the same thing

[rciadan]

I thought Theosis was more a process than a result (as one can never, however saintly, be completely like God), but appreciate what you were trying to say in a way.

My grammar may be off. I am not very familiar with the concept of theosis. My point was about the debating technique used…

 

[dzheremi]

Silly, rciadan. Nine Two is absolutely right.

Eastern Orthodox: Certain people have seen the uncreated light, but not absolutely everything they have written or said in their lives is therefore enlightened, only some of it.

Roman Catholic: The Pope is infallible, but only when certain conditions are met, so not everything he has written or said is to be taken to be infallible, only some of it.

Now, as a simple OO student, I must admit that the language like that used by Mark of Ephesus strikes me as exactly as inscrutable as the language RCs often employ to describe their infallibility doctrine and its conditions (with the important caveat that at least the EO ideas are backed up with reference to the Fathers and saints of the church), but that’s just because I don’t go in for complicated taxonomies of grace, or illumination, any much of anything, really. This is my own intellectual/philosophical limitation or preference, as the concept of Theosis (which is affirmed in the Coptic Orthodox Church, both presently and historically, lest anyone has any ideas to the contrary based on some well-known controversies with the COC in recent years) makes sense to me as presented by certain OO Fathers (note the quote from St. Athanasius in HG’s response; excellent!), but not in the context of discussing levels of illumination or what have you. But it’s still a reality, and what’s more, a Patristically-attested position. If it’s Protestant, then so was the entire Church dating back to the at least the pre-Chalcedonian period, as it has been found in the writings of saints shared by the three major communions in Christianity.

 

[steve_b]

Rome is welcome to call their bishoprics what they like, and I must say I find it a pleasing step forward that they don’t use the same name as the established churches. But the name of the Orthodox bishopric in the city is “Constantinople”.

With all due respect, the point was, since 1990 the Catholic Church in Constantinople, calls the city Istanbul, (and you can see the mailing address from the link provided ). I would assume The Church does this to be peaceful with the government of Turkey, who insists the world calls the city by it’s Muslim name, Istanbul NOT Constantinople.

And as I said, for peaceful communication with my Orthodox brothers in faith, I’ll try and use the name Constantinople.
N:

That phrase leaves me wondering if he even understands how the Orthodox Communion works.

It sounds like he is saying Constantinople needs to bring all the Churches under it, and that Moscow is the biggest obstacle to this. I would certainly agree that Moscow would be the biggest obstacle, however the other 13 autocephalous Churches would similarly oppose such a move. I would hope the Patriarch of Constantinople would similarly oppose it.

I think he does know. He’s the one in 2002, whose job it was to oversee the ecumenical process for the Catholic Church. He knows, In order to talk with the Orthodox, he can’t talk with just one Church or hierarch, etc, and all will agree. That’s the point. No ONE speaks for the Orthodox. That’s why he says there is no “Orthodox Church”. The Orthodox are many, autocephelous “Orthodox Churches” rather than ONE Church. Not even the ecumenical patriarch can assemble all the autocephelous Churches together for an agreement, nor can he speak for them, especially since the Russians which make up ~60% of total Orthodoxy don’t necessarily regard the ecumenical patriarch with primacy of honor. . It’s also the problem behind the fact the Orthodox haven’t had a pan Orthodox council for over 1000 years.

That’s why Card Kasper wrote, emphasis mine (from the article I linked to)

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Notice what he said about Antioch? That was 10 yrs ago. I haven’t kept up on this. Maybe someone in the know could give an update (with references). No question, the process of unity is painfully slow.

 

[steve_b]

So Peter’s blood is more valuable or holy than everyone else’s or something? I don’t get it. And we love Sts. Peter and Paul!

While Peter spent time in other locations, he didn’t stay in those locations he went to Rome. Think about it. When a bishop moves, where is his see? In Peter’s case , it’s Rome. And Peter’s remains are still there. As are Paul’s

 

[twf]

While Peter spent time in other locations, he didn’t stay in those locations he went to Rome. Think about it. When a bishop moves, where is his see? In Peter’s case , it’s Rome. And Peter’s remains are still there. As are Paul’s

The early Church recognized that there was something intrinsically unique about the Church in Rome:

St. Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). (Emphasis added)

Optatus of Milevus:
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I:
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think he does know. He’s the one in 2002, whose job it was to oversee the ecumenical process for the Catholic Church. He knows, In order to talk with the Orthodox, he can’t talk with just one Church or hierarch, etc, and all will agree. That’s the point. No ONE speaks for the Orthodox. That’s why he says there is no “Orthodox Church”. The Orthodox are many, autocephelous “Orthodox Churches” rather than ONE Church.

