Terms of union with Roman Catholics

[Philothei]

Why do you assume we have a Protestant background?

LOL...I think he was covering all sides.. Anti-catholic: ex-protestant, vicious ethnic driven (cradel EO) or maybe ex-catholic(?) this one was not covered ... But it is a non-debatable point. It has no place here... per rules and all. Anyone who is EO is anti-catholic? This is moot point and a dead end street...

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Alonso,

I don't think any of us here disagree with what the Patriarch was saying; that conversation and fellowship is a good thing. Nobody here is saying that you, as a Roman Catholic, or that anyone else is not a good person, is not pious, is not necessarily a Christian. What we are saying is that we have no interest in changing anything about our faith to make you (or the Pope) happy. Nowhere in the address you cited will you find Bartholomew saying that the EO church is interested in compromising the basic tenets and practices of our faith in order to go along or get along. Likewise, you need to understand that we don't really care if you change what you are doing, that is your business and yours alone. If you ask us what we think you OUGHT to do, we will tell you, but it is still your decision on what to do. As for you telling us what you think about what we do, we don't care because we didn't ask you, and trust me, we won't.

Do you know what is Ecumenism?

Is the searching of Unity. The Patriarch Bartholomeo I endorses the Seraching for Unity between Cartholics and Orthodox. Your own selfishness and self sufficiency, is opposed to the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Why do you assume we have a Protestant background?

Montalban is not a Nickname of the east. and it is not a secret that protestants in USA are moving to Catholicism, EOs or OOs depending in the degree of anticatholicism they have. Because of protestantism is falling down in every aspect either eclesiology, moral, sunday service attendance, etc. EO represents a lifesaver for those whose ships are sinking and don't want to enter in communion with Rome

 

[Coralie]

??

 

[Philothei]

As far to the difference in ecclesiology :

It seems clear that some of the loss of conciliarity can be attributed to an over-emphasis on so-called “universal” ecclesiology, for which “eucharistic” ecclesiology has been offered as a corrective. In the crudest terms, universal ecclesiology is top-down, whereas eucharistic ecclesiology is bottom-up. Universal ecclesiology, which is the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church, sees the whole church in the whole world as a single organic entity with a single head. Each local manifestation of the church is a part of the body. Afanassieff[SIZE=-1]17[/SIZE] reminds us that universal ecclesiology is a product of the imperial mindset, which sees unity as derived from centralization. This was the Roman political ideology, and it seemed logical to church theologians like Cyprian, who were worried about the looser, more subjective, unity of the conciliar church — a number of autonomous local churches united by concord and love, except that in practice they were sometimes more engaged in discord and enmity.
Using Paul’s image of the body of Christ, Cyprian developed the idea that fullness and unity are attributes of the whole church, and each local manifestation is merely a member or part of that whole, not itself possessing catholicity. The Catholic Church is the sum of its parts, like the branches of a tree.
But universal ecclesiology is not the only means to Christian unity, and it was not the pattern of the primitive church. This was eucharistic ecclesiology. In the early centuries, every local church was autonomous and independent. This was not just historical circumstance; it was a doctrinal assertion that the eucharist assembly constituted the church. The Universal Church idea, when it took hold, represented a change in both circumstance and doctrine. Recent Orthodox theology has sought to reclaim eucharistic ecclesiology as being more authentically Orthodox and more suitable to a conciliar church.

I think we have a bit deviated to from the "autonomous" idea of the Church of these first centuries Christianity too.... We have somehow espoused the "hierchical" model of the RC in our own ecclesiology...Nevertheless we have kep the 'structure" so we can go to making the corrections and we have the freedom to do so if it is necessary.

The Orthodox understanding of authority through freedom and love takes shape in the concept of reception. A council is not authoritative in and of itself, but only as it is received. A council is the supreme authority in faith, not because it has juridical power, but because it has charismatic authority which has withstood the test of reception over time. Councils do not have automatic infallibility. It is the church which affirms the council. “Truth in the church does not depend upon any infallible institution but is an experience always available in the communion of the Church – this communion being understood, of course, both as faithfulness to tradition and as openness to the consensus fidelium today.”[SIZE=-1]22[/SIZE] The importance placed on reception is the consequence of eucharistic ecclesiology — every church is the whole church, which recognizes the whole church in other local churches. Ultimate authority lies in the Holy Spirit, who can not finally be captured by a council.
Councils of bishops can err. How is it determined that a council is ecumenical or not? Who or what validates a council? There is no satisfactory answer to that question, according to Ware[SIZE=-1]23[/SIZE]. Reception by the whole church is a simplistic answer, but what about the case of Chalcedon? It was not received by the whole church. Which was flawed, the council? or the churches which did not receive it? How do we decide? There is some danger that an overemphasis on reception democratizes the conciliar principle by requiring councils to be, in a sense, ratified in a juridical process. The true sense of reception is more subtle. Either a council is taken into the life of the Church, or it is not. Reception is not expressed formally; it is lived. The validity of a council is not ultimately based on any external criteria, but rather on the presence of God.

