www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What will happen to ROCOR?

Hmmm�. So are we to understand that your personal interpretation of Church Teaching is to be considered more authoritative than that of the Church in Council or than of the Holy Father? Isn�t that presumptuous?

---

What you personally believe is pretty irrelevant to someone else�s salvation. You have no authority to declare anything de fide. You cannot say definitely that you know a particular individual knows something in their heart and makes a conscious choice to reject it. It is clear from the content of your posts that you do not understand the language of the Christian East.

No one on this Forum is treating the Catholic Church like it is just another denomination. What is happening is that Catholics and Orthodox are treating one another as brothers in sisters in Christ. You should not be threatened when one of our Orthodox brothers disagrees with a specific teaching of the Catholic Church. You should speak your say and then agree to disagree while speaking charitably at all times.

Should you stop posting here? Maybe. But maybe the Lord brought you hear to listen.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear brethren in Christ,

I understand the frustration on both sides of this discussion. The "ecumenical discourse" on this forum for the most part seems alien to the traditional ecclesiology of both Churches prior to the 1960's. And I have never accepted the explanation "well, we have developed that doctrine. We understand better now. Things have changed. etc., etc." I love the Orthodox Churches. I probably spend more time in Orthodox Churches than in Catholic Churches. But I cannot come to terms with such concepts of "partial communion", "sister Churches", etc. I guess my time as an SSPX seminarian has scared me in this regard. Truth does not change. The Pope is not the Church. Just because he is nice to the Orthodox, (just as I think he is too nice with Muslims, Protestants, etc.), doesn't mean he can change the teaching of the Catholic Church on what is the nature of the Church by his own will or personal charisma. On both sides, theologians have given a rather convincing case against ecumenism in its current form. (I think of Yannaras, Zizoulas, Metropolitan Hierotheos, Schmemann, and I would even cite the SSPX on the Latin side.)
What then? Are our Latin integrists friends on this forum right? Are the Orthodox going to Hell because they are outside the "Una Sancta"? I would recommend anyone who believes this to go into an Orthodox Church and just observe the people there. Are they doing anything inherently wrong? What is missing that they don't have that Catholic have? Now go to your local Catholic parish. Do you see people praying in front of an image of the Virgin Mary? Do you see reverence? Do you see devotion? Unfortunately, you probably won't. You will probably see many things THEY are doing wrong. But will they be saved because they have a "political affiliation" with the Pope? Does salvation come through a legal relationship? Or does it come through penance, humility, and the purity of heart?

The fact is, the problem with the schism between East and West is that many theologians (and even Popes) have grafted the Tridentine ecclesiology directed against the Protestant heretics and applied it to the Orthodox. But you are really talking about apples and oranges. And Rome has always inherently known this, even if sometimes they try and hide it. We could never unite with the Protestants, for example, by an ecumenical council. We can with the Orthodox. They are a Church, and I would dare say they are part of the true Church, and this we know by their fruits (the Liturgy, monasticism, theology, etc.) In the end, God is not cruel, He does not play practical jokes. If something looks holy, sounds holy, smells holy.... it is holy, it is of God, it is the Church. AND NO ONE CAN DENY THIS, EVEN IF THEY WANT TO TO MAKE THINGS FIT INTO THEIR CONCEPTUAL BOX! And this is the Orthodox Church.

The fact is, union will take centuries to accomplish, just as the schism took centuries to ferment and explode into what it is now. We have to find a way not just to think the same about dogma; this is a common misconception. We must find a way to BE the same, or at least be compatible. And this cannot be done by negotiations by slick theologians, no matter how well intentioned.

And as for saying someone will go to Hell, I would tremble at even saying such a thing. "Judge not and you shall not be judged." What would I say in front of the fearful judgement seat of Christ when He puts this awesome commandment in front of me if I have judged my brother? Only pray for unity and for all, and leave the judgement to the Just Judge.

