The New Orthodox Study Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter bpbasilphx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, or they’d be called Eastern Catholics, without bringing my opinion on the specifics of the bankruptness of Byzantine theology in to sight. “Orthodox” means ethnic, Palamite, hesychist, rejecting Papal authority, tainted by many centuries of being crushed under the heel of Mahometans, rejecting the filioque, etc.** “Orthodox” and “Communion with Rome” are mutually exclusive.**
 
No, or they’d be called Eastern Catholics, without bringing** my opinion on the specifics of the bankruptness of Byzantine theology** in to sight. “Orthodox” means ethnic, Palamite, hesychist, rejecting Papal authority, tainted by many centuries of being crushed under the heel of Mahometans, rejecting the filioque, etc. “Orthodox” and “Communion with Rome” are mutually exclusive.
The bolded statement is enough to make any opinion you post suspect from here on out.

How nice of you to come here and insult a sizable subset of Catholics.
 
Are you trying to say there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome?
Well, there might be some, I don’t know everybody in the Orthodox Churches. But in point of fact, one who holds to Eastern liturgical tradition and wishes to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff, becomes an Eastern Rite Catholic and eschews Orthodoxy. Call me carzy.
 
Well, there might be some, I don’t know everybody in the Orthodox Churches. But in point of fact, one who holds to Eastern liturgical tradition and wishes to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff, becomes an Eastern Rite Catholic and eschews Orthodoxy. Call me carzy.
My opinion is that the Orthodox churches do not teach anything that the Roman Catholic church would consider heretical. Therefore, anything the Orthodox church teaches is ok for a Roman Catholic communicant to learn.

You may feel differently.
 
No, or they’d be called Eastern Catholics, without bringing my opinion on the specifics of the bankruptness of Byzantine theology in to sight. “Orthodox” means ethnic, Palamite, hesychist, rejecting Papal authority, tainted by many centuries of being crushed under the heel of Mahometans, rejecting the filioque, etc.** “Orthodox” and “Communion with Rome” are mutually exclusive.**
I’m glad to see that you are filled with such humility that you have learned to judge without being blinded by pride. What a holy man you are.
 
My opinion is that the Orthodox churches do not teach anything that the Roman Catholic church would consider heretical. Therefore, anything the Orthodox church teaches is ok for a Roman Catholic communicant to learn.

You may feel differently.
I first learned Catholic Communion theology from the Othodox, but the view of the Papacy wouldn’t be kosher to an RC or an EC. Other than that though, we really are similar:)

My parish is Latin Rite OF, but I really liked the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom when I was attending an Orthodox Church. It would be nice to find an EC out here…
 
My opinion is that the Orthodox churches do not teach anything that the Roman Catholic church would consider heretical. Therefore, anything the Orthodox church teaches is ok for a Roman Catholic communicant to learn.
This is also how I felt as an RC, and so it always confused me to hear fellow RCs argue as they did about the errors of the Orthodox. I found a few friends among my fellow RCs who agreed with me that there’s nothing wrong in Orthodox teachings, but when I asked them why they then remained Catholic (as the ones who held this view were generally very enamored of Eastern Orthodoxy), they said “I was born into it” or “I don’t know”. 😊 It was quite an eye-opener, as I wasn’t born into it, and was at that time quite conflicted between what I had experienced in a Byzantine church (which did NOT seem at all theologically bankrupt, thank you very much Khalid) and even in a traditional Benedictine monastery and the day-to-day experience of being RC. Of course then I stopped going altogether, so maybe I don’t agree with your last sentence, Hesychios. 🙂
 
My opinion is that the Orthodox churches do not teach anything that the Roman Catholic church would consider heretical. Therefore, anything the Orthodox church teaches is ok for a Roman Catholic communicant to learn.

You may feel differently.
Do not the Orthodox teach against papal infallibility?
 
Are you trying to say there is no such thing as Orthodox in communion with Rome?
Yes, the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome. I don’t want to leave any question about that. There are Eastern Rite Catholics but they are not Orthodox. If by Orthodox, you mean isolated individuals, then you may be right, but their Churches are not.
 
My opinion is that the Orthodox churches do not teach anything that the Roman Catholic church would consider heretical. Therefore, anything the Orthodox church teaches is ok for a Roman Catholic communicant to learn.

You may feel differently.
It’s really not a matter of how I feel, it’s a matter of fact. The Otrthodox Churches are in schism with Rome. It;s easy to look up.
 
It’s really not a matter of how I feel, it’s a matter of fact. The Otrthodox Churches are in schism with Rome. It;s easy to look up.
I agree that Rome is in schism from Holy Orthodoxy.
 
Do not the Orthodox teach against papal infallibility?
The Orthodox have no such doctrine, know of no such doctrine.

That is not a teaching.

Orthodox also do not have a teaching against, nor for, a flat earth. 🙂

What Orthodox teach is not heretical, which is why Orthodox theology does not come up in discussions between the churches. Only Roman Catholic theology becomes the basis for talking points.

Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) made that clear when he made his famous statement …
Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium …

What people rarely quote was the second part …

Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had …

No mention of Orthodox theology.
 
This post has de-railed a bit 🙂

The Eastern catholic churches are orthodox churches in communion with the Pope. Now there can be a great diversity in how their eastern faith is lived in out in their particular parish. Some are more “Latinized” than others, then again some Orthodox are more “Latinized / Proetstantized” than others.

The real sadness is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not in communion with one another.

The theology between the two is essentially the same yet expressed in different manner, at least when compared to the majority of Protestants. As been shown on this forum and on such radio/podcast shows like Fr. Loya’s “Light of the East” there is a difference of emphasis. Grant it sometimes there almost seems ot be some linguistic gymnastics required, i.e. the filioque…

Peace to all.
dave
 
This post has de-railed a bit 🙂

The Eastern catholic churches are orthodox churches in communion with the Pope. Now there can be a great diversity in how their eastern faith is lived in out in their particular parish. Some are more “Latinized” than others, then again some Orthodox are more “Latinized / Proetstantized” than others.

dave
It is my understanding that Pope B16 has encouraged the Eastern Churches to retain and return to their roots regarding their traditions and liturgy. If so, I think that is wonderful.


Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

I looked quite seriously at the OSB a few months ago but ended up staying away from it due to the perception that I had that the translation was not all it was touted to be and that the study notes were not very deep, and not always Orthodox in its teaching. I was hoping that as a new convert, the OSB would give me a good understanding of the Eastern tradition in interpreting Sacred Scripture and planned to use it along side my Bible commentaries from the Latin tradition.
 
It’s really not a matter of how I feel, it’s a matter of fact. The Otrthodox Churches are in schism with Rome. It;s easy to look up.
It’s just that today we simply say that Rome and Orthodoxy are separated from one another.

Rome and Orthodoxy are and will be working on ways to heal the separation.

Alex
 
No, or they’d be called Eastern Catholics, without bringing my opinion on the specifics of the bankruptness of Byzantine theology in to sight. “Orthodox” means ethnic, Palamite, hesychist, rejecting Papal authority, tainted by many centuries of being crushed under the heel of Mahometans, rejecting the filioque, etc.** “Orthodox” and “Communion with Rome” are mutually exclusive.**
Well, Brother, Eastern Catholics do use the term “Orthodox Christians” in their liturgy and I do believe the Latin Mass refers to those who teach the “Orthodox Faith.”

In 1596, the Union of Brest led those who signed it to call themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome.” That is a fact and even the Orthodox acknowledge that - so you are wrong on this.

Roman Catholics in history, and especially when there was the monolithic Tridentine tradition, have likewise been “ethnocentric” that led to the failure of RC missions in Asia and elsewhere. You are wrong on that score as history will bear out.

St Gregory Palamas is recognized as a saint by Rome (this occurred in 1973) and you can look this up online. Hesychasm has now become better understood by Roman Catholics and is no longer considered by RC’s in terms of what you describe.

Orthodoxy did reject Filioquism as a heresy due to how it understood “And the Son” as saying that the Spirit has two Origins within the Trinity (if this was how the RC Church actually understood the Procession of the Spirit, then Rome would be condemning itself as it rejects this idea).

“Papal authority” in terms of papal jurisdiction never existed over the Eastern Churches in the first millennium. That Rome was an authority in faith and morals then - yes absolutely. But papal jurisdiction held no sway over the Christian East in the first millennium but was only a court of final appeal.

So your own RC Church would strenuously disagree with your assessment of Orthodoxy which seems rather angry.

From my own experience, angry people seldom base their conclusions upon actual facts.

Alex
 
This post has de-railed a bit 🙂

The Eastern catholic churches are orthodox churches in communion with the Pope. Now there can be a great diversity in how their eastern faith is lived in out in their particular parish. Some are more “Latinized” than others, then again some Orthodox are more “Latinized / Proetstantized” than others.

The real sadness is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not in communion with one another.

The theology between the two is essentially the same yet expressed in different manner, at least when compared to the majority of Protestants. As been shown on this forum and on such radio/podcast shows like Fr. Loya’s “Light of the East” there is a difference of emphasis. Grant it sometimes there almost seems ot be some linguistic gymnastics required, i.e. the filioque…

Peace to all.
dave
Fr Joe Loya is a wonderful priest! He baptized my daughter when we were in the Byzantine Catholic church. How can I find these podcasts you mention, “Light of the East”?
 
Fr Joe Loya is a wonderful priest! He baptized my daughter when we were in the Byzantine Catholic church. How can I find these podcasts you mention, “Light of the East”?
Unless I am mistaken the father Joe Loya you are referring to, the Augustinian priest, is a cousin of father Tom Loya (eparchy of Parma) who speaks on Theology of the Body and has the radio show-podcast.

Their common grandfather was a married Catholic priest.

The radio show is archived here …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top