Does Jesus Himself condemn Sola Scripitra?

[boughtwithaprice]

John

If you, as well as many others, wish to read into scripture your own words and thoughts, that is, assuredly not my problem. Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus actually could have told Nicodemus - you must get baptized to be born again? It would have been much easier and plainer to have said this, rather than the apparent circumlocution that was recorded by John.

John recorded that Jesus said ye must be born again.
It is when Niccodemus questioned that Jesus said to be born of water and the spirt to enter the kingdom of heaven
The Church has interpreted it to mean water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit.
We see in the book of Acts where Paul meets a group that had only received John’s baptism. This was insufficient and he baptized them with the Holy Spirit. The Church today has water baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation to receive the Holy Spirt. This is taught with Apostolic authority.
You have your own interpretation which disagrees with Church history and proposes a novel interpretation. God gives you the free will to believe as you wish. My point is that it is your interpretation upon which you are relying and not scripture.
The Apostles received their authority directly from Jesus and were sealed by the Holy Spirit.
From where do you receive your authority? And why should I accept your interpretation over that of the Apostles who are God’s anointed?

 

[bbbbbbb]

John

John recorded that Jesus said ye must be born again.
It is when Niccodemus questioned that Jesus said to be born of water and the spirt to enter the kingdom of heaven
The Church has interpreted it to mean water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit.
We see in the book of Acts where Paul meets a group that had only received John’s baptism. This was insufficient and he baptized them with the Holy Spirit. The Church today has water baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation to receive the Holy Spirt. This is taught with Apostolic authority.
You have your own interpretation which disagrees with Church history and proposes a novel interpretation. God gives you the free will to believe as you wish. My point is that it is your interpretation upon which you are relying and not scripture.
The Apostles received their authority directly from Jesus and were sealed by the Holy Spirit.
From where do you receive your authority? And why should I accept your interpretation over that of the Apostles who are God’s anointed?

You make the assumption that your denomination is "the Church". You are more than welcome to hold that belief.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You make the assumption that your denomination is "the Church". You are more than welcome to hold that belief.

There are no denominations. Christ is not divided. The truth is unified, else it is not true

We look for consistency in history as Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Each denomination was founded by a man and continues its existence by the will of men, not God

Jesus says that He will build His own Church. The enemy would plant tares in it, yet the gates of hell would not prevail. They have not. There have been evil men, yet the teaching has remained consistent for 2000 years, and not one teaching contradicts the Bible.
Men (and women) who founded denominations stand on their own merits, yet teach that we are not justified by works. How could they have said that when they rest on their own works?
I have been through denominations. Since they were built by men, each one was found wanting.
I do not search for a house built by men, nor would I be satisfied there. We search for a city whose builder and maker is God.
The four marks of God’s Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. An Apostle is sent by God and proclaims the Gospel for men to follow God. The founder of a denomination claimed God for himself and enticed others to follow him and not God.
God says you will seek Him and find Him when you search for Him with all of your heart. I can only witness that everything God says is true, and the grace He has given me is beyond any esteem that I might receive by following a denomination.
There is only one God and He founded only one Church. Who am I to lift my hand against God’s anointed? Who am I to say it is not true?

 

[The Liturgist]

You make the assumption that your denomination is "the Church". You are more than welcome to hold that belief.

There clearly was a unified Church until the Nestorian and Leonine Schisms of the Fourth Century, in which the Church of the East was led astray for a time and the Oriental Orthodox briefly became the sole custodians of Orthodoxy until Emperor Justinian embraced them, married what we would now call a Syriac Orthodox empress, St. Theodora, and added the Hymn of St. Severus, Only Begotten Son, to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, where it remains*. Then, for unknown reasons (I suspect a Palace coup), the government of Justinian began arresting and executing Oriental Orthodox bishops, but one of them, who St. Theodora was able to warn, escaped, that being St. Jacub bar Addai, known in the West as Baradaeus, and also being the origin of the “Jacobite” perjorative against Oriental Orthodox Christians. The violence of this persecution created impediments to reunification, but nonetheless reunification is in progress; in the 19th century the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria tried to merge into one church, but were blocked by the Khedive, the prince of Egypt who was at the time theoretically a vassal of the Ottoman Empire but de facto sovereign, who preferred his Christians divided and disorganized. But more recently, the two churches entered into comprehensive ecumenical agreement facilitating intermarriage and provisions for pastoral care, which was preceded by an even more comprehensive agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches (OO and EO respectively) in which the two not only agreed to provide each other’s members the sacraments, and recognized the other church as Orthodox, but also forbade either church from receiving converts from the other.

This attracted the ire of the Old Calendarists, who oppose ecumenism, and those members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion who agree with them, and their Oriental Orthodox counterparts, chiefly some Ethiopian monks who regard all Eastern Orthodox as Nestorians.

However since that time the relationship between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox churches has only grown closer, because of the persecution of the Middle East.

Additionally, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches have had numerous schisms, some lasting centuries, which have been resolved, such as the Three Chapters Controversy and the Avignon Papacy, and in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Russian Old Believer schism, which was resolved to a very large extent with the creation of the edinovertsy schism and the reception of many other Old Believers into the Church of Georgia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Romanian Orthodox Church, and there were schisms in the 19th century involving the Bulgarians, and in the 20th century the Soviet union caused ROCOR to become isolated from the rest of the canonical church until 2007. And in Oriental Orthodoxy, there was a centuries long schism between the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox, and another Soviet-induced schism between the two main Armenian jurisdictions, and another pair of Communist-related schisms involving the granting of autocephaly to the Eritrean Orthodox which caused a schism between the Ethiopians and the Coptic Orthodox (who had previously granted autocephaly to the Ethiopians; historically both Ethiopia and Eritrea had been a single autonomous, but not autocephalous (ecclesiastically independent) church whose presiding bishop or Abune was appointed by the Coptic Orthodox Church. Currently there is a schism between the two main Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions in India, but this is also much closer to being healed.

Thus, my view is that all schisms which are healed become irrelevant. It is not always possible to say who was right or who was wrong when a schism happens. Thus, if the apostolic churches reunify, which most of their bishops want to happen, albeit under the right conditions (the main issues are the role of the Pope of Rome, the Church of the East venerating Nestorius despite having renounced Nestorianism, the Coptic Orthodox opposition to the Church of the East for this reason, anti-ecumenism sentiment among some members of the canonical Orthodox churches, sewn by Old Calendarist agitators, combined with legitimate opposition to the idea of reunion with Rome, because of people upset about the formation of Eastern Catholic churches and other periods of persecution, for example the persecution of Serbians by the Croatian Ustashe during WWII, and the Crusades, and related incidents, and likewise among Roman Catholics the reverse, but there is nothing really insurmountable; frankly the Pope of Rome and his role has been the most obvious obstacle, since that issue alone thwarted the attempts of the Melkite Greek Catholics to merge with the Antiochian Orthodox and of the Chaldean Catholics to merge with the Church of the East.

