ve interacted with here that make having a reasonable conversation a challenge.

For myself, I believe the only question to resolve is that of Papal authority. Certainly a biggie, but something our bishops and theologians are slowly working through in the various Catholic/Orthodox commissions.
 
Your own theologians, meeting in the Catholic/Orthodox theological dialogue, meeting in Chieti Italy agreed that Rome never exercised canonical authority over the East.
Again, see the statement by Catholic theologians made at Chieti. The authority you claim we rejected, was never in fact in place even when East and West were in communion.
You are in the world of apologists, where what theologians say is ignored if the states do not agree with the pre-conceived polemic.
 
40.png
MarysLurker:
I know you’re aware of this but not all of us are “triumphalists.” And while I’m not a fan of the Great Schism, I know you aren’t either. There is no way in heck I, or most Catholics, would fault any Orthodox Christian for it today. (Pope Francis certainly doesn’t.)Pope in Romania: I come as a pilgrim of brotherhood - Vatican News
Totally - the majority are not. There are only a small handful I’ve interacted with here that make having a reasonable conversation a challenge.

For myself, I believe the only question to resolve is that of Papal authority. Certainly a biggie, but something our bishops and theologians are slowly working through in the various Catholic/Orthodox commissions.
This is most certainly true.
 
For myself, I believe the only question to resolve is that of Papal authority. Certainly a biggie, but something our bishops and theologians are slowly working through in the various Catholic/Orthodox commissions.
There’s a few other collateral things like how original sin gets transmitted, but I’m with you on the hope that everything’s gonna work out in the end. Everything else boils down to praxis and economia, rather than actual theological disputes.
 
Last edited:
40.png
JonNC:
You are in the world of apologists, where what theologians say is ignored if the states do not agree with the pre-conceived polemic.
What pre-conceived polemic? By who?
There are some Catholics here who make statements about Luther, for example, that are contrary to what Catholic theologians say about him.
There are also some non-Catholics who say things about Catholics that are flatly wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top