Latin Rite Catholic Dopers: Ask the Byzantine Catholic Chick [Archive]

The Asbestos Mango

08-26-2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Bricker
Is an Eparchy the same thing as a diocese? Are there metropolitan and suffragan eparchies? How many eparchies are there in the US? Is there any body similar to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or a concept of an ecclesiastical province?

All these are administrative, I know, but I'm curious. :)

OK, yes, an eparchy is pretty much the same thing as a diocese, only they tend to be geographically much larger, due to the fact that there are much fewer Byzantine Catholics than there are Latin Rite Catholics. Yes, there are metropolitan eparchies, suffragan I don't know. Lemme get back to you on the rest.

OK, now SnoopyFan

Help the protestant: is there much of a difference between the Latins and the Byzantines? I thought there was just one "flavor" of Catholics all this time ...

Um, well, let me put it this way. The Byzantines are what the Eastern Orthodox would be if the Eastern Orthodox were still in communion with Rome. We use the same liturgy as most of the Orthodox Churches ( the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, or of St. Basil during Lent and certain holy days), and our theolgy and spirituality more closely resemble the Greek or Russian Orthodox than they do the "Roman Catholic". We do accept the authority of the Pope, and of all the ecumenical councils post 1054, which the Orthodox do not. Also, Catholics come in nine flavors- Latin Rite, Byzantine Rite, Maronite and Melkite (which are the majority of Middle Eastern Catholics), Syrian, Coptic, Chaldean, Malabar and Melankarese (the last two are predominately in India). Add into this the local and national traditions that exist within the various rites, and you can probably find a flavor of Catholic to suit any taste.

tomndebb:

Do you wear an "Equal Rites" button when you attend Latin Rite services?

um, no.

JohnM :

I'm assuming that the Byzantine Rite follows the usual eastern custom of offering Eucharist to all baptized members of the Church. What is the practice with regards to Latin Rite children who have not yet had their First Communion?

Basically, if you have the right to receive Communion within your own rite, you can receive Communion in the Byzantine Church as well. So, a Latin Rite child who has not yet received First Communion would not be able to receive in a Byzantine Church either. However, if you are not eligible to receive communion, you can still come forward when the Eucharist is given and receive a blessing. When you approach the priest, you hold one finger over your mouth, to quietly and discreetely let him know you can't receive, and he will bless you. Also, in the Italo-Greek Church, we have this nice little thing called the antidoran. It's a bit of bread that is placed at the entrance of the church, or, preferably, held by an officer of the church, for your intentions. As you enter the church, you take a little piece of bread from a dish, silently make your request of God and place it on a plate. At the end of the liturgy, the bread is distributed to the people in attendance. You don't even have to be a Christian to receive the antidoran. I'm not sure if the other national traditions have this practice, but I think it's nice, because even if you can't receive communion, you aren't entirely left out.

Dogface

08-26-2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
Latin Rite refers to the church in communion with Rome with a liturgy based on the original (for that group of churches) Latin.

More specifically, based upon the Liturgy of Milan.

The Eastern Rite churches are those churches in communion with Rome with a litugy based on the original (for those regions) Greek traditions.

More specifically, based upon the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great (possibly with the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Great for pre-consecrated Gifts).

The Eastern Rite churches are called Eastern Rite because (after the Latin Rite swallowed up the Gallican, Gothic, and a few other Rites) Latin was pretty much the only tradition that survived in the West of Europe, with all the other Rites survivng in the East.

Actually, the modern "Latin Rite" is the Gallican, specifically as given form in Milan (yes, Milan was part of the "Gallican" family of Liturgies). The actual "Roman" liturgies are no longer practiced. As regarding the East, its liturgical tradition is also quite sparse in comparison to older variety.

Dogface

08-26-2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
[B]Um, well, let me put it this way. The Byzantines are what the Eastern Orthodox would be if the Eastern Orthodox were still in communion with Rome.

Not hardly. It is Rome that fell into schism, error, and heresy. We did not break from them, they broke from us.

Bricker

08-26-2003, 08:06 AM

I'd aver that in a thread called, "Ask the Byzantine Catholic Chick," the obvious reference point is that of the Byzantine Catholic Church. So Thea Logica is well within the bounds of normal practice to say, "The Byzantines are what the Eastern Orthodox would be if the Eastern Orthodox were still in communion with Rome," just as, were the thread about the Orthodox Churches, it would be acceptable to say that Rome fell into heresy and broke from the East.

- Rick

rnaka

08-26-2003, 08:29 AM

Does the Byzantine Church arise from the Latin crusader kingdom that siezed the Eastern Roman Empire?

Dogface

08-26-2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Bricker
So Thea Logica is well within the bounds of normal practice to say, "The Byzantines are what the Eastern Orthodox would be if the Eastern Orthodox were still in communion with Rome,"

Actually, any look at the history of the Uniates shows that she would be wrong, there. Uniates did not maintain communion with Rome. Uniates rejoined communion with Rome after centuries of division from Rome. Thus, it is not accurate to claim that they are what the Orthodox would have been had there never been a break in communion with Rome. The Uniates also participated in that break for centuries.

Captain Amazing

08-26-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Dogface
Not hardly. It is Rome that fell into schism, error, and heresy. We did not break from them, they broke from us.

From a neutral perspective, you broke from each other.

tomndebb

08-26-2003, 11:44 AM

um, no. Sorry. Small joke showing just how old I am. Through the 60s there were several political buttons demanding Equal Rights. It was also, of couse, the period when a lot of changes were happening in the Latin Rite. I went to school with several Maronites and a couple of Chaldeans who never made any point of their differences with us "Latins," then, in grad school, I encountered a guy who was militantly Greek Catholic who would show up at the campus chapel (there being no other Greek Catholics for miles and miles) wearing his Equal Rites button.

The Asbestos Mango

08-26-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Dogface
Actually, any look at the history of the Uniates shows that she would be wrong, there. Uniates did not maintain communion with Rome. Uniates rejoined communion with Rome after centuries of division from Rome. Thus, it is not accurate to claim that they are what the Orthodox would have been had there never been a break in communion with Rome. The Uniates also participated in that break for centuries.

Well, Dogface, I'm Italo-Greed Byzantine and the Italo-Greek church never split with Rome (is, in fact, under the Roman Patriarchate), and it therefore not a Uniate church.

As for the Uniate churches-

They still use the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, still have the same basic theology and spirituality as the Orthodox, the same traditions. Heck, the Nicean Creed still doesn't have that dratted filioque clause in it in the Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies. Also, under Catholic canon law, Orthodox Christians are eligible to receive commumion in Catholic churches. Orthodox canon law forbids it except in cases of emergency.

So, yes, it is accurate to say that Byzantine Catholic is what Eastern Orthodox would be if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were still in communion with Rome. Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that Byzantine Catholocism is Orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. Next thread- it's been almost 950 years. How come you guys are still holding a grudge?

OK, maka

Does the Byzantine Church arise from the Latin crusader kingdom that siezed the Eastern Roman Empire?

No. Although I must say that the sack of Constantinople and attempted forced Latinization of the Greeks went a long way toward making sure the schism would become final (all that nastiness in 1054 was really just the beginning of a long process- between then and 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Turks, there were several unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation. The filioque clause remains a sticking point to this day. More for the Orthodox than the Catholics - being that the Italo-Greek and Uniate churches don't use it, it's highly unlikely that Rome would insist that the Orthodox churches adopt it as a condition of reunification.)

The Byzantine Catholic Churches are descended from the churches founded by St. Paul. The Roman Church is descended from those founded by St. Peter. The Byzantine Rite is actually about twenty years older than the Latin Rite. The various churches all grew up together, and for the most part, played nice together until 1054, when the church split over what were actually fairly minor doctrinal issues. In the process, Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, was handed a bull of excommunication by a papal legate named Humbert, who rode his horse into the Hagia Sophia during the liturgy to hand Cerularius the accursed document. To be fair, Cerularius was not exactly being cooperative. He refused to meet with the papal delegation, and there is a possibility that he would not have been excommunicated if he had. Also, there is some question as to whether the excommunication was valid. The bull contained several false accusations and incorrect statements, and Pope Leo IX, who issued the bull, died while Humbert and Co. were in transit from Rome to Constantinople.

Dogface

08-26-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica

Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say that Byzantine Catholocism is Orthodoxy within the Catholic Church.

That is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY inaccurate. It is not possible to be both Orthodox and Roman Catholic, since to be in communion with Rome, since that sort of Catholic means that one must adhere to heretical doctrines.

If one does not adhere to Orthodox doctrine, one is not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is much more than a mere "rite", no matter what Rome's propagandists might claim.

smiling bandit

08-26-2003, 01:46 PM

Dogface, can you read, or are you simply faking it? Try again.

Byzantine Catholicism is Orthodox Catholocism.

Secondarily, where does all this hysterical anger come from? To be prefectly honest, there are very few and minor doctrinal differences. In any practical point of view, there shouldn't be any difference between us. Perhaps in the years to come we will reunite.

tomndebb

08-26-2003, 02:18 PM

no matter what Rome's propagandists might claim. Y'know, Dogface, this is the second time in a bit over a week that you have made spurious claims about what "Rome" or "the West" might claim.

Do you have any citation that "Rome" claims that it is only a matter of "different rites"?

I appreciate your perspective and the information you bring regarding Orthodox beliefs. There are differences between the capital C Catholics and the capital O Orthodox and you do a good job of presenting the Orthodox perspective. However, you also couch your views in wildly unsubstantiated attacks against "Rome" and "the West" that are beginning to garner you an image as the Jack Chick of the Orthodox.

Calm down. We can recognize your views without having you launch into an angry tirade every time the subject arises.

The Asbestos Mango

08-26-2003, 02:22 PM

Actually, smiling bandit, most of the "heresies" the Orthodox speak of come down to the filioque clause (not used in the Byzantine liturgy- I didn't even know it existed until my schedule wouldn't allow me to attend my own church and I got a bit confused during the Creed, "hey, where'd this 'and the Son' come from") and a few minor differences in liturgical practice, most prominant being the practice in some (not all) Latin Rite churches of only giving the Body of Christ but not the Precious Blood.

Aside from that, any doctrinal differences, and they are very few, amount to what could be considered and "in house debate". They are nothing the Catholic Church would consider dogma, or even to be in error. They are more differences in perception than in belief.

Aside from that, the only way I can tell Byzantine Catholics apart from Eastern Orthodox is to look at a calender. Oh, yeah, and the hateful attitude of the Orthodox toward Catholics.

TVAA

08-26-2003, 04:58 PM

Um, there's also the small matter of the heretical claim that the Pope is the head of the Church and the intermediary through which the Holy Spirit guides the faithful.

It seems to me that the role of the Pope is very much a part of Catholic dogma, and I would find it very odd indeed if the Catholic hierarchy didn't regard the refusal to recognize the Pope as head of the Church as a "mistake".

In addition, the Orthodox hold that there can be no more decisions by the Church, guided by God, until ALL of the Church is represented in Council. As such, none of the Catholic rulings since the Great Schism are considered valid.

The Asbestos Mango

08-26-2003, 07:51 PM

TVAA, interesting claim, considering that Rome is the only patriarchate that has never embraced heresy. Monophysitism, Arianism, iconoclasm have been embraced by Eastern patriarchates, including the patriarchs of Constantinople. So I would wonder how it is that the Orthodox can claim that the belief in Papal authority is heresy.

You know, you and DogFace are starting to sound like the Fundamentalist Protestant crowd, who claim that the Catholic Church is constantly inventing new doctrines, when in fact all that has occurred is that the Church simply formally defined a doctrine that has been part of Christian belief since Apostolic times.

Actually, I think the Orthodox Churches are more sensible than the Latin Church in that they simply refuse to take any formal doctrinal position on some matters, such as the Immaculate Conception, or the nature of what we Catholics like to call Purgatory. Orthodox belief has it that the Blessed Mother was sinless, and that the soul of a Christian believer must undergo some kind of cleansing process, which is unpleasant, before entering Heaven, but they leave it at that. They don't go putting pen to paper and writing out the details of how and why the Theotokos is sinless, or the precise temperature of the flames of Purgatory (if in fact Purgatory has flames- personally I think the "flames" are metaphorical, representing the torments inflicted by the knowledge that one has sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God) telling the faithful, "You must believe this to be considered a good Orthodox Christian."

TVAA

08-26-2003, 11:09 PM

What a stupid argument.

Of course Rome has never fallen into heresy -- Rome defines what the position of the Catholic Church is. By its own standards, it is correct, and it is correct because it meets its own standards.

The Roman Catholic position on this matter is tautological. The Orthodox, on the other hand, claim that the Roman Catholic Church has embraced heresy as doctrine.

