Skip to comments.Fr. Al Kimel on the 12 Differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches
Posted on 08/12/2009 4:41:31 AM PDT by Te骹ilo
Folks, you all probably remember Fr. Al Kimel, legendary author of the blog Pontifications, an Anglican convert to the Catholic Church and currently a Catholic priest in New Jersey. Well, the good father wanted to comment on my post on the Twelve Differences Between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, but his comments were too long for the comment field. He then sent his input to me which I am now reproducing for your reading pleasure. Folks, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to present to you Fr. Al Kimel:
Your list raises many questions for me. My suspicion is that both the Latin and Eastern traditions are more diverse than is sometimes entertained. Here are some brief thoughts and questions about each of the Twelve Differences:
1) This seems accurate. The Catholic Church, of course, makes a similar claim about herself.
2) Is it true that the Orthodox Church rejects totally any understanding of ecclesial headship? What about the bishop of a diocese? Does he not wield and embody a divine authority given to him by Christ Jesus? Is he not the head of his community, which precisely is the Church? And when Catholics speak of the Pope as the earthly head of the Church, are they in any way denying that Christ alone is properly head of the Church? When Catholics speak of the primacy of the Pope, are they exalting the Pope above the Episcopate, as if their power and authority derived from him? And are Orthodox theologians incapable of entertaining an authentic primacy within the episcopal college for the bishop of Rome? I refer folks to the collection of essays *The Petrine Ministry*, ed. Walter Cardinal Kasper, and Paul McPartlan, *The Eucharist Makes the Church*. It is important to observe that the sobornost theory of Khomiakov, which has become so influential in some parts of diaspora Orthodoxy, is itself a matter of some controversy within Orthodoxy: see, e.g., Stylianos Harkianakis, *The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology*.
I am not denying that important ecclesiological differences may and perhaps do exist between the two communions, but it is not at all clear to me that they are accurately specified by a difference in "headship." Both communions struggle to assert the hierarchical authority of bishops, while at the same time grounding this authority not in power but in eucharistic love and qualifying this authority by the coming Kingdom.
3) This may be an accurate statement of a real difference, yet sometimes things are not as always as clear as they sometimes appear. See, e.g., the Ravenna document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html.
4) This statement does not accurately represent the Catholic understanding of the Church. The Catholic Church understands the Church precisely as a communion of particular Churches and local dioceses; moreover, the Church as the universal Church is not to be understood as simply the sum or collection of all particular Churches: each diocese is itself a truly catholic body. See *Lumen gentium* and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, *Called to Communion*. Catholic ecclesiology is so much more complex and diverse than is sometimes appreciated.
5) I think that most Orthodox theologians would agree with this.
6) Does this statement accurately represent consensual Orthodox opinion? I know that some Orthodox theologians speak this way, but I am dubious that this view represents *the* Orthodox understanding of authority, particularly when Orthodox are talking, not to Catholics, but to each other, and especially when Orthodox bishops and priests are speaking to the Orthodox faithful. On the Catholic side, on the other hand, all contemporary Catholic theologians seek to interpret authority and authority through Christ Jesus and the mutual love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even the Pope, it is now commonly asserted, presides in charity and is the servant of the servants of God.
7) I'm sure there are differences between Catholic construals of anthropology and Orthodox construals of anthropology (please note the plural); but I do not believe that this is because the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches a forensic imputation of original sin and the Orthodox Church does not. Why do I say this? Because it is not at all clear to me that the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches the *forensic* imputation of Adam's guilt to humanity. I know that some (many?) Catholic theologians have sometimes taught something like this over the centuries, but the Catholic Church has strained over recent decades to clarify the meaning of Original Sin not as the forensic transfer of Adam's guilt but as the inheritance of the Adamic condition of real alienation from God--i.e., the absence of sanctifying grace. Consider the catechetical teaching of John Paul II:
"In this context it is evident that original sin in Adamâs descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents. It is a 'sin of nature,' only analogically comparable to 'personal sin.' In the state of original justice, before sin, sanctifying grace was like a supernatural 'endowment' of human nature. The loss of grace is contained in the inner 'logic' of sin, which is a rejection of the will of God, who bestows this gift. Sanctifying grace has ceased to constitute the supernatural enrichment of that nature which the first parents passed on to all their descendants in the state in which it existed when human generation began. Therefore man is conceived and born without sanctifying grace. It is precisely this 'initial state' of man, linked to his origin, that constitutes the essence of original sin as a legacy (peccatum originale originatum, as it is usually called)."
