• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church

Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Irish Hermit said:
WetCatechumen said:
So, you're admitting that my church is the one called Catholic by most everyone, even though she's not Catholic.
What is interesting is that if you asked the man in the street for the Catholic Church he would point you to a Roman Catholic church.

But if you asked him for the Christian Church, then a Catholic church would be the last thing that would pop into his mind.

Why is it then that Catholics are not seen as Christian?


The thing with the modern term "Catholic" is that it is not seen in its ancient meaning  of "the true Church which holds the true Christian faith." 

It is now seen by your average Joe Blogs as the Church which worships the Virgin Mary, the Church which has horrible rules about contraception and horrible rules about getting remarried,  It is seen as a Church with a major problem with sexual abuse among its ministers.  These are the things which are in the mind of Joe Blogs when you ask him how to find the nearest Catholic Church.
As for your first point, that is totally fair. I would guess that most Protestants I know, when asked where the nearest Christian Church is, would point to the nearest trinitarian non-Catholic/non-Orthodox church. I personally would point to the nearest church and specify denomination. If the nearest church were Orthodox, I would say it was "[Jurisidiction] Orthodox", if it were Catholic, I'd specify that. If it were Kingdom Hall, I'd say they were Jehovah's Witnesses (I'm not saying that I believe that they are Christians, just that they claim to be). However, you're right, there are many Catholics in the United States who perceive "Christian" as meaning "American Evangelical Protestant Christian".

As for the problems within our church, you are correct about the problems. I humbly ask for your prayers, Father. It is sad that the meaning of Catholic is associated with an institution, and not with right belief.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Irish Hermit said:
Why is it then that Catholics are not seen as Christian?
It is a similar situation with the Protestant view of Orthodox isn't it?
 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
elijahmaria said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.
You did leave the Catholic Church.

Orthodoc said:
As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
Orthodoc said:
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Orthodoc said:
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.
I use papal Church all the time to distinguish between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.  As an Eastern Catholic, and by using Roman Catholic to distinguish, I simply write my own Church out of the picture.  Now I am sure some would love to see that happen, I am not one of them.

M.
Hmmm. I see the use of the term Papal Catholic as a problem because the center of our faith is Jesus and not the Pope. And yes, I agree with you about the problem with writing out the Byzantines and Orientals. That's why I think it's best to refer to Latins as "Roman Catholics" but the entire Church as simply "Catholic".
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Papist said:
elijahmaria said:
Papist said:
Orthodoc said:
What false accusations?  You mean teaching that Orthodoxy left the Catholic Church or that Russia/Ukraine accepted Christianity from Rome because it happened 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church?  These are just two of the many revisions made by the RCC.
You did leave the Catholic Church.

Orthodoc said:
As far as pushing faithful ROMAN Catholics away from Orthodoxy, I guess the truth always hurts.  It seems the RCC itself is doing a great job of pushing its own people away.  Two of the largest RC High Schools here  in Philly were just closed for lack of student enrollment.  Are we Orthodox Catholics to blame? 
I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything? Are you just throwing stuff in there?
Orthodoc said:
In my parish I'm know as the 'Godfather' because I have sponsored 15 converts to Orthodoxy.  Out of those 15, 10 were former Roman Catholics so what you call my abrasive approach sure isn't pushing former RC's away from Orthodox Catholicity as you state.
First, I said, faithful Catholics. Any faithful Catholic who really knew his faith would not leave the Catholic Church. Second, does your status as the 'Godfather' give you the right to be abrasive? Look, I am glad that you are proud of your faith, but there is no reason for you to be in attack mode on every single post regarding the Catholic Church.
Orthodoc said:
Three blocks from my house is the nearest Roman Catholic Church.  It was built in 1958 and the cornerstone states 'St William's ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'  And the sign states 'St William's.  A ROMAN CATHOLIC COMMUNITY'.  Fr Ambrose is right, for centuries the term Roman Catholic was acceptable.  All of a sudden after Vatican II it became a no no. 

