Why are the Orthodox being taught this? [Moved from OBOB]

[benedictaoo]

Christ began one church. As it stands people have to make a choice between the OOC, the EOC and the CC. As the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

God can not be lessened and is not lessened in any of the Churches as God is eternal but His earthly body the Church was wounded and is wounded by the schisms.

We all came from the same cloth. (sort to speak)

The EOC keeps trying to make it like look like we are not. With the rejection of all things western.

and to add to that, the last few popes have bent over backwards trying to accommodate them but nothing is good enough, they want the pope to not be the pope, they all want equal power and all the past popes ex cathedra proclamations taken down, thus disobeying what Christ wanted.

None of that is going to happen.

 

[lionroar0]

That's what I concluded when I left Catholicism. I was poking around for a Protestant church but kept coming back to the idea I had to be Catholic.

Fortunately I discovered the EOC.

I'm glad that you found the EOC.(honestly)

 

[Philothei]

If we are sister Chruches (and in truth we are) why being bitter about it? I think we are both blessed to be part of the Historical Church. Yeah we are split I think it is too much crying over spilled milk instead we should rejoice we do share (in the areas we do) a common faith and ancestory.

Despite all individual Church beliefs we can neither change history or turn it back to see the events for what they are. So I would dare to say is it worthy to argue about this? In God's time things will most likely change and the unification of all Christians will take place and whoever gets stuck in arguing about this church or that will be left behind..IMHO...
Somehow I do think we do have a lot of sorting out to do and we would benefit greatly if we do teach our kids our differences but also our "commonalities" about all Christian belief that it is found in all tradition. That common thread that builds rather than destroying. I know from personal experience that I get defensive at times...but that is not that Christian way to deal with issues though for sure...

Lord have mercy...

 

[Aeyamar]

This I agree with. I'm still hoping that someone can answer my question as to whether the quote in the OP really is a misquote

I'm fairly sure the quote is a real quote from Pope Gregory. And no one here seems to be arguing that it isn't anymore, instead the arguments are what the proper interpretation of the quote actually is given the context it was written in.

 

[Joshua G.]

If we are sister Chruches (and in truth we are) why being bitter about it? I think we are both blessed to be part of the Historical Church. Yeah we are split I think it is too much crying over spilled milk instead we should rejoice we do share (in the areas we do) a common faith and ancestory.

Despite all individual Church beliefs we can neither change history or turn it back to see the events for what they are. So I would dare to say is it worthy to argue about this? In God's time things will most likely change and the unification of all Christians will take place and whoever gets stuck in arguing about this church or that will be left behind..IMHO...
Somehow I do think we do have a lot of sorting out to do and we would benefit greatly if we do teach our kids our differences but also our "commonalities" about all Christian belief that it is found in all tradition. That common thread that builds rather than destroying. I know from personal experience that I get defensive at times...but that is not that Christian way to deal with issues though for sure...

Lord have mercy...

Wonderful post and reminder.

This thread has probably seen it's time... my opinion. I wonder if the OP agrees? (hint, hint lol).

God bless. And thanks for the cordial discussion at least in the first half of this thread. Forgive me for the posts where I have overstepped my bounds.

Josh

 

[Macarius]

Seriously... did no one see my post 4 pages ago? Or has this just become about bashing one another...

RCC posters, if you're interested in having a serious discussion about catholicity and its traditional meaning, or about the schism, or anything for that matter, PM me and lets make a thread somewhere in TAW-St. Justin Martyr's Corner or in Ecclesiology (for more neutral turf)...

I don't feel comfortable really addressing some of the comments being made here, because I feel my role is only to ask clarifying questions or offer clarification of an EO perspective.

 

[Thekla]

Seriously... did no one see my post 4 pages ago? Or has this just become about bashing one another...

RCC posters, if you're interested in having a serious discussion about catholicity and its traditional meaning, or about the schism, or anything for that matter, PM me and lets make a thread somewhere in TAW-St. Justin Martyr's Corner or in Ecclesiology (for more neutral turf)...

