www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholicity

This statement is mean-spirited at best and not worthy of this forum. You seem not to understand, or even willing to discuss ecclesiology not your self-perceived 'norm'. This, and unwillingness to consider other Apostolic Liturgical praxis is why I believe OO unity with EO will be much more difficult than OO unity with Catholicism, despite all the talk of "two Orthodox families" and "much more in common".

Today is Holy Friday for most of our Orthodox brothers and sisters and for those of our Catholic brothers and sisters who observe the Julian calendar. As such, it is a day of extraordinary holiness and we who are now observing Bright Week cannot claim any exception from observing its holiness - we owe that both to our brethren and to Our Lord Who is being again crucified because men cannot agree to a single date for its observance.

Bottom line, whatever disagreements remain over the issues raised in this thread are not to be pursued any sooner than Monday of the Bright Week to come - and might then be best pursued in a more charitable spirit.

A blessed and Holy Friday and a blessed and joyful Pascha to those of my friends and spiritual family who are currently observing their Holy Week.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Swan,

Thanks for your response. I did not want to reply until after Pascha, just in case the conversation turns sour.

You said you answered my questions, but not very straighforwardly, imo. The things I got from your responses are that you believe (1) each particular Church is part of the universal Church, and (2) the universal Church is composed of particular Churches. My questions were actually more pointed, going to the issue of the NECESSITY of union between the universal Church and the particular Church.

From your complaints about the Catholic Church's concept of catholicity, which includes the necessary union of local bishops with head bishops (including the head bishop of the Church universal, of course)., it appears that though you believe in the objective existence of union between the local Church and universal Church, you simultaneously do NOT believe in the NECESSITY of that union. I gathered this not only from your avoidance of directly answering my questions, but also from your comments against the idea of the necessity of union between local bishops and head bishops. This was particularly obvious (to me) from your complaints against the notions: that: (1) there is one see being the center of unity among other sees; (2) a local bishop does not have authority unless united to the head bishop. Your complaint that having a center of unity among local Churches deprives local Churches of their catholicity was particularly puzzling to me. I asked for clarification, but you were not forthcoming with an explanation.

Why is that? Have you come to realize that the criticisms you expressed against Catholic ecclesiology (.e., the OFFICIAL teaching, not the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates) are, after all, unfounded? Or Is the issue here that you do not believe there is a head bishop for the Church universal in the fiirst place?

In another thread many months ago, there was a discussion about the EP and MP's differences in ecclesiological perspective. The EP understanding is a lot closer to the Catholic Church's understanding than the MP's. The EP's ecclesiology is squarely Trinitarian, basing the concept of a head for every level of the Church hierarchy (local, Metroppolitan, Patriarchal, universal) on the Trinitarian model of the headship of the F ather. This, according to the EP, explains the very existence of headship in the Church and among the Churches. There is a solid THEOLOGICAL foundation for headship, which denotes the necessity of the office (on whatever level of the hierarchy). The MP's explanation, on the other hand, understands headship (particularly, of the head bishop) as being borne of merely historical circumstance and eventually enshrined in the canons.

The EP's understanding (which reflects the conclusions of the Ravenna Colloquy, attended by the great majority of EO Churches) is definitely a good basis for reunion with the Catholic Church. Not so with the MP's pov. Do you personally align yourself with the EP's or the MP's position? I suspect what your answer might be, but I just want to get it directly from you to make sure.

Here are some more pointed questions, for you or anyone else out there reading this:
(1) Do you believe that the local orthodox bishop embodies in his office/person the local Church.
(2) Do you believe the orthodox head bishop of a Metropolitan Church embodies in his office/person the Metropolitan Church.
(3) Do you believe the orthodox head bishop of a Patriarchal Church embodies in his office/person the Patriarchal Church.
(4) Do you believe the orthodox head bishop of the Church universal embodies in his office/person the Church universal.
(5) Do you believe in the necessity of union between the Church on one level with the Church on the next level?
(6) If an orthodox head bishop embodies in his office/himself the Church of whom he is head, is it necessary for a local bishop to be in union with that orthodox head bishop?
(6) Is necessity of union with the head bishop an integral characteristic of "catholicity?"

Readers can answer the questions above for discussion, or simply reflect/ponder on them.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Michael,

Actually, I took his comment as a complement. To me, it was an admission of sorts that despite disagreements, he recognized that those who regard themselves as Orthodox in Communion with Rome do so based on reasons that are patristic - which is why it is so difficult for those who might otherwise oppose their union with Rome to pin them down.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk- Your comment is full of willful misinterpration and strawmen arguments. I am in fact much more open to the Latin church and dialogue/ possible reunion with it than many of my Orthodox coreligionists. Please excuse me if I don't humor you further.

Swan,

Why are you on an Eastern Catholic fora if you are "open to dialogue" with the Latin church etc? You and most everyone in the world knows the dominant Latin perspective that's regularly repeated from the common quarters; most everyone already knows the typical rhetorical EO response. What dialogue do you need when you already know the two responses and everyone knows it is irreconcilable? The only purpose of dialogue is for perspectives that have til now been not presented or addressed adequately, such as the view that Marduk presents - unique both for the non-EO Oriental perspective, and the fresh approach he brings to the Latin/EO dialogue. If you've got something better, present it; if you have a debate on one or another of Marduk's presentation, address it. Doing neither and deriding Marduk's pretty thorough analysis from his OO/Oriental Catholic isn't indicative of openness or dialogue, and leaves reunion in the realm of fantasy.

Michael- Much like Marduk's post, yours is full of assumptions about what I do and do not believe, what I am willing or not willing to accept, etc., which have no basis in anything I've written here. If your idea of dialogue is arguing with some figment of your imagination, by all means enjoy yourself, just don't assign my name to your imaginary opponent.

You seem to prefer poking with a stick and then declaring yourself misrepresented by those you declare 'jello nailed to wall ecclesiology'. This is what I'm arguing with, not any figment of my imagination. I'll step back from dialogue with you because "trying to have an honest/ meaningful discussion with such people" about anything is like ramming one's head into a brick wall and expecting the wall to move.