How do you view the relationship between the RC, EC, & EO?

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t think that they will ever be able to answer this question.

Au contraire. It has been answered many times.

If you think the Assyrians are right, follow them.

Constantinople I wasn’t approved by the Pope, and he had no imput into it. The Fathers of that Ecumenical Council were not in communion with Rome. And they explicitely countered Rome’s interference in their affairs, e.g. the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The Assyrians still accepted Constantinople I’s Creed.

But we are told that C I wasn’t valid until the Pope of Rome ok’d it at Chalcedon.

But the Assyrians left before then, and hand no interest in what Rome said.

Go figure.

 

[jimmy]

I voted #1. I would like to add, though, that polemicists on both sides often like to madly highlight percieved differences, instead of trying to work at understanding the objective reality of the similarities of our respective doctrines/dogmas.

HH Pope Shenoute stated in 1973 that the differences between the Coptic Orthodox and Catholic Churches were merely in language and doctrine, but not in Faith. Oriental Orthodox in general, and Coptic Orthodox in particular, understand that doctrine is merely man’s attempt to formalize the eternal Truths which comprise our Faith. What we need to do to achieve unity is try to understand each other’s Faith, instead of focusing on the doctrines. This is nothing more nor less than the teaching of Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, who opposed the demands of some of the Council Fathers of Ephesus that he should express his faith only according to the Creeds. St. Cyril rightfully asserted that our Faith goes beyond Creeds and formulations.

Once we can get past the lens of our respective doctrinal and dogmatic Traditions, we will more easily discover that we all share the same Faith.

Blessings,
Marduk

We can’t avoid the differences. There will never be union in which we forget about the differences. In order for there be union we must recognize the differences and try to work through them. Are we to ignore the fact that the Latin Church has defined Transubstantiation while many EO Christians don’t believe that the bread ceases to exist? If the west is willing to say these things are not required to be believed we can then ignore them.

Dauphin:

Which is a codeword for “ignoring doctrinal differences”. The fact that very few people here would acknowledge that the Eastern Orthodox are at least material heretics demonstrates just how faregone most Catholics are.

Apparently, it’s just dandy to reject Catholic dogma if it’s not part of your "tradition

Or maybe it is just that you have the superiority complex that seems to be so natural to the west.

 

[jimmy]

This is a perfect example of the diabolical disorientation.

When a person’s mind is functioning correctly, they recognize that the Eastern Orthodox reject certain dogmatically defined Catholic doctrines. The rejection of the doctrine is not just the rejection of words or a particular formula, but of the underlying idea:

Either the Blessed Virgin Mary was born without a real stain of original sin (which all the rest of us are born with), or she wasn’t.

Either the Pope is incapable of error when he speaks ex cathedra, or he isn’t.

It’s so simple, yet modernists insist on confusing it. If the Eastern Orthodox reject any article of Catholic doctrine as it is defined by the Church’s magisterium, that makes them heretics. The Eastern Orthodox aren’t entitled to their own truth and their own faith in virtue of their “tradition”.

That is hysterical, the west changes the doctrine of the Church and the east, which maintains the faith which was handed on from the fathers are called heretics. That is just hysterical.

 

[jimmy]

And what do we call someone who rejects a dogma? Their reasons are irrelevant.

So this time they’re rejecting an understanding? I don’t think that makes sense.

Ask any Eastern Orthodox here. They resoundingly reject the dogma. It’s not part of what was believed “always, everywhere, and by all”.

You sound like a voluntarist Dauphin. It sounds like you believe that dogma’s are to be believed because Rome said so. But the fact is that there have been schisms within the Church when those who were excommicated actually held an orthodox faith(for example the monophysites). Yet you would say that the Oriental Orthodox are heretics simply because they don’t accept Chalcedon even though they hold to the true faith. So you sound like a voluntarist.