Roman/Orthodox Catholic: Unity

[James the Persian]

Here's a link to the .pdf of the book. You might not want to print it out, though, as it's about 180 pages long!

http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

And while I'm at it, the Orthodox forum is here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=80

Hope this helps.

James

 

[Scott1]

I'd like to ask you, and I think it is relevant with regards to any possible reconciliation, exactly how you see Papal primacy and ecclesiology. I'm interested not just in the Papacy as it exists today, but how you think it developed, what its basis is, etc.

Nope.... that is something I will not do here.... I told you I would only speak on current RCC faith .... we can leave the Papal history chat for another thread.... I think you'll be quite suprised by my views on the Papacy.

As far as this thread.... let me try to steer it back.

You did not respond to my assertion that we have become a church of "knowledge"... and to further clarify that, I'd like to ask a question:

I would refuse the Eucharist to any heterodox Christian who asked for it,

... but you would not refuse me if I was an infant. Why?

Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Nope.... that is something I will not do here.... I told you I would only speak on current RCC faith .... we can leave the Papal history chat for another thread.... I think you'll be quite suprised by my views on the Papacy.

As far as this thread.... let me try to steer it back.

OK, fair enough. Do you want to start the new thread somewhere appropriate?

You did not respond to my assertion that we have become a church of "knowledge"... and to further clarify that, I'd like to ask a question:
... but you would not refuse me if I was an infant. Why?

As to your church of "knowledge", you'll have to clarify that for me before I can respond adequately as I'm not certain I understand your meaning.
On refusing the Eucharist to you but not to an infant, I thought I'd explained this? I would indeed refuse an unbaptised, unchrismated infant the Eucharist. We don't give it to just any infant, you know. With respect to membership in the Church, your situation is precisely the same (from an Orthodox point of view). You are not a member of the Body of Christ and therefore cannot share in Her sacraments and especially not the Eucharist. Sorry to sound blunt about this, but that is why we can't accept the 'two lungs' or 'sister churches' idea. (Note that I am not trying to insult your faith here - you can be a Christian but outside the Church - but it is impossible for me to discuss these matters without bluntly stating that we believe the Church is one and that that Church is the Orthodox Church. I hope that I haven't offended you by writing these things.) In any case, membership of the Church is not simply about belief or knowledge, but is tied up in the sacraments. That's why as a catechumen, even when I was and my priest knew I was Orthodox in belief and knowledge (though the latter will almost certainly remain incomplete to my dying day) I was able only to take antidoron and not the Eucharist until after my chrismation. Nonetheless, had I died as a catechumen I would have been given an Orthodox funeral service as an (almost) member of the Church.

James

 

[Montalban]

Here's a link to the .pdf of the book. You might not want to print it out, though, as it's about 180 pages long!

http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf

And while I'm at it, the Orthodox forum is here:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=80

Hope this helps.

James

Thanks, I'll print it up early on Monday before anyone else gets into work

 

[Scott1]

Hiya James,

Need your help to clarify something is a previous post:

No, I don't believe any man can keep themselves free of sin by their own efforts (I'm not Pelagian)

.... but then you follow up with:

We believe that anybody who leads a virtuous life in obedience to God and accepts His grace could, indeed, remain free of sin.

An entire life without sin? Such a person would not have needed Christ to die for them.... they would be "Christ-like" i.e. like us in all things except for sin.
I don't follow you on this one.

You know, I presume, that we Orthodox do not hold to the Roman Catholic ideas of doctrinal development or an initial deposit of the faith? We do not, therefore, accept new dogmas only clarification of existing ones. Innovation is a very dirty word in Orthodoxy, often tantamount to heresy, so I, and all Orthodox, will be forever suspicious of dogmas that weren't discovered for almost two millennia after the Crucifixion.

Hmmm... so you accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787), but no more...... so 787 years after the Crucifiction is OK.... but no longer than that..... is that it?

So, Councils are central to the governance and faith of the Orthodox Church.... and then all of a sudden they cease, and you and other Orthodox Christians must do without them for the last 1200 years?

I was able only to take antidoron and not the Eucharist until after my chrismation.

Please explain to me what an "antidoron" is please.

Scott

 

[James the Persian]

An entire life without sin? Such a person would not have needed Christ to die for them.... they would be "Christ-like" i.e. like us in all things except for sin.
I don't follow you on this one.

You seem to be misunderstanding me again. Nobody, simply by their own efforts, is able to remain free of sin. With our own efforts coupled with God's grace, however, it is possible. The fact that it is vanishingly unlikely that any human will achieve this does not make it impossible. The fact that you think such a person (the only one we know of being the Theotokos) would not need Christ for salvation shows me that you don't understand Orthodox soteriology at all. Without the Incarnation we could never achieve theosis as human nature would never have been divinised - all we could achieve would be a good life.

