Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Grace and Peace Father akimel,

Father Bless.

Unfortunately Father you don't understand the mindset of a zealot. it's everything or nothing. :angel:
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
akimel said:
Irish Hermit said:
"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.
No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II.  Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.

But I do think that the accusation may be legitimately advanced against contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy.  During the past 100 years we have seen the development of an Orthodox polemic that may be fairly described as fiercely anti-Western.   Lossky, Romanides, and Seraphim Rose immediately come to mind, but there are many others.  The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."  Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.  

And what does becoming Orthodox mean in this context?  It means becoming "Eastern," and not just Eastern but specifically Byzantine Eastern.  When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.  Even if the Catholic Church were to remove the Filioque from the Nicene Creed (which I agree it must do), that in itself would not be sufficient.  The Catholic Church, we are told, must formally renounce the Augustinian and Thomistic construals of the Trinity.  We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.  In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque.  They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque).  A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists.  Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!  

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma.  Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies.  Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.

It would be easy to cite other examples.

So who wants to extinguish who?  

I do not raise any of this to be controversial.  In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens.  But fair is fair.  Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium.  Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.    
 
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Alvin Kimel
Thank for this Father. It was very insightful. And though it may be shocking to some here, but even as a Thomist I sometimes see certiain concept through Eastern eyes.  :eek: I know, shocking.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
Canada
akimel said:
Irish Hermit said:
"It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in extinguishing Orthodoxy.
Theological encounters and 'accords' on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley,
for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church."


The whole thing is in "Sourozh" the diocesan magazine of the UK Russian diocese:
Metr. Anthony of Sourozh, "A Letter to Patriarch Alexis of Moscow and All
Russia", SOUROZH, 69 (August 1997), 17-22.
No one disputes that at various times during the second millenium the Catholic Church has acted like the Borg and attempted to assimilate, and Latinize, the Eastern Church; but I do not believe that accusation can be fairly advanced for the Catholic Church since Vatican II.  Metropolitan Anthony is simply wrong.
He had a definite anti-Catholic bias, and there is much inexcusable paranoia in the Orthodox Church today concerning Catholicism, but you are extremely naive if you honestly believe that there are no influential factions present in the Catholic Church today that would like nothing better than to absorb Orthodoxy.  Of course, the situation is much more complex than illustrated by Irish Hermit, as there are also many Catholics who have nothing but good intentions and good will when it comes to the Orthodox, and this is laudable. However, the Vatican bureaucracy is so vast, with so many different players involved, pushing for so many different points of view, that I don't know how you could make the statement that you have made and honestly believe that no one would take you to task for it.

... Lossky...
I've noticed that Lossky is a favourite whipping boy for those who would simply like to dismiss the controversy involving the filioque as being unimportant.  As far as I know, no Catholic apologist has as yet responded in a serious way to Lossky's very substantial claims concerning the procession of the Spirit.  The best that Cardinal Congar could come up with, despite his considerable scholarly output concerning the Spirit, seems to have been something to the effect that "Lossky is clearly wrong about this."  Surely his very eloquent writing on the filioque controversy deserves more of a response than this.

... Seraphim Rose...
He also had some very positive things to say about St. Augustine that not all Orthodox would agree with.  In any event, he is not recognized as being a serious scholar, so I don't know why you include him  here.

The Latin Church is rejected not just because it has allegedly departed from the apostolic faith on specific doctrinal matters (specifically, the Filioque and the assertion of the universal supremacy of the Papacy), but precisely because it is "Western."
By some Orthodox, yes, but certainly not by all.

Eastern theologians and apologists may differ on where the fundamental turn away from the faith occurred (Tertullian? Augustine? Aquinas? Trent?--the trend is to date the heretical turn earlier rather than later), but they all agree that Western Christianity is a perverted form of "Christian" faith whose only hope is to become Orthodox.
It depends what you mean by this.  Really, this is quite over the top.  

