Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did you not read my subsequent post, Mary? That was an afterthought thrown in as a courtesy to your church and the fact that many do believe that they and the Orthodox share the same faith. That’s not what matters. My personal experiences or your personal experiences or anyone’s personal experiences are not what determine the Orthodoxy or lack thereof of any other church outside of Orthodoxy. What they believe and how they practice what they believe does. Or, in short, as I have been saying since the beginning: Whether they share the same faith is what is paramount. If Rome truly did share the Orthodox faith again, I’m sure the Orthodox would recognize it and, with the necessary precautionary measures satisfied (i.e., Rome repudiating its errors and not returning to them), welcome Rome and all in her who are similarly disposed back to communion with great joy and rejoicing. BUT that’s never going to happen if you think you’re already essentially there. You’re not. This is not a controversial position, and it’s certainly not a matter of personal opinion. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read what the various bishops and other learned men of the Orthodox church have to say in their own words. Here is one of my favorites to get you started, a transcription of an address given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew delivered at Georgetown University. While I am not Eastern Orthodox, I agree with his essential point that we are ontologically different.
 
You wrote so many interesting thoughts, but right now I want to reply in particular to this:

“Yes, there are certainly degrees even within heaven itself (none of us can ever have the place of Our Blessed Lady), and I remember reading that Judaism taught/teaches about several degrees of hell (which really amount to purgatory or limbo or the other states you mentioned, as they are all transitional apart from the last one, a permanent one which to Christians would be THE hell of damnation).”

Heaven has a specific meaning as the ultimate destination of the just. The non-heavenly state may include a state of natural happiness without the Beatific Vision for those that were not baptized and that did no works. It is certainly the dogmatic teaching of Trent that only the baptized are capable of Heaven.
Council of Trent, Canon 2 on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism:If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema.
Here is the logic for infants and all. In order to have the Beatific Vision, it is required to die in a state of grace, for which reason we are baptized and receive the other Holy Mysteries. God has promised we will be in that state if we die in grace. The degree of glory in heaven varies with the kind of life we lived. For infants that are not baptized we can say that they are not guaranteed to have the Beatific Vision, we can only hope for them.

**Baltimore Catechism No. 3

**Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
 
If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?
Are you serious? Whether uniatism was right, wrong or indifferent, Eastern Catholics have given and endured much for the allegiance to Rome. We are part of the Catholic Church. You suggest that we be tossed back in the ocean as if we were small fish, too small to keep …
 
Address Of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew — Phos Hilaron (Joyful Light)

Delivered at Georgetown University, Washington, DC on 21 October 1997



“This change, which is bestowed on us from the right hand of the Most High, remains hidden, secret and mystical to many. And thus, a life which is directed toward Him is called mystical. That which leads to divine grace are called mysteries. The entire change of both language and intellect is beyond comprehension and when directed by God leads to unspeakable mysteries. However, the change of man’s essence, theosis by grace, is a fact that is tangible for all the Orthodox faithful. Grace is not only obtained through the transformed relics of the saints, which is totally inexplicable without acceptance of the divine. Grace also radiates from living Saints who are truly in the likeness of the Lord [Luke 8:46]. This change is also obtained through Holy Baptism which through grace transforms the neophyte. The transformation may only be grasped and discerned by the senses of those, who have been baptized, and who are receptive to it without external persuasion. According to the trustworthy testimony of devout Christians, divine grace even infuses the inanimate. This too, is discerned by those who are sensitive and pure of heart. Grace can also be obtained by the presence of the Saints who have influenced and sanctified, and to a degree transformed, natural objects and places.”

