www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is the Pope a heretic to the Eastern Orthodox Church?

StuartK,

I am of course not without answers, everyone has answers, why shouldn't I? I just don't have the time.

I see how reality is warped and twisted into escapism by those who have adgendas to feed. The idea that Orthodoxy and the Pope were separated by egotisical men is to say that Christ allowed His Body, the Church, to be split by lies and egos. This of course would also mean his promise that he would guide His Church in all truths is also a lie. But this is nothing more than blasphemy.

Consider that Christ himself did not want a homogenized church of men's invented faith over His. He Himself separated the refuse of the rotting systems so that His true followers could obtain eternal glory. He cut off the dead branches so that the tree might live.

What is happening today is man's attempt to reconcile his conscience without shedding his pride, and the only light cutting through the dark clouds of this hypocritical worldly pseudo-religion is that same Orthodoxy that has always been. But I fear the end is near.

If I may interject in the energetic exchange,
StuartK said, "Real Tradition is always apocalyptic, always dynamic." I believe the proper term and concept here is not "apocalyptic" but "eschatological." It is the latter that is always dynamic.

OorD said, "...the only light cutting through the dark clouds of this hypocritical worldly pseudo-religion is that same Orthodoxy that has always been. But I fear the end is near."

Now *that* is apocalyptical. And a "dead end" kind of thinking in more ways than one.

Just an ordinary kind of fool.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Sorry for the double post.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Dear Durango,

By "the end" is it meant the end of this thread?

The end of continuing to take some posts seriously?

Or the end of the world?

The problem with the last kind of "end" is when such is invoked as a scare tactic to try and frighten others into accepting our positions, as if our thoughts and those of Christ were one and the same.

If some of us think that way, well, we'll just have to wait and find out!

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthodoxyOrDeath:
[QB]StuartK,

>>>I see how reality is warped and twisted into escapism by those who have adgendas to feed. The idea that Orthodoxy and the Pope were separated by egotisical men is to say that Christ allowed His Body, the Church, to be split by lies and egos. This of course would also mean his promise that he would guide His Church in all truths is also a lie. But this is nothing more than blasphemy.<<<

I find the mindset of the Orthodox traditionalist and the Latin traditionalist to be strangely parallel to each other. Each desires a degree of creedal certitude that can only come by reducing faith to a series of dogmatic propositions of increasing complexity and immobility. That in turn reduces us to justification by the Law rather than by grace through faith in Christ. The notion that the Church, which is a Holy Mystery manifesting the Kingdom of God in this world, must be perfect in its institutional manifestation created by and populated by sinful men, is common to traditionalists of both stripes. Yet a simple examination not only of Church history, but of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the various epistles shows that the Body of Christ has been plagued by divisions since its very beginning. No doubt Christ could compel us to be one, but how would we reconcile that with the absolute freedom granted to us, who are created in the image and likeness of an absolutely free and unconstrained God? Read more of how the Church actually lived, and that simplistic notion that the institution is always correct will fall away very quickly. The Holy Spirit moves among us and inspires us, but He does not compel us. We must cooperate with him in synergia, we must be willing to listen to the voice of the Spirit. And far too often, the voices of men, the spirit of willfullness and ego, have drowned out the voice of the authentic spirit. Usually because somebody was far too certain that he was right and those who used different modes of expression were wrong. More charity, less dogmatism, particularly in matters that are not central to the faith. Integralism is very unattractive, whether it comes from the East or the West.

>>>Consider that Christ himself did not want a homogenized church of men's invented faith over His. He Himself separated the refuse of the rotting systems so that His true followers could obtain eternal glory. He cut off the dead branches so that the tree might live.<<<

And who, precisely, are you saying is the dead branch? You are right, though--Christ did not want an homogenized Church. He wanted it to speak to all men in all nations, through their own particular idiom. Hence each family of Churches developed its own unique Tradition, its own exegesis, its own theology, spirituality, doctrines and disciplines. There is a central core of faith that cannot be compromised, because it is held by all and is needed for a common understanding of God, His Christ, and of salvation history. But beyond that, there is much room for variety. Your central assumption seems to be that only Byzantine theology, spirituality, doctrine and discipline are true and valid. Can you conceive of an Orthodoxy that is not exclusively Byzantine? What of the Great Church of Alexandria, and its Tradition? Or the Great Church of Antioch? Or even, God forbid, the Great Church of Rome? Your perspective reflects an ecclesial imperialism that could easily match that of Rome at its most arrogant. You might want to speak to a Copt, or a Syrian, or an Armenian, or an Assyrian about ecclesial exclusivism and innovation before throwing aspersions westward.

