What do Orthodox Christians think of this?

[Harpazo]

I felt this was a better place to put this than the Eastern Christianity forum, which seems to have a lot of disappeared threads on Orthodox-Catholic relations. So instead of risking that there, I thought it more prudent to place it here.

I found this quote in a Maronite group on a social-networking site. It’s attributed to Fr. Robert Taft, who quotes Metropolitan Kalistos of Diokleia.

Fr. Robert Taft

On the argument made by some Orthodox polemicists that Eastern Catholics should choose between being Latins or being Orthodox: “That’s like asking the blacks in Georgia to choose between going back to Liberia or Gabon. Maybe they’d like to stay where they are.”

Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia

"I very much regret that because of this question the Catholic-Orthodox International Dialogue seems to be making very little progress. My own feeling as an Orthodox is that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist. And I add, we Orthodox need to ask pardon for the way we have often treated Eastern Catholics in the past. And, not only that, I would add that we Orthodox should see the Eastern Catholics as our best friends in the Catholic Church. Who are best able to understand us. So while I value very much my relations with the Eastern Catholics, I definitely don’t see them as being my “bottom line”. They are rather my “top line.”

Many Orthodox argue that the Eastern Catholics should return to Orthodoxy, however, before the Schism were they not all One Church? They must have thought something wasn’t right after the Schism and desired to return to full communion with Rome. Sadly many of the Orthodox are bitter over this still. What I’ve learned is that there were some Eastern Churches that never separated from Rome, such as the Maronite Church and I think the Italo-Greek Catholic Church.

What do Catholics think of Orthodox pushing for Eastern Catholics to “return to Orthodoxy?” And what do Catholics think ot the Orthodox Metropolitan’s quote? Do any Orthodox agree with what the quote from the Metropolitan?

I’m hoping discussion on the subject can lead to understanding and not division.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[ralphinal]

As a Latin Rite Catholic, the whole Catholic/Orthodox thing puzzles me. To me, the thing about the filioque is so minor, but it is not. I am not sure what to make of any of it.

The “return to Orthodoxy” question is a matter of perspective. Who left (got kicked out) is up for debate. We say that the Orthodox left/got kicked out (depending on who you ask) and the Orthodox position is that we left/got kicked out. So the Eastern Catholics can say that they wish the Orthodox would return home.

I actually like to quote. The Eastern Catholics are happy where they are, that is why they are there.

But, the part that bothers me is the violence/hatred/distrust between the sides. I have never understood why we don’t get along better. I guess it is human nature.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What do Catholics think of Orthodox pushing for Eastern Catholics to “return to Orthodoxy?” And what do Catholics think ot the Orthodox Metropolitan’s quote? Do any Orthodox agree with what the quote from the Metropolitan?

I agree with the quote.

The fact is a for a Eastern Catholic to return to communion with the Orthodox Church is schismatic and mortal sin. As Catholics we believe the Catholic Church is the one and only and to settle for anything less is schismatic and grave sin by definition.

When it comes to salvation it would be equivalent to telling a converted American Indian Catholic to return to his Native American pantheistic spirituality.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I felt this was a better place to put this than the Eastern Christianity forum, which seems to have a lot of disappeared threads on Orthodox-Catholic relations. So instead of risking that there, I thought it more prudent to place it here.

I found this quote in a Maronite group on a social-networking site. It’s attributed to Fr. Robert Taft, who quotes Metropolitan Kalistos of Diokleia.

Many Orthodox argue that the Eastern Catholics should return to Orthodoxy, however, before the Schism were they not all One Church? They must have thought something wasn’t right after the Schism and desired to return to full communion with Rome. Sadly many of the Orthodox are bitter over this still. What I’ve learned is that there were some Eastern Churches that never separated from Rome, such as the Maronite Church and I think the Italo-Greek Catholic Church.

What do Catholics think of Orthodox pushing for Eastern Catholics to “return to Orthodoxy?” And what do Catholics think ot the Orthodox Metropolitan’s quote? Do any Orthodox agree with what the quote from the Metropolitan?

I’m hoping discussion on the subject can lead to understanding and not division.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

There can’t be one answer to this, as the issues differ from one group that submitted to Rome from another. The Melkites and the Patriarch of Antioch split when a Rome leaning cleric was elected Patriarch, and a number of bishops went with him. Much of the Melkite and Orthodox in Antioch think a pox on both Rome and Constantinople.

Some places the submission came at the end of a sword. Hence the strained relations from Brest.

The Italo-Greeks were more or less totally suppressed (that was the start of the events of 1054): the present day church is from more recent Albanian immigrants.