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Bishop of Rome held any special power or authority in the Church -- the accounts of the Church Synods indicate that decisions were made by the council as a whole. The position had a special status in the same way that being Bishop of Jerusalem would have a special status, and only in that way.

It didn't matter what the individual patriarchs believed. It didn't matter who claimed what -- and I severely doubt your claim that no jurisdiction ever fell into error, since the Iconoclasts actually won at one point. No person had the authority and divine guidance to pass judgment on Church.

Ooh, let's not forget the whole filoque issue. That wasn't part of the Creed as it was originally handed down -- why did the West feel it necessary to amend the Creed?

Never fell into heresy my eye...

Weird_AL_Einstein

08-27-2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Dogface
That is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY inaccurate. It is not possible to be both Orthodox and Roman Catholic, since to be in communion with Rome, since that sort of Catholic means that one must adhere to heretical doctrines.

If one does not adhere to Orthodox doctrine, one is not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is much more than a mere "rite", no matter what Rome's propagandists might claim.

So Mr. Gibson, how is your son Mel doing these days? Heard he was working on a movie...

My question is one I should be ashamed to ask, after 12 years of catholic school, but I'm a lapsed catholic so I haven't tried to remember any of that stuff, so here I go: After reading through this thread so far I am moved to ask, what exactly is a "liturgy"?

tomndebb

08-27-2003, 05:40 AM

Liturgy, as a general term, refers to the principle public celebration of worship in any religious group. In the context of discussions, here, the Divine Liturgy is the name for the celebration in which the Body and Blood of Jesus are shared in the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic tradition, this acquired the shortened name, the Mass (from the Latin for gathering), although the Catholics have again begun using the word Liturgy to indicate the Mass since the Second Vatican Council. All the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and those aligned with Rome) have always called that celebration the Divine Liturgy.

smiling bandit

08-27-2003, 07:36 AM

Aside from that, any doctrinal differences, and they are very few, amount to what could be considered and "in house debate". They are nothing the Catholic Church would consider dogma, or even to be in error. They are more differences in perception than in belief.

That's what I'mthinking - modern Catholicism and East Orthodoxy appear to be two peas in a pod, although there are different focuses at times. Catholics have a greater interest in the Virgin Mary, for example. But a lot of it seems to be a matter of formality versus quiet consensus.

Aside from that, the only way I can tell Byzantine Catholics apart from Eastern Orthodox is to look at a calender. Oh, yeah, and the hateful attitude of the Orthodox toward Catholics.

Is that really a common attitude? I mean, I think of East Orthodox as a very close brother, who should be embraced again in the spirit of Christ. It would really frighten me if they really hate me like that.

Dogface

08-27-2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Dogface, can you read, or are you simply faking it? Try again.

Byzantine Catholicism is Orthodox Catholocism.

That is a false statement. "Orthodox" is NOT AT ALL IDENTICAL TO "Comes from Greece". Orthodox refers to specific adherence to Orthodox doctrine. So far as the Orthodox Church is concerned (and the Orthodox Church's fuller name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church"), Rome and her followers do not adhere to Orthodox doctrine.

You reduce Orthodoxy to a mere matter of social convention.

Dogface

08-27-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Actually, smiling bandit, most of the "heresies" the Orthodox speak of come down to the filioque clause (not used in the Byzantine liturgy

Transferrable Merit: heretical
Store of Merica: heretical
Created Grace: heretical
Direct Apprehension of God's Essence: heretical
Pope of Roma as "Christ's vicar": heretical (it goes beyond a mere administrative matter)
Sexual transmission of Original Sin (which is the fundamental underpinnin of the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine: Heretical
Papal Infallability: heretical

Likewise, there are other differences in soteriology, the function of the Mysteries, and other areas.

As for the existence of the teaching that Orthodoxy is "just a rite"--look at the people who claim that the Byzantine Catholics are identical to Orthodoxy except for one tiny administrative detail. That boils down to claiming that Orthodoxy is merely a "rite" and would be utterly the same if it were under Rome.

Dogface

08-27-2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
[b]TVAA, interesting claim, considering that Rome is the only patriarchate that has never embraced heresy.

Store of Merit: heresy
Created Grace: heresy
Papal Infallability: heresy
Papal monarchy: heresy

tomndebb

08-27-2003, 10:28 AM

As for the existence of the teaching that Orthodoxy is "just a rite"--look at the people who claim that the Byzantine Catholics are identical to Orthodoxy except for one tiny administrative detail. emphasis mine

What we have seen, here, are misunderstandings or errors of fact or knowledge demonstrated by individuals. You, however, with absolutely no evidence, persist in claiming that such errors in individuals are the result of some vast campaign of disinformation by "Rome" or "the West."

There are clearly a number of people who are from Rome or "the West" who are aware of the doctrinal issues and are not making any claim that the situation is one of mere ritual difference. Unless you supply evidence of your "conspiracy" (or, better, withdraw your absurd accusation), I am forced to look upon you as someone who is more interested in polemical condemnation--even dishonest condemnation--than in setting the record straight.

I do not have any problem with you defending the Orthodox tradition from statements that are errors of fact. I do have a problem with you claiming, along with Jack Chick and Ian Paisley, that it is all a great campaign directed by Rome--particularly when that claim is made in direct contradiction of the evidence.

Reepicheep

08-27-2003, 10:53 AM

Thea Logica, can anyone besides the Priest server the Body and Blood to the congregation? If so, what are the qualifications that person must have? Being the right sex, being of a specific age, having other ecclesiastic offices (deacon etc) taking a class and then being blessed are some of the kinds of qualifications I can think of.

And a total question of ignorance, does the Byzantine Rite recognize the same sacraments that the Latin Rite does (Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Eucharist (Communion), Reconciliation (sometimes called Confession), and The Anointing of the Sick (formally called Last Rites).

Thank you for having this thread.

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Reepicheep
Thea Logica, can anyone besides the Priest server the Body and Blood to the congregation? If so, what are the qualifications that person must have? Being the right sex, being of a specific age, having other ecclesiastic offices (deacon etc) taking a class and then being blessed are some of the kinds of qualifications I can think of.

No, only the priest or deacon can distribute the Eucharist. The rest of us have to keep our mitss off of Jesus.

And a total question of ignorance, does the Byzantine Rite recognize the same sacraments that the Latin Rite does (Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders, Eucharist (Communion), Reconciliation (sometimes called Confession), and The Anointing of the Sick (formally called Last Rites).

Yes. Also, if you have the right to receive the Eucharist in the Latin Rite (have had your first Communion, no unconfessed sins, etc) you may also receive in the Byzantine Rite. Be careful though- some Byzantine churches don't like to communicate people who don't attend their parish regularly. It's understandable, they're concerned with the possibility that non-Catholics may receive communion errantly or (and this does happen) that you might desecrate the Precious Body and Blood. There was an incident earlier this year where the Host was found in an ashtray outside of a local Latin Rite parish. Anyway, if you're planning to visit a Byzantine parish, you might want to talk to the priest, possibly even make confession to him, before you try to receive the Eucharist in that parish.

OK, now...

Originally posted by TVAA
What a stupid argument.[/b[

Sigh. You don't agree with a factual argument, so you dismiss it as stupid. I will never understand the meanness of spirit the Orthodox seem to have when entering into debate with Catholics.

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Bishop of Rome held any special power or authority in the Church -- the accounts of the Church Synods indicate that decisions were made by the council as a whole. The position had a special status in the same way that being Bishop of Jerusalem would have a special status, and only in that way.

I'll start by referring you to Scripture. Matthew 16:15-19, in which, in reply to the question, "... who do you say that I am?" Peter said to, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God". Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rrock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatefer you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thus St. Peter, who went on to become the first bishop of Rome, and by extension, his successors, was established to be the head of Christ's Church on earth. Peter was the first Apostle Christ revealed Himself to after His resurrection. In John, chapter 21, Christ reaffirms Peter as the supreme shepherd (do you love me? ... feed my sheep) The exchange is repeated three times. In Acts Chapter 10, it is Peter who God first sends to preach the Gospel to a Gentile.

In the second century A.D., Polycarp of Smyrna went to Rome to have the method for dating Easter settled, thus acknowledging the authority of the See of St. Peter. In the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "It is on him[Peter] that He [Jesus] builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts to feed his sheep. Although He gave power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, thus establishing by His authority the font and benchmark of the chirches' oneness... If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the Faith? If he deserrts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, does he believe that he is in the same Church?" So, though the doctrine of papal primacy was not formally defined by the west until the sixteenth century, there is historical evidence that the authority of the See of Rome was recognized as least as far back as the second century.

I severely doubt your claim that no jurisdiction ever fell into error, since the Iconoclasts actually won at one point.

Did you even read my post? I did not say that no jurisdiction ever fell into error. I said that Rome was the only jurisdiction that never fell into error.

Ooh, let's not forget the whole filoque issue. That wasn't part of the Creed as it was originally handed down -- why did the West feel it necessary to amend the Creed?

The filioque clause doesn't amount to one iota of doctrinal difference. The Eastern Catholic Churches don't include it in the Creed. Why did the West feel the need to amend the Creed? Hell if I know, why don't you ask them?

Never fell into heresy my eye...

Arianism, monophysitism, iconoclasm were all embraced by Constantinople at one time or another. Other Eastern patriarchates, some of whom returned to orthodox belief and remained in communion with Rome through the nastiness of 1054, have also embraced such heresies as Montanism and Nestorianism. Which of these heresies was ever embraced by Rome?

The Orthodox argument seems to be "We don't recognize Papal authority because it's heresy, and it's heresy because we don't recognize it."

You might want to try following tomndebb's suggestion and present some evidence of Rome's "heresies". So far all I've seen is you and Dogface declaring certain beliefs to be heresy without any backing.

I could do the same.

Theosis: heresy
Baptism of icons: heresy

Theosis is a concept in Byzantine Christianity that the Latins might find a bit strange, but is shared by both Eastern Catholics and Greek Orthodox, but I don't see them screaming "heresy" at us.

The same goes for the baptism of icons.

One guy gets excommunicated, and ten centuries later, you guys are still holding a grudge.

Get over it, already.

Thank you for having this thread. [/QUOTE]

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 01:09 PM

preview is my friend... preview is my friend... preview is my friend...

TVAA

08-27-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Sigh. You don't agree with a factual argument, so you dismiss it as stupid. I will never understand the meanness of spirit the Orthodox seem to have when entering into debate with Catholics. Point one: I am not Orthodox.

Point two: your "factual argument" is logically flawed. By Orthodox standards, the Church of Rome has openly and eagerly embraced heresy. By Catholic standards, it hasn't -- because it defines what heresy is.

I fail to see how a pun made by Christ can be interpretated as meaning that Peter himself was given authority over the Church, and all his successors after him.

The Holy Spirit came upon the whole church, not a particular person.

Did you even read my post? I did not say that no jurisdiction ever fell into error. I said that Rome was the only jurisdiction that never fell into error. Did you even read my reply? The Iconoclasts won. They were overturned within a generation, but there was still a time where they defined the teachings of the Church. Ergo, Rome is not the only jurisdiction that never fell into error, as there has never been a jurisdiction that never fell into error.

The filioque clause doesn't amount to one iota of doctrinal difference. What? It changes the relationship between the aspects of the Trinity. How is that NOT a doctrinal difference?

Dogface

08-27-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by tomndebb

There are clearly a number of people who are from Rome or "the West" who are aware of the doctrinal issues and are not making any claim that the situation is one of mere ritual difference.

Explain how it is that the term "Orthodox in communion with Rome" gets bandied about so very commonly among the Uniates to describe themselves. I've seen this on countless Uniate parish web sites in description of themselves. So, are you saying that this is nothing but all the Uniates as individuals managing to coincidentally do this? Are you saying that there is no official stamp on the claim?

Indeed, I've yet to run across a Uniate who doesn't believe this until corrected as to what "Orthodox" means.

An example:

ORTHODOX IN COMMUNION WITH ROME. We therefore consider ourselves Orthodox in Communion with Rome
(http://www.byzantinecatholic.org/home/page3.html)

This is direct from an official parish web site. The phrase is not unique to that one parish but is commonly bandied about among Uniates.

TVAA

08-27-2003, 01:27 PM

The following site may be of interest: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Dogface

08-27-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica

The filioque clause doesn't amount to one iota of doctrinal difference. The Eastern Catholic Churches don't include it in the Creed.

It amounts to a great deal of doctrinal difference. The Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds EXCLUSIVELY from the Father. We utterly reject the doctrine of "double procession", in which the Son is begotten by the Father but the Holy Spirit is a "joint product" of the Son and the Father. We likewise reject perversions on the order of saying that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Son and the Father". Even if you don't say "and the Son" in Liturgy, the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine that you are required to believe. Check your Catholic Catechism.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."[89] Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."[90] "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

Note that it insists upon double procession for the Holy Spirit. This is not Orthodox Trinity doctrine.
[/QUOTE]

Rome is not Orthodox. Those who accept Rome's doctrines are not and cannot be Orthodox.

As for other matters, I always find it suspicious that it's always the followers of Rome who keep saying that the Orthodox are doctrinally indistinguishable from Rome (with the implication that the Orthodox should thus enter under Roman control).

yBeayf

08-27-2003, 01:38 PM

I've but a few things to add to this thread.

One is a request for Dogface to chill out. Yes, the Orthodox Church believes that it is the Church and that the Catholic Church is not, but that doesn't mean you need to jump up and down screaming about it and generally coming across as fanatic.

Second is an explanation for why the Orthodox can be so defensive against the Catholics. The Catholic Church, to the Orthodox, is a blob-like organization that sincerely believes that there is no substantive difference between its faith and the faith of the Orthodox, and therefore feels justified in trying to swallow up as much of the Orthodox faithful as it can, since to them being under the Pope is the important thing and everything else is just details (cf. the formation of the Uniates). Of course Rome doesn't believe that it is heretical, but the important thing is that from the Orthodox POV, they are, so the Orthodox quite naturally feel justified in vigorously resisting attempts to get them to unify.

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by TVAA

I fail to see how a pun made by Christ can be interpretated as meaning that Peter himself was given authority over the Church, and all his successors after him. [/b]

Mm hmm, and when Jesus said, "take, eat, this is my body... drink of this all of you, this is my blood"... he was just speaking metaphorically. Apparently, you didn't read my entire post, which includes the portion of the passage where Jesus says, "I give you the keys to the Kingdom". How can you write this off as being a mere pun?

The Holy Spirit came upon the whole church, not a particular person.

Not disagreeing with you there. Again, I ask, did you read my post? St. Polycarp stated that Christ gave power to all the Apostles, but established one chair...

Did you even read my reply? The Iconoclasts won. They were overturned within a generation, but there was still a time where they defined the teachings of the Church. Ergo, Rome is not the only jurisdiction that never fell into error, as there has never been a jurisdiction that never fell into error.

The Iconoclasts won... in Constantinople, because they had the Emperor on their side. Rome never embraced Iconoclasm.

What? It changes the relationship between the aspects of the Trinity. How is that NOT a doctrinal difference?

No it doesn't. It's merely a difference in perception of how the Trinity works. Remember, it was Christ, the Son who said, "I will send another comforter", speaking of the Holy Spirit. And again, obviously, the Church doesn't hold it as dogma, because the Eastern Rites don't include it in the Creed.

Again, I say that what the Orthodox refer to as "heresies" are not actually doctrinal differences. They are differences in terminology, or in Eastern vs. Western theology and mindset. None of them are held as dogma (except the Immaculate Conception, and I've checked my Catholic Encyclopedia and a couple of online sources, and I can't find any evidence that the Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin is sexually transmitted. It seems to be a notion that the Orthodox cut from whole cloth. Now if you want to argue that the Orthodox believe that we don't inherit Original Sin from our first parents, we might have some serious doctrinal issues.)

TVAA

08-27-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Mm hmm, and when Jesus said, "take, eat, this is my body... drink of this all of you, this is my blood"... he was just speaking metaphorically. Apparently, you didn't read my entire post, which includes the portion of the passage where Jesus says, "I give you the keys to the Kingdom". How can you write this off as being a mere pun? Hmm... let's see here. Why is it that the accounts of the early Ecumenical Councils don't have Peter making key decisions? He was listened to, and had a great deal of influence given his closeness to Christ, but why were decisions made by consensus and voting?

It seems rather odd for this to be done if the Church recognized Peter as its authority.

Not disagreeing with you there. Again, I ask, did you read my post? St. Polycarp stated that Christ gave power to all the Apostles, but established one chair... Why? Christ is the head of the Church. Why is a single Apostle given special power and authority?

The Iconoclasts won... in Constantinople, because they had the Emperor on their side. Rome never embraced Iconoclasm. You complain about my lack of citations, then expect us to simply take that for granted? Catholic religious art doesn't follow the theological conventions of the early Church, either.

No it doesn't. It's merely a difference in perception of how the Trinity works. Remember, it was Christ, the Son who said, "I will send another comforter", speaking of the Holy Spirit. That does not mean the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Son. And again, obviously, the Church doesn't hold it as dogma, because the Eastern Rites don't include it in the Creed. Then why does the rest of the Catholic Church include it?

Again, I say that what the Orthodox refer to as "heresies" are not actually doctrinal differences. They are differences in terminology, or in Eastern vs. Western theology and mindset. Bingo. What is a heresy other than a difference in theology?

None of them are held as dogma (except the Immaculate Conception, and I've checked my Catholic Encyclopedia and a couple of online sources, and I can't find any evidence that the Catholic Church teaches that Original Sin is sexually transmitted. It seems to be a notion that the Orthodox cut from whole cloth. It certainly taught that, regardless of whether it's taught now.

One of Orthodoxy's primary tenets is that it's not merely the Scriptures or Church rulings alone that are the Apostolic Faith, but all of the teachings of the Church. To the Orthodox, it matters not one whit if the Catholics don't regard a Church teaching as dogma. To the Orthodox, everything taught by the Church is dogma, in a very real sense.

Now if you want to argue that the Orthodox believe that we don't inherit Original Sin from our first parents, we might have some serious doctrinal issues.) Read the cite I provided in the post above. The Orthodox do not believe in "Original Sin".

You're right. We have some serious doctrinal issues here. It's a shame you didn't learn what they were before beginning this thread.

Bricker

08-27-2003, 03:24 PM

TVAA

08-27-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Bricker
Today, the Church recognizes the Pope as its authority, but he exercises this authority in collegial union with the Bishops. Precisely. The Orthodox recognize no such authority -- the only such power was held by the Ecumenical Council, which brought together representatives of all Bishops. They believe that the Holy Spirit would guide the decisions of the Council, not the individual decisions of the members made independently.

This is essentially the same form as the early discussions - consensus, and voting - that characterized the early Apostles, and Peter's role amongst them. It most certainly is not. Peter had no more direct power than any other Bishop. Clearly, he had significant influence as one of the Apostles, and his opinion is given in many of the earliest Council decisions -- but so are many others' opinions.

Who knew a thread started to apprise Roman Rite readers about the Eastern Rite would turn into an Orthodox vs. Rome discussion? I know this was meant tongue-in-cheek, but: everyone familiar with the nature of the Eastern Rite.

Dogface

08-27-2003, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
Read the cite I provided in the post above. The Orthodox do not believe in "Original Sin".

Yes and no, to give the standard Orthodox answer.

We recognize "the original sin", the rebellion of Eve and Adam. It was the first sin, making it the original sin. We also recognize a "fallen state" or "fallen nature" that all humans (but one and ONLY one, and that one is Christ and NOBODY ELSE, not even the all-holy Theotokos) were born with. What we reject is the doctrine that we are all born with "inherited guilt". We are not guilty of the original sin. That belonged to the perpetrators, not their descendents. We are no responsible for it nor in any way culpable for it. There is no need for anyone alive today to "atone" for the original sin.

However, the original sin tossed a spanner into the gears, as it were. Thus, our "fallen nature". It is the sins we commit, both intentional and uninentional, for which atonement is necessary.

We likewise reject the whole Anselmian "honor of God" explanation.

SUPERKARLENE

08-27-2003, 04:48 PM

Theotokos = Virgin Mary, in case anyone was wondering.

And for what it's worth from someone who has attended both Catholic mass and an Orthodox service, I can say that they were vastly different in style, delivery, and content*. Some beliefs may be shared, but not equally emphasized.

*YMMV, of course.

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
Hmm... let's see here. Why is it that the accounts of the early Ecumenical Councils don't have Peter making key decisions? He was listened to, and had a great deal of influence given his closeness to Christ, but why were decisions made by consensus and voting? [/b] Because that early on, there probably weren't that many major doctrinal questions going on- the big issue of the day was whether Jewish Law should be imposed on Gentile converts. It wasn't until a while after the Council of Jerusalem that such things as Nicolaitinism, Gnosticism, etc. started to creep in.

It seems rather odd for this to be done if the Church recognized Peter as its authority. When he spoke, the whole assembly fell silent... I think it would be fair to say that if a consensus couldn't be reached, Peter would have cast the "tie breaking" vote.

Why? Christ is the head of the Church. Why is a single Apostle given special power and authority? Because Christ wants unity in His Church, and for that to happen, there has to be a point where "the buck stops here", otherwise you get things like thirty thousand different denominations squabbling over whose interpretation of Scripture and doctrine is right.

You complain about my lack of citations, then expect us to simply take that for granted? OK, here it is, from Chas H. Clifton's Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics In 726, Leo III, ruler of the Byzantine Empire... issued the first of several edicts forbidding the worship of icons of Jesus and the saints... His action pitted him against Germanus I, patriarch of Constantinople... From Rome, Pope Gregory II joined the patriarch in denouncing Leo, who responded by forcing Germanus to resign. Germanus was replaced by a patriarch who agreed with the emperor's position, but Leo's edicts did not carry equal weight in all parts of the empire. OK, now let's see your citation that Rome was ever Iconoclastic.
Catholic religious art doesn't follow the theological conventions of the early Church, either. You've never been inside a Byzantine Catholic Church, have you? Byzantine Catholic Iconography follows the same conventions as Orthodox iconography. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

That does not mean the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Son. ...Then why does the rest of the Catholic Church include it? I already told you, I don't know. Ask a Latin Rite Catholic.

Bingo. What is a heresy other than a difference in theology? A deliberate and conscious deviation from formal Church teaching. If your logic were followed to the extreme, the Catholic Church would have to excommunicate me, my entire parish, all the nice folks at St. Gabriel's, and a whole bunch of other nice folks who are currently in full communion with Rome, but, being Eastern Catholics, hold the same views on theology, spirituality, sin, redemption, and Man's relationship with God as the Orthodox. They haven't done it yet, so it's obvious they don't regard the Orthodox viewpoints in these matters as heretical, only as legitimately held differences in perspective. Remember, for over a thousand years, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were one church, and the Western churches weren't insisting prior to 1054 that the Eastern viewpoint was heretical, nor were the Eastern churches claiming the Western viewpoint was heretical. They maybe regarded each other as a bit strange...

Read the cite I provided in the post above. The Orthodox do not believe in "Original Sin". OK, caught you in a lie. The Orthodox do believe in Original Sin. Here's a link to an article about the Orthodox beliefs about Original Sin, direct from the Orthodox Catechism. http://www.gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htm

BTW, the article you linked to does not state that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin. It only states that the Orthodox do not believe in inherited guilt- which is a belief shared by Byzantine Catholics. The only thing in the article that differs from Byzantine Catholic teaching whether Mary was sinless. The evidence presented is that she "presumed to instruct Christ" at the marriage in Cana. The passage cited is actually frequently used in Catholic defense of the faith as an example of Mary's intercession with Christ on Man's behalf- presenting their need to Him (They ran out of wine), then telling the servants to follow His instructions. I don't think that this is an irreconciliable difference between the two churches. You're right. We have some serious doctrinal issues here. It's a shame you didn't learn what they were before beginning this thread. Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that?

OK, Dogface
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thea Logica

The filioque clause doesn't amount to one iota of doctrinal difference. The Eastern Catholic Churches don't include it in the Creed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check your Catholic Catechism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."[89] Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."[90] "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."[/b]

Ok, read it. Read it again. There is nothing here that insists that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It merely states the the three Persons of the Trinity are realated to, in, and consubstantial with one another. Once again, you're reading things into statements that just aren't there.

BTW, in case you haven't checked, the title of this thread is, "Latin Rite Catholic Dopers: Ask the Byzantine Catholic Chick". I don't presume to speak for the Latin Rite or defend it to the Orthodox. I'm not a Latin Rite Catholic. Nor am I Eastern Orthodox. But I do know that, with a few small differences, Byzantine Catholic theology and spirituality are identical with that of the Orthodox. I don't mind fielding questions from other varieties of Christians, I'll answer them to the best of my ability, but really, to come into this thread spitting venom, starting arguments without citation or historical evidence, then accusing me of being the one who did it... It is not valid for you to attack an Eastern Christian and demand that they defend Western Christian beliefs.

