Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[RyanBlack]

Judging from the position of inkaneer and from the position of many Orthodox on other forums, I don;t see too much of a chance of reconciliation between East and West in the near future. Of course there is always hope of a reunion. Perhaps a couple thousand years from now?

Fortunately, the absurd, bigoted position of Inkaneer is not the official position of the Catholic Church.

 

[jam070406]

Nah, I’m just making a joke to point out how ridiculous all of this speculative, ‘God allowed Constantinople to fall in order to punish the wicked Easterners for X’ talk is, hence the eye-rolling emoticon. I think that it is a rather unwise venture to try and speculate whether something is just a natural consequence of history or some sort of punishment from God.

As Christ points out in the sermon on the mount: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:44-45) Christ points out primarily that we should love our enemies, but he also points out in the last clause that God does not withhold the sun from the evil or bring drought to the unjust. Therefore, I at least, find the idea of the fall of Constantinople being sent by God to be completely inconsequential. If it truly was sent by God, then we cannot know God’s motivation. By the same line of logic that Inkaneer is using, the early Christians must’ve been very unjust to deserve their horrible deaths at the hands of the Romans. We have to understand that misfortune visits the just and unjust alike, so we cannot and should not cast judgment upon those who are stricken with misfortune (or really cast judgment upon anybody). Again I have to respond to this silliness by reiterating: God’s kingdom is not of this world.

Yeah. I wish both sides could put away the sins of the past (that in no way involved any of us) and move forward in a positive mindset towards reconciliation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yeah. I wish both sides could put away the sins of the past (that in no way involved any of us) and move forward in a positive mindset towards reconciliation.

First I think both sides will have to come to an understanding of schism that doesn’t involve one side (that is the other side) being completely wrong, but I think that will take a while. Someone I know once asked a Copt in the Eastern Orthodox Church about who was right over the issue of Chalcedon. The Copt somewhat wryly replied: “The Chalcedonians, but only by a little bit.” As strange and funny as that statement might sound, I think there’s some truth to it, and the same type of thinking can probably be applied to the Great Schism as well.

 

[inkaneer]

Lol, no I don’t say you have a Western bias, because even your own Church doesn’t teach your warped version of history. Your bias is your own.

With Nestorius, you neglect to mention that it was also in the East at the Council of Ephesus that his heresy was condemned and he was deposed. It is strange that you hold such a negative opinion of the East yet you accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which were held in the East, as binding doctrinal statements. What you neglect to mention about Florence is that there were less than 30 Eastern bishops at Florence, and that the Patriarch of Constantinople died during the council. When the emperor and his unionist minions returned to the East, there were plenty of real bishops who rebuked them. If anything, the fall of Constantinople was God punishing the Orthodox for selling out their faith at Florence.

Where the council was held means diddley squat. Yes, we accept the seven councils held in the East as well as all the others held elsewhere. The Orthodox don’t accept the ones held in the west because they weren’t held in the East. To the Orthodox the sun rises and sets in the East. As for those bishops not present at the council since when is a bishop or even a bunch of bishops more authoritative than a council? In a prior post I asked for the evidence from either scripture or Apostolic Tradition for such a condition. Maybe you can supply it. If you can not then this idea that their decision has to be confirmed by others is bogus. The bishops in council possess the power to bind and loose. That was done at Florence. When that was undone later then Constantinople fell and the Haggia Sophia became a mosque. All because the Greeks were too proud to acknowledge the authority of the pope as ordained by God.

 

[inkaneer]

Fortunately, the absurd, bigoted position of Inkaneer is not the official position of the Catholic Church.

Yes, and unfortunately the absurd bigotted position of the Orthodox is the official position of the Orthodox.

 

[louis91766]

First I think both sides will have to come to an understanding of schism that doesn’t involve one side (that is the other side) being completely wrong, but I think that will take a while. Someone I know once asked a Copt in the Eastern Orthodox Church about who was right over the issue of Chalcedon. The Copt somewhat wryly replied: “The Chalcedonians, but only by a little bit.” As strange and funny as that statement might sound, I think there’s some truth to it, and the same type of thinking can probably be applied to the Great Schism as well.

I don’t think that you would find too many Orthodox who would say that they were wrong when they were being massacred by the Latin Crusaders in the fourth crusade.
Relations now are improving between Orthodox and Catholics, but is the Catholic Church a stable Church? In other words, can things go downhill in a hurry?
Take for example, the experience of the Jews in Mainz, Germany about the year 1000. They were living peacefully and they enjoyed the pleasant and comfortable life of the Rhineland. But all of a sudden the German emperor became angry when a Church official converted to Judaism and soon passed a series of laws against the Jews. He demanded that all Jews either be baptised or leave immediately.
Or take the example of marriage annulments in the Catholic Church in the USA. Before Vatican II, there were very few and they were granted only for extremely serious reasons, such as the person having been married before. But after Vatican II, marriage annulments are granted to a very large percentage of people who apply, and for psychological reasons which had not be admitted before.
Similarly, with the Metal Mass. This type of Mass would not have been acceptable in the Catholic Church of 50 years ago.
So while the Orthodox may appreciate the new welcome that is being given them by the Catholic hierarchy today, they may not be fully convinced that this welcome will last for a long time into the future.

