Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Art321]

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.

**If I am reading this correctly, how was the Church of Rome the same in comparsion to the Orthodox churches before the Great Schism?

From what others have posted here on the forms, the Church of Rome was different in its theology, litergies, etc and yet it had full communion with the Orthodox churches.

I believe I read somewhere that Rome believes that both the Church of the West and East with time, came to express the true faith in different ways yet still one wasn’t better than the other because of this.

In Catholicism, one finds the different expressions of the faith from the West and East coming together as it was before this whole situation came about. But this is just how I see it.**

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.

Of course, I disagree with you. Every faithful Catholic believes that the Catholic faith as it is now is as genunine, true, and real as it was with the ECF’s. I don’t see the point of debating this since we both know it will turn into a flame war.

 

[twf]

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 agree that there are ontological differences on certain key points. One would be the role of the papacy - that is a given. Another would be the nature of sacramental marriage and the Church’s authority to grant divorces. These differences can not be explained away. That being said, I strongly believe, as do many other Catholics, both Latin and Eastern, that many of the differences highlighted by certain Orthodox Christians and even bishops can be reconciled if understood properly - there have historically been a lot of misunderstandings on both sides. Marduk has often pointed out that Eastern polemics/apologetics blatantly misunderstand much of Latin teaching and when properly understood many “controversial” Latin doctrines can be understood in a way that the East does not find offensive - at least as far as Eastern and Oriental Catholics are concerned. One example would be original sin. This issue has been discussed to death on this board so I will not get into it right now (anyone could simply do a forum search to look up lengthy historical threads), but many Eastern polemics that I have read insist that they reject the concept of all mankind inheriting the personal guilt of Adam’s sin and use this premise to reject the Latin doctrine of original sin. The reality is that Latins also reject this concept…this is clearly a case of certain parties not understanding what the Latin Church actually believes. Often the faith of the West or of the East is expressed using theological language and constructs that the other party simply doesn’t understand and thus we talk past each other. Often the Latin Church is accused of not sharing the Eastern belief in theosis…which is absurd…the doctrine may be formulated differently, but a casual reading of the texts of the mass and the Liturgy of the Hours, or the catechism for that matter, would make it abundantly clear that the idea that we, through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, are given a true share in the divinity of Christ is absolutely central to Latin spirituality. By the mingling of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

You are entering the Coptic Church. That being the case, I am sure that you are aware of the common Christological agreement that was signed between Rome and Alexandria after 1500 years of denouncing the other’s Christological doctrine as heretical? With that in mind, how can you be so certain that other issues can’t be likewise resolved? That’s an excellent example of a common underlining faith being expressed using different theological language which led to centuries of misunderstandings and miscommunications…
Within the Catholic communion, Latin, Eastern, and Oriental theology exist in unity and as far as Rome and the Eastern Catholic patriarchs are concerned, our faith is essential one - though our theology varies. This isn’t a problem for the Catholic Church as even within the Latin Church various theologies co-exist. St. Teresa articulates the faith very differently from St. Thomas Aquinas, yet both are honored as Doctors of the Latin Church.

You refer to the Catholic Church vs the Orthodox Church - I assume by the latter you mean the Oriental Orthodox communion rather than the Eastern Orthodox communion? You also reference Patriarch Bartholomew - while I (and the Pope of Rome) disagree with his comment, are you suggesting that the faith of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are one, while the faith of the Catholic Church is something else entirely? Or do you feel that there are also ontological differences between the Eastern and Oriental Churches?

 

[dzheremi]

That, presumably, was his point: that your experience and Mardukm’s are just that, your experiences and no more.

Of course. I’d never say anything else. My point is more that people are focusing on that small clause that isn’t meant to be making any kind of argument, only to say that I have had experience in both churches.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree that there are ontological differences on certain key points. One would be the role of the papacy - that is a given. Another would be the nature of sacramental marriage and the Church’s authority to grant divorces. These differences can not be explained away.

These are not questions of ontology, though. Ontology is being (existence).

That being said, I strongly believe, as do many other Catholics, both Latin and Eastern, that many of the differences highlighted by certain Orthodox Christians and even bishops can be reconciled if understood properly - there have historically been a lot of misunderstandings on both sides.

Recognizing the ontological difference between the two would make it obvious why clearing up supposed “misunderstandings” will not accomplish much. I already know that Rome and Constantinople (or whoever) don’t understand each other as either understands themselves. That doesn’t tell us much.

You are entering the Coptic Church. That being the case, I am sure that you are aware of the common Christological agreement that was signed between Rome and Alexandria after 1500 years of denouncing the other’s Christological doctrine as heretical? With that in mind, how can you be so certain that other issues can’t be likewise resolved? That’s an excellent example of a common underlining faith being expressed using different theological language which led to centuries of misunderstandings and miscommunications…

Personally, I don’t think that this issue has been “resolved”, either. It is a big deal for the Latins, not so much for the Copts. Believe me…you want to hear real talk about non-Chalcedonian vs. Chalcedonian Christology, I welcome you to visit us here at St. Pishoy and ask Fr. Marcus and Fr. Philemon what they think about the Tome of Leo. You’ll probably regret it and see the common agreement in a whole new light.

You refer to the Catholic Church vs the Orthodox Church - I assume by the latter you mean the Oriental Orthodox communion rather than the Eastern Orthodox communion? You also reference Patriarch Bartholomew - while I (and the Pope of Rome) disagree with his comment, are you suggesting that the faith of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are one, while the faith of the Catholic Church is something else entirely? Or do you feel that there are also ontological differences between the Eastern and Oriental Churches?

I’m not suggesting anything beyond thinking that EP Bartholomew is making a good point. The differences between the EO and OO and the dialogues or polemics found between them don’t really concern your church. I stay away from them myself. I do not see them, personally, as one church, but I do think that they are closer to one another than any other two communions. Of the fractures of world Christianity, I think that the OO-EO divide has the best chance of being healed, though I don’t think that it would happen in my lifetime.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Dizzy,

I see your perspective as a cup 1/2 empty and mine is a cup 1/2 full. The cup is the cup and the perspective is the perspective. I wasn’t thinking of quills, pens, pencils, charcoal or any such thing. I was wondering how the word “ontologic” is seen and perhaps after that I may see what you are talking about. I have my own ideas.

 

[dzheremi]

Dizzy,

I see your perspective as a cup 1/2 empty and mine is a cup 1/2 full. The cup is the cup and the perspective is the perspective. I wasn’t thinking of quills, pens, pencils, charcoal or any such thing. I was wondering how the word “ontologic” is seen and perhaps after that I may see what you are talking about. I have my own ideas.

Oh. Ontology is the study of being/existence, so when EP Bartholomew says we are “ontologically different” I take it to mean that we have different modes of being as Christians. Not that Orthodox are “real” and others not or anything like that, but that being a Christian in the Orthodox way is fundamentally different than the way of being a Catholic Christian. I agree with this idea.

I likewise wasn’t thinking of cups or their fullness. In ontological terms, the cup exists for you but not for me. For me there is no cup. Only maybe water.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I can’t imagine either church would refuse converts for ecumenism’s sake. That would be going too far.

.

This Balamand statement was what i had in mind

here are some notes from it-
Does this help with what weve been talking about?

---

Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as “to bring them back” to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of “the separated brethren” it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.

---

1. On the other hand certain civil authorities made attempts to bring Eastern Catholics back to the Church of their fathers. To achieve this end, they did not hesitate, when the occasion was given, to use unacceptable means.
   **
2. Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of “missionary apostolate” described above, and which has been called “uniatism”, can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

1. In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.
2. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

***15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. ***There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

1. The Eastern Catholic Churches, who have desired to re-establish full communion with the See of Rome and have remained faithful to it, have the rights and obligations which are connected with this communion. The principles determining their attitude towards Orthodox Churches are those which have been stated by the Second Vatican Council and have been put into practice by the Popes who have clarified the practical consequences flowing from these principles in various documents published since then. These Churches, then, should be inserted, on both local and universal levels, into the dialogue of love, in mutual respect and reciprocal trust found once again, and enter into the theological dialogue, with all its practical implications.

2**2) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop. **

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh. Ontology is the study of being/existence, so when EP Bartholomew says we are “ontologically different” I take it to mean that we have different modes of being as Christians. Not that Orthodox are “real” and others not or anything like that, but that being a Christian in the Orthodox way is fundamentally different than the way of being a Catholic Christian. I agree with this idea.

