"Orthodox In Communion With Rome"

[marlo]

Because what you have said,are heresies and will never be in communion with Rome,

its just like saying, how about Arianism in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate?

but I know of none. Am I missing something?

Orthodx in communion with Rome? Why not Nestorian in communion with Rome? Monophysite in communion with Rome? Monothelite in communion with Rome? Do the Anglican Use call themselves Anglicans in communion with Rome?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because what you have said,are heresies and will never be in communion with Rome,

its just like saying, how about Arianism in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate?

We’d never use the terminology. Orthodox is Orthodox.

The comparison with the heresies is that if it is claimed that Orthodox, in the context of union with the Latin Vatican, means anything, it would be on a par with these terms of heresies. If not, then, the aphorism we are talking about means nothing, which is precisely what I contend.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

On another thread, the following link was posted:

Here is a full discussion on the matter:
bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

This oracle makes the following pronouncement:

The decree thus far is perfectly clear and reasonable; but it is not, to use St. Leo’s term, diaionizon. Its importance has not survived the ravages of time. Many an age has rolled by since those brilliant luminaries of ancient Christendom – Alexandria, Antioch, Heraclea, Caesarea, Ephesus – were extinguished. They were undoubtedly grand and princely in the day of their strength, but their greatness was of men and shared the inevitable fate of human things. Of what importance, save to the antiquary, are now those old patriarchates with their accessories of high prerogatives, august state, and far-stretching boundaries? If it was permitted to those ancient princes of the Church to revisit these mortal scenes, their self-esteem would probably be less mortified by finding that every vestige of their patriarchdoms has been swept away, than by perceiving how wonderfully well the Church of Christ gets along without them. And upon turning their eyes Romeward and beholding the “Bishop of Old Rome” seated upon the Rock of Peter as firmly and serenely as ever, it is possible they might recall St. Leo’s prophetic words: “A Church that is built upon any other foundation than that Rock which the Lord bath laid shall sooner or later come to grief.” [4]

So much for one of the Church’s “lungs.”

the article is dated (1880), but someone was proud enough to put it on the net, and someone else was proud enough to link to it, and I have seen the thoughts expressed therein in many posts here.

The Article seems to be only to glorify Rome at the expense of the other Patriarchates, all of which, offiically, are in union with the Vatican (granted Constantinople only via the Ukranians, Ruthenians, etc: not having a hierarchy in New Rome).

So those “Orthodox in communion with the Pope of Rome,” what do you think?

Another quote:
This canon, therefore, owes its perennial interest to its incidentally alluding to the Roman Pontiff; for any scrap of ancient parchment upon which his name has been written cannot fail to interest Christians so long as the Vicar of Christ shall have friends or enemies. The importance of the document before us is greatly enhanced by the fact that it was the very first utterance by the Universal Church on the subject of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome. The Nicene Synod was the first of the Ecumenical councils, and was, consequently, the first occasion which offered itself to the Catholic Church of speaking in a corporate and official manner. Hence the historian and the controversialist turn eagerly to learn what the first of councils had to say about the chief of bishops.

brings up a question I brought up: does the Vatican really have only one bishop?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=265109

 

[Formosus]

That article isn’t magisterial though. Its written by a priest for a newsletter. The priest in that article is just simply wrong and not protected from error in the least bit.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That article isn’t magisterial though. Its written by a priest for a newsletter. The priest in that article is just simply wrong and not protected from error in the least bit.

Yes, which becomes apparant as you read the whole of it.

 

[Formosus]

That what is the point of bringing up a document written by someone that is just obviously wrong and has been contradicted by the Church authority in recent years?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That what is the point of bringing up a document written by someone that is **just obviously wrong **and has been **contradicted by the Church authority **in recent years?

On another thread, the following link was posted:

So much for one of the Church’s “lungs.”

the article is dated (1880), but someone was proud enough to put it on the net, and someone else was proud enough to link to it, and I have seen the thoughts expressed therein in many posts here.

The Article seems to be only to glorify Rome at the expense of the other Patriarchates, all of which, offiically, are in union with the Vatican (granted Constantinople only via the Ukranians, Ruthenians, etc: not having a hierarchy in New Rome).

So those “Orthodox in communion with the Pope of Rome,” what do you think?

Another quote:

brings up a question I brought up: does the Vatican really have only one bishop?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=265109

 

[Formosus]

I still don’t quite get it though. Obviously there are going to be loons on the internet that will link to nearly any position : p .

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I still don’t quite get it though. Obviously there are going to be loons on the internet that will link to nearly any position : p .

The problem is the popularity of this site in particular. I see it linked here all the time.

 

[Peter_J]

The problem is the popularity of this site in particular. I see it linked here all the time.

Ah, I think it’s becoming clearer to me now. (I had been wondering much the same as what Formosus asked.)

