Happy New year and many blessings to you on this Feast!
Dear brother Madaglan,
What’s your point? I am not arguing for Protestants, but for apostolic Churches. Don’t bring up arguments unless you believe in it yourself. Otherwise, your arguments are simply specious.
The Protestants certainly consider themselves Apostolic.
Yes, according to you it is subjective. But the OBJECTIVE truth is that the OFFICIAL teaching of the Catholic Church is unified and patristic, and does not depend on the latest trends brought by certain groups among the laity. It is also objective truth that outside the Catholic Church, the Oriental, Eastern and ACOE Traditions are separated.
Where did I say that it is subjective? I was simply saying that, if you look for disunity anywhere, you will find it, due to the weakness of man. In the case of Orthodoxy, you will find agreement and unity in the Faith. The Church is One, is unified, because the Body of Christ cannot be rent apart. But the members of the Church are still working towards oneness in Christ.
I don’t understand your point. This is the teaching of the Catholic Churches as well. However, our laity don’t have the authority to overthrow our bishops. You might think that’s a plus for Eastern Orthodoxy, but I believe that is an aberration of God’s order for His Church.
Please tell of these incidents of pious Orthodox laity overthrowing their bishops.
Blessings,
Marduk
I was not referring to Ghosty.
The concept of extra ecclesiam nulla sanctis is moderated by the understanding that the Orthodox are still part of the Church, just a part that is not functioning fully with the rest. Kind of like a limb suffering a palsy: it does work, but not entirely correctly, and it does things it shouldn’t, even things that harm the body as a whole, while still remaining a part of the body.
Madaglan: It seems you may have misunderstood the purpose of my post, which is why I put the opening portion in to begin with. I’m not pointing out “problems” with Eastern Orthodoxy, I’m actually pointing out how similar the experiences of the Latins and Eastern Orthodox have been in terms of developing theology and practices as the need arose.
I read your opening disclaimer and believe I understood it. I did not see your writing as an attack on Eastern Orthodoxy, but on particulars of analysis I had to politely disagree. I understand there to be a continuity in the Catholic Church, which I hope can be gleaned from my earlier post on the Tridentine Latin Mass. There is continuity in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I’m addressing the assertion that Eastern Orthodoxy somehow represents “continuity”, while the Catholic Church does not; an assertion that has no basis in reality, IMO. My point is that both have developed to address issues that come up, and in fact I even praised the work of St. Gregory Palamas in doing so (something I do often on these forums, since St. Gregory Palamas is one of my personal favorites).
Right.
Also, as Mardukm pointed out, I certainly don’t think that the Eastern Orthodox have been stagnant over the centuries. The Eastern Orthodox Churches have been quite swept up in the events of the day, and it’s intimitely shaped them every time. It’s precisely that I don’t think the Eastern Orthodox are “fossils” that I’m saying what I am.
On no, I was not suggesting you.
Some people SHould understand.
Peace and God bless!
Your answers are not the same as what some others would give, and so there is the question of disunity of belief still coming up.
For example, to whether or not there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, some Catholics say it is an infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. But if I understand you correctly, you say that there is salvation inside the Orthodox Church. So that is an example of disunity of belief.
It would seem that Orthodox (Christians), through Trinitarian baptism, are seen as in a certain although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. I once visualized this by drawing a picture of rafts chained to the Ark.
Similarly with the other questions. There are Catholics who have been going around saying that it was a mortal sin if you voted for Obama, but other Catholics, such as Father Andrew Greeley, for example, have said that it was a mortal sin for a Catholic to vote for a Republican. So that is another example of disunity of belief. So to get to the original question as to why some people are drawn to E. Orthodoxy, one guess is that it might be because of the disuinty of belief in Catholicism.
How did “the theology behind the liturgy is deemphasized” become “theology deemphasized through liturgy”. Frankly, I have little patience for questions that result from a deliberately careless reading of my posts, or obtuse questions like “What are catechetical classes?” If you’re interested in a serious discussion, we can continue.
I said the Byzantine Catholic community I attended didn’t have those. Please read my posts before trying to respond to them.
so why you even include it in this thread?
Holding fast the Confession of Faith is one thing, but overturning the decisions of bishops and ecumenical counsels is another.
You will get as many different answers from the Orthodox on these questions, if not more, so I don’t really see the point your making - unless you believe there is unity of belief on these issues among the Orthodox. If you do I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.
Understanding of what constitutes an ecumenical council or legitimate council is different. The present enumeration of ecumenical councils of the Roman Catholic Church is based on a list by St. Robert Bellarmine (with Vatican I and Vatican II added on). A certain number of the ecumenical councils (e.g. most of the Lateran councils) were overall disciplinary in nature and concerned the Western Church.