Orthodoc
1. I never said I had a problem with calling my sui juri Church "Roman Catholic".
2. If you look at the link that Shultz provided, it describes the history of the term and how it was considered offensive at one time but was only adopted out of courtesy to those not in the Catholic Church so that communication between the two groups could be simplified.
3. After Vatican II, many Catholics wanted to return to the use of the Church's proper name.
4. Finally, my issue is not really with those who call us "Roman Catholics" even though that is not the proper title of my Church. My problem is with those who refer to my Church as "The Vatican" or the "Papal Church" or those who call Catholics "Romanists" or the like. It's rude and not befitting civil discourse.
I use papal Church all the time to distinguish between papal Catholics and Orthodox Catholics.  As an Eastern Catholic, and by using Roman Catholic to distinguish, I simply write my own Church out of the picture.  Now I am sure some would love to see that happen, I am not one of them.

M.
Hmmm. I see the use of the term Papal Catholic as a problem because the center of our faith is Jesus and not the Pope. And yes, I agree with you about the problem with writing out the Byzantines and Orientals. That's why I think it's best to refer to Latins as "Roman Catholics" but the entire Church as simply "Catholic".
The use of papal Catholic vis a vis Orthodox Catholic does not "write" Jesus out of the equation any more than simply referring to the Catholic Church writes Jesus out of the equation. 

It's not Jesus's Catholic Church, or the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ,
or the Church of Jesus Christ Centered Catholics, or the Church of Catholics For Jesus Christ...

if you get my drift here...

The point is, in context, to be able to distinguish Orthodox Conciliar Catholics from Orthodox Papal Catholics...I don' t care how you load the names. 

M.
 

akimel

High Elder
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
afkimel.wordpress.com
Irish Hermit said:
The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I would like to see documentation that Fortescue rejected uncreated grace.  I deem this unlikely, though of course not impossible.  To reject uncreated grace is to reject multiple doctors of the Church, including Sts. Augustine, Thomas, and Bonaventure.  What is much more likely, confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia article on hesychasm, is that Fortescue rejected the Byzantine essence/energies distinction.  That is a very different kettle of fish.   

Karl Rahner did not invent uncreated grace; but he, and others such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Piet Fransen, did redress an unbalanced emphasis on the created dimension of grace that had developed in post-Tridentine theology.   

Perhaps this passage from Fransen may be helpful:

Created grace is not something standing in between God and us; it is no path to approach God, no ladder to climb up to God, no means to God—at least not primarily…. Created grace does not act as a screen between God and us since it comes into being only because of and within the gesture by which God unites us immediately to himself. He gives Himself without an intervening medium; He comes to dwell in us and take us back to Himself…. Created grace is at once the fruit and the bond of the indwelling, originating in the indwelling and sustained by the indwelling; it raises us into an ever-deepening actualization of the indwelling on earth and in heaven. Latin expresses it more tersely: ex unione, in unione, et ad unionem—arising from our immediate union with God, granted in that union and urging us to that union. (The New Life of Grace [1969], pp 102-103)
Statements such as these are common and uncontroversial in Catholic theology.

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
akimel said:
Irish Hermit said:
The writings of Fr Adrian Fortescue, some of which are scattered through the Catholic Encyclopedia reject the idea of uncreated grace because the West sees it as introducing  distortion into the divine simplicity.  He speaks of this briefly in his article on hesychasm in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I would like to see documentation that Fortescue rejected uncreated grace.  I deem this unlikely, though of course not impossible.  To reject uncreated grace is to reject multiple doctors of the Church, including Sts. Augustine, Thomas, and Bonaventure.  What is much more likely, confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia article on hesychasm, is that Fortescue rejected the Byzantine essence/energies distinction.  That is a very different kettle of fish.   

Karl Rahner did not invent uncreated grace; but he, and others such as Hans Urs von Balthasar and Piet Fransen, did redress an unbalanced emphasis on the created dimension of grace that had developed in post-Tridentine theology.   

Perhaps this passage from Fransen may be helpful:

Created grace is not something standing in between God and us; it is no path to approach God, no ladder to climb up to God, no means to God—at least not primarily…. Created grace does not act as a screen between God and us since it comes into being only because of and within the gesture by which God unites us immediately to himself. He gives Himself without an intervening medium; He comes to dwell in us and take us back to Himself…. Created grace is at once the fruit and the bond of the indwelling, originating in the indwelling and sustained by the indwelling; it raises us into an ever-deepening actualization of the indwelling on earth and in heaven. Latin expresses it more tersely: ex unione, in unione, et ad unionem—arising from our immediate union with God, granted in that union and urging us to that union. (The New Life of Grace [1969], pp 102-103)
Statements such as these are common and uncontroversial in Catholic theology.
Not even the smallest mention of uncreated grace in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Is the teaching only for initiates?

