To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[JackQ]

If we could hold an Ecumenical Council with the Arians and other heretics, why couldn’t we hold one now to finally decide what the Truth is? Pride? It would be a sin to let the mystical Body of Christ stay divided simply because of pride.

We know what the truth is: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church…” The body of Christ is not divided. It is one body, and all who are in communion with the successor of Peter are part of it.

 

[John_Larocque]

The Balamaand Agreement is heretical. It is also a slap in the face to the Eastern Catholic Churches, who were not allowed to participate in it. (No Eastern Catholic was present) An “agreement” that prevents missionaries to take Catholic sacraments to people is utterly invalid.

russiancatholic.blogspot.com/

If the Vatican would just make Cardinal Husar a Patriarch, give the Russian Catholics of the Eastern Rite in Russia their own bishop, and stop prohibiting the Eastern Churches in the USA from having married clergy there would be conversions in droves to the Catholic Church.

We need ecumenism in the style of Blessed Leonid Feodorov, not Balamaand Compromises!

I see from your signature that you are a Feeneyite. Would it be fair to say that what makes Balamand “heretical” is that is ecumenical. BTW are you familiar with the SSPX allies “The Priestly Society of St. Josaphat?” The good Cardinal Lubomyr had them excommunicated, but their approach to ecumenism is pretty hard-core.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat

The Society of Saint Josaphat condemns ecumenism with the Orthodox currently practised by both the Holy See and the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Instead the Society promotes Catholic missionary activities among the Orthodox, who are not in communion with the Holy See.

Obviously this will do wonders to heal the schism between East and West! Interestingly enough, this order also opposes “de-Latinisation,” which is the language Vatican II uses for the Eastern Catholic churches to recover their heritage. But then again, their allies in the SSPX are also opponents of Vatican II…

 

[josephdaniel29]

Actually, it has been tried twice before. Both times the Orthodox wound up renouncing everything they had agreed to.

I’ll be honest and please don’t take offense. That statement shows a serious lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy and the nature of the Church. A handful of bishops accepted the Council of Florence but a handful of bishops do not comprise the Church. The Church is comprised of all the people, clergy and laity together.

If a bishop of even a council of bishops promulgate something that is clearly opposed to Apostolic Tradition (such as the Council of Florence), the remaining clergy and laity have a solemn duty to reject it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Are you sure all of the Orthodox bishops are this strident? If so, what is the point of all the conferences between Orthodox and Catholic bishops?

I can’t speak for all Orthodox bishops. To be honest I don’t know what the point of the consultations are. The only acceptable forms of ecumenism are those geared towards bringing people to the truth of Orthodoxy or perhaps collaborating on societal issues.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Would you mind briefly stating the differences for me because I don’t know. What is it that the Orthodox Church preserved that the Catholic Church changed?

Thanks

The Orthodox reject…

1.) Papal Infallibility
2.) Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
3.) Immaculate Conception (mostly comes from a different understanding of Original Sin)
4.) The Filioque
5.) Purgatory (we accept an intermediate state but do not define it dogmatically and we reject the idea of temporal punishment)
6.) Baptism by sprinkling
7.) Separating the sacraments of baptism and confirmation
8.) Communing under one species

That’s a start. Like I said in another post I (and that’s a big I) think about the only ones of those that couldn’t be overcome are Papal Infallibility and universal jurisdiction.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[prodromos]

It would be a sin to let the mystical Body of Christ stay divided simply because of pride.

Dear Noah, it is impossible for Christ’s body to be divided. You are either of Christ’s Body, or not.

John

 

[Lisa44]

Thank you Josephdaniel

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thank you Josephdaniel

It’s my pleasure.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Can anyone give a statement from one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils where the Fathers stated something to the effect, “let’s wait to see what the laity say about this” or “these bishops have no God-given authority unless it is approved by the laity”?

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

wait, the Eastern Catholic churches in the USA don’t have married priests?

Some do, however it was forbidden twice in North America.

I believe the EC church with the most married priests in N America would be the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church. This would be due in part because they were most active in getting around the ban on technicalities early on, and in part because they have been able import some young married priests from Europe since enforcement was relaxed.

Cum Data Fuerit is considered to have lapsed, at least since the publication of the CCEO, if not before. The Vatican has not been entirely clear about it.

Some EC churches have formally adopted mandatory celibacy (I think the Syro-Malabar is one), and some other EC bishops in N America have seemed to be personally opposed to the married option, so they will not have married priests regardless.

 

[AdrianP]

There is an Easy way out of today’s situation. Since both Churches recognize the dogma and everything at 1000, before split, we can return there. Orthodox Christians have no problem returning there.

