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

Borislav,

Out of respect for the original post, I will not engage in an apologetic for each and every point, although I must say you are one of the first posters I have encountered who have ever said that one should not cite a particular Scripture in defense of doctrine even before any argument was posited. Is it not usually better to listen first, rather than to discount a proof before it is even offered?

I believe you will find ample evidence cited in the texts I listed above that indicate more than just a primacy of honor. With that said, they certainly offer proof against an ultramontanist interpretation of the teachings of Vatican I. Ibelieve it is possible to find a via media.

As to the mandatory celibacy flap, Rome is wrong and there are just no two ways about it. But even that does not constitute heresy.

God bless,

Gordo

Yes, I agree, especially when you refer to our Church and the substance of one of her doctrines as the creation of liars and cheats. Is that what passes for logical and dispassionate discourse these days? How about even fraternal charity? Yes - I would say, best for you to hang up your keyboard for a while if that is all you can offer.

And one other point: it is somewhat disingenuous to throw a verbal punch by insulting someone's mother and then say "I best not continue or we'll end in a fight."

Gordo

Rome is wrong?

With all due respect this seems like tailoring religion to fit your personal system of beliefs.

Believing one teaching of the Church while repudiating others seems a little disingenuous.

If the CHURCH is never wrong and you agree with the fact that the teaching on the Filioque and Clerical Celebacy are both wrong, than this opens up a whole can of worms....

What else are they wrong on?

Please understand that I do not want to offend you or anybody....

I just call it like i see it


And for obvious reasons I shall abstain for looking for answers to my questions on Papal Claims in a book written by a Cardinal of the Catholic Church.

Can we agree on the fact that THE GIFT OF CONSTANTINE was a falsification? I am almost 100% sure that the Vatican ADMITS to the fact that this document was FALCIFIED.

Why do you object to the falsifying charge?

Is falsifying not the same as lying?

Can we agree to call a tree a tree? Or should we just do a tap dance around the truth?

I do not refer to your Church as liars and cheats, I simply say that there were individuals in your Church who have used lies to backup Papal Claims.

I might have used unclear language, and I am sorry...

Don't think I'm ready to "hang the keyboard up" quite yet though.

Dear Friend Borislav,

I suppose I shall have to quit looking for understanding of Orthodoxy in writers who are Orthodox themselves. Really, the fact that one is a cardinal should not be held against him. If the arguments are good, they'll be good whether he's a cardinal or not.

As Fr. Meyendorff once remarked, one shouldn't reject a doctrine simply because it is papal!

But I do wonder if you would accept an exercise of primacy similar to that of the first millenium. Could the pope depose patriarchs? Never mind the question of whether a council could depose a pope--leave that as to be determined later. Could a pope depose? Would you accept that? For they did so, in the first millenium, when we were one Church.

I think that the Pope could depose for Hersey, but the Pope could also be deposed.

Pope Honorius I and Pope Vigilius come to mind.....

ok...

Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church: It is a discipline, one which can and has been changed in various circumstances. IMHO Rome is wrong to impose such a discipline on most of her clergy. Nothing here contradicts anything I asserted before, so I am not being disingenuous. You just have a somewhat confused view of what it means to be in communion with the pope, in part because you have not read such books by those of us within her communion. If you remain satisfied by Jack Chick-esque versions of Catholicism, its no wonder you hold such a dim view of my Church's integrity.

As for obvious reasons as to why you choose not to read texts from those within the communion of Rome defending their position, a lack of desire to have your positions against Catholic teaching challenged comes to mind as possibly topping the list. I think nothing of reading texts from many with whom I disagree, and always feel that I have gained from it, so long as the arguments are reasonably well made and the sources cited. (Michael Whelton fits neither criteria. "Two Paths" is not worth the paper upon which it was printed.)

As to your intent, I do not think that you intend to offend, but that is in fact the impact. And when you have self-imposed blinders on your eyes by excluding perspectives from consideration that may challenge a somewhat bigotted view, you will pardon me if I discount how you see these specific things.

