I wish the Greek Orthodox would reunite with us

[kotim]

The main hindrance to us uniting is the Russian Orthodox, do you honestly think we would be doing the Ravena thing if our faiths were not compatable. The only thing to genuinely work out is the position of the Bishop of Rome and thats all. There is already much agreeance behind the scenes. The get togethers are to thrash out the details of how to word things in such a way that we understand each other rather than talk past each other.

 

[ajecphotos]

I wouldn’t know the difference between orthodox and catholic!

Anyone?

 

[Wandile]

But the east used to believe in immaculate conception. In fact, in 1855, the Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare in response to the Immaculate Conception proclamation by Pope Pius IX that :

“We [The Orthodox] have always held and always taught this doctrine. This point is too sacred to give rise to quarrels and it has no need of a deputation from Rome”.

An example of this is George Scholarios (+1456), the last Patriarch of the Byzantine Empire, has also left us a homily on the Dormition and an explicit affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. He says that Mary was

“all pure from the first moment of her existence” (gegne theion euthus).

From Chrysostom, Vol. VI, No. 5 (Spring 1983), pp. 151-159.

A contemporary and opponent of Photius, the monk Theognostes, wrote in a homily for the feast of the Dormition, that Mary was conceived by “a sanctifying action”, ex arches - from the beginning. It seems to me that this ex arches exactly corresponds to the “in primo instanti“ of Roman theology. "

Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica and doctor of the hesychasm (+1360) in his 65 published Mariological homilies, developed an entirely original theory about her sanctification. On the one hand, Palamas does not use the formula “immaculate conception” because he believes that Mary was sanctified long before the “primus instans conceptionis“, and on the other, he states quite as categorically as any Roman theologian that Mary was never at any moment sullied by the stain of original sin. Palamas’ solution to the problem, of which as far as we know, he has been the sole supporter, is that God progressively purified all Mary’s ancestors, one after the other and each to a greater degree than his predecessor so that at the end, eis telos, Mary was able to grow, from a completely purified root, like a spotless stem “on the limits between created and uncreated”.

The Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (+1425) also pronounced a homily on the Dormition. In it, he affirms in precise terms Mary’s sanctification in primo instanti. He says that Mary was full of grace “from the moment of her conception” and that as soon as she began to exist … there was no time when Jesus was not united to her”. We must note that Manuel was no mere amateur in theology. He had written at great length on the procession of the Holy Spirit and had taken part in doctrinal debates during his journeys in the West. One can, therefore, consider him as a qualified representative of the Byzantine theology of his time.

It is rather strange that the most precise Greek affirmation of the Immaculate Conception should come **from the most anti-Latin, the most “Protestantizing” of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris (+1638). He too gave a sermon on the Dormition of Our Lady. **He said that Mary

“was wholly sanctified from the very first moment of her conception (ole egiasmene en aute te sullepsei) when her body was formed and when her soul was united to her body”;

and further on he writes:

“As for the Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?” Panaghia, who is there who does not know that she is pure and immaculate, that she was a spotless instrument, sanctified in her conception and her birth, as befits one who is to contain the One whom nothing can contain?”

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
True. But reading your post, something else occurs to me: In my experience, people who extend such offers don’t always take too kindly to being refused (i.e. Anglican offers being turned down by Catholics, Catholics offers being turned down by Orthodox, etc).

Thank you, wumpie(name removed by moderator)my. You’re quite welcome to receive communion along side me, as we are in full communion!

(wait for gasps)

Sorry if I gave the impression that I’m Orthodox. I’m Catholic (… hence I decline whenever Anglicans invite me to receive in their churches. Likewise, if I were Orthodox then I would decline such invitations from Catholics (or Anglicans).)

 

[EIF5A]

Hypothetically speaking, could a future Pope “give up” universal jurisdiction in the sense of having authority over all of Catholic-Orthodox Christendom (while still having primary voice in, say, morals, theological matters, and the like)?

(On a side note, it’s interesting how sometimes there’s an undertone of Protestants being unworthy of being reunited with…Like, pssh…what do they have to offer?)

 

[EIF5A]

For those that have studied and read both Catholic and Orthodox spirituality, is there a difference?

Like something emphasized or practiced in one but not another?

I ask because when I was deciding on the Catholic or Orthodox Church, I ran across an Orthodox website that said St. Francis was presumptuous to ask to suffer like Our Lord.

It seems some people interpret things differently.

In the Catholic Church, some saints had the grace of stigmata, whereas I have read that such an occurrence is more rare in the Orthodox Church and that holy saints shine with the “uncreated light”. Very generally speaking, the Catholic Church emphasizes more the suffering of Christ whereas the Orthodox emphasize the victory and resurrection. Is there a connection with each respective Church’s spirituality?

If we considered more carefully how much God would want His children to reunite as family again, do you think unity could be achieved, or does each Church’s claim to “fullness of truth” prevent full reunification?

