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

[Macarius]

I'm an idiot.

 

[Philothei]

Macarius I think speaks of the EO view or we would for sure all of us indeed would be Catholic This is a fundamental difference one of the ones I was mentioning above.

 

[Macarius]

says who Macarius?

Um... observation.

You assert that we have to have the Pope of Rome to be Catholic.

We say we don't.

Ultimately, the argument that we don't rests on our understanding of early church history. Ultimately, your understanding that we do rests on your understanding of early church history.

It's an argument over whether or not the assertion that we need the Pope of Rome is necessary for the faith - whether or not it is Holy Tradition.

 

[Tonks]

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

Incorrect. Beliefs make the church...not administrative jurisdictions.

This holds true in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There is the extra-wrinkle about Rome...but the basis of the church isn't defined by a bunch of dioceses.

 

[benedictaoo]

Incorrect. Beliefs make the church...not administrative jurisdictions.

This holds true in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There is the extra-wrinkle about Rome...but the basis of the church isn't defined by a bunch of dioceses.

NO, but it is defined by just who received the revelation of God and who passes it down to each generation error free.


We have strong proof it was Peter. That is not say it wasn't also the other apostles, sure it was but the keys to the kingdom undoubtedly went to him.

 

[benedictaoo]

Um... observation.

You assert that we have to have the Pope of Rome to be Catholic.

We say we don't.

Ultimately, the argument that we don't rests on our understanding of early church history. Ultimately, your understanding that we do rests on your understanding of early church history.

It's an argument over whether or not the assertion that we need the Pope of Rome is necessary for the faith - whether or not it is Holy Tradition.

He was given the keys...

 

[Tonks]

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.

Of course it is not. Which is why I don't really understand why people get so excited about some of the on-going "theological dialogues."

 

[Tonks]

NO, but it is defined by just who received the revelation of God and who passes it down to each generation error free.

The whole "true particular church" rather complicates this...as Rome notes that we have "valid Eucharist" and apostolic succession (plus many of the RCC's Eastern Rites use the exact same liturgy as the EO...with a few changes to the litanies etc to cover the Pope).

Indeed....Catholicism does not consider Orthodoxy either 1) schismatic or 2) heretical, merely defective for not accepting the universal jurisdiction of Rome.

Outside of the authority questions Rome hasn't found the theology or praxis of Orthodoxy in error. We are, indeed, invited to your altar for Communion...even though we all know that Orthodoxy prohibits it.

So...error isn't necessarily the proper discussion, I think.

 

[lionroar0]

Is the Church whole when the Sees are separated?

 

[benedictaoo]

So...error isn't necessarily the proper discussion, I think.

ah, yeah it is, you think you are error free and we are caulk full of errors.

I don't know what you based that on.

 

[benedictaoo]

Is the Church whole when the Sees are separated?

Yes.

The Church is about the fullness of the Christian faith. We are the true Church because we have the fullness of that teaching.

The EO believe they do, that it is they that has that fullness but I don't know how they think that seeing how they don't have a huge part of it- Peter.

 

[lionroar0]

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.

But the Church is not whole. The Sees are divided.

 

[benedictaoo]

It's an argument over whether or not the assertion that we need the Pope of Rome is necessary for the faith - whether or not it is Holy Tradition.

How could you honestly think it's not though... ?

"Peter... I'm giving YOU the keys..."

 

[benedictaoo]

But the Church is not whole. The Sees are divided.

Its whole because of the truth. It's just that there is the part of the Church that coped an attitude who doesn't want anything to do with us.

 

[Tonks]

ah, yeah it is, you think you are error free and we are caulk full of errors.

I don't know what you based that on.

I did find some errors, personally, but that is neither here nor there. And I'm trying not to really talk about what the Orthodox believe in the situation as it isn't entirely relevant.

That being said the discussion dealt with "error" and whether it had been transmitted or not. Specifically dealing with the Eucharist...we we all agree is the source and summit of the Christian faith (medicine of immortality etc)...the Code of Canon Law does permit reception by the Orthodox.

