When the Roman Catholic CHurch and Eastern Orthox agree on an issue - can we?

[gtsecc]

I suppose folks can come up with disagreements about Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theology, but where they are in agreement theologically, I honestly don't know how anyone can disagree with them.

At the very least, the burden of proof is upon those who disagree.

Please no smart ass answers, or assumptions that I think this because I am having a bad day, or what ever - this is a serious question, and I am honestly open to everyone's input. J

[AngCath]

My post from "should we get rid of Communion"

We don't ignore them when they agree. We, being just as valid a body of the Catholic Church, respond to them. Do you think that the Vatican is somehow obligated to respect the fact that the East and Anglicans agree that Rome is incorrect in her definition of Real Presence (Trans.)? Is the East subject to the agreement of Anglicans and Roman Catholics that 1 Esdras and Odes shouldn't be in the Canon? You seem to think that when two Catholic bodies agree on something, the others are somehow subject to it.

[gtsecc]

burden of proof ¹ subject to it.

[AngCath]

I suppose folks can come up with complaint about Roman Catholics having crappy music and vestments, or the Eastern Orthodox having a strange Liturgy, but where they are in agreement theologically, I honestly don't know how anyone can disagree with them. At the very least, the burden of proof is upon those who disagree. Please no smart ass answers, or assumptions that I think this because I am having a bad day, or what ever - this is a serious question, and I am honestly open to everyone's input. J

By making that the standard for theology you have reduced the Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans as not fully valid Catholic Churches.

[AngCath]

I never said subject to it - burden of proof.

Ok, so "burden of proof" applies to all agreements of East and Rome or all agreements of any two Catholic bodies?

[gtsecc]

By making that the standard for theology you have reduced the Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, and Anglicans as not fully valid Catholic Churches.
nope.

[gtsecc]

Ok, so "burden of proof" applies to all agreements of East and Rome or all agreements of any two Catholic bodies?
East and Rome surely shift the burden of Proof to the opposing side.

Anglican and Rome probably do also, but remember, we don't have one view on most things that we can pin a label on and say this is the Anglican view.

Similarly, if the East and Anglicans have a certain view, Rome probably bears the burden of proof. But, again the trick is, you are going to be hard pressed to find a view that is Anglican - some Anglican Bishop somewhere has said the opposite.

A good example might be our Anglican and Eastern understanding of the Papacy. Rome is holding a new and different view.

[gtsecc]

nope.

When you get down to brass tacks, theologians will tell you that the OO and EO don't really have any points where they disagree.

The Old Catholics don't have solidarity any mroe than Anglicans do, so it is difficult to show a certain theological point as "Old Catholic" - for example some are for, and some are against Women's Ordination, so which view is the OC one?

[Fish and Bread]

I think the easiest way to categorize Anglicans when it comes to whether or not they hold a given belief is "Some do, some don't, and many are in between", at least when it comes to most theological judgements. Of course, within that range are people who are firmly traditional in the sense of the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and those who are firmly evangelical, except for their support of infant baptism, confirmation, and bishops. There are many other groups as well.

For many, because their beliefs are strongly held, there is a temptation to try to make everyone conform to their judgement by simply proclaiming that what they think is the Anglican viewpoint, even though there is no one Anglican viewpoint on the topic. This is one such instance, some folks care greatly about the RCC and the EO's theological positions on things and some couldn't care less. Neither stand is inherently any more or less Anglican and neither stand is the official Anglican position.

I really feel for folks who simultaneously feel the need to be Anglican and the need for a church with clear doctrinal positions on most theological issues, because, perhaps with the exceptions of some of the continuing groups, that just isn't a combination that exists, except sometimes on the parish or diocesean level. It's going to cause some extreme frustration for people and is causing some extreme frustration for people, because ultimately the two desires are contradictory.

[gtsecc]

F&B you amde some great points, mostly about Anglicanism.

However, no one so far has made a case where we can disagree and honestly claim it is Christian.