 

[cath4alltime]

But the east used to believe in immaculate conception. In fact, in 1855, the Athenian professor, Christopher Damalas, was able to declare in response to the Immaculate Conception proclamation by Pope Pius IX that :

and further on he writes:

Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary and wrong. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain, there is no reason for the miraculous removal of either. Nonetheless, Orthodox tradition does hold that the Theotokos remained free of personal sin, a belief shared with some reformers such as Martin Luther.

orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception#The_Orthodox_Church_and_the_doctrine_of_the_Immaculate_Conception

In order to understand the position of the Orthodox Church on this teaching we must begin with understanding the Orthodox concept of original sin, as opposed to that which prevails in the Western Catholic Church.

The Western Catholic Church’s teaching of original sin, is based in part on the writings of Saint Augustine, which states that each human being at the moment of conception shares in the guilt of Adam’s sin of disobedience.

This was based on Saint Augustine’s slightly flawed Latin translation of Romans 5:12. Augustine did not read Greek with any great proficiency. Augustine read it as saying “so death spread to all men in whom (Adam) all men sinned”, rather than “so death spread to all men because all men sinned”, which is how the original Greek reads.

It is this teaching that led Western Catholic thinkers to create a place called “Limbo” (from the Latin word limbus, “border” or “hem”), meaning on the border of heaven. They said this is where the souls of unbaptised infants could find refuge, since though not guilty of any personal sin, they still had the guilt of original sin on their souls, and so could not enter heaven proper.

In the medieval Western Catholic Church, original sin was believed to be transmitted in a physical sense through conception. It thus became important to many that Mary be preserved from this taint. Hence the creation in the ninth century of the doctrine of the immaculate conception.

The Orthodox Church has kept alive the original understanding of the early Church as regards “original sin.” The early Church did not understand “original sin” as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment.

We are tempted by sin and we become guilty of it through committing our own personal sins. We therefore suffer and we die. This is the orthodox understanding of original sin. It is not something that we are guilty of personally, but an action whose consequences have affected our lives as humans. As humans we sin, and our own guilt is because of our own personal sin.

In the light of this, the Western Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is redundant.

In Orthodox eyes, there is simply no original guilt for Mary to be made innocent of. Which is also why we have no Limbo for infants who die unbaptised, which was also at one time the usual teaching of the Western Catholic Church.

Often those advocating the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, have sought to discover it in Orthodox writers of the Middle Ages or in Orthodox hymns.

Orthodox writers who often refer to Mary as having been “prepared,” and “sanctified,” and who hail her as the “immaculate one,” are thinking in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin, not the Western. None of these writers put forth a claim that Mary was immortal – which necessarily follows for those who accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It does not fit in the context of the Orthodox view of original sin.

Many of these theologians held to a view that by special grace the Mother of God did not commit any personal sins. Others asserted that Mary was sanctified through her response to Archangel Gabriel at the annunciation, “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

Taken at face value, the Western doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is seen by the Orthodox as separating the Mother of God from the rest of the human race. If true, this would have made it impossible for Christ to become truly man, because Mary would therefore not be subject to the same conditions of humanity as those for whom Christ had become incarnate in order to save. Mary is human, and through her, God became fully human as well.

During this Advent season, the Orthodox Church frequently remembers the Virgin Mary as a gift of humanity to God, through whom God gave Himself back to humanity. One of our Christmas hymns asks “What shall we offer You, Christ, You Who for our sakes appeared on earth as a man? Every creature which You have made offers You thanks…… We offer You a Virgin Mother. Pre-eternal God, have mercy on us.”

Edited from an article in “The Word” Magazine. The Word is the official print publication of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America.

antiochianarch.org.au/orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx

more links

antiochian.org/node/18597

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/theotokos.aspx

Pretty clear they do not support it

 

[wynd]

So do Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox share the same beliefs as one another?

Yes, 100%.

 

[Happy_B]

Get ready for some serious roughness then, because only worldwide mass persecution would bring it about in 25 years.

ICXC NIKA

I also believe this is what will unite both. I have many Orthodox friends in London. We rarely speak about the religion but when we do, they all think the Catholics are the heretics, full stop. Their liturgies are beautiful and very devotional but they’re not interested in the dialogue. I like them anyway because they are really lovely and warm-hearted people. But it saddens me a bit that they’re very anti-Catholic.

Jesus will establish one flock, just as he said and He will also choose a way how to do it. We will be One!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I love Greek Orthodox people in general and their kindness and devotion, plus the beauty of their… liturgies? I wish they would come to our church and us go to theirs and be one big happy family again.
Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses I love too. Good people. Lutherans, I don’t know much about but what example I’ve seen is excellent and very conservative. The rest of them, no comment lest I sin.
Just a note to open arms to the few groups who are devout though we disagree on doctrine.

Not likely to happen, I’m afraid.

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.

 

[Peter_J]

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.

