The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Where does it truly stand at present?

[lssanjose]

Considering it is the Orthodox who reject the Baptism of Catholics, I find your angst a bit overplayed…The fundamental issue is that the Orthodox very forthrightly hold that Catholic sacraments (mysteries) are graceless.

As to being tradition bound, perhaps a short perusal of the many posts by the Orthodox on this forum will convince you that indeed the Orthodox wallow in tradition. In that the tradition of Councils being held valid by the Church had nothing to do with acceptance by the laity until Florence …that very adherence to tradition simply leads inexorably to the conclusion that those who reject Florence are outside the True Church…unless one wants to embrace the novelty of ex post laity approval. As to being targeted for conversion as if you were Jews, where did that come from?

Catholics hold that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, and are thus Christians. Just because the Orthodox deny Catholics are Christians in no way works in reverse.

So much for red herrings and smugness - or does that only apply to non-Orthodox. Somehow comments here from so many of our Orthodox brethren remind me of Moslems complaining about the Crusades just attacking them while forgetting that Moslems somehow wound up in central France and outside the gates of Vienna… Oh well, just made me think of it.

On topic…the chances of reunion any time soon are approaching nil…and will happen at all only when the Holy Spirit causes it.

You’re wrong, on a number of counts. I know of recent Roman Catholics who switched to Holy Orthodoxy, and they didn’t need re-baptism. They did get a full chrismation, however; this is, instead, of a partial chrismation. I was told, if I was to make the switch, I’d undergo the same process. Don’t assume, my friend. Whatever may have held true in one jurisdiction, may be different, or non-existent, in another. To put it in the words of one of the leaders of the Evangelical Orthodox Church (mass exodus of 2,000-3,000 evangelicals flocking to Orthodoxy en masse [who strongly wanted to be Orthodox]): Orthodoxy’s survival amid the lack of administrative unity is nothing short of a miracle.

ByzCathCantor, just go ahead and post an even bigger picture of derailment. Apologies for adding to the “fury,” but I had to defend our Orthodox brethren, in this instance.

 

[johnnykins]

You’re wrong, on a number of counts. I know of recent Roman Catholics who switched to Holy Orthodoxy, and they didn’t need re-baptism.

see my comment about the parish level and economy…It has interesting applications to the whole issue. However, you will find that the Orthodox official position (to the extent there is one) is that Catholic sacraments are graceless.

They did get a full chrismation, however; this is, instead, of a partial chrismation. I was told, if I was to make the switch, I’d undergo the same process.

ditto

Don’t assume, my friend. Whatever may have held true in one jurisdiction, may be different, or non-existent, in another. To put it in the words of one of the leaders of the Evangelical Orthodox Church (mass exodus of 2,000-3,000 evangelicals flocking to Orthodoxy en masse [who strongly wanted to be Orthodox]): Orthodoxy’s survival amid the lack of administrative unity is nothing short of a miracle.

all of which make the issue more complicated.

ByzCathCantor, just go ahead and post an even bigger picture of derailment. Apologies for adding to the “fury,” but I had to defend our Orthodox brethren, in this instance.

But, you ignore so many of the proselytizing posters here …When you want it both ways, you often get it both ways…as I alluded to above.

 

[Contarini]

So basically, what I have taken away from this thread so far is that my Church is ‘tradition bound’, yet demonstrably false based on Church tradition (post # 36), and that we ought to be targeted for conversion as if we were Jews (post #45). Wonderful.

Those two posters do not represent the majority of Catholics who have posted on this thread, and certainly don’t represent the hierarchy of the Church.

You seem to be reaching for reasons to reject the possibility of reunion. Why?

Edwin

 

[Nine_Two]

Those two posters do not represent the majority of Catholics who have posted on this thread, and certainly don’t represent the hierarchy of the Church.

You seem to be reaching for reasons to reject the possibility of reunion. Why?

Edwin

They do, however, seem to represent the majority of Latin Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

Okay. So, I’m not very well-educated about this, but I want to say something. Maybe not what you wanted, but it seems to me we are nowhere. By that I mean that neither side will ever give up their position on Papal supremacy as long as the Vatican exists. So, barring a rather cataclysmic volcanic event, what if we just decide to ignore it all and simply move forward to: sharing fully in Eucharistic communion.

Why shouldn’t we?

Because it would mean throwing out one of the things that both sides agree on.

 

[johnnykins]

They do, however, seem to represent the majority of Latin Catholics.

I represent myself…and I’ve seen and read so many disingenuous posts from the Orthodox here, that I do call them on it. Here is a good summary on the orthodox position by an Orthodox Archpriest. It comports with what I’ve read here and elsewhere. Of particular note is:
“In the simplest terms, the (Orthodox) Church believes that there are no sacraments outside the Church. Thus, according to strictness or the strict view (in Greek ‘akrivia’), any Roman Catholic or Protestant who wishes to join the (Orthodox) Church must be received by baptism, for they are considered not to have been baptised.” emphasis added orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

You want to accuse me of something…perhaps being forthright would work.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I underlined a section above that I do not understand, and that I really don’t think occurs very often at all.
The Pope, when he speaks on a matter is only after much discussion has already occurred within the Church. He has received opinions, results of studies, been able to ask questions himself and receive (name removed by moderator)ut etc…etc…etc…
I don’t really think that the pope ever speaks unilaterally on matters of doctrine.

