www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Protestants who convert to BC vs Orthodox

Alex:

I found your reply to the following three questions asked by Anastasios interesting -

[1) What practical reason is communion with Rome important?2) What practical things do Eastern Catholics have that Orthodox don't?3) How can one insist theologically that communion with Rome is Christ's plan? Are Orthodox claims invalid? Wrong? How does "noncommunion" with Rome = a lack?]

I reread your reply to Anastasios three times looking for something that wasn't there. Your reply is based primarily on earthly standards and status symbols. It all evolves around status, nationalism,and prestige. Not one sentence deals with theology, spirituality, or correct doctrine.

One can only get the impression that being 'in communion with' (therefore, under the authority of) Rome is primarily for earthly materalistic gains and support rather than for any doctrinal or spiritual purity.

If that is true, than earthly rewards far outshine heavenly rewards as far as you and so many in the 'Eastern Rite' so called sui juris churches are concerned.

It is the main difference between those of us who are Orthodox Catholics and those of you who only claim to be. Your 400+ years under Romes authority have separated you from the real essence of Orthodoxy and what it means to be Orthodox. Which, once again, revolves around theology, spirituality, and doctrinal purity.

Religion isn't something based on status, numbers, earthly wealth, earthly allegiances, or where you can get the best deal. You don't play one religious entity aganst another, to try and gain an objective.

Excuse my honesty but in gettng back to the subject of this thread, I have met quite a few people (some in my own parish) who are from both Protestant and Roman Catholic backgrounds who have used the Unia as a half way house in their journey to the OCC. Most of them state the same thing - 'That being within the Unia was like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. It just didn't work because unity with Rome was based on the wrong criteria (that which you have mentioned).'

Your statement that Orthodoxy was in communion with Rome for the first 1000 years leaves out some very convient facts - that 1) Being in communion with Rome did not have the same administrative meaning as it does today. and, 2)the theology of Rome wasn't what it is today.
We who are Orthodox Cathlics can also say the what is now called Roman Catholicism was in communion with Orthodoxy for the same 1000 yeas WHEN WE SHARED THE SAME FAITH AND THEOLOGY!

[The argument over heresy is a neverending one, but there are Orthodox today who hold one may accept the Filioque, the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory et alia as theological opinions and yet remain fully Orthodox, as Meyendorff has illustrated with case examples in his works.]

There are both Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics who do not accept the Filioque, Papal Supremacy & Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. but they are still required beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church and its uis juris pieces. So your example is mute.

OrthoMan


OrthoMan

[ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: OrthoMan ]

Dear Orthoman,

Sorry about that, Big Guy!

My point is really Brendan's here as I tried to state that Orthodoxy, from my Catholic point of view, is still "Church" apart from the issue of communion with Rome.

And I agree that the doctrinal points are mute.

One does not have to believe in the Immaculate Conception to believe in the total holiness of Mary. One does not have to believe in Purgatory to believe in prayer for the dead who need our prayers to get closer to God as the result of their sinfulness in life.

As for nationalism and prestige, well, I'm a humble monarchist!

I think you may have read something in what I said that just isn't there.

I admitted that our Eastern Churches, for various historical reasons, tend to be enclosed within their national/cultural orbit.

Now that isn't nationalism yet, even though many Eastern countries, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox, have nationalist/chauvinist movements and parties.

But our Churches live for their peoples and inculturate themselves within their way of life.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But, for me, the Papacy is something that can LIFT us up out of that, it has in my Church's case, and I'm grateful for that.

So I'm not saying the Papacy makes us MORE nationalistic - it helps keep things in perspective and realize there are OTHER nations and cultures that are equally valid outside our own.

And there's nothing wrong with that either.

Prestige? Who, what and when? How is it prestigious to live in communion with Rome and be looked on with suspicion by your Orthodox brothers?

In any event, I don't think the idea of prestige enters into my own views of the role of the Papacy.

Yes, the papacy isn't perfect and it isn't what it was when ALL Orthodox were in communion with it way back when.

But nothing is really perfect. The way the Moscow Patriarchate conducts business is very similar to that of the Papacy - there are some who complain about it, but not me. I think a great organization like that Patriarchate needs a solid administrative bureaucracy behind it to function smoothly. As does the Roman Patriarchate.

And if you'll ever find anyone, CAtholic or Orthodox, who is completely satisfied with how his local Bishop's office runs - please let the Administrator here know immediately!

I am proud of my East Slavic heritage which, for me, includes Ukrainian, Polish and Roumanian backgrounds.

I have never belonged to a nationalistic organization, nor do I subscribe to the tenets of nationalism. I believe in national cultural pride, but I love learning other cultures. My PhD is, in fact, in the area of the sociology of multiculturalism.

I am a monarchist for very much the same reason why I am with the Pope. I belong to two monarchist organizations and promote their causes, here and elsewhere.

