www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Catholics should berate Orthodox

If I seemed to put out ill will toward StuartK, I sincerely apologize; I am just stating my opinion. I certainly don't feel offended by Stuart, and I hope he feels the same.

Soli Deo Gloria,
ChristTeen287

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChristTeen287:
[QB]>>>If I seemed to put out ill will toward StuartK, I sincerely apologize; I am just stating my opinion. I certainly don't feel offended by Stuart, and I hope he feels the same.<<<

You are most kind. I hardly ever take offense at anything said by or to me. I'm more likely to take offense at people speaking unjustly of others.

[Again Orthoman is a living saint and we would do better to imitate him than to berate him.

JOe Zollars
(a hardline traditionalist Roman Catholic)]

Joe:

I am so glad that you like the Icon of Tsar St Nicholas.

But a living Saint I am not. Chief amongst sinners yes, living saint nyet!

I'm a defender of the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith who, at the same time can be hypocritical, judgemental, ill tempered, impatient, rude, and a dozen other things just to begin with. All of which are not qualities of a living saint. But thank you for the undeserved compliment anyhow.

OrthoMan

I am not saying this as an ecumenist. Those who know me know that I am not an ecumenist by any stretch of the imagination. Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and Orthodox Catholics are already in the same Church because we share the same faith and the same Eucharist.

Joe, I am glad that Orthoman helped you but he would not accept the above statement.

=====================

You are correct in that Brian. We do not share the same faith. And, until we do, cannot share the same Eurcharist -

1 Corinthians 1:10 states "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the SAME THING, and that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, but that YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthoMan:

>>>[1 Corinthians 1:10 states "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the SAME THING, and that there be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, but that YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT."<<<

When, in the entire history of the Church, has this ideal ever been achieved? The early Church never knew perfect unity, but bore witness to it.

"When, in the entire history of the Church, has this ideal ever been achieved? The early Church never knew perfect unity, but bore witness to it."

This is a good point. I guess my own $0.02 is that the standard of unity that we Orthodox enjoy with each other might be a good yardstick -- we certainly have our own disunities, administratively and also on relatively minor matters of faith, but on the essentials of the faith we are united as one. I think that might be a way to go about looking at this issue.

Brendan

Stuart,

"Watch it, sprout! I'm literally old enough to be your father."

Take it easy on the young 'un. I'm probably old enough to be your father.

Dan lauffer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan Lauffer:
[QB]Stuart,

"Watch it, sprout! I'm literally old enough to be your father."

>>>Take it easy on the young 'un. I'm probably old enough to be your father.<<<

Sorry, Pop. Say, can I have the car tonight, please?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendan:

>>>This is a good point. I guess my own $0.02 is that the standard of unity that we Orthodox enjoy with each other might be a good yardstick -- we certainly have our own disunities, administratively and also on relatively minor matters of faith, but on the essentials of the faith we are united as one. I think that might be a way to go about looking at this issue.<<<

Excellent. This provides a basis for fruitful discussion. So the next question that must needs be asked is whether there are ANY points of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches that can be considered "essentials of the faith". Is primacy one? Or Marian doctrines? The faith of the soul after death? I would submit that none of these can be considered "essential" because they were not so considered during the period when the Eastern and Western Churches were in full communion. If the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians can reach agreement on a matter that IS essential to the faith, then why cannot we good Chalcedonians come to agreement among ourselves?

Stuart,

Excellent! One problem persists. The Roman Catholics, and I imagine that we BC's are supposed to follow, insist that Papal Supremacy is a dogma of the True Faith. Isn't this the major stumbling block? If this were modified would there be any real impediment to reunion?

Dan Lauffer

Dan Lauffer to Stuart:

>>>Excellent! One problem persists. The Roman Catholics, and I imagine that we BC's are supposed to follow, insist that Papal Supremacy is a dogma of the True Faith. Isn't this the major stumbling block? If this were modified would there be any real impediment to reunion?<<<

Is not the basic problem that of the Roman See refusing to submit itself to the Church as a whole, and that in unanimity, on matters of the dogmatics of the faith? It is relatively easy to regard many of the post schism RCC ideas simply as valid theologumenon [spelling?] from the Eastern perspective, but it was the effort of the Latin Church to impose without unanimous consent a change in the dogmatic theology - First done ecumenically, then militarily.

And the road to reunification would have to involve the reversal of this line of activity, meaning that the Pope and the whole of the Roman Church would have to agree to submit itself to the whole Church, from which it broke off and attacked when the whole Church would not submit itself to the Roman Bishop.

So that the road to re-unification would seem to be a repentance on the part of Rome from it's entire post schism development, and a return to the rulings of the first 7 councils, with nothing dogmatically added.