Gordo

You have offered no apology what so ever for Papal Claims of infallibility, you have offered no apology for Papal Claims of having more than a primacy of honor. You, yourself do not agree with many teachings of the Church of Rome. Also you accuse me of being bigoted because i bring up an incident of Falsification used by the Roman Church although this is a fact. And after that you say that I have blinds pulled over my eyes.

Interesting, but it seems like you went from our discussion to personal attacks....

Also please go back and do some research on the treaty of Brest....

That may shed some light on why such a union was possible in the Ukraine.

I believe it had a lot to do with a certain someone trying to Latinize Ukraine and Russia, and a certain someone else wishing to have Polish land and titles.

I never claimed to offer an apology for these things. In fact I said I have no intention of doing so. Nor did I ever say that I disagreed with any teaching of the Church of Rome. You are confusing discipline with doctrine. It is a discipline that Rome mandates celibacy and adds the filioque to the Creed. Both of these mandates should be dropped, IMHO. How is that the same as denying anything dogmatic?

You brought up an as of yet unsubstantiated accusation against Rome and members of my Church. And I would say that you are being bigotted, since you refuse to read a text by anyone from my communion that might offer an alternative view than your own on this issue. Perhaps you see that as keeping faith with your beliefs. But the issue of the papacy is far more complex and nuanced than any one accusation of forgery you present. A great number of Orthodox minds have set about to try and understand it and speak to it. I listed some of their texts above, since I am not above reading the thoughts of great Orthodox theologians and bishops. Many Catholic theologians have done the same, and the dialog between them is quite helpful.

As to personalizing things, in the spirit of the Great Fast, I beg forgiveness for any weakness or sinfulness on my part.

Busy thread last night...


Gordo...I think the problem that exists between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches touches on items such as the one Borislav listed...they could not have been addressed by one of the ecumenical councils since they were later developments...the issue is Rome feeling they could develop CHURCH teachings by themselves in a vaccum by themselves...not taking into consideration the mind of the entire CHURCH...

I apologize, this isn't directed exclusively at you Gordo...I just can't respond to all the threads that came in last night...I think people can go around and around citing authors and clerics from their own side regarding "papal claims" and are they historical and justified or not...I personally think...people simply need to stop and take a look at the reality...of the patriarchiates one, ROME, took these positions, which was in their best interest...the others rejected it...1 patriarchiate for the rest against...it doesn't appear that this was the mind of the CHURCH...it appears that it was clearly an attempt at a "power grab"...nothing that could be honestly defended theologically...

Chris (so much for lurking mode)

I to apologize for getting emotional not only because of the Lent, but because I offended you Gordo.

I am sorry and from now on I shall try to be more thoughtful in what I say.

Chris,

Good to see you post again! Thanks for your post, and no worries, I don't feel that your post is being directed at me in any personal way. I don't take things that personally. This is just the cross that is required to build bridges between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

It is interesting how differently some view the distance between the two. Some see it as a great and vast chasm, others as a small creek (or crick, as they say where I am from). Others see hardly any distance at all. I have stated that i do see Orthodox Christians as Catholics. I stand by that view. I realize - and this was the original subject of this thread - that there are some who will not reciprocate and refer to those of us in the Byzantine Church in communion with Rome as Orthodox.

The developments that occured in the West regarding the emphases in the five areas Borislav references are linked to dogmas we share in common concerning:

1. Episcopacy and Primacy
2. The Holy Trinity
3. The Theotokos
4. Theosis/Divinization
5. The Fall and Redemption

The seeds of the emphases that developed in the West have roots in the 1st millennium, and in many of the Church fathers we hold in common. They represent organic developments along a historical trajectory after the gradual estrangement between our two communions began. Orthodoxy also certainly had its own historical developments, often with little to no reference to the tradition of the West or to the shared Great Tradition.