This happens to all to whom the Most High, the Holy Mighty One, the Immortal One and Lover of mankind chooses. When you see The Spirit in Rome and Agio Oros, then what?

peace
 
Did you not read my subsequent post, Mary? That was an afterthought thrown in as a courtesy to your church and the fact that many do believe that they and the Orthodox share the same faith. That’s not what matters. My personal experiences or your personal experiences or anyone’s personal experiences are not what determine the Orthodoxy or lack thereof of any other church outside of Orthodoxy. What they believe and how they practice what they believe does. Or, in short, as I have been saying since the beginning: Whether they share the same faith is what is paramount. If Rome truly did share the Orthodox faith again, I’m sure the Orthodox would recognize it and, with the necessary precautionary measures satisfied (i.e., Rome repudiating its errors and not returning to them), welcome Rome and all in her who are similarly disposed back to communion with great joy and rejoicing. BUT that’s never going to happen if you think you’re already essentially there. You’re not. This is not a controversial position, and it’s certainly not a matter of personal opinion. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read what the various bishops and other learned men of the Orthodox church have to say in their own words. Here is one of my favorites to get you started, a transcription of an address given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew delivered at Georgetown University. While I am not Eastern Orthodox, I agree with his essential point that we are ontologically different.
I’m not here to debate whether or not we are the same. This is not the thread for it *(And I am purposely avoiding getting embroiled in those types of debate, they mostly do nothing but create bad blood IMHO, I prefer to express the Catholic POV in comparison instead) *and there are those who do that who are tonnes better than you and me with much more extensive reading and knowledge of our histories, faith, languages and traditions than you and I have. It’s certainly not true that if people believe the same thing they will recognize it- That presumes that everyone has a clear understanding of the faith, Histories, theological languages and traditions of all the Churches. If it were so, we would not have had Catholics and E. Orthodox from the highest ranks of the Churches to the most common lay persons insist for one and a half millenia that you and your people were monophysites.

I merely set out to point to you how strange it looked to reference personal experience in support of what you were claiming to be objective fact in a debate, when it’s opposite is claimed by others with similar experience. I don’t want you and me to have some nasty blood unnecessarily over this (I just met you!). I understand and respect your position (that we are different).

Peace! Christ is risen!
 
If you look at my posting History, you will find that there are things I find wrong in the modern expressions and claims of E.Orthodoxy some of which live on in Eastern Catholicism. I don’t wish to argue that everything we believe is the same, and you will never catch me insisting that we have one belief where there are clearly differences- especially as expressed by the Orthodox in discussion. (Though I’m pretty certain from my reading and participation of many debates that most of what is claimed by “differences” by E.O Polemicists usually involves an imposition of false understandings of catholic Doctrine on Catholics- They love to tell us what we believe, assuming they understand Catholic Doctrine better than the Church herself! Which is why I call these particular ones Polemicists rather than Apologists for E.O). But you can’t claim to express an objective fact and then reference personal experience in support, especially when there are those whose personal experience in the same situation has lead to a different conclusion.
Not to be snide, but for as much as the Orthodox might tell Catholics what they believe, the Catholics are definitely guilty of returning the favor. Catholics, for example love telling us that we must believe in everything that was decided upon by the synod of Jerusalem as proof that Orthodox teaching has changed (while seemingly passing over discrepancies between the current CCC and older catechisms like the Baltimore catechism), without taking time to research how the Orthodox understand the relationship between councils and the truth.
 
Not to be snide, but for as much as the Orthodox might tell Catholics what they believe, the Catholics are definitely guilty of returning the favor. Catholics, for example love telling us that we must believe in everything that was decided upon by the synod of Jerusalem as proof that Orthodox teaching has changed (while seemingly passing over discrepancies between the current CCC and older catechisms like the Baltimore catechism), without taking time to research how the Orthodox understand the relationship between councils and the truth.
Well, I’m sure that Catholics also do that. (I’m trying not to be one of them!), but the “discrepancies” you speak of have a clear understanding in the CC (Part of which includes the fact the the Baltimore catechism was not a magisterial work/statement of the CC, but a book expressing the most widely held opinions of the time in the Church). Whoever does this kind of thing, Catholic/Orthodox is not helping any dialogue between us, and so it’s safe to say that we ought to avoid it as much as our feeble natures can allow us to do that. But let’s not get into flame-fights now. Christ is risen! Alleluia!
 
