I
Ignatius
Guest
Orthodox Theology and Praxis do not conflict with Authentic Catholic teaching.
- Status
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
What’s that got to do with your pope.
Doesn’t explain Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
Great Western Schism. That was one church, no?
Several Pan Orthodox Councils have been called. Not been swamped in heresy, so no need to call an Ecumenical Council.
One that doesn’t need the IC.
Yes, insists on saying the Creed the Original way on this issue.
annulment.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Gratian gave the emperor’s title of pontifax maximus to the pope of Rome, who still has it. And remember the “Donation of Constantine,” and those papal states?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Peter is the first Pope. Peter has primacy over the Apostles. He was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The Apostles were given to bind and loose but it makes it clear in Scripture, they were not given the keys. Peter has authority.
These Churches are build upon the Apostles. Alexandria by Mark, Antioch by Peter, and James in Jerusalem. They are in union with Peter, the first Pope. Together, they make up One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Schism of 1054 developed over time. Pope Paul VI and Constantinople Patriarch Athenagoras I rescinded execommunication that happen in 1054. The Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 states:
A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.
B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.
C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.
Source: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_common-declaration_en.html
The execommunication itself did not official happened in 1054. Rather the break became official much later and was declared by an Council of Eastern Orthodox bishops in 1472 AD which nullified the Ferrara-Florence Act of Union. So 1472 is the official break of West and East, not 1054 AD as properly believed.
The execommunication itself in 1054 AD is null because the Pope was dead when the execommunicated was en-acted. In order for the execommunication to be genuine, the Pope have to still reign.
Councils will be invoke, especially if it deals with possible unification between Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church.
A
Alexius
Guest
OK, so here it is:
The accusation that Orthodox are unable to call an Ecumenical Council is misleading at best. Why? Well, if you take a look at the past 1000 years, Constantinople was in decline up until 1453 when the Muslims took over, the Golden Horde swept across Asia into European Rus, Russia was isolated from the West for centuries and then fell to Communism. The Middle East is under Muslim yoke and Orthodox (and others for that matter) are restricted to quiet worship. So tell me, how are the Orthodox to hold a council when they struggle to hold their own. IF there were no political yokes, the Orthodox do have the ability to call a council. So, it is not that they lack a unity (i.e. Pope), but rather they are unable to hold an Ecumenical Council because of political oppression. Secondly, they have no reason to hold a council…As mentioned, there have been Pan-Orthodox councils like Jerusalem and Jassy…
The Filioque? Well, many or most Eastern Catholics (including myself) do not accept it, and Rome does not require us to include it in the Creed. Why would they allow us to do so if it is not required of our faith?
Agreed as far as the Pope’s authority goes…I believe the title you mention is more a Roman tradition than a doctrinal statement, although I can see it both ways.Pontificus Maximus is the title of the emporer. Not the title of a cleric. Good old Benedict shares the title with such notable men as Nero and Dioclecean. Both men of astounding holiness might I add.
I really believe the final straw for Orthodox is Papal Infallibility. I can honestly say that this doctrine is not explicit in the Fathers, and certainly not in the Eastern Fathers. If this doctrine had not been declared, then I feel union would come quickly. The Pope could back off the East and allow for the traditional Pentarchy where he could act as the appelate during disputes. With this Papal Infallibility; however, the traditional view of Infallibility of the Church catholic (universal) is diminished. This shows a major difference between Orthodox and Catholics. Orthodox do not rest infallibility on an individual or the declaration of an individual, but rather the declaration of the Church (all bishops) through its universal councils…This could be resolved IF the Pope declares FOR the Bishops of the Church in the Ecumenical Councils, not by his own deliberations. The problem though, is that the early Councils did not require the Pope to declare them dogmatic…and around and around we go…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The nature of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is the main point of division.
Other than the issue of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, according to Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, in a letter to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 30 October 2000:
Yet, there are some Eastern Orthodox who cannot agree with Metropolitan Damaskinos on this point. So it depends upon the particular belief of the hypothetical Eastern Orthodox who you might be in dialogue with.
The local Eastern Orthodox priest where I live, for example, believes in the validity of Catholic baptism, yet would re-baptize a Catholic convert if asked. This rather inconsistently teaches that the Holy Sacrament of Baptism, although valid, can be repeated, which is contrary to the faith.
For more on the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, see here:
** Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only “primacy of honor?”
**
S
surgei
Guest
In accepting the baptism he is likely taking a perspective called oikonamia. In giving baptism he is doing as the church does.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You are wrong.
antiochian.org/667
The article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Antioch#_ref-0
visually shows how the lineage backed by Rome during the Meletian schism died out, the Orthodox live until today.
