The Russian Church and our Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoyalViews
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SusTre said:
An Orthodox in Communion w Rome? No such animal exists. Only in one’s mind, maybe. Truth is singular, not plural.
Click to expand...
As any of our Orthodox brethren here if Popes St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria were Orthodox in communion with Rome.😛 That’s reality, sister.

Blessings
 
SusTre said:
An Orthodox in Communion w Rome? No such animal exists. Only in one’s mind, maybe. Truth is singular, not plural.
Click to expand...
So tell me please, which of the two lungs of the Church is the true lung, and which of the two lungs of the Church is the false lung?
 
JohnVIII said:
So tell me please, which of the two lungs of the Church is the true lung, and which of the two lungs of the Church is the false lung?
Click to expand...
Neither of your “lungs” are healthy, and certainly neither is Orthodox. Eastern or Latin Catholic, regardless of what vestments the hierarchy wears or which Liturgy they celebrate, are not Orthodox (small or capital “O”)

This “lung” business is something started by your previous Pope. Orthodoxy does not use, teach, or believe this analogy. The Orthodox Church is the true Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other Churches, in as much as they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church are lacking.
 
Actually lung analogy was by poet Vyacheslav Ivanov who changed to be catholic He called Orthodox lung tuberculous. Very insulting
for us this analogy.
 
Dear brother trophybearer,
trophybearer said:
-]Neither of your “lungs” are healthy, and certainly neither is Orthodox. Eastern or Latin Catholic, regardless of what vestments the hierarchy wears or which Liturgy they celebrate, are not Orthodox (small or capital “O”)/-]

This “lung” business is something started by your previous Pope. Orthodoxy does not use, teach, or believe this analogy. The Orthodox Church is the true Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other Churches, in as much as they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church are lacking.
Click to expand...
Your first sentence was unnecessary.

I’m interested to know. Was the “you are lacking if you are not in communion with us” rhetoric used in the talks between ROCOR and ROC?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother trophybearer,

Your first sentence was unnecessary.

I’m interested to know. Was the “you are lacking if you are not in communion with us” rhetoric used in the talks between ROCOR and ROC?

Blessings
Click to expand...
No it was not, but that situation was nothing like the situation between Rome and the Orthodox Church; neither ROCOR nor the MP were heterodox.
 
mardukm said:
INDEED!!!

Blessings
Click to expand...
Sorry, I not understanding why indeed. But I can add to this that our Mitropolit Ilarion Volokolamskiy has said about such idea of Ivanov’s, perhaps finding it more useful than insulting

Mетафор русского поэта и мыслителя Вячеслава Иванова о необходимости для христианства дышать двумя легкими – западным и восточным. В наши дни ивановская метафора часто используется применительно к Европе и европейскому христианству. Мы можем сказать, что Европа сегодня как никогда прежде нуждается в согласованной работе «двух легких» – Римско-Католической и Православной Церквей, которые призваны объединить свои усилия для защиты традиционного христианства и духовного здоровья общества.

The metaphor of Russian poet and thinker Vyacheslav Ivanov concerning necessary for Christianity to breathe with two lungs - western and eastern. In our days this Ivanovsky metaphor is often used precisely to Europe and european christianity. We can say that Europe today as never previous itself needs in agreed work of both lungs - Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, which are called to unite their efforts for the defense of traditional christianity and the spiritual health of society.
 
trophybearer said:
mardukm;7080072:
…I’m interested to know. Was the “you are lacking if you are not in communion with us” rhetoric used in the talks between ROCOR and ROC?..
Click to expand...
No it was not, but that situation was nothing like the situation between Rome and the Orthodox Church; neither ROCOR nor the MP were heterodox.
Click to expand...
Prior to 2000 ROCOR did consider the MP to be heterodox. ROCOR even said it was an OLDER church than the MP because the current day MP was new church started by Metropolitan Sergius (hence the name of the heresy was called “Sergianism”). Bishops in Russia were told by Metropolitan Sergius that they could join this new church or they could die. Hence ROCOR, which was established by ukase #362 and the blessing of Patriarch Tikon, was established before this. Although it is also true that after 2000, such rhetoric as “you are lacking if you are not in communion with us” was not used any longer. The talks between ROCOR & ROC did not contain such things as “you are without grace”, as ROCOR clearly taught that the MP was without grace prior to 2000.