I don't feel comfortable really addressing some of the comments being made here, because I feel my role is only to ask clarifying questions or offer clarification of an EO perspective.

I would appreciate further discussion on this matter !

 

[Thekla]

I think my EO brothers and sisters may be overplaying the "we don't need a second lung" thing... To be blunt, we absolutely do need both lungs to breath (we need the fullness of the faith), and we absolutely already have them. The issue we have with the two lungs theory is that it implies that, somewhere along the way, the fullness of the Catholicity of the faith was lost. Even for the west this would be true, as between 1054 (or 1204 if you prefer) and 1453 (Florence) there wasn't an Eastern Rite in communion with Rome. You would, then (if you find us so insufficient for not having the western rite) have to admit that, at that time, YOU were insufficient for not having an eastern rite.

In other words, if we insist on "catholic" as meaning "having east and west" then we would BOTH have to admit that we ceased to be "catholic" in the middle ages. Neither church really feels that way, and so we find the two lungs analogy (when pressed) to just fall short as a definition of "catholicity."

Catholicity is not found exclusively within the diversity of one's worship expression, but if you are so concerned about it, then know that there is a Western Rite within Orthodoxy - mostly Anglican communities that have rejoined the Orthodox Church. We have both East and West. And there are WESTERNERS who happen to use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I am one of them. But I am no more Eastern than any other person living on the West Coast of the US. CULTURE isn't the same as style of worship either. The Orthodox church IS global, if that's your definition of Catholic, so there isn't a concern there either. We have churches on all continents (except Antarctica, I think), and are more than our mere autocephalous churches.

The word Catholic, though, doesn't mean "all over the world" or "incorporating all peoples." The word Catholic, as used in the Creed, refers to the Church's holistic nature (that it supplies, by God's grace, all things needed for salvation). The word universal (oecumene) is meant to imply "worldwide." But even at the time, this was not literal (rather, it implies that the faith is for the whole world - not in the whole world).

Yet one loses the catholicity of the faith and its universality if one abandons the traditional faith (by which I mean beliefs and practices). If the faith of Nicaea (and pre-Nicaea) was Catholic (holistic / complete) and Universal (intended for all), then it is to THAT faith which we must adhere.

I'm not certain the RCC understands it the same way, but I wanted to clarify what we understand Catholicity to mean, and why we (therefore) reject the two-lungs analogy. It isn't because we don't want the Western Rite, we do - we just want the RCC to confess again what we view as the traditional faith.

Hope that helps, forgive me if I offend...

In Christ,
Macarius

Brought forward for convenience ...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Are you saying then that all these examples I posted of agreements between churches are those between, say the entire Anglican church and just the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church???

I wasn't aware that bits of the Catholic Church made separate agreements with whole churches.

By way of analogy it would be much all the American states except Vermont making a peace treaty with Britain

I'm not sure why you keep on arguing this...... it's such a small point, honestly, is it really important? I just said that Eastern Catholic Churches are not called "Roman Catholic". But we're all under the Pope and all in communion with other Catholics. I won't argue this any more.

If we are sister Chruches (and in truth we are) why being bitter about it? I think we are both blessed to be part of the Historical Church. Yeah we are split I think it is too much crying over spilled milk instead we should rejoice we do share (in the areas we do) a common faith and ancestory.

Despite all individual Church beliefs we can neither change history or turn it back to see the events for what they are. So I would dare to say is it worthy to argue about this? In God's time things will most likely change and the unification of all Christians will take place and whoever gets stuck in arguing about this church or that will be left behind..IMHO...
Somehow I do think we do have a lot of sorting out to do and we would benefit greatly if we do teach our kids our differences but also our "commonalities" about all Christian belief that it is found in all tradition. That common thread that builds rather than destroying. I know from personal experience that I get defensive at times...but that is not that Christian way to deal with issues though for sure...