[gtsecc]

Gt just the fact that they can and have been wrong (or they would not disagree) is all the justification I need to agree or disagree based upon my own reasoning. Because they have disagreed and contradicted themselves in the past indicates that neither is infallible. Just because they agree doesn't change this fallibility. The posibility always remains that they both can be wrong simultaneously. I am not a member of either of these bodies, thus I bear no burden in justifying myself according to anything they believe. If I called myself a good Catholic or a good Orthodox and then disagreed with their doctrine; then I bear a burden to prove myself. As it stands I claim to be neither of these and thus I bear no such burden.

Wow let's see how many times I can use the word "Burden" (LOL) I utterly reject your contention that I have any burden to prove or disprove any RCC or EO doctrine. I do not submit to their authority.

Neither do Buddists.
But, you would claim you are christian.
now, if you hold some sort of theology, that is contrary to what these two say is Christianity, then I think You bear the burden of proof.

[AngCath]

F&B you amde some great points, mostly about Anglicanism.

However, no one so far has made a case where we can disagree and honestly claim it is Christian.

that is because your definition of "Christian" makes it impossible to do so.

[No Swansong]

F&B you amde some great points, mostly about Anglicanism.

However, no one so far has made a case where we can disagree and honestly claim it is Christian.

Except for the fact that neither is infallible. It is illogical to claim that neither is infallible but combined they are.

[Colabomb]

Neither do Buddists.
But, you would claim you are christian.
now, if you hold some sort of theology, that is contrary to what these two say is Christianity, then I think You bear the burden of proof.
You have yet to illustrate why these two bodies, of all the Christian Bodies in existence, hold power over everyone else when they agree.

Your assertion makes an assumption that you are not yet willing to explain.

The bodies are made of fallible men who can't even agree amongst themselves. Why are they suddenly given the golden crown of "Christianity"?

[gtsecc]

maybe I am wrong.
I did not know anyone disagreed with this premis.
It is patently true to me, I will ahev to think aobut why and articulate it.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

gtsecc,

Perhaps it may help your arguement if you were to give an example where the EOC and RCC agree, but the Anglican Church disagrees.

[SeenAndUnseen]

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."

1 Corinthians, 1:10

[gtsecc]

gtsecc,

Perhaps it may help your arguement if you were to give an example where the EOC and RCC agree, but the Anglican Church disagrees.

Mary's Perpetual Virginity
or
Acceptance of the first 7 councils.

If we are going to reject one, we surely bear the burden of proof.

[gtsecc]

that is because your definition of "Christian" makes it impossible to do so.
Huh?
I think all I am proposing is that if Roman Catholic and The Eastern Orthodox say somethign is Christian then it probably is, and if you disagree, you bear the burden of proof. Is this so far fetched?

[gtsecc]

Let's try to stay the course on this thread and maybe we can come up with some useful answers.

[No Swansong]

Huh?
I think all I am proposing is that if Roman Catholic and The Eastern Orthodox say somethign is Christian then it probably is, and if you disagree, you bear the burden of proof. Is this so far fetched?

Unless your contention is that they are infallible there is no reason to accept your contention that we bear some burden of proof for disagreeing with them.

[gtsecc]

Unless your contention is that they are infallible there is no reason to accept your contention that we bear some burden of proof for disagreeing with them.
That is not what I claim.

[No Swansong]

Mary's Perpetual Virginity
or
Acceptance of the first 7 councils.

If we are going to reject one, we surely bear the burden of proof.

I guess you have yet to explain to us why these bodies which have no authority over us, and which have been shown fallible, should be held in such high esteem that if we disagree with them we must prove ourselves.

[gtsecc]

I guess you have yet to explain to us why these bodies which have no authority over us, and which have been shown fallible, should be held in such high esteem that if we disagree with them we must prove ourselves.

I am not even saying that when they agree they are infallable, I am saying that when they agree, the burden of proof is surely shifted. I think you may answer your own question when you explore your assertion "have been shown fallible."