Some partial reunions with Protestants have already happened, in the form of the Western Rite Vicarates of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Ordinariate of the RCC. Indeed, in the early 20th century, the Episcopal Church nearly entered into communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the rise of the Bolsheviks thwarted that, by destroying the unity of the ROC, which at the time was the canonical Orthodox Church with sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America, recognized by all other local churches except for Constantinople, but that unity collapsed in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when other churches started going under their own Patriarchates such as the Antiochians (the AOCNA still has members of Slavic descent and still uses hymns originally written in Church Slavonic alongside those of Greek and Syro-Byzantine origin), and the Russian church itself fragmented into four groups, the Metropolia, which later became the multi-ethnic OCA, and which included the massive Archdiocese of Sitka and Alaska, the aforementioned ROCOR, a very small number of Patriarchal Parishes under the Moscow Patriarchate, and the UOCNA, a relatively small number of Ukrainian parishes, mainly in Canada, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (most Ukrainian Americans are still members of ROCOR or the OCA, including Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral, memory eternal, who was the Primate of ROCOR until he reposed in 2022 from cancer).

What caused this was the Soviet arrest of Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow, the former Metropolitan of New York; St. Tikhon learned of the Soviet plan to “Rennovate” the Russian Orthodox Church, which failed (the Rennovationists, led by Metropolitan Ambrose, tried to implement various radical reforms such as married bishops and a ban on monasteries, but these were rejected by the laity, and Stalin ran out of paitence with them in 1937 with WWII on the horizon; Stalin, who had been expelled from a Georgian Orthodox seminary, had no love for the Orthodox but recognized he would need their support in the probable event of a war, and so allowed the canonical Russian Orthodox Church to resume operations albeit with numerous restrictions on preaching and catechesis (which the church addressed through a secret related organization, the Catacomb Church, and also by the Patriarch giving Billy Graham a blessing to preach in Russia, which the Soviets had no choice but to allow for PR reasons, and Billy Graham provided the basic catechesis that the Russian church had been obstructed from performing).

However, like the other schisms I mentioned, the schisms in North America have largely healed. Although the irregular situation of overlapping dioceses remain, there exists unified authority in the form of the Society of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, and its Oriental Orthodox counterpart, the Society of Canonical Oriental Orthodox Churches (which has the delightful acronym SCOOCH). These organizations provide lists of canonical parishes, and ensure that someone who is received into one canonical Orthodox church is welcomed at the others if they, for instance, are from ROCOR and move to a town where the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America has the only Orthodox parish (which includes much of Utah, where the Antiochians are having enormous success evangelizing Mormons and converting them to Christianity).


Thus, my point is that schisms heal. Because schisms heal, we can believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while praying for a healing of the remaining schisms, and we have this to give us hope: most schisms in the history of the church have healed, although in some cases it took many centuries for this to occur.




*Unfortunately many Eastern Orthodox would come to believe Justinian wrote it, while the Armenians, during their schism with the Syriac Orthodox Church after a party opposed to the Theopaschite Christology of Justinian came to power, credited the hymn to St. Athanasius, but like most attributions of liturgical material to St. Athanasius, including referring to Quincunque Vult as the Athanasian Creed (which to be fair was based on two of his writings, but not penned by him directly), is spurious; it should also be noted that the only remaining Armenian Eucharistic liturgy is the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, which Athanasius certainly did not write, for it is a shortened version of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, used only in the Church of Jerusalem, and lacking the early attestation of the Alexandrian liturgy (some have proposed that the Divine Liturgy of St. James is based on St. Basil; a supposed Patristic letter claiming that the liturgy of St. Basil was a shortened version of St. James and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is shortened version of St. Basil has been exposed as a forgery, which is unsurprising since we know for a fact the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a slightly edited version of the more recent recension of the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, sharing probably 80% of its text with that Anaphora, which is the ancient anaphora, which is the ancient liturgy of Alexandria and has second century attestation through St. Hippolytus, and which has been used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church since the third century.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There clearly was a unified Church until the Nestorian and Leonine Schisms of the Fourth Century, in which the Church of the East was led astray for a time and the Oriental Orthodox briefly became the sole custodians of Orthodoxy until Emperor Justinian embraced them, married what we would now call a Syriac Orthodox empress, St. Theodora, and added the Hymn of St. Severus, Only Begotten Son, to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, where it remains*. Then, for unknown reasons (I suspect a Palace coup), the government of Justinian began arresting and executing Oriental Orthodox bishops, but one of them, who St. Theodora was able to warn, escaped, that being St. Jacub bar Addai, known in the West as Baradaeus, and also being the origin of the “Jacobite” perjorative against Oriental Orthodox Christians. The violence of this persecution created impediments to reunification, but nonetheless reunification is in progress; in the 19th century the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria tried to merge into one church, but were blocked by the Khedive, the prince of Egypt who was at the time theoretically a vassal of the Ottoman Empire but de facto sovereign, who preferred his Christians divided and disorganized. But more recently, the two churches entered into comprehensive ecumenical agreement facilitating intermarriage and provisions for pastoral care, which was preceded by an even more comprehensive agreement between the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox churches (OO and EO respectively) in which the two not only agreed to provide each other’s members the sacraments, and recognized the other church as Orthodox, but also forbade either church from receiving converts from the other.

This attracted the ire of the Old Calendarists, who oppose ecumenism, and those members of the Eastern Orthodox Communion who agree with them, and their Oriental Orthodox counterparts, chiefly some Ethiopian monks who regard all Eastern Orthodox as Nestorians.

However since that time the relationship between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox churches has only grown closer, because of the persecution of the Middle East.

Additionally, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches have had numerous schisms, some lasting centuries, which have been resolved, such as the Three Chapters Controversy and the Avignon Papacy, and in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Russian Old Believer schism, which was resolved to a very large extent with the creation of the edinovertsy schism and the reception of many other Old Believers into the Church of Georgia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Romanian Orthodox Church, and there were schisms in the 19th century involving the Bulgarians, and in the 20th century the Soviet union caused ROCOR to become isolated from the rest of the canonical church until 2007. And in Oriental Orthodoxy, there was a centuries long schism between the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox, and another Soviet-induced schism between the two main Armenian jurisdictions, and another pair of Communist-related schisms involving the granting of autocephaly to the Eritrean Orthodox which caused a schism between the Ethiopians and the Coptic Orthodox (who had previously granted autocephaly to the Ethiopians; historically both Ethiopia and Eritrea had been a single autonomous, but not autocephalous (ecclesiastically independent) church whose presiding bishop or Abune was appointed by the Coptic Orthodox Church. Currently there is a schism between the two main Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions in India, but this is also much closer to being healed.

Thus, my view is that all schisms which are healed become irrelevant. It is not always possible to say who was right or who was wrong when a schism happens. Thus, if the apostolic churches reunify, which most of their bishops want to happen, albeit under the right conditions (the main issues are the role of the Pope of Rome, the Church of the East venerating Nestorius despite having renounced Nestorianism, the Coptic Orthodox opposition to the Church of the East for this reason, anti-ecumenism sentiment among some members of the canonical Orthodox churches, sewn by Old Calendarist agitators, combined with legitimate opposition to the idea of reunion with Rome, because of people upset about the formation of Eastern Catholic churches and other periods of persecution, for example the persecution of Serbians by the Croatian Ustashe during WWII, and the Crusades, and related incidents, and likewise among Roman Catholics the reverse, but there is nothing really insurmountable; frankly the Pope of Rome and his role has been the most obvious obstacle, since that issue alone thwarted the attempts of the Melkite Greek Catholics to merge with the Antiochian Orthodox and of the Chaldean Catholics to merge with the Church of the East.

