Beautiful reflection on the nature of Catholic/Orthodox unity

10,557 Views | 205 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by booboo91
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jappersandjanglers/2016/11/there-and-back-again-catholicism-and-orthodoxy/

Quote:


The cry for unity is not merely a presumptuous appeal to the "truth" of submission to the Pope, nor is it the kid glove covering a grimy imperialistic hand seeking to wrest a rich, organic faith from those who would be unified under the Holy See of Rome. Emphasis on unity is an appeal to love, to the beauty of the visible and whole Church. Our present disunity is a wound, and we must minister to it.

East and West are complementary, but distinct, dispositions toward the same Sacramental life in the Church. Those on both sides who would emphasize difference to the point of rupture and schism ignore the deep, abiding, and beautiful resonance between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. We need each other and are both most beautiful when unified with the other. We must build together. The Roman Catholic church is the field I must plow. Others have been given (or have chosen) Orthodoxy. Neither East nor West is wrong until it wrongs the other.


747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is some weird stuff.

Quote:

The Sacraments were, I saw at last, profoundly erotic. They were not only true, they were beautiful. Moreover, their eroticism was rooted in community and body.


Nope. Nooooope.

Quote:

I was confronted by the fact that my new allegiance to Orthodoxy forced me to argue against administration of the Sacraments to Roman Catholics to my brother. It demanded that I affirm schism, which directly conflicted with my understanding of conversion.


So basically conversion, without actual submission.

How come I always see these articles from the West and not the East?

Does schism hurt the Church? Absolutely. Is unity in the name of love worth sacrificing the Truth as we know it in Orthodoxy? No.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

This is some weird stuff.

Quote:

The Sacraments were, I saw at last, profoundly erotic. They were not only true, they were beautiful. Moreover, their eroticism was rooted in community and body.


Nope. Nooooope.

Quote:

I was confronted by the fact that my new allegiance to Orthodoxy forced me to argue against administration of the Sacraments to Roman Catholics to my brother. It demanded that I affirm schism, which directly conflicted with my understanding of conversion.


So basically conversion, without actual submission.

How come I always see these articles from the West and not the East?

Does schism hurt the Church? Absolutely. Is unity in the name of love worth sacrificing the Truth as we know it in Orthodoxy? No.



I think the 23 churches from the East in Communion with Rome are more powerful than articles.

We've already discussed that there is no difference in our beliefs, just different POV. You and I use the exact same creed, even though the filioque itself is more of a scapegoat than anything else.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:


So basically conversion, without actual submission.

How come I always see these articles from the West and not the East?

Does schism hurt the Church? Absolutely. Is unity in the name of love worth sacrificing the Truth as we know it in Orthodoxy? No.

K2- where Orthodox fall short in my opinion is unity. Isolated because of ethnicity and country. Catholic Church is truly universal- melting pot- reaching out. So it does makes sense Orthodox do not want to unite, because Orthodox are not themselves united, they have their little clicks. See the many examples over the decade of fighting in the holy land, priests and monks (religious men) fighting over church turf. And yet we are to be called the Body of Christ.

The Authority of Pope (1) leader leads to the melting pot. To unity. Ending the silly cultural squabbles.

Note: I agree with you about not sacrificing the truth. I am comfortable on the authority of the Pope- see early church fathers- Catholics are correct- also we see the outcome of not having person in charge.

I have not studied the semantics of the Filioque, in great detail. So I can't comment here.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not that numbers necessarily give weight, but of those 23 churches some are as small as the Greek Byzantine Catholics (2,525) which hardly constitutes an autocephalous Church. Others are big like the Ukranian Catholic church which is basically a church formed by political persecution vice theological import (thanks Poland, and then Russia, and then Austro-Hungarian empire). So political persecution lasting centuries is more powerful than articles, yes. I quite agree.

The Balamand declaration summarizes it well - bad all around, generally speaking.
Quote:

In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These initiatives led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extraecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics.

Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: "that all may be one" expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.

The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions.Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of "the separated brethren" it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.

On the other hand certain civil authorities made attempts to bring back Oriental Catholics to the Church of their Fathers. To achieve this end they did not hesitate, when the occasion was given, to use unacceptable means.

