EO and RCC.

[zippy2006]

I do not believe for a moment that The Liturgist is an Ultramontanist, but his mention of the possibility of Rome accepting the validity of Eastern Orthodoxy is something I have come across many times in the years I was a member of Catholic Answers forum, and in that context it was always in the sense that Yeshua HaDerekh understood the comment.

If you read the remainder of the sentence that was clipped in post #90 it becomes impossible to interpret it as Ultramontanism, whether or not you know anything about The Liturgist. By definition Ultramontanism could not assent to, "the absolute autonomous autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox churches and their bishops since antiquity."

I don't see any use for you to try to defend the idea that an Ultramontanist interpretation of post #85 is plausible.

 

[prodromos]

If you read the remainder of the sentence that was clipped in post #90 it becomes impossible to interpret it as Ultramontanism, whether or not you know anything about The Liturgist. By definition Ultramontanism could not assent to, "the absolute autonomous autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox churches and their bishops since antiquity."

My first thought when I read that part of The Liturgist's post, was that it makes no difference to us one way or the other if Rome chooses to recognise anything of Orthodoxy as valid. I didn't think anything of critiquing The Liturgist since he was simply expressing his thoughts about what the approach of the Catholic Church might be, but the comment resonated strongly with what I have experienced from Catholics on CA over several years, that something is only valid if the Catholic Church says so. The rest of the comment was peripheral to that and didn't have much of an impact.
I'm sorry that you can't accept anthing other than your own narrow interpretation of events, but it is rater ironic that you presently represent exactly the attitude among Catholics that led to YHD's response. Only you have the truth, the rest of us are lying scum.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

My first thought when I read that part of The Liturgist's post, was that it makes no difference to us one way or the other if Rome chooses to recognise anything of Orthodoxy as valid. I didn't think anything of critiquing The Liturgist since he was simply expressing his thoughts about what the approach of the Catholic Church might be, but the comment resonated strongly with what I have experienced from Catholics on CA over several years, that something is only valid if the Catholic Church says so. The rest of the comment was peripheral to that and didn't have much of an impact.
I'm sorry that you can't accept anything other than your own narrow interpretation of events, but it is rater ironic that you presently represent exactly the attitude among Catholics that led to YHD's response. Only you have the truth, the rest of us are lying scum.

Yes that was the way I took the comment as I have already explained. If you look at the thread I even said as much..."why do we need Rome to validate any of our doctrines". I would likely have taken it differently if it said "accept" instead. So as everyone can see, Zippy is just beating a dead horse as I have already explained what had happened...it was an honest mistake.

 

[zippy2006]

My first thought when I read that part of The Liturgist's post, was that it makes no difference to us one way or the other if Rome chooses to recognise anything of Orthodoxy as valid. I didn't think anything of critiquing The Liturgist since he was simply expressing his thoughts about what the approach of the Catholic Church might be, but the comment resonated strongly with what I have experienced from Catholics on CA over several years, that something is only valid if the Catholic Church says so.

Then perhaps your reading comprehension is as bad and as biased as his. Post #85 was about ecumenical reconciliation, as the first few words make clear. Someone wrote a post about ecumenical reconciliation in which three points were outlined:

1. Rome recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
2. Rome recognizes the absolute autonomous autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox churches and their bishops since antiquity.
3. Rome recognizes the grave error committed when a Roman legate uncanonically excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1054.

Apparently you all think that the above constitutes some sort of hostile Ultramontane attack on Orthodoxy. In fact what is outlined is an entire surrender of Roman doctrine to Orthodox doctrine. The only way this could have been more unconditional were if a revocation of the filioque were included. If anyone can object to post #85, it is Catholics!

You all have so much blood in your eyes that you literally don't know what words mean. You will interpret black to be white so long as it validates your insufferable factionalism, your golden idol. Perhaps this is proof that the Orthodox really aren't interested in unity at all. The prospect of unconditional surrender elicits nothing but farcical factionalism from them.

 

[prodromos]

Then perhaps your reading comprehension is as bad and as biased as his.

So we are not just lying scum, we are stupid lying scum. Good to know.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

T

1. Rome recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

As I said, if it would have said "Rome ACCEPTS EO doctrine" rather then "recognizes the validity", the meaning would have been different in my opinion...but as we can see, nothing matters to you and no explanation good enough to quell your obsession with demeaning me...so it would seem that it is you with blood in your eyes...

