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

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

That’s a great gesture benjohnson, If I can give an analogy here, you would be the friend between two brothers who are at odds with each other because one brother hears Mom say one thing and does it his own way, while the other brother hears Mom say another thing and does it his way, yet both are obeying the Mother. All said and done the brothers sleep in the same house who remain at odds with one another, the friend of the two brothers goes to his own house.

Peace be with you

 

[aemcpa]

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

[snip]

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?

What you are saying is that you “won’t speculate” and/or “don’t care to speculate” on whether any of the billions who claim to be Christians but who are not in the Orthodox Communion, including the Pope of Rome, are actually baptized.

If I, having been baptized as a Catholic on March 25, 1979 at the Nativity of the Lord Roman Catholic Church in Warminster, PA by a priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, were to seek to join the Orthodox Church, would I need to be baptized or not?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12
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.

d
**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.

I gave you an example that there have been Orthodox church’s that have come into unity with the Popes who maintain the same liturgy, language, culture as those Orthodox who refuse unity with the Popes. You commented that when these Church’s of Orthodoxy fall out of communion they never remain Orthodox.

You placed your quote in the middle of our discussion of these Orthodox church’s coming into unity with the popes, they cease to be Orthodox.

I have given you ample time to clarify your position, in order for Orthodox to be Orthodox the Orthodox has to be out of unity or communion with the popes. That is what you have led me to believe and I repeated back to you for clarification. It is up to you to clarify your position here. I only relate to what you have revealed to me.

Please see your own post ALL OF #136

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

What you are saying is that you “won’t speculate” and/or “don’t care to speculate” on whether any of the billions who claim to be Christians but who are not in the Orthodox Communion, including the Pope of Rome, are actually baptized.

Yes. Why should I care to? Why should anyone care to? It has no bearing on my salvation, and God knows, whether I speculate or not. Best not to speculate on such things.

If I, having been baptized as a Catholic on March 25, 1979 at the Nativity of the Lord Roman Catholic Church in Warminster, PA by a priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, were to seek to join the Orthodox Church, would I need to be baptized or not?

I would think that this varies by jurisdiction. The Coptic Orthodox Church has decided that all Roman Catholics have to be baptized, yes. Our baptisms are different than yours in both form and content, so it cannot be assumed that RC baptisms are sufficient according to the laws which govern our Church. This is not a comment on RC baptisms so much as it is a desire to make sure that it is known that the candidate is baptized according to our way of doing things.

 

[Trebor135]

Our baptisms are different than yours in both form and content, so it cannot be assumed that RC baptisms are sufficient according to the laws which govern our Church.

I understand that Copts baptize by triple immersion. What’s the other difference?

 

[aemcpa]

Yes. Why should I care to? Why should anyone care to? It has no bearing on my salvation, and God knows, whether I speculate or not. Best not to speculate on such things.

By that logic, you shouldn’t “speculate” on whether anybody is baptized, except perhaps the priest that absolves you of sin.

I would think that this varies by jurisdiction. The Coptic Orthodox Church has decided that all Roman Catholics have to be baptized, yes. Our baptisms are different than yours in both form and content, so it cannot be assumed that RC baptisms are sufficient according to the laws which govern our Church. This is not a comment on RC baptisms so much as it is a desire to make sure that it is known that the candidate is baptized according to our way of doing things.

How can a “communion” exist when it can’t even be agreed upon whether a person needs to be baptized?

It does seem odd that in the 4th century, the Coptic and Roman ceremonies being largely the same as today but the Churches being in communion, that you would have accepted the Roman baptisms then. You are forced to say that the lack of communion is the only thing that has changed, and that that, and not the Roman ritual, is what casts doubt on the Roman baptism.

 

[dzheremi]

By that logic, you shouldn’t “speculate” on whether anybody is baptized, except perhaps the priest that absolves you of sin.

Um…unbaptized people cannot become priests, so no, I wouldn’t speculate on that, either.

How can a “communion” exist when it can’t even be agreed upon whether a person needs to be baptized?

Because these matters are decided by the synods of the autocephalous churches that make up our communion. I don’t actually know the policy of the others, but I would assume that not all are as strict as the Copts. The Armenians, for instance, are much more liberal in many matters, as a result of their history.