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
 

GregoryLA

Elder
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
377
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Kumamoto, Japan
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
danman916 said:
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.
I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.
1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.
I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
GregoryLA said:
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
danman916 said:
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.
I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.
1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.
I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Roanoke, VA
elijahmaria said:
GregoryLA said:
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
danman916 said:
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.
I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.
1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.
I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.
This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Shlomlokh said:
This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???
Yes. This has puzzled me also since today, no one actually takes this literally, with the possible exception of the sedevacantists at MHFM (the Dimond brothers at most holy family monastery, who say that Pope Benedict is not the Pope). Anyway, I would put this type of a statement in a folder with those where an O. Orthodox bishop was quoted as saying that all Catholics are going to hell, without exception (as was posted on this forum). As well, we read many posts which claim that the Catholic Sacraments are invalid from the Orthodox point of view and in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
...in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.
Stan, sorry to pick out only your last statement but can you tell us which Orthodox Church has proclaimed that those not using the Julian Calendar are heretics? 

All of our Churches, whether Gregorian Calendar or Julian, are in full communion with one another and there is full concelebration of all our bishops and priests. 

 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Irish Hermit said:
stanley123 said:
...in fact we also occasionally read that anyone who uses anything other than the original Julian calendar is a heretic.
Stan, sorry to pick out only your last statement but can you tell us which Orthodox Church has proclaimed that those not using the Julian Calendar are heretics? 

All of our Churches, whether Gregorian Calendar or Julian, are in full communion with one another and there is full concelebration of all our bishops and priests. 
OK.
I had a question though about the "non-canonical" Orthodox Churches. Would they be in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Churches?  For example, I thought that there are some Old Calendar Orthodox Churches which do not go along with the ecumenical Patriarch on a few issues.
This would relate for example, to the Catholic side, where there is the schismatic Most Holy Family Monastery group which takes the Unam Sanctam letter literally, while the mainstream Catholics have softened this and I guess, under the teaching of development of doctrine, this is no longer held literally.
Let us see what wikipedia says:
" Many have argued that even the calendar is a matter of dogma since it has historically manifested the unity and catholicity of the Church and that the reformation of the Church Calendar in 1924 was unilaterally adopted and was connected with the beginning of Orthodox participation in the modern ecumenical movement. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar has been anathematized by three Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century. Some Old Calendarists maintain that they have "walled themselves off" from larger Orthodox jurisdictions to protect Orthodoxy from heretical innovations in practices and doctrine."
Also according to the article: "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism"
the New Calendar is "a condemnable innovation."
and The heresy of Ecumenism is dervied from "the heretical innovation of the
New Calendar"
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf
According to this article, "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism" then, the New Calendar is a heretical innovation.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Shlomlokh said:
elijahmaria said:
GregoryLA said:
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
danman916 said:
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.
I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.
1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.
I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.
This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew
Unam Sanctam would not negate the principle of invincible ignorance simply because it asserts other ecclesiastical principles in the positive.

Unam Sanctam was the product of a local synod called in response to a local secular challenge to the Church by Philippe the Fair of France.  It was meant to be a strong statement of the two swords...the sword of spiritual warfare and the sword of earthly warfare and the teaching was that just as the soul rules the body, so the Church rules every human creature. 

I think we might be better served if that had remained some part of people's consciousness, rather than the melange of secular ethics and moral theologies that vie for attention today, along with free and easy everything else.

M.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Shlomlokh said:
elijahmaria said:
GregoryLA said:
I have another question that I've been thinking about a lot...

Over on the thread "Will the Heterdox be Saved?" Papist had the following to say...

Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
danman916 said:
YOU DIDN'T HEAR A WORD I SAID.
I did.  You appealed to what seems to be ill-founded opinions of anonymous people on some forums, possibly disturbed people.

I gave you official statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think you must be aware that we can quote Pope after Pope through the centuries who teach the same.  Even, for example, Pope Pius XII.
1. The Catholic Church has consistently taught the concept of invincible ignorance, and so those statements that you have provided need to be interperated in light of invnincible ignornance.
2. The Catholic Church has further clarified the matter by pointing out that other Christians have partial communion with the Catholic Church, this communion being most strongly held by Apostolic Christians such as the EOs, OOs, and ACE.
I quote this here since that there is in the Faith Issues section and I didn't think it would be appropriate to discuss Roman Catholicism in it.