I likewise wasn’t thinking of cups or their fullness. In ontological terms, the cup exists for you but not for me. For me there is no cup. Only maybe water.

Dizzy,

I found this quote of Aquinas that says pretty much the same thing. While you see no cup only water and I see a cup 1/2 full and not 1/2 empty…I have no dispute with water as water. Waterhas no form other than that which it may be given through container, temperature, or pressure…water is water. I recall a interview with Bruce Lee trying to explain his philosophy and the martial arts and he used the example of water and how it flows…his final words…“be water my friend”

"Many things which sound well enough in Greek do not perhaps sound well in Latin. Hence, Latins and Greeks professing the same faith do so using different words. For among the Greeks it is said, correctly, and in a Catholic way, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three hypostases. But with the Latins it does not sound right to say that there are three substantiae, even though on a purely verbal basis the term hypostasis in Greek means the same as the term substantia in Latin. The fact is, substantia in Latin is more frequently used to signify essence. And both we and the Greeks hold that in God there is but one essence. So where the Greeks speak of three hypostases, we Latins speak of three personae, as Augustine in the seventh book on the Trinity also teaches. And, doubtless, there are many similar instances.

“It is, therefore, the task of the good translator, when translating material dealing with the Catholic faith, to preserve the meaning, but to adapt the mode of expression so that it is in harmony with the idiom of the language into which he is translating. For obviously, when anything spoken in a literary fashion in Latin is explained in common parlance, the explanation will be inept if it is simply word for word. All the more so, when anything expressed in one language is translated merely word for word into another, it will be no surprise if perplexity concerning the meaning of the original sometimes occurs.”

 

[Celticnovice]

Oh. Ontology is the study of being/existence, so when EP Bartholomew says we are “ontologically different” I take it to mean that we have different modes of being as Christians. Not that Orthodox are “real” and others not or anything like that, but that being a Christian in the Orthodox way is fundamentally different than the way of being a Catholic Christian. I agree with this idea.

I likewise wasn’t thinking of cups or their fullness. In ontological terms, the cup exists for you but not for me. For me there is no cup. Only maybe water.

This seems like scholasticism to me…

 

[dzheremi]

As you like it, Celtic Novice.

 

[Celticnovice]

As you like it, Celtic Novice.

HA! (You saw what I did there)

 

[Vico]

Is the more recent statement from SCOBA pertinent to what orthodoxy means?

Steps Towards A Reunited Church: A Sketch Of An Orthdox-Catholic Vision For The Future.

scoba.us/articles/2855.html

 

[dzheremi]

Dizzy,

I found this quote of Aquinas that says pretty much the same thing.

Similar points have been made regarding the disagreement of the non-Chalcedonians with the Christological formula presented by the Tome of Leo, as for the Copts “nature” is generally taken to be associated with personhood (I’ve had all this explained to me through second-language English speakers, so there may be a better way to put it, but this will have to do for now), so to say that Christ is “in two natures” is strange, and violates in some sense the pre-existing Christology of St. Cyril that the Copts and others clung to in the face of the Chalcedonians. As St. Cyril wrote in one of his letters to Nestorius, to refute Nestorius’ heretical notions:

“If anyone distributes between two characters or persons the expressions used about Christ in the gospels, and apostolic writings …] applying some to the human being, conceived of separately, apart from the Word, …] and others exclusively to the Word, let them be condemned.”

Comparing that to the following passage from the Tome, it’s easy to see why the OO do not accept it:

“Each nature performs its proper functions in communion with the other; the Word performs what pertains to the Word, the flesh what pertains to the flesh. The one is resplendent with miracles, the other submits to insults.”