I think you've misread my post, Big Guy, as you've made similar charges against me in the past, especially trying to stick me with a "nationalist" label which I find rather offensive since nationalism is often allied with reprehensible republicanism.

I've defended the veneration of St Nicholas Romanov and his family here and elsewhere as you know.

Tell me of a Ukrainian nationalist you know of who would do the same.

You don't have to resort to what I consider to be personal attacks to get your point across.

As I said, I agree with Brendan on this matter.

Hopefully, I won't get Brendan in trouble . . .

Sorry but I refuse to be neatly fitted into one of your ideological pigeon-holes.

Alex

Dear Orthoman:


Go back to your reception of former RC's. As best as I can tell the Hapggod text, as so delicately worded (probably enough to drive some bonkers), does not require the renunciation RC faith (e.g. it is not a doctrine of the Catholic church that the Pope is "infallible in faith"). As to theology, inasmuch as a recurrent theme on this forum is the putative incompatibility of the Augustinian theology of original sin with Orthodoxy. I have to ask: did we really share the same theology in the first 1000 years? Apparently, there are much higher standards of unity for re-establishing communion than there are and ever were for maintaining communion. Is this higher standard right or is it a reflection of "Romophobia"?

Is this a static meaning or a dynamic one. Being in communion with the EP has hardly been reflective of the idealized Orthodox communion ecclesiology. The historical facts, and even contemporary facts, are utterly ignored by all of the Orthodox posters on this thread. There is so much angst over the exercise of power by Rome and so much sweeping-under-the-rug of analogous actions within Orthodoxy. Shouldn't you be thinking a little about the "other side of the coin" to get a better perspective?

What about Macedonia, what about Estonia?
What about St. Lawerence in the Santa Cruz area shifting to the JP?

You are so keen on the finding the specks in our eyes...

djs

[ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

Since this is the Internet and this board isn't audio/multimedia, you're technically correct.

However, I think the word you're looking for is moot, as in "a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value." (cf. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=moot)

Would I be out of line to ask the moderator to add a "Remedial English 101 Forum" to byzcath.org?

Dear Lemko,

Point well taken.

But I've trouble enough discussing Orthodoxy/Catholicism with Da Ortoman.

And there is nothing "mute" about Bob . . .

Alex

Or, Orthoman really wanted to shout the example was "unspeakable!"?


AmdG

Dear Amado,

That's excellent "Guerrero" warfare, Friend!

Alex

Dear Orthoman,

You rehearse old arguements, such as:

"Your 400+ years under Romes authority have separated you from the real essence of Orthodoxy and what it means to be Orthodox."

And I disagree. In fact, I could affirm the reverse, and say that 400+ years "out of communion" with the Great City and the Pope has taken a terrible toll on the separated Churches. It means you are neither Orthodox nor Catholic, inspite of your proud assertions.

You assert your point, but you do not prove it. (But then neither have I you may rightly say.)

Where does this debate get us?

We both affirm: "You are not the true Church", we both assert: "Your Church is outside Orthodoxy, for it is missing something essential". We both weaken our point, by proclaiming and pronouncing on one another negatively.

The truth is we can both say: "How do you know about my Church, for you have separated yourself, and you are outside?"

It would be so much more helpful, if we both witnessed to our own faith. If we could profess our own belief, and speak for our own Churches with confidence. It would be so much more positive if we spoke with boldness about own traditions, and avoided the temptation of judging everyone else's, and pronouncing negatively on everyone else's Church.

I do not need to define my Orthodoxy or Catholicity by drawing boundaries and asserting who is outside the Church. That is a negative definition, and is not worthy of the true Church. I do not feel more Catholic or more Orthodox by saying you are outside of the true Church, outside of the true faith.

Why call some one else's Church a "piece" of a Church, or a false Church based on false premises? This is not only discourteous (and so anathema on this forum), it is also a weak argument.

I am not humble (as Alex really knows), so I will speak boldly and offer an unwelcome suggestion: Orthoman; speak for Orthodoxy, defend Orthodox beliefs, ecclesiology, and tradition. Articulate the truth, defend dogma, quote the Fathers. I welcome an articulate spokesman for Orthodoxy, even within the community of the Orthodox, you know there is debate and difference of opinion. I like a good debate. I welcome a healthy and courteous discussion, for it helps me to form my own opinions, and grow in my own understanding.

But 'judge not others, lest ye be judged also'. There is only one Judge, and to him we will all give account, according to our consciences, and according to how we have kept this and other commandments of his. I would prefer to refrain from saying that you are outside the Church. I would prefer that you do the same. On the one hand it is a courtesy (a law on this forum). On the other hand, we will both be fulfilling a Gospel ordinance, and we will leave the judging to the only one worthy.

Elias

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:

"The way the Moscow Patriarchate conducts business is very similar to that of the Papacy"

However, the Moscow Patriarchate doesn't claim to be an institution instituted by God, necesarry to the Church and holding supreme and universial jurisdiction over the whole Church Catholic.