You all have three bishops that claim the lineage of Antioch, the Melkite, Syrian, and Maronite. They brought that with them when they submitted to Rome.
The fourth, the Latin patriarch of Antioch, who DID receive his succession from Rome, has died out.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Whatever his motives, this is contrary to the Catholic faith which professes one baptism. If the baptism is deemed valid, then the Church has no authority in Scripture or Tradition to re-baptize.
M
marymol
Guest
“Why were you looking for Me ?Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s Business ?
And they did not understand what He said to them .”-Luke 2- 50
Soon , The Church will be reading those passages again …about the search for our Lord … His Spirit , having instilled in us , the yearning to do His Will…our Father’s Will …that we can be persons of peace …of Good will …of God’s Will…which is profound in its Mercy …
Yet, often we do not understand …
The Woman , filled with grace , overshadowed by The Spirit ,was allowed to share in that humility of not ’ knowing’…may be as the antidote for the prideful need of our first parents , to know … for the false sense of power and control that comes with it … knowldege puffs up - we are warned …
In one of the visions of Bl.Catherine Anne Emerich , it was revealed how our Bl.Mother ’ fell asleep’ ( may be a comatose state ) while in Jerusalem , but recovered and went back to Ephesus , with St.John and spent her last days there … may be facts that have only come to light fairly recently …yet points that could have been source of unnecessary contention …
The East often talk about ’ oekonomia ’ and West , about Mercy …
It is good to read in some of the posts above, how both sides ( this esp.so from The Catholic side ) are beginning to accept that ’ we do not understand ’ each other quite well yet… …with the hope that as long as we are about our Father’s Business , we are persons of Good Will…
Peace !
And they did not understand what He said to them .”-Luke 2- 50
Soon , The Church will be reading those passages again …about the search for our Lord … His Spirit , having instilled in us , the yearning to do His Will…our Father’s Will …that we can be persons of peace …of Good will …of God’s Will…which is profound in its Mercy …
Yet, often we do not understand …
The Woman , filled with grace , overshadowed by The Spirit ,was allowed to share in that humility of not ’ knowing’…may be as the antidote for the prideful need of our first parents , to know … for the false sense of power and control that comes with it … knowldege puffs up - we are warned …
In one of the visions of Bl.Catherine Anne Emerich , it was revealed how our Bl.Mother ’ fell asleep’ ( may be a comatose state ) while in Jerusalem , but recovered and went back to Ephesus , with St.John and spent her last days there … may be facts that have only come to light fairly recently …yet points that could have been source of unnecessary contention …
The East often talk about ’ oekonomia ’ and West , about Mercy …
It is good to read in some of the posts above, how both sides ( this esp.so from The Catholic side ) are beginning to accept that ’ we do not understand ’ each other quite well yet… …with the hope that as long as we are about our Father’s Business , we are persons of Good Will…
Peace !
J
jimmy
Guest
The fact that there has been no councils in the east is irrelevant. Have you ever studied the first 300 years of Christian history? How many ecumenical councils were there in this period? None. Since there were none then you must assume that the pope of Rome did not have the infallible ability to call and declare ecumenical councils. That is the same logic you used.
Ecumenical councils are not a necessary aspect of the Church. They are only called in times when the Church is being torn apart by heresy. The Eastern Christians have not had the problems of heresy that the Western Christians have had therefore there has never been the need nor the desire to call an ecumenical council.
Ecumenical councils are not a necessary aspect of the Church. They are only called in times when the Church is being torn apart by heresy. The Eastern Christians have not had the problems of heresy that the Western Christians have had therefore there has never been the need nor the desire to call an ecumenical council.
J
jj2011
Guest
I would ask him if his church is the church of the Fathers; then, when he says yes, I would show that the Fathers are Catholic.
This would require detailed knowledge about the Fathers; you could start with the epistles of St. Leo the Great, a saint to both Catholics and Orthodox, and what those letters teach about papal primacy.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yes, what do they teach:
11. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way…
15. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”
And again:
“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’
And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
The Apostolic See is where Peter and Paul made their final stops, this is clearly taught in the ECFs. Peter was the head apostle and it was fitting for Popes have had to step in and correct problems. The two major Sees in Orthodoxy, Constantinople and Moscow, neither have Apostolic origin.
On top of this, especially today, the Russian Orthodox church acts as if it is above Constantinople.
Those Sees are not even major sees and havnt been for centuries. Further Alexandria was founded by Peter’s right hand man Mark and Antioch by Peter before going onto Rome.