I don't really appreciate you summarizing our discussions as "we discussed that there's no difference in our beliefs". It's not true. I don't believe in papal supremacy. I have some concerns about some of the more technical phrases in Augustinian theology, specifically about the essence. I have sharper concerns about Thomist philosophy and theology.

And, of course, I reject flatly that the filioque is a scapegoat. I've said it many times on here, and written about it at length. Minimizing this as a scapegoat implies faithless, worldly motives -- or, perhaps worse, a lack of discernment to sift geopolitics from theology -- to many saints in my Church, not the least of them Sts Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. I genuinely believe (and I believe I understand as best as anyone not enlightened with the vision of the Uncreated Light) that the filioque represents a dangerous confession, and an underlying philosophical and (more importantly) theological problem.

How come you glossed over her... uh... "unique" view of the mysteries of the Church?
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
K2,

Just curious were you anti-Catholic Protestant before you became Orthodox?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
booboo91 said:

k2aggie07 said:


So basically conversion, without actual submission.

How come I always see these articles from the West and not the East?

Does schism hurt the Church? Absolutely. Is unity in the name of love worth sacrificing the Truth as we know it in Orthodoxy? No.

K2- where Orthodox fall short in my opinion is unity. Isolated because of ethnicity and country. Catholic Church is truly universal- melting pot- reaching out. So it does makes sense Orthodox do not want to unite, because Orthodox are not themselves united, they have their little clicks. See the many examples over the decade of fighting in the holy land, priests and monks (religious men) fighting over churche turf. And yet we are to be called the Body of Christ.

The Authority of Pope (1) leader leads to the melting pot. To unity. Ending the silly cultural squabbles.
booboo, I appreciate your input but it is not true. The Orthodox Church is not isolated because of ethnicity and country any more than all Roman Catholics are culturally and politically on the same page because of Pope Francis. Let's not confuse earthly -- often political -- union with theological union. The Orthodox do not wish to submit to Rome. This does not mean we are not united theologically and mysteriologically in our universal Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis, including our mysteries, creeds, etc.

Your "many examples" of fighting over church turf sticks far, far, far worse to Rome than the other patriarchates.

Christ's prayer in John 17 is the only union that matters: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

Union is not, cannot be, will not be achieved by submitting to a common worldly authority. Only by being united to Christ is union possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with canonical authority whatsoever.

We are the body of Christ, but scripturally that body has Christ as the head -- not the Pope or any other man.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't know what an anti-Catholic Protestant is. I was not Roman Catholic, but I don't think I viewed myself as anti-Catholic.

I had ill-informed, ignorant opinions about the Church, her history and practice, and scripture. These produced ill-informed opinions about theology.

I left what I consider to be the folk religion of the US, which is more or less American culturalism and its requisite individualism - with a strong nationalist streak - couched in Christian terms, before I came learn about Orthodoxy.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Not that numbers necessarily give weight, but of those 23 churches some are as small as the Greek Byzantine Catholics (2,525) which hardly constitutes an autocephalous Church. Others are big like the Ukranian Catholic church which is basically a church formed by political persecution vice theological import (thanks Poland, and then Russia, and then Austro-Hungarian empire). So political persecution lasting centuries is more powerful than articles, yes. I quite agree.

The Balamand declaration summarizes it well - bad all around, generally speaking.
Quote:

In the course of the last four centuries, in various parts of the East, initiatives were taken within certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, to restore communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These initiatives led to the union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extraecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics.

Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: "that all may be one" expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.

The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions.Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one's own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of "the separated brethren" it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.

On the other hand certain civil authorities made attempts to bring back Oriental Catholics to the Church of their Fathers. To achieve this end they did not hesitate, when the occasion was given, to use unacceptable means.

I don't really appreciate you summarizing our discussions as "we discussed that there's no difference in our beliefs". It's not true. I don't believe in papal supremacy. I have some concerns about some of the more technical phrases in Augustinian theology, specifically about the essence. I have sharper concerns about Thomist philosophy and theology.

And, of course, I reject flatly that the filioque is a scapegoat. I've said it many times on here, and written about it at length. Minimizing this as a scapegoat implies faithless, worldly motives -- or, perhaps worse, a lack of discernment to sift geopolitics from theology -- to many saints in my Church, not the least of them Sts Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus. I genuinely believe (and I believe I understand as best as anyone not enlightened with the vision of the Uncreated Light) that the filioque represents a dangerous confession, and an underlying philosophical and (more importantly) theological problem.