My question is about the idea of "invincible ignorance" as pertains the question of the Roman Catholic view of the Eastern Orthodox.

What exactly is "invincible ignorance" and who's "ignorance" is considered "invincible"?  I've heard it said something like that those "who by no fault of their own do not know of Christ and/or His Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church)" won't be held accountable for not being in communion with the Pope of Rome. 

My question is, what qualifies as "no fault of their own"?  Surely most Orthodox know of the RCC and any who have thought about it and remained Orthodox have rejected its claims, are they not to be faulted for their "schism" (from an RCC perspective) if they've seriously and honestly thought it through?  If not, wouldn't that mean that all the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church and most of its faithful, as well as most of those here on this forum don't have a chance of salvation from an RCC view?

To state things once again more simply... From the RC POV can Orthodox who "know of" the RCC be saved?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm just looking for an honest answer and I appreciate it in advance!
In simplest terms it would go something like this:

Person A knows about the Catholic Church but knows more than just that it exists.  They know the teachings and do not agree for a variety of reasons lodged in their own formations as a person.  Some of these backgrounding issues may be exceedingly difficult to surmount and the person not only rejects the Catholic Church but teaches against it and attacks it wherever and whenever they are able.

Person B knows about the Catholic Church.  Knows the teachings of the Church.  Is in large part convinced intellectually that the teachings are true.  Is in large part prepared emotionally to accept these teachings.  However, there is a circumstance in that person's life where they must choose between a creature's comfort and the truth, and so they choose the creature's comfort and remain away from the Church.

In that scenario invincible ignorance may be attributed to A but not B.

M.
This is largely what I remember from when I was in RCIA. However, how does this square with Boniface's Unam Sanctam? If I recall correctly from my Medieval European history class from this past semester, the bull taught that every creature not subject to the Roman pontiff is anathema. I don't see any room for invincible ignorance there.  ???

In Christ,
ANdrew
By the way, look up Gallican Liberties when you have a chance...The French clergy learned the hard way what it meant to throw their lot with earthly rather than heavenly powers.  It is a fascinating part of the history of Catholicism in the west and explains much of what came later, reformation, enlightenment, revolution...the works!

M.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
Has there ever been definitive proof that the "two lung theory" refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and not Eastern Catholicism. I've heard some say it refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and heard others say the other lung is just Eastern Catholicism, and I've heard still others say it refers to both.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
Has there ever been definitive proof that the "two lung theory" refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and not Eastern Catholicism. I've heard some say it refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and heard others say the other lung is just Eastern Catholicism, and I've heard still others say it refers to both.
According to this article: "The Servant of God John Paul II, wrote regularly of the two Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, as being the “two lungs” of Christianity which must breathe together again in the Third Millennium."
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=28291
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
I had a question though about the "non-canonical" Orthodox Churches. Would they be in full communion with the canonical Orthodox Churches?  For example, I thought that there are some Old Calendar Orthodox Churches which do not go along with the ecumenical Patriarch on a few issues.
No.  The number of these Churches fluctuates a little and increases as they continue to argue and divide.  A rough estimate would be about 20 or a bit higher. 

With very few exceptions they have decreed that the ancient Patriarchates and all the Churches in communion with them (in other words, ALL of Orthodoxy around the world) are without grace.  They teach that we are unbaptized, that what we receive from the holy Chalice is simply soggy bread and wine.  Our priests are not ordained, but simply laymen.

If you search out the messages of Jonathan Gress you will see that he says his Greek Old Calendarist Church holds this position.

Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
stanley123 said:
Let us see what wikipedia says:

" Many have argued that even the calendar is a matter of dogma since it has historically manifested the unity and catholicity of the Church and that the reformation of the Church Calendar in 1924 was unilaterally adopted and was connected with the beginning of Orthodox participation in the modern ecumenical movement. The adoption of the Gregorian calendar has been anathematized by three Pan-Orthodox Councils in the 16th century. Some Old Calendarists maintain that they have "walled themselves off" from larger Orthodox jurisdictions to protect Orthodoxy from heretical innovations in practices and doctrine."

Also according to the article: "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism"
the New Calendar is "a condemnable innovation."
and The heresy of Ecumenism is dervied from "the heretical innovation of the
New Calendar"
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_el/E3a3a009cOrthodoxosEnstasis.pdf
According to this article, "The Orthodox Resistance Against the Ecclesiastical Heresy of Syncretistic Ecumenism" then, the New Calendar is a heretical innovation.
You must remember that you are reading the words of those who have left the Church and gone into one of the numerous schismatic groups.  It would be rather like accepting the words of the Sede Vacantists as representative of Roman Catholicism.

