Question about the Great Schism

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, I do not know where you are getting your information, but both the Mozarabic and Milanese (Ambrosian) rites are Western. They differ from the “standard” Latin or Roman rite, but are not considered Eastern just because they are not the exact same as the Latin rite as it is commonly practiced. The Latin church used to have more diverse rites within it, but some were suppressed at various points in history. Please see the following summaries:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozarabic_Rite

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosian_Rite

I did not disagree with your point here, I mentioned them as Eastern Catholics in the question (negative) form not the positive.

The main point to my post was that because these have a different rite from the Roman rite, as do the Eastern rite Catholics differ in rites also, does not mean we can categorize them or group them as all one Church. What is beautiful about this diversivication is that they remain in communion with the Popes. The second point I had hoped to clarify is not generalizing “Orthodoxy” because she too has diversed communities but are without communion with each other.

Sorry if I was not clear.

 

[searn77]

I mention these because from their history which can cause some confusion between those Eastern rite Catholics and Western rite Catholics. The Mozarabic and Milanese (See Catholic Encyclopedia: Milan), rites do not belong to the Roman Rite, so should they be considered Eastern Catholic’s? If we based it on rites, they are, but because in the West, rite does not always follow patriarchate, they are not considered Eastern Catholics;

The “Gallican” church has her own rite, yet; has always been part of the Roman Patriarchate just as “Toledo”. If we followed this form the Italo-Greek Catholic Church is no longer an Eastern Catholic church because she belongs to the Roman Patriarchate, yet she keeps to her Byzantine rite. These are an exception to the general rule of distinguishing Eastern rite Catholics. Which can cause confusion if one generalizes to geography to determine between the Eastern Rite Catholics and Western Catholics.

I think the importance to this discussion today is that it is difficult to generalize Orthodox church as one being independent from Rome, when this is not the case, because as you stated the Eastern Catholics apply this term of Orthodoxy to themselves as do those Orthodox church holding to heterodox teachings. Even one applies the term Eastern Rite Catholics can cause confusion. That is why I respectfully asked for clarfication and specifics be named during discussion, once the specific community is identified from the beginning, then the term Eastern (rite) Catholics or Orthodox may apply.

This applies to the Latin Rite also, for it was not labeled as Roman Catholic Church until the reformation so as to separate the Latin Rite from Protestants.

I think you may be making this a little more confusing than it really is. The original term that we were discussing was “Eastern Orthodox”, not “Orthodox”.

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and all of the other Churches in their communion refer to themselves as “Oriental Orthodox”, or as some call them the “Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox” as these Churches reject the Council of Chalcedon. They are never referred to as “Eastern Orthodox”.

Although Eastern Catholics may consider themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, still when someone uses the term “Eastern Orthodox” they are not referring to Eastern Catholics. They just aren’t. Especially on this forum it’s generally pretty clear what communion of Churches people are talking about. When Wesley7 used the term “Eastern Orthodox” it was crystal clear who he was talking about.

Which brings me back to what I originally said, and honestly I mean no disrespect to you about this, but you are the only person I have ever seen in a Catholic or Orthodox forum who brings confusion to the term “Eastern Orthodox”. Like I said, it’s generally pretty clear what communion of Churches people are referring to when they use the term “Eastern Orthodox”, and they aren’t referring to “Oriental Orthodox” or “Eastern Catholics.”

I ask of your forgiveness if you think I am offending you as this is not my intent. It’s difficult to express my tone when I am typing on a computer and not speaking in person. So I hope you don’t read this the wrong way. I just think you are bringing confusion to the use of the term “Eastern Orthodox” when it really is not that confusing.

 

[searn77]

The second point I had hoped to clarify is not generalizing “Orthodoxy” because she too has diversed communities but are without communion with each other.

This point doesn’t make sense. At first you say we shouldn’t generalize Orthodoxy, but then you go ahead and generalize “Orthodoxy” into being any Church that calls themselves Orthodox and you say that we are out of communion with each other.

Well I can say the same thing about “Catholicism” when I think of Catholic Churches like the SSPX or the PNCC that are not in communion with the Pope of Rome. So using your logic, I can say that we shouldn’t generalize “Catholicism” because she too has diversed communities but are without communion with each other.