What do you mean? I was especially talking about today where there are old Soviet states claiming to be their own Orthodox branches, and Constantinople accepts this, but Moscow considers them schismatic. There is no leader who can step in and solve the dispute.
That doesnt answer my claim that there is no way to call one.
I was talking to an EO and he said apart from an Emperor there is no way to call one.
I was talking about Original Sin in general, for example ideas like Baptism of Infants when the Creed says “for the forgiveness of sins”, yet if OS doesnt exist why is the child Baptized when removal of sins is the first and foremost effect?
I was talking about the distinction of Essence vs Energies where some EO talk as if God is divided into two parts. (big discussion for another thread).
Annulment means something prevented a real marriage from taking effect, that is very different than divorce which is explicitly forbidden in Scripture.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I actually made a thread on this very issue some time ago where some major EO traditions dont reBaptize while others do. This disagreement was clearly sated in a booklet which an EO Bishop wrote and was posted online a while back (dont know if it is still up).
R
RobNY
Guest
I think having an understanding of the theory of development of doctrine is essential. The Orthodox tend to make very astute arguments, but I think that when the question comes down to discerning between authentic developments and corruptions, the Catholic position can do quite well. There is no reason to arbitrarily cut off doctrinal development after the seventh ecumenical council, for instance.
I think the Orthodox have more room than they think for agreeing with Catholics on many issues. Oftentimes certain things are presented (especially on the internet) so as to seem more monolithic than they are in fact, and some of the views which are popular among Orthodox believers now aren’t necessarily “the belief” or rather “the position” of the Orthodox Church. It would probably be most fruitful thing to do to examine these.
Granted, I feel that I hardly have the depth of knowledge to accurately and honestly address these issues. I’m reading as much as I can to try to remedy that, but I think such a task is a task of a lifetime.
-Rob
A
Alexius
Guest
Many of these attacks on Original Sin and Essence/Energies are just as relevant to the Eastern Catholic understanding. A different expression of faith, as Rome calls it…The creed says “remission of sins,” and as far as I know, infants are not born with “sins.”
As for the claim that Orthodox cannot call a council because they lack the Pope–who didn’t call the First Ecumenical Council, anyway–that is bogus.
Please explain how divorce and annulments are different…I find it very silly to say that a marriage never took place when it certainly has…something like the Calvinistic view that if you “lose” your faith, then you were never saved to begin with and your faith was not true…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
R
RobNY
Guest
The best analogy, perhaps, would be to contract law. In order for a contract to be valid there must be a “meeting of the minds.” If both sides assent to it, including putting their John Hancocks on the dotted line, it is still possible that the actual contract is null and void because there was no “meeting of the minds.” It is not the case that the contract was later dissolved, but that because of certain impediments (both sides didn’t actually understand the essential parts of the contract) it was never actually formed. In these cases the contract is only apparently and not actually formed.Please explain how divorce and annulments are different…I find it very silly to say that a marriage never took place when it certainly has…something like the Calvinistic view that if you “lose” your faith, then you were never saved to begin with and your faith was not true…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
It is not really like the views of proponents of the doctrine of eternal security.
-Rob
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
There are long threads on this issue already, but my point is if “forgiveness of sins” is ‘the’ thing that Baptism is known for, yet most of the Christians in history are Baptized as infants, then that doesnt make much sense unless original sin is in the picture.
Either the Emperor or the Pope called each Ecumenical Council, lacking such an authority means one cant be called.
First of all divorce is explicitly listed as a grave sin in Scripture, thus to approve of it is unacceptable from the start. Turning and saying “you do it too” doesnt excuse the fact you have excused grave sin. An annulment is not a guarantee or back door, if the Church finds that marriage to be valid then that couple is joined for life.
You must admit the concept of an annulment for basic justice to exist. If conditions have to be met and they are not met then the marriage was invalid, just as if a layman prays over the bread to consecrate it the sacrament was invalid (he lacked the power of the ordained priesthood), or if a priest Baptized in the name of the Father, Wife and Son the sacrament would be invalid (improper form).
It is different from the Calvinist view in that the Church can step in and determine one way or the other, in the Calvinist view the stakes are salvation itself and there is no objective way to determine if you yourself were really saved. Further it is not a sin if the annulled couples were acting in good faith, in the Calvinist view it is literally a damnable sin.
H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
The See of Constantinople was founded by the Holy Apostle St. Andrew.
Byzantium essentially influnced Russia originally and so in a sense you could say that the See of Constantinople is heavily influenced also by St. Andrew. Also, Moscow is a very important location in Orthodox history and is commonly referred to as “Third Rome” and preserved Orthodoxy while the Greeks and Arabs were being suppressed by the Turks and Muslims.
- Status