Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: sitetest

I wasn't using it as an example of that [difference in ecclesiology between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches].

I was using it as an example of the Vatican intervening in local affairs, which Jo kus had said is rare.

84 posted on 11/22/2005 9:51:48 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: x5452; jo kus; Kolokotronis

Dear x5452,

Well, I feel like we're beginning to strain at gnats, but I'll give it one last shot.

In post #39, you described differences between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches:

"Well, you demonstrate one of the differences between the One Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and what developed in the West. The Orthodox system is one of 'syndeesmos' or a sort of partnership among the hierarchs, clergy and the laity, each having its own function and proper role and together making up The Church. The Roman Church is a top down system."

This is what I meant by a difference in ecclesiology - that is the structure and proper governance of the Church.

Jo kus replied to you in #58:

"That hardly describes the situation on the ground. A cursory view of the Church's life in the US will shatter the illusion that the Church is top-down here!"

He is disputing your characterization of the Catholic Church as being "top-down," in response to your prior post, which seems to clearly point out a difference in ecclesiology. By the way, I agree with you about that difference.

You replied in #59:

"Just read an article in another thread where the pope excommunicated a priest (somewhere in england or Australia i think) that seems like top down correction to me."

This note by you seems to be presented as evidence of the difference between our Churches.

My point is only that this doesn't seem to actually demonstrate the difference that you expressed. Whether you characterize it as a difference in ecclesiology (which seems to me to be what you expressed in #39) or that the Catholic Church is top-down and the Orthodox are not, this demonstrates neither. The reason why is that, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong), in a similar situation, an Orthodox Patriarch would do something similar.

The priest in the article is an actual apostate, having decided, a few decades ago, to follow a non-Christian "prophet." Apparently, after over 20 years of remonstrating with him, the Church, on the authority of the Patriarch of Rome, excommunicated him.

Other than maybe not taking so long to act, would an Orthodox Patriarch have not acted to excommunicate such a priest?

I pinged Kolokotronis because he seems quite knowledgeable of the ins-and-outs of how Orthodox do things ecclesiologically.


86 posted on 11/22/2005 10:19:23 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson