www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Drawn to Orthodoxy????

Thank you Karen, for bringing all of this to light.

My struggle parallels yours, and I have gained a lot of solace from the well reasoned posts on this thread.

Bless you all

Herb writes:

[Yes, I do believe that some of them do believe and sincerely try to be Catholics (in Communion with Canterbury). Of course not all claim or want to be "Angle-Catholics".]

Your answer is very well written and thought out. However, you are evading the question so I will rephrase it -

Based on the same criteria you use to justify identifying yourself as 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome', do you agree with those in the Anglican Church who claim they are still part of the Catholic Church? Who could also use the same criteria as you do to identify themselves as 'Catholics In Communion With The Archbishop Of Canterbury'? A simple yes or no will suffice.

OrthoMan

Actually Bob, you, not Herb, listed the criteria.
In any case your analogy has a flaw. We maintained communion with one of the Apostolic Sees. The Anglicans did not. They are thus more akin to HOCNA, RoCiE, ROCA, ...

I�m not sure about the point Bob is trying to make. It is my opinion that the example he offers would only work if applied to the Anglican Church in 1534. King Henry VIII did not seek to change the tenants of the Catholic Church but only wanted a Church recognized divorced so that a male heir could legitimately ascend the throne after him. On other theological points Henry VIII was actually a staunch Catholic and, in general, disapproved of both Martin Luther and Protestantism. Bob�s example does not work today because the Church of England has pretty much ceased to adhere to Catholic Teaching (even if one compares it only to 1534).

Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.).

Administrator wrote:

Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.). [/QB][/QUOTE]

This is interesting.

james

James,

I can�t think of a congregation of Roman Catholics that has broken with Rome and entered into communion with one of the other ancient Patriarchates. There are, however, a number of Western parishes that have broken with other Churches (mostly the Anglican Church) who have established communion with one of the Orthodox patriarchates.

Like in Catholicism there is a bit of a terminology issue here. �Anglicans in Communion with Antioch� is a bit of a mouthful just as �Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome� is a mouthful. Most simply call themselves �Western Orthodox� (just like we call ourselves �Byzantine Catholic�). It is usually best to respect individuals and call them what they call themselves.

Admin

[Perhaps a better example for Bob to use would be if a group of Roman Catholics broke from Rome and entered into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They would be �Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople� (or Jerusalem, etc.).]

If a group of RCs broke with Rome and came under the EP, they would not do so as RCs but as Orthodox newly received through christmation into the Orthodox Faith renouncing all former errors...which of course means the dogmas of purgatory and all those related to RC theology. They would therefore, after renouncing RC theology and dogma, and accepting Orthodox theology and dogma would no longer be RC and therefore it would be wrong to call them RCs in communion with Constantinople. Within valid Orthodoxy one doesn't get to pick and choose what one believes. Nor does one get to reinterpret or definite it in a western mode.

As I have quoted previously St Paul instructs us in I Corinthians 1:10 (Caps are mine)

Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

Doctrines like Filioque and Purgatory are non negotiable. That's what it means to be Orthodox which most of you have yet to understand.

If you all consider yourselves Orthodox that means you do not and can not accept the RC theology and dogma in its entirety and therefore should not be "under" Rome (which being 'In Communion' with Rome means).

It's all very simple!

OrthoMan

[Like in Catholicism there is a bit of a terminology issue here. �Anglicans in Communion with Antioch� is a bit of a mouthful just as �Orthodox Christians in Communion with Rome� is a mouthful.]

And 'rthodox In Communion With Rome' isn't?

Orthoman

I love it every time you post this, Bob. :rolleyes:
Must've gotten this from your participation on the Indiana list.

Theotokos rotted in the grave or not?
Tollhouses or not?
New Calendar is uncanonical/heretical or not?

Perhaps you would like to rephrase so that you are saying something not obviously incompatible with reality.

What goes on in Western rite Orthodoxy? Or are you saying that this is invalid?

Brothers,


What's amazing to me is that ALL these things are the things that I struggled with personally before I became Orthodox. I guess I was wasn't as hard in myself as we are on each other........ I reached the conclusion Orthoman did.....not everyone does.


Peace all
Michael

[Theotokos rotted in the grave or not?]

The Theotokos died and was buried. Christ came down to take her soul into heaven. As you will see him on every Orthodox Icon of the Dormition standing near her body holding an infant that represents her soul.