Obviously though, it is quite easy on this board to understand what context people are using these terms in.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Michael I hear you. I have also been to Mexico with a close friend who was born their, had that not been the case the I would have felt just as you.

And you right about the influx of Polish during the 90’s. I came back here from the south in 95 and it was very different, which the new crowd that entered in my absense.

But in general its like that here. I grew up in American but my grandparents on my mothers side are from Poland. So my mother understands the language and I pick up on phrase’s. I speak Spanish much more accurate. If I listen to someone speaking Polish for a moment or two I can catch the basic drift of what they are saying.

I see a stark contrast between the Polish CC and Italian for example. Now my wife is Italian full blood. So she has her way with attending Holy Rosary which is ethnically Italian. Now to me its very social there. Its just so different. And yes its just much more social. Now just as my wife whole heartedly prefers to attend the Italian church. For example that church was build in the early 70’s. So its modern a “round” church completely surrounded with tall stained glass. It took my Mother till this past month to just walk in this church. Refused to attend any church but St Michaels. I happened to want to go to 11am Confession, “there”, so I talked her into coming since she can’t drine anymore and was with me. She went to confession, and her immediate reaction was "Wow this is a beautiful church. But for 40 years there was a preconceived notion,and judgement passed. Not judging her as a christian, heck I don’t know anybody thats 90 and prayed the Rosary every day since learning it. My grandmother not only did that , had a atler in her home and attended Mass every day at St Michaels. Yet from those generations to this one there are overtures of ethnic/racial thinking left over. Not as bad, but its still existing.

While we may not agree with much Christian thinking, we also can’t bad-rap it. Thats what causes the deeper divisions. Thats what breeds the hate. No matter how fustrating and difficult, the lines of communcation have to remain open where possible. If we can’t do this with Christians, how in the world are we going to accomplish anything with other faiths? Especially to compound the idea with ethnic on top of race? Then add Christain thinking to it? What an obstacle.

With me, my grandparents owned the home directly next door to the Chuch I attended all my life. Even if I wasn’t living here in state I would just automatically send in my yearly dues etc.

So I feel just very comfortable there, I remember it since being conscious. Its pre 1900 construction and the murals are just stunning. If your strickly USA born it can difficult because all the Priests come from Poland. So having an english conversation is difficult.

Out of respect I addended a Baptist Mass of another life long friend who has been the minister head for 20 years now at a very popular Baptist church in NH. Now social isn’t even the word for that. But I’ll tell he shocked me listening to him. He specifically spoke on denominations with a confirmed belief that as Christians we needed to put the nonsense aside to build a better world. He and I have spoke countless hours about scripture. And I don’t know a time were either of us left not feeling that spiritaul effect, where you know you were really reaching out and connecting to another side. He specifically wanted to talk the BVM, and we talked hours about that alone.

I’m very direct and assertive in person, so even at the Polish church I was immediatly confronting the elders after mass. I managed to engage them, but your right they would have totally ignored me.

Theres still a reality of racial lines and ethnic in the Christian church. For some people this doesn’t exist. Others are still limited by their learned behavior. Which really is unfortunate. For example a single Black mother started attending the church with her young son on the regular. I introduced myself to her and we spoke. Nobody else did? She started sitting by me and it became very clear she understood the Catholic Mass and it was retained to her memory. She was new to the area and looking for a Parish to attend on the regular. She gave it honest effort an loved the church, its a simple stunning church which the many Murals, but speaking fair, the church didn’t give her a chance.

So yes, there is a situation of here being totally ingored. Which really shouldn’t happen with a new member. Really its an obligation of church members to reach out to new members and make them feel at home. Thats basic NT teaching.

Some people are just not capible due to behavior issues. But thats certainly a low percentage. We can do better.

I have to attend a couple EO mass’s here. I was telling you months ago that before I moved to my present home I lived directly inbetween two. One which was Russian for sure, the other I’m not postive.

I have a little more time more time. The first 1/2 year in the church its tough because of devotions. Now I’m a little more free to explore, well, which bought to the Baptist, really because I knew this guy so long and had so many heart to heart conversations that frankly it shouldn’t have taken me that long to go.

I want to check out the Copic Church it has an appeal for some reason to my sense’s. I don’t why, but you just get a feeling about things. Which is really another reason why I stay remained to the exact church I have since Baptism.

