He formally taught the necessity of ecumenism. Read Ut Unum Sint which is an encyclical he wrote on ecumenism. The Vatican II council also taught ecumenism as a necessary job of the Church. Your condemnation of ecumenism as a heresy is a condemnation of the pope and all bishops in communion with him, who all support Vatican II. Read the Decree on Ecumenism from Vatican II.
Papal encyclicals are not infallible. Mortalium Animos, which was written by Pius IX, condemns ecumenism and many of the errors which John Paul II would later practice during his papacy and espouse in Utu Unum Sint. In fact, Mortalium Animos specifically condemns the use of the Gospel passage “That they may be one” as a pretext for ecumenism–the very passage that Ut Unum Sint refers to!
Glory to Jesus Christ my Orthodox brothers and sisters!
At my home parish in VA (Maronite) my pastor is very Eastern, I visited a Maronite Church while living in VA - are you in Roanoke?
On to the questions:
*]Why are the Orthodox set up in Nationalistic Churches? Because Constantine, Emperor of Rome converted and legalized Christianity, it quickly became the offical religion of the entire empire. Other entire countries became Orthodox as a whole like Armenia and Russia and Ireland. It was Emperors who in the 300 to 700’s convened the Ecumenical Councils so the Bishops would all come together to settle doctrinal disputes to bring back order to the Nation. What happened to the ancient original model of only 4 Patriarchates in the Communion? The original Patriarchates, excluding Rome, are still in full communion with each other. In the United States, SCOBA has been created to represent the Pan-Orthodox communion www.scoba.us Because the Church has continued to grow and move into new areas of the world other Patriarchs have been established - like in Moscow and some Orthodox Churches are independant of Patriarchates - like many of the Churches in Greece which were founded by Apostle Paul.
*]How can the Orthodox claim to have unbroken succession in regards to the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria? The original holders to them are the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox Churches, respectively. I don’t know about the Syriac Church and it’s later history, but I do know about the Antiochian Church which is Orthodox and has complete historical succession antiochian.org/667 - the Catholics created their own Patriarchate in Antioch in the 1700’s which is now called the Melkite Greek Catholic Church - even they acknowledge that there Church began in the 1700’s not back to St. Peter as can been seen pgc-lb.org/english/Church5.shtml I also have personal friends who are Coptic Orthodox - call themselves Coptics rather than Greek Orthodox because some of their ancestors pulled away from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Alexandria, Egypt because they disagreed with one of the Councils declaring that Christ has Two Natures - that He is Fully Human and Fully Divine - their ancestors created the Coptic Church in Alexandria because they believed that Christ has One Nature. They’ve also told me that in Egypt where they were born and raised that the Catholics in latter centuries came and established a Catholic Coptic Church. However, dispite what the Coptics (and Catholic Coptics) did in pulling away from the Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria has remained whole since St. Mark established it as can be seen here greekorthodox-alexandria.org/index.php?module=content&cid=001003
*]How far away is reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Orthodox? I don’t know. Perhaps SCOBA has an article on it?
*]Why do the Orthodox allow for overlapping jurisdictions? I had thought that the original model was only one Bishop for a certain area. Yes that was and is the original model which works well in places in the East, but doesn’t work well with imigration countries like the U.S. and Australia - our Orthodox Imigrants from Greece, Russia, etc. like the liturgy in our own language. There are about 10 Orthodox Churches here in the Sacramento Area, some Greek, some Antiochian, a Serbian and a Russian and an OCA, etc. - we all get along because it is our FAITH which unites us. The only thing that is different is the language (most have some English along with the original language) and which Bishop the Priest would be under and those Bishops get along - just look at SCOBA. No one of our Orthodox Churches is more or less Orthodox than another. Where the Bishop is there is the Church - and we have a lot of Bishops
*]What is the definitive role for the Patriarch of Constantinople? Is he a “primus inter pares” figure or does he do more than that? Sorry I don’t understand Latin. So I don’t understand your question. Why don’t you go to the official website to learn about the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Ecumenical Patriarchate - perhaps it will answer your question ec-patr.org/hierarchs/index.php?lang=en
*]Why are some jurisdictions allowed to not recognize another? For example, Estonia is in communion with Constantinople and Russia is in Communion with Constantinople, but Russia and Estonia are not in communion. The Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church - there is no requirement for the Churches or Bishops to recognize each other. Let’s say we are dealing with a family called Love (because really we are in a larger sense) there are 3 cousins in this family to make this simple: Andrew Love, Paul Love and Mark Love. Mark and Andrew know each other. Andrew and Paul know each other. Mark and Paul don’t know each other. So some are in communion with each other and some are not, but they are all still part of the Love family. Now try this on a much larger scale - it’s been hard in the last Century or so for other Orthodox Churches to really know what’s going on the Russian Church, so if they are not in communion with it doesn’t mean it’s not Orthodox.
Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
You state that you’re Catholic on your public profile what do you mean that Papal infallability and Immaculate conseption is Schismatic and heretical?
Keep in mind that all Catholics are not Roman Catholics, but are still in union with the Pope of Rome: like the Melkite Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, etc. I think there are a total of 12 Catholic Rites - someone can correct me on the number - and most of them do not believe in:
Not at all! I am saying it is schismatic and heretical to reject these important dogmas. They are binding upon all Catholics–they aren’t “Roman” dogmas that Eastern Catholics are free to reject. Did you actually read my post? I think you might be confused because the first paragraph in my quote that you used in your post is actually Harpazo’s quotation; the paragraphs following it are my response.
