A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, “logic” in the rational sense is what characterizes the Latin approach to doctrine. The Eastern Church doesn’t emphasize “logic” (a very human exercise) in that way.
Alex
- Status
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I hope my adding applause to the lauds you have already received won’t affect your humility so that you would have to go to confession before Pascha . . .
The Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission discovered, in the middle of a heated argument, no less, that they believed the same thing about Christology. For the OO, the term “Nature” was the same as that of “Person” for the EO. They then wondered why it was that they have been separated for 1800 years . . .
The issues that do still get heated responses is whether or not the OO accept the other four Councils out of the Seven the EO have. In fact, this is the same issue that occupies the EO in relation to RCism today - the issue of the “14 later Latin Councils.”
Chalcedon, in particular, gets both sides going . . . But what has been shown is that one may reject Chalcedon while holding to an entirely Orthodox Christology (that of St Cyril of Alexandria), in the same way that EO reject the RC Church’s Immaculate Conception dogma, while affirming Mary’s complete holiness and total sinlessness.
In terms of the EO/OO relationship, the matter now has to do with the other four Councils. If accepting Chalcedon is somehow a “benchmark” for being Orthodox, then the two families of Orthodox Churches may never reunite. The most that can be hoped for is that the OO affirm the other four Councils as being Orthodox, but as not being applicable to them etc.
Time will tell. But I hope the two will reconcile in our lifetime to become the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of the East.
Alex
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think that those who make accepting Chalcedon as a benchmark of Orthodoxy on the Eastern Orthodox side are perhaps somewhat misguided. The council’s orthodoxy notwithstanding, the criticisms raised against the language of Chalcedon by the anti-Chalcedonians, like Severus of Antioch, are valid criticisms which cannot just be brushed aside. That’s why I think the Second Council of Constantinople’s narrow interpretation of Chalcedon, and the concessions that Christ can only be said to be in two natures in contemplation and that ‘of two natures’ is an equally valid Christological understanding as ‘in two natures’, would be an important thing to emphasize, rather than going on as nauseam about Chalcedon.I hope my adding applause to the lauds you have already received won’t affect your humility so that you would have to go to confession before Pascha . . .
The Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission discovered, in the middle of a heated argument, no less, that they believed the same thing about Christology. For the OO, the term “Nature” was the same as that of “Person” for the EO. They then wondered why it was that they have been separated for 1800 years . . .
The issues that do still get heated responses is whether or not the OO accept the other four Councils out of the Seven the EO have. In fact, this is the same issue that occupies the EO in relation to RCism today - the issue of the “14 later Latin Councils.”
Chalcedon, in particular, gets both sides going . . . But what has been shown is that one may reject Chalcedon while holding to an entirely Orthodox Christology (that of St Cyril of Alexandria), in the same way that EO reject the RC Church’s Immaculate Conception dogma, while affirming Mary’s complete holiness and total sinlessness.
In terms of the EO/OO relationship, the matter now has to do with the other four Councils. If accepting Chalcedon is somehow a “benchmark” for being Orthodox, then the two families of Orthodox Churches may never reunite. The most that can be hoped for is that the OO affirm the other four Councils as being Orthodox, but as not being applicable to them etc.
Time will tell. But I hope the two will reconcile in our lifetime to become the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of the East.
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
You are a most wise individual and I salute you, period.
A blessed Holy Week and Pascha.
Alex
H
hazcompat
Guest
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I agree. I’ve been enjoying reading and learning from Cavaradossi’s posts on this matter!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
If I may give my own comment to the original question, I believe that Orthodoxy IS the true Church, along with the Catholic Church, although the two are divided.
There are differences in doctrine to be sure, but even Pope Benedict at one time expressed the view that they are not insurmountable nor are they reasons for maintaining division.
The Orthodox Church truly does engage in missionizing work and I have come to know even Roman Catholics as well as Protestants who have embraced Orthodoxy, together with non-Christians.
The separation between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is one that affects both Churches - one really cannot be whole without the other. But that is a separate topic.
Apart from the fact that Orthodoxy sees the Patriarch of Constantinople as exercising the Petrine Ministry today, I don’t see any substantial difference in terms of faith between East and West, and certainly nothing that could justify their continued separation.
Both Churches should, in God’s good time, get together in a reunion Council to iron out things and to work out a way to re-establish a relationship to Rome that reflects that of the first millennium. Both sides will be changed as a result of that exercise which will be the work of the Holy Spirit.
When that great day of reunion occurs, we Eastern Catholics will no longer be adjuncts of the Latin Church, but will join with our Mother Orthodox Churches in a special reunion that will bring untold joy to the people of God.