But you can all read the whole paper :
The conciliar nature of the Orthodox Church: definition and implications

It is informative as it sums up lots of EO theologians on the hot topic of Ecclesiology that IMHO is the root of our schism and differences.

 

[Philothei]

Montalban is not a Nickname of the east. and it is not a secret that protestants in USA are moving to Catholicism, EOs or OOs depending in the degree of anticatholicism they have. Because of protestantism is falling down in every aspect either eclesiology, moral, sunday service attendance, etc. EO represents a lifesaver for those whose ships are sinking and don't want to enter in communion with Rome

That statement can be reveeased to all Chruches/denominations... It does not prove anything ..It is like you accuse us of being 'anti-catholic' because we dare to be EO If I turn the tables it will sound as silly
"With a name as blah blah... no wonder so and so is so Anti-Orthodox" " the reason the Blah blah convert to so and so is because they do no want to be in communion with the EO"

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

That statement can be reveeased to all Chruches/denominations... It does not prove anything ..It is like you accuse us of being 'anti-catholic' because we dare to be EO If I turn the tables it will sound as silly
"With a name as blah blah... no wonder so and so is so Anti-Orthodox" " the reason the Blah blah convert to so and so is because they do no want to be in communion with the EO"

Ok, tell us about you.

 

[Philothei]

This is not a thread about me Alonso What this has to do with the subject?

 

[Philothei]

I thought I ought to post this here, as I couldn't find a debate area in OBOB.
I tried to compile some areas that Orthodox feel that the Roman Catholics need to change if union is ever to happen. This isn't a concrete list, nor is it comprehensive.



I got some of the list from:
http://saintpaulemmaus.org/files/heterodoxy/02---Outline.pdf
Which is a file that serves as an outline for a podcast series titled "Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy", it's specifically for the program that discusses Orthodoxy & Roman Catholicism. (which is in two parts)
Part 1: Orthodox And Roman Catholic Differences - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - Ancient Faith Radio
Part 2: Orthodox And Roman Catholic Differences -part 2 - Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy - Ancient Faith Radio

Also, some points come from:
CYCLOPAEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL ... - Google Books
and can be seen at the very bottom of the page.

Lastly, more points are found here:
ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

I know that it seems that many of these points might seem minor, but they all contributed (and still contribute) to the division, and in fact, were denounced at many Orthodox Councils and by many Orthodox Saints.
I also remember someone (a while back) making a comment about how Orthodox laypeople won't have a final say, and yet I would like to bring back memories of the Council of Florence, where it took the death of the Patriarch of Constantinople (under suspicious circumstances and with a document and signature that was highly likely to have been forged), and additional pressure from some (including the Pope) that all but one of the Orthodox Bishops signed onto the union, and hence the capitulation of the Orthodox Catholic Church to the Roman Catholic Church. However, upon their return to their homelands, the laypeople, clergy and monks refused to attend their Churches, and even deposed & exiled them. (then excommunicated them in subsequent councils)
It is important to remember that in Orthodoxy, nothing can happen without the consent of the Church as well as the affirmation of subsequent generations. Even if hundreds of Bishops signed off on the union, and it were rejected by the laypeople, monastics and clergy, then the union would have no effect. (especially as subsequent generations denounce the union) Therefore, if the faith is altered, then it isn't the Orthodox faith, no matter who holds it, as our faith has not changed since the beginning (and cannot change)

I'm mainly interested in whether Roman Catholics think there is any possibility for change in any of the above, or what they think about our disagreements with them. I know the vast majority of Roman Catholics will disagree with it, but I'm mainly interested in why and what might change their minds.

Back to the topic

 

[Joshua G.]

Montalban is not a Nickname of the east. and it is not a secret that protestants in USA are moving to Catholicism, EOs or OOs depending in the degree of anticatholicism they have. Because of protestantism is falling down in every aspect either eclesiology, moral, sunday service attendance, etc. EO represents a lifesaver for those whose ships are sinking and don't want to enter in communion with Rome

I have met antiCatholic Orthodox, but I don't think that I (or most Orthodox converts I know) are antiCatholic any more than you would consider yourself antiOrthodox.

AntiCatholic is a very loaded word. You need to use it with more and purpose.

