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

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OrthoNoob said:
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."
I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
Your ecclesiology is Rome-centered, however. The same can not be said for any EO churches, as no single church within the communion rules over the others.
Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.
How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dzheremi said:
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).
My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't understand the idea that it is fine because the Romans' understanding requires it. If that Roman understanding is wrong (and as far as understand EO teaching on sin, it is), then it would follow that it is not fine, even if it makes sense given (wrong) RCC prepositions.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
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."
I'm pretty sure the Russians would never allow themselves to be called Greek Orthodox
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
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?
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.


choy said:
dzheremi said:
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them. Why? Because your Rome-centered ecclesiology does not allow for the possibility that Rome is wrong on dogmatically-defined matters (or "matters of faith in morals", to the extent that this might include more than just what has been dogmatically defined; nobody seems to be able to agree what's infallible or not, so it's kind of a useless category).
My own "biases" aside, the EC position is that such a definition is not heretical and suits the Western or Latin theology.  It doesn't fit our (EC) theology thus it is not part of our beliefs and traditions, but we understand what the Latins are trying to say and agree that it is not heretical.

Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
choy said:
dzheremi said:
It absolutely does matter, as you are bound by the dogmatic proclamations of your Pope over and above your own theology (hence the very really tension between the ECCs and the RCC, which I know you are well aware of and deal with in your own life), in conformity with this ecclesiology that sees the Roman Pope as the infallible head of the whole church and all that stuff.
How are we subject to it?  We do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception as a feast day.  We still stick to the December 9th "Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne".  The conflict arises from self proclaimed experts on the internet who insist that we need to accept IC.  We don't reject IC, but I don't know if you can say we accept it if it is not even on our Liturgical Calendar.
choy,
I hope you realize how weak this reads.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
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.
Your experience must be very limited then. I recall many times when Orthodox have insisted on "Roman Catholic" and "Latin Catholic" being interchangeable. (I can give examples if you'd like.)

OrthoNoob said:
But some of these "Roman Catholics" (in the sense defined above) insist that "Roman Catholic" only refers to the Latin Rite. Why?
I can't say "why" universally, but regarding my own close acquaintances I would say that they are actually trying (albeit going about it in a questionable way) to make the point that it's wrong to use "Roman Catholics" to mean everyone in communion with Rome.

OrthoNoob said:
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?
That's a good question. The usual answer is that you should call us "Catholics", but I can understand your objections to that. So perhaps it would be best you and like-minded persons to say "Latin and Eastern Catholics" or something of that sort.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Cyrillic said:
choy said:
Besides, is it against Orthodoxy to believe that the Theotokos was filled with God's grace from the moment of her conception?  The only argument is about the exemption from Original Sin.  Again, my own opinions aside on that matter, but since the Latin theology does profess Original Sin as their understanding of the Fall, then it is necessary to define it and manifest as the Immaculate Concepcion.
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
Choy, I too am puzzled by your saying it's "necessary to define it". :puzzlement:
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.
I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
choy said:
Does it matter?  We are still particular Churches regardless of our ecclesiology.  The Pope is not our Patriarch.
Pope is superior to your major archbishop.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OrthoNoob said:
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał Kalina said:
Pope is superior to your major archbishop.
Sure.  But we are still a separate Church.  Its kind of like the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada.  Canadians aren't British just because Queen Elizabeth is our monarch.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
They have to explain how Original Sin was removed without Baptism.
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?
 