I probably don’t see those links because I don’t participate on the “right” sub-forums. (I mostly hang out on the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum.)

Also, we should keep in mind that in terms of Church history, 1880 is pretty recent (notwithstanding the fact that we Americans tend to think of anything before the 20th century as ancient history ).

 

[Volodymyr]

A document written by a priest that is wrong and has been contradicted by the Church authority in recent years?

Here is basic problem. Catolics believe that “magestrial” teaching of Bishop of Rome is what will interest other Christians. This may be to some extent true. But Catholic teaching is presented to us in actions of Catolics and their writings - such as this priest. Orthodox people must deal with Catolic people. We are all people and make mistakes - to explain that there is some other person in Rome on throne who doesn’t make mistakes only seems to mock the individual Catolic believer. It is such indivual person through whom I meet Catolic church - such as the Polish born man in my building - not Bishop of Rome whom I never will meet. If devote Janusz tells me that God cannot understand Church Slavonic language, I must see this as face of Catolicism in my “part of world”.

 

[Formosus]

I understand that, but you can not say there aren’t Orthodox out there who make just as equally rediculous claims as some of the things stated by that priest in the quoted article or by the devote Janusz. You can not hold the entire Church responsible for the actions of several individuals who do not have the authority to say what they are saying.

 

[Peter_J]

It is such indivual person through whom I meet Catolic church - such as the Polish born man in my building - not Bishop of Rome whom I never will meet. If devote Janusz tells me that God cannot understand Church Slavonic language, I must see this as face of Catolicism in my “part of world”.

Well I think a little common sense is in order here. If one individual Catholic (and a lay person besides) tells you something, clearly you have a responsibility to realize that it may or may not be what other Catholics would say.

On the other hand, if several Catholics told you “God cannot understand Church Slavonic” – especially if some of them were clergy – then I could see how that could be the “face of Catholicism” to you.

P.S. This does bring up another interesting question: why does it seem like in these types of situations, the person almost never qualifies there ridiculous statement with "My opinion is that … "? (I don’t know if you read the thread “The infallible Pope”, but someone over there recently stated that “If you attend Protestant bible classes as a Catholic, you are in heresy.”)

 

[East_and_West]

Here is basic problem. Catolics believe that “magestrial” teaching of Bishop of Rome is what will interest other Christians. This may be to some extent true. But Catholic teaching is presented to us in actions of Catolics and their writings - such as this priest. Orthodox people must deal with Catolic people. We are all people and make mistakes - to explain that there is some other person in Rome on throne who doesn’t make mistakes only seems to mock the individual Catolic believer. It is such indivual person through whom I meet Catolic church - such as the Polish born man in my building - not Bishop of Rome whom I never will meet. If devote Janusz tells me that God cannot understand Church Slavonic language, I must see this as face of Catolicism in my “part of world”.

Sounds like your “part of the world” is much more plagued with Church polemics than ours is.

 

[bkovacs]

Dear brethren,

While I am a Latin Catholic (and somewhat proud of that heritage), I also feel a deep calling to the East; in fact had it not been for the help I received from the Eastern Catholics here I may have even become Orthodox.

Anyway, the Melkite Greek priest who aided me in showing me why I need to be Catholic and not Orthodox (he himself formerly an Orthodox priest), has always stressed to me that Byzantine Catholics are truly “Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome.” Because of the fatherly influence this priest has had in my life, I have taken up that belief and I have found support of it in the words of the Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch (see my sig line).

However, I am not quite sure that I truly understand what that aphorism actually means. From my own serious consideration of Orthodoxy, I found many beliefs which I still believe are not compatible with Catholic teachings.

I am going to ask my mentor-priest tommorow what he means when he says that he is an “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” However until then I wanted to ask the Byzantine Catholics (or any Oriental Catholics) why they believe, if they do, that they are Orthodox in communion with Rome; and what this affirmation means.

Thanks!

You should ask him if all the “Latinizations” have been removed from every Eastern Rite Church!. I’ll think you will find it otherwise. Why I prefer the Orthodox Church over an Eastern Catholic Church. “No Latinizations what’s so ever” Only “Byzantine or Eastern”.

 

[bkovacs]

Check out this website if you want to learn allot about Eastern Christianity. molonlabe70.blogspot.com/

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You should ask him if all the “Latinizations” have been removed from every Eastern Rite Church!. I’ll think you will find it otherwise. Why I prefer the Orthodox Church over an Eastern Catholic Church. “No Latinizations what’s so ever” Only “Byzantine or Eastern”.

I’ll just note that that wasn’t always so. I’ve seen a lot of “Western wanna be” stuff in Orthodox Churches, particularly in iconography. Thankfully, most, if not all of this is a thing of the past.

My godson switched to Western Rite Orthodox, because as he put it (correctly) “why not go with the real thing.”