Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)

Is the EO Churches closer to the RC Church or OO Churches?

  • Roman Catholic Church

    Votes: 2 4.2%
  • Oriental Orthodox Churches

    Votes: 46 95.8%

  • Total voters
    48

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Father H said:
Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that.  Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy.  Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again).  In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians.  In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC.  Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc.  However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go.  Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away. 
Thank you Father, a sound and concise analysis :)



stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
sheenj said:
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".
Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
Severian said:
I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.
Hehehe. I didn't see that one coming.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Peter J said:
sheenj said:
Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".
Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.
How concrete is this, though? Do Eastern Catholics recognize as many ecumenical councils as their Latin coreligionists? I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,982
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Azul said:
Shanghaiski said:
The EO and the OO have more dogma and councils and praxis in common with each other than either do with the RC. Also the EO and the OO share a common spirituality.
more councils?
It was a combo of councils AND dogma. While we share more of the 7 councils w/RCs, we share more actual dogmatic belief w/OOs because they, unlike RCs, have not added new dogma and ignored old dogma.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
OrthoNoob said:
IIRC the Melkite Patriarchate is in a pretty open state of rebellion against Rome's understanding of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are. In theory, though, I think they're supposed to recognize all those councils.
I wouldn't go that far. I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
We have more practice in common with OO, more history and common tradition with RC. We have fewer differences in belief with OO, but the main dividing issue is Christological (which I don't see a difference between us, even though it continues to be a dividing issue). We have more differences in faith with RC, but they are not Christological. EO and OO are traditionally geographically and culturally closer to each other, where RC is traditionally geographically and culturally different giving opportunity for differences that may have developed, in some case, more out of expression than substance.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.


Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.


Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)
Yeah, but we do it together.  8)
 

FormerReformer

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,759
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Santa Fe, NM
Website
mcommini2.blogspot.com
Iconodule said:
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.


Sometimes in Orthodox I think we all pretend we hop into a collective time machine from time to time ;)
Yeah, but we do it together.  8)
Just remember- when this Ark hits 88 MPH, you're gonna see some serious....
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
There's something wrong with your gauge, it keeps going back to 451  ;D
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
See my earlier statement:

I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Peter J said:
Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
See my earlier statement:

I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
dzheremi said:
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?
??? How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.
And #1 says that the RC Church is heterodox today.  So I do not know how someone can be #1 and #2 at the same time, today.
 

BayStater123

Jr. Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
Peter J said:
Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
See my earlier statement:

I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.


#2 is like saying, "I live the USA according to the law code of 1898" and thinking that you will get away with publicly smoking pot.
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
BayStater123 said:
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.
 

BayStater123

Jr. Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
0
choy said:
BayStater123 said:
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.

"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
 

BayStater123

Jr. Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Points
0
BayStater123 said:
choy said:
BayStater123 said:
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.

"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
Title 3, Canons 42 to 54 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches describe the Holy Father's role and authority in relation to the Eastern churches in communion with him
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
BayStater123 said:
choy said:
BayStater123 said:
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.

"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
Hello Constantinople! ;)
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
BayStater123 said:
choy said:
BayStater123 said:
#2 is heretical. An Eastern Catholic must accept the Holy Father as the chief governing bishop. He is not simply "the first among the bishops".
Most ECs would contend what "chief governing bishop" means.

"Chief governing bishop" as in the one who has the final say over the ECs' patriarchs and other bishops. Canon law authorizes the Holy Father to exercise supreme authority over the Eastern churches at any time.
And that is a shame.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
Peter J said:
dzheremi said:
What is the point of that distinction then, Peter J? If you have to agree with the dogmas of a council you don't accept as ecumenical, what's the point of stopping at 7?
Hmmm ... so now, are there no council(s) that you agree with but that you don't regard as ecumenical councils?
??? How does your question answer my question?

Of course there are councils that I agree with that aren't counted as ecumenical in my church (I don't think any Copt would have trouble with the Second Council of Nicaea defending icons against the iconoclasts, for instance), but that is beside the point since we are not compelled to accept the decisions of any council that is not regarded as ecumenical in our communion. It seemed from your response that the ECs must accept the decisions of councils that they do not regard as ecumenical. So it's the opposite situation from what we have, so I was wondering what the point is then of saying "we only accept X councils" if you still have to accept the decisions of council X+1, X+2, X+3, etc.
An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Iconodule said:
Peter J said:
Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
See my earlier statement:

I way I see it, Eastern Catholics (well, Catholics in general) are required to agree with the dogmas of the councils, but are not required to regard them as ecumenical councils.
That's not to say that, if an [Eastern] Catholic disagrees with one of those teachings, bam he's excommunicated. But still, those dogmas are in some sense normative.
I am thinking in particular of the Zoghby declaration:

1. I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
2. I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Well yeah, there is that.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
Iconodule said:
The Melkites justify their bizarre position by pretending that they are in communion with 8th century Rome. It's like the union with Rome gave them the power of time travel so they can just pretend that filioque, papal supremacy, etc. never happened.
Exactly so.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.
Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
Peter J said:
An EC who says "we only accept 7 councils" is being a tad ambiguous. It would more precise for him/her to say "Only 7 council have been Ecumenical Councils." But I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is.
Alright...I'm just trying to understand, but I guess if you don't want to talk about it, okay. It's confusing and makes no sense at all, but okay.
I thought I was talking about it ... well, unless you mean literally talking, as distinct from writing.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is", which was my question, so... ???
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
You wrote "I'm not going to try to say what the point of that is",
Yes, I only say that it (that there are 7 ecumenical councils I mean) is true. Perhaps someone else will say what the point of that statement is, but I'm not going to try to.

dzheremi said:
which was my question, so... ???
So ... ?
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So there is virtually no connection between the councils and the beliefs of the Eastern Catholics, since they are required to hold to all the dogmas declared by their Roman masters at later councils that Eastern Catholics themselves don't even recognize.

Pretty lame, Milhouse.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
celticfan1888 said:
choy said:
Still can't believe EOs would lump us ECs with the RCs
Aren't you people in communion?
Perhaps the question we should ask is, Is the meaning of "Roman Catholics" up for discussion?
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OrthoNoob said:
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?
Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
OK, here's what I don't get: "Roman Catholic Church" every time I have ever heard the phrase used by someone else (and, IIRC, also in the documents of Vatican I) is the designation for the Pope of Rome and those in communion with him. But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?

The problem is that while we understand they believe their Church to be the Catholic Church, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well as the Nestorians make that claim as well. To use the title "Catholic Church" to refer to those in communion with Rome is essentially to concede that the Roman Pope heads the One True Church.

Now, in everyday speech we may not need to bother about this. But technically speaking, the Eastern Orthodox Church also claims to be the Catholic Church. Saying "Roman Catholic" for the Pope's Church simply provides an unambiguous way to refer to that Church without taking sides on the issue of Her catholicity.

Peter J (and anyone else who may object to this use of "Roman,") what name would you suggest those of us who consider other Churches to be the Catholic Church use for your Church? Fabio is fond of "katapapic." Is that better?
Calling Eastern Catholics as Roman Catholics is like calling Russian Orthodox as Greek Orthodox.  Sure, we're in communion with the Pope of Rome, you're in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  Does that make one automatically Greek Orthodox?

Eastern Catholics are Churches in communion with Rome, not merely Rites of the Roman Church. So it is wrong to plainly call us Roman Catholics.
Non-Greek Orthodox Churches are often called Greek if it is necessary to distinguish them from parallel non-Chalcedonian Churches. For instance, the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch."
 
Top