Lord have mercy...

good post.. I agree

 

[Etsi]

There are in fact 'Western Rite' Orthodox.

I have an icon of Saint Columba (a Scottish notable) which was hand painted in an Orthodox monastary.

Antiochian Orthodox churches here have English 'services'.

Precisely. My nouna's sister took St Columba as cup name and I took St Brigid, because I knew about St Brigid and could relate culturally to St Brigid (compared to any Russian, Greek, or Roman Saints). St Brigid was pre-Schism. Another option, but is still under the investigation of Saints existing DURING the Schism, was St Margaret.

 

[benedictaoo]

Precisely. My nouna's sister took St Columba as cup name and I took St Brigid, because I knew about St Brigid and could relate culturally to St Brigid (compared to any Russian, Greek, or Roman Saints). St Brigid was pre-Schism. Another option, but is still under the investigation of Saints existing DURING the Schism, was St Margaret.

Can't bump the chair of Peter out the picture and go on like it's nothing, calling it a Western rite.

He is the chair of St Peter for goodness sakes, there can be no universal Church with out him.

 

[Joshua G.]

I would appreciate further discussion on this matter !

Sorry, I didn't mean to attempt to cut off good conversation. I suppose I saw the bashing and missed the good stuff.

Forgive me.

Josh

 

[benedictaoo]

The only bashing I read about was, y'all can breath on your one lung without Peter, you don't need us, we suck and are a bunch of heretics and you can make up your own western rite anyway.

Somehow, I really do think this is exactly how it went down 1200 years ago.

 

[Rhamiel]

To be totally honest here ... I think unity is more than just EO and RC... what do y'all think? I mean we as EO do pray for the unification of "all Churches of God" Lungs only cover two churches of what I gather ....but could be wrong

well the OO would also be counted as part of the Eastern "lung" as well

I think my EO brothers and sisters may be overplaying the "we don't need a second lung" thing... To be blunt, we absolutely do need both lungs to breath (we need the fullness of the faith), and we absolutely already have them. The issue we have with the two lungs theory is that it implies that, somewhere along the way, the fullness of the Catholicity of the faith was lost. Even for the west this would be true, as between 1054 (or 1204 if you prefer) and 1453 (Florence) there wasn't an Eastern Rite in communion with Rome. You would, then (if you find us so insufficient for not having the western rite) have to admit that, at that time, YOU were insufficient for not having an eastern rite.

In other words, if we insist on "catholic" as meaning "having east and west" then we would BOTH have to admit that we ceased to be "catholic" in the middle ages. Neither church really feels that way, and so we find the two lungs analogy (when pressed) to just fall short as a definition of "catholicity."

Catholicity is not found exclusively within the diversity of one's worship expression, but if you are so concerned about it, then know that there is a Western Rite within Orthodoxy - mostly Anglican communities that have rejoined the Orthodox Church. We have both East and West. And there are WESTERNERS who happen to use the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I am one of them. But I am no more Eastern than any other person living on the West Coast of the US. CULTURE isn't the same as style of worship either. The Orthodox church IS global, if that's your definition of Catholic, so there isn't a concern there either. We have churches on all continents (except Antarctica, I think), and are more than our mere autocephalous churches.

The word Catholic, though, doesn't mean "all over the world" or "incorporating all peoples." The word Catholic, as used in the Creed, refers to the Church's holistic nature (that it supplies, by God's grace, all things needed for salvation). The word universal (oecumene) is meant to imply "worldwide." But even at the time, this was not literal (rather, it implies that the faith is for the whole world - not in the whole world).

Yet one loses the catholicity of the faith and its universality if one abandons the traditional faith (by which I mean beliefs and practices). If the faith of Nicaea (and pre-Nicaea) was Catholic (holistic / complete) and Universal (intended for all), then it is to THAT faith which we must adhere.