 When the Orthodox speak of returning to the Fathers, they do not mean the Western Fathers, who, while they may be commemorated in the Orthodox calendar, exercise no doctrinal authority whatsoever--the Eastern Fathers always trump the Western Fathers.
This might be because Saint Augustine, with his vast corpus of writings, has had such a profound influence on the West; one might even say to the exclusion of other Fathers.    Some Orthodox are very concerned about some of the things that St. Augustine wrote.  Many of us think that some of these things are quite problematic.  

We may not entertain the possibility that the Western Fathers have intuited something true about the trinitarian processions, even if poorly and inadequately expressed.
Really?  I was not aware of that.

 In recent years Catholic theologians, in response to Eastern concerns and criticisms, have sought to move beyond scholastic formulations of the Filioque. They have insisted that the Filioque must not be understood as contradicting "the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit" (see the Vatican Clarification on the Filioque).  A few Orthodox proposals have positively responded to this clarification (e.g., Zizioulas and Ware), but in doing so they have put their own Orthodox credentials at risk and are publicly dismissed as Latinizers and ecumenists.  Nothing less than a full Photian repudiation of the Filioque will do!
That's right, because the Catholic Church, in its present form, is incapable of admitting that it was ever wrong.  Instead, it comes up with all kinds of written acrobatics like this "clarification" that you site above, which is really just the opposite of a clarification.  

Another good example of the Orthodox insistence that to become Orthodox means becoming Byzantine is the increasingly popular assertion of the Palamite distinction between the divine energies and essence as catholic dogma.  Even though Gregory Palamas's interpretation of this distinction enjoys only limited support in the Church Fathers, even though it has never been dogmatically defined by ecumenical council, even though Orthodox bishops and theologians have not consistently asserted it as dogma during the past six hundred years, even though the Oriental Orthodox also have serious reservations about the Palamite distinction, even though the Catholic Church, while not affirming the Palamite distinction, clearly proclaims that the baptized are adopted as sons in the incarnate Son, regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and participate in the uncreated life of the Holy Trinity by grace and faith, still the Catholic Church is accused of departing from the catholic faith because it does not assert an ontological distinction in the Godhead between the divine being and energies.  Once again it appears that the Orthodox Church will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete de-Westernization of the Catholic Church.
There's nothing "Byzantine" about Palamite doctrine at all.  It is Orthodox.   We have specially commemorated St. Gregory Palamas liturgically in Lent for hundreds of years; it is not a question of something becoming "increasingly popular."  So you are quite wrong about this.   Eventually we might be able to come to an agreement on this point, but at this time I don't know how.  For now, we are divided on this issue.

Why would the Fathers write in support of St. Gregory Palamas, when the last Father died a couple of hundred years before St. Gregory was born?  The Orthodox believe that St. Gregory unpacked, expanded, and clarified what some Fathers had already said and clarified Orthodox belief on the nature of God, not that he somehow added to Orthodox doctrine.  

I do not raise any of this to be controversial.
Really?  

 In fact, I find myself agreeing with Orthodoxy on many matters and have often been criticized, by friend and foe, for persistently interpreting Catholic doctrine through an Eastern hermeneutical lens.  But fair is fair.  Conformity on all the doctrinal particulars never existed between the Eastern and Western Churches during the first millennium.   Surely it is wrong for either side to insist upon such conformity today for the restoration of unity.    
Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.

Obviously, a kind of doctrinal "drift" occurred at times in the first millennium when the East and West were either unable or unwilling to understand each other, marked by frequent ruptures in communion.  This marked the beginning of our estrangement, without it being on any official level.  This estrangement begins quite early in the first millennium and continues on into the second, becoming more marked and radical as time goes on.  I do not accept your implicit contention that we had unity in the first millennium even though we had doctrinal difference.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Pravoslavbob said:
Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

In Christ,     Alex
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
USA
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc



 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ignatius said:
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Iconodule said:
What about the fact that the Orthodox reject defined Catholic dogma, e.g. Papal infallibility? That makes us, by definition, heretics to the Catholics.
]
Deacon Lance is simply wrong on this matter.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
No we don't accuse them of being heretics but they do not want to be in communion with us so they can't be part of the same Church.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc
1054 AD
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
Pravoslavbob said:
Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?
Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
::)
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
80
Location
USA
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc
1054 AD
You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc



 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Orthodoc said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc
1054 AD
You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.