We have a long way to go with time running out Michael. Oh people do a good job pretending. Hey I understand Martians will be more comfortable with Martians. But if we are going to continue to have a US open door policy . Then we have a responsibility to bring these people into the fold immediatly and correctly.

God Bless you Michael, Gary

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To SEARN77;

Although your post are most imformative here, but they lack the content of the original discussion. To which I asked for clarification to be sure we are discussing the same Orthodox not in communion with the Popes and not to include all Catholic church’s from the East holding to the title Orthodox in full communion with the popes, to which some of these have come home to communion with the popes.

Then Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics were not defined in the discussion. But I am glad you brought them up. It would appear from the original post and reply, you have added more content than was being discussed. Which I do not object to.

So, then, you’re now saying Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same? . .

Without knowing which is Eastern Orthodoxy is meant here, those Eastern Orthodox in heterodoxy or Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the popes, or any Orthodox living in the East who are in communion with the popes.

Wesley7 “Orthodox saying there’s a problem with the doctrinal claims of the papacy.”

Your crystal clear analysis blew away in the wind because according to you two different terms have been introduced here, not one.

This is the confusion you may have missed in the thought process. When you have Eastern Orthodoxy and then a change to Orthodox being used in the same thought process. Realistically if one is following the thought process in discussion, the identity of the Church being introduced must be clarified, to which I addressed the poster to check if we were on the same page.

Your post, magnified and supported my claim, if these terms are used in generalities without knowing from which community it is directed lends to confusion as you have posted here by revealing the complexity of Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholics.

Now here is were you error out of reality in supposing that everyone in the world who references Orthodox, the Eastern Church, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics are not as familiar with these terms. From my experience, especially talking with non catholics and protestants, who come to learn of Orthodoxy tend to be mislead into thinking that all of Orthodox Church’s and the Eastern Catholics are all out of communion with the popes, because of there geography being in the East or having an Eastern liturgy, thus I introduced the Italo-Greek rite.

I see no problem with your post, I pray they instruct here to those who are coming into these terms, to which you addressed incorrectly “as all who use them know their exact meaning”, realisitically this does not happen, at least from my experience.

Thanks for the post, they are very instructive. Shall we continue the issue of those out of communion with the popes? versus those who never left communion with the popes since apostolic times, and why Constantinople’s patriarchate is never apostolic? Then maybe we can clear some of the confusion between Orthodoxy not in communion, and Orthodoxy in commuion with the Pope since apostolic times.

Peace be with you

 

[searn77]

To SEARN77;

Although your post are most imformative here, but they lack the content of the original discussion. To which I asked for clarification to be sure we are discussing the same Orthodox not in communion with the Popes and not to include all Catholic church’s from the East holding to the title Orthodox in full communion with the popes, to which some of these have come home to communion with the popes.

Then Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics were not defined in the discussion. But I am glad you brought them up. It would appear from the original post and reply, you have added more content than was being discussed. Which I do not object to.

Without knowing which is Eastern Orthodoxy is meant here, those Eastern Orthodox in heterodoxy or Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the popes, or any Orthodox living in the East who are in communion with the popes.

Your crystal clear analysis blew away in the wind because according to you two different terms have been introduced here, not one.

This is the confusion you may have missed in the thought process. When you have Eastern Orthodoxy and then a change to Orthodox being used in the same thought process. Realistically if one is following the thought process in discussion, the identity of the Church being introduced must be clarified, to which I addressed the poster to check if we were on the same page.

Your post, magnified and supported my claim, if these terms are used in generalities without knowing from which community it is directed lends to confusion as you have posted here by revealing the complexity of Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholics.

Now here is were you error out of reality in supposing that everyone in the world who references Orthodox, the Eastern Church, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics are not as familiar with these terms. From my experience, especially talking with non catholics and protestants, who come to learn of Orthodoxy tend to be mislead into thinking that all of Orthodox Church’s and the Eastern Catholics are all out of communion with the popes, because of there geography being in the East or having an Eastern liturgy, thus I introduced the Italo-Greek rite.

I see no problem with your post, I pray they instruct here to those who are coming into these terms, to which you addressed incorrectly “as all who use them know their exact meaning”, realisitically this does not happen, at least from my experience.