[Colabomb]

Huh?
I think all I am proposing is that if Roman Catholic and The Eastern Orthodox say somethign is Christian then it probably is, and if you disagree, you bear the burden of proof. Is this so far fetched?
Extremely. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are a portion of the church. They are not the mouth of God. They are falible, as we are, and when they speak, we must hear them as finite men attempting to understand the infinite God.

This is why I believe in Prima Scriptura. I know Scripture is truth. I look at Tradition as useful in the interpretation of Scripture, but Tradition is too weak to stand as its own authority.

[julian the apostate]

let's see Rome and Constantinople disagree on

Immaculate Conception
Papacy
Infallible Papacy
Original Sin (orthodox do not believe in Original Sin)*

The salvation of those outside of the Orthodox Church

(Orthodox are agnostic on whether it is possible for non-orthodox persons such as gtescc to be saved or not)*

Transubstantiation*

Basic differences on the Trinity (differences largely understandable only to the Orthodox) but nevertheless of vital importance to them

Filoque,, see above

Differences on the Atonement with most (Anselmian) Romans and all conservative protestants (Christus Victor)*

A huge Orthodox annoyance with Western thought and much Tradition

Energies Energies Energies

* points I tend toward the Orthodox position on, just to show I am not that biased

[julian the apostate]

oh

Birth Control

Divorce

Married Priests

What is a Church Council

which parts are binding for their place in time, and which are universal

and so on

[CSMR]

I suppose folks can come up with disagreements about Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theology, but where they are in agreement theologically, I honestly don't know how anyone can disagree with them.

At the very least, the burden of proof is upon those who disagree.

Please no smart ass answers, or assumptions that I think this because I am having a bad day, or what ever - this is a serious question, and I am honestly open to everyone's input. J
Greetings.
The burden of proof is borne by the Holy Spirit. There is no other means of proof. Whoever is not born of the spirit does not know the truth however many authorities tell him. Whereas the person who is given grace through the Holy Spirit has a certain hope even though all authorities tell him otherwise.

[No Swansong]

I am not even saying that when they agree they are infallable, I am saying that when they agree, the burden of proof is surely shifted. I think you may answer your own question when you explore your assertion "have been shown fallible."


Why? Why does the burden of proof shift? I see no reason for such an assertion. My point in showing that they have been shown fallible is to indicate one reason why (among others) I do not consider either body authoritative. Neither speaks with the mouth of God. If I believed that they did I would be one or the other. My question to you is why are you not one or the other?

[gtsecc]

This thread has gotten off track.
I never said they agree on everything or we have to listen to them when they disagree
but where they are in agreement theologically,

[AngCath]

This thread has gotten off track.
I never said they agree on everything or we have to listen to them when they disagree




We know what you said, it is just such a strange position that the majority of us don't understand the reasoning.

[gtsecc]

I didn't know it was a strange position.
I am not sure I can fully articulate it, but basically it is going to be difficult to accept the Bible, and then not accept the community that put it forth. You can play with how you define that community, but generally you are left with the Historic Churches where they agree as that community.
Then, if you don't accept their authority - how can you accept the Bible, which is only the Bible because this community says it is?

[AngCath]

the fundamental difference between the community that decided the canon of Scripture and the communities your talking about is that the Bible came from an UNDIVIDED Church. This is no longer true making the communities fundamentally differant.

[gtsecc]

the fundamental difference between the community that decided the canon of Scripture and the communities your talking about is that the Bible came from an UNDIVIDED Church. This is no longer true making the communities fundamentally differant.
Right, so where Rome and the East are in agreement - is that not at least simillar to the undivided church?

[AngCath]

similar, not the same.

[gtsecc]

Fine, where the undivided church speaks on an issue, do those differing bear the burden of proof?

[gtsecc]

Seems like if somethign was held as a Christian belief pre-calcedon, and somone holds a differnt view, they got a lot of splaning to do.

[AngCath]

Seems like if somethign was held as a Christian belief pre-calcedon, and somone holds a differnt view, they got a lot of splaning to do.

only if you hold to the view that EVERYTHING was given the to Apostles and the Early Church.