I don’t know about ever, James, but I do know that while a Pope may listen to others, he can, and has, ignored the opinions and advice of the advisors and simply done exactly as he pleased.

In fact, if I am not mistaken, this is precisely how the filioque got into the Creed, even though Leo the… shoot, I forget the number, anyway, a former Roman Pontiff specifically said it should not be changed. No one was consulted, essentially, it was simply changed. Unilaterally. That’s a pretty big deal as it changed basic theology.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You have a way to go…many Orthodox are not even sure that Catholics are validly baptized. Then layer on top the underlying Cyprian v. Augustinian view of the sacraments (Maybe, since it’s underlying, it is really the place to start?). Toss in “economy” and the common practice of most Orthodox Churches of not re-baptizing Catholics, or re-doing other sacraments such as ordination - and all sorts of interesting questions arise. Then layer on actual practice in many parishes…who knows exactly what we’re dealing with?

We don’t re-baptize, either, but - wait - the Orthodox don’t think we are baptized?

Okay - never mind: does anyone know the answer to the Eucharist question? Just bread or Body of Christ? What does each believe the other receives?

 

[Julia_Mae]

We won’t agree to intercommunion because we don’t believe we both hold the same faith.

But my question is: do we each believe that in the Liturgy, each is receiving the Body of Christ or do we each think the others are eating bread. That’s the question.

 

[JRKH]

They do, however, seem to represent the majority of Latin Catholics.

How does one know this??? I am truly curious…

And what does it matter WHAT the majority opinion is of Latin Catholics…My guess is that the majority of Catholics are only barely aware (if at all) of these efforts, and have given the matter no particular thought or study…

The bottom line in all of this is that it is not up to us - laymen - either Catholic or Orthodox to make any “definitive” statements. It is up to us to trust the leaders of our respective Churches and those people directly assigned to these matters. The Holy Spirit will Guide them and resolution of the various issues will take place in God’s time, not ours.

The very best thing that we can do as laymen is to embrace each other as being sincere followers of Christ and pray that our leadership will eventually be able to work though all of the various issues.

I wonder how many Patriarchs (Bishops of Rome included) will pass through during this process…And how their different perspectives will help or hinder advancement…

Peace
James

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t know about ever, James, but I do know that while a Pope may listen to others, he can, and has, ignored the opinions and advice of the advisors and simply done exactly as he pleased.

In fact, if I am not mistaken, this is precisely how the filioque got into the Creed, even though Leo the… shoot, I forget the number, anyway, a former Roman Pontiff specifically said it should not be changed. No one was consulted, essentially, it was simply changed. Unilaterally. That’s a pretty big deal as it changed basic theology.

Actually, that’s not true. The filioque was already believed in the West even before the creed in question was formulated. The theology of it did not just happen suddenly after its later inclusion in the creed. Plus the Pope was not rejecting the theology of the filioque but the fact of its inclusion in the creed. Also, as I understand it, it was not a pope who out of nowhere planted it in the creed but a custom that had already grown in the West of reciting the creed with the filioque which the church later confirmed, I believe in a Ecumenical Council and a Pope’s decree. Such came after not as a result of papal act and the theology was in place in the West a long time.

I think a better example of the point you were trying to illustrate would be Paul VI and the Humanae Vitae encyclical which went against the advice and opinions he had sought and received.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Considering it is the Orthodox who reject the Baptism of Catholics, I find your angst a bit overplayed…The fundamental issue is that the Orthodox very forthrightly hold that Catholic sacraments (mysteries) are graceless. .

So we are eating bread and drinking wine? Could I possibly get a reference?

 

[jwinch2]

So we are eating bread and drinking wine? Could I possibly get a reference?

oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders

As noted above, there is no universal stance on this issue.

 

[TEPO]

So we are eating bread and drinking wine? Could I possibly get a reference?

That’s clearly not the case, and that’s not the official Orthodox position either.

 

[johnnykins]

So we are eating bread and drinking wine? Could I possibly get a reference?

look at the site in my earlier post - or better yet…ask our resident Orthodox posters…they know…At best you will get from them “They don’t know” …and more honestly they will say we are eating bread. What do the Monks on Mt. Athos believe? Certainly our Orthodox friends here can answer that for you…

 

[mardukm]

Dear MaryBeloved,

I think a better example of the point you were trying to illustrate would be Paul VI and the Humanae Vitae encyclical which went against the advice and opinions he had sought and received.