Important differences on the nature of original exist between St Augustine and magisterial Catholic teaching. As influential as the bishop of Hippo has been, his positions have not been received uncritically or without correction. For my own very fallible reflections on this question, see: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/original-sin/. I would suggest that hyper-Augustinianism is not only impossible in Orthodoxy, but it is also impossible in contemporary Catholicism.
8) Once the Catholic understanding of Original Sin is properly clarified, then the differences between Catholics and Orthodox on the topic of the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception narrows considerably. What, after all, does the dogma positively assert? Nothing more nor less than the full and perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the Theotokos from the moment of her conception. At no point in her existence was she ever separated from God. Do Orthodox theologians really want to assert otherwise?
9) It is certainly true that the Divine Liturgy is decisive for Orthodox faith and life and "is the true locus of Orthodox unity"; but does this represent a critical difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The last time I checked going to Mass was still pretty important for Catholics, which is why the liturgy is such a battleground in the contemporary Catholic Church. Certainly the fathers of Vatican II believed that the Eucharist is the true locus of Catholic unity (see Sacrosanctum Concilium).
10) I agree here that there are important differences between Catholic and Orthodox liturgical praxis at the present time. Sadly, many sectors of the Catholic Church appear to have uncritically embraced the thesis that the Church must adapt her liturgy to the spirit of the modern age. This has been disastrous for Catholic life and spirituality. One does see signs, however, that the insanity is passing.
11) I guess there is a difference here, but is it really worth mentioning.
12) The Catholic understanding of grace, sanctification, and glorification is inadequately presented in this statement. While perhaps it might have been true at some point in the past that Catholic theologians tended to reduce grace to a created power, this cannot be asserted today. Catholic theologians are quite clear that everything begins with and centers around Uncreated Grace. Catholic theologians do have a problem with some of the Palamite construals of grace and the popular Orthodox rejection of any notion of created grace--they do not see how the Palamite position does not lead to the annihilation of human nature--but this does not mean that Catholic theologians and poets cannot envision an eschatological life as full and vivid as the Orthodox. Surely Dante's Paradiso may be invoked at this point. But I do acknowledge a difference of homiletical and ascetical emphasis between Catholics and Orthodox on theosis, sanctifying suffering, and the life of the resurrection.
Even if I’m not sure I understand all the theology - much less the differences - these posts have been very informative to read and think about.
...are Orthodox theologians incapable of entertaining an authentic primacy within the episcopal college for the bishop of Rome?
With very few exceptions, no.
Both communions struggle to assert the hierarchical authority of bishops, while at the same time grounding this authority not in power but in eucharistic love and qualifying this authority by the coming Kingdom
In the Latin community, this is of a recent origin (less than half a century). Most of Latin authority has been asserted in the past scripturally and by fiat.
...it is not at all clear to me that the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches the *forensic* imputation of Adam's guilt to humanity.
I know that some (many?) Catholic theologians have sometimes taught something like this over the centuries, but the Catholic Church has strained [sic] over recent decades to clarify the meaning of Original Sin not as the forensic transfer of Adam's guilt but as the inheritance of the Adamic condition of real alienation from God--i.e., the absence of sanctifying grace. Consider the catechetical teaching of John Paul II:
"In this context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents.
This flies in the face of the need for the Immaculate Conception, Fr. Kimel!
I would suggest that hyper-Augustinianism is not only impossible in Orthodoxy, but it is also impossible in contemporary Catholicism.
Well, you said it: contemporary Catholicism. Obviously, the good father believes contemporary Catholicism is not the past Catholicism. Why don't we just settle this right here and right now: did the Catholic Church change her doctrines or not? Apparently this former Anglican priest believes she has. Is this the latest consensus in the Catholic community?