Thanks for the post, they are very instructive. Shall we continue the issue of those out of communion with the popes? versus those who never left communion with the popes since apostolic times, and why Constantinople’s patriarchate is never apostolic? Then maybe we can clear some of the confusion between Orthodoxy not in communion, and Orthodoxy in commuion with the Pope since apostolic times.

Peace be with you

I think you may be mistaken. The post of yours that I was questioning was this one, post #186 when Wesley7 asked you, “So, then, you’re now saying Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the same?” and you replied with the following:

Yes, mystically and sacramentally. If you remove the secular aspects that have caused a tear (schism) in the unity, what you have remaining is “No man can put asunder what God has joined together”.

So long as pride, misunderstandings, combined with negative protests without full understanding towards what God has built in his Catholic Church, supported by secular powers to hinder unity. This small schism between “Some” Orthodox communities prevents full communion with the Pope, and what some posters fail to realize these Orthodox communities are also out of full communion with the world wide apostolic successors who never seperated themselves from the Popes since apostolic times from both East and West Catholic Church communities.

A word of caution here, when you use the Word Eastern Orthodoxy loosely here, you are including many Eastern Church’s who never left their full communion with the Popes. It may be more clear to idenitfy these Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes and the rest of the bishops world wide united to the pope, specifically or Orthodox not in full communion with the pope.

Confusion about what “Orthodox” group that this thread was discussing was pretty much cleared up in the first page of this thread. So it was already clear to you, Wesley7, and everybody else on what communion of churches we were discussing. Also, you were questioning the use of the term “Eastern Orthodox”, not “Orthodox”. When someone uses the term “Eastern Orthodox” around here or most anywhere else, they are not referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches. We have clearly been discussing the Eastern Orthodox Church which includes the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Moscow, etc.

For example, when someone begins discussing the Roman Catholic Church and starts to reference it as the “Catholic” Church, I do not get confused and wonder to myself if they are talking about the PNCC or the SSPX when they just say the “Catholic” Church. I understand that they are talking about the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, I’m not sure if you’re clear about this, but the “Oriental Orthodox” which I think you are referring to when you use the term the “Eastern Orthodox in heterodoxy” never refer to themselves as “Eastern Orthodox.”

Which all brings me back to my original point that you are bringing confusion to this term “Eastern Orthodoxy” when really it is not that confusing.

But you are right in that we have veered away from the original discussion, and I am starting to repeat my points so I’m just going to leave it at this.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you’re interested, here’s a website that shows examples of icons of many western saints that are recognized by the Orthodox:
allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Western.html

Very interesting, thanks. I noticed they had St Boethius, who isn’t considered a saint in the West at all, AFAIK. I’ve often wondered why. The Consolation of Philosophy is one of my favorite books.

They didn’t have St Aengus though. I’ve been looking for an icon of him everywhere for my son.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Each one of my three kids has an icon by his/her bed of their patron—St. Veronica, St. Luke, and for Caleb John, his patron is St. John the Evangelist

Very interesting, thanks. I noticed they had St Boethius, who isn’t considered a saint in the West at all, AFAIK. I’ve often wondered why. The Consolation of Philosophy is one of my favorite books.

They didn’t have St Aengus though. I’ve been looking for an icon of him everywhere for my son.

 

[The_Sentry]

If you’re interested, here’s a website that shows examples of icons of many western saints that are recognized by the Orthodox:
allmercifulsavior.com/icons/Western.html

Thanks so much for sharing this!

 

[Wesley7]

To SEARN77;

Although your post are most imformative here, but they lack the content of the original discussion. To which I asked for clarification to be sure we are discussing the same Orthodox not in communion with the Popes and not to include all Catholic church’s from the East holding to the title Orthodox in full communion with the popes, to which some of these have come home to communion with the popes.

Then Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics were not defined in the discussion. But I am glad you brought them up. It would appear from the original post and reply, you have added more content than was being discussed. Which I do not object to.

Without knowing which is Eastern Orthodoxy is meant here, those Eastern Orthodox in heterodoxy or Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the popes, or any Orthodox living in the East who are in communion with the popes.

Your crystal clear analysis blew away in the wind because according to you two different terms have been introduced here, not one.

This is the confusion you may have missed in the thought process. When you have Eastern Orthodoxy and then a change to Orthodox being used in the same thought process. Realistically if one is following the thought process in discussion, the identity of the Church being introduced must be clarified, to which I addressed the poster to check if we were on the same page.