 

[Philothei]

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox: 1054-1954

I think this paper sums it up pretty good and it is simple ^

 

[Photini]

Montalban is not a Nickname of the east. and it is not a secret that protestants in USA are moving to Catholicism, EOs or OOs depending in the degree of anticatholicism they have. Because of protestantism is falling down in every aspect either eclesiology, moral, sunday service attendance, etc. EO represents a lifesaver for those whose ships are sinking and don't want to enter in communion with Rome

So the only reason a Protestant would convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church is because they are anti-Catholic?



I really hope that is not what you are trying to imply.

 

[Antony in Tx]

Do you know what is Ecumenism?

Is the searching of Unity. The Patriarch Bartholomeo I endorses the Seraching for Unity between Cartholics and Orthodox. Your own selfishness and self sufficiency, is opposed to the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

You just keep telling yourself that!

 

[Antony in Tx]

.

 

[Antony in Tx]

Do you know what is Ecumenism?

Is the searching of Unity. The Patriarch Bartholomeo I endorses the Seraching for Unity between Cartholics and Orthodox. Your own selfishness and self sufficiency, is opposed to the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The unity of all people everywhere is a regular part of our prayers, both as individual Orthodox Christians and as a church. What you simply do not seem to get is that we do not pray for it at the cost of our faith. I have not, and will not, ask that you do anything specific. I do not, nor will I pretend to know where you stand with God. That said, I WILL continue to worship in the way that was taught to me by the Holy Apostles, by way of Holy Tradition, Scripture, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. A life patterned, however poorly, after the lives of Saints.

Lord have mercy on me, a sinner!

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by Alonso_Castillo

Do you know what is Ecumenism?

Is the searching of Unity. The Patriarch Bartholomeo I endorses the Seraching for Unity between Cartholics and Orthodox. Your own selfishness and self sufficiency, is opposed to the position of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
​

It is like throwing stones while one is living in a glass house... Who here 'left" is a matter of perspective to say at least...RC (one church) left the "many" (if we want to be pragatistic(realistic) here) and you are saying we are not obident? How come the Pope did not obay the consiliarity of the Chruch? Why he broke the Pentarchy?

Which unity "we broke" or were disobedient to ? We (all four) remained together ... I truly think you got this wrong

 

[Magnus Maximus]

It is like throwing stones while one is living in a glass house... Who here 'left" is a matter of perspective to say at least...RC (one church) left the "many" (if we want to be pragatistic(realistic) here) and you are saying we are not obident? How come the Pope did not obay the consiliarity of the Chruch? Why he broke the Pentarchy?

Which unity "we broke" or were disobedient to ? We (all four) remained together ... I truly think you got this wrong

Thats really perspective. From the Latin point of view the other churchs had become subservient to the EP therefore there was only really two power centers Rome and Cons. Further, were the other churchs evenself governing the were all under Muslim domination.

The West has more Bishops, Arch Bishops a larger Chruch and a larger Christian population.

Further the Pope was the greteats among equals, the see of Peter was based on the fact that Peter was the Chief of the Apostles.

The West sees at as:

Following the rules of Logic- The Larger cannot split from the smaller, when we say something split it is the smaller that splits, nor can the head split from the body, or a Chief split from his group. Therefore the East split from the west. Nor can the Stronger split from the weaker. The weaker splits from the stronger.

I think the East holds the posistion that becuase there were five sees and one see left the west split. That supposes that the five were all equals but they weren't really only Rome and Cons were equals at the time.

It is really a matter of how you look at it

 

[Antony in Tx]

I think the East holds the posistion that becuase there were five sees and one see left the west split. That supposes that the five were all equals but they weren't really only Rome and Cons were equals at the time.

It is really a matter of how you look at it

Our perspective (and the truth of how we roll) is that the See's were all equal and remain so today (with changes that have occured with regard to Russians etc. This isn't about the locales, it's about the equality). You see, my bishop, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, is the equal of the EP in the minds of EO's. Bartholomew would chair any meeting they had, but their votes and their level of "authority" (which is really kind of a foreign concept in our church, since we practice conciliarly rather than obediently) is equal.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I have met antiCatholic Orthodox, but I don't think that I (or most Orthodox converts I know) are antiCatholic any more than you would consider yourself antiOrthodox.

AntiCatholic is a very loaded word. You need to use it with more and purpose.

I am not antiorthodox, because I am in the orthodox Catholic Church, perhaps you wanted to say that I am antiEOs, And no I am not antiEOs, I love the Idea of Latins and all greeks being united again, just as they were since the confirmation of filioque in Spain until Photios.

 

[RobNJ]

The Eastern Church was not & is not under the boot of Constantinople, just as it was not , is not & WILL NEVER BE under the boot of Rome.


Note,, ConSTANTINOPLE...Do we diss Rome by calling it "Ro"?