Some partial reunions with Protestants have already happened, in the form of the Western Rite Vicarates of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Ordinariate of the RCC. Indeed, in the early 20th century, the Episcopal Church nearly entered into communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. However, the rise of the Bolsheviks thwarted that, by destroying the unity of the ROC, which at the time was the canonical Orthodox Church with sole legitimate jurisdiction in North America, recognized by all other local churches except for Constantinople, but that unity collapsed in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when other churches started going under their own Patriarchates such as the Antiochians (the AOCNA still has members of Slavic descent and still uses hymns originally written in Church Slavonic alongside those of Greek and Syro-Byzantine origin), and the Russian church itself fragmented into four groups, the Metropolia, which later became the multi-ethnic OCA, and which included the massive Archdiocese of Sitka and Alaska, the aforementioned ROCOR, a very small number of Patriarchal Parishes under the Moscow Patriarchate, and the UOCNA, a relatively small number of Ukrainian parishes, mainly in Canada, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (most Ukrainian Americans are still members of ROCOR or the OCA, including Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral, memory eternal, who was the Primate of ROCOR until he reposed in 2022 from cancer).

What caused this was the Soviet arrest of Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow, the former Metropolitan of New York; St. Tikhon learned of the Soviet plan to “Rennovate” the Russian Orthodox Church, which failed (the Rennovationists, led by Metropolitan Ambrose, tried to implement various radical reforms such as married bishops and a ban on monasteries, but these were rejected by the laity, and Stalin ran out of paitence with them in 1937 with WWII on the horizon; Stalin, who had been expelled from a Georgian Orthodox seminary, had no love for the Orthodox but recognized he would need their support in the probable event of a war, and so allowed the canonical Russian Orthodox Church to resume operations albeit with numerous restrictions on preaching and catechesis (which the church addressed through a secret related organization, the Catacomb Church, and also by the Patriarch giving Billy Graham a blessing to preach in Russia, which the Soviets had no choice but to allow for PR reasons, and Billy Graham provided the basic catechesis that the Russian church had been obstructed from performing).

However, like the other schisms I mentioned, the schisms in North America have largely healed. Although the irregular situation of overlapping dioceses remain, there exists unified authority in the form of the Society of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, and its Oriental Orthodox counterpart, the Society of Canonical Oriental Orthodox Churches (which has the delightful acronym SCOOCH). These organizations provide lists of canonical parishes, and ensure that someone who is received into one canonical Orthodox church is welcomed at the others if they, for instance, are from ROCOR and move to a town where the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America has the only Orthodox parish (which includes much of Utah, where the Antiochians are having enormous success evangelizing Mormons and converting them to Christianity).


Thus, my point is that schisms heal. Because schisms heal, we can believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, while praying for a healing of the remaining schisms, and we have this to give us hope: most schisms in the history of the church have healed, although in some cases it took many centuries for this to occur.




*Unfortunately many Eastern Orthodox would come to believe Justinian wrote it, while the Armenians, during their schism with the Syriac Orthodox Church after a party opposed to the Theopaschite Christology of Justinian came to power, credited the hymn to St. Athanasius, but like most attributions of liturgical material to St. Athanasius, including referring to Quincunque Vult as the Athanasian Creed (which to be fair was based on two of his writings, but not penned by him directly), is spurious; it should also be noted that the only remaining Armenian Eucharistic liturgy is the Anaphora of St. Athanasius, which Athanasius certainly did not write, for it is a shortened version of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, used only in the Church of Jerusalem, and lacking the early attestation of the Alexandrian liturgy (some have proposed that the Divine Liturgy of St. James is based on St. Basil; a supposed Patristic letter claiming that the liturgy of St. Basil was a shortened version of St. James and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is shortened version of St. Basil has been exposed as a forgery, which is unsurprising since we know for a fact the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a slightly edited version of the more recent recension of the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, sharing probably 80% of its text with that Anaphora, which is the ancient anaphora, which is the ancient liturgy of Alexandria and has second century attestation through St. Hippolytus, and which has been used by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church since the third century.

That is an excellent analysis, Liturgist. Schisms do heal, but we recognize that schisms come about by the will of men, not God.
God loves variety, but He does not like rebellion:
We are many members, but one body. In order for a schism to stand, the schismatics must call from whom they split, evil, else why have a schism?
Who are we to lift our hand against God’s anointed? Does it glorify God to call His Church evil and start a new one on our own?
The only way for the Orthodox to survive is to call the Roman Catholics heretics, else why stay in schism?
It is like Paul said, the body is self destructing. The eye cannot say to the foot, I have no need of thee, nor do we cut off our nose to spite our face.

Schism is not something to be proud of. It makes us out to be a group of bratty children who says dad loves me best, no he loves me, I am who he is most proud of

Schisms will heal. I can pray that people will humble themselves and allow it to happen

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are no denominations. Christ is not divided. The truth is unified, else it is not true

We look for consistency in history as Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Each denomination was founded by a man and continues its existence by the will of men, not God

Jesus says that He will build His own Church. The enemy would plant tares in it, yet the gates of hell would not prevail. They have not. There have been evil men, yet the teaching has remained consistent for 2000 years, and not one teaching contradicts the Bible.
Men (and women) who founded denominations stand on their own merits, yet teach that we are not justified by works. How could they have said that when they rest on their own works?
I have been through denominations. Since they were built by men, each one was found wanting.
I do not search for a house built by men, nor would I be satisfied there. We search for a city whose builder and maker is God.
The four marks of God’s Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. An Apostle is sent by God and proclaims the Gospel for men to follow God. The founder of a denomination claimed God for himself and enticed others to follow him and not God.
God says you will seek Him and find Him when you search for Him with all of your heart. I can only witness that everything God says is true, and the grace He has given me is beyond any esteem that I might receive by following a denomination.
There is only one God and He founded only one Church. Who am I to lift my hand against God’s anointed? Who am I to say it is not true?

As I said, you have every right to maintain your denomination's narrative. As our mutual friend, the Liturgist, has explained in great detail, no single branch of Christianity can honestly claim to be "the Church" to the exclusion of all other branches. It is earnestly hoped by many, including myself, that more schisms will be healed. However, IMO, that requires an enormous amount of humility to admit that one's denomination was not the pure and true church from which other churches schismed. The problem with the RCC, as I perceive it, is that it adamantly refuses to admit that it has ever erred or made any form of mistake. As you have demonstrated, it retains its proud assertion that it is "the Church" and that there is no other Church. As Proverbs says, pride goes before a fall.

 

[The Liturgist]

The only way for the Orthodox to survive is to call the Roman Catholics heretics, else why stay in schism?

Forgive me, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Orthodox Catholic Church is not schismatic.

 

[Valletta]

As I said, you have every right to maintain your denomination's narrative. As our mutual friend, the Liturgist, has explained in great detail, no single branch of Christianity can honestly claim to be "the Church" to the exclusion of all other branches. It is earnestly hoped by many, including myself, that more schisms will be healed. However, IMO, that requires an enormous amount of humility to admit that one's denomination was not the pure and true church from which other churches schismed. The problem with the RCC, as I perceive it, is that it adamantly refuses to admit that it has ever erred or made any form of mistake. As you have demonstrated, it retains its proud assertion that it is "the Church" and that there is no other Church. As Proverbs says, pride goes before a fall.