Sincerely your in Christ,

Arturo

Mr. Administrator,

The Holy Father is a just man, and in my opinion no one else could possible have done what he has done during his pontificate, but the Holy Father is NOT infallibility given feet.

pax

ps..I let my sixteen y/o son read some of my posts, gave him permission to speak candidly he said, "Mamma, you sound like an a--." Maybe he's right. In any even I'm going to take the advice of another member, "stick around, ask questions, carefully and prayerfully re-read your posts before you post them."

Arturo, I endorse almost every line of your post.

Except for the suggestion that I attend a non-catholic church.

I extend apologies to anyone who felt judged, I cannot judge a particular heart and don't even try to.

Oh, dear. This is becoming painful. But since Mary Elizabeth, also styling herself "Saint Peter", wants to teach us, she should at least get her facts in order. The schism between Rome and Constantinople at the time of Saint Photius (and before Mary Elizabeth complains she should remember that he died in the peace of the Church, that he was canonized by the Church of Constantinople at a time when Constantinople and Rome were in full communion, and that Rome has never objected to that canonization) did not affect all of the Byzantine East - not by a long chalk - and was resolved at the Council of 879 (I may be off by a year or so). As late as the Council of Florence both sides continued to believe that the Church remained one, despite the estrangement and the difficulties - which is why the Catholic Church officially permits the veneration of Saints canonized by Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly those canonized before the collapse of the Union of Florence.
Certainly the Pope is not "infallibility with feet" - and I am indebted to Mary Elizabeth for that delightful phrase, which I fully intend to make use of. Nor is it my habit to kiss the Koran. However, the Pope's teaching in Orientale Lumen does not altar the consistent teachings of the Popes - it is not by accident that Orientale Lumen was issued for the centenary of Orientalium Dignitas.
Even as the Catholic Church is not the monolith which mythology sometimes claims, so neither is Catholic ecclesiology quite so cut and dried as one might suspect from reading school-manuals.
My apologies if I have offended Mary Elizabeth or anyone else; that was not my intention. Incognitus

Once again, Arturo buries a gem in his post.

Thanks!

Michael

Question intended for learning not instruction: Does not "Dominus Iesus" confirm that the Body of Christ is on this earth right now, not fractured, not seperated, but readily identifiable as the Catholic Church? Someone please explain to me how I am to now forty-years into believing in One True Church, infallible, perfect, unchanging, the August Bride of Christ unnder the absolute guidance of the Holy Spirit and a fine Polish gent in Rome, am now to understand the Church as the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy?

*I'm not as anti Orthodox as I might appear, I have a healthy private devotion to ROCOR's Saints
Nikolai and Aleksandra.*

And my understanding of Orientale Lumen (I have not read it) is that it refers to the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, this is what my brother, an Opus Dei priest, has told me.

Would the Orthodox sit in council with us? When will the Patriarch of Constantinople come to claim St Peter's (which, as you all know I'm sure, is his Cathedral at Rome)?

I forgot to add a salutation and a closing. forgive me.

pax

I just the the Robert Massie's biography of Sts. Nicholas and Alexandra. It is a very well written book. Next on the list is a bio of Alexandra's sister St. Elizabeth the New Martyr.

In Christ,
Anthony

The Massie book is wonderful, poor martyred Romanovs. Lord have mercy on George V of Britain.

pax

No, the Cathedral of HIs-All Holiness, The Ecumenical Patrarch is really Hagia Sophia as he is Patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome

St John Lateran's is the Pope's Church...but technically St Peter's belongs to Constantinople sshould the Patriarch ever come into communion with Rome again. I'm not saying St. Peter's is the Patriarch's main Church, I'm saying it's his church at Rome.

Dear Mary Elizabeth,

How about posting just one question at a time to give us a chance to digest it , think about it and then answer you ?

Mary Elizabeth,

I agree with most of your opinions. However, I've learned to try and keep my mouth shut about it on this Forum, because it's a place devoted to mutual understanding between Catholics and Orthodox. So, I've resigned myself to the fact that I can have my opinions about some of JPII's words and actions, and that I'll just have to keep most of my opinions to myself. If I voiced my opinion on everything I wanted to, I would've been banned from the Forum long ago.

Logos Teen