It is certainly true that the Divine Liturgy is decisive for Orthodox faith and life and "is the true locus of Orthodox unity"; but does this represent a critical difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The last time I checked going to Mass was still pretty important for Catholics
There is no comparison. It would be too long to try to even enumerate why.
The Catholic understanding of grace, sanctification, and glorification is inadequately presented in this statement. While perhaps it might have been true at some point in the past that Catholic theologians tended to reduce grace to a created power, this cannot be asserted today
Here we go again! This priest really believes that the Catholic Church as we know her today is a recent phenomenon! The East-West rift on the nature of grace has been a constant since the 13th century, with the Latin side choosing Aristotelian scholasticism and the East monastic hesichasm as a means of approaching God. There is no issue more crucial to the East-West disagreement than the nature of grace.
Catholic theologians do have a problem with some of the Palamite construals of grace and the popular Orthodox rejection of any notion of created grace--they do not see how the Palamite position does not lead to the annihilation of human nature
Orthodox rejection of created grace is not "popular' but theological. It's not an opinion. Palamite theology is the official theology of the Orthodox Church since the 14th century (note: this simply means that it was recognized as such; it has been the way for the East from the 3rd century Desert Fathers, Cappadocian Fathers, and all the way into the 13th century monasticism).
But I do acknowledge a difference of homiletical and ascetical emphasis between Catholics and Orthodox on theosis, sanctifying suffering, and the life of the resurrection.
Oh, well, at least there is "some" difference, then, hey?
I’ve never much been impressed with Kimel’s theological musings, either before or since he “swam the Tiber”. Frankly, this article, with its numerous allusions to “contemporary” Catholicism, demonstrates the danger of ordaining Western protestant clergymen into the priesthood of The Church. In Orthodoxy here in America we have seen similar talk from convert clergy, especially in the Antiochian Church.
Let me add re this:
“What, after all, does the dogma positively assert? Nothing more nor less than the full and perfect indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul of the Theotokos from the moment of her conception. At no point in her existence was she ever separated from God. Do Orthodox theologians really want to assert otherwise?”
Assuming there is no concern with heresy and some pressing need, or fixation on dogmatizing exactly when Panagia attained perfect theosis, I doubt that Orthodox theologians would “want to assert otherwise”, but the fact of the matter is there is no such compelling need. Why imagine one and why mess with heresy?? Why theosis at conception, which frankly seems absurd, destroys Panagia as any sort of example to the rest of us and presents us as surely as +Pius IX’s dogmatic declaration does with a Christological heresy?
There is no such "need". It is simply a fact. Arguments from necessity for the I.C. are weak; the more persuasive argument is one from fittingness.
Obviously, the good father believes contemporary Catholicism is not the past Catholicism.
No, he's talking about development of doctrine, but moreso simply about recovering a more balanced view based on a more balanced reading of the patristic tradition.
This doesn't mean that the Church "changed her doctrines" anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being "the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century" means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines.
(Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any "official theology" in the 14th Century? There were -- according to you -- no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century.)
Y'all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.
When I was Eastern Orthodox no one really complained about me practicing apologetics in favor of Orthodoxy, but I am sure I was the object of suspicion for doing so. I suppose to that these had their suspicions validated a few years afterwards when I recrossed the Tiber. (But this story remains to be told and although I'm talking a little bit more about it, the apologia pro vita mea is far from completion, but again, I digress)
Let me tell you a bit about my own experience. When I worship the Lord, at Liturgy (at Mass, or when praying the Hours) I am not reading lessons from Aristotle or St. Thomas. When I worship, I am not absorbed in the contemplation of syllogisms. I am certain that I am in dialogue with Someone and this Someone is True God and True Man; and this dialogue is enabled by Someone who is Personal Spirit that empowers me to say to God, "Abba, Father."
Orthodox apologists often accuse Catholics of holding to a cold kind of faith, riddled with this pagan Aristotelian philosophy and weakened to the point of gracelessness by the cryptomodalism contained in the "filioquist" heresy of the West. It is strange though that I never experienced God as Orthodox apologists say I experience Him solely on the basis of my flawed Catholic understandings.