Orthodoc
Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Pravoslavbob said:
Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?
Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.
Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
deusveritasest said:
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
::)
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
deusveritasest said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?
1054 AD
You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.
Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?
1054 AD
You mean when the Patriarch of Rome severed itself from the other four Orthodox Catholic Patriarchs?  Ever hear of Cardinal Humbet?  But we've been over this so many times before.
Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
So what was Pope Paul VI doing in 1964 when he made such a hoopla of cancelling the excommunications and anathemas imposed by Humbert in the name of the Pope.   Was Pope Paul simply offering the world a bit of a charade?   Or did he genuinely not know that the excommunications and anathemas were meaningless to begin with?
He canceled an invalid excommunication. Maybe he did it because it was invalid in the first place. LOL.
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.
 

Alveus Lacuna

Taxiarches
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,416
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Missouri, USA
Papist said:
Ok, I have expressed the Catholic Church's view. Now its turning into one of those threads: "Those stupid mininfromed Catholics. If only they were educated they would be Eastern Orthodox". I have no use for such a thread. You guys enjoy all the intellectual self stimulation.  I am out.
Why didn't this pan out?
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
This is my perspective, I hope you find it coherent.
The Catholic Church considers herself One. Grace is given through the Church alone. Yet, the Orthodox Church is in a condition of Schism since 1054 AD, and schism is a sin. Anyway - and this makes the difference - the Orthodox Church has preserved a correct understanding of the sacraments, of God, of ethics, and of apostolic succession, so that an Orthodox is only lacking communion with st. Peter's see in Rome. How does that change anything from the point of view of grace? I would say nothing. So, what's the problem for reunion?
We have a valid example in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who amount to some 2% of the Catholic Church (some 20 million people!). They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope, which implies that they just recognize that Latin theology is nothing but a different way to witness the same Catholic Faith, so neither the Westeners under the Pope nor the Easteners in the sui iuris Churches have any deficiency of faith. This makes a lot of difference. Latin Catholics don't have any problems with the EO perspective on doctrine and liturgy. The problem is that the EO refute to recognize how Latin Catholicism is as orthodox as Eastern Orthodoxy and that this orthodoxy was maintained through the ministry of Papacy.
To give some examples, the ECs aren't obliged to proclaim Filioque in the Greek Creed, but they recognize that its use in the Latin Creed is orthodox, having Greek word ekpouretai and Latin word procedere two slightly different meanings (the latter is more similar to the words st. Cyril of Alexandria who said the Holy Spirit proceeds=proienai from the Father and the Son). With purgatory it's the same... Latin Catholics have a Scholastic, technical approach to it as a prison of punishment (or better, chastisement) in the afterlife, while Eastern Catholics understand it as the completion of a theosis process, but both recognize a period of purification for those destined to Paradise but not yet ready for that.
All this might explain why Roman Catholics can still consider themselves "the" Church, acknowledge the validity and orthodoxy of the Orthodox faith, and yet claim that you are lacking something for perfection and belonging to the Catholic Church.
I really hope this might give further insight, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please.

