wHY DO YOU PRAY TO MARY JESUS MOTHER SHE CANT HELP YOU ?

[desertknight]

Dear Ryan2010,

You posted: " I believe the Orthodox Church to be pre-denominational - the self-same body of believers that we read about in our bibles.  I believe the Orthodox Church is the Church Christ mentions when he says, "tell it to the Church" - Matt 18:17"

That's a little unhistorical. As I'm sure you know the Church of Constantinople is a much LATER Church than the Church of Rome. Not only that, Constantinople was a made up city that Constantine built to consolidate his power in the East, as such it had no natural base of Christians and relied, more heavily than other major Churches, in the Emperor - who controlled who its bishops were.

Also, the bishops of Constantinople were quite often heretics (e.g., Arians) and were rebuked by the first 4 ecumenical councils. Not coincidentally the Bishop of Rome was always on the right side of the Ecumenical Councils' decisions.

So No, if we're talking about Ancient Churches: The ones in the middle East are gone (Muslims destroyed them), and from the remaining ones Rome is clearly the most Ancient.

Now I believe that both East and West are to blame for the schism, but to say that the fragmented  "Orthodox" (who are not even in communion with each-other in many cases) are pre-denominational is a joke.

To be technically correct as Catholics.  We do not view the Eastern Orthodox in the same way as we do the endless denominations and sects that are Protestant.  The Eastern Orthodox, (E.O.'s) are never refered to as denominations within Catholicism.  The word "Church" should always be capitalised when refering to the E.O.'s as we Catholics completely accept the validity of both their Holy Orders, (Apostolic Succession and authority), as well as the validity of their Sacraments.  That means their bishops and priests are true bishops and priest of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and Christ is truly present at their Holy Eucharist.  Because of that it is proper to refer to them as elements of the Church that are in schism, but not as "denominations".  This article is from a Dominican priest and is very good.  Hope it sheds some light on this issue...

"For the Orthodox churches are churches in the apostolic succession; they are bearers of the apostolic Tradition, witnesses to apostolic faith, worship and order – even though they are also, and at the same time, unhappily sundered from the prima sedes, the first see. Their Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, their liturgical texts and practices, their iconographic tradition, these remain loci theologici – authoritative sources – to which the Catholic theologian can and must turn in his or her intellectual construal of Catholic Christianity. And that cannot possibly be said of the monuments of Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed or any other kind of Protestantism."

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/nichols.htm

[Angelos]

desertknight,

I completely agree with you. The only problem is that, if I understood Ryan2010's post correctly, the Orthodox believe that they are the ONLY pre-denominational Church  ("I believe the Orthodox Church is the Church Christ mentions when he says, "tell it to the Church" - Matt 18:17"). That ONLY part, which I disagree with, is what my post tried to address.

I think the reasons for schism were and remain mostly political and I was greatly encouraged by the common liturgy that Archbishop Bartholomew and Pope Benedict held a year or two ago.

I really think the real dogmatic differences between Catholic and Orthodox are very very minor, compared with the huge dogmatic gap that both the Catholics and the Orthodox have with most Protestant Churches ("the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist being an example)

Let's remember though that while the Catholic Church accepts members of the Orthodox Church for all its Sacraments (e.g., an Orthodox Christian, like I used to be, can receive the Eucharist at Mass, but a Catholic can not receive "metalipsi" at an Orthodox service), the Orthodox Church refuses to reciprocate (manna to you desertknight!)

[desertknight]

I would not say that they refuse to return the love, for it is primarily a differences of doctrine regarding the Papacy and not one of Christian charity, (which we should have for all, not just our Orthodox brothers), but you do make the point that is spot on.  The Catholic position on the Orthodox and theirs concerning us are not reciprocal.  Ironically, it is among the Oriental Orthodox that we have some greater doctrinal concerns and yet closer actual bonds.  The Oriental Orthodox consider themselves to be in "partial communion", (Their words, not mine.) with Rome after they clarified what westerners wrongly call "monophysite" doctrines on the Holy Trinity and made very strong statements on the leadership role of the Holy See of Rome within the college of bishops of the Church.

[Ryan2010]

While this has little to do with Mary and or intercession....

That's a little unhistorical. As I'm sure you know the Church of Constantinople is a much LATER Church than the Church of Rome. Not only that, Constantinople was a made up city that Constantine built to consolidate his power in the East, as such it had no natural base of Christians and relied, more heavily than other major Churches, in the Emperor - who controlled who its bishops were.

In 1054 we had five patriarchates or "jurisdictions".  We had Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.  We had a 700 year old creed and under influence from Frankish rule, the Pope unilaterally changes the creed of the Church.  The Pope excommunicates Constantinople and the split occurs.  However, the split wasn't merely between Rome and Constantinople.  Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria stay in communion. 

