To our beloved, Orthodox brethren...

[mardukm]

Dear brother JesusforMadrid,

Orthodoxy hasn’t had this problem. When the standard for exegisis is what was believed “everywhere, always and by everyone”, very little new innovation will be embraced by the whole Church. By putting their faith in the Spirit working throughout the Church and not just one Bishop, I think the Orthodox have managed well to preserve the authentic apostolic faith.

EO’xy has had its own “developments” which, from the Oriental perspective, are not exactly consonant with patristic faith and practice.

And the Oriental Orthodox are not above criticism either.

None of the Churches are perfect from the perspective of any other Church.

What is “authentic apostolic faith” is subject to the bias of any particular Church. The endeavor of genuine unity to seek mutual understanding by appeal to the sources (i.e. Sacred Tradition) and reason, not blind rejection.

It would take a theological discussion on particulars to test each others’ perspective. If you’re willing, I’m willing, but this thread would not be the place for it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Actually I think his approach is quite faulty and therefore isn’t ameliorating the situation between east and west.

I’ll agree that he sometimes misrepresents the Latin Catholic position, but he isn’t Latin Catholic, rather a Maronite Catholic of the Oriental Tradition. Perhaps you can take that into consideration and see this as an opportunity to instruct?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Actually I think his approach is quite faulty and therefore isn’t ameliorating the situation between east and west.

Then point out the errors of my posts. That is all I ask you to do. Do some research and write up a response to what I have said. Convince me of your perspective.

I assume that you think the only way to ameliorate the situation between the east and west is for the east to submit. Consequently my opposition to western theological ideas just makes the problem worse.

 

[josie_L]

Then point out the errors of my posts. That is all I ask you to do. Do some research and write up a response to what I have said. Convince me of your perspective.

I assume that you think the only way to ameliorate the situation between the east and west is for the east to submit. Consequently my opposition to western theological ideas just makes the problem worse.

We’ve had many discussions debating doctrinal issues/history or have you forgotten, now you want me to remind you of all of them? Moreover, I never said that to ameliorate the situation between east and west, the east must submit (however I do believe the CC is the Church of Christ), I just pray and hope that some form of reconciliation will arise. If it never happens it never happens, “c’est la vie” as the French say.

p.s. I don’t want to convince you of my perspective (as long as you’re not misrepresenting Catholicism), but please do us all a favor and end the drama, I mean how long have you been deliberating?

 

[jimmy]

We’ve had many discussions debating doctrinal issues/history or have you forgotten, now you want me to remind you of all of them? Moreover, I never said that to ameliorate the situation between east and west, the east must submit (however I do believe the CC is the Church of Christ), I just pray and hope that some form of reconciliation will arise. If it never happens it never happens, “c’est la vie” as the French say.

p.s. I don’t want to convince you of my perspective (as long as you’re not misrepresenting Catholicism), but please do us all a favor and end the drama, I mean how long have you been deliberating?

If you don’t want to discuss the issues then why did you respond?

 

[josie_L]

If you don’t want to discuss the issues then why did you respond?

Because you were in my opinion misrepresenting Catholicism.

 

[jam070406]

In defense of brother Jimmy, I believe his questions are sincere

I must have missed this somewhere between the polemics and him telling us our Church is wrong.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister josie L.

p.s. I don’t want to convince you of my perspective (as long as you’re not misrepresenting Catholicism), but please do us all a favor and end the drama, I mean how long have you been deliberating?

I deliberated Catholicism for over three years before I joined. I’ve known people who;ve done it for over four years or five years. We can’t put a time limit on such a weighty matter. I don’t recall my discussion/debates with brother jimmy lasting more than a year - maybe a year and a half - so far. By my accounting, he’s well within the time limit.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother James,

I must have missed this somewhere between the polemics and him telling us our Church is wrong.

I believe brother Jimmy when he says that he often is simply presenting what non-Catholics are saying, perhaps playing devil’s advocate in his search for resolution. If it doesn’t come off that way sometimes, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I oftentimes understand his arguments to be directed at the absolutist Petrine view of certain Catholics. At the risk of acquiring your ire, I do support brother jimmy in that regard. Though the absolutist Petrine (i.e., the monarichial) view of the papacy is considered a legitimate interpretation of the Papal prerogatives in the Latin Church, I believe it has no place in a united Christendom. To be clear, I only butt heads with brother jimmy when he presents the argument to make it seem like that is the ONLY understanding of the papacy the Latin Church (or the Catholic Church as a whole) possesses.

Blessings

P.S. Of course, when I say “absolutist Petrine view,” I’m assuming you are aware of the discussion we’ve been having in the Eastern Catholicism Forum on the differences between the “Absolutist Petrine,” the “High Petrine” and the “Low Petrine” viewpoints. If you’re not aware of it, let me know, and I’ll give you some links to read.

 

[jimmy]

Because you were in my opinion misrepresenting Catholicism.

Then you should refute my errors. What is the point of saying I am misrepresenting Catholicism if you aren’t going to give an explanation of how I am misrepresenting Catholicism and a true representation of Catholicism?

 

[prodromos]

josephdaniel29;5633538:

You may find it frightening but the Orthodox Church has maintained doctrinal unity and consistency for almost 2,000 years, and all that without a Pope.

Yet, for most of the first thousand years, the East couldn’t do it without the Pope.

Dear mardukm, all the heresies which arose in the East were defeated in the East by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. How on earth do you come to your conclusion that we couldn’t do it without the Pope?