>>>What is happening today is man's attempt to reconcile his conscience without shedding his pride, and the only light cutting through the dark clouds of this hypocritical worldly pseudo-religion is that same Orthodoxy that has always been. But I fear the end is near.<<<

If by this you mean the kind of reflexive intolerance for other Apostolic Traditions which some people call Orthodoxy, the end cannot be too near.

Dear Stuart,

You have a way with words.

The only problem is that I often find myself reading your posts with an eye above my head to catch anything that might be flying over there . . .

The point you made about the Law over Grace is excellent.

Too bad the Administrator won't allow on-line betting in conversations like this.

I would have probably have made enough to cover the costs of my home renovation by now . . .

Alex

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Esteemed Alex,

"Dear Durango, By "the end" is it meant the end of this thread?"

That is already proven false.

"The end of continuing to take some posts seriously?"

OrthodoxytoDeath, Catholic Fundamentalist or Evangelical Bible thumper, I personally cannot take any apocalypticizer seriously.

"The problem with the last kind of "end" [end of the world] is when such is invoked as a scare tactic to try and frighten others into accepting our positions....."

Precisely!

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

The answers to my "Is the Pope a heritic" caused me to scream to read so much understandings regarding my topic. Another question please but in very simple "understandings" in your answers. " What is the See of Peter or the Chair of Peter?. Is it contained in the Roman tradition as I know it?.When Jesus looks down on poor souls what does He See. Is it His Church on earth based in the Vatican or is it in the East or in the Protestant churches. Where?. Surly Jesus would See the Church in His Image in the Chair of Peter? Please explain.Patrick.

The answers to my "Is the Pope a heritic" caused me to scream to read so much understandings regarding my topic. Another question please but in very simple "understandings" in your answers. " What is the See of Peter or the Chair of Peter?. Is it contained in the Roman tradition as I know it?.When Jesus looks down on poor souls what does He See. Is it His Church on earth based in the Vatican or is it in the East or in the Protestant churches. Where?. Surly Jesus would See the Church in His Image in the Chair of Peter? Please explain.Patrick.

Dear Durango,

If I were Stuart, I might respond by saying that the issue at hand is a "conflagration of juxtaposed extremist East-West propositions that threaten the delicate balance of comprehensive synergetic equilibrium predicated on the false modality of absolutist, abstractionist deformation of ongoing, historical theological development and formulation."

But then again, I'm only Alex!!

Alex

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Patrick,

I hope you weren't screaming at me!

I couldn't live with myself if you were . . .

God bless,

Alex

Dear OrthdoxyOrDeath:

Your rebuttals to StuartK's posts clearly exposes your failure to grasp the Catholic conception of TRUTH: that IT is not a lifeless thing.

Rather IT is a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of Catholic dogmas.

Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His salvific mission, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined as the Church marches into the future, e.g., the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and that of Papal Infallibility.

Such unfolding takes place not only in the study of the tradition of the dogma but also in showing its origin in Jesus Christ and the Apostles, in the understanding of the terms expressing it and in the historical or rational proofs adduced in support thereof.

Take some time in considering, or reconsidering, the Catholic doctrine of development as it relates to Christ's Church today.


AmdG

[QUOTE]Originally posted by durak:
[QB]

>>>If I may interject in the energetic exchange,
StuartK said, "Real Tradition is always apocalyptic, always dynamic." I believe the proper term and concept here is not "apocalyptic" but "eschatological." It is the latter that is always dynamic.<<<

It is eschatological in that it is moving towards the end of history. It is apocalyptic because it is always revealing more of a mystery that is hidden. Thus, we are both right, and both incomplete: it is apocalyptic AND eschatological.

>>>OorD said, "...the only light cutting through the dark clouds of this hypocritical worldly pseudo-religion is that same Orthodoxy that has always been. But I fear the end is near."

Now *that* is apocalyptical. And a "dead end" kind of thinking in more ways than one.<<<

Actually, it is apocalyptic in the sense of revealing something, and eschatological in the sense that what it reveals is the END. The Apocalypse of St. John is both a revelation and a piece of eschatological literature at the same time. DorD's little piece is also both apocalyptic and eschatological, but not on the same order--thankfully.

Esteemed Stuart,

You stated, "we are both right, and both incomplete." Fairly stated. I now see and agree totally with your whole point.

I also repent of my expession, "I cannot personally take any apocalypticizer seriously."
It is the "---izing" I have trouble with, not the person.
OrthodoxyorDeath is interesting to read for his challenging historical and theological perspectives. I just don't agree with many of them "in the end."
I do take him and his thoughts seriously, and I hope he continues to post. I will read, and seriously consider, each and every one of them.

Peace.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Durak,

Thank you for the kind remarks. I will not have any more time to post in the next 2 weeks. But after that, look out Stuart!