 

[Hesychios]

Where the council was held means diddley squat. … All because the Greeks were too proud to acknowledge the authority of the pope as ordained by God.

Everything you post is offensive.

But that’s OK, it’s not like we haven’t heard this myth-making before, Orthodox are used to it. It is always interesting to see a Roman Catholic post what he honestly thinks.

Blessings to you …

 

[louis91766]

Where the council was held means diddley squat. Yes, we accept the seven councils held in the East as well as all the others held elsewhere. The Orthodox don’t accept the ones held in the west because they weren’t held in the East. To the Orthodox the sun rises and sets in the East. As for those bishops not present at the council since when is a bishop or even a bunch of bishops more authoritative than a council? In a prior post I asked for the evidence from either scripture or Apostolic Tradition for such a condition. Maybe you can supply it. If you can not then this idea that their decision has to be confirmed by others is bogus. The bishops in council possess the power to bind and loose. That was done at Florence. When that was undone later then Constantinople fell and the Haggia Sophia became a mosque. All because the Greeks were too proud to acknowledge the authority of the pope as ordained by God.

There have been Councils where the bishops had more authority than the Pope. Consider the case when the Catholic Church had three Popes at the same time. The 15th ecumenical Council, the Council of Constance held from 1414 to 1418, ended the Three-Popes Controversy, by electing a new Pope.

 

[inkaneer]

Judging from the position of inkaneer and from the position of many Orthodox on other forums, I don;t see too much of a chance of reconciliation between East and West in the near future. Of course there is always hope of a reunion. Perhaps a couple thousand years from now?

The Orthodox will be like the Orthodox have always been. They will come to Rome when it is in their nbest self interest to do so. They are not motivated by any sense of unity. They are self centered and thoroughly despise the Latin Church. So reunification will never occur as long as the Orthodox maintain their “poor me, poor me, poor me” mindset. To show you how much they despise the Latin Church, the Orthodox coined the term “uniates” as a derogatory term to refer to those Eastern Churches and their members that returned to unity with Rome. They use that term like a KKK member uses the term “******”. How do I know this you ask? Easy, I grew up in a neighborhood not only with Orthodox neighbors but had some relatives [by marriage] who were Orthodox. I heard it first hand and I heard it alot. I have never heard of any such type of term being used by Catholoics to designate any Orthodox.

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t think that you would find too many Orthodox who would say that they were wrong when they were being massacred by the Latin Crusaders in the fourth crusade.
Relations now are improving between Orthodox and Catholics, but is the Catholic Church a stable Church? In other words, can things go downhill in a hurry?
Take for example, the experience of the Jews in Mainz, Germany about the year 1000. They were living peacefully and they enjoyed the pleasant and comfortable life of the Rhineland. But all of a sudden the German emperor became angry when a Church official converted to Judaism and soon passed a series of laws against the Jews. He demanded that all Jews either be baptised or leave immediately.
Or take the example of marriage annulments in the Catholic Church in the USA. Before Vatican II, there were very few and they were granted only for extremely serious reasons, such as the person having been married before. But after Vatican II, marriage annulments are granted to a very large percentage of people who apply, and for psychological reasons which had not be admitted before.
Similarly, with the Metal Mass. This type of Mass would not have been acceptable in the Catholic Church of 50 years ago.
So while the Orthodox may appreciate the new welcome that is being given them by the Catholic hierarchy today, they may not be fully convinced that this welcome will last for a long time into the future.

Let me seeif I understand you correctly, Okay? Are you saying the Orthodox are not or should not be motivated by the plea for unity as made by Jesus and recorded in the gospel of John? That they should be more concerned with other trivial matters first and foremost. Asfor annulments pre and post Vatican II you leave out a lot of materail in your haste to arriveat your conclusion. Pre Vatican II women were second class citizens. They only received the right to vote about 50 years prior. Their financial future was tied to their husbands. Many of them endured plenty of hardships because they had no choice. That changed in the sixties. To compare pre and post Vatican II therefore, is apples and oranges.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Orthodox will be like the Orthodox have always been. They will come to Rome when it is in their nbest self interest to do so. They are not motivated by any sense of unity. They are self centered and thoroughly despise the Latin Church. So reunification will never occur as long as the Orthodox maintain their “poor me, poor me, poor me” mindset. To show you how much they despise the Latin Church, the Orthodox coined the term “uniates” as a derogatory term to refer to those Eastern Churches and their members that returned to unity with Rome. They use that term like a KKK member uses the term “******”. How do I know this you ask? Easy, I grew up in a neighborhood not only with Orthodox neighbors but had some relatives [by marriage] who were Orthodox. I heard it first hand and I heard it alot. I have never heard of any such type of term being used by Catholoics to designate any Orthodox.