Actually, that’s not a good example either. What occurred there was that it was a bishop from South America who brought up the issue to the Fathers of Vatican 2 and the Pope had it investigated through a special Commission. The Commission opted for relaxing Catholic teaching, but the Pope went against the opinions of the Commission. The Commission was composed of only a handful of bishops/theologians. The matter of the Commission went to the Council for a vote (I believe under the heading of “the Church in the Modern World”) and the bishops OVERWHELMINGLY voted to retain the traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. Thereafter, the Pope issued the Encyclical under his personal authority.

As anyone can see, though the Encyclical was promulgated under the personal authority of the Pope, it had the backing of the great majority of the world’s bishops already. That’s the way it works. The Pope never does anything unilaterally even though certain teachings may be promulgated under his formal personal authority, and not a formal collegial authority (i.e., an Ecumenical Council or plenary synod).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Considering it is the Orthodox who reject the Baptism of Catholics, I find your angst a bit overplayed…The fundamental issue is that the Orthodox very forthrightly hold that Catholic sacraments (mysteries) are graceless.

What do you know of sacramental economy? Do you think that Nicodemos’ theory has the final word in Orthodoxy? Have you read any Orthodox theologians on this subject, or are you merely feigning knowledge?

As to being tradition bound, perhaps a short perusal of the many posts by the Orthodox on this forum will convince you that indeed the Orthodox wallow in tradition. In that the tradition of Councils being held valid by the Church had nothing to do with acceptance by the laity until Florence …that very adherence to tradition simply leads inexorably to the conclusion that those who reject Florence are outside the True Church…unless one wants to embrace the novelty of ex post laity approval.

That is all very incorrect. Surely unless you are completely unfamiliar and ignorant of these issues, you would know that the theory of a need for ‘ex post laity approval’ only appeared in Russia in perhaps the nineteenth century. It is a completely unnecessary theory, and many in Orthodoxy have criticized it. Your argument uses flawed logic, a variant of the false dichotomy. You pretend that by showing receptionism to be untrue, you can prove Florence to be true, but this is a logical fallacy, because there is the possibility that both can be untrue.

As to being targeted for conversion as if you were Jews, where did that come from?

I included a link.

Catholics hold that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, and are thus Christians. Just because the Orthodox deny Catholics are Christians in no way works in reverse.

Again, I ask, how much have you read on the topic of sacramental economy? Nicodemos is not the end all be all.

So much for red herrings

I provided an exegesis of the Relatio you posted. So far, absolutely none of this senseless and polemical nonsense which you have posted deals with that exegesis.

and smugness - or does that only apply to non-Orthodox. Somehow comments here from so many of our Orthodox brethren remind me of Moslems complaining about the Crusades just attacking them while forgetting that Moslems somehow wound up in central France and outside the gates of Vienna… Oh well, just made me think of it.

If you cannot interact with me as an individual, but instead take out your aggression against the Orthodox in general upon me, then I will have nothing to do with you. If you are unwilling to deal with my exegesis of the Relatio, then at least have the courtesy to cease your misdirecting polemics for the benefit of those of us who are interested in an academic and eirenic discussion.

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear MaryBeloved,

Actually, that’s not a good example either. What occurred there was that it was a bishop from South America who brought up the issue to the Fathers of Vatican 2 and the Pope had it investigated through a special Commission. The Commission opted for relaxing Catholic teaching, but the Pope went against the opinions of the Commission. The Commission was composed of only a handful of bishops/theologians. The matter of the Commission went to the Council for a vote (I believe under the heading of “the Church in the Modern World”) and the bishops OVERWHELMINGLY voted to retain the traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. Thereafter, the Pope issued the Encyclical under his personal authority.

As anyone can see, though the Encyclical was promulgated under the personal authority of the Pope, it had the backing of the great majority of the world’s bishops already. That’s the way it works. The Pope never does anything unilaterally even though certain teachings may be promulgated under his formal personal authority, and not a formal collegial authority (i.e., an Ecumenical Council or plenary synod).
Blessings,
Marduk

Well I didn’t know that. Thanks for the information. For some reason the way the story is told in the West, it’s always made to look as if the Pope was a lone fighter against the rest of the church which had abandoned the traditional moral teaching.

 

[mardukm]

It should be pointed out that there are examples of the Pope making unilateral decisions in the Middle Ages - but only on matters involving secular governments. The Pope has NEVER acted unilaterally on a matter of Faith and/or morals. It has never happened and it never will happen because the divine consitution of the Church demands it.

Immediately after Vatican 1, the Swiss Synod of bishops promulgated an Encyclical explaining the teachings of Vatican 1 to their flock:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the divine constitution of the Church[1]; lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society; that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, there is the power of the Temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society.[2]”

[1] This foregoing portion of the encyclical was an assertaion against theological neo-ultramontanism.
[2] This foregoing portion of the encyclical was a statement against political neo-ultramontanism.

The response of Pope Pius IX: “Nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than their pastoral.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You see this link?

No, but it embeds one of the articles I referenced in the post above.