Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Wisely]

Many of my Orthodox acquaintances speak as though the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox are the ones who going to unite, not the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics.

I was kidding lol. Of course it is more likely the Orthodox and the Orientals are going to unite first.

 

[Peter_J]

I was kidding lol. Of course it is more likely the Orthodox and the Orientals are going to unite first.

“Of course”? That’s easy for you to say.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How so? You can actually see it quite clearly if you spend time in Orthodox churches and in Catholic churches, talking to Orthodox priests and Catholic priests, reading Orthodox sources and Catholic sources, etc.

I have read Orthodox sources; I love them and often prefer them to some Catholic sources I have known longer. In addition, things I often hear from Catholic priests lately remind me of what is said by Orthodox people I’ve spoken with and Orthodox works or articles that I’ve read…

Again, this doesn’t disprove your point. People’s experience’s differ; I stand by my initial assertion that these *individual *experiences don’t constitute evidence in their own right.

I confess I know few eastern Orthodox believers in real life, but “few” is not “none.”

I don’t see anything vague in the Christianity of the Orthodox or of the Catholics. They’re not vague, they’re different.

I agree. It was your assertion that I found vague (“our faiths are ontologically different”). I wholeheartedly agree that Orthodox Christianity is not vague.

Well, I can’t speak for others on that account, but I think it would be rude for me to call my time in the Roman Catholic Church an example of “bare minimum Catholicism”, or stereotypical. It included visits to monasteries, countless hours in confession and council, home visits, worship in at least three different languages within multiple cultural and ecclesiastical traditions, etc. And I am grateful to have been blessed by God to experience all of those things. I know that, sadly, that is not everyone’s experience of Catholicism (just as not everyone’s experience of Orthodoxy is the same; we’ve had enough one time visitors here to St. Pishoy COC to know that not everyone sees in it the true church). But that also has very little to do with why I now find myself not Catholic anymore. It is not the relative spiritual level or involvement that ultimately made the difference so stark to me, but rather the spirituality itself. That’s what all this mindset/being/ontology stuff is all about. The faith, the spirituality, the way of life…whatever you want to call it, it’s different. We are ontologically different not because we fast more than you do, but because of how it is that we each exist. To go back to the Russian joke, it’s not the pencil vs. the pen, it’s the path to the discovery.

I think I understand this assertion a bit better now. I have a question for you, though.

I have discovered that Orthodox spirituality (I’ve mainly been exposed to the eastern tradition, not the oriental one) is different from some of my experiences and ways of thinking in the western church. But in those very differences I did not sense discontinuity, but rather something that brought to life and illuminated in a whole new way (new for me, that is), and a beautiful way, the Catholic faith that I had always been practicing.

In other words, yes, it was different, but it felt different in its depth, breadth, wisdom, and precision - not in an ontologically incongruous manner.

I’m not sure why others encounter this difference and think, “Oh, Latin/western Christianity doesn’t get it.” To me, what I’ve discovered makes Latin/western Christianity itself make more sense.

But hey, now I’m the one being too vague.

Excommunication for going to Orthodox? Huh?
If I were on a business trip to, say Russia, I could take communion at an Orthodox church (in theory).

I don’t think that’s true.

Orthodox churches do not offer Holy Communion to non-Orthodox. The fact that there may be exceptions means, I would say, that it is precisely “in theory” that one could not do so, even if in practice some are permitted to do so…

 

[dzheremi]

I have read Orthodox sources; I love them and often prefer them to some Catholic sources I have known longer. In addition, things I often hear from Catholic priests lately remind me of what is said by Orthodox people I’ve spoken with and Orthodox works or articles that I’ve read…

If that’s true, then it can only be a good thing. May Rome return to Orthodoxy someday.

Again, this doesn’t disprove your point. People’s experience’s differ; I stand by my initial assertion that these *individual *experiences don’t constitute evidence in their own right.

Here I am not talking about my personal experiences. I’m talking about what you can observe in the experience of the two churches.

I confess I know few eastern Orthodox believers in real life, but “few” is not “none.”

That’s not really the point. There’s no litmus test for when you’re permitted to talk about things based on how many people you know (though people on this board sometimes seem to think there is).

I agree. It was your assertion that I found vague (“our faiths are ontologically different”). I wholeheartedly agree that Orthodox Christianity is not vague.