This thread is about Jesus and sola scriptura, once again you find a way to somehow weave in criticisms of Catholics or the Catholic Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do you have to add to the discussion about the OP? IMO, the OP is highly flawed.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Forgive me, I have no idea what you are talking about. The Orthodox Catholic Church is not schismatic.

Hence you prove my point. In order to legitimize your position, you must delegitimize others.
It’s simple logic. The Catholic Church is Christian, you are not part of the Catholic Church; therefore, you are in schism.
The way that is used to get around this is to say that the Catholic Church is not legitimate. Orthodox are told that Catholic beliefs are heretical, much the same way that Protestants are taught a knee jerk reaction that the Catholic Church is not Christian.
Each are told that to be Catholic is bad, so don’t even think about it. Each are given so called proofs that sound good on an emotional level, but do not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. All objections are quashed immediately by the rebuke, you can’t possibly think the Catholic Church is Christian, and then the narrative comes out along with proof texts or selective reading.
However, when one reviews the history of the events which surround the schism of 1054, as well as the writings of the Church fathers prior to that time, the narrative does not line up with neither Orthodox, nor Protestant claims.
To get around this, the narrative has to continue the accusation that the Catholic Church is not Christian. It is said that they are apostate, even though Jesus said that would never happen, or that they are a mere Christianization of pagan ritual, even though a simple review of Church history shows this to be false.
If it is admitted that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church, then by definition, all those that are not part of her are in schism. To deny it would be an exercise in self denial, which can de achieved by delusional thinking, but belief does not produce truth. Truth demands belief
To be honest with oneself, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would require examination, and the charge that the Catholic Church is not Christian would come from there. Show where the Catechism contradicts scripture.
To accept any other argument would be to accept the opinions of men over scripture. If you want to look for opinions of men who deny the Catholic Church, you will find no shortage of reading material, as Jesus told His disciples, you will be hated by all men for my name’s sake. To fail to examine the Catechism and history, would be to join the rabble of haters. Scripture even says that one that claims to love God, yet hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him.
To legitimately hate the Catholic Church, it needs to be proven that they are not Christian by examination of Catechism and history. Anything less is intellectually lazy and risky, as it risks hating God Himself. If the Catholic Church is Christian, then they are your brother and scripturally not worthy of hate

 

[The Liturgist]

Hence you prove my point. In order to legitimize your position, you must delegitimize others.
It’s simple logic. The Catholic Church is Christian, you are not part of the Catholic Church; therefore, you are in schism.
The way that is used to get around this is to say that the Catholic Church is not legitimate. Orthodox are told that Catholic beliefs are heretical, much the same way that Protestants are taught a knee jerk reaction that the Catholic Church is not Christian.
Each are told that to be Catholic is bad, so don’t even think about it. Each are given so called proofs that sound good on an emotional level, but do not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. All objections are quashed immediately by the rebuke, you can’t possibly think the Catholic Church is Christian, and then the narrative comes out along with proof texts or selective reading.
However, when one reviews the history of the events which surround the schism of 1054, as well as the writings of the Church fathers prior to that time, the narrative does not line up with neither Orthodox, nor Protestant claims.
To get around this, the narrative has to continue the accusation that the Catholic Church is not Christian. It is said that they are apostate, even though Jesus said that would never happen, or that they are a mere Christianization of pagan ritual, even though a simple review of Church history shows this to be false.
If it is admitted that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church, then by definition, all those that are not part of her are in schism. To deny it would be an exercise in self denial, which can de achieved by delusional thinking, but belief does not produce truth. Truth demands belief
To be honest with oneself, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would require examination, and the charge that the Catholic Church is not Christian would come from there. Show where the Catechism contradicts scripture.
To accept any other argument would be to accept the opinions of men over scripture. If you want to look for opinions of men who deny the Catholic Church, you will find no shortage of reading material, as Jesus told His disciples, you will be hated by all men for my name’s sake. To fail to examine the Catechism and history, would be to join the rabble of haters. Scripture even says that one that claims to love God, yet hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him.
To legitimately hate the Catholic Church, it needs to be proven that they are not Christian by examination of Catechism and history. Anything less is intellectually lazy and risky, as it risks hating God Himself. If the Catholic Church is Christian, then they are your brother and scripturally not worthy of hate

Your reply completely misses the point of my post, and is indeed antithetical to it. For example, it ignores my point that most schisms heal, and that the Orthodox-Catholic schism can heal in the same manner. I said the Orthodox Church is not schismatic; I did not say, nor was it my intention, to accuse the Roman Catholic church of being schismatic.

I am not going to apply to the above because it is not a valid reply to my poist; it doesn’t address anything in my post; and it makes false accusations about my catechesis (I was actually taught by one of my elders that if an Orthodox Church was out of range, to go to a Catholic Church, since they are the most like us). indeed the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox clergy often wear Latin choir dress with the clerical collar, etc.

So re-read my post and then get back to me, hopefully in a spirit of charity which reflects my desire for Orthodox-Catholic reunification by 2054.

 

[The Liturgist]

The only way for the Orthodox to survive is to call the Roman Catholics heretics, else why stay in schism?

This is not true; this is a false assertion. Only the Old Calendarists call the Roman Catholics hierarchs. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, before he resigned as director of external church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, developed close personal friendships with both Pope Francis and Billy Graham, and indeed visited with Pope Francis in a personal capacity in Budapest (where he is now Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in Hungary) in 2023 (which prompted a raft of silly conspiracy theories about the contents of their meeting).

The Orthodox are actively working with the Roman Catholics and have had a series of successful ecumenical discussions with the Roman Church.

 

[The Liturgist]

To get around this, the narrative has to continue the accusation that the Catholic Church is not Christian. It is said that they are apostate, even though Jesus said that would never happen, or that they are a mere Christianization of pagan ritual, even though a simple review of Church history shows this to be false.

Don’t you remember all the times I have debunked anyone who I have seen accuse the Roman Catholic Church of engaging in Pagan rituals? whoever I see doing this I have opposed and criticized, because such claims are false*


*I oppose them primarily because they are false; secondarily, and unbeknownst to those making them, they involve the Orthodox by extension because of the fact that the Roman RIte and the various Eastern liturgical rites such as the Byzantine, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian are very similar; most of them contain Eucharistic prayers influenced by the ancient liturgy of Antioch, including the Novus Ordo Missae (Eucharistic Prayer no. 2 is a variant of the ancient Antiochian Anaphora of the Apostles, the older wording which is still used by the Ethiopians, who use a predominantly Syrian rather than Egyptian liturgy, because they spoke a Semitic language and thus their liturgy was taught to them by the “Seven Syrian Sages” who, speaking Syriac Aramaic, were able to learn Ge’ez and translate the liturgical texts to it without difficulty; Eucharistic Prayer 4 is an abbreviated version of the the Alexandrian version of the Antiochian-based Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, and such reflects a mix of Antiochian and Alexandrian influences; this liturgy was once used by both the Greeks and Copts of Alexandria, but is now the main liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and in an abbreviated form was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church USA and several other churches starting with the 1969 Novus Orod Missae as a liturgy intended for ecumenical use in anticipation of a reunfiication which has not yet happened). Additionally, all the ancient churches and traditional liturgical Protestants share variant forms of the ancient Hagiopolitan liturgical celebrations surrounding Pascha, which we can see the origins of in the writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who as the fourth century bishop of the rebuilt Hagiopolis, set about organizing the liturgical rites of the city to accommodate the influx of pilgrims who wished to worship out Lord at the locations associated with His Passion, and many were also baptized on Holy Saturday, and thus these influential liturgies wound up shaping the post-Nicene Paschal liturgies, since the Council of Nicaea abolished Quartodecimianism and established the correct Computus or Paschalion that we continue to use at present for dating the Feast of the Ressurrection and the movable observances attached to it in Holy Week, Lent and the Pentecostarion.