If you have a problem with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, start a new thread and take it up with the Latins.

tomndebb

08-27-2003, 05:56 PM

Indeed, I've yet to run across a Uniate who doesn't believe this until corrected as to what "Orthodox" means. And, as you, yourself, have pointed out, the Uniat churches were not constantly aligned with Rome, but made the transitions in the last couple of hundred years. Your argument appears to be with the Uniats, not with "the West" or with "Rome" (where a claim that "only rites" separate the churches is never made) and your continued interjection of that baseless claim (particularly the silly "conspiracy" and "propaganda" aspects of it) is what I object to.

Polycarp

08-27-2003, 06:17 PM

G'day. As an Anglican fond of getting into acrimony about "your chuch started when the king wanted a divorce" canard comes up, I'm not surprised what happened here.

But, my namesake the sainted Bishop of Smyrna having been brought into the fray (by Rome, as it happens, it might be worth our while to see what St. Irenaeus (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html) has to say about the incident in question (emphases are my own):

For the controversy [regarding the Lenten fast] is not merely as regards the day, but also as regards the form itself of the fast. For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] faith. And the presbyters preceding Sorer in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule-I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus-did neither themselves observe it [after that fashion], nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed (although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee, and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. [i]And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them[b] as to certain other points, [b]they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.

I do not see Polycarp's awarding of authority over him and his church to Anicetus (Bishop of Rome, anachronistically Pope) but quiite the reverse -- but I also do not see the insistence on orthopraxis that has been the cause of so many disputes, but again quite the reverse. And I humbly submit that there's a lesson to be learned in that.

"By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you are in communion with the heir of Peter.

or

"By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you zealously maintain orthodox doctrine."

(John 13:35, significantly revised)

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 06:57 PM

Ah, Polycarp comes in, his voice of reason like a cool breeze on a hot summer night...

I think what we have here is an example of Eastern and Western Christians working and playing nice together, with Polycarp turning to the Bishop of Rome to settle a controversy, and Anticetus, instead of "pulling rank", as it were, adopting a conciliatory, and even submissive attitude toward Polycarp in the interest of maintaining harmony and unity in the Church.

I bet they hugged and everything.

TVAA

08-27-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Because that early on, there probably weren't that many major doctrinal questions going on- the big issue of the day was whether Jewish Law should be imposed on Gentile converts. Nope, no major doctrinal issues here.

When he spoke, the whole assembly fell silent... Clearly an indication that Peter wore the pants in that group. :rolleyes:

I think it would be fair to say that if a consensus couldn't be reached, Peter would have cast the "tie breaking" vote. Where are you deriving this conclusion from? If a consensus couldn't be reached, they'd keep going until they did.

Because Christ wants unity in His Church, and for that to happen, there has to be a point where "the buck stops here", otherwise you get things like thirty thousand different denominations squabbling over whose interpretation of Scripture and doctrine is right. Thus the emphasis on the Ecumenical Councils.

If Christ wants unity, He will make His will known. Which do you think would best show that God's Will is made manifest: many people coming to the same conclusion, or one person coming to his conclusion?

OK, now let's see your citation that Rome was ever Iconoclastic. The early Church had no tradition of iconography. (http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/history.html) Of course, that's not Iconoclasm.

How exactly does this support your claim that Rome never accepted heresy?

You've never been inside a Byzantine Catholic Church, have you? Byzantine Catholic Iconography follows the same conventions as Orthodox iconography. Therefore, your statement is incorrect. Have you ever been inside a Roman Catholic Church? They don't follow the same conventions. Now, those conventions were imposed especially to ensure that specific theological points are made. Since the nonconventional RC iconography is acceptable to the Byzantine Catholics, they're not holding to the convention for doctrinal reasons but merely as a tradition.

I already told you, I don't know. Ask a Latin Rite Catholic.

[b]A deliberate and conscious deviation from formal Church teaching. What do you think the Orthodox claim the Papacy is?

If your logic were followed to the extreme, the Catholic Church would have to excommunicate me, my entire parish, all the nice folks at St. Gabriel's, and a whole bunch of other nice folks who are currently in full communion with Rome, but, being Eastern Catholics, hold the same views on theology, spirituality, sin, redemption, and Man's relationship with God as the Orthodox. No. The Byzantine Catholic Church would have to reject the usurped authority of Rome and break its relationship with Roman Catholicism.

They haven't done it yet, so it's obvious they don't regard the Orthodox viewpoints in these matters as heretical, only as legitimately held differences in perspective. So it's not a heresy to claim that the Pope has no special authority? I'm sure the Orthodox will be relieved.

Not that it would matter anyway. They wouldn't care about being excommunicated, since the Pope has no authority to make such an action in their eyes.

Remember, for over a thousand years, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches were one church, and the Western churches weren't insisting prior to 1054 that the Eastern viewpoint was heretical, nor were the Eastern churches claiming the Western viewpoint was heretical. They maybe regarded each other as a bit strange... Actually, they did. The only difference was that the heretical stances hadn't been solidified yet.

OK, caught you in a lie. The Orthodox do believe in Original Sin. Here's a link to an article about the Orthodox beliefs about Original Sin, direct from the Orthodox Catechism. http://www.gocanada.org/Catechism/catorsin.htm[/quote] You haven't caught me in a lie. You've caught a doctrinal error made by a congregation. That is not the Orthodox Cathechism -- which you would have realized if you'd done more searching.

Did you read the site I linked to? The Orthodox do not believe that people are guilty of the Original Sin. There was an original sin (note the lowercase), but sin is not passed on from one generation to the next.

BTW, the article you linked to does not state that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin. It only states that the Orthodox do not believe in inherited guilt- which is a belief shared by Byzantine Catholics. That's what "Original Sin" means: inherited guilt from the first sin. The Orthodox reject categorically the idea that everyone is automatically subject to sin. It's the consequences of the first sin that affect the entire world, not the sin itself.

The Orthodox consider the RCC's teachings on this matter to be heretical. Tell me -- if the Byzantine Catholics are virtually identical to the Orthodox except for "being in communion with Rome", why do they continue to associate with the RCC?

I don't think that this is an irreconciliable difference between the two churches. Precisely, which is why your beliefs are incompatible with Orthodox teachings.

TVAA

08-27-2003, 07:27 PM

Actually, your objection has already been pointed out to the OCA:

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/q-and-a_old/original-sin.html

The Asbestos Mango

08-27-2003, 07:58 PM

TVAA, since it has become obvious to me and to most folks who are following this thread that you reply to posts without actually having read them, and that your arguments consist primarily of nit-picking over differences in terminology and/or word usage rather than over actual doctrine or belief and saying "It's heretical because I/we/whoever says it's heretical", with no evidence to back your statements, while deliberately ignoring evidence contrary to your views, I have decided that I'm not going to argue with you anymore.

You're giving me a headache.

Guinastasia

08-27-2003, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
TVAA, interesting claim, considering that Rome is the only patriarchate that has never embraced heresy. Monophysitism, Arianism, iconoclasm have been embraced by Eastern patriarchates, including the patriarchs of Constantinople. So I would wonder how it is that the Orthodox can claim that the belief in Papal authority is heresy.

Actually, IINM, I do believe that there were a few Popes who professed a belief in Arianism, but it was never made official. I could be wrong, however.

I'm going with Captain Amazing-both churches developed simultaneously, and eventually just branched off of each other.

Dogface, could you be anymore insulting? You ARE acting like the Jack Chick of Orthodoxy.

TVAA

08-27-2003, 11:36 PM

What do you mean, I have no evidence to back my statements?

Those beliefs are heretical as far as the Orthodox are concerned. What "evidence" would you like me to present indicating that actually is their position?

There are countless places on the web where Orthodox theologians explain the reasons why they do not recognize the Roman Catholic Church as valid. You do not seem to have sought them out -- in fact, you ignore them when they're pointed out to you.

You point to a misleading and inaccurate statement on the website of a church and immediately conclude that I am a liar?!

This demonstrates three important facts:

1) You didn't do more than a cursory search on the subject, or you would have come across several dozen Orthodox doctrinal discussions that contradict that website's statements, including a FAQ of the Orthodox Church in America that actually mentions said erroneous website,

2) You are not in any way familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Anyone who had examined even the most elemental aspects of its doctrine would be aware that the Orthodox do not subscribe to the idea of Original Sin as taught by the RCC. Guilt is not transmitted, but the effects of sin affect the entire world. And,

3) You do not comprehend the most basic issues dividing the Church today. Modern Catholics are taught that the RCC's teachings are those described in specific decisions -- anything else are merely things that were or are taught in the Church, not by it. The Orthodox are taught that everything taught in the Church is taught by it, and everything taught by it is in it. They do not consider their dissent to be "nit-picking over differences in terminology and/or word usage".

You do not understand the objections I have made, and you have presented no evidence that contradicts them. The Church functionally split quite some time before the Schism. The business with the filoque wasn't only about the altering of the doctrine surrounding the Trinity, but that the Pope claimed the authority to make such a change without the Ecumenical Councils. As far as the Eastern Church was concerned, that was the final denial of the unity of the Church.

I strongly doubt that you possess any serious knowledge of Orthodoxy; I suspect that you're merely repeating things you've been told about it. You are welcome to whatever beliefs you may have, but your claims about the other branches of Christian belief are inaccurate at best.

Go out, read some books, webpages, and periodicals. I encourage you to speak with RCC and Orthodox theologians in order to better understand their relative claims and positions. And until you do, I suggest you remain silent. This thread has already been irredeemably corrupted by your willingness to purvey ignorance.

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 03:19 AM

TVAA, since you are the one making the assertations of heresy, I submit that it is your responsibility to research the Orthodox side and post your citations here, not simply suggest that I go out and do research. I posted citations for my arguments, all you did was scream "heresy" without citing any sources. It is your responsibility to back your own statements. Remember, you and Dogface are the ones who hijacked the thread.

Also, the website I linked to in no way stated that that Orthodox belief held that mankind inherits guilt due to Original Sin. The author's mistake not giving out wrong teaching, it was poor choice of words, and he admitted as much as quoted on the site you linked to. He stated that he should have said the consequenses of Original Sin were hereditary. The mis-phrasing led to a misunderstandingj of what he intended to say. Yet you persist in stating that I and my sources claim the Orthodox believe in inherited guilt. I said no such thing, and neither did the Archbishop. I have already pointed this out to you, and yet you persist in your claims. The first time, it was safe to say you made an honest mistake, but to persist when the mistake has been pointed out to you brings it to the level of a lie.

Also, my issue isn't with Orthodox teachings, it is with your accusations and claims of heresy on the part of the Catholic Church, which you, in this thread, have provided no citations for. All you say is, "It's heresy because the Orthodox Church says so," but you have not posted a single quotation from an Orthodox theologian, only a links to a couple of brief articles which did little to support your position. If anything, all they did was point up the fact that there is very little difference between Byzantine Catholic belief and Orthodox belief. The devil is in the details, you might say.

Also, most of your quarrel seems to be with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I am Byzantine Catholic, in case you didn't get that from the thread title. The purpose of this thread is to educate on Byzantine Catholic belief, not on Latin belief. I have pointed this out to you, and yet you choose to attack me on the basis of Latin belief. If I know little about Orthodox belief, I know even less about what the Latin Rite teaches (something on the order of the Latin Catholics knowing very little about, or even being unaware of the existance of, the Eastern Rites of the Church). Your arguments seem more along the lines of Eastern vs. Latin mindset, and thinking, different perspectives on the doctrines rather than the doctrines themselves, and since I follow the Eastern way of thinking, your quarrel is not with me. I told you already, if you have a quarrel with the Latins, start a new thread and take it up with the Latins. Leave me out of it. Yet you chose to ignore my request.

If I don't understand your objections, it's because you refuse to state them in an understandable manner. Screaming "heresy" does not constitute reasoned argument. It's just screaming. Also, I did present plenty of evidence to back my position, you simply choose to ignore it and state that it is not evidence.

The only major differences I can see between the Catholics and the Orthodox are

1) The belief in Papal Primacy (which the Catholic Church sees as a simple refusal on the Orthodox part to submit to the authority of the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ set up as his Vicar on Earth) I presented both Scriptural and historical evidence to support my position. All you did was state that it was heretical, without providing any evidence to support your position.

2) The Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox don't believe in. And again, I don't see this as an irreconciliable difference. The only reason you do is because you don't want to play nice with the Catholics.

Also, I do in fact sometimes surf Orthodox websites. I have a wonderful time getting the Orthodox perspectives on various doctrines- and there do seem to be different schools of Orthodox thought on many of them, including the sinlessness of Mary- some hold that she was free from actual sin, if not Original Sin, and therefore sinless, others seem to hold that she did, on at least one occasion, sin. I've also seen a couple of different schools of thought on what Catholics call Purgatory. It seems to be an in-house debate, much as there are different schools of thought within the Latin Church on various Church teachings.

