Why I don't get the Orthodox

[Hesychios]

To all my EO brothers…on what basis do you accept Chacedon? …

I should state that as an Anglican I accept Chalcedon as an orthodox council…

If you don’t mind, on what basis do you yourself accept Chalcedon, simply because you are Anglican, or… ?

 

[mardukm]

I’ve seen some pretty impressive sign-of-the-cross expressions among Philipinos at Mass in Chicago.

Being married to a Filipina, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I call it rapid-fire blessification.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I call it rapid-fire blessification.

Yep! That’s what I mean

 

[ferdie]

Being married to a Filipina, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I call it rapid-fire blessification.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think I know what you are talking about, but it is only common to the older generations. I hardly see younger generation Filipino Catholics doing it.

 

[Bluegoat]

Many Protestants also believe in the Real Presence, but it has nothing to do with a change in the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. So it would not be correct to say that Orthodox believe MERELY in the Real Presence. Their belief about what occurs during the Eucharistic celebration is more than that, wouldn’t you say?

I seriously doubt that any Orthodox persron would accept consubstantiation since that belief is contrary to the words of consecration in the Orthodox epiclesis.

There is one other theory of which I am aware that Orthodox hold. The theory applies the doctrine of the Incarnation to the change of the species - as Christ was fully human and fully divine, so are the species truly bread and wine while fully divine. I respect that viewpoint if they hold it (I’m not sure if any Orthodox CHURCHES officially hold to that view, but I have heard it from individual EO apologists). The HUUUUUGE problem with it is that the explanation does not match the words of the epiclesis. In the Incarnation, the humanity was never CHANGED or TRANSFORMED into divinity. The humanity remained fully with no comingling or confusion with the divinity. However, the words of the epiclesis indicate something that is completely different from the reality of the Incarnation. In the epiclesis, we ask the Holy Spirit to actually CHANGE or TRANSFORM or MAKE the bread and wine TO BE the Body and Blood of Christ. Two completely different “processes” exist in the teaching on the Incarnation, on the one hand, and the belief in the transformation during the Eucharist, on the other.

There are indeed Fathers in the early Church who make use of the doctrine of the Incarnation in explaining the transformation of the bread in wine, but I don’t recall them ever correlating the Incarnation per se to the change in the species. Rather their focus was the purpose of the Incarnation which was to divinize humanity, just as the Eucharist divinizes us.

Blessings,
Marduk

Which Protestants in particular are you thinking of? Classical Lutheranism and Anglicanism do believe in the Real Presence, as in, the elements in some way change into the real Body and Blood - although one gets an odd variety of views these days from individual members of those groups and some don’t seem to understand what is meant by the Real Presence. Historically individual members of those groups have used a variety of explanations beyond the Real Presence - Luther personally seemed to like consubstantiation - but as churches don’t put forward any one of those as The Answer.

I didn’t say the OC accepts consubstantiation - you suggested that transubstantiation (there should be an acronym or something for it!) was the only explanation of the Real Presence, I was giving an example of another. Yet another would be your example of it being similar to the “fully man fully God” union which has a name I believe, but I can’t for the life of me remember it.

One can make some guesses based on the liturgy which answers might be ok according to those various groups, and certainly say that some are NOT acceptable on that basis. However, if they have purposefully decided not to attempt a theological explanation of the Mystery, that is also a significant indication of how they view it.

 

[mardukm]

Yep! That’s what I mean

Here’s two more: I remember the first time I sneezed in front of my wife (then fiance), and she said “susmarsep.” I asked her, “Is that a Filipino blessing?” She said, "Oh, no. That’s English. That’s “Jesus, Mary, Joseph.”

And you should hear a group of Filipinos pray the Rosary. It’s a race! As you might know, when done communally, the Rosary is sometimes done in a responsorial manner, where half a prayer is said by a leader, and the rest of the prayer is done by the rest. My wife’s family prays the Rosary ALL the time whenever there’s time. I once heard my wife’s family doing the Rosary, and I could swear that sometimes, even before the leader could get in five words of the start of the prayer edgewise, the rest would already start in on the response. A few times, I noticed that a respondent would actually finish the response before the leader finished the first part of the prayer.

A long time ago, I used to poke fun at my wife about it - when we did the Rosary together, I would deliberately start in on the response just as she was beginning one of the prayers (hey! they took away the “devil” smiley). I would start cracking up, and she’d urge me to get serious. Or when she asked me to do the Rosary, I’d respond, "Oh, you mean “the Race-ary.” Ahhhh! Good times. I think she talked to her family about it, because in the past two years, I haven’t heard her family do a “Race-ary” at all, only the Rosary.

I hope our Filipino brethren don’t take this as an insult. If so, please forgive me.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think I know what you are talking about, but it is only common to the older generations. I hardly see younger generation Filipino Catholics doing it.

Is there NO more tradition left in Latin Catholicism?:crying:

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Which Protestants in particular are you thinking of? Classical Lutheranism and Anglicanism do believe in the Real Presence, as in, the elements in some way change into the real Body and Blood - although one gets an odd variety of views these days from individual members of those groups and some don’t seem to understand what is meant by the Real Presence. Historically individual members of those groups have used a variety of explanations beyond the Real Presence - Luther personally seemed to like consubstantiation - but as churches don’t put forward any one of those as The Answer.

I attended a talk on the Eucharist once, and there were Calvinists there. When the speaker stated, “Anglicans and Lutherans are the only Protestants who have some belief in the Real Presence.” Two of the Calvinists raised up their hand in protest (pun intended ). They said that Calvinists also believe in the Real Presence. They explained that during the communion service, if one truly believes that Jesus Christ is truly present, Body. Blood, Soul and Divinity, then He will be present. If you don’t believe it, He will not.

I didn’t say the OC accepts consubstantiation - you suggested that transubstantiation (there should be an acronym or something for it!) was the only explanation of the Real Presence, I was giving an example of another.

I wasn’t accusing you of making that claim. Sorry if it came off that way. I’ve heard others make that claim, and I was just bringing it up.

One can make some guesses based on the liturgy which answers might be ok according to those various groups, and certainly say that some are NOT acceptable on that basis. However, if they have purposefully decided not to attempt a theological explanation of the Mystery, that is also a significant indication of how they view it.

That seems to be the only sensible claim that Orthodox groups can make - “we believe a change happens, but feel it is indefinable.” I don’t think EO need to go around claiming they reject Transubstantiation and make up some twisted version of the doctrine to reject.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bluegoat]

That seems to be the only sensible claim that Orthodox groups can make - “we believe a change happens, but feel it is indefinable.” I don’t think EO need to go around claiming they reject Transubstantiation and make up some twisted version of the doctrine to reject.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, I think their reasoning is not so much that they reject the possibility of transubstantiation, but that they reject the idea that it should be a required belief. It’s about how much the Church should insist on defining - what is really part of Tradition and what is not.

I tend to agree, it seems a bit to me like defining what happens using the terms and understandings of modern physics and mathematics. Now, this might be a very interesting and even informative thing to do, and I think that is very much the kind of thing Thomas was doing. But to then say that it is THE explanation? What if the math turns out to be wrong, or our understanding of physics changes? (Just as many philosophers, reasonable and respected Catholic ones even, have questioned Aristotle’s understanding of substance.) It seems a very ill-advised thing to do to me.

 

[mardukm]

Well, I think their reasoning is not so much that they reject the possibility of transubstantiation, but that they reject the idea that it should be a required belief. It’s about how much the Church should insist on defining - what is really part of Tradition and what is not.

That’s fine. So why say “We reject Transubstantion?” It’s no use to defend that statement. Why don’t you just admit it’s a wrong statement to make? You read the link. People who make that statement don’t care about the matter of it being defined. These polemicsts are only interested in making a straw man caricature of the teaching.

I tend to agree, it seems a bit to me like defining what happens using the terms and understandings of modern physics and mathematics. Now, this might be a very interesting and even informative thing to do, and I think that is very much the kind of thing Thomas was doing. But to then say that it is THE explanation? What if the math turns out to be wrong, or our understanding of physics changes? (Just as many philosophers, reasonable and respected Catholic ones even, have questioned Aristotle’s understanding of substance.) It seems a very ill-advised thing to do to me.

It’s ludicrous to think that the matter cannot be defined. So if they reject the fact of definition, then does that mean they accept what the definition was intended to refute? These are:

1. Jesus is only present in the Eucharist in Spirit, and His true Body and Blood are not actually (in substance or essence or ousia) present.
2. Jesus is only symbolically and/or memorially present because He is in heaven.

Do you really suppose that these beliefs are acceptable under the banner of “we can’t define such things?” Do you seriously think that if these beliefs ever came up in EO’xy. they’re going to go around merrily saying, “Oh, don’t worry brethren. Since it can’t be defined, your beliefs are perfectly fine.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

As for the Ukrainian Orthodox, I actually think the establishment of a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarch would be welcomed as it would provide further impetus for the EP to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and release it from subjugation to Moscow. There were even plans during Ukraine’s brief independence in 1918 to have Ukrainian Catholic Metropolitan Sheptytsky become Patriarch of one united (Catholic and Orthodox) Ukrainian Church which came to naught after the Soviets invaded.

Just a quick clarification. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the authority to grant the UOC autocephaly. The Ukraine is in the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[KyivAndrew]

Just a quick clarification. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the authority to grant the UOC autocephaly. The Ukraine is in the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Well yes. But it’s sometimes not that simple as the Bulgarian Church situation in history suggested I believe. The fasting growing Orthodox Church in Ukraine right now is the noncanonical Kyivan Patriarchate, to which even Ukraine’s President belongs as he views the MP as a political tool to some extent in the hands of Moscow. And the Ukrainian Orthodox Church originally was under the authority of Constantinople until Moscow started making military inroads into Ukraine’s territory and autonomy during the period of the Ruina. The Ukrainian Church lost some of its particularities.

The Ecumenical Patriarch and Moscow have already crossed swords so to speak over one Baltic Orthodox church I believe, and the Ecumenical Patriarch is actually reviewing right now the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church’s request to come under Patriarch Bartholemew’s jurisdiction as here. risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;31319/.

I personally think that Ukraine, being perhaps the largest or second largest (depends) Orthodox country on earth should have its own Autocephalous Orthodox Church and not be subject to Moscow, given history. But that is just my Ukrainian Catholic viewpoint stated only as a person who has Ukrainian Orthodox in his family who are quite angered by the political message the Moscow Patriarch recently made in Ukraine. (Indeed, the Moscow Patriarch has a public relations director who actually wrote an article on the eve of the MP’s visit to Ukraine arguing that it would be better for Ukrainians to simply call themselves “Little Russians” Malorossy - an incredibly derogatory term to any nationally conscious Ukrainian. This had nothing to do with religion).

Yours In Christ, Andrew

 

[VARC]

If you don’t mind, on what basis do you yourself accept Chalcedon, simply because you are Anglican, or… ?

I could go either way really. I accept it because that is what is traditionally taught in the West. But I am not willing to go to the mat over it. More of an opinion that a dogma to me. And you…?

 

[VARC]

Dear Varc,

You are misinterpreting the contents of that link. It is not saying that Chalcedon is heretical, and no where does it say that. It’s purpose is to attempt reconciliation between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian positions, and it couldn’t very will do that by claiming Chalcedon was heretical. The article is very eirenic in using words such as “seems” or “it appears” when speaking of the Tome of Leo in relation to Nestorianism.

I apologize if it appears that I was misrepresenting OO. Such was not my intention. I was merely citing why OO don’t accept Chalcedon and why they probably never will.

You are apparently not aware that great strides have occurred among the CC, EO and OO on the matter of Christology. There are official Christological Statements between the CC and all the OO Churches recognizing that the difference was never one of Faith, but merely theology (“theology” defined as man’s attempt to express the Faith).

That fact doesn’t really bode well with the idea of the RCC’s infallibility. How could the RCC be so wrong about whether or not these people were heretics for so long to the point of establishing rival churches in their territory? How do I know that in 1000 years that want come to a simliar understanding of the Anglican Communion?