 

[mark46]

Then perhaps your reading comprehension is as bad and as biased as his. Post #85 was about ecumenical reconciliation, as the first few words make clear. Someone wrote a post about ecumenical reconciliation in which three points were outlined:

1. Rome recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
2. Rome recognizes the absolute autonomous autocephaly of the Eastern Orthodox churches and their bishops since antiquity.
3. Rome recognizes the grave error committed when a Roman legate uncanonically excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1054.

Apparently you all think that the above constitutes some sort of hostile Ultramontane attack on Orthodoxy. In fact what is outlined is an entire surrender of Roman doctrine to Orthodox doctrine. The only way this could have been more unconditional were if a revocation of the filioque were included. If anyone can object to post #85, it is Catholics!

You all have so much blood in your eyes that you literally don't know what words mean. You will interpret black to be white so long as it validates your insufferable factionalism, your golden idol. Perhaps this is proof that the Orthodox really aren't interested in unity at all. The prospect of unconditional surrender elicits nothing but farcical factionalism from them.

Rudeness and ad hominem attacks are truly out of line. Perhaps, you haven't had many open discussions with those who strongly disagree with you.

IMO, there definitely should be a fourth point, concerning the grave error unilaterally changes the Creed.

The bottom line is that four points don't even constitute an adequate summary, although they could provide the basis for further discussions and better understanding. You must understand that we are trying to understand each other. We both are of the True Faith.

 

[mark46]

As I said, if it would have said "Rome ACCEPTS EO doctrine" rather then "recognizes the validity", the meaning would have been different in my opinion...but as we can see, nothing matters to you and no explanation good enough to quell your obsession with demeaning me...so it would seem that it is you with blood in your eyes...

Yes, the meaning would be slightly different. I guess the question is whether there can be two wasy of stating the same doctrine, where both are valid.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, the meaning would be slightly different. I guess the question is whether there can be two wasy of stating the same doctrine, where both are valid.

If there was, then I suppose that in the past millennium some theologian would have discovered it.

 

[bpd_stl]

We share a common patrimony that gradually diverged long before 1054 AD...certainly by the rise of the Carolingians...perhaps even after the Byzantines abandoned Italy in the 6th century. The 4th Crusade didn't help matters any, nor the numerous attempts by various popes to impose the Latin Rite on the various EO Churches in the following centuries. A lot of bad blood that shouldn't be swept under the rug.

We grew apart. We still have much in common...which is why the slightest differences mean so much. When the RCC finds even the slightest thing in common with any of the numerous Protestant churches...it is trumpeted from the rooftops. If the RCC & EO find any sort of agreement today...it is mercilessly scrutinized and even attacked.

The Desert Fathers and the Philokalia have had a tremendous influence on my spirituality and theological outlook. But so has Augustine & Aquinas.

 

[Mountainmike]

Have you ever read the 14th century apologia of Demetrios Kedones ( it’s in one of likoudis books)?

It’s fascinating that an orthodox considered the differences are more in antipathy than theology, and divergence of understanding rather than fact caused by language and geography.

Worth the read!

We share a common patrimony that gradually diverged long before 1054 AD...certainly by the rise of the Carolingians...perhaps even after the Byzantines abandoned Italy in the 6th century. The 4th Crusade didn't help matters any, nor the numerous attempts by various popes to impose the Latin Rite on the various EO Churches in the following centuries. A lot of bad blood that shouldn't be swept under the rug.

We grew apart. We still have much in common...which is why the slightest differences mean so much. When the RCC finds even the slightest thing in common with any of the numerous Protestant churches...it is trumpeted from the rooftops. If the RCC & EO find any sort of agreement today...it is mercilessly scrutinized and even attacked.

The Desert Fathers and the Philokalia have had a tremendous influence on my spirituality and theological outlook. But so has Augustine & Aquinas.

 

[bpd_stl]

Have you ever read the 14th century apologia of Demetrios Kedones ( it’s in one of likoudis books)?

It’s fascinating that an orthodox considered the differences are more in antipathy than theology, and divergence of understanding rather than fact caused by language and geography.

Worth the read!

Antipathy over theology...who would have ever thunk it? ...or cultural identity?

We're guilty on both sides, to be honest. Nonetheless, we have a lot in common that unites us more than it divides us. I admit I'm being naively optimistic. A dreamer can still dream....

 

[Mountainmike]

Antipathy over theology...who would have ever thunk it? ...or cultural identity?

