FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Is there Crypto-Orthodoxy among some Eastern Catholics?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(04-02-2011, 09:44 AM)CrusaderKing Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 04:48 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]Denial of the Holy Spirit's procession from both Father and Son,[b]of papal primacy of jurisdiction[b]

Many Easterners have changed their tune on this, albeit sublety. They no longer argue about Papal primacy, but Papal Supremacy. Regardless, they're still wrong.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Orthodox resist this because of the Catholic approach.  Like Pharisees, there will always be some Orthodox who will resist Catholic doctrine out of stubborn arrogance, but I think the majority of Orthodox wouldn't be so opposed to it if it was explained better on the Catholic side.  The Orthodox objection is that if the Pope is supreme and has immediate jurisdiction throughout the whole Church, then logically, the Pope is essentially the only bishop and every other bishop is merely an auxilliary.  If, however, it were explained to them to emphasize that the Church is one body and can only have one head, every family can have only one father, logically it makes sense that the Church on earth has one head just like every patriarchat, every metropolitanate and every diocese.  The Pope has to have some real jurisdiction over the Church, or else the Church isn't visibly one body, it couldn't be.  And if the Pope has some jurisdiction over the whole Church, it logically follows that his authority must be supreme and immediate, even if a holy and benevolent Pope would rarely exercise it so immediately.  This explanation doesn't weaken the Catholic argument, but at the same time makes it more palatable to the Orthodox.
(04-02-2011, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 08:04 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]None of it, though, justifies schism, and that's why the crypto-Orthodox rarely actually cross the Bosporus.

Cross the Bosphorus to Istanbul?

Yeah.  I've heard it used several times to mean conversion to Orthodoxy, like crossing the Tiber is used to mean conversion to Catholicism.

But Rome is still Catholic, at least nominally.

Constantinople is Muslim.
(04-02-2011, 02:25 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 08:04 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-01-2011, 07:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]None of it, though, justifies schism, and that's why the crypto-Orthodox rarely actually cross the Bosporus.

Cross the Bosphorus to Istanbul?

Yeah.  I've heard it used several times to mean conversion to Orthodoxy, like crossing the Tiber is used to mean conversion to Catholicism.

But Rome is still Catholic, at least nominally.


Constantinople is Muslim.

It's just a saying.
(04-02-2011, 02:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]It's just a saying.

A curious one, though, considering the bad fortunes of Constantinople since 1453.
(04-02-2011, 10:54 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Orthodox resist this because of the Catholic approach.  Like Pharisees, there will always be some Orthodox who will resist Catholic doctrine out of stubborn arrogance, but I think the majority of Orthodox wouldn't be so opposed to it if it was explained better on the Catholic side.  The Orthodox objection is that if the Pope is supreme and has immediate jurisdiction throughout the whole Church, then logically, the Pope is essentially the only bishop and every other bishop is merely an auxilliary.  If, however, it were explained to them to emphasize that the Church is one body and can only have one head, every family can have only one father, logically it makes sense that the Church on earth has one head just like every patriarchat, every metropolitanate and every diocese.  The Pope has to have some real jurisdiction over the Church, or else the Church isn't visibly one body, it couldn't be.  And if the Pope has some jurisdiction over the whole Church, it logically follows that his authority must be supreme and immediate, even if a holy and benevolent Pope would rarely exercise it so immediately.  This explanation doesn't weaken the Catholic argument, but at the same time makes it more palatable to the Orthodox.
thank you, im going to save that to my apologetics folder (if you dont mind)

(04-02-2011, 03:02 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 02:51 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]It's just a saying.

A curious one, though, considering the bad fortunes of Constantinople since 1453.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate (whom the Greek Orthodox in USA, and northern parts of Greece, fall under) still lives there in the Phanar, so it's still a spiritual center of Eastern Orthodoxy
(04-02-2011, 03:03 PM)Scythian Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-02-2011, 10:54 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Orthodox resist this because of the Catholic approach.  Like Pharisees, there will always be some Orthodox who will resist Catholic doctrine out of stubborn arrogance, but I think the majority of Orthodox wouldn't be so opposed to it if it was explained better on the Catholic side.  The Orthodox objection is that if the Pope is supreme and has immediate jurisdiction throughout the whole Church, then logically, the Pope is essentially the only bishop and every other bishop is merely an auxilliary.  If, however, it were explained to them to emphasize that the Church is one body and can only have one head, every family can have only one father, logically it makes sense that the Church on earth has one head just like every patriarchat, every metropolitanate and every diocese.  The Pope has to have some real jurisdiction over the Church, or else the Church isn't visibly one body, it couldn't be.  And if the Pope has some jurisdiction over the whole Church, it logically follows that his authority must be supreme and immediate, even if a holy and benevolent Pope would rarely exercise it so immediately.  This explanation doesn't weaken the Catholic argument, but at the same time makes it more palatable to the Orthodox.
thank you, im going to save that to my apologetics folder (if you dont mind)

Not at all!  Though, don't be surprised when the more adamant Orthodox don't pay it much heed.  They will say it relies too much on logic.  The most adamant anti-Romans in Orthodoxy will say that Catholic doctrine is perfectly logical to a fault.  But your run of the mill Orthodox who can recognize inherent value in logic will see it for what it's worth.
It is too logical of a doctrine to accept. Wow. That's a kicker!
Pages: 1 2 3 4