Well, I’m sure that Catholics also do that. (I’m trying not to be one of them!), but the “discrepancies” you speak of have a clear understanding in the CC (Part of which includes the fact the the Baltimore catechism was not a magisterial work/statement of the CC, but a book expressing the most widely held opinions of the time in the Church). Whoever does this kind of thing, Catholic/Orthodox is not helping any dialogue between us, and so it’s safe to say that we ought to avoid it as much as our feeble natures can allow us to do that. But let’s not get into flame-fights now. Christ is risen! Alleluia!
Agreed. Truly he is risen!
 
Truly He is risen!

Okay, Mary. I can respect your position. I obviously don’t agree with it (and I would suspect that we would probably have very different understandings of who is “qualified” – in whatever sense that should be taken – to have such discussions; see below), but I can respect and agree with your desire not to descend into further argument. Christ is risen, and nothing else really matters. 🙂

Just for the sake of clarifying one thing, though, I’d like to write a little bit concerning this part of your reply:
It’s certainly not true that if people believe the same thing they will recognize it- That presumes that everyone has a clear understanding of the faith, Histories and traditions of all the Churches. If it were so, we would not have had Catholics and E. Orthodox from the highest ranks of the Church to the most common lay persons insist for one and a half millenia that you and your people were monophysites.
While I purposely stay out of Christological debates with Chalcedonians (they never go anywhere worth seeing), I think the wider issue of who can or does know their faith is another place that is worth exploring. In one of my favorite books of all time, Journey Back to Eden by Benedictine monk Mark Gruber, the young Gruber visits an old Egyptian monk in his cave outside of Deir el-Baramous (the Monastery of the Romans), one of the Coptic monasteries of the Egyptian desert, and asks the old man for a word that he might ponder in order to gain spiritual insight. The monk tells him: “Our faith is easy, as simple as the alphabet.” Not understanding, Gruber returns the next day to ask for clarification. The monk continues: “In the ancient tongue, alpha means ‘eagle’. It is the bird of heaven, that which represents God – transcendent, over all. Beta is the Hebrew word, we hear it in the name ‘Bethel’; it means ‘house, home’ – the place in which we are familiar, comfortable, in control, the place where we live out our lives day to day. But these two words, so opposite, have been conjoined: ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’, because in Christ Jesus, heaven is wedded to earth. Christ is the Word made flesh to dwell among us, to pitch His tent in our midst. We are not estranged anymore. This is easy; this is simple. Every child knows the alphabet, and so can any heart accept our faith.”

This is what I believe, too, and I have argued for the simplicity of faith before using the same passage here on CAF. If memory serves me, my Catholic interlocutor at that time said I was comparing a simple, rustic monastic faith to the developed and brilliant intellects of Rome, and hence it was this natural difference that lead me to believe that there was more of a difference between the Orthodox and Rome than there really is. After all, Catholic monks live simply, as films like “Into Great Silence” (about the Carthusians) show. But that is missing the point, which is that in Orthodoxy there is no such separation or distinction. We do not live as monks because we are still in the world (there are no “secular orders” as in RCism), but there is no one better to explain the faith, in the simplest, most immediate and useful way. As it was in the days of the Desert Fathers, it still is today.

So I am afraid that I do not agree that there are better people than us. There are certainly theologians, and even people who you might call “professional theologians”, but by and large the people know their faith. There are new struggles to maintain that same level of knowledge in the lands of immigration (e.g., Coptic youth attending Protestant praise meetings; Lord have mercy!), but if you ever have a chance to search the web for translated videos or transcripts of HH Pope Shenouda’s III weekly address/Q&A, you will see how everyone, including the farmer and the teenager and everyone in between, hangs on the very plain and simple exposition of this deep man of faith. It is by this same method, analogous to the experiences in the monasteries, that I myself am being instructed at the feet of our priests Fr. Marcus and Fr. Philemon, but also (significantly) by the grandmothers and aunts of the church, the young doctors and students, and even the children, who never miss a chance to discuss and learn, and prostrate and worship.

