Would you convert if EO and RCC were in full communion?

[Peter_J]

Sure, that is how Rome would like to present it,

Well, I agree with you that describing Eastern Catholic Churches as ‘Rites in communion with the Pope’, and other such descriptions, is nonsensical and dare-I-say offensive.

However, I believe you are quite wrong to think that Rome sees things in the same way that Gabriel of 12 does. (Naturally, I’m open to considering evidence if either of you dzheremi or Gabriel of 12, have some to present.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No it doesn’t. They’re not still Orthodox once they leave the communion just because they supposedly take their liturgies with them. Once you’re out, you’re out, and even a liturgy that is performed exactly as it would have been when they were still in union with Orthodoxy doesn’t make their faith

Orthodox.

It can be difficult to speak in generalities about Orthodoxy because in some cases their circumstances that are complex and differ from one another for example; If we take the Armenian Church (Monophysite) Who hold to the same faith as the Coptic who are in communion with the Jacobites, yet the Armenian Church are not in communion with either one. Then there is the Gregorian Armenian Church who have a "celibate class of priesthood called “Vertapeds” are better disposed to reunion with Rome. Not to mention in Russia there is an Armenian Catholic Church see of Artvin who is subject to the pope.

There has never been (in either the RC communion or the Orthodox communion) any organized “monophysite” Church.

 

[dzheremi]

However, I believe you are quite wrong to think that Rome sees things in the same way that Gabriel of 12 does. (Naturally, I’m open to considering evidence if either of you dzheremi or Gabriel of 12, have some to present.)

Hmm. I’m not sure if I’m agreeing with you here or disagreeing with Gabriel, but I meant that the bit that Gabriel wrote about the Eastern Catholic churches being essentially the same as the Orthodox save their union with Rome is something that I have read over and over from those who are members of those churches (Melkites especially); some state so outright (as though it should be self-evident that such a thing exists in reality, and that this is what they in fact are), while others say that this is their goal. Either way, this isn’t a major point of anything I post.

 

[Peter_J]

My point to all of this is that many of these in union with Rome mirror the Orthodox Church’s in language, culture and liturgy who refuse communion with Rome. This is my simple point.

I would call that an observation rather than a point. I don’t think you have yet said what point you wish to make with it, even though the way you said it might be considered suggestive.

P.S. BTW, I notice that the way you keep speaking of “the Orthodox and those in union with Rome”, rather than simply “Orthodox and Catholics”, makes you sound a little like some strongly anti-Catholic Orthodox polemicists I have known. I’m curious whether this is deliberate irony on your part, or what. In any case, I don’t see what you’re accomplishing by it.

 

[dzheremi]

It can be difficult to speak in generalities about Orthodoxy because in some cases their circumstances that are complex and differ from one another for example;

Isn’t this true of every church?

If we take the Armenian Church (Monophysite) Who hold to the same faith as the Coptic who are in communion with the Jacobites, yet the Armenian Church are not in communion with either one.

Two very basic things: (1) Oriental Orthodox Christology is not Monophysite (it is Cyrillian), and we reject the heresy of Eutyches not any less than any other church. (2) The Armenian Orthodox are absolutely in communion with both the Syriac Orthodox (‘Jacobite’ is not really the correct term) and the Coptic Orthodox. We are all in communion with one another.

Then there is the Gregorian Armenian Church who have a "celibate class of priesthood called “Vertapeds” are better disposed to reunion with Rome.

“Gregorian Armenian Church”? You mean like St. Gregory the Armenian? I don’t know what you’re talking about. There is ONE Armenian Orthodox Church It has two Sees (Holy Etchmiadzin, which is primary and recognized as such, and Holy Cilicia), but they in full communion with one another, and with all OO in turn. Neither are in communion with Rome. (Both have Vardapets, which has nothing to do with Latin celibacy rules. There are both married and unmarried priests in the Armenian Apostolic Church.)