That means that the Church in the first millennium was not one, because it too was made of self-governing autocephalous churches (what Rome in its ecclesiological lingo calls ‘particular Churches’). The Church being one should understood in the same way as the trinity. The unity of the Church does not obliterate the local Church, headed by the bishop, as an autonomous unit.

Not even the ecumenical patriarch can assemble all the autocephelous Churches together for an agreement, nor can he speak for them, especially since the Russians which make up ~60% of total Orthodoxy don’t necessarily regard the ecumenical patriarch with primacy of honor. . It’s also the problem behind the fact the Orthodox haven’t had a pan Orthodox council for over 1000 years.

That is not true, several synods have been called in the second millennium which were pan-Orthodox in scope. The Synod of Jerusalem, convened to condemn Calvinism was one.

That’s why Card Kasper wrote, emphasis mine (from the article I linked to)

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

I think the problem is that he misunderstands what a primacy of honor is. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no ability to force the other patriarchates to follow his position on a given subject. The only time when the Ecumenical patriarch came close to having such power, it was from his civil authority within the Ottoman Empire, and even then, that civil authority never went further than the borders of the Ottomans.

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Notice what he said about Antioch? That was 10 yrs ago. I haven’t kept up on this. Maybe someone in the know could give an update (with references). No question, the process of unity is painfully slow.

I think he is exaggerating about Antioch. The Antiochians have greater enthusiasm for participating in dialogue. Many people unfortunately misinterpret this enthusiasm for participating in talks as “almost full communion”. The Church of Greece was lukewarm, but its bishops signed a joint statement soon after the Ravenna talks, distancing themselves from them. The tide may be turning in Greece away from ecumenism, but it is too early to tell. The Russian patriarch still refuses to meet with the Pope, although several Russian bishops have met with the Pope. Their attitude towards ecumenism is rather cold still. In America, it is interesting to see that the bishops of different jurisdictions are cooperating in the standing conference of canonical orthodox bishops of America (SCOBA) and issuing joint statements of their own. SCOBA’s statements err on the side of caution, taking care to list things that must change on the Roman Catholic side for unity to happen. Universally across the Orthodox world, I think the answer to the question of communion with Rome is “not yet”.

 

[Whoxodono]

good day
seen here on forums.catholic-questions.org someone has described it in the topic , but is not quite true , that’s addition.
In brief look no pozheleete! quality of the turd , but you can watch !
èãðà

 

[Cavaradossi]

However, we don’t see the Patriarch of Alexandria acting as a literal “judge of the universe,” and defending his actions on that basis during the first millenium. Whereas we do see Rome acting from the “chair of Peter” in a unique fashion, even while acknowledging that other sees have a connection to Peter as well. For example, Pope Leo believed that he had the authority to annul a decision of the Council of Chalcedon “by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.”

The popes believed in many things. Pope Vigilius declared in his first constitutum that any decision made contrary to his decision on the three chapters, he annulled with the authority of the apostolic see. The Second Council of Constantinople made a decision contrary to Vigilius’ judgment, and Vigilius was sent into exile, whence he wrote a letter to the bishop of Constantinople whereby he recanted of what he wrote in his first Constitutum in order to secure his return to Rome. He also wrote a second Constitutum, meant for circulation in the West, in which he promulgated the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople. Upon receiving the Second Constitutum, several sees in the West went into schism from Rome and the East, believing that they had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon. Surely the popes believed it, but nobody else seems to have bought their claims.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think he does know. He’s the one in 2002, whose job it was to oversee the ecumenical process for the Catholic Church. He knows, In order to talk with the Orthodox, he can’t talk with just one Church or hierarch, etc, and all will agree. That’s the point. No ONE speaks for the Orthodox. That’s why he says there is no “Orthodox Church”. The Orthodox are many, autocephelous “Orthodox Churches” rather than ONE Church. Not even the ecumenical patriarch can assemble all the autocephelous Churches together for an agreement, nor can he speak for them, especially since the Russians which make up ~60% of total Orthodoxy don’t necessarily regard the ecumenical patriarch with primacy of honor. . It’s also the problem behind the fact the Orthodox haven’t had a pan Orthodox council for over 1000 years.

That’s why Card Kasper wrote, emphasis mine (from the article I linked to)

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Notice what he said about Antioch? That was 10 yrs ago. I haven’t kept up on this. Maybe someone in the know could give an update (with references). No question, the process of unity is painfully slow.