It’s not vague if you know what ontology is and how it applies to what the EP has asserted. It’s not vague if you’ve been Catholic and are now Orthodox. It’s also, I would assume, not vague if you’ve gone the other way around. Would you say that it is a vague assertion if we were talking about the differences between Catholics and Protestants? As a Catholic, would you agree with the idea that you and many Protestants probably see the way of being Christian in fundamentally different terms? I would think (hope) that you would. I would hope that Catholicism is not just Protestantism with cooler hats or fancier churches.

I think I understand this assertion a bit better now. I have a question for you, though.

I have discovered that Orthodox spirituality (I’ve mainly been exposed to the eastern tradition, not the oriental one) is different from some of my experiences and ways of thinking in the western church. But in those very differences I did not sense discontinuity, but rather something that brought to life and illuminated in a whole new way (new for me, that is), and a beautiful way, the Catholic faith that I had always been practicing.

In other words, yes, it was different, but it felt different in its depth, breadth, wisdom, and precision - not in an ontologically incongruous manner.

Okay. Where is the question in this?

I’m not sure why others encounter this difference and think, “Oh, Latin/western Christianity doesn’t get it.” To me, what I’ve discovered makes Latin/western Christianity itself make more sense.

I don’t want to put words in the EP’s mouth, but that’s not what I got out of the address. The Patriarch seemed to be saying, rather, that as we are ontologically different, we have fundamentally different ways of being, and as such, the East and the West (both) are not able to understand each other, as we cannot simply decide “today I am going to inhabit the mind of a Western theologian”, or “today I am going to practice the faith according to Eastern praxis, and it will transform my way of being a Christian.” I’ve noticed that even myself, and I’m certainly not going to claim that I’ve somehow inhabited the minds of the Oriental Fathers. And yet, I have found myself mostly confined a few threads here because much of what is posted here does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn’t think to ask many of the questions that apparently preoccupy many people here, and have preoccupied many theologians in the Catholic church. They just don’t occupy my thoughts and inform my practice. So far from Latin Christianity not “getting it”, I’d say that I don’t get you. And, indeed, in my journey from Catholicism to Orthodoxy I found that there was indeed an evolution in thought and practice from the early days of the Roman saints like St. Arsenius and others of the Orthodox period, to the Great Schism and afterwards to today. I can still listen to old Mozarabic chant (dating back to the 6th century) and find very little fault in its texts (some are very strange and rather unclear as to how they relate to the core liturgical texts, but none appear heretical despite the Visigothic Arian period that preceded them). So it’s not as though the Latins are hopeless or don’t have any Orthodox history of their own to draw from (after all, our beloved St. Athanasius was exiled to Belgium, and I don’t think he sat on his hands once there ), but it matters little since the modern RCC insists that what it is doing and believing now is consistent with the apostolic faith.

 

[Peter_J]

If that’s true, then it can only be a good thing. May Rome return to Orthodoxy someday.

Oh we will – we’ll come back to bring you all to the truth.

 

[Vico]

Excommunication for going to Orthodox? Huh?
If I were on a business trip to, say Russia, I could take communion at an Orthodox church (in theory). But if I come back to US and become Orthodox then it’s excommunication?
That makes no sense to me.

One has to understand the reason. The Catholic Church has the fullness of faith so we are not to practice indifferentism. Since all the Apostolic churches have valid sacraments, we may partake of them, but only when it is under grave and specific situations, with care not to give scandal of indifferentism, and with agreement also from those we are receiving from.

 

[Vico]

Not sure if you even need to actually stand in the tribunal. I’m thinking they would do this if the person who converts is influential enough to get people to move to the Orthodox Church. Say, a modern-day St. Alexis Toth.

The root of the issue is to remain free of sin, regardless of any tribunal.

CCEO Canon 712
Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist.

 

[dochawk]

If uniatism has been made unacceptable nowadays,why not make up for the errors of the past by undoing them ?