The Maronites often claim that they have always been united, but this is not so. They were monothelites, and didn’t turn to Rome after their sticking to their monotheletism until the Crusades. The acts of the council of Florence record the Maronite delegate renouncing monothelitism.

As for their right to exist, and their relationship vis-a-vis us and Rome, it’s a mixed bag. On the one hand, since they commune with the Latins, we have to consider them one with Latin theology (Immaculate Conception, purgatory, etc.), on the other hand some have retained their Orthodox theology (no Immaculate Conception, purgatory, etc). At best they are like us, but not us, ie. we can’t intercommune, and in the end Rome does their talking for them.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I agree with the quote.

The fact is a for a Eastern Catholic to return to communion with the Orthodox Church is schismatic and mortal sin. As Catholics we believe the Catholic Church is the one and only and to settle for anything less is schismatic and grave sin by definition.

When it comes to salvation it would be equivalent to telling a converted American Indian Catholic to return to his Native American pantheistic spirituality.

Equivalent to pantheistic spirituality. Well, nothing like true colors.

 

[VARC]

I
What do Catholics think of Orthodox pushing for Eastern Catholics to “return to Orthodoxy?”
Pace e Bene
Andrew

The Orthodox push for everyone to return to Orthodoxy. From the ECs to the Pope of Rome.

 

[Volodymyr]

.

For an Eastern Catholic to return to the Orthodox Church is schismatic and mortal sin. When it comes to salvation it would be equivalent to telling a converted American Indian Catholic to return to his Native American pantheistic spirituality.

Do you really believe that at the Severe Judgement that Christ will judge in the same way those who reject HIM and return to paganism, as He will those who reject the Bishop of Rome’s rule and return to Orthodoxy??

You are making the Bishop of Rome more important to salvation than is Jesus Christ.

 

[Dauphin]

Do you really believe that at the Severe Judgement that Christ will judge in the same way those who reject HIM and return to paganism, as He will those who reject the Bishop of Rome’s rule and return to Orthodoxy??

You are making the Bishop of Rome more important to salvation than is Jesus Christ.

Heresy is heresy. Adhering to it is gravely sinful. Outside of the Church founded on Peter, there is no salvation.

 

[VARC]

Heresy is heresy. Adhering to it is gravely sinful. .

That sword cuts both ways. So you can see why the Orthodox want their countrymen to return to Orthodoxy.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Heresy is heresy. Adhering to it is gravely sinful. Outside of the Church founded on Peter, there is no salvation.

I’ll stick to the one founded on Christ.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you really believe that at the Severe Judgement that Christ will judge in the same way those who reject HIM and return to paganism, as He will those who reject the Bishop of Rome’s rule and return to Orthodoxy??

You are making the Bishop of Rome more important to salvation than is Jesus Christ.

Excellent statement on the matter.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Do you really believe that at the Severe Judgement that Christ will judge in the same way those who reject HIM and return to paganism, as He will those who reject the Bishop of Rome’s rule and return to Orthodoxy??

You are making the Bishop of Rome more important to salvation than is Jesus Christ.

I shouldnt have said pantheism spirituality, that was a bad comparison from the start.

The Orthodox are the closest body of Christians to the Catholic Church and especially to the Eastern Rites.

What I was trying to get across was that EENS essentially means for the EC to reunite with the Orthodox would be schismatic and trading the fullness of Truth for a lesser degree of that fullness.

 

[Harpazo]

Isa:

The Maronites are accused of monothelitism, but this isn’t so. There were geographical disruptions between them and Rome. They have always been in Communion with Rome, whether you like it or not.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

I’ll stick to the one founded on Christ.

When speaking about the body of Christ in Corinthians Paul alludes to a visible head as part of the body. We know who Catholics claim that visible head to be. Why do Orthodox claim there is no visible head when Paul’s epistle speaks of one?

1 Corinthians 12

21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”

 

[Volodymyr]

When speaking about the body of Christ in Corinthians Paul alludes to a visible head as part of the body.

1 Corinthians 12

This allusion to such visible head of church is only visible to the most Ultramontane Roman Catolic. St. Paul who saw St. Ioan, St. Iakov and St. Kefas/Peter as “pillars” of church (Gal 2:9), and did consider himself to be equal to all Apostles, and possible to oppose opinion of St. Kefas/Peter (I Cor 9) - certainly this St. Paul is not urging us to consider St. Peter and all of those who then hapened to be bishops of Rome, as absolute rulers of Church of Christ. Christ is Head of Church and will be with us to end of time.