dzheremi

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
4,417
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peter J said:
dzheremi said:
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.
I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.
I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me. As Αριστοκλής pointed out, Choy's defense of the ECs relation to Rome, which I take it is fairly mainstream as far as EC defenses go (i.e., he's certainly not the first one I've heard that from), reads rather weak. At least the Latins believe in their wrong dogma, rather than paying lip-service to it as appropriate for them but not actually correct.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?
Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Because the protestants wont accept the testimony of scripture? If that's not going to convince them documents from the Pope sure won't do the trick either.
Do you think the First Ecumenical Council was for the Arians?
Τhe arians were inside the Church, the protestants were outside.
Protestants are Christians, which confuse people within the Church.  Even today you'd see Catholics, and I bet even some Orthodox, buy into some Protestant teachings.  Its better for the Church to clearly state what she teaches over the heresy coming from outside.  Even though I personally don't totally agree with IC, I fully understand the reason why the Church had to dogmatize it.  I know the Orthodox said it wasn't necessary to dogmatize it, but they weren't hit as hard with the Protestant Reformation as the West was.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Cyrillic said:
choy said:
Cyrillic said:
Well, up to 1854 they didn't see the need to dogmatize it. What do you mean with "necessary"?
My guess is that it is counter-Reformation.  To affirm that Mary was full of grace from conception then they have to explain how she doesn't have Original Sin.
I don't see why an explanation would be necessary. "Full of grace" is in the scriptures.
Actually the translation "full of grace" can't be found in all bibles -- not even all Catholics bibles, iirc.

P.S. I mean it can't be found in Luke 1 in all bibles. Not talking about the passage that says that Christ is full of grace.

There are other posts I want to respond to, but I won't have time till this evening.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
 

choy

Archon
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
0
Points
0
OrthoNoob said:
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
No, we're just "The Catholic Church".
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
No, we're just "The Catholic Church".
Yes, and we are just "The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church," according to St. Raphael of Brooklyn. But we recognize that others claim this title and so we accept the fact that in certain contexts an adjective will be used to distinguish us from them, and we don't demand that everyone refer to us by a title whose use amounts to the admission that we are the one true Church.
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
choy said:
OrthoNoob said:
And I'm pretty sure there isn't a non-Chalcedonian or Byzantine Catholic Patriarch of Moscow.
There is a Russian Catholic Church. I'm pretty sure if they have a hierarchy the head will be a Patriarch.  Right now they have a very curious existence.
If and when they get a Patriarch, I wouldn't be surprised to find the Orthodox patriarch differentiated from him in some way. "Greek" would be an odd term to use in this context, but perhaps he might be called the "Eastern Orthodox" Patriarch of Moscow. And after all, calling the Orthodox Church "Eastern" is really as much of a concession as calling your church "Roman."
No, we're just "The Catholic Church".
:-\

I see...
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
Cyrillic said:
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
Severian said:
Cyrillic said:
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oreintal Orthodox don't you?
Yes, I do. AFAIK the Orientals are orthodox.
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Severian said:
Cyrillic said:
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
OrthoNoob said:
Severian said:
Cyrillic said:
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. ;)
 

OrthoNoob

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Severian said:
OrthoNoob said:
Severian said:
Cyrillic said:
OrthoNoob said:
Cyrillic said:
Why not use "Church of Rome" or "Roman Church" instead? All problems solved, no-one ('cept some of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" folks) gets offended and everyone knows what you're talking about.
How would they help? Isn't their objection to "Roman Catholic" that they're not Roman? How is dropping the part they agree with and leaving only the part they object to supposed to mollify them?
I think you misread my post.

Plus, I commented on "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."
But you do refer to the non-Chalcedonians as the Oriental Orthodox don't you?
Occasionally. But never do I refer to them as "Orthodox" without qualification. I reserve that title for the Church to which I belong.
I was addressing Cyrillic. But thanks for chipping in, anyway. ;)
Heh. Lost track with all the quotes. Carry on...
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
dzheremi said:
Peter J said:
dzheremi said:
I hear ya, but that's just the thing that got to me when I visited with the Ruthenians shortly before abandoning Rome entirely: If you can't teach against it because it is wrong, then you are beholden to it whether you actually affirm it or not. It allows the Latins to believe in things that are not just different but wrong according to your Orthodox-rooted theology, yet you do not have the option to call them on it and reform them.
I think you have a good point there; but ultimately, that just goes to show that those of us who are "Orthodox in communion with Rome" are something of an anomaly -- Catholic with a plus, if you will.
I really don't mean to offend, but it seems the exact opposite to me.
What, Catholic with a minus?
 
Top