We're guilty on both sides, to be honest. Nonetheless, we have a lot in common that unites us more than it divides us. I admit I'm being naively optimistic. A dreamer can still dream....

I was quite encouraged hearing enthusiastic talks by Kallistos Ware, but he didn’t seem to be able to get Russian orthodox onboard.

 

[Mountainmike]

Patriarch Bartholomew said "The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different
", in his address to Georgetown University.

The oddity is of course that the claimed diverging description presented of orthodox growing in faith and grace , is just the same in the Catholic Church. EndLess treatises are written on aspiring towards mystical union. It’s true that Greek uses different ways to describe it, but the idea that the goal or journey are different is lost in description. We also call penance a “sacrament of healing” a soul that is sick, as the orthodox believe.

The one we will never resolve is Peter. There is but one set of keys.

 

[Albion]

The way you presented the matter in that post, Mike, highlights (IMHO) the main roadblock to such union.

Although everyone agrees that union is desirable and good, the Roman Catholic position always comes across as wanting unity by which is meant what it will take for the other communion to accept Rome's view of things.

 

[Mountainmike]

The way you presented the matter in that post, Mike, highlights (IMHO) the main roadblock to such union.

Although everyone agrees that union is desirable and good, the Roman Catholic position always comes across as wanting unity by which is meant what it will take for the other communion to accept Rome's view of things.

The reciprocal is also true.

But if there were five sets of keys of the kingdom, in the bible, each one asked to “ tend my flock” I might be persuaded that there shoukd now be five patriarchs of equal role and stature. But there aren’t.

I think doctrinal issues are bridgeable. I fail to see how the pope can be.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

When I lived in Boston, I was friends with a couple Eastern rite Catholics, mainly Maronites. One of the things that they griped about was a feeling of second class citizenship within a Roman Rite world. So their children could take communion at a Maronite church but not at a Latin-rite one. Married priests was another dispute and one that ended up with the Ruthenians leaving Rome altogether in the 1920s and are now a diocese of the Orthodox church. A classmate from seminary is their metropolitan, Metropolitan Gregory. Experiences like that do not encourage us Orthodox to really seek unity with Rome.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don’t think many of us are a great advert for our churches.

When I lived in Boston, I was friends with a couple Eastern rite Catholics, mainly Maronites. One of the things that they griped about was a feeling of second class citizenship within a Roman Rite world. So their children could take communion at a Maronite church but not at a Latin-rite one. Married priests was another dispute and one that ended up with the Ruthenians leaving Rome altogether in the 1920s and are now a diocese of the Orthodox church. A classmate from seminary is their metropolitan, Metropolitan Gregory. Experiences like that do not encourage us Orthodox to really seek unity with Rome.

 

[bpd_stl]

When I lived in Boston, I was friends with a couple Eastern rite Catholics, mainly Maronites. One of the things that they griped about was a feeling of second class citizenship within a Roman Rite world. So their children could take communion at a Maronite church but not at a Latin-rite one. Married priests was another dispute and one that ended up with the Ruthenians leaving Rome altogether in the 1920s and are now a diocese of the Orthodox church. A classmate from seminary is their metropolitan, Metropolitan Gregory. Experiences like that do not encourage us Orthodox to really seek unity with Rome.

That sucks (or blows...depending upon your take of things.) I am a stalwart Roman Catholic, but by no means a Ultramontanist. I recite the Nicene-Constantapolitian Creed at Mass in its original form...no filioque. My personal choice. I do not consider myself a heretic or schismatic for doing so...and I dare anybody to find fault in reciting the Creed in it's original formulation.

We RC & EO have so much in common. My pretend self wishes we could push pass all the differences and make 2054 the date of reunion. Time to come back to reality now...

 

[Albion]

The reciprocal is also true.

That's a fair point, Mike. I don't doubt you when you point that out, but I am not as well acquainted with the EO contributions made in any of these unity exchanges. Then too, it was your post that caught my eye as I was scanning the list of posts.

But if there were five sets of keys of the kingdom, in the bible, each one asked to “ tend my flock” I might be persuaded that there shoukd now be five patriarchs of equal role and stature. But there aren’t.

Well, the keys thing is really misunderstood in the West and it doesn't mean at all what Catholic laypersons who have been through confirmation classes, RCIA, or anything similar will insist to their dying day that it means.

I think doctrinal issues are bridgeable. I fail to see how the pope can be.

I generally agree with the first of those. As for the pope, you are probably right about that.