As an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome I certainly do not share all of the views of my Latin bretheren regarding what is proper to the exercise of primacy of their patriarch outside of the Latin Church, how one should express and celebrate Trinitarian relations, etc etc. That does not mean I deny the dogmas or see them as heretical, just their misapplication or one-sided explanation. I regard them through the lens of the Byzantine liturgical and theological tradition. That is part of the discipline of thinking, living and breathing with both lungs of the Church.

Returning to the original question of this thread, here are my top 5 for being Orthodox in communion with Rome:

1) Universality in scope - the assembly of all the nations, the New Israel of God, breathing with both lungs

2) A unified and prophetic teaching voice of the college of shepherds (especially on Life issues and marriage and family) - I would include in that the marvellous accomplishment of Vatican II and its Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, while it has its weaknesses, would never have its equal within Orthodoxy in its current state (although I wish that that were not the case)

3) Ressourcement - an enriching biblical, liturgical and patristic synthesis while drawing on the three great streams of theological tradition: Latin, Greek and Syrian (which as a Catholic movement was largely behind ending of the Western captivity of Orthodoxy) - included in that are the teachings of Henri Cardinal deLubac, Jean Cardinal Danielou, Father Louis Bouyer, Yves Congar, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Metropolitan John Zizoulas, Archbishop Joseph Raya and Father Jean Corbon
http://rumkatkilise.org/wellsprings.htm. (I would also throw in the author, Vladimir Soloviev as an influence, but not as a member of this movement.)

4) An explicit and consistent connection between mysticism, magisterium and mercy in Catholic social teaching

5) The humble witness of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, coupled with the likes of Metropolitan Andrew and the bold underground Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: Borislav, I guess that makes us brothers in our penitence! (And we best get used to each other since we will have an eternity together! )

Listen... at least it will make for some interesting conversation.... if we agree on everything the eternity will seem very boring!

Dear Zenovia, I simply stated that the GIFT OF CONSTANTINE was a falsification. A falsification is a lie.... Why are you so appalled? It's really quite simple. falsification = lie.... That's all there is to it.


But I find your above statement appalling. When you make such claims, you have to show some evidence to support what you say.

The only way there can be real dialogue between the Catholics and the Orthodox is by bringing up UNCOMFORTABLE topics. They have to be discussed, explained and clarified.

When one defends a sinful action of his/her Father, it is as if that person commits this sinful act again.

What do you think will happen when the Patriarch of Moscow meets the Pope.... Think they will be discussing what they had for dinner last night? Maybe they'll go see a movie together eh?

In fact some very uncomfortable issues will be raised on both sides. The main thing is after the talk to be able to part ways civilly and often it is important to be able to agree to disagree.

If you have such a big problem with the Orthodox voicing their concerns over such dangerous falsifications like the GIFT of Constantine or the Donation of Constantine as some call it, what than will you say about the Bulgarian Bishop who just publicly accused the Pope of being Heretical.

Or do you than come back and say that you do not accept this Bulgarian Hierarch as an Orthodox Bishop anymore?

It is always better to speak your mind, even if you offend someone than walk away from the conversation feeling like you still have a grievance that you did not bring up.

I can guarantee you that most people in the Hierarchy of YOUR OWN Orthodox Church will agree with what I am saying here. I'll go further and say that every Orthodox Priest or Bishop You will ask will tell you that you can not be an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome at this particular point of time. If you disagree with this than I suggest You speak to your Parish Priest or to your Local Bishop. Like I said I am pretty sure any Canonical Orthodox Heirarch will agree with me.

An as far as me not really being Orthodox because charity is not within me.....
With all due respect, I don't think you have any right to judge my sincerity as an Orthodox Christian. There are very many examples of Patriarchs, Bishops and Priests disagreeing with one another and many such examples ended in heated debate and even excommunications of some individuals. Do you mean to tell me that the fact that they did not agree and felt strongly enough to engage in sincere argument means that they are not truly Orthodox?

I do not believe that you can be both Orthodox and Roman Catholic at the same time....

Period....

I never said that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are invalid. Don't I have a right to my own opinion on the subject?