Do you say that because they are Orthodox, or because they don’t want to become Catholic?

 

[dronald]

Not likely to happen, I’m afraid.

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.

Imagine Eastern Orthodox people took comments like this one and others alike and assumed Catholics are all like you.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
Not likely to happen, I’m afraid.

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.
Imagine Eastern Orthodox people took comments like this one and others alike and assumed Catholics are all like you.

Unfortunately, some Orthodox have formed their opinions of Roman Catholics from superficial posts such as you quoted, just as some Catholics form their opinions about Orthodox from the querulous Orthodox they have met. That is part of the pathology of schism. Having been a Catholic for 30 years before my conversion, I have a generally high opinion of Catholics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not likely to happen, I’m afraid.

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.

I could see why one might make a sweeping generalization like that, if he perhaps were afflicted with a severe case of Big Brother Syndrome. So which is more likely, that one personally suffers from a wildly distorted perspective, or that the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians he paints with a broad brush do?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I wouldn’t know the difference between orthodox and catholic!

Anyone?

Very briefly, Orthodox do not believe that the Bishop of Rome is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals, we do not believe that Christ gave him immediate ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church or that he can unilaterally bind the whole Church to dogmatic statements. We believe the highest authority in the Church is an ecumenical council. We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, rather than from the Father and the Son. We emphasize ascetical practices (mainly fasting) for laypeople as well as monastics, and we believe salvation is most accurately described as deification, that is, recovering the likeness of God that was lost in the fall.

 

[Peter_J]

Imagine Eastern Orthodox people took comments like this one and others alike and assumed Catholics are all like you.

Unfortunately, some Orthodox have formed their opinions of Roman Catholics from superficial posts such as you quoted, just as some Catholics form their opinions about Orthodox from the querulous Orthodox they have met. That is part of the pathology of schism.

Keep in mind: the more we like someone, the more we want him or her to become Catholic (in the sense of being in the Roman Communion).

P.S. That’s not to say, of course, that we cannot resist our urges.

 

[eamonnroma]

Not likely to happen, I’m afraid.

My interactions with EO suggest to me that they are afflicted with severe Little Brother Syndrome.

From my limited understanding, I do not think they are little brother syndrome.

In many ways the Orthodox Churches have remained closer to the practices of the early Christian Church . Local autonomous churches, but recognising the importance of certain patriarchs, of which the pope is now one.

From their point of view it is the Catholic Church which has changed the Faith, with things such as filioque - calling of Ecumenical Councils without the consensus of all the apostolic churches.

The most important point of the eucharistic liturgy is also a point of dispute. For the EO and OO, the change in the bread and wine into the body and blood is at the culmination of the consecration, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, the epiclesis. The old, loved by some, Tridentine rite had no obvious epiclesis (as also the first eucharistic prayer lacks this today), so for them our Mass was not even valid for centuries. I presume that they would consider today a mass using the other eucharistic prayers, as valid, as there is a definite epiclesis in the new eucharistic prayers.

To sum up the Orthodox idea of us - Timothy Ware once wrote that for the Orthodox. Catholicism and Protestantism are merely two sides of one coin.

I would say that this is far from Little Brother Syndrome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I could see why one might make a sweeping generalization like that, if he perhaps were afflicted with a severe case of Big Brother Syndrome. So which is more likely, that one personally suffers from a wildly distorted perspective, or that the hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians he paints with a broad brush do?

If I am painting with a broad brush, it is perhaps because the more I read on this subject, the broader my perspective becomes.

It’s really very simple:

Catholic Church - 1.2 billion
Orthodox Church(es) - 300 million

While the Catholic Church has gone into every corner of the globe and made disciples of all nations (try not to be overly literal here, Cav), the Orthodox have simply failed to achieve the kind of success in evangelization on a global scale that would provide evidence that they really are the one true Church commissioned by Our Lord in Matthew 28. Your church(es) remain largely isolated in a few eastern European and Asian countries.

But we’ve argued this point point many times before in other threads and subforums, so there really isn’t any need to play it out again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Unfortunately, some Orthodox have formed their opinions of Roman Catholics from superficial posts such as you quoted, just as some Catholics form their opinions about Orthodox from the querulous Orthodox they have met. That is part of the pathology of schism. Having been a Catholic for 30 years before my conversion, I have a generally high opinion of Catholics.

Out of curiosity, what was the primary reason for your conversion?

Was there one thing that just bugged you about Catholicism until you had to make the break from Rome?

 

[KathleenGee]

By the way, I read an article that what is most pressing on the Holy Father is the reunification of the Orthodox.

The language of the papacy around the time of the Reformation was most direct. The pope is to be sign of unity and faith. The language has put alot of people off, thinking too much focus on one man and not God.

The Holy Father is reviewing aspects of the Papacy in regards to jurisdiction. We pray for this great reunification of the two ‘lungs’ of the Church.

I will try to find the article…