In victor fertilization, with is slaughter of the “unused” children, is intrinsically evil. Yet children are born of it.

shall we undo them?



hawk

 

[Cinoeye]

If we are honest, we think all people are. If base our decitions by considering all of the facts, we think everyone does. When we discuss such a comlpex issue, it is inevedeble to have lots of people involved. And not all of them will be realistic, informed…but offten always seeing things only from their perspective, always blaming the other side. I try do not judge, my self, or the others, but we are not pure to discuss about this, make dessicions, and/or to fix this. There is no unity without compromisse, not regarding faith, but politics and organisational structure. All of the small differences about purgatory, proceeding of the father from the Father(and from the Son)…can be discussed. But the main tripping stone or a mountainl for all of the Orthodox will be to accept the Popes suprimacy. And the same goes for the Roman Catholics-can they accept to be Pope to be one of the equal historical Patriarch and not holy only because he is in Rome? If Roman Carholics approach this problem only from the angle that Orthodoxy has lost its compass the same way Lutherans, Protestants did, and the only thing we need to do is “come back” , there will be no dialog. Ever! And if we do not see this as a main issue, we will never reach to get two Holy Apostolic Churches United. God Bless you all! +IC~XC+NI~KA+

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t want to put words in the EP’s mouth, but that’s not what I got out of the address. The Patriarch seemed to be saying, rather, that as we are ontologically different, we have fundamentally different ways of being, and as such, the East and the West (both) are not able to understand each other, as we cannot simply decide “today I am going to inhabit the mind of a Western theologian”, or “today I am going to practice the faith according to Eastern praxis, and it will transform my way of being a Christian.” I’ve noticed that even myself, and I’m certainly not going to claim that I’ve somehow inhabited the minds of the Oriental Fathers. And yet, I have found myself mostly confined a few threads here because much of what is posted here does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn’t think to ask many of the questions that apparently preoccupy many people here, and have preoccupied many theologians in the Catholic church. They just don’t occupy my thoughts and inform my practice. So far from Latin Christianity not “getting it”, I’d say that I don’t get you. And, indeed, in my journey from Catholicism to Orthodoxy I found that there was indeed an evolution in thought and practice from the early days of the Roman saints like St. Arsenius and others of the Orthodox period, to the Great Schism and afterwards to today.

Okay, I think I understand better now.

I am sure I am not as familiar with oriental or even eastern Christianity as you are. That said, to a smaller degree I have indeed experienced that east and west think about the Christian faith and life in very different ways.

People, in my experience, generally find they relate better to one way of thinking or another. I have grown up Latin Catholic, but the differences I have discovered between east and west - and let me again emphasize that I am by no means well-schooled in eastern theology and spirituality - have always left me feeling that the eastern approach just makes way more sense. It’s as if it cuts to the heart of the matter in a way that western theology’s approach does not, and I do relate more to the east (the more I learn about it, that is).

On these matters I do not disagree with you. Everyone can tell there is a difference.

What I find puzzling and inexplicable, on the other hand, is how Orthodox Christians sometimes, in discussions, move seamlessly - without warning, clarification, or notice - between this matter (“we have fundamentally different ways of believing and living the faith”) to an entirely separate matter - whether the western tradition is orthodox.

When Orthodox Christians bring up the EP’s quote, they often do so to illustrate why we cannot yet be in communion with each other. But that makes no sense as an argument, because one side or another’s being heterodox is the only good reason not to work for reconciliation.

I do not dispute, therefore, that Orthodox Christians have good reason not to want communion with Rome - they/you do believe, after all, that Rome is heterodox. So that makes sense.

But this sometimes-offered implication - one that is rarely openly stated, but which is becoming quite clear - that we are heterodox because the western Christian mind is so different from the eastern Christian mind, makes no sense to me.

When I discovered ways in which I found eastern spirituality very illuminating and helpful, my natural impulse has never been, “Wow, our traditions can’t even understand each other,” but rather, “Wow, the east, whether Catholic or Orthodox, understands my Catholic faith better than many of my own teachers!”

So I guess what I’m saying is this:

To argue that Rome is heterodox because Catholic teaching X, Y, or Z (universal papal jurisdiction, purgatory, etc.) is heterodox, I can understand and respect.

To point out, however, how different the eastern and western mind and heart are - and have been long before the East-West Schism formalized - as a way of implying that the west is heterodox, makes no sense to me.

I can still listen to old Mozarabic chant (dating back to the 6th century) and find very little fault in its texts (some are very strange and rather unclear as to how they relate to the core liturgical texts, but none appear heretical despite the Visigothic Arian period that preceded them). So it’s not as though the Latins are hopeless or don’t have any Orthodox history of their own to draw from (after all, our beloved St. Athanasius was exiled to Belgium, and I don’t think he sat on his hands once there ), but it matters little since the modern RCC insists that what it is doing and believing now is consistent with the apostolic faith.