For the Pope to come out and SAY that he is not infallible ex-cathedra on matters of dogma would not be nearly enough, for then it is simply him speaking ex-cathedra again, you see... That would be a really good beginning, mind you, but the core issues between east and west would simply have been reduced by one...

And I do not have answers...

I only have tears...

geo

"Excellent. This provides a basis for fruitful discussion."

I think so as well.

"So the next question that must needs be asked is whether there are ANY points of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches that can be considered "essentials of the faith"."

Unfortunately I think there are a few of them. One set of issues can be called "Church theology" or "ecclesiology". I think that this is an essential issue because (1) it was what eventually forced us apart (so we can't really ignore it if we are to reunite), (2) it is a creedal problem and (3) it is an issue of burning contemporary importance for the life of both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It's the big issue, I think, at this point -- and a bid issue on the doctrinal/dogmatic level as well as the pragmatic level. As I've mentioned before, other aspects of theology, such as trinitarian theology, may have an impact on this discussion as well. However, I see this as more of an issue of differing emphases, and understanding the impact of these different emphases. With Metropolitan John's comments on the Vatican's clarification of the "Filioque", for example, I am more willing to place that on a lower level of importance, but I do think we need one creed in languages other than Latin and Greek -- I think that's a very powerful symbol (which is what it was intended to be).

"Is primacy one?"

I would include this under the point above. It's complicated by the fact that the Roman understanding of this is a Latin "dogma". That doesn't *end* the issue, but it does mean that the issue has to be addressed on that level in order to be resolved. I see that as the major issue that needs to be addressed.

"Or Marian doctrines?"

I don't think so, as long as Rome is willing to agree that its own understanding of the immaculateness of the Theotokos is not universal.

"The faith of the soul after death?"

I assume you meant "fate", but in any case I don't think this is a burning issue today.

"I would submit that none of these can be considered "essential" because they were not so considered during the period when the Eastern and Western Churches were in full communion."

Yes, but the church changes over time and the needs of the church change over time. Our concept of Church -- which is a critical, burning question for both of us at this particular historical juncture -- needs to be addressed. I think if that is addressed in a more unified manner, there will be communion again. I think that we can allow for diversity on a wide variety of issues (when our respective churches are ready for that), as long as we have unity in faith on the essential issues, and I think that includes the things that are written in the creed. I think that the creed is an excellent baseline for unity, as this is really what it is intended to be, don't you think?

"If the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians can reach agreement on a matter that IS essential to the faith, then why cannot we good Chalcedonians come to agreement among ourselves?"

I don't see any reason why we can't, but it requires flexibility on both sides, obviously (as has been the case in the EO/OO dialogue as well). I think we have to take care not to set the bar too high (and of course there are many in both the RCC and the EOC who are very happy to have a very high bar indeed), but also take care not to set it too low. That's why I think the creed is an excellent baseline. A good discussion would be what do we make of the lines in the creed that address the issue of "Church", and what does that mean for the issues that separate Catholicism from Orthodoxy today.

Brendan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan Lauffer:
[QB]Stuart,

>>>Excellent! One problem persists. The Roman Catholics, and I imagine that we BC's are supposed to follow, insist that Papal Supremacy is a dogma of the True Faith. Isn't this the major stumbling block? If this were modified would there be any real impediment to reunion?<<<

I reiterate that a true dogma is a belief that MUST be affirmed if one is to be a Christian. Not to affirm a true dogma is to be guilty of heresy. Heretics do not have true sacraments (with the exception of baptism, under specific circumstances, and then as a matter of economy), and therefore their gatherings cannot be considered true Churches. Yet the Church of Rome extends to the Oriental Churches not in communion with it the title of Churches, and allows its adherents to receive communion (again, under restricted circumstances) from those Churches. Obviously, we either have a bad case of schizophrenia here, or perhaps we really aren't dealing with a true dogma.

It is interesting to note that at various times and places the Bishops of Rome have been making claims about themselves and their prerogatives, and throughout the first millennium, the Eastern Churches, while not accepting these claims, did not consider them sufficient cause to break communion with the Church of Rome.

George,

"For the Pope to come out and SAY that he is not infallible ex-cathedra on matters of dogma would not be nearly enough, for then it is simply him speaking ex-cathedra again, you see... That would be a really good beginning, mind you, but the core issues between east and west would simply have been reduced by one..."

I understand what you say. Man, I don't have answers either. Would the West ever reverse itself? They would have hell to pay from the faithful Western Catholics.

If the West could say: These post schism dogmas are obligatory upon the West only and will be submitted to the entire Church for possible modification or acceptance, then it might work. In fact it appears that much, even dogmatically stated, is ignored by much of the West already.

Why is God allowing such chaos in His Church? What must we do to respond? What will repentance look like?

Dan Lauffer