You misunderstand my posts, forgive me if I was not clear to you. The Eastern heretical church’s “monphysites, monothelites, nestorians” some of these (autocephalous) independent Eastern Church’s have left their heretical teachings and reunited with Rome.

Grumble grumble It’s Holy Week…calm blue ocean…

My point to all of this is that many of these in union with Rome mirror the Orthodox Church’s in language, culture and liturgy who refuse communion with Rome. This is my simple point.

That’s not much of a point if you’re trying to prove that there are Orthodox who are in communion with Rome. I guess you disagree with my earlier contention that Orthodoxy is not a matter of “language, culture and liturgy” (well, not external form of liturgy, anyway), but that is to be expected, I suppose.

I respect your Orthodox “Opinion” that when your sister church’s become in union with Rome, you reject communion with them because they left your weird Orthodox opinion that you reveal here is Orthodox because you refuse to be united with Rome.

I can’t make sense of this sentence, but I feel vaguely insulted…sort of. Why is “opinion” in quotes? I’m not writing (post-)ironically.

I would disagree with you here, because it was never so in the first 1100 years of Christianity when both Rome and the Eastern Church’s defeated these Eastern Church heresies in unity.

Mhm. :ehh::compcoff:

Yet you “appear” to be coming across here (correct me if I have mistaken you), that in order to be Orthodox, you have to be out of communion with the Popes in order to be Orthodox? This has never been Orthodoxy in the beginning all the church’s were united with Peter’s Chair.

Lord have mercy. I cannot comment on your imagining of unity as it was with the Byzantines pre-1054, but I think you’ll find actual EO disagreeing with it, so no matter. Just to be clear, though, I am not saying that anything in Orthodoxy revolves around or is necessarily related to being united with Rome. As I tried to explain before, this is a Latin preoccupation that is not shared by the rest of us (either EO or OO). And “Peter’s Chair” is likewise (some EO I’ve heard argue primarily) in Antioch, as is recognized by the feast formerly held by the Latins on May 22 to commemorate the Saint’s time in Antioch as demonstrated in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum. So there is no Orthodox Church that is not in union with the Chair of Peter via their respective Antiochian Patriarchs.

My posts only reflect that the Orthodox who refuse communion or unity with the Pope, maintain the same Eastern Rites and practices that mirror the Eastern Rite Catholics who have come into unity with Rome.

Earlier you put it as being the other way around, which is more historically accurate. Anyway, this is beating a dead horse by this point.

Our disunity relates to “authority” yet we both maintain the valid sacraments, valid liturgies and valid priesthoood.

Nope, nope, nope, and nope. Validity is a non-concept. You’re either in the communion or you’re not.

Grant it that there are some staunch Orthodox who believe that the Pope was never baptised, but this only reveals the diverse and complicated circumstances between each “independent” Orthodox church and the Roman Church, that trickles down more division between the Orthodox Church’s out of communion with one another.

Again, nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily has to do with the Roman Pope. If you ask individual Orthodox people what they think about the Roman Pope (or any other Western Christian figure), you’re likely to get a range of answers, but since nothing we say about those outside of our communion is a matter of dogma, this isn’t really “disunity” at all (and I have never heard anyone, at any level, in either the OO or RC communion say that “the Roman Pope is not baptized”; that wouldn’t even make sense…why would anyone care or speculate on such things that have nothing to do with our Church?)

You have not offered any new insights to this topic other than Orthodox is Orthodox because Orthodox is not in communion with the Popes?

That is your reading of my posts, not anything that I have actually written.

I hope our readers can distinguish between what is fact and what is of opinion here

Amen.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=dzheremi;10682176]

You’re either in the communion or you’re not.

Allow me to summarize a conclusion; The Western Latin rite is one world wide united to the Popes. The Eastern different rites are independent of one another (autocephalous) and historically have come in and out of communion with one another.