The EO and OO have not yet reached official agreements, but have numerous theological commissions coming very close to it. The most fruitful result of these talks has been between the Catholic and Syriac Orthodox Churches, which have official pastoral provisions for the sharing of Sacraments (Eucharist, marriage, Confession, and Unction) in extenuating circumstances. There are other examples, such as the pastoral agreement on intermarriage between the Coptic Orthodox and the EO Alexandrian Patriarchate, but the CC/SOC agreement is by far the most comprehensive so far. And, of course, UNofficial communion for individuals in extreme circumstances exists ALL OVER THE WORLD among the CC, EO and OO.

Blessings,
Marduk

So my question would be were the Fathers of the EOC wrong in condemning the OO. Are they wrong in asserting that Chalcedon is ecumenical? If so, is a greek orthodox Christian free to reject the Council as well? It seems to me that the closer the two bodies come, the more the OO are vindicated. My understanding is the OO are not budging on this issue of Chacedon. Yet the EOC is recognizing the legitimacy of the OO church and its sacraments more and more. Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s graet. Christian unity is a good thing. But given these facts, I cannot in good conscience confess that the EOC is the “One True Church” because it looks like the OO were right about Chalcedon after all. If it’s ecumenical than its not optional. And by the EOC actions, is good as they are, they are giving Chalcedon a less than ecumenical status contrary to the teaching of their Fathers.

 

[mardukm]

That fact doesn’t really bode well with the idea of the RCC’s infallibility. How could the RCC be so wrong about whether or not these people were heretics for so long to the point of establishing rival churches in their territory? How do I know that in 1000 years that want come to a simliar understanding of the Anglican Communion?

Infallibility is not telepathy. How could anyone know during the polemic atmosphere of those days that each side was using the same one or two words with different meanings? And the Catholic Church does not believe that the Church is infallible in its judgment on persons (I don’t know about the EOC, but I suspect they don’t share this same belief with the CC, which would make any formal agreements with the OOC that much more difficult). The Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that infallibility ONLY extends to its judgment on TEACHING. So the Catholic Church was indeed infallibly correct in its rejection of monophysitism. It’s just that now, after more thoughtful consideration of the differences in each others’ theological language, it has been determined that the OO never really taught or believed in monophysitism after all. Monophysitism remains, as it always will be, a heresy. This was the heresy proposed by Eutyches, and the OO agree with the CC that monophysitism is a heresy to be rejected.

So my question would be were the Fathers of the EOC wrong in condemning the OO. Are they wrong in asserting that Chalcedon is ecumenical? If so, is a greek orthodox Christian free to reject the Council as well? It seems to me that the closer the two bodies come, the more the OO are vindicated. My understanding is the OO are not budging on this issue of Chacedon. Yet the EOC is recognizing the legitimacy of the OO church and its sacraments more and more. Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s graet. Christian unity is a good thing. But given these facts, I cannot in good conscience confess that the EOC is the “One True Church” because it looks like the OO were right about Chalcedon after all. If it’s ecumenical than its not optional. And by the EOC actions, is good as they are, they are giving Chalcedon a less than ecumenical status contrary to the teaching of their Fathers.

I can’t speak for the EOC, but I don’t believe it’s fair to charge the EOC of denying the Ecumenical status of Chalcedon in any way, any more or less than it is fair to charge the CC with the same for having reached official agreements with the OOC on the matter of Christology.

Blessings

 

[VARC]

Infallibility is not telepathy. How could anyone know during the polemic atmosphere of those days that each side was using the same one or two words with different meanings? And the Catholic Church does not believe that the Church is infallible in its judgment on persons (I don’t know about the EOC, but I suspect they don’t share this same belief with the CC, which would make any formal agreements with the OOC that much more difficult). The Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that infallibility ONLY extends to its judgment on TEACHING. So the Catholic Church was indeed infallibly correct in its rejection of monophysitism. It’s just that now, after more thoughtful consideration of the differences in each others’ theological language, it has been determined that the OO never really taught or believed in monophysitism after all. Monophysitism remains, as it always will be, a heresy. This was the heresy proposed by Eutyches, and the OO agree with the CC that monophysitism is a heresy to be rejected.

It kind of seems like the Fathers didn’t do such a good job of finding out what the OO believed before they condemned them…is that what you are saying? I guess on that note Copts don’t need to affirm Chalcedon because the council wrongfully condemned Dioscourus. Do RCs demand that ECs accept all 21 councils or are the Copts the only ones given the option to reject catholic councils?