It does seem odd that in the 4th century, the Coptic and Roman ceremonies being largely the same as today but the Churches being in communion, that you would have accepted the Roman baptisms then.

Well, the faith of the Roman Church has changed a lot since then. At one point, we all accepted the baptisms of the East Syrians, too.

You are forced to say that the lack of communion is the only thing that has changed, and that that, and not the Roman ritual, is what casts doubt on the Roman baptism.

Again, we are not casting doubt on anyone’s ritual. We are making sure that whoever is received into the Church from among the Latins is baptized properly according to our way of doing things (triple immersion, with the appropriate prayers of the rite, etc).

 

[dzheremi]

I gave you an example that there have been Orthodox church’s that have come into unity with the Popes who maintain the same liturgy, language, culture as those Orthodox who refuse unity with the Popes. You commented that when these Church’s of Orthodoxy fall out of communion they never remain Orthodox.

I commented that Orthodoxy is a matter of faith, not “liturgy, language, and culture”. All of those things are good and well, but without the Orthodox faith behind them, they don’t matter. The faith is what matters, and the liturgies that grew out of that faith are meant for those who share that faith. This is why when a section of the believers decide to come under Rome usually the faith changes in some way. A change in belief leads to a change in praxis, hence you will see differences in vesting, communion practices, hymnody, etc. among Catholics in comparison to their Orthodox mother churches.

You placed your quote in the middle of our discussion of these Orthodox church’s coming into unity with the popes, they cease to be Orthodox.

That they do. So long as Rome herself is not Orthodox, they cannot be Orthodox while submitting to Rome.

I have given you ample time to clarify your position, in order for Orthodox to be Orthodox the Orthodox has to be out of unity or communion with the popes. That is what you have led me to believe and I repeated back to you for clarification. It is up to you to clarify your position here. I only relate to what you have revealed to me.

I don’t really have any control over how you read my posts, especially when what I’ve posted is very explicitly the opposite of that. For anyone to be Orthodox, they need to be in actual, full communion with the Orthodox Church, and in order for that to happen, they need to profess the Orthodox faith. That’s it. Nothing to do with Rome.

Please see your own post ALL OF #136

I just re-read it. Still stand by it. What exactly is the problem?

 

[josephback]

That they do. So long as Rome herself is not Orthodox, they cannot be Orthodox while submitting to Rome.

I don’t really have any control over how you read my posts, especially when what I’ve posted is very explicitly the opposite of that. For anyone to be Orthodox, they need to be in actual, full communion with the Orthodox Church, and in order for that to happen, they need to profess the Orthodox faith. That’s it. Nothing to do with Rome.

I just re-read it. Still stand by it. What exactly is the problem?

Do you mean Rome isn’t Orthodox in her teachings or in her particular liturgy? What workable criterion of Orthodoxy do you put forth to replace agreement with Rome?

 

[dzheremi]

Do you mean Rome isn’t Orthodox in her teachings or in her particular liturgy?

They don’t seem particularly Orthodox in either, but I meant doctrinally. I don’t really want to emphasize liturgics in this setting, since Gabriel seems to take “a liturgy that looks like one the Orthodox use” to mean that there are Orthodox churches in union with Rome, and that is wrong.

What workable criterion of Orthodoxy do you put forth to replace agreement with Rome?

Agreement with the Fathers and the Councils. That’s the criterion for everybody, not just Rome. To say that agreement with Rome should be the criterion of Orthodoxy assumes a priori Orthodoxy on Rome’s part, and frankly there are many reasons to call that assumption into question.

By the same token, we cannot make agreement with any particular see to be the deciding factor, as all are equally accountable to the same standard, not to be considered independent of it. In other words, I am not Orthodox by virtue of my communion with Alexandria, as though these are equivalent terms (in the way that RCs think of “Catholic” as being shorthand for “in communion with Rome”); rather,* the faith of Alexandria* is Orthodox, and that is the faith I profess. Of course we believe that this faith is preserved by the Holy Spirit, same as the Romans do about their own faith, but if Alexandria were to begin teaching something else, I would have to leave out of fidelity to that same faith. The faith is paramount, not communion with a particular see at all costs.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

So I guess you weren’t quite grateful enough to return the favor and let me speak for myself.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes. Why should I care to? Why should anyone care to? It has no bearing on my salvation, and God knows, whether I speculate or not. Best not to speculate on such things.

So here we see two clearly different takes: the Orthodox prefer not to speak about the sacraments of non-Orthodox; Catholic definitely do speak about the sacraments of non-Catholics – for example, we say that Mormons don’t have valid baptism but Orthodox and most protestants do; Orthodox have valid orders but most protestants do not, etc.

Quite frankly, I can’t see any simple way to prove which approach (speculating or not speculating) is the right one and which is the wrong one.

 

[Peter_J]

Agreement with the Fathers and the Councils. That’s the criterion for everybody, not just Rome. To say that agreement with Rome should be the criterion of Orthodoxy assumes a priori Orthodoxy on Rome’s part, and frankly there are many reasons to call that assumption into question.

On that, even we Melkites (who are in communion with Rome) agree with you.

(in the way that RCs think of “Catholic” as being shorthand for “in communion with Rome”);

I admit I do use that terminology practically speaking (but not in an absolute sense).

but if Alexandria were to begin teaching something else, I would have to leave out of fidelity to that same faith. The faith is paramount, not communion with a particular see at all costs.

I would say the same about Rome: if she lost the faith, I would be obliged to break-off communion from her.

 

[Peter_J]

For anyone to be Orthodox, they need to be in actual, full communion with the Orthodox Church, and in order for that to happen, they need to profess the Orthodox faith. That’s it. Nothing to do with Rome.

That’s pretty much how we look at it too.

Not that I wouldn’t love to see dual-communion, I would; I’m just emphasizing that it isn’t a reality at this time. (Which was because of objections from Rome as well as objections from the Orthodox.)

 

[Trebor135]

Quite frankly, I can’t see any simple way to prove which approach (speculating or not speculating) is the right one and which is the wrong one.

Does anyone know whether such speculation took place during the first millennium?

 

[dzheremi]

So here we see two clearly different takes: the Orthodox prefer not to speak about the sacraments of non-Orthodox; Catholic definitely do speak about the sacraments of non-Catholics – for example, we say that Mormons don’t have valid baptism but Orthodox and most protestants do; Orthodox have valid orders but most protestants do not, etc.

Quite frankly, I can’t see any simple way to prove which approach (speculating or not speculating) is the right one and which is the wrong one.

To me, it’s not a matter of “right” or “wrong”. What does the scripture say…“all things are lawful, but not all things edify”? I know that was written in a different context than this one, but I think it applies here, too. From what I have been able to observe first hand, Orthodoxy seems much more inwardly focused when it comes to such things. It’s not that saying that Mormon baptisms are insufficient is wrong (I know this is the Orthodox stance, too), but that it is not profitable to spend your time wondering about the sacraments of churches you’re not in. We do, after all, have procedures for receiving Mormons (and Catholics, and Muslims, and every kind of person), and those are what we concern ourselves with, because those are what do within our Church according to what has been passed down to us as the Orthodox way of ____ (baptizing, communing, whatever-ing), so we can have confidence in them in a way that we cannot about the sacraments of others. So we do not say definitively where God can or cannot work. We just do what we can do to make sure that those received from other traditions are properly cared for once they have decided to come into the Church. Before that or outside of that, speculation is not particularly helpful or edifying.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Quote:Gabriel of 12
You placed your quote in the middle of our discussion of these Orthodox church’s coming into unity with the popes, they cease to be Orthodox.

Quote; dzhermi
That they do. So long as Rome herself is not Orthodox,** they cannot be Orthodox while submitting to Rome**.

I rest my case. Again you repeat that if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome “they cannot be Orthodox”. Although you changed the word unity to your own of “submitting”. One word in these discussions in passing changes the whole concept of thought.

So your stating if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome, that Orthodox church although possessing the same liturgy, language, culture and creed as the Orthodox out of unity with Rome. No longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of the unity with Rome?

At the risk of repeating ourselves here; How do you justify the Orthodox in unity with Rome no longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of her unity with Rome? Although the Orthodox church in union with Rome still possesses her Eastern faith complete and creed as the example above.

 

[Peter_J]

I rest my case. Again you repeat that if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome “they cannot be Orthodox”. Although you changed the word unity to your own of “submitting”. One word in these discussions in passing changes the whole concept of thought.