That did open a crack, small at first, in the claims of Orthodox exclusivity, which then became a chasm.
I like to think that my faith has deepened quite a bit ever since I started to pattern it on monastic practice. Praying the Liturgy of the Hours regularly was the first step; making oblation as a lay Benedictine - an Orthodox father of East and West - was another step in that direction.
We both, then harken to our monastic heritage in the way we understand and express the faith, and this is as much true in the West as it is in the East, whether or not most Catholics share that appreciation is another matter.
My point, and also one of my goals in having written the 12 Questions, more than likely unconsciously held: I just thought that the time that we should go beyond the caricatures we hold of each other is finally here. That it took a Catholic revert - and an Orthodox deserter at that, who in the eyes of many, may have never really "converted" - to open the gates and energize a grass-roots dialogue, well, I think that says something.
One thing I can say in defense of the "modern" Catholic Church is this: there is more willingness to right ancient wrongs and to reopen old dialogues anew in the Vatican than in the Phanar, Athos, and all other Orthodox centers. Now more than ever there is an inclination to listen to what the Orthodox Church has to about herself, in her terms. Alas, there is no reciprocation from the Orthodox, at least from the traditional custodians - the bishops, the monks - of Orthodox Tradition, and that also tells us something.
There's a lot of recognition and purification of our historical memories that need to occur before reconcilation even begins to occur. Perhaps the way to proceed - and this would only work between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church, and no one else - is to accept at faith value the claims we make about our respective faiths, and then reflect what such a self-understanding would mean to the other. The more traditional approach - let me first define you and then let me tell you why I don't like you - has ran is course, it is sterile, graceless, unable to grant life.
I have despaired as a Catholic - as I once despaired as an Orthodox - of this traditional way of "dialogue." I have posed to myself the question what the Orthodox viewpoint brings to my self-understanding as a Christian and so far, I haven't felt the least violated by the insights gained and I am also surprised that my identity as a Catholic remains intact. I can't be a good Protestant and a good Catholic but somehow, I can be a good "Orthodox" - yet not in good standing with the Orthodox Church, I admit that - and a good Catholic.
It's true in a sense to say that I have achieved that because deep down I perceive that I am lacking something. Well, yes. Not all deprivations are morally onerous. Catholic teaching tells me that I am OK being "only" a Latin-rite Catholic and I accept that and yet, I feel more complete, more "Catholic" when I integrate the Eastern Christian insights into my outlook and deep prayer life, absent any desire to "return" to an Orthodoxy that is already my inheritance.
I wonder if Orthodox Christians, in those moments when they can suppress their historical animus against the West, don't feel the same and if the bluster with which they affirm Orthodox exceptionalism is an old defense mechanism to hide that feeling. Are the Orthodox Christians "out there" pining to pray the rosary the same way I pray the Jesus Prayer with my tchotky? I bet there are and the fact that is easier for me to pray the Jesus Prayer than an Orthodox to pray a the Rosary also says something.
Finally, while our bishops, theologians and academics work out through the high-level issues, we at the grassroots level should be engaging in a different kind of cooperation. Secularism has become quite militant lately and perhaps a common front of Orthodox and Catholic Christians, joined together to face it down is in order. I think this the Spirit is now pushing the Churches toward this cooperation: a joint engagement in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. Joint prayer may or may not be practicable, but mercy can't wait. In this we have to work together.
I've rambled enough. Thank you all for your comments. May the Lord bless us richly.
“Arguments from necessity for the I.C. are weak; the more persuasive argument is one from fittingness.”
Really? I thought that the vessel of the in Incarnate Word of dogmatic necessity had to be absolutely perfect, without”taint” or “stain”, not “infected with Original Sin” as +Pius IX wrote. Did he mean mean something else when he used those words? Is the “fittingness” of the innovation why the penalty for non acceptance necessarily excommunication?
