Shocking video---Are these the feelings of the Majority of Orthodox?

[Ridgerunner]

It’s amazing how you can talk to those of the OICWR crowd and immediately hear the rhetorical question “What is keeping us from full communion with the Orthodox, they’re the other lung of the church, etc”. And then you can talk to an Orthodox and they’re response is, Whhhhaaatttt ???

           I think it's pretty much a no brainer, that when any statement, comment from an Orthodox bishop is made, the Orthodox faithful do not immediately suggest that, the Roman Catholics are going to have a big problem with this. Sadly, I'm already witnessing this in reverse on other forums in regards to speculation over what exactly is contained in the new Ukrainian Catholic catechism. If your very first question is "Will the Orthodox accept this" ? You're probably in the wrong church.

Judging by what sometimes reads on CAF, it is hard to escape the conclusion that most Orthodox have no interest in reunification. Well, in a sense they do. I have, on several occasions, read Orthodox comments that the Catholic Church would have to retreat from all the places in the world where it has expanded, including the U.S., Africa, Latin America, Asia, and most of Europe, acknowledging that only the Orthodox Churches have a right to be there. It would have to restrict itself to the City of Rome and its immediate environs in Europe. It would have to reject all the councils other than the first seven (for the Oriental Orthodox, more than that) and all doctrines and teachings from them. The Pope would have to acknowledge that, at most, he is the bishop of Rome and its immediate environs alone. Some think he would have to self-depose. All Catholic priests would have to be considered for re-ordination. Some might be ordained, some not. All Catholic marriages would have to be acknowledged as invalid. All Catholic baptisms too, though there is some difference of opinion about baptisms only.
Some Orthodox think we would have to be re-baptized, some don’t.

In other words, the Catholic Church could be re-unified only if it dissolved itself. Then, perhaps, Catholic individuals could become Orthodox.

Basically, to me, that all amounts to “no interest” in reunification. Not all Orthodox hold those positions, but a lot on here sure do.

That might not be fully shared by the Eastern Orthodox of Constantinople, and, it seems, definitely not by its Patriarch who concelebrated Mass with the Pope. But the Patriarch of Moscow is really the head of most of the Eastern Orthodox churches when it comes to deference and most definitely in numbers. To some degree, I am told, the monks of mt. Athos are given deference in doctrinal matters by some, but not by all. They, it appears, are very much at odds with the Patriarch of Constantinople, though perhaps not with the Patriarch of Moscow.

 

[Mickey]

Since we’re not clairvoyant, at some point, we have to assume that one’s expressions of hostility reflect how he feels.

Since we are not clairvoyant (readers od hearts) it is best to say nothing. It is not a good thing to assume.

 

[Mickey]

Judging by what sometimes reads on CAF, it is hard to escape the conclusion that most Orthodox have no interest in reunification.

I thought you had decided not to re-hash things.

Basically, to me, that all amounts to “no interest” in reunification.

It is not about having “no interest”. Of course, both sides want to be in union. But there is a great chasm that separates us.

But the Patriarch of Moscow is really the head of most of the Eastern Orthodox churches when it comes to deference and most definitely in numbers.

Our Head is Jesus Christ.

To some degree, I am told, the monks of mt. Athos are given deference in doctrinal matters by some, but not by all.

You are told?

Again…I thought you were not going to start an Orthodox vs Catholic dialogue?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Perhaps, therefore, one cannot be greatly faulted for refraining from answering in kind.

Ok, I watched it. I don’t even know how one would respond to most of what he said. Specifics were lacking. There was just a lot of stuff like (paraphrasing) “they are false,” “they departed from the truth,” “people are flabbergasted,” “God anathematizes them,” “It’s a grave error!”, “indulgences are about money,” etc…

And I don’t say this to be mean, but when he said that the Immaculate Conception makes Mary “identical” to God and reminded us that she is his “servant,” I did not even think he was informed enough on the doctrine to be in the conversation.