Your post, magnified and supported my claim, if these terms are used in generalities without knowing from which community it is directed lends to confusion as you have posted here by revealing the complexity of Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholics.

Now here is were you error out of reality in supposing that everyone in the world who references Orthodox, the Eastern Church, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Rite Catholics are not as familiar with these terms. From my experience, especially talking with non catholics and protestants, who come to learn of Orthodoxy tend to be mislead into thinking that all of Orthodox Church’s and the Eastern Catholics are all out of communion with the popes, because of there geography being in the East or having an Eastern liturgy, thus I introduced the Italo-Greek rite.

I see no problem with your post, I pray they instruct here to those who are coming into these terms, to which you addressed incorrectly “as all who use them know their exact meaning”, realisitically this does not happen, at least from my experience.

Thanks for the post, they are very instructive. Shall we continue the issue of those out of communion with the popes? versus those who never left communion with the popes since apostolic times, and why Constantinople’s patriarchate is never apostolic? Then maybe we can clear some of the confusion between Orthodoxy not in communion, and Orthodoxy in commuion with the Pope since apostolic times.

Peace be with you

FYI, just because people write long posts does not mean anything more.

The ancient Church is autocephalous ,independent,and self-governing.

The way it should be.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Thanks for the post, they are very instructive. Shall we continue the issue of those out of communion with the popes? versus those who never left communion with the popes since apostolic times, and why Constantinople’s patriarchate is never apostolic? Then maybe we can clear some of the confusion between Orthodoxy not in communion, and Orthodoxy in commuion with the Pope since apostolic times…Gabe”

This is the point which we have came back around to a few times now. I understand the perspective in thinking of Coptic and the Orient. But as Gabriel pointed out, thats all well fine but that only takes us further into another area of Orthodox.

What we have to focus on is the difference between the Byzantine Catholics, and the Byzantine Orthodox which is essense have consistant similarities.

Somehow we get the impression as Orthodox, or as Catholics, or Protestants for that matter, we lose the reality of just how important it is to remember in all of this that we need Gods help. We are incapible of doing this alone.

Where does that impression come from? I can’t seem to understand how that, here we stand thinking, we’ll be fine without each other and survive? Never mind prosper. When it has failed to ever work out in History. Whats the example thats give one such a postive outlook and so much hope? We stumbled our way into a Civil society in the West divided. Is it rational thinking to believe we will continue to stumble foward knowing full and well we live by Gods Mercy by the moment. And knowing full well the decline of the West in the last half century alone. Look at this abomination we call the USA today. It a path to hell without a doubt. You have pray daily for intercession we make it out this insanity and find God, and moral, good and right again.

Infallable? The only thing I believe that people believe is truly infallable is the West. Really thats the impression I get by listening to well “some” members here anyway.

Obviously the older guys who spent a few decades here understand what I’m saying. Unfortuante we have way to many “proud” young men today who somehow think this is OK with God. That this life here will continue to exist, never mind thrive.

Our individual spirituality is what we have carved out of this insanity as individuals for ourselfs with a belief in God by our own education or upbringing. Its actually admirable man is capible of finding this path in this chaos anymore. But to say somehow we as “Christology” are moving in the correct direction as “Christology?” Well you’ll simply have to explain it to me, I fail to see it. I see us holding on by threads today, and I’m not talking Catholic, EO, or Protectant now…I’m talking Christology here the West, the USA.

I could sit here and think we’ll the Catholic Church statistically is fine and with the increase in Latin Americans will continue to increase. But its really not the issue that we don’t need you. The issue is the evil we battle we cannot do alone. You can’t do it alone. And you can rest assure that the Protestant denominations are not going to do it alone. I can’t even identify and don’t even know what to call some of that anymore.

So the true followers of Christ scattered as they are will remain at the end of this war of Good and evil? Thats the stategy we are going with? Please tell me thats not the plan?

God Bless, Gary

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FYI, just because people write long posts does not mean anything more.

The ancient Church is autocephalous ,independent,and self-governing.

The way it should be.

I agree, but this false pretense of an autocephalous, independent, and self governing church does not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, because she remains under the influences of her secular dictators who govern her.