To admit that the filioque issue is merely political means Rome should reverse political move of adding to the creed.  In the 8th century, with the backing of a council, the Pope said that anyone that adds to or takes away to the creed, "let him be anathema".  More than this, the current understanding of Papal Supremacy and now since the 1860s, Papal Infallibility, has also gone far beyond her (Rome's) Apostolic roots.  That Rome was a place of appeal and considered to be first among EQUALS is a far different Rome than we are dealing with today.  To look at scripture, the verse wherein Jesus says to St. Peter, on this rock I build my Church, we have out of 85 Church Fathers, only 14 of which believed that rock to be the actual person of Peter, 44 Fathers believe it to be St. Peter's declaration of faith and even extend that declaration to all apostles as equals... 

That Rome precedes Constantinople is fine but to say that Rome precedes Jerusalem and Antioch?

In regards to Constantine moving the capital to Constantinople and that the Emperor had more influence over Bishop while disregarding the fact that Rome was sacked by a Frankish warlords not long after and those warlords then chose bishops for themselves that were Germanic and then began to ethnically cleanse the "Orthodox" Greeks from the West AND East doesn't put your stance on solid ground in regards to Apostolic stability.

Also, the bishops of Constantinople were quite often heretics (e.g., Arians) and were rebuked by the first 4 ecumenical councils. Not coincidentally the Bishop of Rome was always on the right side of the Ecumenical Councils' decisions.

Absolutely.  Not at all denying Rome's past.  However, I believe the schism may have been providential in that it served to expose trends that wound up leading to the two divergent paths that Rome and the Orthodox are on now.  While I hope to unite on a general level on this thread for the sake of the Holy Theotokos, and this will most likely only make any attempt to speak about her now moot in the eyes of those who already define themselves against Rome,  I can't not say what I believe in regards to which Church has been truest to the deposit of the faith that the Apostles once delivered. 

Though Rome may have been on point in the past I believe some of her views to be heretical otherwise I would be Roman Catholic.  If the Rome pre-schism were to be asked about Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the filioque etc. I only pray that, led by the Holy Spirit, they would reach the right conclusion concerning these doctrines.   

So No, if we're talking about Ancient Churches: The ones in the middle East are gone (Muslims destroyed them), and from the remaining ones Rome is clearly the most Ancient.

There are still Orthodox in Jerusalem and in Antioch.  We skipped out in 70 A.D. for good reason but then after that, the Orthodox have been there ever since.  More important than the amount of time a certain people have sat in a certain location though would be her doctrines.  If Papal Infallibility and Immaculate Conception are false then Rome has made dogma (that which must be believed in order to be saved from "within" the church of Rome) then Rome herself ceases to be "Apostolic", in regards to those doctrines of Christ. 

Now I believe that both East and West are to blame for the schism, but to say that the fragmented  "Orthodox" (who are not even in communion with each-other in many cases) are pre-denominational is a joke.

We've had this conversation before and this is one of my weaknesses.  I won't elaborate much on this topic only because I believe your views on what Orthodoxy is and that she is "divided" to be difficult to grasp.  You seem to make an argument that would be akin to saying Roman Catholicism is fragmented because Rome isn't in communion with the Orthodox. 

If anyone would like to peruse the conversation (and that we might get back to the Theotokos) that covered the filioque, the idea of the Orthodox being "fragmented" and even the reason why Orthodox don't offer the Eucharist to anyone other than Orthodox:  http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/eastern-orthodox-forum/filioque/


"No one may share in the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true"  -- St. Justin Martyr

Bottom line is that we don't believe what Rome teaches is true and neither does Rome believe that what we teach is true.  Rome's playing politics with the Eucharist and (imo) it's false ecumenism.


1 Corinthians 10:17
Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.





God bless

[Angelos]

Ryan,

I'm glad you agree that "Rome was a place of appeal and considered to be first among EQUALS" I think for all practical purposes if you ask Bartholomew today he would agree that his influence over the Christian world is not equal to Pope Benedict...God allowed this to happen. Today there's only one truly universal Christian Church with strong presence in every Continent and that is the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches have significant influence only in Eastern Europe, as they have been unable to evangelise, in any significant way, outside their ethnic enclaves

Maybe Christ prefers a common leader for His Body on earth, the same way He preferred a leader among the Apostles (that would be Peter). As in John 21:15

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep".


Anyway, on this thread let's stick to what unites us: our mutual love for our Panagia (All-Holy), Kaiharitomeni (full of grace) Theotokos.

[JustChristian]

Hi Roshan,

Catholics believe that people who are alive in heaven can pray just like people who are alive on earth can.  They'd disagree that people in heaven can't be made aware of prayer requests addressed to them.

In Christ,
Nancy :)