Questions for our Orthodox brethren

[Cavaradossi]

This would be a good medium, remembering your being informed about Orthodoxy from an Orthodox media and not be influenced by any antiCatholic misinformation. From experience Orthodoxy tend to explain their own theolgical understandings at the same time by refuting the authority of the Popes and the magisterium the Catholic church not to mention Church councils.

Here is a list of books from a convert from Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism; Here it from the Horses mouth here;

Jim Lokoudis “Ending the Byzantine Schism”, “Modern Eastern Orthodoxy” and “Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome”.

We have nothing to say about your popes and your magisterium until you bring them up. Clearly because we do not believe in the authority of the pope and of the magisterium, we will not hold to some beliefs (like the IC), which have been made into dogma by the Roman Catholics, and in addition to that, our ecclesiology is rather incompatible with the amount of power that the pope has in the modern Roman Catholic Church. If somebody is truly interested in learning about Orthodoxy, however, then they will have to read about and confront these facts because they are a legitimate difference in belief. You mistakenly see propaganda where we see honesty about our own beliefs.

I stand by Hesychios’ statement: if you want to learn about the Orthodox, ask the Orthodox themselves; just like how if one wanted to learn about the Roman Catholics, he would be better off asking the Roman Catholics. Reading Jim Lokoudis’ opinion of Orthodoxy makes about as much sense as reading a Scott Hahn book when you’re trying to learn about Protestantism. Things written by Jim Lokoudis aren’t from the horse’s mouth, by virtue of the fact that he left Orthodoxy.

If I were really trying to feed somebody anti-Catholic propaganda, there are plenty of books written by Roman Catholics who left for Orthodoxy out there, but I refrained from recommending them because of the natural anti-Catholic perspective which they will present. The books which I recommended are all rather fair and non-polemical, and have very little to say about the Roman Catholic Church (some have some positive things to say, like John Zizioulas who insists that the ecclesiology of the East and West are naturally complimentary to and have a need of each other), and I even recommended one book written by a Roman Catholic priest, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. Furthermore, one of the books I recommended, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy is a scholarly work with a 30 page bibliography and nearly 90 pages of endnotes. I honestly do not know what could possibly be unfair about the books which I recommended.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We have nothing to say about your popes and your magisterium until you bring them up. Clearly because we do not believe in the authority of the pope and of the magisterium, we will not hold to some beliefs (like the IC]/QUOTE]

Great to see you speak for the entire EO:thumbsup:

Now can we put the male super ego and bravado aside, do you have any in depth comments or papers, by the PATRIARCHS? We been waiting for those for YEARS???

Incompatible? Interesting and telling to say the least. Unreal.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Great to see you speak for the entire EO:thumbsup:

Now can we put the male super ego and bravado aside

So are you here to deliver needless attacks upon my personality or are you here to learn? The shame to be saying such things about others on the Lord’s day. I thought this thread was about learning about what the Orthodox believe, not about attacking posters who honestly profess their faith, but perhaps I was mistaken.

do you have any in depth comments or papers, by the PATRIARCHS? We been waiting for those for YEARS???

Just because a patriarch didn’t write it doesn’t mean that it’s not a good representative of what the Orthodox believe. If you haven’t noticed, the Orthodox posters here tend to be pretty uniform in belief, even though most of us belong to different jurisdictions. I have already given a list of very good Orthodox books which go quite in depth and give good witness to the Orthodox faith.

Incompatible? Interesting and telling to say the least. Unreal.

Yes, Orthodox ecclesiology is not compatible with the idea of an infallible pope with universal jurisdiction. The emphasis on the catholicity of the local church as a microcosm of the universal Church, which is then united to the universal Church through the celebration of the Eucharist and holding the same faith is irreconcilable with the Catholic approach toward unity which instead stems from a single point, the bishop of Rome, going downwards to the individual church, which must be in communion with the focal point of unity, Rome. In the Roman model, truly it cannot be believed that the Pope can fall into heresy because the unity of the Church is contingent on the pope, while in the Eastern model, the head may fall into heresy, because he is not what unites the Church into the mystical and visible body of Christ. In Orthodoxy, it is the many which show forth the one, rather than the one which unites the many.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Gary,

Great to see you speak for the entire EO:thumbsup:

He’s got it about right.