To believe that one refuses communion with the popes, is an autocephalous, independent, and self governing Church is a false delusion. Because all Catholic Church’s in communiion with the popes maintain their own “autocephalous”, independent and self governing status.

Peace be with you

 

[Harpazo]

I agree, but this false pretense of an autocephalous, independent, and self governing church does not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, because she remains under the influences of her secular dictators who govern her.

Um…what?

To believe that one refuses communion with the popes, is an autocephalous, independent, and self governing Church is a false delusion. Because all Catholic Church’s in communiion with the popes maintain their own “autocephalous”, independent and self governing status.

Peace be with you

That isn’t true at all. I don’t think you know what autocephalus means.None of the sui iuris churches are autocephalus. Not one. They might have degrees of autonomy, but even some of their faithful will tell you that’s quite limited. Only the Latin church is autocephalus.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gabe,

could you give an example of autocephalous Orthodox Churches who are ruled by secular dictators? I’m just curious…

I agree, but this false pretense of an autocephalous, independent, and self governing church does not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, because she remains under the influences of her secular dictators who govern her.

To believe that one refuses communion with the popes, is an autocephalous, independent, and self governing Church is a false delusion. Because all Catholic Church’s in communiion with the popes maintain their own “autocephalous”, independent and self governing status.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabe,

could you give an example of autocephalous Orthodox Churches who are ruled by secular dictators? I’m just curious…

Sure; Constantinople = Istanbul is governed and ruled by Turkey, Russia government has laws in her books which dictates governing policies over the Orthodox Church. Autocephalous is an independent self governing body the definition does not fit the current situation in Istanbul and Russia.

I believe the most important aspect to this supposed independence as autocephalous falls under “Autonomous Morality” which is opposed to heteronomous morality which holds to the moral law as imposed from outside of man by God, which makes the moral law theonomous.

This morality issue may be a separate discussion on another level, yet the west is not immune by secular laws such as abortion, but the secular powers in the west do not dictate or govern the Catholic Church’s teachings on morality, or approving and or selecting her bishops. These moral issues are taught freely by catechises, yet the Eastern Orthodox mentioned are limited by their secular powers to freely open Catholic schools, seminarian schools in order to catechise christian morality, not to mention freely wear clergy vestments in public etc… These few examples among many do not justify an “autocephalous” Church ruled or supervised by a dictatorship government.

In summary any time Caesar has any say over the church’s bishop selection, and limits the church’s practice in any way as Caesar dictates does not justify an “autocephalous” church.

The Morality issue that I take up here can not be autocephalous, this is the deception viewed from those holding to an autocephalous church. Because Christian morality and faith are guided by the Popes and magisterium, leaving the autocephalous mindset to dictate morality independently from the body of Christ. Thus they may view some Church’s in the west as not being “autocephalous”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Um…what?

That isn’t true at all. I don’t think you know what autocephalus means.None of the sui iuris churches are autocephalus. Not one. They might have degrees of autonomy, but even some of their faithful will tell you that’s quite limited. Only the Latin church is autocephalus.

In Christ,
Andrew

Well do you know of another definition of autocephalus, other than the one posted by Wesley7?

I have introduced two aspects of “autocephalus” church’s dealing with self governing and faith and morals. To which of these does your definition of autocephalus objects to?

 

[Hesychios]

I have introduced two aspects of “autocephalus” church’s dealing with self governing and faith and morals. To which of these does your definition of autocephalus objects to?

What you mean is autonomous, not autocephalous. Only the Latin church is autocephalous, the rest are autonomous.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good points all. I have considered them. I don’t think the morality of Orthodoxy is as universal as Catholicism. They don’t have things pinned-down as tight with a catechism and a universal sense of what is intrinsically evil, etc. as the Catholics do. But that’s not to say that their spiritual fathers don’t do a great job guiding them. Honestly I don’t know how effective the spiritual father to congregant relationship is. I do know theoretically if a priest were to be liberal or off kilter morally it could affect people but it seems most Orthodox are pretty moral folks with a good compass for right and wrong.

I was reading an article yesterday about how the Russian Orthodox Church is seeking to ban all government-funded abortions in the Russian Federation. It was in the St. Petersburgh Times. They’re trying to tighten up restrictions on abortions all over the place despite the fact the government is pro-abortion and has been for the last 80 years or so. So Orthodoxy in Russia doesn’t look to be too cooperative with the government. The Church there is rallying conservative politicians to their cause.