Alex
There are differences in doctrine to be sure, but even Pope Benedict at one time expressed the view that they are not insurmountable nor are they reasons for maintaining division.
The Orthodox Church truly does engage in missionizing work and I have come to know even Roman Catholics as well as Protestants who have embraced Orthodoxy, together with non-Christians.
The separation between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is one that affects both Churches - one really cannot be whole without the other. But that is a separate topic.
Apart from the fact that Orthodoxy sees the Patriarch of Constantinople as exercising the Petrine Ministry today, I don’t see any substantial difference in terms of faith between East and West, and certainly nothing that could justify their continued separation.
Both Churches should, in God’s good time, get together in a reunion Council to iron out things and to work out a way to re-establish a relationship to Rome that reflects that of the first millennium. Both sides will be changed as a result of that exercise which will be the work of the Holy Spirit.
When that great day of reunion occurs, we Eastern Catholics will no longer be adjuncts of the Latin Church, but will join with our Mother Orthodox Churches in a special reunion that will bring untold joy to the people of God.
Alex
H
hazcompat
Guest
T
Trebor135
Guest
Papal infallibility seems insurmountable to me.
In light of your status as a Catholic (of an Eastern rite), do you not fear for the souls of those Catholics (of either wing of your Church) who become Eastern Orthodox and thereby go into schism?
Amen. God help us all.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Papal infallibility seems insurmountable to me.
In light of your status as a Catholic (of an Eastern rite), do you not fear for the souls of those Catholics (of either wing of your Church) who become Eastern Orthodox and thereby go into schism?
Papal infallibility is not insurmountable since the Church, both sides have always agreed, is infallible/indefectible. One Redemptorist seminarian I knew did a Master’s thesis on this and proposed that papal infallibility COULD mean when a pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. In that way, one MIGHT see that papal infallibility as such has always existed even in the united Church of the first millennium.
In light of my status, I do not fear for the souls of those EC’s who become Eastern Orthodox. “Schism” is a word that Rome doesn’t use to describe the Orthodox. Apart from Rome’s current understanding of the role of the Pope, there is nothing that the Orthodox lack from a faith/sacramental perspective. I agree that the Church is called to be united around the pope of Rome. But I don’t see how those who disagree are somehow outside the True Church. In fact, one might make the “ultimate traditionalist” argument that Orthodoxy has kept the original Apostolic faith inviolate. Even the notion of doctrinal development cannot add to what the Church was initially given to believe in the Apostolic age. That is a separate issue. But “schism” is something I believe characterizes both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches - they are in schism from each other.
As well, the “uniate” model of church unity has been rejected by Rome. This means that the basis upon which I am an Eastern Catholic is no longer valid. That I am an Eastern Catholic - that is a fact. But what if I decided to return to what is, by right, my original ecclesial patrimony, even if it is not in communion with Rome? I’ve not come to that decision and don’t expect to. The fact remains that Rome’s intervention to create “uniate” Churches in the East is without justification today meaning that Rome would rather not have done what it did.
I understand that the Macedonian Orthodox Church approached Rome to become EC - their application was rejected. Does that mean Rome believes the souls of the Macedonian Orthodox are in danger due to “schism?” Not at all. Many Roman Catholics have simply not kept up with the “doctrinal development” at Rome with respect to Orthodoxy, but remain content with the, forgive me, tired arguments of papal triumphalism. Rome’s stance is no longer that. It is time to catch up to Rome itself.
Alex
A
Art321
Guest
Trebor135;9175275:
Greetings Alex!Papal infallibility seems insurmountable to me.
In light of your status as a Catholic (of an Eastern rite), do you not fear for the souls of those Catholics (of either wing of your Church) who become Eastern Orthodox and thereby go into schism?
Papal infallibility is not insurmountable since the Church, both sides have always agreed, is infallible/indefectible. One Redemptorist seminarian I knew did a Master’s thesis on this and proposed that papal infallibility COULD mean when a pope ratifies the decisions of an Ecumenical Council. In that way, one MIGHT see that papal infallibility as such has always existed even in the united Church of the first millennium.
In light of my status, I do not fear for the souls of those EC’s who become Eastern Orthodox. “Schism” is a word that Rome doesn’t use to describe the Orthodox. Apart from Rome’s current understanding of the role of the Pope, there is nothing that the Orthodox lack from a faith/sacramental perspective. I agree that the Church is called to be united around the pope of Rome. But I don’t see how those who disagree are somehow outside the True Church. In fact, one might make the “ultimate traditionalist” argument that Orthodoxy has kept the original Apostolic faith inviolate. Even the notion of doctrinal development cannot add to what the Church was initially given to believe in the Apostolic age. That is a separate issue. But “schism” is something I believe characterizes both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches - they are in schism from each other.