"I think a great organization like that Patriarchate needs a solid administrative bureaucracy behind it to function smoothly. As does the Roman Patriarchate."

YOU might believe that the Papacy is just a "great organization" and a "solid administrative bureaucracy", BUT THATS NOT CATHOLIC FAITH!

For Catholics the Papacy is a matter of DOGMA, not CONVENIENCE....

Christian

Originally posted by Der-Ghazarian:

Dear LaRae,
Being in communion with the Pope makes us members of the Catholic Church. We are all "Catholics" but not all "Roman Catholics." Our Churches are not Western-Roman or Latin. There are some Eastern-Roman or Byzantine Churches that are part of the Catholic Church. The Church I belong to is not Roman at all, rather it is Armenian. If you are interested in understanding the difference between "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic," I have some information at the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Churches_not_Rites.html

Thanks for your comments,

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian


------------------------------------------------
Reply: LaRae, You were kidding, right? O.k. that was funny.

Der-Ghazarian

p.s. Just in case you were serious: see these links for more information:

History of the Armenian Catholic Church

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Armenian_Catholic.html

The difference between being "Roman Catholic" and being "Catholic"

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Churches_not_Rites.html

[ 09-03-2002: Message edited by: Der-Ghazarian ]

reply:

Oh, I have no doubt it is viewed by some this way. Sadly, even by some who are Catholics with very little respect or honor for the Church of Rome not to mention respect for her teaching authority. Damning is a good word for it. But this is not what I bear in my heart toward Rome, which is a chief reason I remain in communion with her, despite her imperfections past or present.

"Comes really close to panglossian naivte ("Everything is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds")."

-Maybe to an intellectual like yourself Stuart. But not all of us approach the faith with the cynicism as you do. Some of us are a little less pessimistic, sarcastic and (to use your word again) DAMNING. No, I try (without always succeeding) to look at things in a more optimistic light. Especially when it comes to Christ's Providnetial government of His Bride. If you find this laughable, then so be it. I really don't look to people like you for approval of my approach to the faith of Jesus Christ.

"Did God then allow the various heretical councils to occur "for a reason"?"

-yes

"How would He keep them from occuring without deeply violating man's free will?"

-This ties into the theology of free will and predestinationism. The two mysteriously work together. Don't look to me to define it for you. I'm not capable nor do I desire to be. I accept the fact that God has full foreknowledge and the fact that I have full free-will.

"This also ignores those councils which occured, and were then forgotten or repudiated, and those that were repudiated and then remembered. Reception is a messy process, taking hundreds of years in some cases. And what can be received can still be unreceived, if the reception is incomplete or imperfect."

-No, quite the contrary, this process also involves and acknowledges God's Providence. Those things also happened for a reason, I believe.

"A council that took place without the presence of half the Church. A doctrine that was imposed without the consent or reception of half the Church. A vision of Church that repudiated the sources of most Christian doctrine. All of these leave wide open the question of whether Vatican I can be recognized as ecumenical, and whether it will continue to be received as such, even within the Latin Church."

-Unfortunately Rome doesn't see it this way. I think you are chasing an unrealistic dream, if you think Rome is going to revoke this council or her own infallibillity. Perhaps redefining how this infallibillity is exercised... but there will never be a repudiation of Vatican I. I believe Rome has a God-given teaching authority as the first see. I am in communion with Rome which is an acknowledgement of a shared faith. I respect Rome's authority. Therefore, I do not seek to undermine her teachings. Rather, I am much more for looking at them through Eastern eyes to see where our traditions meet. And unlike what you have indicated to me, in this forum, I think these two great traditions of East and West have profound agreement. If I did not, I would not maintain my communion with the Church of Rome.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

I have some questions about the Papal Infalibility in the West.


According to Paul de Ballester (Greek Orthodox Bishop of Mexico until 1986, a true supporter of Ecumenism) this dogma has never been used in the Western Church.
It's clear that the radical montanist view of the West related to this dogma has been abandonned long time ago and most catholic authors state that the Pope is not infallible in everything he says or does and that the authority of the Councils (not only the true Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Universal Church but also the Latin Councils) is superior to that of the Pope.

For example, the chaos of the new liturgy in the West has been evident, even for the Pope and some Cardinals, but very few can be done to solve this problem. The authority of the Pope is limited in this issue because the New Mass was made mandatory by their last Council.

Does this work like this?

I think that the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Original Sin, and the interpretation of the Petrine Ministery in the West are more divisive than the Infalibility.

I wonder if some new threads should be spawned off of this one. We don't seem to be discussing conversion experiences any more.

Administrator, can you help?

Dan Lauffer

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Remie, but in the end it ties all back together. Would the dogma of Immaculate Conception have happened without infaliability? Probably not as it was a Papal pronunciation that made it dogma. How about the Filoque? It wasn't added at a Western council, but by the Pope, after urging from the Spanish, right? So I think the problems that the East has with the West all pour from Papal Infaliability. God Bless!