www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Returning to Orthodoxy

But then one can argue that the Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ, with the Catholics tragically seperating themselves from the Body of the Mother Church....

Nobody denies this Logos Teen. What is being denied by the RC hardliners is that the Orthodox and other authentic Apostolic Churches are also part of the true Church.

But... are we really complete without the West? The West separated or both East and West separated? We could have expected a more moderated attitude from the leaders at the time of the schism. If the Latins incurred in innovations later it was because the Church was no longer united and if east and West were in communion, none of the innovations would have happened. The undivided Church was formed by Byzantines, Copts, Syriacs, and Latins; East and West together. I do not mean that Catholics and Orthodox are the same because there are differences, but I don't think that only the East was authenticaly Christian.

AntonI said:

Absolutely. 100% agreement here.

Ghazar said:

Ghazar, do you mean to say that no one denies (except for "RC hardliners") that Eastern Orthodox Christians share a special bond with the Church (i.e. the Catholic Communion of sui iuris Churches)? Or do you mean to say that Eastern Orthodox are in fact, part of the True Church?

If your position is more closely in line with the latter, I must say I've never seen any official Church document that states that Eastern Orthodox (or any non-Catholic) is a complete member of the Church of Christ, since the Church of Christ is the Catholic Communion of sui iuris Churches.

Logos Teen

Yes, another thumbs down! :p

I believe that you are wrong here. Can you supply the document and all references where the Catholic Church says that True Church subsists in the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church.

I am of the belief that the Catholic Church is the True Church, so is the Orthodox Church. That the schism happened both ways, the Orthodox leaving communion with Rome and Rome leaving communion with the Orthodox.

I believe that the Holy Father recognizes this. Are not the Orthodox Churches called sister churches to the Catholic Church?

Logos Teen,
If you make this claim, that (I for one) someone denies the Truth, then it falls upon you to state the Truth. What documents of the Church lead you to say this?

I agree with Ghazar, that Rome denying the Macedonian Orthodox Church the restoration of full Communion shows that they are already part of the True Church. How could the Holy Father deny the faithful of the Macedonian Orthodox communion with the True Church if they already do not have it?

Again, I ask for exact references that support your argument.

I do agree with the hard liner comments, as it seems that many Roman Catholics think that the True Church is them and no one else. Most of the time this spills over to us Byzantine Catholics in the way that they say we aren't true catholics because we are not Roman.


David

I don't remember the particulars, but in the Agreement of Balamand, 1995, Pope John Paul II, and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew signed a joint declaration of being SISTER churches.

In the Risen Christ,
Alice

P.S. TO ALEX: (ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC), IF YOU ARE OUT THERE, IS EVERYTHING O.K.??? YOU STARTED THIS THREAD AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU IN A WHILE I MISS YOUR INPUT!!

Dear Friends,

I would hope that I could pose the question I have here without people think that I am about to leave communion with Rome . . .

But, please, no more parcels with papal pins and pictures! I have plenty already!

From the RC POV, I think there is no doubt that the Orthodox Church IS the Church of Christ (although separated from full communion with the West).

The same sacraments, the same Apostolic Faith, Apostolic Succession - sounds like the true Church to me!

The issue of the Papacy is one that still divides us, but we should remember that the Orthodox don't reject the papacy per se - only the later Roman Catholic understanding of it.

So the idea that one Church is true and the other must not be is just not what the RC Church holds.

p.s. Alice - I just had to take care of some important business that occupied me for a few days - it's nice to know when one is missed!!

Alex

Christ is Risen!

Alex!

What about pins and pictures of St Seraphim and St Mark of Ephesus from the other side???

Peace,
Brian

Dear Brian,

I wear a beautiful antique medal of the Mother of God "Joy of all Joys" on one side and of St Seraphim of Sarov on the other around my neck at all times! (I'm very happy to have this relic from Sarov!).

But if you know where to get a pin of St Mark of Ephesus, I would be pleased to send for it too!

(BTW, I really appreciated your comments to Anastasius on the other thread. When an Orthodox Christian speaks like that to an Eastern Catholic, you know the Spirit is moving hearts!)