I can’t speak for the EOC, but I don’t believe it’s fair to charge the EOC of denying the Ecumenical status of Chalcedon in any way, any more or less than it is fair to charge the CC with the same for having reached official agreements with the OOC on the matter of Christology.

Blessings

Well, would our EOC friends like to answer whether I could be received in the EOC while refusing to to accept the theology of Chalcedon? Just curious but something isn’t sitting right. It was my understanding that the Orthodox taught that to be orthodox one has to accept the entirety of the orthodox faith which includes the seven councils. Am I wrong? Has Chalcedon become optional for the Copts today or was it always optional? Were the Councils Fathers wrong about Chalcedon being ecumenical. If not, why are the Copts given the option of rejecting it and still considered orthodox?

Perhaps this question might be helpful…What is an ecumenical council and how is it different from any other council?

 

[VARC]

Perhaps this question might be helpful…What is an ecumenical council and how is it different from any other council?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well, would our EOC friends like to answer whether I could be received in the EOC while refusing to to accept the theology of Chalcedon? Just curious but something isn’t sitting right. It was my understanding that the Orthodox taught that to be orthodox one has to accept the entirety of the orthodox faith which includes the seven councils. Am I wrong? Has Chalcedon become optional for the Copts today or was it always optional? Were the Councils Fathers wrong about Chalcedon being ecumenical. If not, why are the Copts given the option of rejecting it and still considered orthodox?

Yes you have to accept Chalcedon and no the Oriental Orthodox are not given the “option” of rejecting it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

It kind of seems like the Fathers didn’t do such a good job of finding out what the OO believed before they condemned them…is that what you are saying?

Admittedly, but, to be fair, one could say the same thing of the OO, correct? Like I said, infallibility is not telepathy or omniscience.

I guess on that note Copts don’t need to affirm Chalcedon because the council wrongfully condemned Dioscourus.

The OO accept all the dogmatic Truths of the other 4 Ecumenical Councils, but don’t necessarily accept the discplinary/canonical decrees. The OO don’t accept them as Ecumenical because the OO did not participate in them.

Do RCs demand that ECs accept all 21 councils or are the Copts the only ones given the option to reject catholic councils?

No. The number of Ecumenical Councils have never been dogmatized by the CC, has never been the subject of any of the formal agreements of reunion between any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches with the CC, and have never been imposed on individual Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Christians translating to the Catholic communion as a condition of belief. It is the FAITH that is the unifying principle within Catholicism, not the distinct theologies (i.e., how the Faith is expressed) of the individual Churches comprising the Catholic Communion.

Well, would our EOC friends like to answer whether I could be received in the EOC while refusing to to accept the theology of Chalcedon? Just curious but something isn’t sitting right. It was my understanding that the Orthodox taught that to be orthodox one has to accept the entirety of the orthodox faith which includes the seven councils. Am I wrong? Has Chalcedon become optional for the Copts today or was it always optional? Were the Councils Fathers wrong about Chalcedon being ecumenical. If not, why are the Copts given the option of rejecting it and still considered orthodox?

I can’t speak for the EOC in those matters pertaining to them, but as far as the Copts are concerned, the Copts, as well as the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy (as already stated), accept the DOGMATIC pronouncements of the other four Councils, though not the discplinary/canonical decrees. Shouldn’t that be enough? We’ll see what happens.

Perhaps this question might be helpful…What is an ecumenical council and how is it different from any other council?

This was discussed beginning with page 3 of the following thread - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=370385&page=3

Blessings

 

[VARC]

The OO accept all the dogmatic Truths of the other 4 Ecumenical Councils, but don’t necessarily accept the discplinary/canonical decrees. The OO don’t accept them as Ecumenical because the OO did not participate in them.

Blessings

The OO accept the Tome of Leo? That’s news to me. Everything I have read, suggest they still view Leo as a heretic and that they view the Tome as too ambigious for an orthodox statement of faith at best and heresy at worst.

Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome “the pillar of the right faith.” You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as “the pillar of the right faith” or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: “Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.” If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

Comments…