Are Catholics afraid of Eastern Orthodox? - Page 3

dzheremi · #31 May 2, '12, 10:45 pm

See, but from my perspective we already have that. It's called the Orthodox Church. Why do we "need" to unite with Rome or anybody who doesn't share our faith? We're not missing anything, and we're not without the ability to proclaim moral and spiritual truths due to a lack of union with Rome.

I've never understood this "we have to unite because we have to" stuff. Not even when I was RC.

Marybeloved · #32 May 2, '12, 10:46 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Why would you refrain from joining a church communion with which you agree completely in matters of theology, ecclesiology, praxis, etc. because not all of them share your commitment to ecumenism? I'm probably misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that the modern type of ecumenism is very new, and not considered a cornerstone or expression of any particular church's unity (so I don't see why it's a point against the Orthodox that not all have the same commitment to or opinion on ecumenism).

I agree. I also think that the idea of requiring people to remain in a communion they no longer give their full faith and obedience to or to refrain from joining what they believe to be the OHCAC for the sake of re-union is playing politics. If re-union ever happens, (and it WILL), it'll be the work of God, as high above us as the descent of the Holy Spirit that constituted the church on Pentecost and began evangelizing the world was above the small community of 120 believers that gathered after Christ's ascension. It'll not be through employing political strategies to "garner the numbers" on either side. For us, our work is to continue to dialogue in truth and honesty and to leave the work of God to God.

ConstantineTG · #33 May 2, '12, 10:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

See, but from my perspective we already have that. It's called the Orthodox Church. Why do we "need" to unite with Rome or anybody who doesn't share our faith? We're not missing anything, and we're not without the ability to proclaim moral and spiritual truths due to a lack of union with Rome.

I've never understood this "we have to unite because we have to" stuff. Not even when I was RC.

Because the Good Shepherd wants to call back his wandering flock.

Marybeloved · #34 May 2, '12, 10:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

See, but from my perspective we already have that. It's called the Orthodox Church. Why do we "need" to unite with Rome or anybody who doesn't share our faith? We're not missing anything, and we're not without the ability to proclaim moral and spiritual truths due to a lack of union with Rome.

I've never understood this "we have to unite because we have to" stuff. Not even when I was RC.

Even if you feel you're fine without Rome, do you honestly believe that Christ is happy about the fact that we are not all "One" as he and his father are? If for no other reason, shouldn't we try just for him?

dzheremi · #35 May 2, '12, 10:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Because the Good Shepherd wants to call back his wandering flock.

...So, no substantial reason, then? I'm sorry, Constantine, but I've had too many Protestant groups use that kind of logic on me, and without some substantial details to actually explain what you mean, it doesn't really mean anything to me. "Christ prayed that all be one!", they would say. And, indeed, it is right that the Good Shepherd should call back His wandering flock...but what this has to do with Rome in particular (which is the sticking point in all this: Rome's view of itself vs. every other apostolic church's view of Rome), I do not know. Again, so long as Rome does not teach and live the apostolic faith, we do not need to unite with it any more than with the Lutherans, Methodists, or any other of its spiritual sons and daughters.

Sorry if that's a bit on the harsh side, but I have yet to hear anything in defense of this "we must unite" position beyond that the people who think that way would really, really like to see it happen. Don't get me wrong, I definitely would too, but only when we proclaim the same faith, complete and unchanged, and not one second before.

dzheremi · #36 May 2, '12, 11:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

Even if you feel you're fine without Rome, do you honestly believe that Christ is happy about the fact that we are not all "One" as he and his father are? If for no other reason, shouldn't we try just for him?

Who says we aren't trying? I'm very much in favor of trying, but very much not in favor of insisting that thing should just BE a certain way since Christ said so. Christ also tells us that we are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, yet we're not doing that, either. We have to actually DO things in order to be in communion, and the conditions for reunion on the Orthodox side will not be met by Rome in its current form, just as the conditions for reunion on the Roman side will not be met by the Orthodox as the Orthodox Church is. And so here we are.

(I swear I'm not against ecumenism, I just don't think we have much more/new to say to Rome in particular.)