What I’m about to say doesn’t prove anything because it doesn’t constitute evidence (as history can change), but my honest impression is that there seems to be more continuity in the west than the east sometimes, in the sense of heresy vs. orthodoxy in first millennium Christian history. The east really had a tough job in having to work through all sorts of heresies, while Rome stood pretty firm against them all, constantly supporting whichever side Orthodoxy inevitably vindicated. As most Catholics do, I see providence rather than historic coincidence in this. I believe that Rome still is what St. Cyprian said she is…

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay, I think I understand better now.

I am sure I am not as familiar with oriental or even eastern Christianity as you are. That said, to a smaller degree I have indeed experienced that east and west think about the Christian faith and life in very different ways.

People, in my experience, generally find they relate better to one way of thinking or another. I have grown up Latin Catholic, but the differences I have discovered between east and west - and let me again emphasize that I am by no means well-schooled in eastern theology and spirituality - have always left me feeling that the eastern approach just makes way more sense. It’s as if it cuts to the heart of the matter in a way that western theology’s approach does not, and I do relate more to the east (the more I learn about it, that is).

On these matters I do not disagree with you. Everyone can tell there is a difference.

What I find puzzling and inexplicable, on the other hand, is how Orthodox Christians sometimes, in discussions, move seamlessly - without warning, clarification, or notice - between this matter (“we have fundamentally different ways of believing and living the faith”) to an entirely separate matter - whether the western tradition is orthodox.

When Orthodox Christians bring up the EP’s quote, they often do so to illustrate why we cannot yet be in communion with each other. But that makes no sense as an argument, because one side or another’s being heterodox is the only good reason not to work for reconciliation.

I do not dispute, therefore, that Orthodox Christians have good reason not to want communion with Rome - they/you do believe, after all, that Rome is heterodox. So that makes sense.

But this sometimes-offered implication - one that is rarely openly stated, but which is becoming quite clear - that we are heterodox because the western Christian mind is so different from the eastern Christian mind, makes no sense to me.

When I discovered ways in which I found eastern spirituality very illuminating and helpful, my natural impulse has never been, “Wow, our traditions can’t even understand each other,” but rather, “Wow, the east, whether Catholic or Orthodox, understands my Catholic faith better than many of my own teachers!”

So I guess what I’m saying is this:

To argue that Rome is heterodox because Catholic teaching X, Y, or Z (universal papal jurisdiction, purgatory, etc.) is heterodox, I can understand and respect.

To point out, however, how different the eastern and western mind and heart are - and have been long before the East-West Schism formalized - as a way of implying that the west is heterodox, makes no sense to me.

What I’m about to say doesn’t prove anything because it doesn’t constitute evidence (as history can change), but my honest impression is that there seems to be more continuity in the west than the east sometimes, in the sense of heresy vs. orthodoxy in first millennium Christian history. The east really had a tough job in having to work through all sorts of heresies, while Rome stood pretty firm against them all, constantly supporting whichever side Orthodoxy inevitably vindicated. As most Catholics do, I see providence rather than historic coincidence in this. I believe that Rome still is what St. Cyprian said she is…

Fone,

Imagination, Memory, Passions, Reason…and all the other faculties of the Intellect are as you know part and parcel of our thinking. We use less than 10% of our brain and all that is subconcious is not conscious. Artists use the right brain, Scientists use the left brain and other parts of the brain are used by others. To claim that the Artist is the correct way of looking and living would discount the Scientist…

Put on the mind of Christ…Huh?..imagine if you will that the mind of Christ is neither East or West.

 

[Peter_J]

Put on the mind of Christ…Huh?..imagine if you will that the mind of Christ is neither East or West.

You hit the nail on the head. Neither easternness nor westernness is a problem, but being ontologically different (as some Orthodox believe we are) is a problem if it means not putting on the mind of Christ.

Similarly, if Catholics and Orthodox are ontologically the same but Protestants are ontologically different, then that’s problem but only for Protestants. (But westernness as such isn’t a problem.)

 

[CopticChristian]

You hit the nail on the head. Neither easternness nor westernness is a problem, but being ontologically different (as some Orthodox believe we are) is a problem if it means not putting on the mind of Christ.