I thought he only made 3 specific arguments (and I understand he was limited on time).

First, he argued one thing that a Catholic wouldn’t even necessarily disagree with, like that Peter did not “preside” over the council of Jerusalem (because it was James’ jurisdiction). What I thought was a flaw in reason was that the Elder did not consider Jerusalem an ecumenical council (since he earlier stated the first ecumenical council was in 325) yet used that as an example against a universal bishopric…

His second specific argument was that there cannot be a Vicar of Christ because Christ is alive. To that I would simply respond that Catholics do not use the term “Vicar” to suggest Christ is dead. In fact:*CCC#1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches…*So perhaps Elder Arsenie Papacioc is arguing against a different concept of Vicar that the Catholics use the term. Surely, the Elder would not argue that Christ did not ascend or that He remains incarnate on earth at this time.

The third specific was the Greek of the word bread regarding leavened or unleavened. It sounds like Metropolitan Ware doesn’t agree with Elder Papacioc on that.

 

[Mickey]

What I thought was a flaw in reason was that the Elder did not consider Jerusalem an ecumenical council (since he earlier stated the first ecumenical council was in 325) yet used that as an example against a universal bishopric.

The first EC was in 325–post Apostolic times.

Jerusalem was the model…it is clear this is what the holy Elder meant.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I thought you had decided not to re-hash things.
It is not about having “no interest”. Of course, both sides want to be in union. But there is a great chasm that separates us.
Our Head is Jesus Christ.
You are told?

Again…I thought you were not going to start an Orthodox vs Catholic dialogue?

I didn’t intend to start an argument. I thought I was simply stating the facts of the situation; facts upon which all or most Eastern Orthodox, at least, would agree, but which Catholics perhaps don’t know. If you do not think I correctly stated the position of most Orthodox, please state it here or PM me and point out where I have misunderstood. I’ll readily admit my error if I was in error, and I’ll do it right here if you want. But I’m not sure the original topic can be well understood in the absence of background information which was not provided in the film clip itself, but without which his expressions would be inexplicable to many, if not most, Catholics.

Regarding Mt. Athos, I recall, perhaps a year or two ago, that there was a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the monks of Mt. Athos. I learned of it from some of the Eastern Orthodox posters, who seemed to take the part of the monks, and represented that it was in line with the position of the Patriarch of Moscow. So I looked it up online and saw that, indeed there was and that it was essentially as the EO posters represented it. Again, I’m not purporting to sit in judgment of that conflict, simply stating an objectively verifiable fact that I did not think was disputed by anyone.

The point of it all being, and I think it’s precisely the topic, that the expressions of the priest in the film clip probably do represent the position of most Orthodox as to what he said, but not of all.

 

[Ahimsa]

What I thought was a flaw in reason was that the Elder did not consider Jerusalem an ecumenical council…

Neither does the Catholic Church consider it an ecumenical council:
First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism).
Jerusalem was an apostolic council, not an ecumenical council.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The first EC was in 325–post Apostolic times.

Jerusalem was the model…it is clear this is what the holy Elder meant.

If that’s what he meant on the council, then I can agree with him –– and maintain that he is in error to use that episode against the Papacy.

 

[Mickey]

and maintain that he is in error to use that episode against the Papacy.

I think he used the Apostolic Council as an example opposing papal supremacy…but you are free to maintain what you wish.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think he used the Apostolic Council as an example opposing papal supremacy…

Yes, that is what he argued.

 

[Mickey]

If you do not think I correctly stated the position of most Orthodox, please state it here or PM me and point out where I have misunderstood.

Okay. You said most Orthodox would not like to see the schism healed. I think you are wrong…although we do not believe it should be healed through compromise. How that could be accomplished would be the subject of many meetings culminating with (perhaps) another Great Council. Various specualtions about marriages, baptisms, and ordinations, do not help the discussion.

Regarding Mt. Athos, I recall, perhaps a year or two ago, that there was a conflict between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the monks of Mt. Athos.

