www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What does it mean to be Orthodox in Union with Rome?

Father,

What do you mean by inclusivity? Inclusive of what or whom?

I am sorry to say but I think it is CURRENTLY impossible to be Orthodox in Union with Rome. Either you are Orthodox or you are in union with Rome.

Perhaps, to Borislav's point, we should define what it means to be Orthodox? Didn't it originally mean that one accepted the first 4 ecumenical councils?

Gordo

Absolutely. I agree 100%. The Orthodox Church has been attacked by many enemies all across the world. ALL of our Patriarchates have been at one time or another attacked by such forces as Islam, Militant Communism, Crusaders and Latinizers, and yet the Orthodox Church stands strong in her faith. I do not forsee this changing under ANY circumstances. The light of Pravoslavie shines through the ages, not even violence being able to knock us from our path.....



1. Papal Claims
2. Filioque
3. Immaculate Conception
4. Purgatory
5. Original Guilt
6. Liturgical Tradition ( there are major differences in the way we see the Eucharist and the role of the Church therein )
Are the biggest problems I see.

But there are many others.

Don't forget that Rome has had many councils past the 7th, resulting in many canons the Orthodox Church will not accept.

Of course the BIGGEST problem is Papal Claims, if that can be put aside, the rest will fall into place.

I think besides listing doctrinal or political differences, there is just a general mindset that is different in the majority of Orthodox as compared to the majority of Catholics. Being an eastern Christian seems to put one in a more mystical and reverent disposition whereas being Catholic seems to entail more of a heady scholastic type of theology where every aspect must be defined and delineated like what exactly is the Immaculate Conception and what exactly is that in between state after death etc. The Orthodox view seems to rely more on experiential spirituality. This being said, if I made a point, is that I feel there needs to be more than simple doctrinal bridges to unite these two glorious churches.

Problems, yes. But I do not believe them to be insurmountable.

And please cite one Ecumenical Council that ever condemned the Latin teachings on any of the 5 points you listed as heretical. If none, I can only ask: by what authority do some Orthodox condemn Roman teaching?

Gordo

Has it not been said that all of the Bishops share in Christ equally? The Bishop of Rome only receiving primacy of HONOR? What can than be said about a Bishop who claims supremacy over the others?

Also has it not been established that no individual is infalable. Only the Church as a whole is infalable! What than can be said about the Bishop who tries to claim infalibility?

The Symbol of Faith has been carefully drafted at the first and second Ecumenical Councils. Isn't changing the Symbol of Faith without holding another Ecumenical Council also heretical?

All I am trying to say is that you are either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, You can not be both.......

I am not saying that your Sacraments are unfruitful....

I can not and will not make such claims, but if you practice the Eastern Rite and are in Communion with Rome, than you are EASTERN RITE CATHOLIC, not Orthodox in communion with Rome. I am almost positive any Canonical Orthodox Priest or Bishop will tell you the same thing.

I have to say that we are getting off topic, which was asking about what Eastern Catholics hold dear about the _Catholic_ part of the name.

Nevertheless, I would like to say that Orthodox claims about a primacy merely of honor don't quite match up with the historical reality of the first millenium, when we were in communion. Rome did not consider herself a court of last resort, and exerted primacy all over the place. Bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs were deposed by the bishop of Rome quite often. St. Leo the Great, honored by Orthodox and Catholic, makes clear claims of universal jurisdiction. If this is such a heresy (and, as ebed melech has pointed out, no council has declared it such), then how could the East hold communion with the West for a thousand years?

Yes, let's look to the first millenium of the Church as our guide. But let's not falsify the history. Whether or not the East _liked_ the exercise of primacy in the first millenium (who would like such a thing?), they tolerated it and remained in communion. Would such a state be acceptable now? If not, then Orthodoxy, too, has moved beyond the ecclesiology of the first thousand years.

respectfully,
Karl

You may find this book very helpful in answering some of the questions you asked in your post Karl.

[Linked Image]

http://www.amazon.com/Popes-Patriar.../104-7028869-2705501?ie=UTF8&s=books

Yes - all bishops exercise the same episcopal office, although their primacy differs depending upon the rank of their sees. Rome possessing first rank as the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul gives it a certain supremacy that even the Eastern fathers acknowledged - sometimes, it appears, a degree higher than certain Bishops of Rome such as Gregory the Great were willing to. I think my analogy of the first-born applies well here. No one would question the claims to sonship of any 2nd, 3rd or 4th born son. But the 1st born had the right of primogeniture. The Bishop of Rome shares the same episcopal "nature" as his brother bishops, but he exercises a primacy "in love" that should not be reduced to one of mere "honor". As I mentioned, though, he is neither monarch nor parent to his brother bishops. His authority must serve and strengthen theirs.



Only Christ is infallible. The Church participates in this and according to Catholic teaching so does the Successor of Saint Peter as head/spokesperson of the college of bishops on very narrow and specific occasions (when he intends to teach in the name of Christ by virtue of his primacy and to the whole Church).



That is a key question. I think Bishop Kallistos does an excellent job addressing this in The Orthodox Church. He does not see it as an issue of heresy in the same way others do. Nor has any Ecumenical Council to the best of my knowledge. With that said, I favor dropping the addition in Latin practice. I will not say that it is a matter of heresy, however...

God bless,

Gordo

Ohh, add Forced Clerical Celibacy to my list to! Forgot about that one.

And these things are justified in which of the 7 Ecumenical Councils or which parts of Scripture exactly? (Please don't use Matthew 16:18, because that argument is flawed)

And if they are not, than how can they not be repudiated?

Not having read this text I cannot comment specifically. His "Two Paths" text suffered heavily from hack convertitis and was one of the weakest apologies for an anti-Latin/anti-papal position I have ever read.

A more balanced treatment (IMHO) was Rome and the Eastern Churches by Fr. Aidan Nicols coupled with The Primacy of Peter edited by Fr. John Meyendorff and You are Peter by Olivier Clement. Another excellent read is The Bishop of Rome by Fr. J.M. Tillard.

http://www.amazon.com/Bishop-Rome-J.../103-0280222-7351048?ie=UTF8&s=books

Evidently there is a new one - The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Kasper.

http://www.amazon.com/Petrine-Minis.../103-0280222-7351048?ie=UTF8&s=books

I have not read it, but it looks like a good read!

Gordo

I wonder if a book written by a Catholic Cardinal will have anything in it about the falsification of <the Gift of Constantine> document and other such fun tid bits.....

The Catholic Church has tried to write an apology for Papal Claims for many many years and have so far failed miserably, even having to resort to falsifying and plain out lying....

Anyway I will end there.... because this is just going to turn into a fight...

Let us just agree to disagree.

Last thing I'll say is that there was more than one occasion where the Pope was disagreed with and even deposed...

Pope Vigilius comes to mind....

anyway, I'll stop there