Sure; Constantinople = Istanbul is governed and ruled by Turkey, Russia government has laws in her books which dictates governing policies over the Orthodox Church. Autocephalous is an independent self governing body the definition does not fit the current situation in Istanbul and Russia.

I believe the most important aspect to this supposed independence as autocephalous falls under “Autonomous Morality” which is opposed to heteronomous morality which holds to the moral law as imposed from outside of man by God, which makes the moral law theonomous.

This morality issue may be a separate discussion on another level, yet the west is not immune by secular laws such as abortion, but the secular powers in the west do not dictate or govern the Catholic Church’s teachings on morality, or approving and or selecting her bishops. These moral issues are taught freely by catechises, yet the Eastern Orthodox mentioned are limited by their secular powers to freely open Catholic schools, seminarian schools in order to catechise christian morality, not to mention freely wear clergy vestments in public etc… These few examples among many do not justify an “autocephalous” Church ruled or supervised by a dictatorship government.

In summary any time Caesar has any say over the church’s bishop selection, and limits the church’s practice in any way as Caesar dictates does not justify an “autocephalous” church.

The Morality issue that I take up here can not be autocephalous, this is the deception viewed from those holding to an autocephalous church. Because Christian morality and faith are guided by the Popes and magisterium, leaving the autocephalous mindset to dictate morality independently from the body of Christ. Thus they may view some Church’s in the west as not being “autocephalous”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think inabilty to work together for the greater good. Is what Catholics find most disturbing. I know I do.

For example what stands out in my mind?

The situation in Russia and the USA is just plan hurting mankind. The inability for the Catholic Church to be able to establish itself and be viewed as an authentic religion in Russia creates a major problem. For one what millions of Catholic’s feel needs to be done as per Gods instruction cannot be done. Because of the stance the ROC takes with the Catholic Church entering Russia compounded by how that effects the Social/political order in Russia creates a problem for the CC. And if their belief is in fact correct for mankind. Then why not help the situation, whats there to lose?

If Millions of Catholics are convinced the consecration of Russia is something that need be done. And the wall that stands between in essence becomes the EO. Then there’s an issue which need be resolved. And how does this play out as us being Christians?

No-one is asking anyone to join our faith if you are more comfortable elsewhere. Heck most of you guys posting here were Catholics. God Bless you. I believe, as many do that the Catholic Faith has to be treated socially equal in Russia as any other religion. Theres a fundamental issue existing.

What should the concern be with the ROC of what we as Catholics are doing in Russia? If we are not trying to convert you. And the goal is to create World Peace. What is the issue? What is there to lose? In bondage we would actually become best of friends. No question about that.

The USA is the same situation. The inability to work together in all areas we do agree on, again has a crippling effect on the Christian voice with the areas we do agree. Our voice as larger majority obviously has more effect in the USA.

We have watched in history the consecration and convertion of nations. Its happened in Austria, Mexico, and Portugal. All through the Immaculate Heart. All historic facts. None of this is far fetched thinking.

What is there to lose? The chance of World Peace is ZERO as we stand. And if in fact these millions of Catholics are correct, we have a serious mess which is going to have its bearing on the USA.

No one is asking anyone to change their faith. To believe what we believe. But as Christians so close in history we should certainly back each others play is anything that very well may be good for mankind. And very well may be the will of God. Also which indeed if true compounds the situation. Over what something as harmless as a consecration process?

I find it baffling. Especially is view of history.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What you mean is autonomous, not autocephalous. Only the Latin church is autocephalous, the rest are autonomous.

Internationally “autonomous” fits the bill, but on the local level, they are autocephalous.

Delegates from blessed JPII, informed the U.S bishops of this, when the problem of ordaining women, allowing gay priests etc…came up during his Papacy. The delegates informed the U.S bishops and complained about their laxity and moral decay in their country, stemmed from their apostolic authority to govern, dictate morality, practice the faith in their independence as apostolic successors. The pope does not dictate their local governing bodies and policies, finances, and instruction to teach on faith and morals, this is their commission from God not the Pope, to lead their flock.

This is just one example from the local level. On the international level, Peter (the Popes) leads the Church from “autocephalous”, independent from all secular powers. Praise God. From this level the local bishops fall under “autonomous”.