I will say it again, as I have said before, the near future union between the Russian Church and Rome will follow the same pattern as the union between ROCOR & the MP.
 
Volodymyr said:
Actually lung analogy was by poet Vyacheslav Ivanov who changed to be catholic He called Orthodox lung tuberculous. Very insulting
for us this analogy.
Click to expand...
I only know that the two lung analogy was used by Pope JP2. I like it. But perhaps the Orthodox lung would be healthier after the medication of entering communion with Rome. And the Roman lung likewise will be healthier with the medication of communion with the Orthodox. Two lungs should work together, not apart from each other.
 
JohnVIII said:
I only know that the two lung analogy was used by Pope JP2. I like it. But perhaps the Orthodox lung would be healthier after the medication of entering communion with Rome. And the Roman lung likewise will be healthier with the medication of communion with the Orthodox. Two lungs should work together, not apart from each other.
Click to expand...
We don’t accept this lung analogy as valid in the first place. The Orthodox Church has the appropriate number of organs, and doesn’t need a third lung. Rome isn’t even a viable donor.
 
trophybearer said:
Neither of your “lungs” are healthy, and certainly neither is Orthodox. Eastern or Latin Catholic, regardless of what vestments the hierarchy wears or which Liturgy they celebrate, are not Orthodox (small or capital “O”)

This “lung” business is something started by your previous Pope. Orthodoxy does not use, teach, or believe this analogy. The Orthodox Church is the true Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other Churches, in as much as they are not in communion with the Orthodox Church are lacking.
Click to expand...
No, because if they are not in communion with St. Peter, and if the Catholics are not the true church, then the church has fallen in entirety. The charge to St. Peter is not about his belief… For his belief was changed at the Council of Jerusalem… not much, but a bit, and to that of Paul… So if Peter’s belief at the time of the charge was the rock (as so many Orthodox polemicists claim), then it fell before the end of Acts.
 
Dear brother Volodymyr,
Volodymyr said:
Sorry, I not understanding why indeed.
Click to expand...
“INDEED!” was my way of saying I agree with you - it’s insulting and wrong to call an apostolic Church “tuberculous.”

Blessings
 
trophybearer said:
We don’t accept this lung analogy as valid in the first place. The Orthodox Church has the appropriate number of organs, and doesn’t need a third lung. Rome isn’t even a viable donor.
Click to expand...
Who are the two lungs that you now have apart from Rome; would that be Constantinople & Moscow? But even though Constantinople & Moscow seem to act that way due to there love/hate relationship, still I don’t see how they could be two lungs as both Constantinople & Moscow are from St Andrew and neither are from St Peter. But perhaps I’m putting words in your mouth; so who would you say are the two lungs (since you say Rome would be a “third”, there must be a first and a second).

If you are trying to say that Orthodoxy is complete without Rome, then how can the apostles be complete without Peter? Do you think that Rome would be made complete by it’s union with Orthodoxy? Or is Rome and Orthodoxy both complete as they are and neither needs the other and it’s just the right thing for us both to remain apart?

What does Orthodoxy have that Rome does not? You might say “the truth” (as in Rome is in heresy). Proving yourself right by saying that the other is wrong might work in political debates, but for it to work here in this forum you would have to bring substance into the argument.

Rome has a better argument. Instead of saying ‘we are right because you are wrong’, they do claim to have something that you do not have. Rome has the Keys of the Kingdom.

But it is exceedingly uncharitable to keep doing this ‘us against you, and you against us’ thing. We both need each other to be the best we can be. Look at the Keys in this way: Just as a priest (in the Orthodox tradition) cannot have a Divine Liturgy unless there is some lay people come to church for the service (the priest cannot serve all by himself), take this principle up a level or two, the Pope cannot use the Keys for the benefit of the whole Church unless his brother bishops are with him in the communion of the whole Church. Your not giving up anything by being in communion with the Pope, anymore than you are giving up something by going to church so that your priest can have the Liturgy!

We all have some sort of bias. I, for one, maintain that both Rome and Orthodoxy are valid and grace-filled right now, even though they are not in communion. You can’t force another jurisdiction out of the Church just by braking communion with it! Some do think so, but I do not. But I do think that both East and West will benefit 100 fold just by the union of inter-communion. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top