We can’t say we have learned when we know all the histories, controversies, and traditions, as though the faith is akin to swallowing massive amounts of information. Those things are definitely important and worth learning, but liturgy, fasting, and prayer do more for us than all of the libraries of the Vatican and all of the monasteries of the world put together. I believe I’ve heard Eastern Orthodox put this distinction in terms like “The one who does theology well is the one who prays well.” For Latins, I like their phrasing even better than that: “Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi” (the law of prayer is the law of belief). This is Orthodoxy…in my humble opinion. 😉

Pax tecum! Christus resurrexit!
 
While I purposely stay out of Christological debates with Chalcedonians (they never go anywhere worth seeing), I think the wider issue of who can or does know their faith is another place that illustrates just how far we are from sharing the same mindset and faith. In one of my favorite books of all time, Journey Back to Eden by Benedictine monk Mark Gruber, the young Gruber visits an old Egyptian monk in his cave outside of Deir el-Baramous (the Monastery of the Romans), one of the Coptic monasteries of the Egyptian desert, and asks the old man for a word that he might ponder in order to gain spiritual insight. The monk tells him: “Our faith is easy, as simple as the alphabet.” Not understanding, Gruber returns the next day to ask for clarification. The monk continues: “In the ancient tongue, alpha means ‘eagle’. It is the bird of heaven, that which represents God – transcendent, over all. Beta is the Hebrew word, we hear it in the name ‘Bethel’; it means ‘house, home’ – the place in which we are familiar, comfortable, in control, the place where we live out our lives day to day. But these two words, so opposite, have been conjoined: ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’, because in Christ Jesus, heaven is wedded to earth. Christ is the Word made flesh to dwell among us, to pitch His tent in our midst. We are not estranged anymore. This is easy; this is simple. Every child knows the alphabet, and so can any heart accept our faith.”
That is just plain beautiful, my brother! I don’t think I have ever seen the incarnation explained quite so simply and profoundly all at once! I’d say that the simplicity and profundity of the language itself reflects the nature of the incarnation - The inaccessible being made accessible by being explained in the simplest ways.

I agree that intellectual discussions alone do not suffice. And I have the deepest respect for the ascetism and prayer of the East and Orient. No way to deny that the average Catholic is in some serious poverty with regards to the lived faith in the sense of which you are speaking. We have lots- No…tonnes! to learn. There’s a Coptic Church in my city that I’ve been meaning to visit- I’m thinking I’ll go to mass Saturday Evening to fulfill the obligation in my Church and then the Coptic liturgy on Sunday as I heard from a friend that it can take the better part of the Sunday morning. There’s an E.O Church here as well, but to be quite honest, I’m scared to attend because I fear to meet with polemicism or hostility towards me or my Church, that is if the internet is any indication to go by. Most Coptic Christians I’ve met have always expressed an assumption that we are mostly similar and even surprise when they discover how lax/non-existent our asceticism is. Last Lent, my Coptic friend was very surprised when I was eating meat except on Fridays. Him? No meat, no milk, no eggs, no cake (because it had these ingredients) and fasting till 3.00 pm every day. I was very impressed.

I’ll check out that book too- I hope it’s a spiritual book that I can use to my benefit in prayer or general Christian outlook.

Peace!
 