It is repeatedly brought up here by Roman Catholics (understandably, being a Roman Catholic website) but the Papacy has very little to do with Orthodox. We Orthodox are always responding to the prodding of Roman Catholics here, but for ourselves the Papacy is a non-issue. We have our sacraments, our clergy and our hierarchs. We have our liturgy and our prayers, our spirituality and devotions and they are efficacious, valid and licit in and of themselves.

We are happy to interact with Roman Catholics and hope for a resolution of our divisions, which is why our churchmen will dialog with Roman Catholic churchmen. Some are even personal friends, I like that and hope they remain friends.

You should know that once the schism was set, by Cardinals Humbert and Frederic, the Orthodox Catholic churches introduced no new procedures, no new canons, in order to go about their day to day business. There was no new theory on how to run the church, and no new doctrines. There was no ‘hole to fill’. Probably most Orthodox were unaware that the Roman Catholic church had even left the communion, as they were not affected in any way by it.

I am sure this comes as a shock to many Roman Catholics, but the Papacy you are so familiar with (the one your church revolves around, the one that dominates most Roman Catholic discussions, the one that your Protestant brothers have had such a problem with), just does not exist for Orthodox and never actually did.

For Orthodox, the west fell away, a puzzlement. But the Orthodox Catholics have never been dependent on it any more than the western church has been dependent upon the Orthodox east. They were always sister churches, essentially partners. They could work together for a common cause, or they could work separately. It would be better if they could work side-by-side again, as Rome being one of several traditional partners, but if that is not possible the Orthodox will continue Christ’s work regardless.

The first millennium Papacy (the one we would recognize, and understand) was a lot different from the modern one, but then as now it had no control outside of it’s own Metropolia.

Now can we put the male super ego and bravado aside,

I am disappointed that you have resorted to ad homonyms Gary. I hope you were just trying to introduce a sense of levity without disdain.

Elsewhere I posted the Encyclical of 1848, have you read it? That pretty much sums up the Orthodox thinking on your church, signed by three patriarchal synods.

 

[Warrenton]

They could work together for a common cause, or they could work separately. It would be better if they could work side-by-side again,

In general, I agreed with this post strongly. But this comment particularly stood out.

The first 1000 years was more successful than the second.

Rome and Constinople have worked separately, but in the way that a divorced man and woman go about their lives after the divorce.

“It is not good that man should be alone.”

Of course, in this analogy, both East and West are husband and wife at the same time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8399394]We have nothing to say about your popes and your magisterium until you bring them up…If somebody is truly interested in learning about Orthodoxy, however, then they will have to read about and confront these facts because they are a legitimate difference in belief. You mistakenly see propaganda where we see honesty about our own beliefs.

Your negative Catholic comments already support my position. I wish I could agree with your statement Cavaradossi, but the fact remains from my experience when I listen to Orthodox lectures, teachings or read of Orthodoxy not in communion with the Popes. I find almost every time, that Orthodoxy gets explained by defending Its position by refuting the Popes, the Magisterium in unity with the Popes which includes other Orthodox Catholics.

Why can’t Orthodox explain or defend its theology without having to denounce or protest the Catholic faith? Can Orthodoxy today defend its position on Its own merits and understanding alone? Without ever having to refute others who are not of Orthodox Language, theological understandings or cultural influences which you label Orthodox?

My simple point is; I would love a source from you that explains Orthodoxy on its own footing without ever having to protest the Popes authority the magisterium or Catholic theology in the West.

Can you give me one Orthodox source that explains Orthodoxy without ever having to justify its position from its protest (disagreements) against the Catholic Church? I would love to look into your sources, If any such Orthodox literature exists?

Jim L. has very deep roots in Orthodoxy, His explanations of Orthodoxy are all very positive except when dealing with the heresies that came from these Churches early on before the Orthodox name gets taken on, his facts are historically acurate and open to scrutiny. If anything Jim L. gives an unbiased revelation between Orthodoxy and the Peter’s Chair presided in the Popes of Rome since the apostolic period beginning with Peter himself.