Looking at the guidelines for Reception as published by the USCCB:

Members of the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these churches (canon 844 § 3).

Now, we all know the Orthodox response to this (summed up here at the OCA site)

Orthodox Christians are not permitted to receive Communion in non-Orthodox communities, including the Roman Catholic. To do so would imply a unity that in fact does not yet exist. Also it implies that we are "united" to the faith community from which we receive the Eucharist.

In brief, while Roman Catholicism sees Orthodoxy as a "sister church", Orthodoxy sees herself as the fullness of the Church, not the "other half" of the Church, as implied in the notion of a "sister church."

So, clearly two different views on the matter. The point that I was making is that it appears that the Catholic Church doesn't consider the Orthodox 1) schismatic or 2) heretical. If so they would not allow us to have communion. Likewise, the case could be made that the Catholic Church doesn't view membership in Orthodoxy to be a mortal sin otherwise we'd likewise be barred from Communion.

Of course, this is also an issue of sacramental discipline...and if an Orthodox person were considering it they should probably enter into the Catholic Church.

So, like I said...I think that it is difficult to make the argument that the Catholic Church considers Orthodoxy in error (your words, not mine) when we're allowed to your Eucharistic Feast (whether or not we choose to participate...the objection is ours, not yours).

 

[Macarius]

How could you honestly think it's not though... ?

"Peter... I'm giving YOU the keys..."

Ask me where I'm free to discuss that, and I gladly will. All I was pointing out was that this was the main area of our disagreement.

Hope that clarifies,
Macarius

 

[benedictaoo]

I did find some errors, personally, but that is neither here nor there. And I'm trying not to really talk about what the Orthodox believe in the situation as it isn't entirely relevant.

That being said the discussion dealt with "error" and whether it had been transmitted or not. Specifically dealing with the Eucharist...we we all agree is the source and summit of the Christian faith (medicine of immortality etc)...the Code of Canon Law does permit reception by the Orthodox.

Looking at the guidelines for Reception as published by the USCCB:



Now, we all know the Orthodox response to this (summed up here at the OCA site)



So, clearly two different views on the matter. The point that I was making is that it appears that the Catholic Church doesn't consider the Orthodox 1) schismatic or 2) heretical. If so they would not allow us to have communion. Likewise, the case could be made that the Catholic Church doesn't view membership in Orthodoxy to be a mortal sin otherwise we'd likewise be barred from Communion.

Of course, this is also an issue of sacramental discipline...and if an Orthodox person were considering it they should probably enter into the Catholic Church.

So, like I said...I think that it is difficult to make the argument that the Catholic Church considers Orthodoxy in error (your words, not mine) when we're allowed to your Eucharistic Feast (whether or not we choose to participate...the objection is ours, not yours).

Why do you object? Why on earth would you hold yourself out this way and object to reunification?

Oh yeah, because you would have to submit to the pope.

It about power and nothing more then that.

 

[benedictaoo]

Ask me where I'm free to discuss that, and I gladly will. All I was pointing out was that this was the main area of our disagreement.

Hope that clarifies,
Macarius

Submitting to the pope... yeah, I know... it's not news.

 

[Tonks]

Why do you object? Why on earth would you hold yourself out this way and object to reunification?

Oh yeah, because you would have to submit to the pope.

It about power and nothing more then that.

If you'd like a full discussion...feel free to PM me or start a discussion in the debate forum in TAW. The elevator speech is basically: problems with the Catholic view of Original Sin and issues over the Immaculate Conception. The Pope, in many ways, was secondary or tertiary the issue...though other issues (unrelated to the Pope) did spin out from my initial issues.

As to my broader point about error...if you don't rebut it I'll assume you agree with it.

 

[D'Ann]

Hi Tonks,

Actually, the Catholic Church does consider the EOC to be in error and the only reason that the EOCs have the Eucharist is because they at one time were apart of the Catholic Church and thus their priests were anointed in the same way that the Catholic Church priests were originally anointed.

I'll ask Bob to explain it better than this. I'm not good with explaining Catholicism.

(I'm not sure if Bob will respond though... he is busy these days).

God bless,

Debbie