Just how unbalanced does Fr. Kimel think the Roman Church was, as unbalanced as the Eastern Patriarchs did and do? Are you suggesting that what Fr. Kimel is doing is “nuancing” Rome’s innovations to avoid an honest and outright rejection of them?
“This doesn’t mean that the Church “changed her doctrines” anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being “the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century” means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines.”
The Eastern Church never engraved its theology of grace in stone the way Rome seems compelled to do. Palamism was never a “change” in official theology.
“(Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any “official theology” in the 14th Century? There were — according to you — no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century.)”
By right of being The Church, but the Palamite councils didn’t purport to proclaim anything for the Western schismatics. This doesn’t change the fact that Orthodoxy’s concept of grace is completely irreconcilable with the “created grace/Treasury of Merit the Pope can hand out” notions of the West.
“Y’all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.”
Of course we do, the Latins claim more authority for their clerics and hierarchs and insist of far more precise definitions for their doctrines than we do for ours.
First, there is such a need based on the Augustinian Original Sin doctrine, and second, how do you KNOW it is a fact? Just because you BELIEVE it doen't make it a fact.
No, he's talking about development of doctrine.
If a doctrine has to be "developed" than it wasn't known "everywhere and always" and is not catholic. Besides, IC is not a 'doctrine,' it's a dogma.
This doesn't mean that the Church "changed her doctrines" anymore than your subsequent statement about Palamitism being "the official theology of the Orthodox church since the 14th Century" means that Orthodoxy changed her doctrines
Palamitism was the affirmatio as the earliest belief of the Eastern Church, from the ealriest days of the Desert Fathers, and Cappadocian Fathers (I even mentioned that and it went over your ead like a lead balloon!), onward and not as some novel knowledge reached through "development."
If the Catholic Church believed in the IC how come it wasn't a dogma back then? The recognition of Palamite thoelogy as the backbone of Orthodoxy was made in response to the novelty of Scholasticism by the Latins and their erronoeus idea of created grace (something that is apparently still "developing").
The curch simply stated that this is not what the Church belieevd form the beginning, and affirmed that what she believed was the same as the woroks of hesichasts.
The Church simply affirmed what she believed in all along, and made it clear that it is not compatible with the novel Latin idea of pagan Aristotelian philosophy being introduced in the form of Scholasticism, as an alternative way to approach God.
Incidentally, by what authority does the Orthodox church promulgate any "official theology" in the 14th Century? There were -- according to you -- no ecumenical councils in the 14th Century
By what was believed "everywhere and always" authority, aka catholic faith (literally), and by the lex orandi lex credendi.
Y'all seem to hold Catholic clerics and Catholic doctrines to a different set of standards than you hold your own.
True. The Orthodox are much, much more critical of and even cruel tio thier bishops.
“We both, then harken to our monastic heritage in the way we understand and express the faith, and this is as much true in the West as it is in the East, whether or not most Catholics share that appreciation is another matter.”
I’m sorry, Theo, but this just isn’t true. The Roman Church accepts the basest sorts of heresy from its monastics. Look at the “icons” the Franciscans put out, those of such “saints” as Martin Luther King and Caesar Chavez and the activities of the thoroughly secularized “nuns”. There is indeed a great, historic monastic tradition in the West. Your hierarchs, however, from the Pope all the way down to a coadjutor bishop in a small American diocese, have all but destroyed it with their failure to assure faithful monasticism.
“Alas, there is no reciprocation from the Orthodox, at least from the traditional custodians - the bishops, the monks - of Orthodox Tradition, and that also tells us something.”
Indeed it does, Theo. It should tell you that until Rome is willing to admit that its innovations are not dogma of The Church and that the Pope is no more “infallible” than the EP or the MP or the local Ordinary, among a number of other issues, the Orthodox Laity, clergy, monastics and hierarchy will simply keep repeating that until Rome believes EXACTLY what the rest of The Church believes, there will be no reunion, nor, frankly, will there be any broad based interest in it.
“Are the Orthodox Christians “out there” pining to pray the rosary the same way I pray the Jesus Prayer with my tchotky? I bet there are and the fact that is easier for me to pray the Jesus Prayer than an Orthodox to pray a the Rosary also says something.”