If he believes that Constantinople has an ability to force everyone “under” it by virtue of a Primacy of Honour, with all due respect, he does not understand Orthodox Ecclesiology.

 

[Nine_Two]

Silly, rciadan. Nine Two is absolutely right.

Eastern Orthodox: Certain people have seen the uncreated light, but not absolutely everything they have written or said in their lives is therefore enlightened, only some of it.

Roman Catholic: The Pope is infallible, but only when certain conditions are met, so not everything he has written or said is to be taken to be infallible, only some of it.

Now, as a simple OO student, I must admit that the language like that used by Mark of Ephesus strikes me as exactly as inscrutable as the language RCs often employ to describe their infallibility doctrine and its conditions (with the important caveat that at least the EO ideas are backed up with reference to the Fathers and saints of the church), but that’s just because I don’t go in for complicated taxonomies of grace, or illumination, any much of anything, really. This is my own intellectual/philosophical limitation or preference, as the concept of Theosis (which is affirmed in the Coptic Orthodox Church, both presently and historically, lest anyone has any ideas to the contrary based on some well-known controversies with the COC in recent years) makes sense to me as presented by certain OO Fathers (note the quote from St. Athanasius in HG’s response; excellent!), but not in the context of discussing levels of illumination or what have you. But it’s still a reality, and what’s more, a Patristically-attested position. If it’s Protestant, then so was the entire Church dating back to the at least the pre-Chalcedonian period, as it has been found in the writings of saints shared by the three major communions in Christianity.

I think that while I would personally refrain from calling them infallible, those who have experienced theosis are certainly going to be well grounded in theology, and their teachings should be respected quite strongly, and given more weight than your average secular clergyman.

 

[dzheremi]

That’s fine, Nine Two. I wasn’t even trying to make a direct comparison between their content, only to answer rciadan’s objection that in their form one is clearly Protestant and the other is not.

 

[steve_b]

That means that the Church in the first millennium was not one, because it too was made of self-governing autocephalous churches (what Rome in its ecclesiological lingo calls ‘particular Churches’). The Church being one should understood in the same way as the trinity. The* unity of the Church does not obliterate the local Church*, headed by the bishop, as an autonomous unit.

Is the Trinity fractured into opposing entities? That’s what we are talking about here. Did the apostles immediately fracture into opposing pieces, and go against Jesus prayer, “that they be one as you Father and I are one”?. The Catholic Church was ONE in the 1st millenium lead by the chair of Peter. That’s the model set up by the Father. And the Catholic Church is still ONE today, led by and united to the chair of Peter. That hasn’t changed in 2000 years. Unfortunately there are those who refuse to remain united to the chair of Peter, which is an act of their will not God’s will. Can you imagine the Father, Son, or HS being in opposing positions to each other?
C:

I think the problem is that he misunderstands what a primacy of honor is. The Patriarch of Constantinople has no ability to force the other patriarchates to follow his position on a given subject. The only time when the Ecumenical patriarch came close to having such power, it was from his civil authority within the Ottoman Empire, and even then, that civil authority never went further than the borders of the Ottomans.

Since there is no authority attached to the title, what then does “primacy” of honor mean?
C:

I think he is exaggerating about Antioch. The Antiochians have greater enthusiasm for participating in dialogue. Many people unfortunately misinterpret this enthusiasm for participating in talks as “almost full communion”. The Church of Greece was lukewarm, but its bishops signed a joint statement soon after the Ravenna talks, distancing themselves from them. The tide may be turning in Greece away from ecumenism, but it is too early to tell. The Russian patriarch still refuses to meet with the Pope, although several Russian bishops have met with the Pope. Their attitude towards ecumenism is rather cold still.

You point out as did Card Kasper, each Church is seperate, with their own ideas. They can make independent decisions for themselves. Which is also Kasper’s point. To bad he didn’t give any details what he meant by “almost full communion”. Obviously 10 yrs later from that article, I haven’t seen anything mentioned that moved the needle. But maybe someone else has
C:

In America, it is interesting to see that the bishops of different jurisdictions are cooperating in the standing conference of canonical orthodox bishops of America (SCOBA) and issuing joint statements of their own. SCOBA’s statements err on the side of caution, taking care to list things that must change on the Roman Catholic side for unity to happen. Universally across the Orthodox world, I think the answer to the question of communion with Rome is “not yet”.

Since these conversations are held at the highest levels of the hierarchy, I think the question is, will the Orthodox rank and file, follow their bishops if/when an agreement is ever made?

 

[steve_b]

If he believes that Constantinople has an ability to force everyone “under” it by virtue of a Primacy of Honour, with all due respect, he does not understand Orthodox Ecclesiology.