Does that mean that there are necessarily translation issues to be worked out between all of us (OO, EO, and RC)? I think that is is probably safe to say yes, there are. But so long as the above of Leo’s Tome is affirmed, the OO will not go for it, as it violates the sense by which the OO understand St. Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius (and, really, I know I’m biased, but I don’t there is wiggle room here, so clear are St. Cyril’s words). It is, in their minds, the triumph of Nestorianism over Orthodox Christology (as I have heard EO say that the Cyrilian Christology of the OO is but veiled Euchtyanism). I suspect that the potentially heretical understandings of “filioque clause” might be treated similarly by the EO in discussion with the RC. Neither the filioque nor Leo’s Tome lend themselves to exact or Orthodox exposition to those whose theological languages and traditions are not shared or not employed in the same way as those of their interlocutors. So I think the real answer to all these “argumentis ex interpretatio” is to recognize, as I know many EO already do with reference to the Tome, that there is problematic language here, and so long as there is the possibility of understanding them in a non-Orthodox way, those who continue to condemn what they see as unacceptable additions to the faith (whether we’re talking about the Tome, the Filioque, the post-Schism developments of the RC, or whatever) are justified so long as that potential for heresy remains. The language of all of these things could be changed, of course, so as to remove some doubts (ex. “per filium” instead of “filioque”, if, as my old FOC insisted, the disputed addition to the creed really means “through the Son”). You may, in fact, see considerable progress in ecumenical relations at that point. But then of course it would cease to be what it is (i.e., it wouldn’t be the “filioque” anymore, it wouldn’t be the Tome of Leo anymore, etc., and of course you keep these things because you find them orthodox to begin with, so why should you change them?).

There are no easy answers, but simply saying “we’re saying the same thing in different language” doesn’t cut it.

(…And I’m not just a curmudgeon, I’m also a linguist! )

 

[CopticChristian]

Similar points have been made regarding the disagreement of the non-Chalcedonians with the Christological formula presented by the Tome of Leo, as for the Copts “nature” is generally taken to be associated with personhood (I’ve had all this explained to me through second-language English speakers, so there may be a better way to put it, but this will have to do for now), so to say that Christ is “in two natures” is strange, and violates in some sense the pre-existing Christology of St. Cyril that the Copts and others clung to in the face of the Chalcedonians. As St. Cyril wrote in one of his letters to Nestorius, to refute Nestorius’ heretical notions:

“If anyone distributes between two characters or persons the expressions used about Christ in the gospels, and apostolic writings …] applying some to the human being, conceived of separately, apart from the Word, …] and others exclusively to the Word, let them be condemned.”

Comparing that to the following passage from the Tome, it’s easy to see why the OO do not accept it:

“Each nature performs its proper functions in communion with the other; the Word performs what pertains to the Word, the flesh what pertains to the flesh. The one is resplendent with miracles, the other submits to insults.”

Does that mean that there are necessarily translation issues to be worked out between all of us (OO, EO, and RC)? I think that is is probably safe to say yes, there are. But so long as the above of Leo’s Tome is affirmed, the OO will not go for it, as it violates the sense by which the OO understand St. Cyril’s condemnation of Nestorius (and, really, I know I’m biased, but I don’t there is wiggle room here, so clear are St. Cyril’s words). It is, in their minds, the triumph of Nestorianism over Orthodox Christology (as I have heard EO say that the Cyrilian Christology of the OO is but veiled Euchtyanism). I suspect that the potentially heretical understandings of “filioque clause” might be treated similarly by the EO in discussion with the RC. Neither the filioque nor Leo’s Tome lend themselves to exact or Orthodox exposition to those whose theological languages and traditions are not shared or not employed in the same way as those of their interlocutors. So I think the real answer to all these “argumentis ex interpretatio” is to recognize, as I know many EO already do with reference to the Tome, that there is problematic language here, and so long as there is the possibility of understanding them in a non-Orthodox way, those who continue to condemn what they see as unacceptable additions to the faith (whether we’re talking about the Tome, the Filioque, the post-Schism developments of the RC, or whatever) are justified so long as that potential for heresy remains. The language of all of these things could be changed, of course, so as to remove some doubts (ex. “per filium” instead of “filioque”, if, as my old FOC insisted, the disputed addition to the creed really means “through the Son”). You may, in fact, see considerable progress in ecumenical relations at that point. But then of course it would cease to be what it is (i.e., it wouldn’t be the “filioque” anymore, it wouldn’t be the Tome of Leo anymore, etc., and of course you keep these things because you find them orthodox to begin with, so why should you change them?).

There are no easy answers, but simply saying “we’re saying the same thing in different language” doesn’t cut it.

(…And I’m not just a curmudgeon, I’m also a linguist! )

Dizzy,

I am not saying that you are saying the same thing in different languages. I was just providing a perspective. I understand that to the EO the OO are hertics. I understand that the EO take offense to the OO being called Orthodox and I am Ok with that. I understand that what is seen from the Western perspective is different than what is seen from the Eastern perspective. I understand that the manner in which the EO understand and interpret through Traidition is different. I am Ok with that too.