I believe you are comparing apples and oranges. In the Catholic Church, the “Western” lands have traditionally been in the Latin jurisdiction. Ancient custom places an obligation on the jurisidictional authority in those lands to provide for the needs of Christians, which includes permitting the use of their own liturgies, and whatever else those communities need, including their own bishop of their rite. The situation of the Catholic Church in these traditionally Latin lands is indeed regular and canonical, as ancient custom provides for such circumstances. What we have in the traditionally Latin lands is ONE jurisidiction where the head bishop provides for the needs of all the Christian communities (whatever Rite/Church they are in).
I know the East and Wests lists of ecumenical counsels is different. I’m talking about the Ecclesiology by which you would reject Lyons, and Florence after your own bishops had signed off on it. You won’t find the idea of “The People” as the guardians of the Faith in any of the Fathers, the New Testament etc.
This is your opinion, but it illustrates the disunity of Catholic belief because if you would go to the Baltimore catechism, you will see that when Christ died, his soul went to limbo. Now you say that there is no limbo, which is contrary to the what the Baltimore Catechism says. It also says that limbo is the state or place where infants who die without Baptism enjoy for all eternity a natural happiness.
I believe that the Orthodox do not accept the definition of mortal sin nor do they accept the idea of limbo. So there would be unity of view on those issues. So now, unless your offer is fraudulent, and if you are a person of your word, I would like to buy the ocean front property that you have said that you are selling. Please give me the address and other information on the ocean front property in Arizona, that you are offering for sale.You will get as many different answers from the Orthodox on these questions, if not more, so I don’t really see the point your making - unless you believe there is unity of belief on these issues among the Orthodox. If you do I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.
I didn’t know that the Baltimore catechism was a universal , infallible document. You know better, of course. Otherwise, why it matters that brother Aramis believes differently on a NON-essential of the faith is beyond me. There are a lot of teachings in the Catholic Church that have not been defined, a lot of teachings that are merely pious but not dogmatic nor condemnable. No big deal. It’s the same within Orthodoxy (can you say otherwise?).
I believe brother Melchoir was referring to the fact that there is no unity in belief on what happens in the afterlife in Eastern Orthodoxy. For example, you will find disagreement on the issue of Toll houses (some calling those who do not believe in them as heterodox), and even among adherents on those, differences on exactly what Toll houses entails. Also, I’ve met a few EO who believe that bad people will go to hell after death, while others belief even these have a chance for heaven.
The use of the word limbo here, for where Christ went, is also usually translated as hell in the Apostles’ Creed. It was where the just of the Old Testament went while awaiting Christ. This is the place/state that is depicted in icons of the Anastasis.
It was the Catechsim adapted by the American Bishops for American Catholics – it wasn’t intended for the Universal Church. It is akin to the current U.S. Catechism for Adults.
I know the East and Wests lists of ecumenical counsels is different. I’m talking about the Ecclesiology by which you would reject Lyons, and Florence after your own bishops had signed off on it. You won’t find the idea of “The People” as the guardians of the Faith in any of the Fathers, the New Testament etc.
St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign. Other bishops, upon returning home, repented of their error. It was not simply the laity, but also the clergy that rejected the union.
Just a few years earlier, whole countries of Catholic bishops, clergy and laity had aligned themselves under anti-Popes. I don’t say this as an attack, but to show that, even on the Catholic side, from a Catholic perspective, bishops, clergy and laity all make grave mistakes–in this case following an anti-Pope who makes claims against the true successor of Peter.
Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Of course, Orthodox believe this as well.
Irenaeus
True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (Against Heresies 2:9 4:33 [A.D. 189]).
Yes.
The people as co-guardians of the faith was after the fact rationalization / explanation of why they would not abide by a counsel that would otherwise according to past criteria would otherwise be considered Ecumenical according to their prior Ecclesiology.
The bishops themselves reconsidered their own actions and repented. And even at the council proceedings itself the Greek representative were far from expressing their assent as that of the Eastern Church. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is open on this account:
**"**The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved."
(Van der Essen, Léon. “The Council of Florence.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909. 24 Dec. 2008 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm).
It was the same thing as people getting out of a contract by looking for loopholes after the circumstances have changed and they no longer want to abide by it. Even though they entered the contract with full knowledge and participation.
No, more like claiming the contract never had validity because of impediments.
Even Orthodox web sites like this one will admit to this.
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stmark.aspx
If you read it, you will find excuses such as “There is a Russian proverb: ''One alone on the field is no warrior.” However, in this one man was represented the whole might of the Orthodox Church."
Mark of Ephesus against the world!
Unlike other things that they disagree with, there isn’t any serious Holy Tradition or Church Fathers’s quoting on this issue as their would be on other ones like why they disagree with The Philioque, or why women should not be ordained as priests etc. Its basically a sob story of how bad their plight was and a rationalization of why the agreement should not be considered valid based on extenuating circumstances.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