The history of the Church is strewn with conflicts and disagreements between Patriarchates, monasteries and various hierarchs. Heck, most of the Church was Arian at one time. Monasteries have always been viewed as the protectors and bastion of the faith…but even monasteries have disagreed with eachother at times…we are all fallen humans.

The point of it all being, and I think it’s precisely the topic, that the expressions of the priest in the film clip probably do represent the position of most Orthodox as to what he said

Yes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay. You said most Orthodox would not like to see the schism healed. I think you are wrong…although we do not believe it should be healed through compromise. How that could be accomplished would be the subject of many meetings culminating with (perhaps) another Great Council. Various specualtions about marriages, baptisms, and ordinations, do not help the discussion.
The history of the Church is strewn with conflicts and disagreements between Patriarchates, monasteries and various hierarchs. Heck, most of the Church was Arian at one time. Monasteries have always been viewed as the protectors and bastion of the faith…but even monasteries have disagreed with eachother at times…we are all fallen humans.
Yes.

Point 1. We mean very different things by “seeing the schism healed”, then, do we not? If compromise with the Catholic Church is, from the Orthodox point of view, impossible, then the Orthodox position regarding reunion is pretty clearly as I stated, is it not?

Point 2. It would seem a Great Council would be of little use from the Orthodox point of view if the “majority ruled”, not so?

Point 3. I do not speculate on how the Orthodox view Catholic sacraments. I only repeat what Orthodox posters have said and what research further elucidates. If I am stating something erroneous, then I am willing to be corrected. But based on what I have been told and have read, I will admit that the Orthodox resolution of whether Catholic baptisms are valid is somewhat up in the air. But the majority view among Orthodox is not ambivalent regarding other Catholic sacraments.

 

[manualman]

I think he used the Apostolic Council as an example opposing papal supremacy…but you are free to maintain what you wish.

Perhaps I’m just misinformed as a lifelong catholic, but “papal supremacy” isn’t a term I’ve ever heard, except from EO folks.

Cardinal George here in Chicago made a wonderful and profound correction to a reporter in an interview once when a reporter asked him something about being “the leader of Chicago’s catholics.” He told the reporter that he fundamentally misunderstood catholicism and that the bishop’s role is one of being the “head” of the church, not being it’s “boss” or its “leader.” Headship is different than leadership. Various parts of the body undertake leadership roles all the time; the heart beats when the head is thinking of other things, the lungs breathe, the digestive system reminds the head when food is needed. Headship isn’t about being in charge of the body, but about looking after and protecting all parts of the body as a whole. Sometimes headship DOES require the giving of orders (head to lungs, hold your breath, we’re under water!), but it is a position intended to be fundamentally about service, not domination.

I think that an awful lot of EO have fears about “papal power”, many resulting from actual abuses of the papal position over the centuries. But it’s still disingenuous to conflate headship with power words like “supremacy.” My suggestion to EO who desire productive dialogue with catholics is to state your objection to the universal headship of the See of Peter, if that is what you mean. Objecting to ‘papal supremancy’ is not fundamentally different than some leftist folks who object to “anti-choice” people.

 

[hazcompat]

Let spiritual love link us together, and let the fear of the Lord suppress all human prejudice and put the building up of the churches before individual attachment or favour. In this way, with the account of the faith agreed between us and with Christian love established among us, we shall cease to declare what was condemned by the apostles, “I belong to Paul, I to Apollo, I to Cephas”; but we shall all be seen to belong to Christ, who has not been divided up among us; and with God’s good favour, we shall keep the body of the church undivided, and shall come before the judgment-seat of the Lord with confidence.

Constantinople 381

peace

 

[hazcompat]

3

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Constantinople I 381

peace

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps I’m just misinformed as a lifelong catholic, but “papal supremacy” isn’t a term I’ve ever heard, except from EO folks.

Really?!? I have heard it often from Catholics. They usually site these paragraphs from the CCC:

882: “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

937: "The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.’”