I sincerely doubt there are any Orthodox Christians pining to pray the rosary. Why would we? We can pray the rosary any time we want. I do regularly; I always have.
“Secularism has become quite militant lately and perhaps a common front of Orthodox and Catholic Christians, joined together to face it down is in order.”
Some years ago there were discussions up here at the diocesan level about working together to oppose militant secularism. The cooperation didn’t last long as it quickly devolved into rather extreme political activity on the Latin side which then in turn presumed to measure Orthodoxy by the Latins’ extreme political views. Odd way to measure orthodoxy, or Orthodoxy in our view. I see very little future in such joint action until the Latins shed the political yardsticks by which they measure The Faith.
Why theosis at conception, which frankly seems absurd, destroys Panagia as any sort of example to the rest of us and presents us as surely as +Pius IXs dogmatic declaration does with a Christological heresy?
Precisely. No matter how they dress it up in contemporary or classical Catholicism, the Augustinian idea of the Original Sin being a sin we in inherit without which Catholic infant Baptism is pointless continues to live in the Catholic Church, JPII's words notwithstanding.
The weight of the 1,700 year old mindset is simply too big to absorb that the Pope was telling them (probably for the first time in the Catholic history) that the original Sin is not really our sin...something we are somehow "guilty" of. If it's not our sin, then don't call it a sin.
The idea that original sin changed our nature and made it mortal hasn't been "developed" yet in the ever-developing doctrine...I suppose.
Im sorry, Theo, but this just isnt true...
When I said "we," I meant you and *I*. I don't speak for the Church. I always speak in a personal capacity. But I do speak, always, as a Catholic.
I can also expound on the contrast between the way certain things are and the way they ought to be, but I've discovered that they distract from prayer, and from loving others as He loves us.
“I can also expound on the contrast between the way certain things are and the way they ought to be, but I’ve discovered that they distract from prayer, and from loving others as He loves us”
Father Alvin Kimel, Jr. became the 15th rector of the parish in November 1996. He is a scholar and accomplished liturgist. His efforts include an emphasis on improving music to complement the choral Eucharist and to generally raise the beauty of worship. Father Kimel is a superb teacher from the pulpit, in the classroom, and by published worship aid always available in the Church. He is well on his way to a successful ministry and the future of the Church of the Holy Communion looks bright.A number of years later, Al wrote about himself:
Al Kimel... was a parish priest in the Episcopal Church for twenty-five years. He has published articles in the Anglican Theological Review, Sewanee Theological Review, Interpretation, Scottish Journal of Theology, Worship, Faith & Philosophy, Pro Ecclesia, and First Things. He has also edited two books: Speaking the Christian God and This is My Name Forever. He began [the blog] Pontifications in March 2004 as a way to reflect on the meaning of the Church and to invite others to share in these reflections. In June 2005 he entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. On 3 December 2006 he was ordained a priest in the Catholic Church. He is currently serving as the lay Catholic chaplain at Kean University in Union, New Jersey.I found an article about Al's Roman Catholic ordination (with a picture of some of the family) here.
While we have differences, if we discuss this in an open forum we can freely expect others to chip in to get us moving from discussing to fighting. Be warned that a few will jump in sooner or later to poke or goad us into fighting instead of sanely discussing.
Teo -- you can ask the RM to put this in caucus.
Teo originally posted this thread almost two years ago. At that time the Caucus designation wasn’t as vital to reasoned discussion as it is now.
I simply posted my response above because the author of the original post, Fr. Kimel, after swimming the Tiber several years ago, decided to swim the Bosphorus on Pentecost.
>> “Be warned that a few will jump in sooner or later to poke or goad us into fighting instead of sanely discussing.” <<
Do you mean like cronos usually does on Christian threads?
As you know, Doc, my opinion of ordaining protestant clergymen as priests in The Church, whether in the East or the West, has not changed since this thread was posted 2 years ago.
But the East is going to end up coming back to the Catholic Church as I understand it. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but it will happen — from what I have read.
Catholic and Orthodox threads are not "Christian threads?"