These liturgical rites are Holy, and since the Roman Catholic Church continues to use them it can be regarded as engaging in Orthodoxy per se. While changes to the Roman mass in 1969 did include some problematic elements (although most of the problems are actually due to liturgical abuses, since the Novus Ordo Missae can be celebrated in a dignified manner as demonstrated by some parishes like St. John Cantius in Chicago which make us of both the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo), the overall worship of the Roman church remains beautiful; the worst problems are in the Maronite and Melkite rites, while the Ukrainian, Ambrosian, Mozarabic and especially the Carthusian Rite (which was reformed following Sacrosanctum Concilium, and most Charterhouses - Carthusian imonasteries - use the revised version, but some use the old version) are celebrated with the greatest reverence.

 

[jas3]

Hence you prove my point. In order to legitimize your position, you must delegitimize others.

Is that not exactly what you're doing by calling the Orthodox schismatic?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Is that not exactly what you're doing by calling the Orthodox schismatic?

I am not calling them schismatic. It is a simple observation of fact that since we are not united, we are in schism.

I thank the liturgist for his well wishes and kind thoughts of reunification, but why wait until 2054?

What causes us to tolerate the schism? Is it pride, false information, laziness?
Paul did not tolerate schism. He pointed out all of the schismatic groups and asked the question we all should ask. Is Christ divided? God forbid!

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not calling them schismatic. It is a simple observation of fact that since we are not united, we are in schism.

I thank the liturgist for his well wishes and kind thoughts of reunification, but why wait until 2054?

What causes us to tolerate the schism? Is it pride, false information, laziness?
Paul did not tolerate schism. He pointed out all of the schismatic groups and asked the question we all should ask. Is Christ divided? God forbid!

Again, you misunderstand me: 2054 is an objective, something to strive for, since the thought of another thousand years of schism is repulsive to myself and many other people. If we could reunite the churches tomorrow, I would want that to happen.

However, for reunion to happen, there are issues that have to be addressed. Specifically, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was criticized by other Roman Catholics for proposing reunification with the Antiochian Orthodox, although conversely this did not occur to the Chaldean Catholic Church when it proposed reunification with the Assyrian Church of the East (which was rejected by the Assyrians since the proposal did not address the issue of the relationship with Rome.*

The main issues, that are being worked on, can be summarized as the Filioque, the recognition of Orthodox martyrs such as St. Peter the Aleut, certain devotions which the Orthodox believe are theologically problematic, the Roman practice of praying using the visual imagination, Roman beliefs in purgatory, created grace and absolute divine simplicity, the preservation of the autocephalous status of the Orthodox churches as guaranteed by the canons of the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and other Ecumenical Synods, resolving the status of certain sui juris Eastern Catholic churches the existence of which in some cases involved the provocation of schisms along ethnic or tribal lines, the suppression of pro-homosexual elements in the Roman church such as the German bishops calling for “Synodality” as a means of allowing them to perform gay marriages and ordain gay clergy independent of approval from the Vatican, and likewise of pro-liberation theology elements, particularly in Latin America, the elimination of liturgical abuses in both the Western and Eastern liturgical rites (the Orthodox would not insist on the Roman Rite liturgy being done in Latin alone as was previously the case, but there is a marked contrast between the pre-1969 Roman Mass and Breviary, with their rich and ornate prayers, vestments and one year lectionary, and the Novus Ordo, and likewise with other rites, in particular the Maronite Liturgy, which used to closely resemble the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, but is now very different, lacking the beautiful poetry characteristic of the West Syriac liturgical tradition, and with several of the most loved features set aside, and finally, resolution of the issues surrounding overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in the diaspora, which in the US resulted primarily from the October Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent schism in which the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, which was the canonical Orthodox Church on this continent thanks to its evangelization of Alaska, into ROCOR, the Metropolia (now the OCA), the Patriarchal Parishes, the AOCNA (the Antiochians, who had been under the Russians but went under their own Patriarch in the confusion, but to this date the autonomous AOCNA has Slavonic influences that distinguish it from the Antiochian church in the Middle East), and the UOCNA (basically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate moved in given the disunity, already having a few parishes in a minor canonical violation on the East Coast, but sought to exploit the unhappiness of Ukrainians over the rise of the Soviet Union, and later, over the mass starvations among Ukrainian farmers caused by Stalin’s disastrous agricultural policies, in a divisive manner), which takes us to the final issue, that being Constantinople’s own authority, or lack thereof, under canon 28 of Chalcedon, since the EP lately has claimed to be Primus Sine Paribus rather than Primus Inter Pares, with the power of revoking the autocephaly of Orthodox jurisdictions and other powers that the EP has never historically had, as can be demonstrated from a reading of the history of the church, and the EP has been involved in schisms in Hong Kong and Taiwan, Korea, Estonia, Ukraine, and lately, other Baltic states (I think Latvia specifically).

Also, there is the related issue of EO-OO reunification, which is even more important in the short term than EO-RC reunification, since the EO and OO share more in common than any other churches, and indeed an EO-RC reunion might make EO-OO reunion impossible. Likewise, reunion with the Church of the East, which has at different times been in a close relationship with the Oriental Orthodox and at other times with the Chalcedonians, is very important, but even here there is an internal schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the smaller Ancient Church of the East (this schism resulted when the last of the uncanonical hereditary Patriarchs unilaterally adopted the Gregorian calendar, and a group of bishops who were already distressed after discovering the ancient Nomocanon of the Church of the East, which is based on the Apostolic canons, and prohibits a bishop from selecting his own replacement (which is how the hereditary Patriarchate worked; each Patriarch would nominate his nephew to succeed him, while remaining celibate), objected and became separated.

It is difficult to call either side schismatic in such a situation, since while the majority remained under the hereditary Patriarch, after he was tragically assassinated in the 1970s in one of those acts of absurd violence that characterized the 1960s and 70s in which so many people were assasinated by different terrorist groups, the Assyrian Church of the East, the majority faction, then renounced the hereditary Patriarchate, elected canonically a new Patriarch, Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, and then renounced Nestorian theology (they had previously replaced the Nestorian Christological model with one based on Chalcedon in the 6th century under the leadership of the Patriarch Mar Babai the Great). This schism is very close to being resolved.

This takes us back to my core point, that most schisms are transient.