All important moments in Bible for almost 2000 years are pointed by miracles that today happen in Orthodox Christianity.
1.The most important moment in Bible is Jesus resurrection proving him to be God and having power over death. The history say that Apostle Peter coming to the Holy Sepulcher and that he found a Light there. Over the Holy Sepulcher, the cave where Jesus body lied for some days a Church was built and in this Church , Holy Sepulcher Church in Jerusalem, in the celebration of Jesus resurrection on Orthodox Easter sometime different of Protestant Easter date the, a miracle happens year by year, Holy Light is coming from the sky on the ceremony done by Patriarch of Jerusalem, Leader of First Church in the World. On one year Armenians asked the political leader to move orthodox people outside the Church, at that time Protestantism and the debates of today didn’t exists, and the political leader agreed but said if the Holy Light will not come to you you need to eat some smelly things. So the Holy Light come to Orthodox Christians .This is history of Holy Light:
holyfire.org/eng/velich.htm
This is a movie about Holy Light in around 2000 and the priest on my Church saw it in reality and you can see it too.In the movie you can see Holy Light under middle gate in this:
youtube.com/watch?v=6EI71Uk28rI
2.When Jesus was baptized Jordan river moved backward to show that nature listens to God. Every year on Orthodox date of Jesus baptism when the Patriarch of First Church in the World does a ceremony, Jordan river moves backward from the time the Patriarch throws the cross in the water to the time cross is taken outside the water. Here is the movie and you can see water moving one direction and then cross moving the other way:
youtube.com/watch?v=CfmrqZwUjCQ&feature=channel_page
3.On Orthodox Date of Transfiguration a cloud comes to Mount Tabor.
4.Angels are present when priests give Food for Eternal life to people in Orthodox Church, look in following movie at 2:38 and 2:40:
youtube.com/watch?v=RFA79d8859o&feature=channel_page
5.Orthodox Priests with Holy Spirit received at ordination, through prayer transform normal water in Holy Water changing molecular movement of molecules from Brownian to other movement and Water resists for years. Actually God is doing all these miracles.
6.Saint bodies stream myrrh
7.Prophets, miracle workers, people walking on water, levitation, seeing anywhere in Earth, apparitions after death and much much
more
8. At my grandpas death ceremony food started to grow by itself.
9. Holy Trinity , Jesus, Holy Mother of God is speaking today with many people in Orthodox World

Other miracles:
youtube.com/user/IoanRomania09

 

[josephdaniel29]

Can anyone give a statement from one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils where the Fathers stated something to the effect, “let’s wait to see what the laity say about this” or “these bishops have no God-given authority unless it is approved by the laity”?

Blessings

Your premise is incorrect. Correct the premise and I’ll answer the question.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[jam070406]

Your premise is incorrect. Correct the premise and I’ll answer the question.

Yours in Christ
Joe

His questions are valid. Christ leaving a Magisterum to determine the Truth (regardless of the opinions of laity) seems far more plausible then saying infallibilty lies in the opinions of laity. Frankly, given the state of the world today, I find your premise frightening.

 

[mardukm]

Your premise is incorrect. Correct the premise and I’ll answer the question.

So you can’t answer the question.

But to be fair, may I ask what question I was supposed to ask?

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

Can anyone give a statement from one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils where the Fathers stated something to the effect, “let’s wait to see what the laity say about this” or “these bishops have no God-given authority unless it is approved by the laity”?

Blessings

It is not about the laity nor is it about the bishops. The Orthodox have a view of authority that emphasizes both but at the same time is ultimately dependant on the providence of God. A council is authoritative but only in so much as it is true. It isn’t authoritative simply because the bishops declare it so. The future will tell what is infallible because the Spirit of God will guide the Church (the whole Church, both bishops and laity) to accept the truth. You on the otherhand want to say that if the pope says it, it is infallible. If a council with the pope decrees it then it is infallible. The pope calls an ecumenical council. You have reduced authority to purely human terms.

 

[JackQ]

I’ll be honest and please don’t take offense. That statement shows a serious lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy and the nature of the Church. A handful of bishops accepted the Council of Florence but a handful of bishops do not comprise the Church. The Church is comprised of all the people, clergy and laity together.

If a bishop of even a council of bishops promulgate something that is clearly opposed to Apostolic Tradition (such as the Council of Florence), the remaining clergy and laity have a solemn duty to reject it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

The Orthodox delegation to Florence included the Patriarch of Constantinople, and representatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Now, I’ll be honest, and please don’t take offense: you’re missing the point. The question is why we can’t resolve our differences with an ecumenical council. The answer is that it has been tried twice, both at the Second Council of Lyons and at the Council of Florence. Both times the Orthodox representatives agreed to union on terms that included acceptance of the filioque clause. Both times the Orthodox subsequently renounced what had been agreed to at the councils. Whether or not you think those subsequent renunciations were justified, the point is that they happened, and history thus shows that there is no reason to believe that the Orthodox will consider a future ecumenical council binding.

As to taking offense, I don’t take offense to tactics. It is common for Orthodox posters here and elsewhere to assert that disagreement with their position is due to ignorance. I’ve noticed that Constitutionalists use the same method.