In Christ,     Alex
I like your points.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
Could that be because the West has changed more and more?
I don't think so. There used to be EO theologians who had great respect for Thomas Aquinas and even considered him a darn good theologian, with the exception of the Filioque of course. Now, if you listen to modern EOs you would think Thomas Aquinas ate babies for breakfast and gave candy to small children just so that he could take it away from them.
I couldn't maintain any respect for him when I learnt that he recommended murdering all non-Catholics.  I felt that even allowing for his more harsh days that was just so much a fundamental distortion of the Gospel of Christ that I could not see such a man as a follower of Christ.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
Papist said:
Pravoslavbob said:
Not from the Orthodox point of view.  For us, there are some things that are just plain wrong.  The whole Scholastic way of thinking about God, for example.  Sorry, but that is the way it is.  You are not obliged to like it.  And yes, I do believe that it is quite possible to be "Western" without incorporating a scholastic way of looking at God and the universe into one's consciousness.
What is wrong with the Thomist view of God?
Aquinas said that the beatific vision involves perceiving the Essence of God.
Well, aprehending the essence of God. First, this does not mean comprehending it. Second, so what? The bible says that "we shall see him as he is".
I believe that Aquinas explained that our senses will be transformed by "the light of glory" and that through our transformed senses we will perceive the Essence of God. Seeing as how the Essence of God is infinite and we are finite, I cannot see how this is anything less than blasphemy.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
::)
Funny but I actually agree with emoticon here. LOL
Well it's probably clear to the both of us that lack of ecclesiastical union with the Bishop of Rome is not the only deficit of the EO tradition from the legitimate Roman POV.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Papist said:
deusveritasest said:
AlexanderOfBergamo said:
They are identical to the Orthodox Church, and the only difference is that they are in communion with the Pope,
The dogmatic traditions are totally different.
To some degree. I actually think that the EC Churches have a great deal in common with the EO Church of centuries past. However, I think that they have become more and more different as time goes on. From my perspective its the EO Church that has changed as it has adopted a more and more anti-latin/anti-western attitude.
So be it. I'm sure you expect that I don't agree. But at least you recognize the divergence in dogmatic traditions and come up with a reasonable explanation as to why that exists.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
I have two observations that I have made in the past that might have something to do with this thread.

As far as ecclesiology goes. If Rome acknowledges a valid priesthood and sacraments in the Orthodox Church, wouldn't that imply that both partake of the same Body and Blood of the same Jesus Christ, from a RC point of view? And if this is the case, then wouldn't the problem be that both receive the same sacrament but refuse to share with each other what they already have in common, from a RC point of view? Is this why par. 1399 of the CCC says:

A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
As far as the filioque, shouldn't the Creed be understood in terms of the original intentions of the greek word "ekporeusis"? While the literal meaning of the latin "procedit" may be used to apply to being of the same essence as the Father and the Son, you would have to change your understanding of the original intentions and context of the Creed for it to make sense in the Creed.

Just a couple of thoughts.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Papist said:
ignatius said:
Deacon Lance said:
Papist said:
GregoryLA said:
I apologize because I'm sure this thread has been made already, but I couldn't find it.

I have some questions about official Vatican teaching concerning the Orthodox Church.

1) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to be a part of the "Church"?  I've heard about the "two lung theory" but I don't know if this is official Catholic teaching, and even if it is, I don't know if that means that the Orthodox Church is, as it is now, a part of the Church.

2) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to contain all that is necessary for the salvation of her flock?  I've heard things to this effect, but I'm not sure if they were official.  I wonder especially since the Orthodox Church seems at least to be sympathetic to the use of contraceptives, for example, while the Vatican considers this a grave sin. 

3) Does the Vatican consider the Orthodox Church to have a valid Eucharist?

Lastly, and I don't mean to be crude, but if all these questions are answered in the affirmative, what reason would an Orthodox Christian have to even consider converting to Catholicism?
1. No. The Orthodox are considered to be still out of communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise we would be able to celebrate mass together but we can't.
2. Depends on what you mean. Does the Catholic Church believe that you have the fullness of the faith? No. We believe that in some respects the EO Church is deficient (I don't mean this to be insulting but its just where we stand). In fact Pope Benedict has stated that the EO's lack of communion with the Holy See is a defect. Yes, we do consider the use of contraception to be a grave sin from an objective view point. However, we do see the EO having valid sacraments and a real priesthood so a person who does not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church through no fault of their own can find great grace in the EO sacraments and possibly attain salvation. That being said, we see the Catholic Church as the true Church and the surest way to Salvation. All other ways are simply not certain.
3. Absolutely. When I attend an Orthodox Liturgy I worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament just as much as I would in a Catholic Mass.
Papist is incorrect.  The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Churches to be a true particular Churches which are sister Churches to the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches, which means they are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, although imperfectly because they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is their only defect from the Catholic point of view.
I stand vindicated!!!!  8)
Deacon Lance, yes the Orthodox Church are true particular Churches in that they valid sacraments and a valid priesthood. However, because they are out of communion with the Catholic Church they are not part of the Catholic Church. In fact they even deny that they are part of the same church as us. They cannot be part of a church that do not wish to be in communion with. Deacon, I am afraid that you have imbibed false ecumenism.
From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Orthodoc said:
Deacon Lance said:
Since the Orthodox Churces seperated from us before that dogma was proclaimed they are not deemed heretics for rejecting it.  Although of course you will find some hardline traditionalists who will insist that they are but this is not Rome's position.
Fr Deacon:  Since you are one of those who claim that your church (you identify as the Byzantine Catholic Church) is a sui juris church and somewhat autocephalous from Rome, whom are you speaking of when you say US?  Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church you claim to be only 'in communion with' or are you speaking of your own so called sui juris church?  Either way, mind explaining to us once again just when and how this happened.  Just when and how did we give up our right to proclaim our Catholicity?