All maintain apostolic succession, validly ordained priesthood and sacraments. There does exist such a thing as an “invalid” sacrament in the West. So your opinion of the term valid is a good point to reveal here the major differences of our communions, when it comes to expressing them in terms that both the East and West experience difficulties of understanding. Especially when it comes to the Popes.

I have yet to meet an Orthodox who can define the role of the Roman Bishop correctly in the Western Church the way all Catholics in the East and West believe.

In conclusion we approach our faith very differently expressed from terms that may differ from each one’s rite, which can easily be misunderstood that leads to misinterpretations. Yet neither Orthodoxy nor the Popes can ever change the content of what makes up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith, different members of the body for sure and different functions, speaking from the Latin Rite “The body of Christ is one and can never be divided by men”.

I see no need to split hairs over diversed specific communions and expressions of faith here which can differ. When it is all said and done what matters is the specific individual who recieves the sacraments in Kingdom of God.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

I have yet to meet an Orthodox who can define the role of the Roman Bishop correctly in the Western Church the way all Catholics in the East and West believe.

What does this mean? I could just as easily say I have yet to meet a Catholic who can correctly define the role of the Roman Bishop as Orthodox, of any particular church, believe it. I’m going to guess that this fact is not terribly illuminating to you.

In conclusion we approach our faith very differently expressed from terms that may differ from each one’s rite, which can easily be misunderstood that leads to misinterpretations. Yet neither Orthodoxy nor the Popes can ever change the content of what makes up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith, different members of the body for sure and different functions, speaking from the Latin Rite “The body of Christ is one and can never be divided by men”.

It is very easy to make such statements ex post facto and so come to the conclusion that this is not something that Rome has ever done or ever could do. The trouble, of course, is that nobody who is not already in communion with Rome necessarily sees it that way. I mean, are we all supposed to take your (or the Roman Pope’s) word for it in the face of evidence that this is exactly what has happened and continues to happen as our communions grow further and further apart in various ways? I could claim anything about any particular church or person. What matters is what you do.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is very easy to make such statements ex post facto

Your points have been well taken, but you have not really addressed the issues that have been put forth;

"let not man put asunder what God has joined together".

I introduced the divine office of Holy orders and sacraments by which God joins man to himself. But you continue to argue the Orthodox is Orthodox because Orthodox refuses to be in union with the Popes.

I thought I was clear that it is through the spirit of our liturgies, priesthood and sacraments that make up the mystical body of Christ as one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church both Triumphant and Militant. You claim we can’t be one because you are Orthodox and refuse unity with the chair of Peter. That does not prove the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is divided in the mystical body of Christ.

What you claim to disunity is temporal and carnal that is always subject to change, as you have proven among the Orthodox coming in out of communion with one another. What I introduce in unity is eternal which no man can separate.

Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

^^ Are you saying that “let not man put asunder what God has joined together” is a statement about the Pope of Rome?

 

[Peter_J]

The Eastern different rites are independent of one another (autocephalous) and historically have come in and out of communion with one another.

(emphasis added)

Did you choose not to hear what I said earlier about rites and churches, or what?

 

[dzheremi]

Your points have been well taken, but you have not really addressed the issues that have been put forth;

Which issues? I’m sorry, Gabriel, but your posts can be a little bit difficult for me to follow sometimes. It is difficult to follow your train of thought when you seem to be conflating many separate issues and concepts in an attempt to support your cosmic/dematerialized ecclesiology. Case in point…

"let not man put asunder what God has joined together".

This is great teaching from the evangelist and apostle St. Mark – on marriage and divorce. What on earth it has to do with the Roman Papacy or the Latin model of church governance and authority, I haven’t the faintest idea. What are you talking about?

I introduced the divine office of Holy orders and sacraments by which God joins man to himself. But you continue to argue the Orthodox is Orthodox because Orthodox refuses to be in union with the Popes.