 

[Mickey]

If compromise with the Catholic Church is, from the Orthodox point of view, impossible, then the Orthodox position regarding reunion is pretty clearly as I stated, is it not?

Only God can heal the schism.

It would seem a Great Council would be of little use from the Orthodox point of view if the “majority ruled”, not so?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I only repeat what Orthodox posters have said and what research further elucidates.

Here is the issue: Holy Orthodoxy believes that the fulness of truth is contained within the Holy Orthodox faith. I believe that catholics say the same thing regarding catholicism. Holy Orthodoxy believes that Rome is in schism from the other four Patriarchates. Catholicism believes that Orthodoxy is in schism. This impasse can only be healed by the grace of God. I would love to see such a healing in my lifetime.

Thy will be done.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

OrdinaryMelkite;
Do the majority of Eastern Orthodox (at least in Eastern Europe) believe exactly this? I doubt this.

Most modern “studied” Orthodox who are not in communion with the Popes have overcome most of the Elders misinformed Apostolic Catholic “defended and defined” doctrines and do not take offense to them as does most “uninformed” Orthodox. Although their still exists a thin line barrier between communions with regards to understanding the revealed apostolic Petrine doctrines of authority and jurisdiction, which protects the “Teachings” of Christ not add or subtract from them.

This “Vicar” thing the Priest discloses from his opinions is way off the scales from apostolic Traditions and from what the Catholic Church protects and teaches. Jesus is the head of His “Catholic” Church reigning as King. A Vicar of Christ never replaces the kingship of Jesus but only represents the King of Kings on earth as Jesus reigns both from the heavens, “In persona Christi”= apostles and their apostolic successors, this is sacred scripture, sacred Tradition lived out the Catholic Church these past 2000 years, since Jesus appointed Peter to be the one to shepherd and feed His flock (Jn.21:15-17) with Jesus until he returns.

The Priest does not argue from sacred Tradition nor sacred scripture, but holds to arguments later developed (1000 years later) which brought about their schism between secular powers of East and West which brought in Constantinoples Patriarch to try and compete or remove the Popes authority in Peter’s chair by claiming to be the “New Rome.” Which the Patriarch of Constantinople did in fact usurp power and authority over the apostolic sees’ of Jersusalem and Antioch, but did not succeed with usurping power from Peter’s Chair thus the “schism of 1054.” History repeats itself, we have a Russian patriarch usurping the power of Constantinople patriarch? Needless to say both Patriarch office is only Ecclesial and never apostolic.

I came across this on Youtube some days ago. Needless to say, I was shocked. Although as a Melkite Eastern Catholic I follow many Orthodox rituals and dogmas, I was shocked by the bluntness and lack of charity and “ecumenicism” of this.

I respect this priest’s opinions as I do all of the early Church Fathers, but a single “Father” never dictates to the Church from ones own opinions. Thus we have councils to settle these matters when ever they threaten the flock of Jesus Christ. The Priest’s opinions do not threaten the revealed apostolic teachings nor do they defeat them from an opinion.

What I believe to be misleading is that the priest is speaking in regards to the protestant reformers Lutherans and Anglicans as still being under the Popes and the Catholic Church when they have left Catholicism. If one follows closely the priest’s “lack of charity” is focused upon these protestant reformed christian teachings and appears to be misleading as if they were new Catholic teachings.

I don’t think “rites” or “rituals” are ever the case in regards to non-communion. Authority becomes the dividing the line. And let us not forget to include “secular authority”. The Orthodox are ruled over by secular powers, while the Petrine see is not ruled over by secular powers. I believe probably from lack of time the Priest did not mention, but shortened it by relating and accusing the Petrine office of St.Peter as being a secular power. Much catechesis is needed here.

I know how I personally would have tried to respond to this-------the bread thing, to ME is basically an issue of semantics, as even KALLISTOS WARE has pointed out-----that is one of the answers I would have given to others that Papacioc brought up.

Again this “leavened and unleavened bread” argument comes 1000 years later when the East is vi-ing for power from the West both secular and religiously. The powerful “supreme” Patriarch of Constantinople backed by his powerful secular Emperor voices “opinons” and “accusation” against the Popes such as the “unleavened” practice, Celibate priests, Easter, filioque etc… It cannot be denied nor confirmed that both leaven and unleaven were practiced since apostolic times, it becomes a Johnny come lately argument and fruitless when both are valid.

The East accused the West as following the Jews passover feast, when the East took on leavened bread so as not to mirror the Jewish passover who became enemies of Jesus and His apostles. Jesus a Jew used unleavened bread. Both are valid Eucharist so long as the prayers and valid holy orders adminster them to the “baptised faithful”.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What about the Catholics here? What do you think about this? How would you attemot toengage this?

Catechise them by informing them of the correct interpretation and understanding of the West so that the East can comprehend why the West defended and defined Apostolic doctrine from both secular and anti-Christ powers in past ages and present times while they were under much suppression from their secular powers.

As the world developed in it’s intellect and scientific discoveries, when man makes himself a god, were used to attack the apostolic teachings, when the Popes defended the apostolic teachings. In other words the ancient apostolic doctrines which came under attack were defended and defined from the development and understanding of man and the intellect to begin a path of faith in Christ.

Thus when “communism” said God does not intervene with man and does not exist, the Pope declared the “immaculate conception”, when heaven confirmed this proclamation followed by signs and wonders,that ultimately “defeated” the beast of communism in Russia to give one example.

Just as heaven revealed to Peter to allow the Gentiles into the body of Christ “what God makes clean” that “All fell silent” after Peter spoke this revelation at the “first Church council in Jerusalem” which is the only one Peter and his apostolic successors ever atttended.

(To the mods—just in case, this is NOT proselytizing from MY part. On the contrary, I totally disagree with this, as everybody knows me I’m a total uniate and Orthodx in communion with Holy Mother Church and a total member of it, as are ALL Eastern Catholics. Simply wanted discussion on this. Not trying to start a ruckus here. If this also on the wrong fiorum, please feel free to move to the appropriate forum).

I believe fear should be removed here from the Popes “infallibility”. The infallibility of the Pope does not move away from revealed apostolic Tradition and sacred scripture. Infallibility protects the Popes in the Holy Spirit to defend the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ from error in every age as history proves since apostolic times.

The Pope is not one to rule over them as their secular powers have done and continue to do. The Pope is the guarantee that Orthodoxy (both East and West) holds to Orthodoxy and “the gates of hell will come against You but will never prevail.”

Peace be with you

 

[Nicea325]

youtube.com/watch?v=7o7UGLTauHI

Do the majority of Eastern Orthodox (at least in Eastern Europe) believe exactly this? I doubt this.

I came across this on Youtube some days ago. Needless to say, I was shocked. Although as a Melkite Eastern Catholic I follow many Orthodox rituals and dogmas, I was shocked by the bluntness and lack of charity and “ecumenicism” of this.

This is Elder Arsenie Papacioc, Elder of the Romanian Orthodox Church, in 2005. He is now deceased.

I know how I personally would have tried to respond to this-------the bread thing, to ME is basically an issue of semantics, as even KALLISTOS WARE has pointed out-----that is one of the answers I would have given to others that Papacioc brought up.

What about the Catholics here? What do you think about this? How would you attemot toengage this?

(To the mods—just in case, this is NOT proselytizing from MY part. On the contrary, I totally disagree with this, as everybody knows me I’m a total uniate and Orthodx in communion with Holy Mother Church and a total member of it, as are ALL Eastern Catholics. Simply wanted discussion on this. Not trying to start a ruckus here. If this also on the wrong fiorum, please feel free to move to the appropriate forum).

Interesting,but nothing shocking or new to hear from many Orthodox. I can respect his beliefs and convictions,but I certainly do not agree with him.