Similarly, if Catholics and Orthodox are ontologically the same but Protestants are ontologically different, then that’s problem but only for Protestants. (But westernness as such isn’t a problem.)

PJ,

I realized after posting that I neglected Protestants. I, in fact neglected North and South. In terms of the West seeing it as a microcosom of elements that should be similar there are as you can imagine similar elements in all the West. This should come as no surprise since the Protestant paradigm sprang from the Western mind of the Church as a run away prodigal.

 

[dzheremi]

What I find puzzling and inexplicable, on the other hand, is how Orthodox Christians sometimes, in discussions, move seamlessly - without warning, clarification, or notice - between this matter (“we have fundamentally different ways of believing and living the faith”) to an entirely separate matter - whether the western tradition is orthodox

No, no, no…“Western” isn’t code for “heretical”, or else there wouldn’t be a Western rite in the EO communion, nor native British and French churches in the OO communion. After all, we wouldn’t argue (I should hope) that the East is heretical due to the presence of the Nestorians. That’s too broad. If people are doing that, it is often used a shorthand for the mindset or ontological presuppositions of one or the other, rather than individual doctrines which, of course, arise from those mindsets.

When Orthodox Christians bring up the EP’s quote, they often do so to illustrate why we cannot yet be in communion with each other. But that makes no sense as an argument, because one side or another’s being heterodox is the only good reason not to work for reconciliation.

Once again, you can’t really separate the two in any meaningful way. It is because your existence as a Christian is shaped by a certain mindset that is not shared by others that your doctrine looks the way it is, and hence your church looks the way it is, and all of this is unpalatable to various degrees to others. So you cannot really say “sure, we think differently, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily heterodox”, if, yes, your doctrine is heterodox (which in the case of Rome, it is). As I alluded to before, you could fast just as much as we do and do all other things as we do (as is the attempt in the Eastern Catholic Churches), but if at the end of the day you accept Papal Infallibility, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc., it won’t matter. Just as if we were Roman Catholics in everything but accepting these doctrines (though I don’t know what that would look like…I guess like Sedevacantes?), it would be unsuitable for us to commune with Rome.

But this sometimes-offered implication - one that is rarely openly stated, but which is becoming quite clear - that we are heterodox because the western Christian mind is so different from the eastern Christian mind, makes no sense to me.

Again, it’s not a matter of geography or of culture so much as the ability to read and live Christian history in a manner that is Orthodox. When/if Rome gets serious about that, which necessarily means dropping the innovations that have come about since the schism and returning to its previous understanding of its (still highly glorified) role in world Christianity, the East will notice. The Orient will be a tougher sell, but we share a lot with the East, so I don’t doubt it’ll give us something to talk about, too. But you’re not going to get there from here without some ontological change, which I think is the EP’s point.

To argue that Rome is heterodox because Catholic teaching X, Y, or Z (universal papal jurisdiction, purgatory, etc.) is heterodox, I can understand and respect.

To point out, however, how different the eastern and western mind and heart are - and have been long before the East-West Schism formalized - as a way of implying that the west is heterodox, makes no sense to me.

Again, the teaching X, Y, Z come out of the mindset/ontological developments that see X, Y, Z as keeping with the apostolic Christian faith. That’s why I wrote earlier about how many questions discussed here on CAF baffle me. I don’t understand why they’re necessary or interesting at all. The West has always been different than the East. Heck, wasn’t it the third century or thereabouts (quite early) that the liturgy in the West was changed from Greek to Latin? That’s a pretty big change right there, and it did not impede communion. We don’t – and ESPECIALLY OO’s don’t – look at variety or diversity in cultural or philosophical expression as something inherently bad or unorthodox. The Syrian fathers, for instance, are of a different type than the Armenians, who are different than the Ethiopians. Fine, fine, fine. But, as our late Pope Shenouda III has said, if it touches the faith or the doctrine, it becomes something else (we must oppose it). In the case of Rome, this difference in mindset which has always been there has widened to the point of very much reshaping the doctrine, such that the East can no longer look at Rome and say “We share the same faith”.

What I’m about to say doesn’t prove anything because it doesn’t constitute evidence (as history can change), but my honest impression is that there seems to be more continuity in the west than the east sometimes, in the sense of heresy vs. orthodoxy in first millennium Christian history.