Peace be with you

 

[Sonny89]

Your negative Catholic comments already support my position. I wish I could agree with your statement Cavaradossi, but the fact remains from my experience when I listen to Orthodox lectures, teachings or read of Orthodoxy not in communion with the Popes. I find almost every time, that Orthodoxy gets explained by defending Its position by refuting the Popes, the Magisterium in unity with the Popes which includes other Orthodox Catholics.

Personally, I see nothing particularly wrong with the statement

We have nothing to say about your popes and your magisterium until you bring them up. Clearly because we do not believe in the authority of the pope and of the magisterium, we will not hold to some beliefs (like the IC), which have been made into dogma by the Roman Catholics, and in addition to that, our ecclesiology is rather incompatible with the amount of power that the pope has in the modern Roman Catholic Church. If somebody is truly interested in learning about Orthodoxy, however, then they will have to read about and confront these facts because they are a legitimate difference in belief. You mistakenly see propaganda where we see honesty about our own beliefs…

If Cavaradossi (or anyone else posting here) had simply said dismissively “]We have nothing to say about your popes and your magisterium.” then I might. However, until that actually happens I see no problem

Admittedly, I haven’t read in the depth you have or attended that many Orthodox Lectures etc but so far the Papacy only came up here in a discussion relating to what hierarchical Structure the Orthodox have in its place. All this was in response to a question I asked to that effect

Peace & all Good .

 

[Sonny89]

I’m still searching for copies of the books so If any/all of the following questions are answered in one of the recommended books, just point me in the direction of the corresponding book and when I find the book I’ll find the answer . I don’t want to take up other posters’ time unnecessarily . Plus, I appreciate the answers may be hard to explain simply on a thread like this.

What does EO believe about what the RCC terms “the process of Canonization”? How are saints proclaimed in EO?

Since Thomas Aquinas’ Definition of Transubstantiation came after the split between EO & RCC , does EO believe in Transubstantiation or anything similar? What happens does EO believe happens at the Consecration?

I’d like to know more about how the EO & RC differ in their definitions of Original Sin. Could you explain this or recommend a book, link, etc? Thanks!

Peace & All Good

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

GENERAL WARNING
I suggest we put aside personal comments and stick to the OP.
You’re right. This is a Catholic site.
However this sub-forum requires us to speak to people of other traditions in a respectful and adult manner following the rules of the forum.
Those who cannot do that will be given a week off to read the rules of CAF.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The canonization of saints is not as centralized of a process as it is in the RCC. When a particularly holy person dies, then at times, a local “cult” (for lack of a better term) will pop up. If it gains enough influence, then the saint might be investigated by the synod of the national/autocephalous church to see if there is any cause for canonization (miracles, etc.). Unlike the RCC we don’t really have a set number of confirmed miracles needed to canonize a saint. In many ways, it’s like the process in the RCC (the formation of a local “cult” which attracts the attention of the authorities), but in the EOC, there’s no central authority for canonization; if an autocephalous church canonizes a new saint, then the saint is generally regarded as b being legitimate universally. Also, martyrdom is always considered to be enough cause for canonization within the EOC.

With transubstantiation, you will find varied opinions (some, especially the highly anti-Roman will reject it, while others accept it or are neutral on the matter). There is no doctrinal definition of how the bread and wine become the true body and blood of Christ; we just hold that it is a mystery. I think the most major objection to transubstantiation might be that it works on the assumption that Aristotelian metaphysics ( the talk about accidents and substance) its the true framework for reality. That being said, it is a useful description for how Christ comes to be present in the Eucharist, but we just can’t know if the metaphysical assumptions it makes are true.

On original sin, I’m really not too sure how we differ, because I often get varied answers from Roman Catholics. Thee Orthodox tend to view original sin as having changed the very fabric of being, so to speak. By disobeying God, Adam and Eve brought death into the world. Death, inherited biologically, is just a natural consequence of living in this fallen world. We don’t really have a concept of there being a “stain” of original sin; hence there’s really no need for the immaculate conception, because it cleanses from the Virgin Mary a concept which we do not have, the stain of original sin.