 

[JackQ]

It is not about the laity nor is it about the bishops. The Orthodox have a view of authority that emphasizes both but at the same time is ultimately dependant on the providence of God. A council is authoritative but only in so much as it is true. It isn’t authoritative simply because the bishops declare it so. The future will tell what is infallible because the Spirit of God will guide the Church (the whole Church, both bishops and laity) to accept the truth. You on the otherhand want to say that if the pope says it, it is infallible. If a council with the pope decrees it then it is infallible. The pope calls an ecumenical council. You have reduced authority to purely human terms.

How is this different from Protestantism? This is no more than authority by your own lights rather than the authority of the Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Orthodox delegation to Florence included the Patriarch of Constantinople, and representatives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Now, I’ll be honest, and please don’t take offense: you’re missing the point. The question is why we can’t resolve our differences with an ecumenical council. The answer is that it has been tried twice, both at the Second Council of Lyons and at the Council of Florence. Both times the Orthodox representatives agreed to union on terms that included acceptance of the filioque clause. Both times the Orthodox subsequently renounced what had been agreed to at the councils. Whether or not you think those subsequent renunciations were justified, the point is that they happened, and history thus shows that there is no reason to believe that the Orthodox will consider a future ecumenical council binding.

As to taking offense, I don’t take offense to tactics. It is common for Orthodox posters here and elsewhere to assert that disagreement with their position is due to ignorance. I’ve noticed that Constitutionalists use the same method.

I will pipe in my two cents. I certainly don’t think your point about an ecumenical council solving the problem is amiss - it wouldn’t, in itself, do that if it wasn’t accepted.

But I think there is a bit of a disconnect between what most Catholics understand as the authority to make decisions of this nature, and what the Orthodox think. All of my reading/research into Orthodoxy puts forward an understanding of authority as vested in the Church, which includes both the hierarchy of the Church and the laity too, including those in the past and those in the future. I think understanding this sheds light on a lot of the different doctrinal decisions that have been made by the OC.

I think discussions though between groups, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, are never or rarely ill-advised. The history of the Church shows us how often what seemed to be major differences in understanding were really differences in emphasis, problems of language and translation, or simply responses to different problems. And it can take a long long time to work these things out. 1000 years? - well, maybe. It’s still only a little time to God.

I also don’t think either side of the equation can claim that their actions have always been free from ill-will, vanity, or other impure motives. There is really no cause for anyone to feel proud on that account, and perhaps that should work to make everyone involved try to act in a spirit of humility and charity.

 

[JackQ]

I will pipe in my two cents. I certainly don’t think your point about an ecumenical council solving the problem is amiss - it wouldn’t, in itself, do that if it wasn’t accepted.

But I think there is a bit of a disconnect between what most Catholics understand as the authority to make decisions of this nature, and what the Orthodox think. All of my reading/research into Orthodoxy puts forward an understanding of authority as vested in the Church, which includes both the hierarchy of the Church and the laity too, including those in the past and those in the future. I think understanding this sheds light on a lot of the different doctrinal decisions that have been made by the OC.

I think discussions though between groups, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, are never or rarely ill-advised. The history of the Church shows us how often what seemed to be major differences in understanding were really differences in emphasis, problems of language and translation, or simply responses to different problems. And it can take a long long time to work these things out. 1000 years? - well, maybe. It’s still only a little time to God.

I also don’t think either side of the equation can claim that their actions have always been free from ill-will, vanity, or other impure motives. There is really no cause for anyone to feel proud on that account, and perhaps that should work to make everyone involved try to act in a spirit of humility and charity.

Yes, I know, I seem so acerbic. But I joined this forum in 2005 when this site was getting swarmed by Orthodox posters. (I was demoted to junior member to due a change in the ranking system–or so I was told–I don’t think it was my behavior.) Anyway, after awhile I began to notice patterns. I alluded to one in the post you referenced.

 

[Chellow]

I will pipe in my two cents. I certainly don’t think your point about an ecumenical council solving the problem is amiss - it wouldn’t, in itself, do that if it wasn’t accepted.

But I think there is a bit of a disconnect between what most Catholics understand as the authority to make decisions of this nature, and what the Orthodox think. All of my reading/research into Orthodoxy puts forward an understanding of authority as vested in the Church, which includes both the hierarchy of the Church and the laity too, including those in the past and those in the future. I think understanding this sheds light on a lot of the different doctrinal decisions that have been made by the OC.

I think discussions though between groups, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, are never or rarely ill-advised. The history of the Church shows us how often what seemed to be major differences in understanding were really differences in emphasis, problems of language and translation, or simply responses to different problems. And it can take a long long time to work these things out. 1000 years? - well, maybe. It’s still only a little time to God.

I also don’t think either side of the equation can claim that their actions have always been free from ill-will, vanity, or other impure motives. There is really no cause for anyone to feel proud on that account, and perhaps that should work to make everyone involved try to act in a spirit of humility and charity.

I agree with your statement I offend notice the differences that Orthodox post, and I tend to scratch my head because I don’t seem to see where we divide.