J
jam070406
Guest
It’s all Greek to me.“Is come from the Greek” GusPortokalos
"There are two kinds of people - Greeks, and everyone else who wish they was Greek. "
- Status
5
5Loaves
Guest
In the “Liturgical English Study Group” Fr. Irenei referred us, among many other resources, to this discussion on “The Holy Orthodox Bible, as translated by Peter Papoutsis - an example of translation that goes awry”. (“The Holy Orthodox Bible” is not the OSB. I bring up the thread just as a general discussion and critique re translation, assuming it contains that, since we were referred to it.) I’ve only glanced so far at the thread but it might be of interest to you. As an interpreter myself I’m confident that merely being fluent in a language doesn’t qualify one to be a translator. And with qualified translators each has of course their own conscious and unconscious prejudices. Fr. Irenei brought up for example anti-clerical bent in protestant translations. Among early-modern translations one which remains popular with many Catholics and Orthodox, the Douay-Rheims, may be slightly less protestant that others.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not sure what your saying here. My point is the connection of Isaiah/Matthew which I was commenting on in relation to Scott Hahn and the recent decades in apologetics on this specific topic. Certainly not a overview of the issues in relation to the past millennia.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Important point also.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
You said that connecting Matthew’s use of “keys” with the other places in the Bible where “keys” are used would point to what Matthew is talking about. So I said if it were that simple we wouldn’t have a schism for 1000 years.
I’m listening to Fr. Lawrence Farley’s Bible Study podcast from Ancient Faith. I love how he always refers to the Greek of the text and explains what it really means. One of the things that really strikes me and I couldn’t forget is what “repentance” means. Most people would think it is merely being sorry for your sins. But the direct meaning of the word in Greek is “change of mind”. It means we turn back completely from our sinful ways through our actions, not just words and emotions.“Is come from the Greek” Gus
"There are two kinds of people - Greeks, and everyone else who wish they was Greek. "
Powerful stuff.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sorry for the misunderstanding, thats “not” what I said. In fact its not even close.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I disagree. The ramifications regarding Saint Peter’s authority are quite clear.
But that doesn’t mean the matter is simple. Orthodox agree with us about Saint Peter. The reason things are still complex enough for this schism to endure is that what is unclear is how that headship/authority of Saint Peter is passed on through apostolic succession.
Recall that many (most?) Orthodox, in contrast to the Catholic view, say that every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter, and every priest is a successor to the Apostles. So every local church (diocese) in and of itself mirrors the College of the Apostles in its completeness.
That is what makes the matter complicated.
H
Hesychios
Guest
That does not sound familiar to me.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Me either.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right, the dialogue with the Keys was in “specific” relation to Isaiah/Matthew, Keys are mentioned 7 times in the Bible. Thus when the conversation turned to; “You said that connecting Matthew’s use of “keys” with the other places in the Bible where “keys” are used” then this conversation took a drastic Biblical turn “never” intended.
However, that said, I follow your conversation.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Oh. Well, I stand corrected if that turns out to be incorrect. My sources for that claim were Orthodox, but they were also Internet sources, so they could easily be wrong. Will you have a look at them for me and help explain Orthodox ecclesiology to me, Hesychios?
orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1340/
orthodoxanswers.org/answer/3/
Those were my sources for that claim. The first says, “Basically, in historic / patristic Orthodoxy, the bishop is Peter’s successor, while the presbyters stand for the apostles and do everything a bishop can do except ordain. The bishop is the symbol and center of unity of the Church (which is always the local Church).”
And the second says, “It should also be noted that in authentically Orthodox, Patristic and Byzantine theology, Peter was always understood as the symbol of the bishop, and the other apostles of the presbyters (see Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology and The Primacy of Peter).”
So is that not really Meyendorff’s position? Or is it, and I just did a bad job of explaining it? (That’s very possible!)
EDIT UPDATE: I’m perusing the monachos.net forum thread that my first link directed me to. They’re discussing this matter right now, and most of them are Orthodox Christians, so by the time you answer, Hesychios, hopefully I’ll have a variety of Orthodox perspectives on the matter under my belt!