Blatant hypocrisy all over this post. You claim that the Orthodox despise the Latin Church, but it is obvious to anyone that you despise the Othodox. You claim that they are not motivated by any sense of unity, but the garbage about them that you continually spew-that’s supposed to promote unity? You complain about the term “uniate” and say that you’ve never heard Catholics use type of term to designate any Orthodox, but what about “heretic” and “schismatic”? Stop these shameful, disgusting, hate-filled rants. They have the potential to do little other than inflame people and sew discord They serve no good purpose
.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church provided the women and girls of Mexico the right to an education in the 1500’s, hundreds of years before Protestant America did.

I think there are special graces attached to the celibate priesthood, that bring them into a deeper spirituality that can grasp comprehension of Mary’s immaculate conception. Doesn’t mean that all the Latin theologians agreed either. But the celibate priesthood has its merits and insights.

Likewise it has come our way that there are Orthodox priests who had wished they hadn’t married so they could give their lives more fully to Christ and the gospel.

 

[Hesychios]

… So while the Orthodox may appreciate the new welcome that is being given them by the Catholic hierarchy today, they may not be fully convinced that this welcome will last for a long time into the future.

That’s a bit how I see it.

Oftentimes in the past, there were ‘reunions’ of sorts based on communion only, without first a common faith but usually with some sort of submission (in discipline) to the Pope in Rome, somehow it was hoped that all these things would work themselves out. Most of these endeavors ended in failure.

What this meant was that the church was not a union of like-minded Christians, it was a contract of sorts between the leaderships of one church and another. The common people and most of the laity of any class were not ‘converted’ to anything new, they continued to believe what they had learned at their grandmother’s knee.

Eventually, the Roman Catholics would gain control (or attempt to gain control) over the formation of clergy and the selection of bishops, apparently with the intent to complete the process of ‘conversion’ over time. It is dishonest.

So the priority has usually been like this:
-1- Get control of the other church,
-2- Control the appointment of the bishops of the other church,
-3- Change [eventually] what the ‘people’ believe and how they worship.

A system like this put submission as the higher priority, not right belief. “Just submit and assent” and you will be saved. Give us your children. It usually turns out badly.

The priority is backwards. Believe the right things in common first, then share communion.

 

[louis91766]

The Orthodox will be like the Orthodox have always been. They will come to Rome when it is in their nbest self interest to do so. They are not motivated by any sense of unity. They are self centered and thoroughly despise the Latin Church. So reunification will never occur as long as the Orthodox maintain their “poor me, poor me, poor me” mindset. To show you how much they despise the Latin Church, the Orthodox coined the term “uniates” as a derogatory term to refer to those Eastern Churches and their members that returned to unity with Rome. They use that term like a KKK member uses the term “******”. How do I know this you ask? Easy, I grew up in a neighborhood not only with Orthodox neighbors but had some relatives [by marriage] who were Orthodox. I heard it first hand and I heard it alot. I have never heard of any such type of term being used by Catholoics to designate any Orthodox.

Catholics themselves use the term Uniates. Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia online to see how many times it is used there.

 

[louis91766]

To compare pre and post Vatican II therefore, is apples and oranges.

that was more or less my point. That the Orthodox may be somewhat suspicious since the RCC can change overnight quite drastically.

 

[Hesychios]

To show you how much they despise the Latin Church, the Orthodox coined the term “uniates” as a derogatory term to refer to those Eastern Churches and their members that returned to unity with Rome. .

The Roman Catholic hierachy has used the term Uniate as a descriptor for their eastern Catholic subordinates. It originated with them.

Father Adrian Fortescue (scholar and author of some of the worst and most prejudicial articles written by a Roman Catholic against eastern Catholics and Orthodox in the old Catholic Encyclopedia) titled one of his books : The Uniate Eastern Churches.

The word, actually, is from Latin for union, from late Latin unio. It can be found in Roman Catholic church documents. It was also used by the Roman Catholic Polish as ‘Unija’ in reference to their eastern rite neighbors, some of whom actually resented it tremendously because of the way they were treated by the Poles. Later, most of those eastern rite communities returned to Holy Orthodoxy, and they also used the term to refer to their neighbors who remained under the Pope.

So everyone has used the term, but because of the poor circumstances of history being under the Pope, neither the Roman Catholics of days gone by nor the Orthodox completely respected people who allowed themselves to be treated that way.