I also swipe the occasional Orthodox prayer for use in my personal devotions. To tell the truth, although I accept the authority of the Pope and the formally defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, (and believe me, this was an issue that I did wrestle with) spiritually and theologically, I feel more kinship to the Orthodox than with the Latin Church, which is why, though I was baptized in the Latin Rite, I ultimateluy chose to be chrismated in the Byzantine Rite.

yBeayf

08-28-2003, 08:07 AM

Ok, to try to get this thread back on track, I hope you'll accept a few questions from an Orthodox Christian who is not very familiar with the history of the Italo-Greeks.

What is the history of the Italo-Greek Byzantine rite, and what distinguishes it from the other Eastern rites of the Catholic Church? Are y'all the remnants of the Greek-speaking populations of southern Italy?

I know that in the past few centuries several of the Eastern rites have undergone Latinization, especially the Ruthenians and Maronites. Has this affected your rite at all, and if so, since Vatican II have y'all returned to traditional practices or maintained a course of Latinization?

What tradition of chant does your rite use? Byzantine, or does your rite have its own tradition?

Thanks, and I'm sorry your thread got hijacked by Dogface et al.

smiling bandit

08-28-2003, 09:47 AM

That is a false statement. "Orthodox" is NOT AT ALL IDENTICAL TO "Comes from Greece".

SInce I didn't say that, I have no idea what you are talking about. I used the word orthodox in two senses in my post. There is an orthodox Catholic position, and an orthodox eastern Orthodox position.

Orthodox refers to specific adherence to Orthodox doctrine.

Orthodoxy is a term that can refer to being correct and official as well as the name of the EOC.

So far as the Orthodox Church is concerned (and the Orthodox Church's fuller name is the "Orthodox Catholic Church"), Rome and her followers do not adhere to Orthodox doctrine.

Yeah, and my churhc could equally correctly be refered to as the "Orthodox Catholic Church". Big whoop. Quit ranting, it doesn't help you.

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by yBeayf
What is the history of the Italo-Greek Byzantine rite, and what distinguishes it from the other Eastern rites of the Catholic Church? Are y'all the remnants of the Greek-speaking populations of southern Italy?

You're pretty much on track there. Our church is descended ecclesiastically from the Greek-speaking people of southern Italy and of Sicily (Fr. Francis' mother was Sicilian), although at present, the only person in the parish who is of Italo-Greek descent is Fr. Francis- actually, the Right Reverend Archimandrite Fr. Francis Vivona. What distinguishes us from the other Eastern Rites of the CC is basically 1)Liturgy- we use St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, as do a couple of the other Eastern Rites. The Syrians, Coptics, et al have their own liturgical traditions.

1)Ethnic/Cultural heritage.

I know that in the past few centuries several of the Eastern rites have undergone Latinization, especially the Ruthenians and Maronites. Has this affected your rite at all, and if so, since Vatican II have y'all returned to traditional practices or maintained a course of Latinization?

(Thea stamps her little foot) No! No! We won't Latinize! Never! Never! Actually, not all of the Ruthenians and Maronites have Latinized, or if they did, have returned to traditional Byzantine usages. We have a Ruthenian Byzantine parish her in Lost Wages that is very Byzantine.

The Latinization of many of the Byzantine churches was forced. Poland, for example, with some other areas of Eastern Europe, use the Latin Rite, but were originally Byzantine. This came about after the Crusaders' sacking of Constantinople and conquest of some of the Western portions of the Byzantine Empire. In addition, here in the US of A, where we pride ourselves on religious freedom, some of the Byzantine churches have Latinized due to strong pressure from the Latins in this country. Most Byzantine parishes are situated geographically inside Latin diocese, and the Latins, not understanding Byzantine traditions or spirituality, started putting the screws to them and, er, strongly encouraged them to Latinize.

It annoys me how often, after explaining to a Latin Rite Catholic what Byzantine Catholicism is, ending up with an invite to my church if they're curious and want to see what goes on, say, "No, thanks, I'm a traditional Catholic. In their ignorance, they act as if the Byzantine traditions are some new invention, and not actually older than the Latin tradition.

What tradition of chant does your rite use? Byzantine, or does your rite have its own tradition?

Byzantine.

Thanks, and I'm sorry your thread got hijacked by Dogface et al. Not your fault, sweetie. Thanks for the questions.

TVAA

08-28-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
TVAA, since you are the one making the assertations of heresy, I submit that it is your responsibility to research the Orthodox side and post your citations here, not simply suggest that I go out and do research. You've made claims about the nature of Orthodox teaching: specifically, you said that the Byzantine Catholics were what the Orthodox would have been if they were in communion with Rome.

If you're familiar with Orthodox teaching (as you'd have to be in order to make such a claim validly), I shouldn't need to post cites.

If you're not familiar with Orthodox teaching, cites would be necessary, but your claim would be invalid.

Which is it?

It is your responsibility to back your own statements. Remember, you and Dogface are the ones who hijacked the thread. It is your responsibility to back your own statements as well. And you are the one who brought Orthodoxy into the picture -- if you'd stuck to discussing Byzantine Catholicism, none of this would have happened.

Also, the website I linked to in no way stated that that Orthodox belief held that mankind inherits guilt due to Original Sin. The author's mistake not giving out wrong teaching, it was poor choice of words, and he admitted as much as quoted on the site you linked to. He stated that he should have said the consequenses of Original Sin were hereditary. First of all, quit capitalizing Original Sin. When capitalized, it refers to the idea that "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons", that guilt is transferred to all of humanity from the first sin. As such, the Orthodox do not believe in "Original Sin": merely in original sin. The distinction is non-trivial.

Secondly, the author of the mistaken website is NOT the same as the authors of the FAQ. Pay attention!

Yet you persist in stating that I and my sources claim the Orthodox believe in inherited guilt. I said no such thing, and neither did the Archbishop. I have already pointed this out to you, and yet you persist in your claims. The first time, it was safe to say you made an honest mistake, but to persist when the mistake has been pointed out to you brings it to the level of a lie. I have stated repeatedly that the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin. You pointed to an Orthodox website that used the term and claimed you had caught me in a lie.

The belief that death and suffering entered the world through humanity's sin is NOT equivalent to belief in Original Sin. Yet I do not accuse you of intentionally attempting to mislead the other posters by pretending to misunderstand.

Also, my issue isn't with Orthodox teachings, it is with your accusations and claims of heresy on the part of the Catholic Church, which you, in this thread, have provided no citations for. I'm discussing the Orthodox position on these matters, and the Orthodox position is that the RCC has "fallen away from the true path". If you oppose the claim that the Catholic Church is heretical, you DO have an issue with Orthodox teachings.

All you say is, "It's heresy because the Orthodox Church says so," but you have not posted a single quotation from an Orthodox theologian, only a links to a couple of brief articles which did little to support your position. If anything, all they did was point up the fact that there is very little difference between Byzantine Catholic belief and Orthodox belief. The devil is in the details, you might say. No, I'm saying that the Orthodox Church says it's heresy, which is quite a different point.

The links I've posted contain ample discussion of these points, there are volumes of discussions of the web of these matters. These points are not obscure or difficult to find -- if you haven't performed even a cursory examination of OC doctrine, don't make claims about it.

Also, most of your quarrel seems to be with the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. I am Byzantine Catholic, in case you didn't get that from the thread title. The purpose of this thread is to educate on Byzantine Catholic belief, not on Latin belief. And you've claimed that Byzantine Catholicism is basically Orthodoxy in communion with Rome. That is utterly and completely incorrect from the perspective of the Orthodox.

If I know little about Orthodox belief, I know even less about what the Latin Rite teaches (something on the order of the Latin Catholics knowing very little about, or even being unaware of the existance of, the Eastern Rites of the Church). How is your church "in communion with" Rome if you don't even know (or care, it seems) what Rome teaches? If you know little about Orthodox belief, how dare you claim that your faith is almost the same as Orthodoxy?

Your arguments seem more along the lines of Eastern vs. Latin mindset, and thinking, different perspectives on the doctrines rather than the doctrines themselves, and since I follow the Eastern way of thinking, your quarrel is not with me. A sufficiently different perspective on a doctrine IS another doctrine. You do not follow the Eastern way of thinking -- you do not even know what it is. And my quarrel is with ignorance, which in this case means my quarrel is with you.

If I don't understand your objections, it's because you refuse to state them in an understandable manner. Screaming "heresy" does not constitute reasoned argument. It's just screaming. Also, I did present plenty of evidence to back my position, you simply choose to ignore it and state that it is not evidence. You haven't understood a word that's been said against your position, have you?

The only major differences I can see between the Catholics and the Orthodox are

1) The belief in Papal Primacy (which the Catholic Church sees as a simple refusal on the Orthodox part to submit to the authority of the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ set up as his Vicar on Earth) I presented both Scriptural and historical evidence to support my position. All you did was state that it was heretical, without providing any evidence to support your position. Let's see here. Christ "upon this rock will I build my church": "Peter" means "rock". Christ was making a pun -- to my knowledge, this is the only joke in the New Testament. How does that lead you to the conclusion that Peter was given authority over the Church? The Orthodox position is that Christ was referring to the profession of faith Peter had just made. It's a theme which is returned to several times, particularly in the account of St. Thomas.[/quote][/b]

2) The Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox don't believe in. And again, I don't see this as an irreconciliable difference. The only reason you do is because you don't want to play nice with the Catholics. Regarding the first part of your statement, you are incorrect: the Immaculate Conception refers to the idea that the Theotokos was granted special dispensation from God and preserved from sin from the moment of her conception. The Orthodox believe that everyone is born sinless, but chooses to sin; Mary never chose to sin, which is why she was chosen to bear Christ -- she was the only one who could have. The two doctrines differ fundamentally in their approach to the nature of sin, God's role in the world, and the reason May is venerable. \

Regarding the second part of your statement, that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they "don't want to play nice": you're a twit.

Also, I do in fact sometimes surf Orthodox websites. I have a wonderful time getting the Orthodox perspectives on various doctrines- and there do seem to be different schools of Orthodox thought on many of them, including the sinlessness of Mary- some hold that she was free from actual sin, if not Original Sin, and therefore sinless, others seem to hold that she did, on at least one occasion, sin. First, drop "Original Sin". It doesn't apply here.

Secondly, there is disagreement over whether Mary's rebuking of Christ at the Canaan wedding was a sin or not. No matter how this dispute is resolved, it doesn't affect Mary's sinlessness when she bore Christ.

I've also seen a couple of different schools of thought on what Catholics call Purgatory. It seems to be an in-house debate, much as there are different schools of thought within the Latin Church on various Church teachings. No. "Purgatory", as a place or process through which those unworthy of Heaven but also unworthy of Hell must pass through, does not exist in Orthodox thought.

The OCC has the same beliefs on this matter as ancient Judaism: everyone, and I mean everyone, is in the state of separation from God. It is not Hell. It is not Purgatory.

I also swipe the occasional Orthodox prayer for use in my personal devotions. To tell the truth, although I accept the authority of the Pope and the formally defined dogmas of the Catholic Church, (and believe me, this was an issue that I did wrestle with) spiritually and theologically, I feel more kinship to the Orthodox than with the Latin Church, which is why, though I was baptized in the Latin Rite, I ultimateluy chose to be chrismated in the Byzantine Rite. How can you accept the formally defined dogmas of the Catholic Church if you're not familiar with its teachings?

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 02:43 PM

TVAA, you're the one who's not paying attention. I said the author of my website as quoted on the FAQ you posted. I never said he was the author of the FAQ. I chose the wording very carefully to make sure that was clear. You are twisting what I said.

Second, when I speak of my unfamaliarity with the Latin Rite of the Church, I mean just the, the Latin Rite. Byzantine catechists make sure the catacheumen is apprised of the beliefs that are held as dogma by the entire Church. I am Byzantine. I was catechized in the Byzantine Rite, not the Latin Rite. I have only a cursory knowledge of Latin theology and terminology. So, since the majority of your argument (aside from Papal authority) seems to stem from differences in Eastern and Western religious thought, your quarrel is with the Latins, not the Byzantines. Byzantines are Eastern Christians. Oh, and it's ludicrous to say that Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Christians because we accept the authority of Rome. We still have the same Eastern spirituality, theology, views on sin and redemption and Man's relationship with God that the Eastern Churches have always held. The only difference is a matter of whether we accept the authority of Rome.

As to the issue of Purgatory... I found this at www.firstthings.com

Purgatory for Everyone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry L. Walls

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 2002 First Things 122 (April 2002): 26-30.

