Qestion to EC re.: possible future UNION between EO & RC

[milidrag]

The Antiochian Church’s folding chairs were rather new, but so was the Church building; while the movable benches at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco may have been original to the structure, which means that they were probably around 30 or 40 years old.

LOL. You and me have quite a different notions about ‘old’ and ‘new’ church buildings.

Edit: But, no, there is no theological difference behind that.

 

[milidrag]

The option that I would have voted for is not present, so I have taken it upon myself to add it:

(3) The Eastern Orthodox Churches will be no different from what they are now when Rome finally enters into communion with them.

Interesting. But, in such a presumed situation, how would EC differ from what they are now?

 

[Apotheoun]

LOL. We have quite a different notions about ‘old’ and ‘new’ church buildings.

Yes, anything that has been around for 30 years in the SF Bay Area is old, and is probably lucky to have survived that long.

Click the link for: Pictures of the celebration of the Elevation of the Cross at Holy Virgin Cathedral

 

[Apotheoun]

Interesting. But, in such a presumed situation, how would EC differ from what they are now?

We differ in that we have suffered - and continue to suffer - Latinization (e.g., the CCEO), and we are often treated as second class citizens in the Catholic communion of Churches, which is why the Orthodox are right in rejecting the model of communion as it presently exists between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Church.

That said, when the Roman Church finally returns to communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches - with the possible exception of the Maronite Church - will cease to exist as independent local Churches and will be reabsorbed into their Orthodox mother Churches.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

We differ in that we have suffered - and continue to suffer - Latinization (e.g., the CCEO), and we are often treated as second class citizens in the Catholic communion of Churches, which is why the Orthodox are right in rejecting the model of communion as it presently exists between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Church.

That said, when the Roman Church finally returns to communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches - with the possible exception of the Maronite Church - will cease to exist as independent local Churches and will be reabsorbed into their Orthodox mother Churches.

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy:

To this I would add the encouraging fact that ALL of the Melkite hierarchy has agreed to abdicate their sees in favor of the Orthodox hierarchs in the event of reunion.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Interesting. Can you name one such a h(eres)ierarch and affirm that you heard him professing filioque, nor a hearsay about it?QUOTE]

The hierarch that I’ve heard state it explicitly is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. He claims (as I’ve heard others claim, though I can’t remember who off the top of my head) that there is an Orthodox way to understand the filioque as well as the Immaculate Conception. Fr. John Meyendorff said that the Orthodox probably would’ve ascribed to the Immaculate Conception had they accepted the Latin notion of Original Sin (cf. “Byzantine Theology”). That being said, however, what I’ve heard Orthodox theologians pass off as the Latin notion of Original Sin is actually not the Latin notion and has been condemned explicitly by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Another problem that I’ve run into is when Orthodox automatically assume that the filioque or the Immaculate Conception is heresy before they even know all the facts about these doctrines (I’m deliberately not using “dogma” here) and the historical circumstances that gave rise to them. But the same problem exists among many (perhaps most) Roman Catholics who automatically approach the Orthodox with the same mentality of “heretics” or “schismatics” before they actually understand what it is that Holy Orthodoxy teaches. Such attitudes are not grounds for dialogue, and most certainly do not lead to the brotherly charity that ought to exists between Catholicism and Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I beg to differ.

Do you fully understand the Latin doctrines of the filioque, Immaculate Concpetion and Original Sin, from a Latin perspective? If so, then I respect your difference of opinion.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

When? Where? How?

Orientale Lumen Conference VIII, “Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue: What’s Our Bottom Line”, 2004. The Conference took place here in Washington D.C., but the good Metropolitan’s talk was given via video conference. As to the how, I’ll leave that to him oltv.tv/id219.html. I might actually be wrong with the video, he’s done several for the OL Conferences and for Orientale Lumen Television in general (a number of which I had the privilege of editing). Take it for what it’s worth. I always enjoy Met. Kallistos, although I may not always agree with him.

 

[Apotheoun]

Do you fully understand the Latin doctrines of the filioque, Immaculate Concpetion and Original Sin, from a Latin perspective? If so, then I respect your difference of opinion.

It is possible to have a good grasp of the Latin doctrines in question and still reject them.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Anyway, thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut and effort to write it so comprehensively.