How come you glossed over her... uh... "unique" view of the mysteries of the Church?


You dont believe in papal supremacy but have mentioned it isnt an impediment to Communion and reconciliation which are really what should be considered "unity". I have concerns about Augustinian and Aristotelian overtones in our point of view, but realize it is just a point of view, and not an end in and of itself.

There is no difference in the understanding of the creed with or without the filioque, this is the reason the Catholic Church uses both, it expresses the same belief with a different number of words. The words are different, the belief is the same.

The ladies article was great, the word erotic was weird, really weird but I chalked it up to my not being artsy enough to appreciate the visuals.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:



Christ's prayer in John 17 is the only union that matters: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

Union is not, cannot be, will not be achieved by submitting to a common worldly authority. Only by being united to Christ is union possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with canonical authority whatsoever.

We are the body of Christ, but scripturally that body has Christ as the head -- not the Pope or any other man.
1) We agree Christ is the Head, but we also agree- Jesus gave apostles the authority. You would recognize the authority of the Bishop and Priest that has been handed down. Read ACTS, Read St. PAul with timothy and Titus.

2) We see authority of Apostles correcting the Judiazers in 50AD. See the Church battle countless heresies over the centuries.

3) See Clearly in Bible- Peter has the authority in many bible verses, Peter is mentioned more than any of the other apostles combined. Why did Jesus set up Peter as the leader? Why does Peter allow the gentiles into Christian community without conferring with the others. He acted first and then explained later.

4) See writing of early church fathers on the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

5) See over 30K different protestant churches because everyone can interpret things as they want. See #2- Why were the Judiaziers wrong and Peter and Paul correct? Answer Authority. As you know Jesus did not leave a bible but a church with authority.

We will agree to disagree on Pope. Your wrong! YBIC Booboo
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The point of view comment reveals the underlying issue - and over-reliance on reason. Theology is not a point of view but an expression of a reality. The idea that we can reason up to God leads to all kinds of issues, like the ultimate conclusion that with intellect we will behold the essence of God (direct opposition to orthodox theology).

Papal supremacy represents a distinction in ecclesiology. That the pope constitutes the church distorts the orthodox view that the church exists wherever the bishop and his flock is.

We have differences in Mariology (which are only relevant as they result in Christology).

But St Photios said all of that is noise but the Filioque. The Filioque is the issue because it is a direct change to the Trinitarian statements as recognized by the ecumenical councils.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To some extent you're barking up the wrong tree with those points.

I don't belive papal primacy is correct. This is not a snap judgment. I quoted heavily from many fathers on this thread:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2794156/2#discussion

Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

To some extent you're barking up the wrong tree with those points.

I don't belive papal primacy is correct. This is not a snap judgment. I quoted heavily from many fathers on this thread:
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2794156/2#discussion




Youre a smart guy, each one of those fathers also has a quote that establishes the primacy of the Pope just as if not more explicitly.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I went over it here. Post above this one.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2775452/replies/47056818#47056818
Aggiefan#1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a an Orthodox myself I can understand the wish for unity.

I understand the historical elevated, first among equals status, given to the Bishop of Rome.

I understand the issues with the Filoque and understand that they may, in many ways not be a significant difference.

I also understand the divisive issues with the filoque.

I understand the wonderful worldly things that the Catholic Church has achieved (hospitals, care for the poor etc)

I also don't understand or recognize the Pope today. To me The Fathers Bishop of Rome was strong, deeply rooted in Orthodoxy and unwavering in times of turmoil & herecy in the East.

Today I see a Pope offering "Pergi Points" for following him on twitter, and a man that claims he is a bit more than just another man.

I recognize only one Priest and head of the church and that is Jesus Christ.

It's not about the Papal submission, the sacking of Constantinople, Papal Bulls and the filoque (not that they don't matter etc.... I see what the Pope is today and I don't understand him



Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggiefan#1 said:

As a an Orthodox myself I can understand the wish for unity.

I understand the historical elevated, first among equals status, given to the Bishop of Rome.