I agree that intellectual discussions alone do not suffice. And I have the deepest respect for the ascetism and prayer of the East and Orient. No way to deny that the average Catholic is in some serious poverty with regards to the lived faith in the sense of which you are speaking.
One of my fondest memories of my time in the Catholic church was visiting the Benedictine monastery on the Oregon coast, a few hours from where I used to live. There are very serious and dedicated monks in the Catholic church. They just seem hard to find, and sadly their discipline does not guide the spirituality of the Church as a whole as Orthodox monasticism guides and forms Orthodox life.
There’s a Coptic Church in my city that I’ve been meaning to visit- I’m thinking I’ll go to mass Saturday Evening to fulfill the obligation in my Church and then the Coptic liturgy on Sunday as I heard from a friend that it can take the better part of the Sunday morning.
The liturgy of St. Basil (the most commonly celebrated of the three liturgies in use in the Coptic church) takes, on average, somewhere north of three hours, sometimes lasting quite a bit longer if there is some special ceremony for the day. At the church here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the liturgy starts at 8:30 AM and usually runs until about noon or just before. After the liturgy there is the traditional communal ‘agape’ meal, which adds to the time spent in the church. I would advise that you have your day clear until at least the early afternoon hours, especially since as a visitor people will probably be curious and wanting to welcome you and ask you a million questions. 🙂
There’s an E.O Church here as well, but to be quite honest, I’m scared to attend because I fear to meet with polemicism or hostility towards me or my Church, that is if the internet is any indication to go by.
I never had any problems or anything other than a positive experience visiting the local OCA church when I lived in California and was still a Catholic. Generally speaking I would think that the internet would be a bad measure of people in the real world, but even if you do meet some jerks there or in the Coptic church, they’re just jerks. Just like how not everyone in every Catholic church is necessarily very nice. Most are. 🙂 So don’t mind the jerks.
Most Coptic Christians I’ve met have always expressed an assumption that we are mostly similar and even surprise when they discover how lax/non-existent our asceticism is. Last Lent, my Coptic friend was very surprised when I was eating meat except on Fridays. Him? No meat, no milk, no eggs, no cake (because it had these ingredients) and fasting till 3.00 pm every day. I was very impressed.
The Copts, while being very zealous in the defense of their faith, are very welcoming to everyone who wishes to attend their liturgy (do not approach for communion though, please). We have two Jordanian Catholics who regularly attend our liturgy. They say they like it better than the Mass at the local Catholic church, which I think is usually the Latin Novus Ordo. We’ve also had Lutheran and other Western visitors, in addition to the Sudanese Copts and Ethiopian Orthodox (who are in communion with us) who sometimes come. Probably the biggest challenge for Roman Catholics is getting used to the form of chanting common the Coptic tradition, as it is very unique and can be quite difficult to get a handle on if you are used to Gregorian or even Byzantine chant (this is one of the reasons we use the triangle and the cymbal in the church, as they keep the rhythm of the chant; they are not considered “musical accompaniment”). But it is worth approaching with an open mind so that you can experience beauty like this. 🙂

I have heard a story (I don’t know if it’s true or not) that when Pope Shenouda III first visited Pope Benedict (the first Coptic Pope to visit his Roman counterpart in centuries) they talked about the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity, and Pope Shenouda was surprised that Westerners didn’t fast. The idea of being Christian without at least attempting to fast is very strange to the Copts, as I’m sure it is also to the EO. The Copts fast for over 200 days of the year (I don’t know how many exactly, but we just finished the 55 day Lenten fast, and we fast every Wednesday and Friday during “ordinary time”, and there is more that I can’t remember now), maintaining one of the strictest fasting regiments in all of Christianity. I think maybe the Ethiopians out-fast us a little bit, but I can’t remember for sure.

I had not heard that 3pm is a minimum for fasting, though I know it is common. Our priests have told me that if it is possible, it is good to fast from Midnight to the setting of the sun in the following evening, so I try to fast until sometime after 5pm. It is not a necessary discipline, just recommended as an aid to spiritual fitness. The Coptic Church is very pragmatic about these things. I have also been told by those same priests not to fast, because when I first tried I was not prepared and it made me sick. It really does take discipline to do properly and wisely.
I’ll check out that book too- I hope it’s a spiritual book that I can use to my benefit in prayer or general Christian outlook.
It’s a great book! It is actually the transcripted, edited version of Gruber’s diary that he kept during a year-long stay in various monasteries in the Egyptian desert in the late 1980s, when he was doing academic research on Coptic monasticism. I’ve talked to Coptic friends about it and Catholic friends about it, and they all love it.
 