Where have I ever argued that? Show me where. I am pretty sure I wrote in my last post in this thread that nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily depends on or has any relation to the Pope of Rome or the Latin Church. This is the exact opposite of what you keep claiming, with zero evidence to back that claim up. I’ll repeat it again so that hopefully you can stop reading that into my posts: Nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily has anything to do with the Roman Pope. We are a fully functioning, whole and complete Church communion, lacking in nothing either doctrinally or sacramentally or in any other way, and we have been this way for approximately 1500 (for the OO, like me) or 1000 years (for those who believe that the Byzantines/Chalcedonians are the Orthodox Church) without the supervision or rule or other exercise of powers by the Roman Pope over any of our communion. Period.

\You claim we can’t be one because you are Orthodox and refuse unity with the chair of Peter. That does not prove the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is divided in the mystical body of Christ.

Again, I replied in my last post that all Orthodox are in communion with Antioch in one way or another, so that’s not true. Not even the Latins originally restricted the “Chair of Peter” in the metaphorical sense (read: away from the actual physical chair kept in Rome, when that phrase started taking on wider ecclesiological currency among the Latins) to Rome only, but also celebrated the feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Antioch on May 22. So we do not refuse unity with St. Peter at all. We just do not believe that the authority of St. Peter is solely present in or eminent from Rome.

What you claim to disunity is temporal and carnal that is always subject to change, as you have proven among the Orthodox coming in out of communion with one another. What I introduce in unity is eternal which no man can separate.

No, what you present in this post is a bunch of stuff that is mostly disconnected and fanciful readings of a wide variety of things that generally have very little or nothing to do with Rome at all. In past eras, the Latin Church had no trouble cutting off communion with the variety of heretics in its realm (such as those present in the north African Church that was most closely allied with Rome). Should Orthodox do the same today, it is for much the same reason as your Latin forefathers did: To preserve the unity of faith that is the bedrock of communion (and why the Orthodox and the Latins cannot currently have communion; that particular division is also as “temporal and carnal” as you make it, as the Orthodox are quite clear what the terms for union would be: That Rome readopt the Orthodox faith that was once its faith, too. Anything else is only so much blather.)

 

[Peter_J]

I introduced the divine office of Holy orders and sacraments by which God joins man to himself. But you continue to argue the Orthodox is Orthodox because Orthodox refuses to be in union with the Popes.

You’re right, you haven’t.

Orthodox often tell us (Catholic, especially ECs) that we can’t be in communion with them and in communion with Rome – I’m thinking particularly of the Antiochian Orthodox response to the Melkite Initiative. However I’ve never heard you or any other Orthodox say that lack-of-communion with Rome makes one Orthodox. (By way of analogy, suppose a Catholic told a Baptist “You can’t be both Catholic and Baptist.” and then the Baptist concluded that if he stopped being Baptist, that would make him Catholic.) Again here, this conversation has gotten pretty ridiculous.

I am pretty sure I wrote in my last post in this thread that nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily depends on or has any relation to the Pope of Rome or the Latin Church. This is the exact opposite of what you keep claiming, with zero evidence to back that claim up. I’ll repeat it again so that hopefully you can stop reading that into my posts: Nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily has anything to do with the Roman Pope. We are a fully functioning, whole and complete Church communion, lacking in nothing either doctrinally or sacramentally or in any other way, and we have been this way for approximately 1500 (for the OO, like me) or 1000 years (for those who believe that the Byzantines/Chalcedonians are the Orthodox Church) without the supervision or rule or other exercise of powers by the Roman Pope over any of our communion. Period.

 

[benjohnson]

Nothing in Orthodoxy necessarily has anything to do with the Roman Pope.

If it helps my Catholic friends, the Orthodox have treated Lutherans in such a fashion - they wish us well, but have absolutely no need for things outside of Orthodoxy. From our viewpoint, we didn’t take it as being rude - but being protective. And we wished them well in return, thankful for the brief interaction.