A few years ago, the journalist Philip Nobile wrote an article near the first anniversary of the death of Princess Diana in which he raised what he termed “an indiscreet theological question.” “Where is she now?” he asked. According to Christian theology, the options were heaven, purgatory, or hell. Given Diana’s well–publicized lifestyle, Nobile suggested that the case for heaven was weak. A better case could be made for hell, given the likelihood that Diana was in a state of mortal sin at the moment of her death. Nobile thus found it curious that the Pope gave positive indications about Diana’s salvation when the following message of condolence was sent on his behalf to Queen Elizabeth: “The Holy Father has offered prayers summoning her to our Heavenly Father’s eternal love.” As Nobile observed, this remark implied Diana was in purgatory.

Now Nobile certainly did not intend his article to serve as a defense of orthodoxy. Yet it raises a substantive issue that Christians who take the afterlife seriously cannot evade. Many believers have attended funerals in which the deceased are declared to be enjoying all the glories of heaven, regardless of their somewhat less–than–saintly behavior in life. At best, such occasions are examples of understandable pastoral efforts to comfort grieving loved ones. But at worst, they may be sentimental exercises that trivialize the most central beliefs of the Christian faith.

What I have in mind are the many beliefs shared by Roman Catholics and evangelicals concerning, in particular, the nature of salvation. This growing consensus was expressed most notably in “The Gift of Salvation,” a document signed by a number of leading Roman Catholic and evangelical spokesmen, which reiterates the classical view that there is a close relationship between justification and sanctification. Salvation, in this view, is far more than forgiveness of our sins; it is also a matter of thorough moral and spiritual transformation. The document stresses this point by denying that faith is mere intellectual assent and asserting that it is “an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” It then goes on to insist that Christians are bound by their faith and baptism “to live according to the law of love in obedience to Jesus Christ the Lord. Scripture calls this the life of holiness or sanctification.”

It is here that “an indiscreet theological question” must be faced. If salvation essentially involves transformation—and, at that same time, we cannot be united with God unless we are holy—what becomes of those who plead the atonement of Christ for salvation but die before they have been thoroughly transformed? These people will have accepted the truth about God and themselves through repentance and faith, but their character will not have been made perfect. Their sanctification has begun but it remains incomplete. Such people do not seem to be ready for a heaven of perfect love and fellowship with God, but neither should they be consigned to hell.

It is this basic difficulty that led to the formulation of the doctrine of purgatory in the first place. While the doctrine was not fully developed until the Middle Ages, the seeds from which it grew go back at least to the Church Fathers, if not to Scripture itself. Cyprian (c. 200–258), for instance, struggled with the question of what to think about Christians who had weakened under persecution. Likewise, Augustine (354–430), the fountainhead of Western theology, reflected in several passages on the kinds of issues that would eventually be resolved in Roman Catholic theology by the doctrine of purgatory. (Of course, the doctrine also has roots in the popular conviction that the living might in some fashion influence the dead, particularly by prayer.)

While the doctrine is most fully developed in Roman Catholic theology, a version of it is also affirmed by some Eastern Orthodox theologians. The main difference between them is that Roman Catholics have traditionally viewed purgatory as a place of temporal punishment for individuals who have not sufficiently repented before death, whereas Eastern theologians view it as a process of growth and maturation for persons who have not completed the sanctification process.(emphasis mine)

So, again, it's not a difference in doctrine, but in Eastern vs. Western terminology and viewpoints.

As to original sin (there, I did it in lowercase, happy?), I have established that Byzantine Catholicism shares the Eastern Orthodox belief that the guilt of original sin is not inherited, only the consequences (the weakness or perversion of human nature, the inclination to actual sin), so what did you do? Start screaming about capitalization, as though a couple of capital letters constituted a huge doctrinal difference.

Regarding the second part of your statement, that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they "don't want to play nice": you're a twit.

Oooh, resorting to name-calling, I see. That will help your position a lot.In case you didn't notice (as you obviously didn't notice the title of this thread), this forum is called Great Debates, not the BBQ pit. Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they don't want to play nice. I said that I don't think that this doctrinal difference was irreconciliable, and the Orthodox do think it's irreconciliable because they don't want to play nice. There is a difference.

As to papal authority, I presented my evidence in favor of it, you presented no evidence from the Orthodox perspective to counter it. You just kept screaming "heresy". If you have evidence from the Orthodox perspective that this is a heretical belief, post it in this thread. Don't just say, "It's heretical because the Orthodox believe it's heretical, and the Orthodox believe it's heretical because it's heretical." That's circular logic. Make your case. You're the one who came into this thread looking for a fight. It's up to you to support your own positon.

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox refusal to accept Papal authority amounts to nothing more than disobedience and schism.

Also, if Christ's statement "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven... thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Chuch... I will give you the keys to the Kingdom... and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" is a pun, a mere joke...

it isn't funny.

As for your claim that my statement that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy would be if the Orthodox were still in communion with Rome is in error...

Since my church was never in schism with Rome, and, aside from a particular Marian doctrine and differences in belief about how the soul of the believer is prepared for entry into Heaven after death, (which, again, is an issue of terminology and Eastern/Western thought, not a fundamental doctrinal difference, and as a Byzantine, I subscribe to the Eastern view- I just use the Latin term as a matter of linguistic convenience) the only real difference between the Byzantine Catholics is the acceptance of Papal authority. The reason that the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is because they don't accept it.

Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome.

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 02:51 PM

I just want to emphasize this once more: it's ridiculous to make a statement or claim, then tell me that it's my responsibility to go on a research mission for evidence to support your claims.

It isn't. It's my job to do research and provide evidence to support my own claims. I did that.

It's your job to do research and provide the evidence to support your own claims.

TVAA

08-28-2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
TVAA, you're the one who's not paying attention. I said the author of my website as quoted on the FAQ you posted. I never said he was the author of the FAQ. I chose the wording very carefully to make sure that was clear. You are twisting what I said.

"The author's mistake not giving out wrong teaching, it was poor choice of words, and he admitted as much as quoted on the site you linked to. He stated that he should have said the consequenses of Original Sin were hereditary. The mis-phrasing led to a misunderstandingj of what he intended to say." You didn't choose this wording carefully at all.

Who does "he" refer to? Without further specification, "he" can only refer to the author of the mistaken website.

In the second sentence, are you saying that the first and second "he" do not refer to the same person?

This is a semantic and grammatical nightmare.

Second, when I speak of my unfamaliarity with the Latin Rite of the Church, I mean just the, the Latin Rite. Byzantine catechists make sure the catacheumen is apprised of the beliefs that are held as dogma by the entire Church. I am Byzantine. I was catechized in the Byzantine Rite, not the Latin Rite. I have only a cursory knowledge of Latin theology and terminology. So, since the majority of your argument (aside from Papal authority) seems to stem from differences in Eastern and Western religious thought, your quarrel is with the Latins, not the Byzantines. Byzantines are Eastern Christians. Oh, and it's ludicrous to say that Eastern Catholics are not Eastern Christians because we accept the authority of Rome. We still have the same Eastern spirituality, theology, views on sin and redemption and Man's relationship with God that the Eastern Churches have always held. The only difference is a matter of whether we accept the authority of Rome. But the authority of Rome determines your views on spirituality, theology, sin, redemption, and Man's relationship with God. The Byzantines cannot accept both the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and the Orthodox conceptions of the nature of the Theotokos and the nature of sin.

As to the issue of Purgatory... I found this at www.firstthings.com

(emphasis mine) You should have put the emphasis elsewhere. Particularly, on some theologians.

There are a number of debates within Orthodoxy as to the nature of the state commonly referred to as "Heaven". Some suggest that it's being in the presence of God -- and that it's actually the same as Hell. Only the nature of those in the states makes them different.

"Purgatory" is not a concept taught by the OC.

Additionally: you complain that I post only short articles and references, and then you derive conclusions about the nature of Orthodoxy from a passing reference in what appears to be a primarily RCC magazine?!

So, again, it's not a difference in doctrine, but in Eastern vs. Western terminology and viewpoints. It most certainly is a difference in doctrine. "Purgatory" is not found in Orthodox doctrine; it is found in Roman Catholic doctrine.

As to original sin (there, I did it in lowercase, happy?), I have established that Byzantine Catholicism shares the Eastern Orthodox belief that the guilt of original sin is not inherited, only the consequences (the weakness or perversion of human nature, the inclination to actual sin), so what did you do? Start screaming about capitalization, as though a couple of capital letters constituted a huge doctrinal difference. It's not the letters, but what they represent.

If Byzantine Catholicism truly believes this, why is it in communion with a church that teachs an incompatible doctrine?

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that the Orthodox refuse to accept the Immaculate Conception because they don't want to play nice. I said that I don't think that this doctrinal difference was irreconciliable, and the Orthodox do think it's irreconciliable because they don't want to play nice. You have it completely backwards: the Orthodox do not want to "play nice" because they view the difference as irreconcilable.

As to papal authority, I presented my evidence in favor of it, you presented no evidence from the Orthodox perspective to counter it. You just kept screaming "heresy". If you have evidence from the Orthodox perspective that this is a heretical belief, post it in this thread. Don't just say, "It's heretical because the Orthodox believe it's heretical, and the Orthodox believe it's heretical because it's heretical." It's heretical because it does not appear in the tradition of the early Church, nor in the records of the Ecumenical Councils.

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox refusal to accept Papal authority amounts to nothing more than disobedience and schism. And from the Orthodox perspective, the assertion of Papal Authority is heresy and schism.

Are you Catholic, or not? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that Byzantine Catholicism is virtually identical to Orthodoxy except for a few minor doctrinal matters and then say that the Orthodox's main dispute with the RCC is disobedience and schism.

Also, if Christ's statement "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven... thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Chuch... I will give you the keys to the Kingdom... and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" is a pun, a mere joke... "...upon this rock will I build my Church" is a joke. It's also a statement about the primacy of faith. Is 'you' singular or plural when Christ says "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom"? When Christ said "I will send you the Comforter" (speaking of the Holy Spirit), was he talking about sending the Spirit to a person or to people?

It isn't funny. It at least shows that God has no objection to puns.

As for your claim that my statement that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy would be if the Orthodox were still in communion with Rome is in error...

Since my church was never in schism with Rome, and, aside from a particular Marian doctrine and differences in belief about how the soul of the believer is prepared for entry into Heaven after death, (which, again, is an issue of terminology and Eastern/Western thought, not a fundamental doctrinal difference, and as a Byzantine, I subscribe to the Eastern view- I just use the Latin term as a matter of linguistic convenience) the only real difference between the Byzantine Catholics is the acceptance of Papal authority. The reason that the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is because they don't accept it. No, the reason the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome is that their doctrine is incompatible with Rome's. Accepting Rome's authority necessarily requires disregarding not only the idea that the Spirit was sent to the Church, not one man, but any number of other doctrines which Papal Authority has established.

Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome. No. If they were in communion with Rome, they would have slowly been forced to abandon their doctrines that were contrary to Rome's teachings.

Not that that's happening to the Byzantine Catholics. Right?

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 04:15 PM

TVAA, um, this thread was started by an Eastern Catholic soliciting questions from Latin Catholics about the differences between Eastern and Western thought and practice. Therefore the majority of your post is ludicrous. You keep going over ground I've already covered, such as the historical evidence that the early church did, in fact, recognize the authority of Rome. Scroll a bit, you'll find it, that is, if you're actually interested in reading my posts any more than is necessary to find phrases and terminology to pick at. There are so many ways a hair can be split.

As to your last statement---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which means that Byzantine Catholicism is what Eastern Orthodoxy woud be if the Eastern Orthodox were in communion with Rome.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. If they were in communion with Rome, they would have slowly been forced to abandon their doctrines that were contrary to Rome's teachings.

Not that that's happening to the Byzantine Catholics. Right?

The fact that I am in a Byzantine parish that still holds to Byzantine theology, spirituality and world views proves this statement to be untrue.

The Asbestos Mango

08-28-2003, 04:30 PM

One more thing-

There is no way the See of Rome could force the Eastern Rite Churches (including mine) who have been in communion with the See of St. Peter throughout history to abandon our doctrines are contrary to what Rome teaches.

We never had them to begin with.

If you want to understand more about the teachings of Byzantine Catholicism, (which I doubt, you seem to be more interested if picking fights than in understanding) I'm going to turn your own tactics against you and suggest you do some research on your own.

This is absolutely the last word I am going to say on the Orthodox/RCC debate.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 06:54 AM

[sigh]

And ignorance marches on...

Polycarp

08-29-2003, 08:15 AM

I don't believe I have a dog in this fight -- both Orthodox and Catholic heirarchies regard us Anglicans as schismatic and heretical, though not so much so as, say, the Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God.