So your stating if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome, that Orthodox church although possessing the same liturgy, language, culture and creed as the Orthodox out of unity with Rome. No longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of the unity with Rome?

At the risk of repeating ourselves here; How do you justify the Orthodox in unity with Rome no longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of her unity with Rome? Although the Orthodox church in union with Rome still possesses her Eastern faith complete and creed as the example above.

Gabriel, I’m not sure whether to call this offensive, or ridiculous. Maybe both. I’m just sick of these innuendos.

Of course there are occasionally people who switch sides. So what?

It happens in both directions you know.

But on a positive note, your more recent posts don’t seem to repeat your earlier habit of calling Eastern Catholic Churches “Rites” (unless I just overlooked it). Can we take this as a hopeful sign?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

dzheremi;10690802]They don’t seem particularly Orthodox in either, but I meant doctrinally. I don’t really want to emphasize liturgics in this setting, since Gabriel seems to take “a liturgy that looks like one the Orthodox use” to mean that there are Orthodox churches in union with Rome, and that is wrong.

Please allow me to clarify that for you dxheremi; I compared the Orthodox who have come into union with Rome who mirror those Orthodox out of unity with the Rome. I questioned the only difference between the two one is united to Rome the other is not. You insist that they are no longer Orthodox because of this union. I did not say One who uses the Byzantine liturgy is always Orthodox.

Peace be with you

 

[dzheremi]

I rest my case. Again you repeat that if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome “they cannot be Orthodox”. Although you changed the word unity to your own of “submitting”. One word in these discussions in passing changes the whole concept of thought.

This is tiring, Gabriel. It is clear from your emphasis-overdose what you are focusing on and what you are not focusing on, but I wish you would read and understand the entire sentence as it is. So long as Rome herself is not Orthodox, then those in union with her cannot be either. This is not a fault of my thinking, but rather of your own communion’s Rome-centric ecclesiology. Were that not the case, were you guys to embrace a more Orthodox ecclesiology, it would be possible to look upon Rome in its appropriate place: Highly exalted in the days of our Fathers for its faith. And then, of course, in a more balanced/collegiate atmosphere, we would not have Rome as the center of the communion (in the sense that I wrote about it before; the one see with which communion must be maintained at all costs to even have a church), but as one See capable of being brought back to the Orthodox faith, capable of being excluded from communion with the other sees if necessary without the whole Church falling apart…capable of doing essentially what she would need to do to become Orthodox again. Rome could be Orthodox tomorrow if she could only see why she isn’t Orthodox today. But given Roman ecclesiology as it has developed with post-schism declarations of Papal Infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc., this prospect seems much less likely. The creation of Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches also dims this possibility, as there is little motivation for true change in an environment in which you already have a bunch of Easterners who will work with things as they are, since they have accepted the precepts that make the Roman communion as it is now.

So it’s not a matter of Rome being somehow inherently un-Orthodox…but it is the case that Rome is not Orthodox, and hasn’t been Orthodox for many centuries, and shows no realistic signs of becoming Orthodox in the future. So, yes, so long as a church is in communion with Rome, that church cannot be Orthodox.

So your stating if an Orthodox church comes into unity with Rome, that Orthodox church although possessing the same liturgy, language, culture and creed as the Orthodox out of unity with Rome. No longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of the unity with Rome?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, because in coming into union with Rome they must accept certain doctrinal innovations (again, from an Orthodox point of view) that in and of themselves place those who embrace them outside of the Orthodox faith. You know all the hits, I’m sure, so there’s no need to rehash them there.

At the risk of repeating ourselves here; How do you justify the Orthodox in unity with Rome no longer possesses the Orthodox faith because of her unity with Rome? Although the Orthodox church in union with Rome still possesses her Eastern faith complete and creed as the example above.

Well, for one thing I think it is inaccurate to say that they still possess the same faith. So there’s that. There’s also the fact that your argument seems to be built on externalities that I have already explained in several places do not stand for the Orthodox faith in toto (yes, the liturgy and the Creed and whatnot are all integral parts of Orthodoxy, but they are not its sum…they must be understood and lived in an Orthodox fashion as well, admitting no such innovations as those in union with Rome have embraced). I don’t really know what more you want me to say here.