I'm not certain the RCC understands it the same way, but I wanted to clarify what we understand Catholicity to mean, and why we (therefore) reject the two-lungs analogy. It isn't because we don't want the Western Rite, we do - we just want the RCC to confess again what we view as the traditional faith.

Hope that helps, forgive me if I offend...

In Christ,
Macarius

WRONG
the Church has always had eastern and western rites, the Church has always been in unity with the Maronite Rite even though apostate hords rose up around the faithful they held to the Church over the years more and more of the schismatic Bishops have seen the horrible sin that is schism and have returned to the Church

 

[Rhamiel]

If we are sister Chruches (and in truth we are) why being bitter about it? I think we are both blessed to be part of the Historical Church. Yeah we are split I think it is too much crying over spilled milk instead we should rejoice we do share (in the areas we do) a common faith and ancestory.

Despite all individual Church beliefs we can neither change history or turn it back to see the events for what they are. So I would dare to say is it worthy to argue about this? In God's time things will most likely change and the unification of all Christians will take place and whoever gets stuck in arguing about this church or that will be left behind..IMHO...
Somehow I do think we do have a lot of sorting out to do and we would benefit greatly if we do teach our kids our differences but also our "commonalities" about all Christian belief that it is found in all tradition. That common thread that builds rather than destroying. I know from personal experience that I get defensive at times...but that is not that Christian way to deal with issues though for sure...

Lord have mercy...

... very true, I am sorry if I have allowed myself to get upset over some things, you worded your post very well
may God bless you and keep you

 

[MoNiCa4316]

It's not true that the Church was once without an Eastern rite, there was always the Syro-Malabar rite (I think that's the one, in any case it was one from that area).

 

[Joshua G.]

well the OO would also be counted as part of the Eastern "lung" as well


WRONG
the Church has always had eastern and western rites, the Church has always been in unity with the Maronite Rite even though apostate hords rose up around the faithful they held to the Church over the years more and more of the schismatic Bishops have seen the horrible sin that is schism and have returned to the Church

But his entire point is that this (having various rites) is not what MAKES the Church Catholic. Catholic means that it is whole within itself. It means universal at a much deeper level than simply all over place. It's been used that way, but background of its use in the Nicene Creed is the deeper understanding that the Church is Catholic in that it necessarily is whole in and of itself.

It is believed by some that the Church in the end times will dwindle down to a small community that is in no way universal as we superficially understand the word today (I don't mean superfucially as an insult, but literally that the concept is more tangible and the deeper idea held in the early Church) I am not saying that this will definitely happen... I hope not! But it is not unOrthodox (and I don't know if it is unCatholic) to believe this for even if the Church dwindles down to one small community in Africa near the end of the world, it will still be just as catholic as it is now.

Please understand also that I am not trying to say that it doesn't matter if the Church is all over the place or not. It should be. The Great commission calls us to this. This is not an option. But "catholic" in the Creed specifically, was not making reference to that understanding.

Josh

 

[benedictaoo]

"Rites" do not make the Church. Sees make the Church.

You have legitimate dioceses, no one denies that but you can not just cut lose the Holy See and think you can be "the" Church full and complete. No you can't.

 

[Macarius]

Can't bump the chair of Peter out the picture and go on like it's nothing, calling it a Western rite.

He is the chair of St Peter for goodness sakes, there can be no universal Church with out him.

Obviously, we disagree as to whether or not Rome's doctrines concerning itself are in fact Holy Tradition. You, being RCC, believe them to be (so to remove them would be to remove the catholicity of the faith), we do not view them as necessary, being EO.

You are right that IF the doctrines concerning the papal office are Holy Tradition (essential to authentic / full / catholic Christianity) then we are insufficient. If they are not (if they are theologumenon / pious opinion, or worse, heterodoxy), then we are right (at least on this) that we are still Catholic (as in, having the holistic / complete faith).

 

[benedictaoo]

says who Macarius?