John

 

[prodromos]

Yes, I understand your beliefs, yet HOW your Church expresses it and lives it out is inconsistent, IMHO. You may object to the Council of Florence all you want, but the way the EO laity rejected the Council of Florence was an aberration from the good order of the Church established by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church Fathers. The problem I see is that EO’xy has now formally accepted those aberrant actions as the basis for your ecclesiology.

Dear mardukm, you have continued to misrepresent the Orthodox faith in these statements of yours. The Council of Florence was rejected by the Church, which is made up of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Laity. Acceptance of the judgements of the Council of Florence in the East was always going to be determined by a subsequent council of bishops in the East. That acceptance never occurred, quite the contrary in fact.

This whole concept of the ‘primacy’ of the laity is a complete strawman fallacy. I know that some Orthodox may have erroneously put forward such a view in the past, but it is not what we believe. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, all of the Church. Not just the bishops, not just the priests and deacons, not just the laity, but all of them together.

John

 

[Mickey]

I deliberated Catholicism for over three years before I joined. I’ve known people who;ve done it for over four years or five years. We can’t put a time limit on such a weighty matter.

Mark is correct. When I was in communion with Rome, I deliberated about eight years before coming home to the Holy Orthodox Church.

There are no time limits.

 

[josie_L]

Then you should refute my errors. What is the point of saying I am misrepresenting Catholicism if you aren’t going to give an explanation of how I am misrepresenting Catholicism and a true representation of Catholicism?

But I did.

 

[josie_L]

Dear mardukm, you have continued to misrepresent the Orthodox faith in these statements of yours. The Council of Florence was rejected by the Church, which is made up of Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the Laity. Acceptance of the judgements of the Council of Florence in the East was always going to be determined by a subsequent council of bishops in the East. That acceptance never occurred, quite the contrary in fact.

This whole concept of the ‘primacy’ of the laity is a complete strawman fallacy. I know that some Orthodox may have erroneously put forward such a view in the past, but it is not what we believe. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, all of the Church. Not just the bishops, not just the priests and deacons, not just the laity, but all of them together.

John

So were the laity invited to give their (name removed by moderator)ut during ecumenical councils or determine doctrinal issues?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear mardukm, all the heresies which arose in the East were defeated in the East by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. How on earth do you come to your conclusion that we couldn’t do it without the Pope?

John

The same place he comes to the conclusion that in Orthodoxy conciliar decisions are “submitted” for “approval” by the laity. He is doing precisely what he accuses us of doing. Building up a giant straw man to tear down. How presumptuous and arrogant to tell us what we believe! I am used to that tactic from Protestant fundamentalist but not on CAF.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother John,

Dear mardukm, all the heresies which arose in the East were defeated in the East by champions of Orthodoxy in the East. How on earth do you come to your conclusion that we couldn’t do it without the Pope?

With all due respect, your response here reveals why, just as much as I reject the absolutist Petrine view of some Latins, I also reject the low Petrine view of the EOC.

The absolutist Petrine view of some Latins permits them to disregard the necessity of the body of bishops in favor of the head bishop, the Pope, which violates the ancient apostolic Canon 34 and the rest of patristic testimony…

The low Petrine view of the EOC permits them/you to disregard the necessity of the head bishop in favor of the rest of the bishops, which equally violates the ancient apostolic canon 34 and the rest patristic testimony.

Please read the acts of the Ecumenical Councils so you can see that both the head and the body are just as necessary in the divine working of an ecumenical council.

NOTE: If you read the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council, it might be hard for you to get the sense that the head bishop was necessary since he was not intially involved in the proceedings. To get a better understanding of the matter, move forward to the year 382 in your research, where you will discover that the Acts of said Council were indeed submitted to Pope St. Damasus for his confirmation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

The same place he comes to the conclusion that in Orthodoxy conciliar decisions are “submitted” for “approval” by the laity. He is doing precisely what he accuses us of doing. Building up a giant straw man to tear down. How presumptuous and arrogant to tell us what we believe! I am used to that tactic from Protestant fundamentalist but not on CAF.

What you believe should be informed by Sacred Tradition, just as much as my belief. You would expect my beliefs to be consonant with Sacred Tradition, so why would I be arrogant and presumptuous to expect the same from you.

Why don’t you test brother John’s claim that the bishop of Rome was not necessary for the decisions of an Ecumenical Council by reading the Acts of the Councils. If you can prove his/your claim, then I will admit I am being presumptuous and arrogant. But if you cannot, well— I wonder what that makes you?

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

If you can prove his/your claim, then I will admit I am being presumptuous and arrogant. But if you cannot, well— I wonder what that makes you?

Oh brother. I am hearing a child’s voice chanting, “nah, nah, nah, nah, nah”.

 

[josephdaniel29]

So were the laity invited to give their (name removed by moderator)ut during ecumenical councils or determine doctrinal issues?

Of course they were. The laity (or people of God) being represented by their bishops.

You seem to have a view of the episcopacy as being over and above the Church and dictating to it. That is a very gnostic concept my friend, that the bishops have some “secret” knowledge they “reveal” to the Church. Truth is truth regardless of who says it. The episcopacy defines the truth and makes it manifest but it is the Church that possesses that truth.

The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the episcopacy alone. No single person or specified group of people (clergy or laity) is inherently infallible. History bears that out. There have been robber councils, heretical Popes and Patriarchs and countless lay people have fallen into heresy, but miraculously through the Grace of God the truth of Orthodoxy always shines through.

Yours in Christ
Joe