The bottom line is that in your head, in my head is what I understand to be what we call common Faith and unfortunately I am not an EO contemplative reader of the Fathers however I appreciate it, nor am I a Western well versed theologian…and I appreciate that. In our heads are some understanding of what we experience by what we see and what we practice…you, I and every other Christian that worships in the Eucharistic sacrifice, may not give it a name, may not understand it, and yet we all unite at one table…for there is only One Lord…

 

[dzheremi]

Dizzy,

I am not saying that you are saying the same thing in different languages. I was just providing a perspective.

Oh, I know. That was more musing on what Thomas Aquinas seemed to be saying about the differences between the Greeks and the Latins. I agree that there are such differences, but don’t think that asserting (as Aquinas does in the quote you gave) that they have the same faith, but express it by different words is necessarily helpful or illuminating.

The bottom line is that in your head, in my head is what I understand to be what we call common Faith and unfortunately I am not an EO contemplative reader of the Fathers however I appreciate it, nor am I a Western well versed theologian…and I appreciate that. In our heads are some understanding of what we experience by what we see and what we practice…you, I and every other Christian that worships in the Eucharistic sacrifice, may not give it a name, may not understand it, and yet we all unite at one table…for there is only One Lord…

Indeed, there is only one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism. Anything else that follows from that might not be so easy to reconcile.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh, I know. That was more musing on what Thomas Aquinas seemed to be saying about the differences between the Greeks and the Latins. I agree that there are such differences, but don’t think that asserting (as Aquinas does in the quote you gave) that they have the same faith, but express it by different words is necessarily helpful or illuminating.

Indeed, there is only one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism. Anything else that follows from that might not be so easy to reconcile.

Dizzy,

You have to start somewhere.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
That, presumably, was his point: that your experience and Mardukm’s are just that, your experiences and no more.

You (and Mardukm as well) will have to forgive us if we’re a bit, shall we say, jaded on this forum. You see, we get a lot of posters here saying “Oh, I know all about ________ , because I used to be one myself.” and similar statements. But this is not to say that your experiences as a Catholic have no informative value.

My point is more that people are focusing on that small clause that isn’t meant to be making any kind of argument, only to say that I have had experience in both churches.

Good point.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Paul theApostle. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, you agree that that’s still allowing people to switch sides, right?

Having said that, I agree that #22 is very significant.

This Balamand statement was what i had in mind
…
22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

 

[Apotheoun]

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Cardinal Kasper:

OSV: “The Russian Orthodox does not accept that the Roman Catholic Church, the Latin rite Church can evangelize in Russia.”

Cardinal Kasper: "This problem is linked with the Russian Orthodox understanding of their canonical territory. The Catholic Church recognizes that Russia has a longstanding Christian tradition and culture. We recognize all the sacraments, the episcopate and the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thus, while Catholic Christians living in Russia may clearly give witness of their Catholic faith, there cannot be an evangelization as such, as this can only be undertaken in a pagan context. Therefore, it is not our policy or strategy to convert the Orthodox to the Catholic Church. There may be some priests who do something imprudent – you can never exclude such a thing – but this is not the Catholic Church’s policy. We do not undertake missionary work in Russia as we do in the pagan regions of the world. We want to collaborate with the Russian Orthodox in missionary work and in evangelization, which is needed in modern Russia after more then 70 years of atheistic propaganda and education.

If one member of the Orthodox faithful, by reason of his or her conscience, wants to become Catholic, we cannot shut the door to that person. There are also Catholics who become Orthodox. This is a question of religious freedom, and we have to recognize and to respect it from both sides."

 

[Apotheoun]

Oh. Ontology is the study of being/existence, so when EP Bartholomew says we are “ontologically different” I take it to mean that we have different modes of being as Christians. Not that Orthodox are “real” and others not or anything like that, but that being a Christian in the Orthodox way is fundamentally different than the way of being a Catholic Christian. I agree with this idea.

I agree. In Eastern Orthodox theology being corresponds to energy, and energy concerns the mode, manner, or way in which a particular thing (in this case a person, i.e., a disciple of Christ) exists.