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The book, “Primacy of Peter” explains this in-depth, as to why each bishop and each Church is “Peter”.Oh. Well, I stand corrected if that turns out to be incorrect. My sources for that claim were Orthodox, but they were also Internet sources, so they could easily be wrong. Will you have a look at them for me and help explain Orthodox ecclesiology to me, Hesychios?
orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1340/
orthodoxanswers.org/answer/3/
Those were my sources for that claim. The first says, “Basically, in historic / patristic Orthodoxy, the bishop is Peter’s successor, while the presbyters stand for the apostles and do everything a bishop can do except ordain. The bishop is the symbol and center of unity of the Church (which is always the local Church).”
And the second says, “It should also be noted that in authentically Orthodox, Patristic and Byzantine theology, Peter was always understood as the symbol of the bishop, and the other apostles of the presbyters (see Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology and The Primacy of Peter).”
So is that not really Meyendorff’s position? Or is it, and I just did a bad job of explaining it? (That’s very possible!)
EDIT UPDATE: I’m perusing the monachos.net forum thread that my first link directed me to. They’re discussing this matter right now, and most of them are Orthodox Christians, so by the time you answer, Hesychios, hopefully I’ll have a variety of Orthodox perspectives on the matter under my belt!
B
Boniface
Guest
A great way towards building practical ecumenical bridges with the orthodox is to respect our own liturgy - they are repulsed by the manner most Catholic liturgies are carried out in, and after Benedict promulgated Summorum Pontificum, many orthodox applauded it. Good liturgy builds bridges.
Here’s a good article on it:
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/08/ecumenism.html
Here’s a good article on it:
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/08/ecumenism.html
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
A very astute observation!
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
A “good” liturgy is part of it, but not the whole answer. As I understand it to be, there can be ecumenical bridges opened toward reunion if the Roman Catholic Church agrees to the Orthodox teachings on:
papal infallibility
papal supremacy
filioque
purgatory
icons and not statues
original sin
Immaculate Conception
date of Easter
married priesthood
fasting rules during lent and before Holy Communion
no musical instrumentation in Church
etc.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Yes, but it starts with mutual respect, which comes first from shared respect for Christ. This is expressed through the Liturgy, first and foremost.
This is a primary reason why Pope Benedict XVI is as well respect as he is in Orthodox circles - he is a Liturgist, and stresses its importance as fundamental.
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
Isn’t there already mutual respect?
I think that there is mutual respect, but there is no intercommunion. Why would there not be mutual respect? Is there an implication that there is something wrong with the Roman Catholic liturgy?
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Yes, to a level, but you really have to understand the Eastern mindset.
As my grandmother used to say, “we are a stubborn people”.
I mean no disrespect, but please reflect on your post to which I responded. How would an Orthodox Christian take it? It sounds like we have come to expect a list of well defined, non-negotiable demands. That presumes (i) that one side, or both, are anxious for reunion and (ii) that the Orthodox have said “my way or the highway”. Thankfully that is not representative of the current state of ecumenical dialogue, and we should exercise charity and care not to imply otherwise.
I have yet to have a conversation with an Orthodox Christian where I did not learn something valuable about my own Catholic faith, including here on the CAF. It also becomes more apparent with time that they are a people of great faith and conviction, which should be appreciated and presents a lot of common ground that we could otherwise easily take for granted.
J
JoeBowen7
Guest
There is common ground, but I don’t think that you are going to find many Orthodox who agree with papal infallibility and papal supremacy. And which side is the stubborn side is a question which is going to vary, depending on which side you are on in the first place.
T
Trebor135
Guest
An Eastern Orthodox priest I talked to earlier this year mentioned the quality of the liturgy as a bone he had to pick with the Latins, at or near the same level of importance as the hot-button Catholic doctrines (not in those precise terms–I’m paraphrasing).
Not all of those issues should be deal-breakers, dogmatically speaking, for the Eastern Orthodox Church–though I’m becoming an inquirer at an ACROD parish in a few weeks, so I’m sure we’ll cover this ground at some point. But the Latins haven’t defined as de fide teaching the use of statues, the Augustinian view of original sin, the use of the Western calendar for determining when to have Easter, the celibacy of the priesthood, the prescribed times and dates for fasting, and the use of musical instrumentation at Mass. (I’d definitely attend to see a Roman-rite liturgy sung a cappella, though.
)- Status