[gtsecc]

only if you hold to the view that EVERYTHING was given the to Apostles and the Early Church.

huh?
Tell me more

[Mary of Bethany]

The salvation of those outside of the Orthodox Church

(Orthodox are agnostic on whether it is possible for non-orthodox persons such as gtescc to be saved or not)*

Small correction here -

we are not agnostic as to the *possibility* of anyone being saved. We belive it is possible for Christ to save anyone, inside or outside the Church. We just don't make proclamations that anyone (except the Church Triumphant) *is* saved, even ourselves.

Mary

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Small correction here -

we are not agnostic as to the *possibility* of anyone being saved. We belive it is possible for Christ to save anyone, inside or outside the Church. We just don't make proclamations that anyone (except the Church Triumphant) *is* saved, even ourselves.

Mary

:amen:

[AngCath]

It's good to have some of our Orthodox friends in here.

[julian the apostate]

Small correction here -

we are not agnostic as to the *possibility* of anyone being saved. We belive it is possible for Christ to save anyone, inside or outside the Church. We just don't make proclamations that anyone (except the Church Triumphant) *is* saved, even ourselves.

Mary

I should have said some/lots of Orthos etc

but, even the position that you espouse there, you would have to admit would be considered liberal/moderate among dedicated Orthodox

(used to post in Orthodox forum and go over this stuff )

lots,for instance, most, would not pray with non-orthodox

[julian the apostate]

and when the Russian Orthodox were talking about bowing out of the WCC, they mentioned their concerns over prayer

[Fish and Bread]

most, would not pray with non-orthodox

What happens when non-EO folks visit divine liturgy? Isn't that an example of orthodox praying with non-orthodox? What's the difference between that and a few people praying an Our Father together in a private home or something?

[julian the apostate]

ill ask the people who wont pray with the non-ortho

i will ask the russian bishop who feels queasy about ecumenical prayer

good point though

[julian the apostate]

Demands for withdrawal from the WCC have weakened somewhat because the leadership of the MP convinced the monastics and laity that the attitude towards the WCC underwent essential changes and now there are no more joint ecumenical prayers and ceremonies, and that representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate are simply observers in the WCC

[InnerPhyre]

I should have said some/lots of Orthos etc

but, even the position that you espouse there, you would have to admit would be considered liberal/moderate among dedicated Orthodox

(used to post in Orthodox forum and go over this stuff )

lots,for instance, most, would not pray with non-orthodox


This is incorrect. That is the general policy of the ROCOR, but not most Orthodox.

[julian the apostate]

PRESIDENT
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
75 EAST 93rd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028
Telephone: LEhigh 4-1601
OPEN LETTER TO HIS EMINENCE
ARCHBISHOP IAKOVOS,
GREEK ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

.......................................

Your Eminence must be aware of the 45th Apostolic Canon which reads: "Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has only prayed with heretics be excommunicated, but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed." The renowned canonist Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia, in his interpretation of this canon, remarks that participation in such a prayer with heterodox "... means that we not only do nothing for their conversion to Orthodoxy, but are wavering in it ourselves."

Heterodox means non-Orthodox, ie gtsecc

any orthodox here let me know if I am mischaracterizing or have been mislead by radical fringe elements of your, i sincerely apologize if that is the case


perhaps you could share your thoughts feelings and the particular opinions regarding joint mutual prayer at any time or location with say an,,,,, Anglican

or even gtsecc specifically

[julian the apostate]

This is incorrect. That is the general policy of the ROCOR, but not most Orthodox.

how about the policy of the Russian Orthodox Church In Russia?

[john23237]

I suppose folks can come up with disagreements about Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theology, but where they are in agreement theologically, I honestly don't know how anyone can disagree with them.

At the very least, the burden of proof is upon those who disagree.