Hmmm... so you accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils (up to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787), but no more...... so 787 years after the Crucifiction is OK.... but no longer than that..... is that it?

So, Councils are central to the governance and faith of the Orthodox Church.... and then all of a sudden they cease, and you and other Orthodox Christians must do without them for the last 1200 years?

Councils never ceased. We've had many councils since the 7th Ecumenical, two of which are even considered Ecumenical by some Orthodox. Why do you think they've ceased? Again, you misunderstand what I was saying. We do not believe that any council has ever taught new doctrines, merely clarified existing ones. Show me an example of a new teaching taught by a council (rather than merely clarification of existing doctrine) idf you disagree with this. I certainly can think of no examples.

Please explain to me what an "antidoron" is please.

Well, this is an easy one. Antidoron is blessed bread taken from the same loaf used to cut the bread for the Eucharist from, but not used in the Eucharist itself. Anyone who attends the Liturgy can take this as a blessing.

James

 

[Montalban]

You seem to be misunderstanding me again. Nobody, simply by their own efforts, is able to remain free of sin. With our own efforts coupled with God's grace, however, it is possible. The fact that it is vanishingly unlikely that any human will achieve this does not make it impossible. The fact that you think such a person (the only one we know of being the Theotokos) would not need Christ for salvation shows me that you don't understand Orthodox soteriology at all. Without the Incarnation we could never achieve theosis as human nature would never have been divinised - all we could achieve would be a good life.

Is the Catholic concept of the Immaculate Conception (as you understand it) one that Mary didn't suffer "Original Sin"?
That is how it seems to me.

Councils never ceased. We've had many councils since the 7th Ecumenical, two of which are even considered Ecumenical by some Orthodox. Why do you think they've ceased? Again, you misunderstand what I was saying. We do not believe that any council has ever taught new doctrines, merely clarified existing ones. Show me an example of a new teaching taught by a council (rather than merely clarification of existing doctrine) idf you disagree with this. I certainly can think of no examples.
James

It is also my understanding that Catholics 'develop' doctrine, such as
Papal Infalibility
the Immaculate Conception
Papal Authority

Though I don't think this is the same as finding new ways of expressing existing ideas

 

[Scott1]

You seem to be misunderstanding me again.

Sorry, I'm trying... it still does not make any sense to me... so let's move on.

Councils never ceased. We've had many councils since the 7th Ecumenical, two of which are even considered Ecumenical by some Orthodox.

Cool.... do you have a link? I'd love to learn about them.

Anyone who attends the Liturgy can take this as a blessing

Thanks for the info.... what a great blessing.... I would have loved to been able to have something like this when I was entering the Church.

Peace be with you,
Scott

 

[James the Persian]

Cool.... do you have a link? I'd love to learn about them.

The following's a good chart (including some western councils which are labeled, from an Orthodox point of view, as heretical). As you can see, they've continued until really quite recently and there is now also an attempt o work towards a new (hopefully Ecumenical) Council.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/synodschart.html

The following, also from the same site, discusses whether we should consider that we have seven or nine Ecumenical Councils. Personally, I tend towards accepting nine as Ecumenical, but I'm only really certain of the first seven.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

Hope that helps and, yes, being able to take antidoron at the liturgy is a great blessing for catechumens and enquirers.

James

 

[Montalban]

The following's a good chart (including some western councils which are labeled, from an Orthodox point of view, as heretical). As you can see, they've continued until really quite recently and there is now also an attempt o work towards a new (hopefully Ecumenical) Council.

James

Which was the one that refuted the novel idea of the filioque?

 

[James the Persian]

Which was the one that refuted the novel idea of the filioque?

That would be Constantinople IV, the (disputed) Eighth Ecumenical Council. Prior to that, the local council held in Constantinople by St. Photios the Great also condemned the filioque and various other local councils since then have done the same (though these are obviously less important).

James

 

[Montalban]

That would be Constantinople IV, the (disputed) Eighth Ecumenical Council. Prior to that, the local council held in Constantinople by St. Photios the Great also condemned the filioque and various other local councils since then have done the same (though these are obviously less important).

James

I read of Photius, rather than having read Photius, in Carlton Clark's book. It makes for interesting reading as it looks to a difference that emerged between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, when the Catholic church developed the novel idea of the double procession of the Holy Spirit.

 

[lonevoice]

Now THIS was a great thread!!!! I just reading what people who know their faith have to say.