Tradition tells us that Thomas arrived about three days later and wanted to venerate her body. When they opened the tomb her body was gone and a flower stood where it was. Orthodox believe her body was assumed into heaven but it was a separate event from her Dormition. I know of no Orthodox that believes that her body rotted in the garve.

Roman Catholics on the other hand, backed themselves in a corner with the Immaculate Conception. Because if Mary was conceived without 'Original Sin' then she would have been immortal as Adam & Eve were originally designed before the 'fall'. Thats why the RC's don't emphasize her 'Dormition' rather than both her Dormition and Assumption.

Father Tom: Care to elaborate or correct if need be?

[Tollhouses or not?]

Tollhouses have never been part of Orthodox theology. It is an opinion of certain Orthodox theologians. But not dogma. just like Co-Remdeptorix is an opinion of some Roman Catholic theologians but not offiecial dogma of the RCC.

[New Calendar is uncanonical/heretical or not?]

You all have your RC Fundalmentalists too like the SPPX's, Transalpine Redemptorists, etc. that argue over silly issues. Why can't we Orthodox?

So glad to hear you read my posts on Orthodox Catholic sites. I love that Bibilical quote too. It shows the essence of Orthodox belief. You guys have been under Rome so long you have lost the essence of what it means to be Orthodox!

OrthoMan

OrthoMan,

You're doing fine. Ignore the straw-man arguments.

PT

[Perhaps you would like to rephrase so that you are saying something not obviously incompatible with reality.]

I could say the exact thing for you.

[What goes on in Western rite Orthodoxy? Or are you saying that this is invalid? ]

Now its time for you to get real. Ask any Western Rite Orthodox if they believe in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. and you will get a definite NO! Ask the same questions to either a Latin Rite or Eastern Rite Papal Catholic and you will get everything from yes, no, maybe, I define it differently, etc. But never an agreed upon answer. Just check the archives here when the questions come up. You guys can't even agree on what being 'In Communion' with the Pope really means.

Your whole comment just proves to me how ya all look at things. You base everything on ritual and outward appearances and delegate dogma (which is the very basis of Orthodoxy) to second place. Like I said you have lost the very essence of what it means to be Orthodox and have become too western in your outlook. Thats why its so ridiculous to try and claim to be 'Orthodox In Communion With Rome'.

OrthoMan

If the Roman Catholics in communion with Constantinople retained the liturgy and Latin approach to theology they would remain Roman Catholic. Bob�s claim that we are picking and choosing beliefs is false. A prosphora recipe written in Church Slavonic using metric measurements is equivalent to a prosphora recipe written in English using American measurements. The Gospel read in Church Slavonic is just as valid as the Gospel read in English.

Bob�s quote from 1 Cor 1:10 is definitely applicable here as there is no real difference in the faith as expressed by East and West. What differs is the theological language each Church uses to proclaim the Trinity. Speaking the same thing does not mean speaking in a universal language. Sadly, however, there are divisions among us due to sin and misunderstanding.

Bob, you might wish to read �An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation� which stated last week that both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches �expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God� and �that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit�s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution�. Participants from your own Orthodox Church in America have acknowledged that we are limited in our ability to proclaim who God is and that we must work together to proclaim our theology more clearly for a reunited Church in the Third Millennium. While the document is not binding on either Church it does represent the expressed opinion of your Church as well as mine.

I respectfully disagree. Rome is the ultimate judge of what is Orthodox, not the larger body of Orthodox Christians who are not in full communion with her.

I also disagree with your distinction between �in communion� and �under�. If the two terms are equivalent please go and tell one of your Russian Orthodox friends that he is �under� Constantinople or one of your Greek Orthodox friends that he is �under� Moscow.

Bob,

I have given you far more freedom to express your views on this forum than I have given to those who speak against Orthodoxy. On this forum the first rule is charity. One of the signs of charity and respect is to call one another by the terms they use to refer to themselves. We are officially titled as �Byzantine Catholic� (or �Ukrainian Catholic�, �Ruthenian Catholic� and etc.). We are not now and never have referred to ourselves as �Eastern Rite Papal Catholics�. The term �Papal Catholic� is always a pejorative and an insult. When you use such terms you present yourself as a bitter person incapable of arguing intelligently. I have read your posts for long enough to know that you are very intelligent indeed. I request that you not engage in such open insults.

Admin