Might one inquire as to how this "burden of proof" is to work? That is to ask who is to be the judge of said "proof"? As an example, let us use priests of the fairer gender. Who is to be the judge? Certainly not Rome or Constantinople as they have made their respective judgement on the matter and therefore could hardly be regarded as impartial. Likewise, as we have already moved forward, we too cannot be regarded as impartial. The judgement of reasonable men perhaps? There are learned reasonable men of Rome, Canterbury, and Contantinople would are clearly not in agreement. We cannot simply assume the combined judgement of Rome and Constantinople, or Constantantinople and Canterbury, or whomever, are correct without "proof" and there is no higher body to judge that proof except Our Lord, who is probably shaking His head at the lot of us. ;)

[julian the apostate]

any orthodox here let me know if I am mischaracterizing or have been mislead by radical fringe elements , i sincerely apologize if that is the case


perhaps you could share your personal thoughts feelings and the particular opinions of your local juristictions regarding joint mutual prayer at any time or location with say an,,,,, Anglican

or even gtsecc specifically

[AngCath]

there is no higher body to judge that proof except Our Lord, who is probably shaking His head at the lot of us. ;)
i can't help but think this too. :)

[gtsecc]

I prayer regularly with some OCA (Eastern Orthodox) folks:
Once a week at a Bible Study,
Once a week at Evening Prayer at an ECUSA parish,
and every other week at an OCA parish for Vespers.

[Colabomb]

I prayer regularly with some OCA (Eastern Orthodox) folks:
Once a week at a Bible Study,
Once a week at Evening Prayer at an ECUSA parish,
and every other week at an OCA parish for Vespers.
There is disagreement within Orthodoxy on this issue.

I know the Greek Orthodox in my city won't pray with other Orthodox, much less other Christians.

I also know a ukranian Bishop who not only considers me a valid Christian, but believes that Conservative Anglican Bodies such as the REC have valid Apostolic Succession and True Sacraments.

In some ways Orthodoxy is as varied as Anglicanism.

[gtsecc]

right - again we are gettign off track - the OP is about areas of agreement bewteen RCC and EO -

[Colabomb]

right - again we are gettign off track - the OP is about areas of agreement bewteen RCC and EO -
Actually, this is right on target.

If the Orthodox can't even agree with themselves, how can they agree with Rome? And even if they do. What power do they hold?

The REC and the APA agree that Ecusa is going down a dangerous Path, but is ECUSA required to listen to us?

[gtsecc]

Oh lord - where they agree: You know the creeds, Trinity, first 4 councles, some of the Books of the Bible.

[gtsecc]

Actually, this is right on target.

If the Orthodox can't even agree with themselves, how can they agree with Rome? And even if they do. What power do they hold?

The REC and the APA agree that Ecusa is going down a dangerous Path, but is ECUSA required to listen to us?

Required? No.
Ought to - yes.

[AngCath]

Required? No.
Ought to - yes.

Why? Should we listen to non-Anglican bodies as well? Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers? What about non-Christian bodies, Jews, Muslism, Buddhists?

[gtsecc]

Why? Should we listen to non-Anglican bodies as well? Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers? What about non-Christian bodies, Jews, Muslism, Buddhists?
We did not get the Bible from them.
In some way, we did get the Bible form this historic undivided Church.

[AngCath]

We didn't get the Bible from the REC or APA either and you said we ought to listen to them? What are the criteria?

[gtsecc]

Sure, I didn't get the Bible from you either, but I am listening to you. We ought to listen to them becasue they are clsoely associated ith us, and we are seeking reunion with them. But, everythign they say, we ought to try and filter through what the Western and Eastern Church say. heck we might not like the answers we get - the TAC, Rome, and the East, and Oriental Orthodox agree with many things, that is almsot the Church speaking to us with one voice!

[AngCath]

that is almsot the Church speaking to us with one voice!

I would emphasize the word "almost" in that claim.