Did you not read my subsequent post, Mary? That was an afterthought thrown in as a courtesy to your church and the fact that many do believe that they and the Orthodox share the same faith. That’s not what matters. My personal experiences or your personal experiences or anyone’s personal experiences are not what determine the Orthodoxy or lack thereof of any other church outside of Orthodoxy. What they believe and how they practice what they believe does. Or, in short, as I have been saying since the beginning: Whether they share the same faith is what is paramount. If Rome truly did share the Orthodox faith again, I’m sure the Orthodox would recognize it and, with the necessary precautionary measures satisfied (i.e., Rome repudiating its errors and not returning to them), welcome Rome and all in her who are similarly disposed back to communion with great joy and rejoicing. BUT that’s never going to happen if you think you’re already essentially there. You’re not. This is not a controversial position, and it’s certainly not a matter of personal opinion. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read what the various bishops and other learned men of the Orthodox church have to say in their own words. Here is one of my favorites to get you started, a transcription of an address given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew delivered at Georgetown University. While I am not Eastern Orthodox, I agree with his essential point that we are ontologically different.
Dizzy,

I read the entire discourse 3 times and find nothing there that describes what is said to be an ontologic difference other than stating that there is a difference. Everything that is said there could be said of any Catholic Church as it regards the notion of transmission. While there is stated to be some notion of difference it is never defined. I found the expression of transmission of faith from generation, mystery, grace, expression all compatible and not distasteful. While you may agree with the notion of ontologic difference this document does not define that difference, it actually comes closer to declaring similarity.🙂
 
This gets into all sorts of questions about what it means to be infallible. Do you mean by infallibility that a council which fits certain criteria is automatically protected from error by the Holy Spirit? Then no, the Orthodox do not believe that. If by infallibility, you mean that a council’s dogmatic definitions cannot lead people into error, then we do not believe in that either, for the Chalcedonian definition can be understood in a heretical manner as well as in an Orthodox manner. If by infallibility, you mean that the Church will nor err in its faith, then yes, we believe this, but with the cautionary note that this process happens over time, not within the context of a single council or point in time.
 
Dizzy,

I read the entire discourse 3 times and find nothing there that describes what is said to be an ontologic difference other than stating that there is a difference. Everything that is said there could be said of any Catholic Church as it regards the notion of transmission. While there is stated to be some notion of difference it is never defined. I found the expression of transmission of faith from generation, mystery, grace, expression all compatible and not distasteful. While you may agree with the notion of ontologic difference this document does not define that difference, it actually comes closer to declaring similarity.🙂
Well, yes, I would think that you have to see it as compatible, or else you couldn’t be Catholic. Perhaps the point is better made by an old Russian joke I once heard years ago: During the “space race” between the United States and the Soviets in the 1950s, both sides were spurred on to technical innovation by looking at what the other side did and trying to exceed it, so when the Russians sent Laika, a dog, into space, the Americans became determined to send a person, as that would prove their technological superiority and hence the superiority of their way of life in comparison to Russia’s communism. But sending people into space presented some challenges, such as how the person would be able to write things down in zero gravity, such as the measurements from the various instrument panels that would need to be monitored to ensure the success of the mission. Consumed with scientific curiosity about this problem, the Americans spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in the lab, testing and re-testing until they invented a pen that could write in zero gravity without losing its ink. The Russian response to the American scientific marvel? They used a pencil.

Now that your sides are done splitting, I assume you would reply, if you looked at this joke as you’ve looked at EP Bartholomew’s address, by saying something like “See! They both used a writing implement! The pen and the pencil are directly comparable/analogous”, and indeed, in a sense you’d be right. But it’s not the end result/goal or whatever else in the two situations that is directly comparable that reveals the difference between the two people – it’s how each side respectively got there. As the EP points out, there are many things that would held in common by both sides of the divide as important or necessary, but it is a matter of overall mode of being, of mindset. I wrote earlier in this thread the faith of the modern or post-Great Schism Catholic saints is transparently not the same as that of the Orthodox saints. I believe that this is true, and not an accident or a matter of little consequence. It is a testament to the fact that when you begin with different religious, cultural, or other presuppositions (which come about as a result of different modes of being), even if you are working towards or talking about the same thing (union with Christ or a similar goal), you will end up in vastly different places, spiritually and ontologically. That’s natural, as the EP has said. We are on different trajectories, after all.