At the Pan-Orthodox Summit at Thessaloniki in May 1998 the Churches took the opportunity to make an official statement on schismatic Old Calendarist and True Orthodox groups

The delegates unanimously denounced those groups of schismatics, as well as certain extremist groups within the local Orthodox Churches themselves, that are using the theme of ecumenism in order to criticize the Church’s leadership and to undermine its authority, thus attempting to create divisions and schisms within the Church. They also use non-factual material and misinformation in order to support their unjust criticism.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thessaloniki_roc.aspx
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Irish Hermit said:
Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
It is similar to some extent.
The question concerned the papal bull unam sanctam and its extreme statement:" Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I believe that the Catholic sedevacantists such as Most Holy Family Monastery adhere to the literal interpretation of this extreme statement, but I don't know anyone else who takes it literally today. That's why I brought up the calendar question, since there are those "uncanonical" Orthodox who say that it is heretical to embrace the New Calendar, and I would put this in the same folder with the literal interpretation of unam sanctam. 
But, that's just my personal opinion on it, and i don;t know what the official RC interpretation of unam sanctam is today and I am not sure how they officially  resolve the apparent contradiction of unam sanctam with the push toward ecumenical reconciliation. When i tried to discuss something like this at CAF, they gave me a warning of  a couple of points saying that I had some "agenda."
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,796
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
Irish Hermit said:
Is this the same line as taken by your Sede Vacantists and other dissident RC Churches?
It is similar to some extent.
The question concerned the papal bull unam sanctam and its extreme statement:" Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I believe that the Catholic sedevacantists such as Most Holy Family Monastery adhere to the literal interpretation of this extreme statement, but I don't know anyone else who takes it literally today. That's why I brought up the calendar question, since there are those "uncanonical" Orthodox who say that it is heretical to embrace the New Calendar, and I would put this in the same folder with the literal interpretation of unam sanctam.   
Since Vatican I, not quite.
But, that's just my personal opinion on it, and i don;t know what the official RC interpretation of unam sanctam is today and I am not sure how they officially  resolve the apparent contradiction of unam sanctam with the push toward ecumenical reconciliation. When i tried to discuss something like this at CAF, they gave me a warning of  a couple of points saying that I had some "agenda."
LOL. Yes, a sensitive bunch.  Quite thick skinned compared to Fish Easters, though.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wyatt said:
Has there ever been definitive proof that the "two lung theory" refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and not Eastern Catholicism. I've heard some say it refers to Eastern Orthodoxy and heard others say the other lung is just Eastern Catholicism, and I've heard still others say it refers to both.
Wyatt,

I'm glad you pointed this out.

No, I do not think that there is proof that its intention in its original usage was to refer to anything beyond Eastern Catholics.

Unfortunately, if that was the case, the doctrine has been perverted by many, the poster right above you as evidence of this.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.



 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
We all remember that Pope Benedict XIV issued a Statement in which he said that the Orthodox Church, although a "true" Church, suffers from defects.  Moscow praised this document for its honesty and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.  So I think that for us the ecumenical dialogue means "speaking the truth in love" so that a process of healing may begin in the Western Churches.

Here are a few words from the recently glorified Saint Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Primate of the Russian Church.  He could almost be seen as holding a "two lung" image of the Church since he see Catholicism as the ailing other half of Christianity.

You expect now that I should give judgement concerning the other half of present Christianity,' the Metropolitan said in the concluding conversation, 'but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death' (ibid., p.135).