[julian the apostate]

here is a statement that both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: ... the declaration of Pope Leo XIII ... on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations."
Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger)


I guess it is time to chuck it in


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:knHJdvRk1Fl4OM:www.catholiccharitiesla.org/releases/popebenedict.jpg

[Colabomb]

A fallacy here is that the Orthodox and the RCC cannot agree because no one (including most Orthodox) Really don't agree on who the Orthodox are. Orthodoxy is really more of a Tradition along the line of Anglicanism than it is a church along the lines of the RCC.

I have pointed out before that the Orthodox are almost as splintered as Fundementalist Protestantism.

[AngCath]

We do tend to speak of the Orthodox as though they were a monolithic body like the Roman Catholic Church.

[gtsecc]

We do tend to speak of the Orthodox as though they were a monolithic body like the Roman Catholic Church.
While their structure isn't, their theology certainly is.

[Mary of Bethany]

A fallacy here is that the Orthodox and the RCC cannot agree because no one (including most Orthodox) Really don't agree on who the Orthodox are. Orthodoxy is really more of a Tradition along the line of Anglicanism than it is a church along the lines of the RCC.

I have pointed out before that the Orthodox are almost as splintered as Fundementalist Protestantism.

Cola,

I think it would be much fairer to say that we Orthodox are more like the Anglican Communion. We have many different jurisdictions in America (a temporary mess, I trust), but around the world, the Orthodox Church has formed along cultural/language boundaries - thus the "national" churches. Like the Anglicans, we are conciliar, so we aren't united under one Pope, but are united by our Bishops and a very singular faith and worship.

Mary

[AngCath]

While their structure isn't, their theology certainly is.

yes, I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

[ebia]

When the Roman Catholic CHurch and Eastern Orthox agree on an issue - can we?
Not neccessarily. I don't see why if they can individually err, that the two together can't err. But then I don't start from the point of view that
RCC + EO + Anglicans = The Whole Church.

[Fish and Bread]

I think a lot of this issue stems from how one thinks about division. Do we determine whether a church is divided by taking a poll of what it's members think on any given issue, or do we look at whether the institution speaks with one voice? In Roman Catholicism, the institutional church speaks with one voice. When a prominent bishop or priests get out of line, either to the right or to the left, action is usually taken. There are a few exceptions here and there that one can point to, but for the most part this is the case.

And the basic teaching on major issues is fairly clear. No one doubts the RCC position on the real presence or papal primacy. Birth control is debateable around the margins (i.e. birth control pills that are taken for health reasons and not birth control reasons, etc..), but the teaching of the church for two healthy married Roman Catholics is pretty clear. Certainly, papal primacy was decided in that church long ago, as well as stuff like the assumption, imacculate conception, etc.. There is a "right" and a "wrong" answer that are clearly discernable from a Roman Catholic perspective on these issues.

Now, do people sit in the pews and believe whatever they want? Absolutely. There are almost tribal bonds that keep people in the pews even if they don't believe in what the church teaches. I don't know that that's really as true in Episcopalianism and some other churches. A lot of times if people disagree with what a given branch of Christianity teaches, they switch churches. Roman Catholics are more apt to stick around and silently disagree. There's an even larger number of folks who just zone out during church and don't care what is being taught, as long as their grandma is happy they're there on Christmas and Easter. But I don't know if we can really call that disunity per say. It's more like a combination of apathy and people who have trouble leaving what they believe is the one true church. There is no difficulty in telling what the stances of the church itself are on these issues, as there are in Anglicanism.

[erin74]

*MOD HAT ON*

Please remember this is a congregational forum. Members who are not Anglican or Old Catholic are welcome to post fellowship or questions but are not permitted to debate in this forum.

erin74
Moderator
Team Faithfulness

*MOD HAT OFF*

[Colabomb]

If you are referring to me, I am an Anglican I just prefer to use the Christian Icon.

[No Swansong]

Right, so where Rome and the East are in agreement - is that not at least simillar to the undivided church?

No it is not, just the fact that you are talking about two bodies indicates that they are missing something vital. But even if they were to reconcile I do not consider either of them to be The Church so therefore both combined would not constitute The Church.

[gtsecc]

But, what they agree upon is basically theology before the schism.