But it occurs to me that the issues at hand boil down to (A) a strong divergence in mindset -- Orthodox (and Eastern Riters, it would seem) tend to allow much more room for the musteria, the sense of wonder at the works of God, while Catholicism, more "rational" (in the technical use) attempts to define these much more explicitly; (B) conflicts over practice, a few of which are based in disagreement on doctrine but most not; and (C) a very strong case of "what Catholics believe" vs. "what Orthodox believe" founded in non-autoritative teachings rather than in what the Magisterium on one hand tand Holy Tradition and the Councls on the other have taught authoritatively.

I find it very difficult to accept that Eastern Rite Catholics are permitted to hold and teach doctrines contrary to what Rome teaches authoritatively -- but when TVAA decided to explain to Thea Logica, who seems to have a pretty clear grasp of what her church teaches and practices, that she couldn't believe that because it's against Rome, it was all I could do to keep myself from saying that what he needed to do was write to the Curia and complain, not tell her that she was wrong about what she and her church believed. Catholicism since Paul VI has been very accepting of a breadth in piety and theology within prescribed bounds, and nothing is clearer to me than that a lot of wiggle room is given by Rome to the Eastern Rites to believe and practice what has been handed down as tradition in the East since apostolic times and preserved by Orthodoxy.

I suspect nearly every Catholic here can identify at least one occasion when he was told "what the Church teaches" by a well-meaning nun, priest, or older Catholic, only to find out that that's not the case at all. Extra ecclesiam nihil salus is a classic case which came up recently.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 09:06 AM

That's part of the whole problem -- for the Orthodox, there are no non-authoritative teachings.

Even if we eliminate all "non-authoritative" teachings of the RCC, the authoritative teachings are still incompatible with OC teachings.

Byzantine Catholicism is not identical to Orthodoxy excepting that they "recognize the authority of Rome": accepting the Pope as head of the Church inevitably leads to a variety of doctrines that the Orthodox vehemently deny as heretical.

Dogface

08-29-2003, 09:46 AM

According to Bishop John Elya (of the Melkites, another "Byzantine" group in communion with Rome, their Canons state the following):

c. 597 CCEO: "The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus), possesses infallible teaching authority if, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful who is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, he proclaims with a definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held."

c. 599: :A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of faith and morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim with a definitive act.; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching."

(http://www.melkite.org/Questions/R-9.htm)

The Uniates are 100% doctrinally subservient to Rome. They must accept the doctrine of the "filioque", even if they do not say it during their Liturgies. They must accept the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary. They must accept the doctrine of "purgatory".

Reepicheep

08-29-2003, 10:37 AM

So, if I understand what you quoted from Mr. Walls correctly, purgatory is not so much the place I go to fully expedite the sin of cursing when someone cuts me off in traffic, as it is the place I learn to always make the choice not to curse when I am cut off. Is this the correct interpretation of the Byzantine Rite’s belief? Or is purgatory a place where both the sin of cursing at being cut off is expedited as well a perfect love of my fellow man is learned?

Thank you again for a fascinating thread

The Asbestos Mango

08-29-2003, 02:02 PM

Reepicheep, I was actually up quite late searching the 'net on that very subject. I couldn't find anything definitive, aside from a sqwaking at on a Byzantine message board by a Latin trying to persuade Byzantines that we must accept purgatory as taught by the Latins. Of course, since the Orthodox have (quite sensibly in my view) made no formal doctrinal statement on the subject. They quite obviously do not believe in the Latin conception of it, but I am finding some things that seem to suggest that souls in the Paradise section of Hades do undergo some kind of process whereby sanctification is completed, but is not purification or "purgation" in the Latin sense of the word. Which is a view that the Latins would not find heretical. A bit strange maybe...

Maybe you can enlighten us, since TVAA doesn't seem to want to tell us anything about what the Orthodox believe in any kind of positive sense.

Dogface I did find this article about the Orthodox view of Papal primacy.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

This is actually the first EO site I've found that seems to be capable of discussing the differences between Catholic and Orthodox belief without being mean-spirited about it.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 03:29 PM

They're not being meanspirited. They're simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong.

I found this part of the linked article especially clear regarding OC's opinion on the Papacy: Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch's reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief... you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition." From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

Read that article carefully, Thea Logica. Can't you see that the Orthodox view of the Pope's nature and role within the Church is fundamentally incompatible with Rome's?

Polycarp

08-29-2003, 03:48 PM

It is one any Anglican could be quite comfortable with.

In fact, I think it could fit into Catholic theology quite well, if the Roman Pontiff, in an act of Christian humility, while preserving for himself his Catholic claim to teach authoritatively in behalf of the Church, defines formally in behalf of himself and his successors that they will only do so after consultation with an Ecumenical Council, which will be convened at frequent intervals. Granted that gaps of a hundred years or more were common when travel was limited to what sail or horse could do, there would be no reason not to convene them far more often when one can get up in Bombay, Lima, Khabarovsk, or Ottawa, and be in Rome by that time the next day.

And the first order of business, IMHO, would be to decide what core teachings of Christianity are to be held as true by the whole faith, and what are matters on which differences of opinion, style, or piety are acceptable within a unified body united in brotherly love.

Polycarp

08-29-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
They're not being meanspirited. They're simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong.

"Though I speak with the tongues of Popes or Patriarchs, if I have not love, I am nothing."

Christian doctrine is not a matter of intellectual assent to an internally coherent and consistent body of dogmatic pronouncements regarding metaphysical abstractions. It is a matter of striving to better understand the God in whose hands we have placed our lives, and His grace and will towards us.

The Asbestos Mango

08-29-2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
They're not being meanspirited. They're simply willing to state that they regard their beliefs as correct and yours as wrong.

I found this part of the linked article especially clear regarding OC's opinion on the Papacy: [/i]

Read that article carefully, Thea Logica. Can't you see that the Orthodox view of the Pope's nature and role within the Church is fundamentally incompatible with Rome's?

Not incompatible. Just... Eastern. As an Easten Catholic, I, like Polycarp, am comfortable with it. Again, the core of your debate seems to be differences in Eastern and Western modes of thinking. Which, really, is what created the schism in the first place. I'm still waiting for you to start a thread in which you take up your argument with the Latin/Western church, instead of telling me that I have the same viewpoint as them and attacking me on that basis. If you have a quarrel with the Latins, take it up with the Latins. Leave the Byzantines out of it.

I wish you would actually read my posts before you reply to them. I did not say that this article was mean-spirited. I said that it was the first EO site that I've found that could discuss Catholic/Orthodox differences without being mean-spirited.

[sigh]

And ignorance marches on...

And will continue to do so as long as the ignorant use circular reasoning, misrepresentations of their opponent's position, present arguments without evidence and demand their opponent provide evidence to the contrary (as you did when you asserted that Rome had embraced Iconoclasm), quibble over grammar and semantics rather than over actual belief, and flat out screaming as tactics to wear those who are trying to debate reasonably down until they quit fighting the ignorance out of sheer exhaustion.

I'm going to say it again (my face is getting blue from repeating this.

If you have a problem with the Latin Church, take it up with the Latins. Don't ask a Byzantine to defend the Latin position. It just isn't valid.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
Christian doctrine is not a matter of intellectual assent to an internally coherent and consistent body of dogmatic pronouncements regarding metaphysical abstractions. No kidding. Do you think I'm defending the Orthodox? Their theology is every bit as ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, and insane as the Roman Catholics.

It is a matter of striving to better understand the God in whose hands we have placed our lives, and His grace and will towards us. Respectfully, no it isn't. "Understanding" is an intellectual goal; neither the Western nor Eastern Churches have any interest in gaining understanding. Both seek faith, which is inherently opposed to understanding.

Polycarp

08-29-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
Both seek faith, which is inherently opposed to understanding.

Any apposite response I could make to this comment would not be appropriate in Great Debates.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 04:44 PM

It's truth, no matter how insulting or offensive you may find it.

Ultimately, theologians confronted with the logical paradoxes inherent in the existing religions respond with "you just have to believe"; the words may differ, but the meaning is the same.

The Asbestos Mango

08-29-2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
No kidding. Do you think I'm defending the Orthodox? Their theology is every bit as ridiculous, illogical, unreasonable, and insane as the Roman Catholics.[/b]

Ya know, Teev, I've been wondering ever since you said in a prior post that you aren't Orthodox...

Why are you even getting involved in this thread, claiming to present the Orthodox perspective, when you don't even believe as they do?

Seems to me that you just came in with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight. Doesn't really matter what the fight is about.

TVAA

08-29-2003, 07:35 PM

You mean, why did I bother?

I have an impersonal interest in truth and accuracy. Naturally, once I saw your posts, I immediately felt I needed to become involved.

If I wanted to pick a fight, there are plenty available in the Pit.

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Not incompatible. Just... Eastern. As an Easten Catholic, I, like Polycarp, am comfortable with it. Again, the core of your debate seems to be differences in Eastern and Western modes of thinking. Which, really, is what created the schism in the first place. The Eastern and Western viewpoints are incompatible.

The Orthodox claim to be highly concerned with all aspects of faith. That's (supposedly) the reason for their emphasis on incense, icons, music, and ritual gestures: they seek to involve all of the senses. Catholicism has many of these elements, but the emphasis is different. The RCC has a greater emphasis on logic and intellect, and a relative de-emphasis placed on intuition and emotion.

And those are merely the most superficial and obvious aspects of the differences. The theological division is profound.

I wish you would actually read my posts before you reply to them. I did not say that this article was mean-spirited. I said that it was the first EO site that I've found that could discuss Catholic/Orthodox differences without being mean-spirited. Again, I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension. I never said that article was meanspirited. Your implication was that the other sites you'd looked at were meanspirited -- I contested that, claiming they weren't.

:rolleyes:

The Asbestos Mango

08-29-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
You mean, why did I bother?

I have an impersonal interest in truth and accuracy.

Interesting statement, coming from someone who has, several times in this thread, misrepresented things I said, and continued to do so even after the innacuracies were pointed out.

[ The Eastern and Western viewpoints are incompatible.

The Orthodox claim to be highly concerned with all aspects of faith. That's (supposedly) the reason for their emphasis on incense, icons, music, and ritual gestures: they seek to involve all of the senses. Catholicism has many of these elements, but the emphasis is different.

Byzantine Catholics place the same emphasis on these things the Orthodox do.

The RCC has a greater emphasis on logic and intellect, and a relative de-emphasis placed on intuition and emotion.

And your point is....? Byzantine Catholics do not have the same emphasis on logic and intellect as the Latins do. Again, you're attacking me based on the differences between Eastern and Western thought, and falsely asserting that Byzantine Catholics subscribe to the Western point of view because we are in communion with the See of Rome, despite having been corrected several time.

Again, I'm not impressed by your reading comprehension. I never said that article was meanspirited. Your implication was that the other sites you'd looked at were meanspirited -- I contested that, claiming they weren't.

:rolleyes:

Great. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You stated that I said the article was meanspirited, and after I corrected you, you're claiming that I said you said the article was meanspirited.

Just once, can you try arguing your point without lying about what I'm saying?

TVAA

08-30-2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Interesting statement, coming from someone who has, several times in this thread, misrepresented things I said, and continued to do so even after the innacuracies were pointed out. I've misrepresented nothing -- your reading comprehension is extraordinarily bad.

For example: the "meanspirited article" problem. I am fully aware that you found other articles on other sites on the subject to be meanspirited. I am not contesting this claim -- it would be stupid for me to claim that you didn't find them to be meanspirited. Instead, I claimed that the other articles weren't actually meanspirited, merely honest about the nature of their beliefs.

You claimed that I said that the article in question wasn't meanspirited; I wasn't even talking about it.

I state this, and you claim that I misrepresented your statements.

:rolleyes:

Is English a second language for you, Thea? That would explain many of the problems in this thread...

Byzantine Catholics place the same emphasis on these things the Orthodox do. Incorrect. The Orthodox don't regard these things as window dressing or irrelevant ritual -- they're as much a form of teaching as the words of the Gospel or the priest's sermon. The RCC's practices have significant differences -- and the Byzantine alliance with the RCC demonstrates at the very least that they no longer consider such issues to be important.

And your point is....? Byzantine Catholics do not have the same emphasis on logic and intellect as the Latins do. Again, you're attacking me based on the differences between Eastern and Western thought, and falsely asserting that Byzantine Catholics subscribe to the Western point of view because we are in communion with the See of Rome, despite having been corrected several time. I AM NOT ASSERTING THAT BYZANTINES HAVE THE SAME VIEWPOINT AS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I am pointing out that the Byzantines do not have the same perspective as the Orthodox, as the Byzantines are willing to tolerate teachings and practices that the Orthodox view as fundamentally incompatible with their own.

This is in support of my assertion that your claim (that the Byzantines are what the Orthodox would be if they were in communion with Rome) is false.