Since this is the internet and I can’t hear the tone of your voice, I’m not sure if this was meant as a compliment, or as sarcasm. But I’m sure you’re a good person, full of love for God and neighbor, so I’ll presume the positive and say Thank You!!!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It is possible to have a good grasp of the Latin doctrines in question and still reject them.

True. But a good many people, be they Catholic or Orthodox, scholar or otherwise, don’t have even a cursory grasp of the doctrines, and accept or reject them without questioning. I don’t wish to presume anything.

By the way, it’s good to see you back here. I don’t think you’ve been here for awhile. Or were you only at Byzcath before?

 

[Hesychios]

More seriously, though, if the Orthodox Churches were to come back in union with Rome, they would not start calling themselves “Eastern Catholics” (though the term would not be inappropriate) …

The Orthodox have always been Eastern Catholics, never stopped.

 

[SonCatcher]

The Orthodox have always been Eastern Catholics, never stopped.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Orthodox have always been Eastern Catholics, never stopped.

:clapping:

To this I would only add that Rome has always been Orthodox… never stopped.

 

[Apotheoun]

True. But a good many people, be they Catholic or Orthodox, scholar or otherwise, don’t have even a cursory grasp of the doctrines, and accept or reject them without questioning. I don’t wish to presume anything.

I have run into many Orthodox who understand those Western theories and who still reject them. Heck, I am Eastern Catholic and I do not subscribe to them. Be that as it may, I just thought it was important to point out that the rejection of Western theological theories does not require that the person concerned be ignorant of their meaning.

By the way, it’s good to see you back here. I don’t think you’ve been here for awhile. Or were you only at Byzcath before?

I still post here from time to time, but sadly the vast majority of my posts were deleted when the Eastern Christianity forum was replaced by the Eastern Catholicism forum in 2007.

 

[mardukm]

It is possible to have a good grasp of the Latin doctrines in question and still reject them.

Yes, it is possible. And I believe that is the purpose of discussion or dialog, whether here on the Internet, or in the real world between hierarchs. To find out if each party has fully understood the other side.

I personally do not adhere to certain peculiarly Latin beliefs - purgatorial fire, absolutist Petrine perspective, etc., etc. But this is different from the actual DOGMAS of the Catholic Church.

But there are people who don’t even want to discuss, and simply presume that what they hear from others about the Catholic Church is Gospel without inquring further.

I’ve seen two non-Catholics here on CAF who, if one even asks, “are you understanding what the Catholic Church is teaching?” automatically get bent out of shape, and won’t even participate in any meaningful dialogue. Instead, they are just content with hearsay.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SonCatcher]

I have run into many Orthodox who understand those Western theories and who still reject them. Heck, I am Eastern Catholic and I do not subscribe to them. Be that as it may, I just thought it was important to point out that the rejection of Western theological theories does not require that the person concerned be ignorant of their meaning.

There is a difference between rejecting a theory and not subscribing to it. Rejection is a more proactive position. As such, I see it as more damaging to Communion and possibly a limitation to the action of the Holy Spirit in the one who has rejected.

 

[mardukm]

Hi,

In case of any future union between the so-called Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, what is your perception about the differences between what are now your so-called sui iuris Churches in communion with Rome and what would those that unate be?

Would those that unite be the same in future as you are now?

Would they differ somehow? If yes, how? Please elaborate.

Thanks.

I didn’t participate in the poll because my understanding does not perfectly align with either choice. I perceive that EC’s are living out the reality of the first millenium Church more faithfully than the EO are (and not just with regards to the fact of communion with Rome). On the other hand, there are certain canons/rules to which EC’s (and OC’s) must currently adhere that are not acceptable by patristic standards (but IMO exist simply because of the state of schism from each other).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SonCatcher,

There is a difference between rejecting a theory and not subscribing to it. Rejection is a more proactive position. As such, I see it as more damaging to Communion and possibly a limitation to the action of the Holy Spirit in the one who has rejected.

I don’t know. I think “reject” is within the range of epistemological realities within the Catholic Church. My only concern is if an Eastern Catholic starts hurling accusations of heresy at Latin Catholics for peculiarly Latin theologoumena.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

I’ve seen two non-Catholics here on CAF who, if one even asks, “are you understanding what the Catholic Church is teaching?” automatically get bent out of shape, and won’t even participate in any meaningful dialogue. Instead, they are just content with hearsay

And I have seen a few Catholics at this forum (and several others) get upset when a Non-Catholic rejects a Western theory (or group of theories) even after having them diligently explained to him. Such is life I suppose.