As well, the “uniate” model of church unity has been rejected by Rome. This means that the basis upon which I am an Eastern Catholic is no longer valid. That I am an Eastern Catholic - that is a fact. But what if I decided to return to what is, by right, my original ecclesial patrimony, even if it is not in communion with Rome? I’ve not come to that decision and don’t expect to. The fact remains that Rome’s intervention to create “uniate” Churches in the East is without justification today meaning that Rome would rather not have done what it did.
I understand that the Macedonian Orthodox Church approached Rome to become EC - their application was rejected. Does that mean Rome believes the souls of the Macedonian Orthodox are in danger due to “schism?” Not at all. Many Roman Catholics have simply not kept up with the “doctrinal development” at Rome with respect to Orthodoxy, but remain content with the, forgive me, tired arguments of papal triumphalism. Rome’s stance is no longer that. It is time to catch up to Rome itself.
Alex
If I may, I would like to ask a question. From your last paragraph, I wouls agree with you that the Orthodox are not “outside” the Catholic Church, yet are they completely within the Church?
From what I read, one needs to have three things met to be completely within the Church of Christ. The last being accepting the papal doctrine.
Am I wrong? Also can you please explain the uniate model a bit more?
V
Vico
Guest
Art321,
I also understand that there are three necessary parts to the Catholic Church: faith, sacraments, and government. This is expressed in the canon laws also. This certainly is the basis to the terms for the Church of Christ, outlined below, but only the churches in I are in full communion, therefore the Catholic Church is the visible Church of Christ:
I. Catholic (all three elements present) - 23 Churches
II. Non-Catholic Apostolic (at least with valid sacraments)
…a) Eastern *
…b) Western +
III. Non-Catholic Ecclesial Communities (with valid baptism)
…a) Eastern #
…b) Western &
I also understand that there are three necessary parts to the Catholic Church: faith, sacraments, and government. This is expressed in the canon laws also. This certainly is the basis to the terms for the Church of Christ, outlined below, but only the churches in I are in full communion, therefore the Catholic Church is the visible Church of Christ:
I. Catholic (all three elements present) - 23 Churches
II. Non-Catholic Apostolic (at least with valid sacraments)
…a) Eastern *
…b) Western +
III. Non-Catholic Ecclesial Communities (with valid baptism)
…a) Eastern #
…b) Western &
- Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church
- Polish National Catholic, Church of Norway, others
Malabar Independent Syrian, Malankara Mar Thoma, St. Thomas Evangelical
& Anabaptist, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Adventist, etc.
A
Art321
Guest
As always, thank you Vico!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
A
Art321
Guest
S
Schism_hater
Guest
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Many don’t want to go.
Take, for instance, the largest of all the eastern Catholic churches - the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, with millions of members. Try sending them back to their “mother EO church” and see where that gets you…
Other examples abound of eastern Catholic churches with unique situations:
The Melkites can possibly legitimately be viewed as having the true claim to the patriarchate of Antioch; the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was not formed in a “uniate” manner.
The Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch doesn’t even have an Orthodox counterpart.
Historically, what is now the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church was in Latin territories anyway and so wasn’t originally self-governing at all. Canonically, no Orthodox church could legally absorb them in a way that makes sense.
The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church are each actually significantly larger than their non-Catholic counterpart, the Assyrian Church of the East.
… And the list goes on. Even for the churches that don’t have a special situation like those above, “sending them back to their mother churches” isn’t feasible, because their members want to be in communion with Rome. Those who don’t - for whatever reason - are free to switch to an Orthodox community, and sometimes do.
“Sending them back to their mother churches” before their mother churches are willing to be in communion with us would effectively be kicking them out of communion with the pope when they have done no wrong.
P
Paul_theApostle
Guest
few Qs
has EO and RC agreed not to create anymore Eastern Cath churches?
What does Rome do with or expect from EO christians that want to be united to Rome nowadays?
Does Rome desire for them to stay where they are in EO ,or for them to cross over individually to the existing EC churches? or is individual conversions discouraged also
i think i read in the statements between EO and RC that each church shouldnt try to sheep steal or convert individual members …would that be right?
If Rome is becoming more accepting of Orthodoxy considering it valid etc ,then would it matter if these ECs went back to EO?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
- Status