These statements of Metropolitan Philaret are a beginning only. Not everything in them is clearly and fully expressed. But the question is truly put. There are many bonds, still not broken, whereby the schisms are held together in a certain unity with the Church. The whole of our attention and our will must be concentrated and directed towards removing the stubbornness of dissension. 'We seek not conquest,' says St Gregory of Nazianzen, 'but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart.'
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
deusveritasest said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
Btw, what's the difference between the Vatican's Two Lung theory and Cantebury's Branch theory?
This is just a guess on my part, but the RCC two lung theory is that the RCC for its full health, needs union with the Eastern lung of the Church (including the EO and OO)  just as the human body needs two lungs for its full health.
The Anglican branch theory holds that the RCC, the EO, and the Anglican communion are the three principal branches of the one, holy catholic, and apostolic church. I suppose it would also include the OO and other apostolic Churches. 
If they recognize the EO, OO, and ACE as "the Eastern lung of the Church", i.e. as part of the Church, then again, how is it substantially different from Branch Theory, aside from the exclusion of Anglicans?
I guess it is similar to some estent, except of course, RCC does not recognise Anglican Sacraments.
It sounds almost exactly the same to me.
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
We all remember that Pope Benedict XIV issued a Statement in which he said that the Orthodox Church, although a "true" Church, suffers from defects.  Moscow praised this document for its honesty and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.  So I think that for us the ecumenical dialogue means "speaking the truth in love" so that a process of healing may begin in the Western Churches.
Thank you, Father.  Because if you read what was said about the woundedness in Orthodoxy, there is also text there that indicates that the west is wounded by being separated from you.

There are no real specifics there beyond being out of communion but it was clear to me when I read the actual text and not just reading what people were saying about the text that it was intended to indicate that we were both wounded.

I believe that has been the clear position of the last four Catholic popes of the 20th and 21st centuries.  It is very clear in the journal writings of Blessed John the Twenty-third, who is more dear to my heart in many ways, than John Paul the Second.  But knowing the writings of Pope Benedict the Sixteenth as I do, I would never hesitate to say that he is deeply aware of what the wounds of schism are upon the Catholic Church.

Mary
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Irish Hermit said:
and how could it do otherwise since we ourselves hold the same view of Roman Catholicism, namely that it is defective.
But we don't recognize it as a "'true' church".
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
Because the Trunk and Root Stock would be the Mother Church and the Branches would be the Baby Churches... :laugh:

Thought that was obvious.

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Wyatt said:
I read over an interesting article today that sheds some light on the Catholic view of Orthodoxy:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html

Aidan Nichols is an extremely nice fellow and he writes out of an old-fashioned Anglican ethos which scarcely exists today.  That means that he looks for convergences and he searches for ways to pour water on troubled water and to maintain unity against all odds.  This is part of the Anglican "genius."

It is probably only in the concluding section that he comes to what will forever separate us - the papacy.  And while he sees a universal primacy as a fundamental need for the Church the Orthodox believe that the institution of the papacy is a major aberration in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church, something which Christ never called into existence. 

Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, are more than a propos:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."

Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
elijahmaria said:
deusveritasest said:
elijahmaria said:
It was not meant to be the same.  In fact it was the first time in a LONG time that a Pope actually acknowledged that Orthodoxy is on equal footing with the Catholic Church...It was meant to present a very different image from the Branch Theory.
"On equal footing with the Catholic Church"; how is that not essentially the same as Branch Theory?
Because the Trunk and Root Stock would be the Mother Church and the Branches would be the Baby Churches... :laugh:

Thought that was obvious.

M.
How is that different? Are you thinking of Branch Theory as meaning that all ("Apostolic") Christian groups are branches of the tree?
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
deusveritasest said:
How is that different? Are you thinking of Branch Theory as meaning that all ("Apostolic") Christian groups are branches of the tree?
I think at least to an extent the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to such a belief, although I don't think it does to the extent that the Anglicans do. The fact that the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of the Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church of the East looks to be a sort of branch theory. Personally, what I specifically like about Catholicism is the fact that it acknowledges that even those who are canonically outside of the visible Church may still be a part of the Church, even if it is to a lesser degree. I think this is why the Catholic Church uses the term "full communion" to differentiate between other levels of communion. Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church, but in our view this does not necessarily mean that all who are outside the canonical boundaries of the visible Church are automatically damned.

I could be wrong, but I thought I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the Catholic Church considers anyone who is baptized using the Trinitarian formula (In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) to be a part of the Catholic Church, albeit not in full communion.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Irish Hermit said:
Before there can be unity between us this institution must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.
How would you destroy the Vatican papacy? I read that some Orthodox would agree to a Western or Roman Patriarch, first among equals, so you would still have the Roman Pope under such a scheme. 
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe Islam Will Do it ,We'll Just Have To Sit Back Wait And Watch......
 

deusveritasest

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
7,521
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wyatt said:
Indeed, there is no salvation outside the Church,
Given that you recognize that there are true Sacraments outside the visible communal confines of the Church, I don't really buy the Roman assertion that you really believe in this principle.
 
Top