[b]Great. Now you're not even reading your own posts. You stated that I said the article was meanspirited, and after I corrected you, you're claiming that I said you said the article was meanspirited. No. I stated that the other articles (which you had presumably read) that you referred to as meanspirited weren't. I then said that I never claimed the article you liked was meanspirited -- which is the straight truth. I hadn't even referred to it yet, and certainly not as meanspirited.

Just once, can you try arguing your point without lying about what I'm saying? I can't tell if you're lying to discredit me, so defensive that you've deluded yourself into believing I'm lying, or simply unable to comprehend basic English.

The Asbestos Mango

08-30-2003, 03:14 PM

TVAA, do you want me to go back and count the number of times that you insisted that I claimed that Eastern Christians believe that guilt for original sin is inherited, even after I corrected you? Making statements that you know to be untrue is lying. Unless you have another viewpoint on the issue and another word for it which makes it something else. (Whether Original Sin should be capitalized is an issue of grammar, not doctrine, BTW. Something that would be more appropriate to take up with an English teacher...)

And in you posts, you didn't say the other sites weren't being mean-spirited, you said they, in a context which implied that you were talking about the article at hand. Remember, I didn't say other sites were mean-spirited, I said this site was the first one I've found that wasn't. (been having a wonderful time surfing it, btw. There are some issues that weren't touched on in my catechism- I did fire off an e-mail to my catechist- and I'm finding it quite educational)

In a grammatical context, therefore, it is valid to say that you were saying the article I linked to was mean-spirited. You then went on to claim that I said that you said the article was mean-spirited. I said no such thing.

I don't think I'm the one with comprehension problems. Seems when you're caught in an "error", you either repeat it ad nauseum, ad absurdum (gasp, I'm typing Latin- where's my komboskini?)

Incorrect. The Orthodox don't regard these things as window dressing or irrelevant ritual -- they're as much a form of teaching as the words of the Gospel or the priest's sermon. As do the Byzantine Catholics.

The RCC's practices have significant differences -- and the Byzantine alliance with the RCC demonstrates at the very least that they no longer consider such issues to be important., well being as the Italo-Greeks, along with the Melkites and Maronites, never split with Rome over these issues, I would say that the phrase no longer does apply here. Also, we do consider them important, which is why we have never Latinized, and some of the Uniate churches that have Latinized are returning to Byzantine usages. I would say we do consider these issues to be important, we just don't think they're something that Christ's Church should be divided over. The Latins for the most part (thanks in large part to Pope John Paul II, who has been actively promoting Latin Rite understanding and respect for the Eastern churches and their traditions) seem content to let the Byzantines maintain the traditions that have been handed down to us since apostolic times. The Byzantines are content to do the same with regard to the Latins. I can't tell if you're lying to discredit me, so defensive that you've deluded yourself into believing I'm lying, or simply unable to comprehend basic English.

I don't need to lie to discredit you. You've done a pretty good job of doing that on your own. And as to your accusing me of being defensive, ...you're the one who came in here looking for a fight. You're the one using misrepresentations and distortions of what I have said to make your point. You're the one who resorted to name calling.

You didn't come in here and say, "well actually, from an Orthodox perspective, this would be considered heretical "(whether in the matter of papal primacy or the Immaculate Conception) and these are the reasons why. You just came in screaming. Your posts had a tone of hostility from moment you decided to get into this thread (the same is true of Dogface, but at least he can provide cites for his position, even though I disagree with him about what the quotations he's posting mean in regard to East vs. West)

To misuse a quote from Rudyard Kipling, "East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet." Which has more to do with human nature than it does with differences in belief. The Orthodox are being hard- headed, the Latins are being narrow minded (I've seen posts on Byzantine message boards that basically say, "Why do you have to call your selves Catholics of the Byzantine Rite? Why won't you just Latinize) and the Eastern Rite Catholics are caught in the middle of it all.

Satan, in the meantime, is laughing his ass off...

TVAA

08-30-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
TVAA, do you want me to go back and count the number of times that you insisted that I claimed that Eastern Christians believe that guilt for original sin is inherited, even after I corrected you? I said the Orthodox did not accept Original Sin. You pointed to a brief mention of the phrase on a website and said I was a liar.

You're lying out of both sides of your mouth, now. Now you're not capitalizing "original sin", as if one use is the same as another.

(Whether Original Sin should be capitalized is an issue of grammar, not doctrine, BTW. Something that would be more appropriate to take up with an English teacher...) But in this case, the grammar reflects the doctrine.

And in you posts, you didn't say the other sites weren't being mean-spirited, you said they, in a context which implied that you were talking about the article at hand. Yes, Thea, I used the plural "they" to refer to a singular article. That's it.

Remember, I didn't say other sites were mean-spirited, I said this site was the first one I've found that wasn't. Either you hadn't found any others, and were making a rather peculiar claim, or you'd found others and thought they were meanspirited.

We're not idiots here, Thea. We can put two and two together. We can even get four!

In a grammatical context, therefore, it is valid to say that you were saying the article I linked to was mean-spirited. You then went on to claim that I said that you said the article was mean-spirited. I said no such thing. I don't have the heart to respond to this. This is just pathetic.

I don't think I'm the one with comprehension problems. Seems when you're caught in an "error", you either repeat it ad nauseum, ad absurdum (gasp, I'm typing Latin- where's my komboskini?) I haven't made an error. The error exists only in your fevered imagination.

I would say we do consider these issues to be important, we just don't think they're something that Christ's Church should be divided over. That is incompatible with Orthodox thought.

The Latins for the most part (thanks in large part to Pope John Paul II, who has been actively promoting Latin Rite understanding and respect for the Eastern churches and their traditions) seem content to let the Byzantines maintain the traditions that have been handed down to us since apostolic times. The Byzantines are content to do the same with regard to the Latins. Since your church teaches that the teachings of the Pope must be accepted, you are not following the traditions handed down since Apostolic times. Additionally, you can't be "content to do the same with regard to the Latins", since both the Eastern and Western traditions can be regarded as being handed down from the Apostles. At most, one can be.

I don't need to lie to discredit you. Yes, you do. You need to lie, repeat the same erroneous claims over and over again, and ignore the counterclaims made by others.

So far, you're doing an absolutely wonderful job.

And as to your accusing me of being defensive, ...you're the one who came in here looking for a fight. You're the one using misrepresentations and distortions of what I have said to make your point. You're the one who resorted to name calling. You're the one who made false claims about the nature of your faith, then refused to retract them when you were challenged.

The Orthodox are being hard- headed, the Latins are being narrow minded (I've seen posts on Byzantine message boards that basically say, "Why do you have to call your selves Catholics of the Byzantine Rite? Why won't you just Latinize) and the Eastern Rite Catholics are caught in the middle of it all. Obviously, as some kind of bizarre averaging procedure, the Byzantines MUST be the reasonable centrists caught in the middle... right? Right?

[quote]Satan, in the meantime, is laughing his ass off... /QUOTE] Ignorance makes Baby Jesus turn over in his grave...

The Asbestos Mango

08-30-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by TVAA
I said the Orthodox did not accept Original Sin. You pointed to a brief mention of the phrase on a website and said I was a liar./b]

Um, no I pointed to a site that gave a pretty good description of the Orthodox beliefs about original sin. Which the Orthdox do believe in. The Orthodox believe, as Byzantine Catholics do, that he consequences of original sin are hereditary, i.e., the effects on human nature. The problem was a poor choice of words that made it possible for someone like, oh, say, you, who doesn't read carefully to misinterpret the article as stating that the guilt for original sin is inherited. From ths, you drew the conclusion that both the author and I were saying such guilt was inherited even after I repeatedly corrected you.

[/quote]You're lying out of both sides of your mouth, now. Now you're not capitalizing "original sin", as if one use is the same as another.[/quote] Have you read any of my posts? I pointed out to you in an ealier post that I was using the lowercase to make you happy since you seem to feel errors in grammer are equivalet to errors in doctrine.

But in this case, the grammar reflects the doctrine.
No, in this case the grammar reflects whether or not you think original sin is a prope noun.

Yes, Thea, I used the plural "they" to refer to a singular article. That's it.

Well, considering that in the post you're referencing, I had not mentioned any other websites, except by inference, and that the use of the word "they" in the singular is a grammatical error so common that it's frequently overlooked by folks who are more interested in the content of what is being written than they are in grammar, I think that most people who are following the thread (at this point, I think it's just the two of us, the view count doesn't seem to be rising nearly as fast as the post count) would have assumed that you were referring to the article I linked to. Otherwise, you would have said "The other sites weren't meanspirited..."

Either you hadn't found any others, and were making a rather peculiar claim, or you'd found others and thought they were meanspirited. I found others. I thought they were meanspirited.

Since your church teaches that the teachings of the Pope must be accepted, you are not following the traditions handed down since Apostolic times.

I have already posted both scriptural and historical evidence that they were. You dismissed Christ's renaming of Simon, calling him "Peter" (actually "Kephas" in Aramaic) and saying "Upon this rock I will build my church" as a joke. Jesus was just kidding when He said he was making Peter the earthly head of the Church. Sorry, I misunderstood. :rolleyes:

Additionally, you can't be "content to do the same with regard to the Latins", since both the Eastern and Western traditions can be regarded as being handed down from the Apostles.

I think you mean "cannot be..." (see, I read for context, not grammatical nitpicks. I understand that in a long post, especially in heated debate, a word might accidentally be left out.) Both traditions can be regarded as being handed down from the apostles. Paul, who is the founder of the Byzantine tradition, primarily worked the mission field in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, taught people who had Eastern modes of thinking. Peter ended up as the first Bishop of Rome. There people had more Western modes of thinking, tended to be more rationalistic and juridical in their views. This was the view adopted by, or in some cases, forced upon, the western part of the empire. It's not a question of doctrine, but of interpretation based on ways of perceiveing life, the universe, and everything.

You're the one who made false claims about the nature of your faith, then refused to retract them when you were challenged.

Polycarp has already taken you to task on this issue. I don't think I would have anything useful to add.

Obviously, as some kind of bizarre averaging procedure, the Byzantines MUST be the reasonable centrists caught in the middle... right? Right?[/b[

Well, yeah, sure ok, whatever.

Satan, in the meantime, is laughing his ass off... /QUOTE] Ignorance makes Baby Jesus turn over in his grave...

The Asbestos Mango

08-30-2003, 08:05 PM

drat this new letter-dropping keyboard...

TVAA

08-30-2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Thea Logica
Um, no I pointed to a site that gave a pretty good description of the Orthodox beliefs about original sin. Which the Orthdox do believe in. The Orthodox believe, as Byzantine Catholics do, that he consequences of original sin are hereditary, i.e., the effects on human nature. The Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin, which is a specific doctrine composed of various claims about the nature of sin and guilt which they don't recognize.

Have you read any of my posts? I pointed out to you in an ealier post that I was using the lowercase to make you happy since you seem to feel errors in grammer are equivalet to errors in doctrine. It's not an "error in grammar", although "grammer" certainly is. The capitalization is used to signify a specific doctrine. The meaning of the words changes when capitalization is used.

Well, considering that in the post you're referencing, I had not mentioned any other websites, except by inference, and that the use of the word "they" in the singular is a grammatical error so common that it's frequently overlooked by folks who are more interested in the content of what is being written than they are in grammar, I think that most people who are following the thread (at this point, I think it's just the two of us, the view count doesn't seem to be rising nearly as fast as the post count) would have assumed that you were referring to the article I linked to. Otherwise, you would have said "The other sites weren't meanspirited..." In other words, you screwed up and misunderstood what you read.

I found others. I thought they were meanspirited. They weren't meanspirited, they were simply willing to openly state that they believe the RCC and Byzantine positions to be wrong.

I have already posted both scriptural and historical evidence that they were. You dismissed Christ's renaming of Simon, calling him "Peter" (actually "Kephas" in Aramaic) and saying "Upon this rock I will build my church" as a joke. Jesus was just kidding when He said he was making Peter the earthly head of the Church. Sorry, I misunderstood. :rolleyes: He didn't say Peter would become the earthly head of the Church. He was making a pun -- unless you're suggesting that Peter's corpse would be used as the foundation of a building.

Jesus later made similar statements to all the Apostles, saying that they would have power over both the physical and spiritual world.

It was Peter's faith in Jesus' nature that was to be the foundation of the Church.

It's not a question of doctrine, but of interpretation based on ways of perceiveing life, the universe, and everything. But Orthodox doctrine includes ways of interpreting the world. Your statement is invalid.

Polycarp has already taken you to task on this issue. I don't think I would have anything useful to add. Beg pardon? In discussing your faith, you brought up Orthodoxy and made an untrue statement about it. Specifically, you've made a claim that the RCC has been asserting for quite some time and the Orthodox have been vehemently denying.