Force was not mentioned. I think what is clear from the article, the ecumenical patriarch has no authority that goes with the title “primacy of honor” particularly with the Russians. So that suggests to me that understanding is apparantly held by more than just the Russians. So what does “primacy of honor” really mean in Orthodox understanding?

 

[steve_b]

The early Church recognized that there was something intrinsically unique about the Church in Rome:

St. Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). (Emphasis added)

Optatus of Milevus:
“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I:
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

:yup:

 

[Nine_Two]

Force was not mentioned. I think what is clear from the article, the ecumenical patriarch has no authority that goes with the title “primacy of honor” particularly with the Russians. So that suggests to me that understanding is apparantly held by more than just the Russians. So what does “primacy of honor” really mean in Orthodox understanding?

Exactly, there is no real authority that comes with the Primacy. You get to chair meetings and set the agenda, as well as getting to preside over disputes (but only if the two sides come to you).

The idea that it has anything to do with bringing other Churches in line, is foreign to us.

You’re right that force wasn’t mentioned, but to me it seemed implied. Perhaps I’m just oversensitive to the language but historically, “integration” of churches, particularly in the East, has been done with force. At one time there were only two Churches that were truly autocephalous, and those were our darkest days. We don’t want to go back to it.

When Orthodox talk about unity, integration isn’t part of it. We don’t want it, and it will be a deal breaker.

 

[twf]

[Edited]… The Church being one should understood in the same way as the trinity. The unity of the Church does not obliterate the local Church, headed by the bishop, as an autonomous unit.
…
[Edited].

This is not contrary to Catholic thought - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church."427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

I know you might take issue with the clause “its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church”… but remember that the supreme authority does not refer to the Pope alone but also to ecumenical councils…the autonomy of Orthodox bishops is limited by the decisions of ecumenical councils and local synods - correct? Catholic bishops, even within the Latin Church, have considerable autonomy…far more than many people seem to think.

 

[rciadan]

That’s fine, Nine Two. I wasn’t even trying to make a direct comparison between their content, only to answer rciadan’s objection that in their form one is clearly Protestant and the other is not.

I did not say that any is not. I merely stated that the form of debate used is one that I most often run into when coming up against Protestants…or people who tend to think like them…

 

[steve_b]

Exactly, there is no real authority that comes with the Primacy. You get to chair meetings and set the agenda, as well as getting to preside over disputes (but only if the two sides come to you).

I suppose “has no real authority” goes along with his title of “ecumenical patriarch” too?
N:

The idea that it has anything to do with bringing other Churches in line, is foreign to us.

Oh I realize that.
N:

You’re right that force wasn’t mentioned, but to me it seemed implied. Perhaps I’m just oversensitive to the language but historically, "integration" of churches, particularly in the East, has been done with force. At one time there were only two Churches that were truly autocephalous, and those were our darkest days. We don’t want to go back to it.
When Orthodox talk about unity, integration isn’t part of it. We don’t want it, and it will be a deal breaker.

WOW!

 

[rciadan]

Originally Posted by N
*
You’re right that force wasn’t mentioned, but to me it seemed implied. Perhaps I’m just oversensitive to the language but historically, "integration" of churches*, particularly in the East, has been done with force. At one time there were only two Churches that were truly autocephalous, and those were our darkest days. We don’t want to go back to it.
When Orthodox talk about unity, integration isn’t part of it. We don’t want it, and it will be a deal breaker.

I, as a Catholic, agree with this statement. True ecumenism does not include integration. It is the practice of dialoguing with those of different faiths to find ways to help them understand why they should return to unification with the One True Church.
This Orthodox understanding of “unity” and “unification” fits the definition of Ecumenism as defined before Vatican II.
I also do not want unity if it means integrating with falsehood.
What I do hope is that we are all sincerely seeking Truth, and are willing to go wherever the Truth leads us, even if it is not where we expected…

 

[steve_b]

I, as a Catholic, agree with this statement. True ecumenism does not include integration. It is the practice of dialoguing with those of different faiths to find ways to help them understand why they should return to unification with the One True Church.
This Orthodox understanding of “unity” and “unification” fits the definition of Ecumenism as defined before Vatican II.
I also do not want unity if it means integrating with falsehood.
What I do hope is that we are all sincerely seeking Truth, and are willing to go wherever the Truth leads us, even if it is not where we expected…

The CCC uses the word 5 times
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=integration&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I checked encyclicals also. None of the sources I checked, did integration mean losing one’s identity or have a negative conotation.