Therefore, with regards to the Roman church, there are issues to be addressed, but I have no doubt they can be addressed, and indeed the fact that the sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches remain in full communion with Rome while having been allowed to revert to a Byzantine theological model is a good sign, however, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox prefer more doctrinal consistency - we would not want a situation like that of the Anglicans, wherein diverse theological models exist in one communion - Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity must be properly reconciled to each other, and not be allowed to exist, as is presently the case with the Eastern Catholic churches, in the same way that Anglo Catholics, traditional High Church, Broad Church, traditional Low Church, Charismatic, Liberal Catholic and contemporary Evangelical parishes co-exist in the Church of England or the Church of Australia or the Episcopal Church USA, in some cases without even a nominal effort being expended to preserve theological or liturgical unity, for example, in parishes jointly operated with the ELCA and other denominations, and in eccentric parishes like St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco*.

Rather, there must exist a real theological unity, which can only be achieved by a theological dialogue to resolve the differences between Scholastic and Orthodox theology, or rather, between contemporary Western Catholic theology which includes some Scholastic elements but which is increasingly influenced by Byzantine theology, which is good, since obviously there is much more common ground now than would have existed in 1900. But there are still differences, involving eschatology, the nature of the Theotokos, the role of the Bishop of Rome, liturgical theology, mystical theology, the theology of prayer, soteriology, and triadology, important differences, which we must reach an understanding about in order to achieve real unity as opposed to the situation in the mainline Protestant churches where parishes can vary dramatically, and in Anglicanism where this variation is institutitionalized. This is because while this has been of benefit in terms of protecting traditional theology in Anglicanism, by ensuring it remained tolerated as a mode of churchmanship, the new Anglo Catholic Continuing Anglican Churches in the US which enumerate seven sacraments and embrace a traditional theology not unlike that of the Orthodox or Catholics represent a viable future, since they can fill their churches, whereas the broad church parishes of the Episcopal Church are increasingly empty. Insofar as a lack of theological unity exists in Roman Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy with regards to the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, we need to address that.

This is why I believe EO-OO unity, which can be more easily obtained (since indeed, it already exists at a pastoral care level in Syria and Egypt), and also internal unity within the Church of the East, is a prerequisite towards an EO-Assyrian reunification dialogue, which in turn is a prerequisite to the most ambitious task, that being of bringing to an end the Great Schism between the EO and RCC, which is called Great for a Reason, but through the intercession of the Theotokos, Christ will grant us reunification, if we pray fervently and are obedient to him, and carefully follow the canons issued by the first three ecumenical councils of His Church (and later councils insofar as they do not contradict these first councils) and the opinions of the major church fathers such as Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. John of Damascus on the issue of reconciliation.


* They probably would have selected a different saint had they realized that St. Gregory of Nyssa and his elder brother St. Basil the Great are among the relatively small number of Early Church Fathers who found it to be necessary (as did St. Paul) to issue a blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexuality in the form of a canon law promulgated with other canons in their dioceses, which are included in the Philokalia, the definitive connection of Orthodox canons, analogous to the Decretals, the corresponding Roman Catholic nomocanon, in both cases tracing back to the Apostolic Canons and the canons of the Ecumenical Synods.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Again, you misunderstand me: 2054 is an objective, something to strive for, since the thought of another thousand years of schism is repulsive to myself and many other people. If we could reunite the churches tomorrow, I would want that to happen.

However, for reunion to happen, there are issues that have to be addressed. Specifically, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church was criticized by other Roman Catholics for proposing reunification with the Antiochian Orthodox, although conversely this did not occur to the Chaldean Catholic Church when it proposed reunification with the Assyrian Church of the East (which was rejected by the Assyrians since the proposal did not address the issue of the relationship with Rome.*

The main issues, that are being worked on, can be summarized as the Filioque, the recognition of Orthodox martyrs such as St. Peter the Aleut, certain devotions which the Orthodox believe are theologically problematic, the Roman practice of praying using the visual imagination, Roman beliefs in purgatory, created grace and absolute divine simplicity, the preservation of the autocephalous status of the Orthodox churches as guaranteed by the canons of the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and other Ecumenical Synods, resolving the status of certain sui juris Eastern Catholic churches the existence of which in some cases involved the provocation of schisms along ethnic or tribal lines, the suppression of pro-homosexual elements in the Roman church such as the German bishops calling for “Synodality” as a means of allowing them to perform gay marriages and ordain gay clergy independent of approval from the Vatican, and likewise of pro-liberation theology elements, particularly in Latin America, the elimination of liturgical abuses in both the Western and Eastern liturgical rites (the Orthodox would not insist on the Roman Rite liturgy being done in Latin alone as was previously the case, but there is a marked contrast between the pre-1969 Roman Mass and Breviary, with their rich and ornate prayers, vestments and one year lectionary, and the Novus Ordo, and likewise with other rites, in particular the Maronite Liturgy, which used to closely resemble the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, but is now very different, lacking the beautiful poetry characteristic of the West Syriac liturgical tradition, and with several of the most loved features set aside, and finally, resolution of the issues surrounding overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in the diaspora, which in the US resulted primarily from the October Revolution and the rise of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent schism in which the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, which was the canonical Orthodox Church on this continent thanks to its evangelization of Alaska, into ROCOR, the Metropolia (now the OCA), the Patriarchal Parishes, the AOCNA (the Antiochians, who had been under the Russians but went under their own Patriarch in the confusion, but to this date the autonomous AOCNA has Slavonic influences that distinguish it from the Antiochian church in the Middle East), and the UOCNA (basically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate moved in given the disunity, already having a few parishes in a minor canonical violation on the East Coast, but sought to exploit the unhappiness of Ukrainians over the rise of the Soviet Union, and later, over the mass starvations among Ukrainian farmers caused by Stalin’s disastrous agricultural policies, in a divisive manner), which takes us to the final issue, that being Constantinople’s own authority, or lack thereof, under canon 28 of Chalcedon, since the EP lately has claimed to be Primus Sine Paribus rather than Primus Inter Pares, with the power of revoking the autocephaly of Orthodox jurisdictions and other powers that the EP has never historically had, as can be demonstrated from a reading of the history of the church, and the EP has been involved in schisms in Hong Kong and Taiwan, Korea, Estonia, Ukraine, and lately, other Baltic states (I think Latvia specifically).

Also, there is the related issue of EO-OO reunification, which is even more important in the short term than EO-RC reunification, since the EO and OO share more in common than any other churches, and indeed an EO-RC reunion might make EO-OO reunion impossible. Likewise, reunion with the Church of the East, which has at different times been in a close relationship with the Oriental Orthodox and at other times with the Chalcedonians, is very important, but even here there is an internal schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the smaller Ancient Church of the East (this schism resulted when the last of the uncanonical hereditary Patriarchs unilaterally adopted the Gregorian calendar, and a group of bishops who were already distressed after discovering the ancient Nomocanon of the Church of the East, which is based on the Apostolic canons, and prohibits a bishop from selecting his own replacement (which is how the hereditary Patriarchate worked; each Patriarch would nominate his nephew to succeed him, while remaining celibate), objected and became separated.

It is difficult to call either side schismatic in such a situation, since while the majority remained under the hereditary Patriarch, after he was tragically assassinated in the 1970s in one of those acts of absurd violence that characterized the 1960s and 70s in which so many people were assasinated by different terrorist groups, the Assyrian Church of the East, the majority faction, then renounced the hereditary Patriarchate, elected canonically a new Patriarch, Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, and then renounced Nestorian theology (they had previously replaced the Nestorian Christological model with one based on Chalcedon in the 6th century under the leadership of the Patriarch Mar Babai the Great). This schism is very close to being resolved.