Alex

I think that there has been some confusion about this issue of what the Catholic Church really teaches about the Orthodox. In 2000, shortly *after* I became Orthodox, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (for those who aren't Catholics, this is the Vatican Dicastery that is responsible for doctrinal, theological matters, acting on delegated authority from the Pope) released a very important document in this regard called "Dominus Iesus". It was controversial when it was released, because some ecumenically-minded Catholics didn't like what it said, but rest assured that this document, promulgated as it was, was not done so without the knowledge and permission of the Pope.

IIRC, there was some discussion about this on this forum when the document was released, and perhaps a search for it would be fruitful. In any case, the document basically says that only Catholicism is fully the Church. It implies that Orthodoxy is less than fully the Church because we do not hold to all of the teachings of Catholicism. Specifically, in a now somewhat famous footnote, it specifically refers to the Vatican II langauge about "subsisting in" and interprets this to mean that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church only -- and that the Church does not subsist in other "churches" (like the Orthodox) or "ecclesiastical communities" (like the Protestants). Rather, the latter are distinguished from Catholicism depending on how many "ecclesial elments" (elementa ecclesiae) they share with the Catholic Church ... such that the Orthodox, who share many "ecclesial elements" can be called lower-case "churches" in that sense, but because they do not share *all* ecclesial elements with the Catholic Church, the upper-case "Church" does not subsist in them. This is what Catholicism presently teaches about Orthodoxy, and to construe it as otherwise is basically to say I don't care what CDF says (which is to ignore the folks that have been given the Pope's blessing to teach doctrine). I don't think that Dominus Iesus marks a departure of any kind for Catholic theology, or is a "hard-line" document, but is simply the logical conclusion of Catholic ecclesiology.

Brendan

Dear father Brendan,

Yes, but as a former papist, you well know that Latin Catholicism's "theological nuances" can swing from Left to Right over time.

I think that RCism took a definite turn to the "Right" with that doctrine.

However, I also believe you are a bit off in your interpretation of that papist document.

The model of the church presented there is more or less consistent with that of recent decades in Catholicism where the 'true Church' is likened to a series of glasses of milk.

From this point of view, the RC church is filled to the top with milk, but that doesn't mean there isn't any milk in other churches or glasses.

Orthodoxy comes closest to being filled "almost" to the top with milk and then Protestant communities have varying levels of milk depending on how much of the Apostolic tradition they have.

RCism has never denied that Orthodoxy isn't the true Church, but, from its papist perspective (with which you are very acquainted, being a former papist yourself ), Orthodoxy still needs communion with Rome to be filled with "milk to the very top."

But Orthodoxy views the papal jurisdictional and infallible milk as being largely curdled . . .

And this is why it refuses to cow-tow to Rome . . .

Alex

I don't disagree with the milk analogy offered by Alex -- I think it is the same as I was saying. If milk = ecclesial elements per DI, then the Catholic Churches simply have more milk than the Orthodox churches do -- meaning our Orthodox glass is less than full, and that therefore there is something lacking in us as compared with Catholicism. DI does call us "churches" because we share so many "ecclesial elements" with Catholicism, but our glass is less than full, so I think a fair reading of DI is that we are less than fully the Church (only Catholicism is fully the Church). I agree that this isn't a departure for Catholic theology - but it did surprise some (I remember a particularly stinging quip from the otherwise very ecumenical GO Metr Maximos of Pittsburgh, for example).

Brendan

Dear Brendon,

Ahhh...Metropolitan Maximos! There is a difficult hierarch to figure out!

I heard him say some anti-ecumenical things at an ecumenical workshop no less!

He seems to have a tendency (which is VERY Greek )towards emotionalism and passion!

Go figure! :rolleyes:

Alice

Alice --

Yes, I recall fairly well such a display from the GO Metr. of Melbourne a few years ago during his sermon at St. Sophia's Cathedral here in Washington. It was an ecumenical DL with the RC members of the international dialogue in attendance ... and the good Metr. was, shall we say, rather "exercised" during his homily, even to the point of banging his staff on the ground at points to emphasize his words. :-)

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Well, perhaps an ecumenical way out here is for Orthodoxy to tell Rome that, even though Rome thinks its glass is slightly under-filled, ITS milk is of a consistently higher quality than Rome's . . .

Quality over quantity . . .

Eastern Catholics, for one, have always said that too much (Roman bureaucratic) milk can be bad for you!

(Now if you and Alice really think that my previous post on the milk glasses is good, please do write the Administrator and tell him so! ).

Alex