I’m not sure what this means. It is not the first millennium anymore. I could say from this that the Persian church is likely Orthodox, as they had to adopt Nestorianism at that time (mostly due to Nestorius not existing yet), but we cannot just pretend as though the intervening centuries don’t matter, even if it does make our churches seem stronger. Would that it were the case! I know plenty of Copts who’d like to turn back the last 1400 years or so of Egyptian history…

 

[dzheremi]

Correction to the above (since it’s too late to manually edit): In the last paragraph regarding the Persian/Nestorian church, I meant to write “as they had yet to adopt Nestorianism”, not “as they had to adopt Nestorianism”. Quite different meanings, those two clauses!

 

[Peter_J]

What I’m about to say doesn’t prove anything because it doesn’t constitute evidence (as history can change), but my honest impression is that there seems to be more continuity in the west than the east sometimes, in the sense of heresy vs. orthodoxy in first millennium Christian history.

As a fellow Catholic, I’m really pretty surprised to hear you say so. I just don’t see that at all. Since the 16th century, the West split into extreme camps – for example, w.r.t. authority, one side (Catholic) had an extremely high view of it, and the other(s) (Protestant) had an extremely low view of it.

Even Westerners – most of us – don’t think the West is very traditional.

 

[Peter_J]

As a fellow Catholic, I’m really pretty surprised to hear you say so. I just don’t see that at all. Since the 16th century, the West split into extreme camps – for example, w.r.t. authority, one side (Catholic) had an extremely high view of it, and the other(s) (Protestant) had an extremely low view of it.

Even Westerners – most of us – don’t think the West is very traditional.

P.S. Of course, I’m assuming that by continuity you mean continuity with our past (i.e. tradition).

 

[Zekariya]

There is not a single case of an Orthodox Church moving to Catholicism. Only splinter groups. I believe there are 22 or something along those lines.

I have no intention of debating about that of which I am posting. Take it as you like. This is the Melkite understanding of whether or not it was a splinter See or the actual See?

Seraphim Tanas was consecrated as Cyril VI in the patriarchal cathedral of Damascus on October 1, 1724. The Antipatriarch, Sylvester, was illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (outside of Antiochian jurisdiction) on October 8, 1724. Patriarch Cyril VI decided, along with his followers, to resume communion with Rome.

If the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has universal jurisdiction as the eastern pope:

"Eastern Pope" Jeremias III of Constantinople, using his universal jurisdiction as the “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”, legally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch and excommunicated him. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch using his universal jurisdiction as “Orthodox Supreme Pontiff”. “Eastern Pope” Jeremias consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul on October 8, 1724. And, using his universal jurisdiction, placed him in Antioch.

There is only one issue with this story. The pope only has the honor of being first amongst equals according to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I will tell the story according to my understanding of “first amongst equals”:

Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople illegally removed Patriarch Cyril VI from the See of Antioch even though Jeremias III had no jurisdiction over Antioch. Jeremias illegally appointed Sylvester of Antioch, a young Greek monk, to the patriarchal See of Antioch even though that See was legally held by Cyril VI. Jeremias illegally consecrated bishop Sylvester in Istanbul (why not in Antioch?) and placed him illegally into the territory of Antioch on October 8, 1724.

Ergo, the Melkites came into full communion with Rome, following the true Patriarch of Antioch. They were not a splinter sect.

Please don’t take this as sarcasm, rather, take it as extremism to support clearly my point. I mainly wanted to fully point out the absurdity of the situation in Antioch along with the fact that the legal Patriarch of Antioch joined Rome.

Nine_Two, I realize that you probably haven’t researched every eastern Church’s reunion with Rome. Even though this is a reply to your comment, I mean no offense to you or the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Churches. This post is to enlighten people and especially Melkite Catholics regarding our origin.

 

[Marybeloved]

Fone,

Imagination, Memory, Passions, Reason…and all the other faculties of the Intellect are as you know part and parcel of our thinking. We use less than 10% of our brain and all that is subconcious is not conscious. Artists use the right brain, Scientists use the left brain and other parts of the brain are used by others. To claim that the Artist is the correct way of looking and living would discount the Scientist…

Put on the mind of Christ…Huh?..imagine if you will that the mind of Christ is neither East or West.

Perfectly put, Coptic!