Pope John Paul II The Great was one of my inspirations to become a Catholic. His passing away greatly affected me - I watched as the rest of the world watched how he would wave bravely to the crowds without trying to sadden his supporters.
I have no doubt that our late Pope John Paul II was a humble man with good intentions; but he also did actions that scandalized and confused thousands of Catholics the world over, such as his participation in Assisi in 1986 and 2002. I think much of his theology was tainted too, and flat-out contradicts the teachings of previous popes and the perennial teaching of the Magisterium. I don’t mean to “bash” John Paul II, but even a pope is not above criticism when necessary, and when people actually cite his actions and statements to support ideas which are not consistent with Catholic teaching, it does become necessary.
I am an American Catholic and I agree with you 100%!
Neither is any heresy so what is your point? Whether an encyclical is infallible doesn’t affect the fact that it is still the public teaching of the pope. With this above statement your previous posts seem to say that the pope can only formally be a heretic if he infallibly defines a heresy. There is no such thing as an infallible heresy so your point is meaningless.
, which was written by Pius IX, condemns ecumenism and many of the errors which John Paul II would later practice during his papacy and espouse in Utu Unum Sint. *
What P. Pius IX condemned was a false ecumenism which said that we can ignore differences and declare union based on the minimum.
The faith may be more accurately discerned by one geographic/ethnic group than another, but that does not mean that the faith is thus limited in its nature to that group. The Apostolic faith is universal in nature, binding and all and provided for the edification of all. Thus, even if the Apostolic faith is more clearly by one group more than another, if an outsider leaves the errant traditions of their people and comes to the Apostolic faith found amongst another people, they have actually thus succeeded in being more faithful to who they are than before. In my book, a Western rite Eastern Orthodox Christian, even though bound to Byzantine doctrines and some Byzantine liturgical regulations, is more legitimately Western than those who hold to the standard errant beliefs in their former Western churches. So, I think it would be erroneous to say that because Eastern Catholics are bound to doctrines discerned in the Latin church that they are inherently less Eastern. If the faith of the RCC is the Apostolic faith, then their acceptance of it thus enlivens and legitimatizes their Eastern nature.
Does it bother you when the same principle is applied to Western rite Eastern Orthodox Christians?
Where are you coming up with the number 4? Before the Council of Chalcedon there were 3 Patriarchates: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; though some would rarely claim that Ephesus was also originally a patriarchal church. After the Council of Chalcedon, Constantinople and Jerusalem were added, leaving 5. The 4 amongst Chalcedonians only showed up after Rome was sundered from the 4 Greek Patriarchates in the 11th century.
Well, that is up for debate. As much as I would like to say that the Coptic Patriarch is the true Patriarch of Alexandria and the Syriac Patriarch is the true Patriarch of Antioch, I cannot say this without backing it up; this is not an undisputed reality. Of course, it partially relies on whether the EO or the OO preserved the Apostolic faith. Whoever did, if it was one and not the other, they had exclusive rights to succession to the Apostolic sees. However, there are other matters to consider. Which of these were elected by the common people of Egypt and Syria? Typically the Non-Chalcedonian bishops were supported by the people and elected by them. Another matter is whether the Byzantine Emperor had a right to depose bishops. If so, it is likely the Chalcedonians actually possess the See of Antioch. The last point of division between the EO and OO in Antioch was during the time of Severus of Antioch, and he was deposed the Emperor. I personally do not think the Emperor had any such right to do such a thing. But if you do, then one could claim that the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch is the legitimate successor. It’s a much more complicated matter than you make it sound.
Depends on who you ask. Some think it is immanently close. Some think it will never happen. I’m in between here. I think we have made significant progress, but I think there are a number of important matter that are being overlooked (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not). It almost certainly will not happen anytime in the next few years, and I doubt it will even happen within a decade or two. But getting into a few decades from now, I think it may be likely.
It is the original model. And the EO have fallen short of that model. But so have RC’s. Latin riters and various Eastern riters just as much overlap in the U.S. as multiple jurisdictions. We do not allow because we want it, but because we cannot (yet) come up with a quick an easy way of solving it that everyone would be happy with. Believe it or not, the EO in the U.S. used to all be subject to the Russian Metropolitan of North America. But that unity started to crumble in light of the Communist Revolution.
For the EO, I would say he is established as more than that, though he still falls fall short of the Bishop of Rome. A good amount of EO actually do not like that reality and would like his prerogatives to be stripped to bring him to a more “primus inter pares” status. Some even are advocating that the primacy be shifted entirely to another See (usually Moscow).
It’s not a matter of communion. It’s a matter of jurisdiction. Russia and Estonia are in communion. Russia just doesn’t recognize Estonia as autonomous. And he doesn’t recognize the Estonian church under Constantinople as the canonically legitimate church of Estonia. But that doesn’t mean that they are not in communion.
But I appreciate your willingness to participate.
No, I didn’t realize it was a year old. But now that you mention it, it seemed from other posts like you were already Orthodox and I was suprised that the OP on this thread showed that you were Maranite looking at Orthodoxy.Umm, I guess no one has realized that this thread is over a year old. If you all look at my religion, you could guess that I might have had these issues worked through.
When it was written, I was looking into Orthodoxy, now I am almost ready to be baptized and chrismated.
In Christ,
Andrew