This takes us back to my core point, that most schisms are transient.

Therefore, with regards to the Roman church, there are issues to be addressed, but I have no doubt they can be addressed, and indeed the fact that the sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches remain in full communion with Rome while having been allowed to revert to a Byzantine theological model is a good sign, however, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox prefer more doctrinal consistency - we would not want a situation like that of the Anglicans, wherein diverse theological models exist in one communion - Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity must be properly reconciled to each other, and not be allowed to exist, as is presently the case with the Eastern Catholic churches, in the same way that Anglo Catholics, traditional High Church, Broad Church, traditional Low Church, Charismatic, Liberal Catholic and contemporary Evangelical parishes co-exist in the Church of England or the Church of Australia or the Episcopal Church USA, in some cases without even a nominal effort being expended to preserve theological or liturgical unity, for example, in parishes jointly operated with the ELCA and other denominations, and in eccentric parishes like St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco*.

Rather, there must exist a real theological unity, which can only be achieved by a theological dialogue to resolve the differences between Scholastic and Orthodox theology, or rather, between contemporary Western Catholic theology which includes some Scholastic elements but which is increasingly influenced by Byzantine theology, which is good, since obviously there is much more common ground now than would have existed in 1900. But there are still differences, involving eschatology, the nature of the Theotokos, the role of the Bishop of Rome, liturgical theology, mystical theology, the theology of prayer, soteriology, and triadology, important differences, which we must reach an understanding about in order to achieve real unity as opposed to the situation in the mainline Protestant churches where parishes can vary dramatically, and in Anglicanism where this variation is institutitionalized. This is because while this has been of benefit in terms of protecting traditional theology in Anglicanism, by ensuring it remained tolerated as a mode of churchmanship, the new Anglo Catholic Continuing Anglican Churches in the US which enumerate seven sacraments and embrace a traditional theology not unlike that of the Orthodox or Catholics represent a viable future, since they can fill their churches, whereas the broad church parishes of the Episcopal Church are increasingly empty. Insofar as a lack of theological unity exists in Roman Catholicism and in Eastern Orthodoxy with regards to the actions of the Patriarch of Constantinople, we need to address that.

This is why I believe EO-OO unity, which can be more easily obtained (since indeed, it already exists at a pastoral care level in Syria and Egypt), and also internal unity within the Church of the East, is a prerequisite towards an EO-Assyrian reunification dialogue, which in turn is a prerequisite to the most ambitious task, that being of bringing to an end the Great Schism between the EO and RCC, which is called Great for a Reason, but through the intercession of the Theotokos, Christ will grant us reunification, if we pray fervently and are obedient to him, and carefully follow the canons issued by the first three ecumenical councils of His Church (and later councils insofar as they do not contradict these first councils) and the opinions of the major church fathers such as Pope St. Gregory the Great and St. John of Damascus on the issue of reconciliation.


* They probably would have selected a different saint had they realized that St. Gregory of Nyssa and his elder brother St. Basil the Great are among the relatively small number of Early Church Fathers who found it to be necessary (as did St. Paul) to issue a blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexuality in the form of a canon law promulgated with other canons in their dioceses, which are included in the Philokalia, the definitive connection of Orthodox canons, analogous to the Decretals, the corresponding Roman Catholic nomocanon, in both cases tracing back to the Apostolic Canons and the canons of the Ecumenical Synods.

And you misunderstand me. All of the reasons which you list amount to no more than human desires, preferences and understanding, which amounts to no more than mutterings coming from dust.

Where is the glory of God in the schism?
It seems that many have many conditions before they agree to follow Christ. This should not be, we are to deny ourselves and subject ourselves to God. Schism is evil in that it demands God bow to us. Where is the thought of not my will but thine be done?
I do not want the orthodox to bow to Catholics, but we should be united to bow together before almighty God.

The body of Christ is not a multiheaded hydra, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

 

[The Liturgist]

All of the reasons which you list amount to no more than human desires, preferences and understanding, which amounts to no more than mutterings coming from dust.

False. Determining the truth about issues such as the filioque and taking steps to eliminate the pro-homosexual movement in the Roman Catholic Church, and the resolution of the schisms in the Eastern churches, are Christian imperatives.

No less important is avoiding the creation of new schisms by a reunification. If right now the RCC merged with the EO church on either the most ideal Orthodox terms or the most ideal Roman Catholic terms or on any position in between the two, it would cause a schism. People would leave and join the SSPX etc on the RCC side and the Old Calendarists like the “Genuine Orthodox Church” on the EO side, as well as forming new ones (we know this from the large amount of anti-Orthodox and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment that exists in both churches, particularly in areas such as the former Yugoslavia where the two churches did not have an entirely happy relationship).

Thus prior to any reunification, efforts must be made to ensure that no significant schismatic activity occurs either in terms of increases in the membership of existing schisms or the formation of new schisms.

It also must be determined which of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches want to reunite with their Orthodox counterparts (thus far it appears this is the case with the Melkites and the Chaldeans), and which ones do not. And of course there’s the issue as to whether or not sui juris churches should be granted autocephaly or made autonomous churches under the local Orthodox patriarchs, since the important canonical issue is that, under the Apostolic canons and canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, these churches constitute invasions of the canonical territory of the Orthodox Churches in those territories.

Indeed this must be applied even to activities in Jerusalem itself; the advantage of an EO/OO reunion preceding an EO/RC issue is that there are more overlapping dioceses pertaining to the EO/OO schism in Jerusalem, and settling these first allows us to then address the issue of what to do with the Latin Rite Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whether to tolerate their presence using the canonical presidence of Metochia (a Metochion is a church that represents one autocephalous church in the territory of another), or whether canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea requires all activity in Jerusalem be supervised directly by the autocephalous hagiopolitan Patriarch.

And we can’t dismiss these issues as human objections, because the autocephalous status of the Eastern churches was confirmed by the 318 Holy Fathers at the Synod of Nicaea, whose feast day is today, and by the Holy Fathers of subsequent ecumenical councils such as that of Ephesus (the third ecumenical synod where Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome acted decisively against the heresiarchs Nestorius and Pelagius).

The body of Christ is not a multiheaded hydra, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

Indeed it is not - Christ is the Head of his Church, and always has been. The leaders of the individual local churches such as the churches of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia, and so on are each personally and directly answerable to Christ for the proper leadership of their churches.

There is no canonical or Scriptural basis for assigning the Bishop of Rome any actual control or custody over the autocephalous Orthodox churches, or vice versa, and I would note that while sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches have been established with Patriarchs in Antioch, Alexandria and other Orthodox jurisdictions, the reverse is not true - the Orthodox have never sought to establish an Orthodox bishop of Rome even though this has been theoretically possible since at least the end of WWII.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

False. Determining the truth about issues such as the filioque and taking steps to eliminate the pro-homosexual movement in the Roman Catholic Church, and the resolution of the schisms in the Eastern churches, are Christian imperatives.