Today Orthodox are far less likely to use the term in public, but it is a valid ecclesiastical term found in many documents. I note that the most popular Orthodox internet discussion forum has a policy of not allowing the term in posts, and they rigidly adhere to this rule.

• Proper Language – Offensive terms may be bannable based on the context of the sentence. Please use common sense when posting. If you wouldn’t say it in church, chances are it probably won’t be appropriate here. When in doubt, ask a moderator. Please do not use the following terms in your discussions as they are considered to be pejorative by other members of this forum: Uniate: please use Eastern Catholic. Monophysite: Please use Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonian. …

Yet I suppose some Orthodox still unfortunately use the term with the same sneer you use the term ‘Orthodox’. I don’t know them though.

 

[Hesychios]

I think there are special graces attached to the celibate priesthood, that bring them into a deeper spirituality that can grasp comprehension of Mary’s immaculate conception. Doesn’t mean that all the Latin theologians agreed either. But the celibate priesthood has its merits and insights.

Likewise it has come our way that there are Orthodox priests who had wished they hadn’t married so they could give their lives more fully to Christ and the gospel.

What does any of this have to do with the discussion about the Orthodox?

Your own church has married priests, and married priests who are the sons of married priests going back generations. Many Orthodox clergy also happen to be celibate as a matter of choice. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion (unless for some reason you are of the opinion that mandatory celibacy should be imposed upon the Orthodox after your Pope gets control of it).

Are you suggesting the Orthodox clergy should be made to accept mandatory celibacy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think that you would find too many Orthodox who would say that they were wrong when they were being massacred by the Latin Crusaders in the fourth crusade.
Relations now are improving between Orthodox and Catholics, but is the Catholic Church a stable Church? In other words, can things go downhill in a hurry?
Take for example, the experience of the Jews in Mainz, Germany about the year 1000. They were living peacefully and they enjoyed the pleasant and comfortable life of the Rhineland. But all of a sudden the German emperor became angry when a Church official converted to Judaism and soon passed a series of laws against the Jews. He demanded that all Jews either be baptised or leave immediately.

Certainly, I can understand a lot of the historical hangups to reunion, but when I made that statement I was thinking less of the historical wrongs which were dished out sixty-five million years ago when dinosaurs still walked the earth and more about the attitudes that are commonly held by the more extreme people on both sides of the divide which basically amount to something along the lines of, “because my Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the other Church was the only one which committed injustices.” In my honest opinion, it’s that sort of unhelpful attitude which is going to have to go first, before we can address issues of history.

Or take the example of marriage annulments in the Catholic Church in the USA. Before Vatican II, there were very few and they were granted only for extremely serious reasons, such as the person having been married before. But after Vatican II, marriage annulments are granted to a very large percentage of people who apply, and for psychological reasons which had not be admitted before.
Similarly, with the Metal Mass. This type of Mass would not have been acceptable in the Catholic Church of 50 years ago.

I honestly feel much sympathy for my Catholic friends who are stuck in this situation. I once had a friend of mine tell me that if she never had to hear a guitar mass again, she would be perfectly fine with that. Frankly, I hope she gets her wish, haha.

So while the Orthodox may appreciate the new welcome that is being given them by the Catholic hierarchy today, they may not be fully convinced that this welcome will last for a long time into the future.

True, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so even though I sometimes see a lot of strange anti-Orthodox sentiment coming from some Catholics, and vice-versa (strangely, never in real life, only over teh intarwebz), I allow myself to be hopeful, because most of the laity I know don’t have the weirder hang-ups that some of these extremists over the internet do. To quote the wisdom of the 80-year-old Greek Yiayias at my parish, “the Roman Catholics are great, they worship God, so they’ve got the most important part right.” Sure there are other hindrances to communion, but it’s not like we’re dialoguing with atheists or something.

 

[louis91766]

True, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, so even though I sometimes see a lot of strange anti-Orthodox sentiment coming from some Catholics, and vice-versa (strangely, never in real life, only over teh intarwebz), I allow myself to be hopeful, because most of the laity I know don’t have the weirder hang-ups that some of these extremists over the internet do. To quote the wisdom of the 80-year-old Greek Yiayias at my parish, “the Roman Catholics are great, they worship God, so they’ve got the most important part right.” Sure there are other hindrances to communion, but it’s not like we’re dialoguing with atheists or something.

What are the hindrances to reunion that you see. And how will these be overcome?

 

[annaevers]

Since the reforms of Vatican II, I have never once seen any real abuses in the Novus Ordo. Where are these wild masses? I think to a large degree the claims of liturigal abuses are very exaggerated on the internet. I saddened to see a split widening in the church, not a coming together in Christ’s Body and Blood.

You haven’t attend my parish’s Holy Mass.