 

[dzheremi]

That’s a good way to look at it, I think. I mean, it’s not like we hate Rome or the Roman Pope or whatever. In fact, HH Pope Tawadros II is scheduled to meet with his Roman counterpart on an upcoming trip to visit the Coptic churches of Europe (HH’s first trip outside of Egypt since his election). I think that’s a nice gesture, though I would not read anything more into it than that. HH Pope Shenouda III was apparently the first Coptic Pope to visit with the Roman Pope since the schism or some insanely long comparable time (I’ve read both “since the Chalcedonian schism” and “in over 800 years”). We enjoy good relations with pretty much everyone (except maybe the Nestorians and the monks of Mt. Athos…), but we do not need to be in union with them or otherwise tied to them in any way for that to be the case, and we will not compromise our faith for anybody. I’m 100% sure that the EO would say the same.

 

[Peter_J]

Our disunity relates to “authority” yet we both maintain the valid sacraments, valid liturgies and valid priesthoood.

Well, Gabriel’s statement (that we both have valid sacraments) is certainly the Catholic stance. I’m not really sure whether he’s saying that, b/c it’s the Catholic stance, you Orthodox should trust us enough to accept it as well, or what. I’ll let him speak for himself on that point.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh, absolutely. It’s totally correct from the RC POV. No complaints against that here. My only point is that since that stance relies on an approach to the sacraments that we don’t share (concept of validity v. non-validity), we don’t (or can’t, if you’d prefer) return the favor.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh, absolutely. It’s totally correct from the RC POV. No complaints against that here.

Oh okay. I wasn’t sure if we were on the verge of getting into a situation where Catholic and Orthodox try to convince each other of their respective positions by repeating them over and over.

 

[dzheremi]

Nope. Not in that post…just in every other post in this thread. And most other threads.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, Gabriel’s statement (that we both have valid sacraments) is certainly the Catholic stance. I’m not really sure whether he’s saying that, b/c it’s the Catholic stance, you Orthodox should trust us enough to accept it as well, or what. I’ll let him speak for himself on that point.

Peter has allowed me permission to speak on my behalf here for which I am grateful:thumbsup:

For the record to anyone reading these posts. Peter has revealed one of the fundamental aspects that has lead to the schism and continues. “Ignorance” on both sides. This is partly do to the fact how the West and the East approaches each ones faith and uses terminology, that both sides (speaking from a Lay persons view) do not grasp the full meaning and understanding of a term that is not typically used in the West nor the East.

Example; what is valid and what is not valid. It is not comical that our Orthodox posters do not grasp the Western understanding of these terms. I am sure our Orthodox posters are not evading the subject matter, they cannot fit Western terminology into their Orthodox understanding, and if it is not used in Orthodoxy then it is rejected, thus we get the true meaning of what it is to be “Orthodox”.

I speak thus in the third person, so as not to engage in repatitive disagreements that only leads to failed discussions and circular arguments.

Although this analogy does not apply to all Orthodox, because there are Orthodox that I have engaged who understand the difference between a valid sacrament and an invalid sacrament without needing a two page explanation.

I wish to point out this fact that has created such a schism between the Orthodox and Roman Church due to lack of understanding one another’s position and expression of the same one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

It is clear that no one can fit a physical square into a physical circle. If one removes the physical shapes, then it is easy for the spirit to flow.

This reveals that at times our Orthodox posters has difficulty following the train of thought or reasoning speaking faith from a Western mindset, and they readily admit it by stating " I don’t understand" or “your reasoning is out of wack” etc. For example read the above post’s.

I don’t take offense when there is misunderstanding, taking on any insults from the lack of another’s misunderstanding never deserves insult in return.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

^^ Are you saying that “let not man put asunder what God has joined together” is a statement about the Pope of Rome?

Allow me to enlighten you. 'That scripture context relates to the sacramental marriage. In the Western faith of understanding Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. God’s Word is eternal in the Western faith and it is expressed from a past, present and future tense that through Jesus Christ comes to it’s fulfillment.

I did not make the case of the Pope as you have pertaining to said scripture. I used this scripture to point to the union between God and his Church through the sacraments and “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”.

Thank you for asking for clarification