Orthodoc
When speaking of US I am refering to the Communion of Churches known as the Catholic Church, made up of the Latin Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. 

As to your Catholicity, the Orthodox Church has never given up its right to proclaim it.  In fact, I was defending your Catholicity in the post preceding.
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
Deacon Lance said:
From Dominus Iesus:
"17.  Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.  Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."

There is One Lord Jesus Christ.  There is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.  If a Church is a true particular Church, with valid Orders and Eucharist, it is so because it is part of the One Church, even if imperfectly.  This has nothing to do with ecumenism but with ecclesiological reality.  If you aren't part of the One Church, you can't have a particular Church or a valid Eucharist.
Again, I have been Vindicated!!!!  8)

Don't mess with the Deacon!
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Roanoke, VA
Papist said:
Nope. Cardinal Humbert did not have the authority to excommunicate the Partriach of Constantinople because the Pope that he represented was already dead. The separation occured when the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope. At that point we became two separate Churches. From your view we were separated from the Church. From Rome's view your Chruch was separated from the Church.
Yes, but was it not Cardinal Frederic that became pope of Rome some years later and could have reversed the "illegal" decision? Sounds like Rome was stuck in its own world.  :-[

In Christ,
Andrew
 

MarkosC

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast US
GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
MarkosC said:
GregoryLA,

To respond to your original post.....

For the first questions, as you can see you can approach this problem many ways and get different results - some good stuff, some chaff many sides.  However, I'd say Father Deacon Lance (surprise surprise) is correct.  

As to the question of "why would someone convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism?", I've know people who've gone this way.  

First question is, what do you mean by converting?  There is no confession of faith or anything like that - an Orthodox simply attends his local Catholic parish and stops going to his local Orthodox parish.  He might say that he converted, but that's a matter of his intellectual/spiritual life and not something done by the local presbyter or bishop.  There's no conversion party, and I'd imagine that if one kept it to oneself no one else would really know.    

For the people I know, reasons for "converting" really differs case by case.  Some people convert because they really believe that, based on their reading of the Bible, Peter's keys lay with the Pope.  Some people convert because of other theological/doctrinal issues (I know one person for whom the birth control issue was a big deal, even though I personally don't believe birth control should be the deciding factor in such a decision).  Some people convert because they think the two communions are the same and because a particular Catholic church is closer, is more lively, is more welcoming, or is of the right ethnicity.   I know of (only a few) cases where Orthodox go to a Catholic church because it's more spiritually serious - e.g. the local Orthodox church will have one Presanctified Liturgy in the whole of Great Lent, whereas the local Catholic church will have several in one week.  

I know some people who were born Orthodox, are well aware of the difference between the churches, but who still claim to remain Orthodox (if you ask them), even though they go to a Catholic parish every Sunday.  I also know of one Orthodox who receives Catholic Eucharist at Daily Masses and then goes to Orthodox Divine Liturgy every Sunday, and I also believe his spiritual father knows this.  In these cases - as long as they know that most Orthodox jurisdictions won't look favorably on their actions - AFAIC that's their business with their own jurisdictions and spiritual fathers.  
Unfortunately, it seems in America, the average Orthodox appear to take it's faith far more seriously than the average Catholic Parish... very little spirituality.
 

MarkosC

Sr. Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast US
ignatius,

Beyond the very few cases which I was referring to in my post, I agree with you 100%.  :(
 
Top