ConstantineTG · #37 May 2, '12, 11:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

...So, no substantial reason, then? I'm sorry, Constantine, but I've had too many Protestant groups use that kind of logic on me, and without some substantial details to actually explain what you mean, it doesn't really mean anything to me. "Christ prayed that all be one!", they would say. And, indeed, it is right that the Good Shepherd should call back His wandering flock...but what this has to do with Rome in particular (which is the sticking point in all this: Rome's view of itself vs. every other apostolic church's view of Rome), I do not know. Again, so long as Rome does not teach and live the apostolic faith, we do not need to unite with it any more than with the Lutherans, Methodists, or any other of its spiritual sons and daughters.

Sorry if that's a bit on the harsh side, but I have yet to hear anything in defense of this "we must unite" position beyond that the people who think that way would really, really like to see it happen. Don't get me wrong, I definitely would too, but only when we proclaim the same faith, complete and unchanged, and not one second before.

Isn't the fact that we are all Apostolic Churches that has to a great extent preserved the traditions from the beginning point that we are all Churches of equal dignity? You have a point there about Protestants, but they have wandered from the true faith. Because we have faithfully preserved our Apostolic Traditions, we each have not wandered that far from one another.

Marybeloved · #38 May 2, '12, 11:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

...So, no substantial reason, then? I'm sorry, Constantine, but I've had too many Protestant groups use that kind of logic on me, and without some substantial details to actually explain what you mean, it doesn't really mean anything to me. "Christ prayed that all be one!", they would say. And, indeed, it is right that the Good Shepherd should call back His wandering flock...but what this has to do with Rome in particular (which is the sticking point in all this: Rome's view of itself vs. every other apostolic church's view of Rome), I do not know. Again, so long as Rome does not teach and live the apostolic faith, we do not need to unite with it any more than with the Lutherans, Methodists, or any other of its spiritual sons and daughters.

Sorry if that's a bit on the harsh side, but I have yet to hear anything in defense of this "we must unite" position beyond that the people who think that way would really, really like to see it happen. Don't get me wrong, I definitely would too, but only when we proclaim the same faith, complete and unchanged, and not one second before.

I think Christ's explicit desire for his followers is "a substantial reason"- What reason to do anything at all could be more substantial than the will of Our Lord? You can speak of "conditions" and being met on the other side- That's a very earthly, human and even political manner of looking at something that is very much of supernatural concern. Do you think that the Holy Spirit is incapable of changing hearts on either side, Rome, the East, the Orient and yes, even Protestants? This is the work of God- talking about what our churches will and will not do as conditions is forgetting about the most important player in all this.

dzheremi · #39 May 2, '12, 11:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Isn't the fact that we are all Apostolic Churches that has to a great extent preserved the traditions from the beginning point that we are all Churches of equal dignity? You have a point there about Protestants, but they have wandered from the true faith. Because we have faithfully preserved our Apostolic Traditions, we each have not wandered that far from one another.

They wandered away from the true faith according to who? And "we" preserved the true faith according to who? And for that matter, who is "we"? Because the Byzantines and the OO are not in communion, and the Catholics are not in communion with either, and the Protestants are not in communion with any, nor are the Nestorians...yet all maintain that they have the true faith. So I don't "we think we have done this" is a very good standard. At least if you make proclaiming the same faith the barometer, you can tell what's what. Can't believe in Papal dogmas? You can't be a Catholic. Can't agree with the Christological formula promulgated at Chalcedon? You can't be EO. Can't disagree with the same? You can't be OO. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Marybeloved · #40 May 2, '12, 11:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Who says we aren't trying? I'm very much in favor of trying, but very much not in favor of insisting that thing should just BE a certain way since Christ said so.

Come on my friend- Look at that sentence again. Do you really mean it? You don't think that we have to be a certain way for the simple reason that Christ said so? Just in obedience?

Quote:

Christ also tells us that we are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, yet we're not doing that, either.

Well, we are not sitting back and saying "we can't do it because of one, two reasons" either. And the saints in all our churches show that Christians everywhere are in fact, not taking Christ's words as optional. You do everything and then leave the rest to God- he makes you a saint. That's the same logic of re-union efforts. You do everything you can and leave the rest to God. You don't look for reasons why it's impossible for you- only God can make saints or unify the churches.

Quote:

We have to actually DO things in order to be in communion, and the conditions for reunion on the Orthodox side will not be met by Rome in its current form, just as the conditions for reunion on the Roman side will not be met by the Orthodox as the Orthodox Church is. And so here we are.