No less important is avoiding the creation of new schisms by a reunification. If right now the RCC merged with the EO church on either the most ideal Orthodox terms or the most ideal Roman Catholic terms or on any position in between the two, it would cause a schism. People would leave and join the SSPX etc on the RCC side and the Old Calendarists like the “Genuine Orthodox Church” on the EO side, as well as forming new ones (we know this from the large amount of anti-Orthodox and anti-Roman Catholic sentiment that exists in both churches, particularly in areas such as the former Yugoslavia where the two churches did not have an entirely happy relationship).

Thus prior to any reunification, efforts must be made to ensure that no significant schismatic activity occurs either in terms of increases in the membership of existing schisms or the formation of new schisms.

It also must be determined which of the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches want to reunite with their Orthodox counterparts (thus far it appears this is the case with the Melkites and the Chaldeans), and which ones do not. And of course there’s the issue as to whether or not sui juris churches should be granted autocephaly or made autonomous churches under the local Orthodox patriarchs, since the important canonical issue is that, under the Apostolic canons and canons 6 and 7 of Nicaea, these churches constitute invasions of the canonical territory of the Orthodox Churches in those territories.

Indeed this must be applied even to activities in Jerusalem itself; the advantage of an EO/OO reunion preceding an EO/RC issue is that there are more overlapping dioceses pertaining to the EO/OO schism in Jerusalem, and settling these first allows us to then address the issue of what to do with the Latin Rite Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whether to tolerate their presence using the canonical presidence of Metochia (a Metochion is a church that represents one autocephalous church in the territory of another), or whether canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea requires all activity in Jerusalem be supervised directly by the autocephalous hagiopolitan Patriarch.

And we can’t dismiss these issues as human objections, because the autocephalous status of the Eastern churches was confirmed by the 318 Holy Fathers at the Synod of Nicaea, whose feast day is today, and by the Holy Fathers of subsequent ecumenical councils such as that of Ephesus (the third ecumenical synod where Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and Archbishop St. Celestine of Rome acted decisively against the heresiarchs Nestorius and Pelagius).



Indeed it is not - Christ is the Head of his Church, and always has been. The leaders of the individual local churches such as the churches of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Cyprus, Armenia, Georgia, and so on are each personally and directly answerable to Christ for the proper leadership of their churches.

There is no canonical or Scriptural basis for assigning the Bishop of Rome any actual control or custody over the autocephalous Orthodox churches, or vice versa, and I would note that while sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches have been established with Patriarchs in Antioch, Alexandria and other Orthodox jurisdictions, the reverse is not true - the Orthodox have never sought to establish an Orthodox bishop of Rome even though this has been theoretically possible since at least the end of WWII.

It is always a pleasure to hear from you Liturgist, you strive to resolve history with the current situation, which is admirable. Your contention forces me to further study.
Your presentation of facts on which you rest your argument is incomplete, and therefore does not give the whole story.
In a court of law, this would be similar to the prosecution withholding facts from the jury to get the verdict it wants. I don’t believe that you do this intentionally, but an analysis of the facts shows it to be the case.

What needs to be considered is the pontificate of Victor I from the late second century and Pope Dionysius from the mid to late third century

The heresy of Arianism arose in the East, and unfortunately numerous heresies have arisen there. Not so with Rome. In the late second century, Pope Victor excommunicated a Byzantian theologian, Theodotus, for teaching that Christ was a mere virgin born man. Pope Dionysius condemned Arianism approximately 60 years before the council of Nicea
While it may be true that Pope Sylvester may not have been directly involved in the council of Nicea, the orthodoxy upon which St Athanasius relied came from the orthodoxy of the Bishops of Rome, namely Victor and Dionysius
The eastern bishops did not on their own come to the conclusion that Arianism was heretical at Nicea. A large number of them were Arians.

As to autocephalous Sees or Bishoprics, I take that to mean that each region have its own bishop and one diocese should not encroach on another. I agree that this is more in line with the hierarchy of the kingdom established by Our Lord, however, prior to the schism, each of the autocephalous bishops deferred to the Bishop or Rome as the final arbiter of disputes


As humans we all want to make quick judgements and end disputes without thinking about them. It is humiliating to think we may be wrong, but for the sake or truth, we humble ourselves and view history in its entirety prior to coming to a conclusion. My study is not complete and I can always use further correction, but the truth is the truth, and we constantly seek it, not considering we have already obtained all there is


I thank you for challenging me and forcing me to study. We press on in the race to obtain the prize of eternity in Christ Jesus.

God bless you

 

[The Liturgist]

The eastern bishops did not on their own come to the conclusion that Arianism was heretical at Nicea. A large number of them were Arians.

Not true; there were no Arian bishops in the Christian church, by definition. And the Council of Nicaea was attended by most relevant bishops, whether actually Christian or Arian imposters, and of the Arian imposters, all (approximately five) left before the signing of of the Acts of the Council and its canons. A few others such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, did not attend. Eusebius of Caesarea initially equivocated, but the Syriac Orthodox venerate him as a saint, and at most he was guilty in the moment of being a lukewarm bishop who is reticent to anathematize or excommunicate, which is not uncommon in the present era.

Regarding St. Dionysius and St. Victor, your argument fallaciously presupposes that no one in the Eastern church would otherwise be aware of the heretical nature of the Arian heresy. It ignores, for example, the initiative taken by the laity of the Church of Antioch to depose the corrupt heresiarch Paul of Samosata; indeed Paul of Samosata was condemned by a proto-ecumenical synod at Antioch, which sent Archbishop Dionysius (remember, Roman bishops prior to the mid 6th century, approx. 537 AD, were not styled Pope, that title only being used by the bishops of Alexandria such as Popes St. Peter, St. Alexander, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, from the early third century until the sixth century, when it was also adopted by Rome; indeed even the title Pontifex Maximus was not used by a Roman bishop until taken up by Leo I). Had it not been for the Council of Antioch deposing Paul of Samosata, it is doubtful that St. Dionysius would have even been made aware of the heresiarch and his corruption and blasphemy.

Thus at a minimum your argument relies on cherrypicking and an argument from silence.

As to autocephalous Sees or Bishoprics, I take that to mean that each region have its own bishop and one diocese should not encroach on another. I agree that this is more in line with the hierarchy of the kingdom established by Our Lord, however, prior to the schism, each of the autocephalous bishops deferred to the Bishop or Rome as the final arbiter of disputes

In theory, yes, but only because of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and this did not prevent Roman bishops from being deposed by others, or anathematized, as happened with Pope Honorius I (who unlike St. Victor or St. Dionysius, was actually styled Pope, and who was, along with other Monothelites, anathematized by everyone including Rome when it acceded to the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which like all Ecumenical Synods consisted primarily of Greek bishops).

Even St. Victor was rebuked by St. Irenaeus of Lyons for attempting to exert an authority he did not have, by rebuking churches in Asia Minor to adopt the Paschalion (at the time, they celebrated on the 14th of Nissan, which was permissable until the Council of Nicaea decided that the few remaining churches using the method should stop, and use the Paschalion or Computus for the date of Pascha, due to the well known changes to the Jewish calendar system in the second century).

At present, in the RCC, the Pope could do what St. Victor wanted to do and those who criticized too loudly the actions of some recent Popes, or indeed were even suspected of disagreeing with the Pope’s objectives, conservatives such as Gerhard Cardinal Muller, found their careers impacted adversely.