I understand the issues with the Filoque and understand that they may, in many ways not be a significant difference.

I also understand the divisive issues with the filoque.

I understand the wonderful worldly things that the Catholic Church has achieved (hospitals, care for the poor etc)

I also don't understand or recognize the Pope today. To me The Fathers Bishop of Rome was strong, deeply rooted in Orthodoxy and unwavering in times of turmoil & herecy in the East.

Today I see a Pope offering "Pergi Points" for following him on twitter, and a man that claims he is a bit more than just another man.

I recognize only one Priest and head of the church and that is Jesus Christ.

It's not about the Papal submission, the sacking of Constantinople, Papal Bulls and the filoque (not that they don't matter etc.... I see what the Pope is today and I don't understand him




I'm not belittling your feelings at all; I can say I've felt the same thing several times so I understand what you're going through. With that being said; the Pope is a human; surely there have been Orthodox Primates and Patriarchs throughout the Church's history who have made others feel the same way; he's a man, a man who seems only focused on showing the mercies of Christ to others at expense of nearly everything else; it's a vice, but it's a vice I can't get too upset about since he seemingly walks the walk.

If it makes any difference, the Pope has caused me to question long held "religious right" beliefs and my own inherent legalistic approach to certain issues of faith; which actually pushed me eastward. Perhaps his polyannish "love the world" tweets have caused some to gravitate back to a Church they felt didn't want or didn't care for them? I don't know.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah but if an orthodox patriarch is corrupt and a bad person it means basically nothing. If an orthodox patriarch says something (even ex cathedra) I feel no need - theological or otherwise - to submit myself to him. I submit to Christ, and to Church as the Body of Christ.

This is an anathema in the Roman church.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Yeah but if an orthodox patriarch is corrupt and a bad person it means basically nothing. If an orthodox patriarch says something (even ex cathedra) I feel no need - theological or otherwise - to submit myself to him. I submit to Christ, and to Church as the Body of Christ.

This is an anathema in the Roman church.
I agree with you, but it doesn't make any difference with regards to this Pope as he's said nothing ex cathedra (and the Church rarely ever has) to make you feel the need to submit to it.

Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's not the point though is it? The dogma is taught and defined and mere rejection of the dogma is anathema. Oops.

"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

That's not the point though is it? The dogma is taught and defined and mere rejection of the dogma is anathema. Oops.

"So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."
You don't believe in anathema's for people rejecting the dogmatic teachings of the Church? Surely you do; I know that you do. Do you understand the process that goes into the Pope declaring something an authoritative teaching? It's not just a spurious "I say this and it goes" pronouncement; it's a core principle which has been upheld by the Church; which he is just confirming. Just as you say that the councils didn't create dogma; they confirmed it; it is the same with Papal ex-cathedra statements.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a dogma my church does not accept, and the Latin Magisterium chose to pronounce an anathema specifically against those who don't hold it.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggiefan#1 said:



I recognize only one Priest and head of the church and that is Jesus Christ.

It's not about the Papal submission, the sacking of Constantinople, Papal Bulls and the filoque (not that they don't matter etc.... I see what the Pope is today and I don't understand him




We agree Christ is the head of the church. So do you also believe like the Protestants? - that everyone can then interprete scripture and do whatever they want?- if I believe Abortion is Ok- then it is so? Jim Jones, David Koresh, Westboro Baptist are correct because we are all in the body of Christ and decided what we believe is correct?

My bet- is you being Orthodox you recognize authority of Priest and Bishops. You recognize that Peter and Paul and apostles had authority and their ruling at Council of Jerusalem was correct in 50 AD against the Judiaziers. This is huge moment in Acts of Apostles. Why were the Judiaziers wrong? If everyone is part of the Body of Christ?

Once you see there is authority, there was a church, passing down of authority. The bible was assembled by the church. You will then see Peter was clear leader- authority given to him by Christ., you also have history of early church fathers.

We also have common sense with out one leader you get lack of unity. That is why for almost everything - there is eventually one person in charge- ship captain, president of companies, charties, monestaries, otherwise there is conflict.

Note: Catholic church is not perfect, we are run by same flawed men- that run your church as well as Protestant churches.

Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

It's a dogma my church does not accept, and the Latin Magisterium chose to pronounce an anathema specifically against those who don't hold it.
That dogma happened 800 years after the schism! And even to this point; it's not being held as a bar to Communion; as you noted above.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Yeah but if an orthodox patriarch is corrupt and a bad person it means basically nothing. If an orthodox patriarch says something (even ex cathedra) I feel no need - theological or otherwise - to submit myself to him. I submit to Christ, and to Church as the Body of Christ.

This is an anathema in the Roman church
So how can Jesus lead you to be corrected if you are in the wrong? Sounds like you decide alone. If you were a Judiazier back in 50AD- why would you listen to the apostles? Or would you?

Matt 18:15- 17 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Note: I think we would both agree we can listen to our well formed conscience but this is formed by the teaching of the church- authority was given to them by Christ.



booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sq16Aggie2006 said:

Aggiefan#1 said:

I see what the Pope is today and I don't understand him





Aggiefan,I would say- understanding Pope Francis today. Look at Jesus and the stoning of the Woman. There is the law (loving guard rails to guide us) and there is also God's Love and mercy.

By law, the woman should of been stoned, but we see Jesus love and mercy. It is a balancing act for Christians- if we strictly enforce law with no love and mercy- we become like the Pharisees. With no law at all- leads to chaos.

Today- we in the church we have many difficult issuesin a morally decaying world. Example- folks being remarried incorrectly, but yet wanting to come back to the church.

In my opinion Pope Francis is asking us to focus on the love and mercy. He has not changed any of the laws. He wants us to love and pray for others. I would note, by him being vague has caused some confusion.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a false dichotomy to suggest I can't believe in a hierarchy or church authority without a pope.

From my point of view the reformation just took the error of the papacy and multiplied it. From one pope to many.

Protestants and Romans (collectively the west) are closer to each other in many ways (soteriology, creed, etc) than they are to the East.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ok? And what's your point?

Even without that dogma I would not, cannot be Roman because I cannot recite your creed. My church objects to the theology it represents. The further anathema just crystallizes the point.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Protestants and Romans (collectively the west) are closer to each other in many ways (soteriology, creed, etc) than they are to the East.

now THAT is absurd.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Ok? And what's your point?

Even without that dogma I would not, cannot be Roman because I cannot recite your creed. My church objects to the theology it represents. The further anathema just crystallizes the point.
Why wouldn't you just recite the same creed recited by the Byzantine Catholic Church? the same one that you recite?, no one is claiming that being 'Roman' is a necessity for communion.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's a common observation in Orthodoxy.

For example:
https://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/is-the-orthodox-church-is-closer-to-the-roman-catholic-church-than-to-the-p
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself.

St Photios said the creed matters. St Mark said it matters. I agree, my bishop agrees.

In addition, those churches accept the dogma of the papacy. I don't.

Two issues, both problematic. At least respect that it's not like I'm the only person with these views.
Sq16Aggie2006
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself.

St Photios said the creed matters. St Mark said it matters. I agree, my bishop agrees.

In addition, those churches accept the dogma of the papacy. I don't.

Two issues, both problematic. At least respect that it's not like I'm the only person with these views.
I agree that you're not the only person with these views; I'm just saying; that it doesn't make much sense to hold the creed up as an obstacle; when it's not an obstacle if the original creed is used; and then say the dogma of the papacy is an obstacle; when it's been said earlier than the creed is the only thing that is non-negotiable.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The dogma of the papacy didn't exist as dogma until Vatican I. St Photios didn't have the issue to object to. But he did not commune, would not commune in good conscience because of the creed. That your church can is outside of my ability to comment.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

It's a false dichotomy to suggest I can't believe in a hierarchy or church authority without a pope.

From my point of view the reformation just took the error of the papacy and multiplied it. From one pope to many.

Protestants and Romans (collectively the west) are closer to each other in many ways (soteriology, creed, etc) than they are to the East.
My point is:

1) You already believe in authority- Priest (guide/lead/over the people), Bishop (guide/lead/over people and Priest). Why do we even need Bishops?

2) Why do you ignore the next logical step in authority? By not having the next level of authority (Pope, CEO, General). It is just common sense. The buck needs to stop somewhere on Earth. Literally every other organization has a leader, that unites those under them.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.