I’ve said this before- Looking at Jungian thought and Carl Jung’s discovery of the functioning of the human psyche/ how the mind perceives reality (both inner psychic reality as well as external reality) and makes judgments on the same (draws conclusions from it); How it gives preference/dominance to one function of either judgment/perception over the others leading to sixteen different human personalities and sixteen very different ways of viewing the world; How these different views of reality underlie much conflict in human relations; plus how large sections of human life, thought and work reflect some dominant preference of a particular function or a particular combination of functions depending on the people who lie at their origin or who carry dominant influence in these aspects…

I see this exactly as you do! The Artist and the Scientist fighting over, not the objective reality, but their different views of reality. The scientist (left brain) mind has a preference for perceiving certain aspects of it that the artist (right brain) does not, so that looking at the exact same thing, they see very different things, though neither is wrong! And Christ as you say, is neither, but above it all.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Fone,

Imagination, Memory, Passions, Reason…and all the other faculties of the Intellect are as you know part and parcel of our thinking. We use less than 10% of our brain and all that is subconcious is not conscious. Artists use the right brain, Scientists use the left brain and other parts of the brain are used by others. To claim that the Artist is the correct way of looking and living would discount the Scientist…

Put on the mind of Christ…Huh?..imagine if you will that the mind of Christ is neither East or West.

Well said, CopticChristian. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Part of my point was precisely that “the mind of Christ is neither East nor West.”

You hit the nail on the head. Neither easternness nor westernness is a problem, but being ontologically different (as some Orthodox believe we are) is a problem if it means not putting on the mind of Christ.

Well said.

As a fellow Catholic, I’m really pretty surprised to hear you say so. I just don’t see that at all. Since the 16th century, the West split into extreme camps – for example, w.r.t. authority, one side (Catholic) had an extremely high view of it, and the other(s) (Protestant) had an extremely low view of it.

Even Westerners – most of us – don’t think the West is very traditional.

Oh, I agree. I meant during the first millennium only, when heresies and schisms ravaged the East more so than the West (I’m not blaming the Orthodox for this or implying that they are prone to heresy… obviously they are not, as history proves).

No, no, no…“Western” isn’t code for “heretical”, or else there wouldn’t be a Western rite in the EO communion.

I’m no expert on western-rite Orthodox Christianity, but in the discussions I’ve read online, where people far more informed, specific, and detailed than I in their knowledge and terminology have discussed it, there were many who found it to be problematic. Some even identified aspects they claimed amounted to “Byzantinizations” - the Orthodox equivalent of our far longer, more extensive, and more embarrassing history of Latinization of eastern churches in communion with Rome.

Once again, you can’t really separate the two in any meaningful way.

I can see that you don’t separate them in any meaningful way.

It is because your existence as a Christian is shaped by a certain mindset that is not shared by others that your doctrine looks the way it is, and hence your church looks the way it is, and all of this is unpalatable to various degrees to others. So you cannot really say “sure, we think differently, but that doesn’t mean we’re necessarily heterodox”, if, yes, your doctrine is heterodox (which in the case of Rome, it is).

Agreed - except for the part about Rome.

Don’t you see that this “ontological difference” business is useless for discussion precisely because it assumes, as you’ve just pointed out, rather than argues for the notion that Rome is heterodox?

It really shouldn’t surprise you that we who are Catholic - whatever our rite and church may be - don’t believe that. So I don’t know what you hope to accomplish by asserting something that presupposes the very claim whose legitimacy is in question.

As I alluded to before, you could fast just as much as we do and do all other things as we do (as is the attempt in the Eastern Catholic Churches), but if at the end of the day you accept Papal Infallibility, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, etc., it won’t matter.

The filioque? You do know, don’t you, that the growing consensus is that the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, right? (And don’t dodge the question by implying in any way that we’d want to force it on you; Rome has literally gotten flack from some eastern Catholic churches for making them remove the filioque from their liturgies…)

The Orient will be a tougher sell, but we share a lot with the East, so I don’t doubt it’ll give us something to talk about, too.

From many of the things Marduk has explained, Oriental Christianity actually has many things in common with Latin Christianity that are different from Eastern Christianity.

That’s why I wrote earlier about how many questions discussed here on CAF baffle me. I don’t understand why they’re necessary or interesting at all.

I don’t see why you think this is in any way significant when many Catholics agree. Just look at any thread in which a scrupulous question is asked or a nitpicky distinction is made, and you’ll find plenty of Catholics who react quite strongly against such things.