Reading a new book

  • Thread starter Thread starter BennyBoy89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BennyBoy89

Guest
I just started reading “The Orthodox Church” by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. It was reccomended to me awhile back by someone on this forum, and so far it’s a pretty good read. Although I think he’s a little bit unfair at times to us “Papists,” he does describe both sides of the story of the schism. It’s also helping me understand Eastern Catholic theology better.

Has anyone else read this? Any other good reads out there about the Eastern Churches?
 
Metropolitan Kallistos’s book THE ORTHODOX CHURCH (written while he was still a layman Timothy Ware) is the standard introduction and is a usual part of adult instruction for Orthodox, especially for catechumens.
 
I agree with the pp that The Orthodox Church is the book to read for an introduction.

Ware also wrote The Orthodox Way. You might want to read it too.

:harp: :heaven:
 
ruslan said:
I agree with the pp that The Orthodox Church is the book to read for an introduction.

Ware also wrote The Orthodox Way. You might want to read it too.

:harp: :heaven:
Click to expand...
Yes, I just finished reading The Orthodox Way. He really has some wonderful insights into the spiritual life.
 
Well… I finished it. It was good and informative, but got a bit dry toward the end. I understand Eastern thinking much more now. One thing I didn’t appreciate though was His Excellency placing Catholics in communion with the Pope at essentially the same level as protestants, especially Anglicans. That was my impression at least.

I’m not here to criticize the faith of any of our Orthodox brethren (who I think of as just as much a part of the Church as Catholics), but “The Orthodox Church” helped me realize why I’m a “Roman” Catholic.
 
BennyBoy89 said:
Well… I finished it. It was good and informative, but got a bit dry toward the end. I understand Eastern thinking much more now. One thing I didn’t appreciate though was His Excellency placing Catholics in communion with the Pope at essentially the same level as protestants, especially Anglicans. That was my impression at least.

I’m not here to criticize the faith of any of our Orthodox brethren (who I think of as just as much a part of the Church as Catholics), but “The Orthodox Church” helped me realize why I’m a “Roman” Catholic.
Click to expand...
Rome calls them schismatics. Why should the EO not be honest about who they think we are? They think we profess heresy as Catholics.
 
jimmy said:
Rome calls them schismatics. Why should the EO not be honest about who they think we are? They think we profess heresy as Catholics.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they should be dishonest, but we don’t put them at the same level as protestants. I’m sure it’s not all Orthodox who feel that way, but it’s just the impression I got from Ware’s book. There also seems to be some Orthodox who essentially will say the sky is red if Rome says it’s blue, which Ware refers to when he speaks of some Orthodox theologians denying the Assumption after it was dogmatically proclaimed by Rome, for example.
 
Ware refers to when he speaks of some Orthodox theologians denying the Assumption after it was dogmatically proclaimed by Rome, for example.

Which is strange, because the texts for the post-feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (as we call the feast on 15 August) specifically refer to her bodily assumption.
 
BennyBoy89 said:
I don’t think they should be dishonest, but we don’t put them at the same level as protestants. I’m sure it’s not all Orthodox who feel that way, but it’s just the impression I got from Ware’s book. There also seems to be some Orthodox who essentially will say the sky is red if Rome says it’s blue, which Ware refers to when he speaks of some Orthodox theologians denying the Assumption after it was dogmatically proclaimed by Rome, for example.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I’ve noticed that type of Orthodoxy online and I have never come across that when speaking to our Orthodox brothers and sisters in person.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Harpazo said:
Sadly, I’ve noticed that type of Orthodoxy online and I have never come across that when speaking to our Orthodox brothers and sisters in person.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew
Click to expand...
It is easier to be uncharitable online than in person. On line, you are dealing with words on a screen. In person, you see a living breathing human being with a soul. There is definitely a difference in how we behave in these two very different situations.
 
I love Bishop Kallistos Ware and to be honest the Eastern view makes more sense in my head, a lot more than the western view when it comes to theology. I go to the book study at my local Antiochian church here, we are just finishing up The Orthodox Way and then Father has another book lined up. He has good taste so I will definately share it with you on Wed when I go.🙂
 
jimmy said:
Rome calls them schismatics. Why should the EO not be honest about who they think we are? They think we profess heresy as Catholics.
Click to expand...
This is a misconception. Rome does not call the Orthodox schismatics. The actual teaching can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Which is a quote from the Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council, specifically Chapter I paragraph 3.

Now some Catholics, who think they know better than the Church, do call them schismatics but they are in error when they do so.
 
ByzCath said:
This is a misconception. Rome does not call the Orthodox schismatics. The actual teaching can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Which is a quote from the Decree on Ecumenism from the Second Vatican Council, specifically Chapter I paragraph 3.

Now some Catholics, who think they know better than the Church, do call them schismatics but they are in error when they do so.
Click to expand...
I think this is a little deceptive though. There is a distinction between formal and material schism. They might not be formally schismatics but certainly they are materially schismatics. It is still schism either way.
 
jimmy said:
I think this is a little deceptive though. There is a distinction between formal and material schism. They might not be formally schismatics but certainly they are materially schismatics. It is still schism either way.
Click to expand...
That is not what the official Church documents say.

This idea of “material” and “formal” schism is a construct put together some who are not part of the magisterium. The actual documents, which I have posted, say that one can not be born into schism, period.

Until someone can show me actual Church documents that say otherwise this is what the Church truly teaches rather than just an opinion of someone.
 
ByzCath said:
That is not what the official Church documents say.

This idea of “material” and “formal” schism is a construct put together some who are not part of the magisterium. The actual documents, which I have posted, say that one can not be born into schism, period.

Until someone can show me actual Church documents that say otherwise this is what the Church truly teaches rather than just an opinion of someone.
Click to expand...
So why would someone join the Catholic Church? They are already fully a part of the Church. There is no schism or heresy involved.
 
jimmy said:
So why would someone join the Catholic Church? They are already fully a part of the Church. There is no schism or heresy involved.
Click to expand...
The Church welcomes the Orthodox to share in the Eucharist without requiring them to enter the Catholic Church.

From the Code of Canon Law;

Can. 844 §3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

The Polish National Catholic Church is one of those Churches that the Apostolic See has judged to be in the same position as the Orthodox.

But let me add. I have used Church documents to support my opinion in this matter. If you wish to continue this discussion with me you must show support for you opinion from the same, otherwise there is no reason for me to continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top