During part of the Coptic Orthodox Holy Week that has just ended, we read from the book of Revelations, and each vision of the spirit was interspersed with the congregational response “He who has ears, let him hear, what the spirit says unto the churches”. It got me thinking: This vast difference in the life of the two churches that I have been in over the past decade reflects a different spirit that is nurtured in both of them. We have one where fasting, for instance, is taken as an extraordinary obedience and another where it is simply life – in other words, you do it because it is what you do (in the same sense that you would not consider your breath or your heartbeat to be extraordinary acts on the part of your body; they are, rather, in the most basic sense, your life). This is but one example (and I’m sure it could be easily disputed, and probably will be), but it and many others show a vastly different mode of being on the part of Orthodox and Catholics. It is nothing that you could not recover, but there would need to be an ontological change on your part. You’d need to go back to the pencil, so to speak.
 
Hardly.

The “debate” from earlier in this thread about whether or not Saint Peter was the first “bishop of Rome” was pure semantics, for the reasons I explained.
thanks

i think i got proselytizing and people converting of their will mixed up…

but for people who do convert to either side i wonder if it usually took some influence from the other side

Like when i converted to EO years ago ,my greek friend/sponser didnt encourage me to stay where i was at RC,he was all for me converting to EO,as was his greek priest also

isnt there rules/statements about not converting the other side,shouldnt both sides encourage and send the person back to his original church and not ‘steal’ them?

God bless
I can’t imagine either church would refuse converts for ecumenism’s sake. That would be going too far.
If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them?
Breaking communion with the eastern Catholic churches in an attempt to force them back into their mother churches would be a disaster, and incredibly disrespectful toward eastern Catholics. Many eastern Catholics - the Ukrainians come to mind most readily - have literally suffered and died for their commitment to communion with Rome. Rome owes them better treatment than that.
normally if i steal something,first its good to realise my wrong and decide to stop and then a noble thing to do would to give what ive stolen back to the owner:blush:
Eastern Catholics are people, not objects. They are orthodox and want to be in communion with Rome, and so Rome has no right to deny them this.

Besides, as I said, not all eastern Catholic churches were formed in the manner both churches now denounce. The Melkites weren’t formed that way. The Maronites weren’t formed that way. Some eastern Catholic churches (Chaldean and Syro-Malabar) actually now contain the vast majority of Christians of their tradition (in those cases, Assyrian Christianity).

Dissolving the eastern Catholic churches is a pipe dream. It will never happen. How could it? They don’t want to leave, so the only way to break communion would be for Rome to cut them off, which cannot validly happen as they have done no wrong.
So then the problem is with the conclusion of the theory (that Anglicanism is a branch on the tree), but not with the underlying premise?
No, your instinct is correct - the Anglican branch theory is flawed in principle.
The Orthodox Church, and I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church as well, disagree with point one.
Indeed.
Is it branch theory to say that other Christians are imperfectly united to the Church through baptism? My little “theory” above was not meant to say that every “Church” is a part of the true Church, but rather that every Christian outside the communion with Rome (The people) are imperfectly united with her in differing degrees. I think there’s a difference between the two and that it is the first one (The Churches are part of the one Church) that is branch theory (heresy). But if I’m wrong feel free to correct me, the thoughts expressed are just attempts at reconciling the paradoxical truths taught in Christianity. But I don’t think they are too far off, IMHO.
No, you’re completely correct, Marybeloved. 🙂

What you said follows necessarily from Catholic teaching:

We believe that Christ’s Church on earth, as a visible institution, subsists in the Catholic Church specifically. But

… the Orthodox (both eastern and oriental) and a few other churches have valid Sacraments, and thus are also true churches even in the Catholic sense of the word

… and Protestants who are Nicene Christians have a valid baptism, which is what makes one part of the Church to begin with.