 

[TrueLight]

For Orthodox, the west fell away, a puzzlement. But the Orthodox Catholics have never been dependent on it any more than the western church has been dependent upon the Orthodox east. They were always sister churches, essentially partners. They could work together for a common cause, or they could work separately. It would be better if they could work side-by-side again, as Rome being one of several traditional partners, but if that is not possible the Orthodox will continue Christ’s work regardless.

Hi Hesychios,

I know that the question I am about to pose has been asked many times, but in light of the paragraph above regarding interacting as sister churches, where did papal primacy come in?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Hesychios,

I know that the question I am about to pose has been asked many times, but in light of the paragraph above regarding interacting as sister churches, where did papal primacy come in?

About like Alexandrian primacy, Constantinopolitan primacy, Antiochian primacy etc. In other words primacy is operative throughout the church. It helps keep things in good order.

I have stated elsewhere in the past that there is an order of primacy among altar servers, and among deacons, and priests around an altar. Primacy is a universal principle in the church.

I am sure that if all of the patriarchs were together in communion today, and could concelebrate, the bishop of Rome would be standing in the flame. For the present (because we are not in communion, sadly) among Orthodox that would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople standing in the flame. Likewise, if the EP could not be present it would be the Patriarch of Alexandria standing in the flame.

It’s not that Alexandria (for an example) is any less important overall, but the order of precedence was set for a reason (the reasons are stated in the ancient canons).

The EP today has the highest primacy in Holy Orthodoxy. If one wants to study how the bishop of Rome was percieved, and what his role as the most revered of primates was, one could simply study how that role is performed today, because it never left.

Thus, one could rephrase the question as “where does the Ecumenical Patriarch’s primacy come in?” Then look for that answer today among the Orthodox.

 

[jam070406]

So are you here to deliver needless attacks upon my personality or are you here to learn? The shame to be saying such things about others on the Lord’s day. I thought this thread was about learning about what the Orthodox believe, not about attacking posters who honestly profess their faith, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Just because a patriarch didn’t write it doesn’t mean that it’s not a good representative of what the Orthodox believe. If you haven’t noticed, the Orthodox posters here tend to be pretty uniform in belief, even though most of us belong to different jurisdictions. I have already given a list of very good Orthodox books which go quite in depth and give good witness to the Orthodox faith.

Yes, Orthodox ecclesiology is not compatible with the idea of an infallible pope with universal jurisdiction. The emphasis on the catholicity of the local church as a microcosm of the universal Church, which is then united to the universal Church through the celebration of the Eucharist and holding the same faith is irreconcilable with the Catholic approach toward unity which instead stems from a single point, the bishop of Rome, going downwards to the individual church, which must be in communion with the focal point of unity, Rome. In the Roman model, truly it cannot be believed that the Pope can fall into heresy because the unity of the Church is contingent on the pope, while in the Eastern model, the head may fall into heresy, because he is not what unites the Church into the mystical and visible body of Christ. In Orthodoxy, it is the many which show forth the one, rather than the one which unites the many.

I’m sorry but I think this assessment is just flat out wrong. Our unity is in the Faith we profess and the Eucharist we share, which is often stated in the prayer after receiving. Usually something like, Lord may this Eucharist we have received unite us in one mind as one body. I think your opinion that the Pope is the one and only source of unity is a gross over simplification and nothing but modern EO polemics.

 

[jam070406]

About like Alexandrian primacy, Constantinopolitan primacy, Antiochian primacy etc. In other words primacy is operative throughout the church. It helps keep things in good order.

I have stated elsewhere in the past that there is an order of primacy among altar servers, and among deacons, and priests around an altar. Primacy is a universal principle in the church.

I am sure that if all of the patriarchs were together in communion today, and could concelebrate, the bishop of Rome would be standing in the flame. For the present (because we are not in communion, sadly) among Orthodox that would be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople standing in the flame. Likewise, if the EP could not be present it would be the Patriarch of Alexandria standing in the flame.

It’s not that Alexandria (for an example) is any less important overall, but the order of precedence was set for a reason (the reasons are stated in the ancient canons).

