Dear Andrew:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992 pursuant to Vatican II, is, in book form, around 500 pages!

It is, therefore, rather unfair to expect non-Catholics (even Catholics like myself) to have read the Catechism in its entirety!

In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a Compendium of the Catechism, i.e., a shorter version thereof, considered as a synthesis of the voluminous CCC.

Picking a subject from the table of contents might assist those engaged in these discussions to focus on an area of interest one at a time.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU%20PROPRIO

Amado

1623 and 1626 sound okay, I don't know enough about the subject to say. I was married in a civil ceremony and only had the the marriage blessed by the church many years later. I always considered myself married. I do think people can get divorced and married again by the church. I know several people who have done this. Maybe those are differences.

Another topic may be indulgences, Chapter 2, Article 4 Sacrament(Mystery of Penance and Reconciliation), section X.

I agree that the Catechism is a huge document and this thread may be open for quite some time. But in the long run I hope that it will bring us to a closer and more knowledgeable relationship.

Understand, that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches modifies portions of the Catechism, as does Particular Church Law.

The on-line BC Particular Church Law has been posted previously; unfortunately the CCEC is not online in English. At least I can't find it.

Fr. Deacon Paul

aikiMac,

I'll discuss this more later. I don't have the time now. Two quick things:

1. again, the CCC is an expression of Catholicism which is VERY recent - 1980s. Most of the problems between Catholics and Orthodox date to well before the true rupture - 1204. To my knowledge, no Orthodox has sat down since the CCC's publications to put forward a paragraph by paragraph refutation - and I frankly don't see why such a thing would be necessary.

That said, one book I thought of that might be useful to you is "The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church" by Fr. John Meyendorff. It's one of a collection-of-academic-articles-books, and nowhere does it discuss problems in detail, but it essentially touches on the main issues in several areas. I also believe Archimandrite Vasilios Gondikakis' "Hymn of Entry" is required reading for the really serious Greek Catholic - but it is a VERY difficult book, and one needs a sound grounding in patristic or Byzantine theology or else I personally believe it will just go over one's head.

2. To my mind, the #1 "problem" is the Roman formulation of Primacy, be it in the way Innocent III expressed it or in the way Benedict XVI expresses it (ref: "Called to Communion"). The basic idea is that such a conception of primary is an artificial abrogation of a function that belongs to the Church as a whole - and leads to the idea that everything flows from Rome and which covers Rome's own "errors". As St. Gregory Palamas put it (quoting again Meyendorff's study):

Can't relate to any of that.

What is the specific straying that Meyendorff has Palamas referring to and which, in that view, has "only the Latin Church" as "not yet returned to Orthodoxy"?

Слава Ісусу Христу!

“…problems between Catholics and Orthodox date to well before the true rupture - 1204.” QUOTE MarkosC #303088

Don’t make a milestone out of the plunder of Constantinople without taking credit to its precursor in the 1203 rape of Kyiv. “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones”.

I have to catch a plane and my contribution to this discussion is ended for the next month.

Two quick things:

1. ajk: this was in a short 1-2 page section in Meyendorff's book, discussing St. Gregory's discussion of ecclesiology. I don't believe the primary sources have been translated into English.

2. Mykhayl, I am unaware of what happened to Kyiv in 1203. Second, I am not Orthodox, I am merely putting forward what my understanding of the Orthodox position is.

And, at least according to (again) Meyendorff's history, 1204 is NOT really a milestone in the ecclesial sphere (vice political and popular imagination spheres) because of the taking of Constantinople, BUT because of Pope Innocent III's statement that he had the authority to replace the Roman Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople because of Papal Primacy, etc. This was the first direct experience by the Romans of the Gregorian reforms of the past few centuries, and this was really the key to the rift.

He discusses two anecdotes to support it: in the century before 1200 there were a few attempts to coordinate Papal and Roman policy, which had no undertones that there was any schism. In contrast, after 1204, not only was the appointment an issue, but also talk of reunion appeared. There was even, in the 1200s a proposal of recognizing the Pope's temporal power as a temporary solution to the Nicea-Epirus-Latin Kingdom problem before communion was restored. (i.e. the Pope would be commemorated at the point where the Emperor was commemorated, but not where the Orthodox Patriarchs were commemorated).

Gotta go,

Markos

One last thing,Mykhayl. I am a history buff, I would like to be educated as to what happened in 1203. I'll catch it when I return.

Markos

AMADO:

I have a read-it-in-a-year outline if you'd like it.

BOB

Yes -- the question is what SPECIFICALLY is the Orthodox objecting to. Vague statements don't help anything!

Huh? That's not a valid citation! Look again at the table of contents and try paragraph numbers next time. I think maybe you mean paragraphs 1471-1473. What is the objection to those paragraphs?

I don't think the citation was mine. I also didn't lodge an objection, I just said those weren't things I personally could relate to.

But there are seven Chapter Two's in the table of contents, and I asked for specific points of error, not things that you merely can't relate to.