So obviously they’re outside the visible Church, and yet because of the above facts it’s impossible that they are totally outside it in the same way a non-Christian would be. Self-evidently, non-Catholic Christians have access to grace through faith in the Lord Jesus and through (at least one of) His Sacraments.
Actually, I believe you are right. Rome does teach the Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of Christ and all true particular churches outside its visible confines are called to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. Still, the Church does teach that all Chirstians outside her confines are linked in some way to the Church.
👍
But since Orthodox have valid sacraments, and hence they have a real Church, and since there is only one Church – Catholics and Orthodox are part fo the same church from a Catholic perspective.
It’s not really true, though, that from a Catholic perspective “there is only one Church.”

Technically, every diocese is its own church. The Catholic Church is the communion of true churches that are in communion with each other and with the Church of Rome.
.
I’m with Vico, Marybeloved and Art321 on this one.
 
The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I’ve been in both; I am speaking from experience).
I agree with you that we’re not the same church, but concerning this point… I don’t believe you. Arguments from one’s own personal experience are pretty useless, because people’s experience differs.

Mardukm, who was Coptic Orthodox and entered the Coptic Catholic Church, says he translated precisely because he discovered that we do have the same faith.

I guess the rest of us are left to judge between positions based on the merits of each one’s respective arguments.
Not to be snide, but for as much as the Orthodox might tell Catholics what they believe, the Catholics are definitely guilty of returning the favor. Catholics, for example love telling us that we must believe in everything that was decided upon by the synod of Jerusalem as proof that Orthodox teaching has changed (while seemingly passing over discrepancies between the current CCC and older catechisms like the Baltimore catechism), without taking time to research how the Orthodox understand the relationship between councils and the truth.
A most just point. We Catholics are indeed sometimes guilty of this.
 
I can’t imagine either church would refuse converts for ecumenism’s sake. That would be going too far.
At this point it certainly would, but I can see us possibly being in such an arrangement in the far, far distant future.

Consider that one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and one of the miaphysite (OO) Churches are there now: In 1991 both sides decided on (among other things) “The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.”
 
Well, yes, I would think that you have to see it as compatible, or else you couldn’t be Catholic. Perhaps the point is better made by an old Russian joke I once heard years ago: During the “space race” between the United States and the Soviets in the 1950s, both sides were spurred on to technical innovation by looking at what the other side did and trying to exceed it, so when the Russians sent Laika, a dog, into space, the Americans became determined to send a person, as that would prove their technological superiority and hence the superiority of their way of life in comparison to Russia’s communism. But sending people into space presented some challenges, such as how the person would be able to write things down in zero gravity, such as the measurements from the various instrument panels that would need to be monitored to ensure the success of the mission. Consumed with scientific curiosity about this problem, the Americans spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in the lab, testing and re-testing until they invented a pen that could write in zero gravity without losing its ink. The Russian response to the American scientific marvel? They used a pencil.
To quote a famous Russian ambassador, “There were those of us who fought against it. But in the end, we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race.”
 
I agree with you that we’re not the same church, but concerning this point… I don’t believe you. Arguments from one’s own personal experience are pretty useless, because people’s experience differs.
Once again, as I explained to Marybeloved, I included that as a courtesy to your church. I suppose next time I should be less courteous. The real proof, as I explained to her, is in the respective life of each church, as borne out in their practice of the faith, their respective theological, ecclesiological, and other stances, all of which are verifiable independent of any one individuals’ experience in the church, as they are found in the writings of their Patriarchs, saints, priests, etc. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can read them yourself. Better yet, you can attend an Orthodox church and see for yourself.
Mardukm, who was Coptic Orthodox and entered the Coptic Catholic Church, says he translated precisely because he discovered that we do have the same faith.
So what? And I left RCism because we don’t have the same faith. Mardukm is wrong, as I would suspect that he and you and probably most RCs would say that I am wrong for believing that the RC church is not keeping the faith of the apostles. This proves nothing.
 
So what? And I left RCism because we don’t have the same faith. Mardukm is wrong, as I would suspect that he and you and probably most RCs would say that I am wrong for believing that the RC church is not keeping the faith of the apostles. This proves nothing.
That, presumably, was his point: that your experience and Mardukm’s are just that, your experiences and no more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top