What is impossible with men is possible with God. Re-union is as impossible as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, as a rich man going to heaven, yet Christ promises he can.

Quote:

(I swear I'm not against ecumenism, I just don't think we have much more/new to say to Rome in particular.)

Thankfully, your church disagrees with you because the dialogues are under way. Dailogue is going on- officially, in person, at CAF etc- God will do his work when and as he sees fit. Our leaders are right in doing their duty, what they can, in trying to do the will of Christ, because Christ will hold them accountable. But we can never just say that we are done tying to re-unite or even correct our brothers- True love does not grow tired, Dzerehmi- it's patient, long-suffering, bears all.

dzheremi · #41 May 2, '12, 11:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

I think Christ's explicit desire for his followers is "a substantial reason"- What reason to do anything at all could be more substantial than the will of Our Lord? You can speak of "conditions" and being met on the other side- That's a very earthly, human and even political manner of looking at something that is very much of supernatural concern. Do you think that the Holy Spirit is incapable of changing hearts on either side, Rome, the East, the Orient and yes, even Protestants? This is the work of God- talking about what our churches will and will not do as conditions is forgetting about the most important player in all this.

The Holy Spirit changes the hearts of many who leave Rome and Canterbury and all these other places and come to the Orthodox faith. For other kinds of movement, I cannot say. And conditions are necessary because doctrine is important. Don't turn into a filthy hippie every time someone mentions such things. I have never believed that the Roman Catholic faith was pietistic. Or at least it is not traditionally supposed to be.

Marybeloved · #42 May 2, '12, 11:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

The Holy Spirit changes the hearts of many who leave Rome and Canterbury and all these other places and come to the Orthodox faith. For other kinds of movement, I cannot say. And conditions are necessary because doctrine is important. Don't turn into a filthy hippie every time someone mentions such things. I have never believed that the Roman Catholic faith was pietistic. Or at least it is not traditionally supposed to be.

Your language is quite strange- Dependence on God to do what is beyond us in not being "a filthy hippie"- If I believed that, I would be atheist. I sense the conversation has taken a nasty turn. I leave you to your convictions, Dzheremi.

Peace.

dzheremi · #43 May 2, '12, 11:29 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

Come on my friend- Look at that sentence again. Do you really mean it? You don't think that we have to be a certain way for the simple reason that Christ said so? Just in obedience?

My point was more that Christ definitely did say it, and we definitely do need to follow it, but merely pointing out the FACT that He said it (as Protestants do, and as Catholics apparently do), without any accompanying action to actually, y'know...DO it, is not helpful. And in the case of ecumenism, it's the doing part that isn't happening. Rome is not repudiating any of her unique doctrines, and neither are the Orthodox assenting to them. So once again, here we are. It has nothing to do with ignoring Christ and everything to do with not DOING what He said.

Quote:

Thankfully, your church disagrees with you because the dialogues are under way. Dailogue is going on

I can only repeat that the Orthodox do not see these dialogues in the same light as RCs do.

Padraig1972 · #44 May 2, '12, 11:51 pm

Afraid? No. I only feel a deep respect for them.

ConstantineTG · #45 May 2, '12, 11:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzheremi

They wandered away from the true faith according to who? And "we" preserved the true faith according to who? And for that matter, who is "we"? Because the Byzantines and the OO are not in communion, and the Catholics are not in communion with either, and the Protestants are not in communion with any, nor are the Nestorians...yet all maintain that they have the true faith. So I don't "we think we have done this" is a very good standard. At least if you make proclaiming the same faith the barometer, you can tell what's what. Can't believe in Papal dogmas? You can't be a Catholic. Can't agree with the Christological formula promulgated at Chalcedon? You can't be EO. Can't disagree with the same? You can't be OO. Lather, rinse, repeat.

As I said, the Apostolic Traditions we have preserved point that we bear the faith as it has been handed down by the Apostles. If we are worshiping in a way different from how the Apostles worshiped Jesus, then we are wrong. I think it is good that the EO, OO and RC are separated. It validates that we are all living the true faith because we preserved something we all inherited, even if among ourselves we do not agree with one another. Protestants try their best not to imitate the Catholic Church to prove that they are different, to prove that they are right. Apostolic Churches aren't worried about what the others are doing, they are worried about keeping what they inherited.