Sometimes, they make a mess of things.
And some of these professional Catholic convert apologists have too much protestant and post-VII baggage to truly serve and understand the Church.
With very few exceptions, no.
There was a breakthrough in 2007, when ...
The 46-paragraph document approved at the Ravenna meeting-- which is due for release on November 15-- refers to the Bishop of Rome as the "first among the patriarchs," La Repubblica reported. The document recognizes the historical patriarchates of the united Church, in Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Among these, the Ravenna participants agreed, Rome has primacy.
Some progress has been gained and that is always a positive for both sides of the discussion.
Funny, I heard almost the same thing, except that it was the Church of Rome that is coming back to The Church.... :)
Indeed they do...but only after they have spent sufficient time to "die to the self", to experience that metanoia which destroys the "old man" and replaces it with a servant of God whose nous is focused, as much as it can be for those of us who live "in the world", on Christ, a servant who understands that our original created purpose is to become "gods", not by nature but by grace. For the Western Christian child of the Enlightenment, a member of one of the many "eccelsial groups" which arose outside The Church, this is not easy. Especially today, whether that Western Christian is a social or political liberal or conservative, this becoming a "servant of God" is just about the most counter-cultural path one can follow. It is a humbling process and the West is not humble; so hard for us and yet the Holy Spirit, God, is represented by the most humble of creatures, a dove, and approaches us so quietly that we seldom know of the approach until God Himself has taken up his abode in us fallen creatures. But pride prevents that.
Fortunately, you don't get to make that call ;-)
The Church is the Body of Christ. Catholics are committed to Christ and to His Church.
Go ahead and play semantics all you want. Yours is a position and a belief that is also going away very soon. In the twinkling of an eye ;-)
Maryolatry is certainly not Christian.
How many times have Catholics told you that they venerate Mary? That they do not worship her?
Why do you continue to believe the lies that someone is telling you?
Why don’t you dig in to it yourself and find the REAL truth.
>> “The Church is the Body of Christ” <<
The mystical, invisible church is the Bride of Christ, and will rise to meet him in the air, the First Resurrection, at the beginning of Christ’s millenial reign.
I frequently hear catholics actually praying to Mary. That is idolatrous worship, and any other name you wish to add does not change that fact.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. Primacies of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
And those left will learn the hard way - and finally ‘get it’ when they see their church wondering what happened as their hierarchy hide in the vatican, the pope-mobile mothballed, as all hell breaks loose.
It will turn out to be what it takes to wake up the deceived. Nothing said here will do that - God’s Word means nothing to them because ‘their church’ trumps God’s Word. So they will be left with their church while Holy Spirit filled believers in God/God’s Word alone are taken HOME!
HD, as a matter of curiosity, who tells you this difference is "not significant"? It is in fact the primary issue being addressed in the consultations among the theologians of The Church in the East and the West. Without resolution of this issue, there will be no reunion because there will be no new Great Council.
You may want to give the Ravenna Document another read.
It's significant enough for the Catholics to claim the Orthodox aren't in full communion with them!
Antichrist is not just “any” bishop; he’s the one that declares himself to be in place of Christ.
The difference is that the Orthodox always had the received text for all to read if they wished, while Rome forbid the common man to read the word of God.
The Little Horn sits in Rome.
>> “It’s significant enough for the Catholics to claim the Orthodox aren’t in full communion with them!” <<
To their credit!
I think it depends on . . .
the significantizer . . . and the criteria used! LOL.
Of course, when the Vatican Magicsterical gets into the act . . . all other bets are off. They don’t take any prisoners.
More than a little plausible, imho.
In order for that to happen, one must toss out most of the NT. I think that I'll stick with the Word, and let you lot choose your own destiny.
Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? I bet you have.
Well, we ask the Blessed Mother to pray for us.
Just like asking a best friend to pray for us.
She’s with the lord in spirit, but she has no ears, and can only know what the Lord relates to her.
If you ask her and get an answer, you’re dancing with evil spirits.
An answer or a vision both.. dancing with the devil.
Blasphemy is all I expect when I see your handle.
No disappointment so far.