The EP today has the highest primacy in Holy Orthodoxy. If one wants to study how the bishop of Rome was percieved, and what his role as the most revered of primates was, one could simply study how that role is performed today, because it never left.

Thus, one could rephrase the question as “where does the Ecumenical Patriarch’s primacy come in?” Then look for that answer today among the Orthodox.

I wish the Pope intervened more in the affairs of the Bishop, like many Orthodox mistakenly seem to believe happens. It would put an end to some of the nonsense liberals have heaped on the Church and the Faithful. But alas, the real world is much different then some on the internet would have us believe.

 

[Hesychios]

I wish the Pope intervened more in the affairs of the Bishop, like many Orthodox mistakenly seem to believe happens. It would put an end to some of the nonsense liberals have heaped on the Church and the Faithful. But alas, the real world is much different then some on the internet would have us believe.

I presume you are referring to the Latin Catholic church, which is another topic altogether.

However, since you mention this, one must look at how those bishops are chosen and ask how or why such people make it to the top of the selection process. If there is a problem (I am not going to say there is, that is for you to say), it may be a systemic one.

 

[dvdjs]

… one must look at how those bishops are chosen and ask how or why such people make it to the top of the selection process. If there is a problem (I am not going to say there is, that is for you to say), it may be a systemic one.

I presume you are talking about your OCA.

 

[jam070406]

I presume you are referring to the Latin Catholic church, which is another topic altogether.

However, since you mention this, one must look at how those bishops are chosen and ask how or why such people make it to the top of the selection process. If there is a problem (I am not going to say there is, that is for you to say), it may be a systemic one.

Not really. In the end, we are to believe every cleric has a calling from God. When is one to be held accountable for his one actions and not always blaiming the Pope?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’m sorry but I think this assessment is just flat out wrong. Our unity is in the Faith we profess and the Eucharist we share, which is often stated in the prayer after receiving. Usually something like, Lord may this Eucharist we have received unite us in one mind as one body. I think your opinion that the Pope is the one and only source of unity is a gross over simplification and nothing but modern EO polemics.

While that may be true, the practical manifestation of unity within the modern Catholic Church is communion with Rome (look even ast how many Eastern Catholics give themselves the name Orthodox in communion with Rome for example). I did not intend to make a polemical point, just a practical observation. This is a mistake in ecclesiology which sometimes can be found within Orthodoxy as well, as many Orthodox will mistakenly say that communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople marks one as being Eastern Orthodox, so it would be silly to try to use it as a polemical point; I was just making an observation of what I perceive as a rather top-down model of communion in the Catholic Church. If that is truly not Rome’s stance on ecclesiology, then that will definitely make reunion easier.

 

[jam070406]

While that may be true, the practical manifestation of unity within the modern Catholic Church is communion with Rome (look even ast how many Eastern Catholics give themselves the name Orthodox in communion with Rome for example). I did not intend to make a polemical point, just a practical observation. This is a mistake in ecclesiology which sometimes can be found within Orthodoxy as well, as many Orthodox will mistakenly say that communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople marks one as being Eastern Orthodox, so it would be silly to try to use it as a polemical point; I was just making an observation of what I perceive as a rather top-down model of communion in the Catholic Church. If that is truly not Rome’s stance on ecclesiology, then that will definitely make reunion easier.

Yes, the Pope is often times an easy, convient boogeyman. If you look in the Traditional Catholic section you’ll find a thread that attempts to show the Pope is some sort of Masonic Illuminati infiltrator because someone snapped a photo with a “suspicious” hand gesture.

I can tell you from experience that the Pope has never made a sneak appearance or sent legates to our Parish to makes sure we followed all his rules to keep us in unity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, the Pope is often times an easy, convient boogeyman. If you look in the Traditional Catholic section you’ll find a thread that attempts to show the Pope is some sort of Masonic Illuminati infiltrator because someone snapped a photo with a “suspicious” hand gesture.

I can tell you from experience that the Pope has never made a sneak appearance or sent legates to our Parish to makes sure we followed all his rules to keep us in unity.

Gotta watch out for those incognito papal legates; nobody expects the -]Spanish/-] Roman Inqusition.