If Peter had a mission, it was to help other bishops - not to appoint them, command them in all powerful control. This is not “help” this is rejection of the Holy Spirit to be active in Church except in life of one man. Church has no need of single visible head other than Bishops of every church in every place teaching orthodox faith.

 

[jam070406]

Church has no need of single visible head other than Bishops of every church in every place teaching orthodox faith.

Really? Perhaps you are unaware of the chaos of overlapping, jurisdictional powerplays going on in with Orthodox churches in America. Sometimes 8 bishops over one area. (from the mouth of an EO priest) I’ve even heard Orthodox priests admit that this division is sinful and praised the Catholic structure of hierarchy. Perhaps you need some authority to straigthen it all out. Care to reconsider your opinion of a visible Church head?

 

[jam070406]

This allusion to such visible head of church is only visible to the most Ultramontane Roman Catolic. St. Paul who saw St. Ioan, St. Iakov and St. Kefas/Peter as “pillars” of church (Gal 2:9), and did consider himself to be equal to all Apostles, and possible to oppose opinion of St. Kefas/Peter (I Cor 9) - certainly this St. Paul is not urging us to consider St. Peter and all of those who then hapened to be bishops of Rome, as absolute rulers of Church of Christ. Christ is Head of Church and will be with us to end of time.

If Peter had a mission, it was to help other bishops - not to appoint them, command them in all powerful control. This is not “help” this is rejection of the Holy Spirit to be active in Church except in life of one man. Church has no need of single visible head other than Bishops of every church in every place teaching orthodox faith.

Your little diatribe on the pope still never answered the question. Paul cleary mentions a head when referring to the body of believers. You deny it.

 

[Harpazo]

You are making the Bishop of Rome more important to salvation than is Jesus Christ.

Who has said such a thing? It would be heretical for a Catholic to do so, and would possibly place them near or in a status of excommunication.

Christianity is not a democracy, which is what Orthodoxy tries to make of it, in my opinion. A vote by Patriarchs does not determine something to be truth. Whenever Popes or secular figures called Councils, nothing in the council was contrary to what the Popes said or believed.

There’s an excellent chart in a book by David Currie called Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic that picks a specific time (there were other periods of time than just that) in the Patristic era in which every Apostolic See was in heresy, and some all four at the same time, except Rome. Rome has never, ever been in heresy, and never will because of Christ’s promise to Peter.

From what I’ve noticed, the Orthodox have basically sat idle since the finilization of the unfortunate split, and can’t develop their doctrine or call an Ecumenical Council. I could be wrong on this matter, but it’s what seems to be.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

 

[Volodymyr]

Perhaps you need some authority to straigthen it all out. Care to reconsider your opinion of a visible Church head?

Some “EO” priest you have heard praise Catolic hierarchy. Because of this my faith is to be shake?? No, my friend, I do not know situation in your country. But I know and have lived with absolute despots (Iosif Vissarionovich). I prefer “confusion” to despotic certainy. I prefer the action of Holy Spirit to commands of Curia or Politburo.

No, you need to reconsider your need for an ecclesial dictator. Certainly in some ways life is easier WITH DICTATOR - with our beloved Leader we did not have to think, we did not complain, we thought life was good, we would even have thought black was white - all wept when the Great One died. Wept because life without a dictator would be hard - but it is so much better. Same is true for Church.

Peter Apostl would not recognize Vatican and bureaucracy. Remember that role of Peter was to help, not to rule, to command. If Eastern church is to find Petrine role for bishop of Rome, it cannot be as Supreme Ruler, but as encouraging brother perhaps.

 

[jam070406]

Some “EO” priest you have heard praise Catolic hierarchy. Because of this my faith is to be shake?? No, my friend, I do not know situation in your country. But I know and have lived with absolute despots (Iosif Vissarionovich). I prefer “confusion” to despotic certainy. I prefer the action of Holy Spirit to commands of Curia or Politburo.

No, you need to reconsider your need for an ecclesial dictator. Certainly in some ways life is easier WITH DICTATOR - with our beloved Leader we did not have to think, we did not complain, we thought life was good, we would even have thought black was white - all wept when the Great One died. Wept because life without a dictator would be hard - but it is so much better. Same is true for Church.

Didn’t intent to shake your faith. I merely asked a question. There is chaos in the Orthodox churches in America. I’ve heard Orthodox podcasts discussing this issue. There is no unity among EO churches in America and it’s getting worse. It’s a fact.

The fact that you view the Pope as a dictator IN YOUR HEAD seems to be the core of the problem with your papal obession. It seems you’ve stewed on this quite often.
I asked a scripture question and who the Orthodox view the head Paul refers to and you immediately snapped to negative comments about the Pope.