Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Why don't you Orthodox just snap out your shell and snap in the Catholic shell. Wouldn't that be an easy way to bring about union since your core is just the same as Roman Catholicism? Why would a mere shell, just a covering, be of any importance?
Because it is not just a matter of opinion or pride or arrogance or stubborness. Both sides believe without any doubt that their formulations are consistent and correct. Considering that the Church has been linguistically an apartheid since the 5th century, such diverity of formulations is a product of a long path of linguistic, cultural and historical events that separated them.
If anything, the degree of similitude, once the shell is cracked is much more telling of one Church than of two. For one, most importantly, both have apostolic authority, valid clargy and sacraments. Neither one can deny the other any more than they can deny each other of being Christian.
Okay, so the shell doesn't matter, and we can dispense with any further considerations of the shell. The core is the essential matter at hand. The core is the same in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. So what is holding up reunion?
But it does, Stripes. Faith is not an approximation. Our differences may be numerically few, but the shell is tough. Close may work among Protestants but not among Orthodox or Catholic. Until we "translate" our differencs we cannot sing the same. :)
"The Reformers based many of their works upon the church fathers and constantly refers to them. The Orthodox minimizes these works and the Catholics ignores them."
Which Fathers, Harley?
Okay, so the shell does matter. I thought you were saying the opposite. Thank you for the clarification.
Until we "translate" our differencs we cannot sing the same. :)
Before you can "translate", you will need to spend some time being very clear of what those differences are. Both tasks will take some considerable time and effort, but I think well worth the investment of resources.
"While I understand you might believe that a person can lose their salvation, that is not what the scriptures states."
_____________________________
Amen!
"34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:"
______________________________________
The point that you miss over and over again is that the works we do are not for payment, but because we are "a new man in CHRIST" and they reflect our FAITH.
Well, I have "admitted" to Joe recently that I think that since we can choose TO sin, that it follows that we can also choose NOT TO sin. That's something. :) However, since I think that our fallen nature IS sin, it does not follow to me that we can take credit for the good we do, because it cannot come from us. (The sinning part is "normal" for us so we do take "credit" for that.) We cannot overcome our nature with our gifts at birth. Sure, we are all not born as homicidal maniacs so God did give us "something", but I think it takes something more from God in order to be saved, grace that comes from God after we are born.
"...it is safe to say that there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which either one or both are incomplete representations of Her. I think it is wise to leave it at that."
Well stated.
"Then why are Catholics and Orthodox not in communion if you have the same core of faith?"
It is because the Orthodox and Catholic conceptions of what constitutes the core differ significantly.
For Catholicism (painting dangerously broadly), the core boils down to a body of dogma and to a assenting relationship with the Pope/Magesterium. So, from a Catholic standpoint, since Orthodox written formulations of basic dogma is pretty much the same, with room for differences in interpretation, the 21st century approach is to call it good and move for intercommunion.
There is the sticking point of the Pope/Magesterium, of course. One must ask the following questions: 1. Is Papal infallibility a dogma of the Church according to Catholicism? (Yes) 2. Do the Orthodox resolutely, consciously, willfully, vigorously, and in full knowledge and awareness reject this dogma, both in letter and spirit? (Yes) 3. What do we call people who willfully, consciously etc. reject a fixed dogma of the Church in spite of many, many attempts at correcting or coaxing them back into the fold of right belief?
Be that as it may, I would move on to say that for Orthodoxy, the core is the totality of living tradition. It is the inner spiritual life of the Church. This is sometimes not appreciated by the average outside observer (I wouldn't include you, stripes -- I realize the rhetorical nature of your question), since our inner spiritual life is inextricably linked with the rich "outward" life of fasting, liturgical prayer, incense, pannikhidas, blessings, confession, communion, prostrations, vigils, prayer ropes, etc...
The Orthodox conception of what constitutes "the core" is very all-encompassing and holistic. It cannot be encompassed by written formulations of dogma and doctrine to which one does or does not give intellectual assent. It isn't that we can't conceive of a Western equivalent to this spiritual core (far from it -- some of the most devoted students of western liturgics and spirituality in their pre-schismatic forms are "Eastern" Orthodox Christians), it is just that most of us don't see an analogous core at this time -- although we do like that new Pope better than anything we've seen in a long time. (What an irony that he is a German -- a "Frank"!)
I wouldn't choose Kosta's image of a "shell," although I certainly think I understand what he is getting at. I would prefer to say that for us it is all "core."
In short, because the Catholic core is smaller than the Orthodox core, at least at this moment in history, they are prepared to accept Orthodoxy as we are. Again, with the exception of the infallible Papacy -- I really don't see an easy way around that one, for either side. It is one thing to say that we Orthodox can keep out long beards, long services, clouds of incense, icons, and filioque-less Creed. It is quite another to say that we can come into communion with Rome while continuing our resolute rejection of Papal infallibility, or even of Papal supremacy/universal jurisdiction.
Wheter you call it perseverance of the saints, it is still extrascriptural nonsense. For example, in 7816 you committed a mortal sin, violating one of the ten commandments. According to your version of "perseverance" thare is not consequence to you because you salvation has already happened and even, your sainthood has already be achieved. This is arrogant nonsense. Obviously, you had a choice in 7816 to bear false witness or not bear false witness. You had been informed many times what Trent did or did not forbid, and you have access to the materials from Trent. You cannot plead ignirance. It is entirely possible that one day you will recognize your action as sinfuil and repent of it. That will be the day god brings you around. Till then, you are not saved.
Which reminds me, I had several questions to you.
What is this showing yourself approved through study of the scripture business? If it is salvific, is it salvation through works; if it is not salvific, why do you do it, and where did God command that you do it in the scripture?
Do you pray Our Father and if yes, why? Have you ever read the words? Especially, praying that his will be done as if it could be otherwise; asking not to put you to the test and deliver you from the devil? Shouldn't you, "saint" Harley just say "gee, thanx for the tractor beam" and get on with your studies?
As far as Catholics are concerned, the Orthodox can have communion any time. We do not consider the differences sufficiently separating us. We merely advise the Orthodox to obey their bishops.
The Orthodox point out the difference in praxis and disagree with our interpretation of the prerogatives of St. Peter. It is a reasonable position, even if I wish it were different.
The Christian communion is not done on the basis of core beliefs only. It is a most intimate expression of brotherly love (among other things, of course), and no one wants it cheapened by papering over any difference in doctrine, no matter how small.
The obligation of charity extends to me when I am rich enough to provide for my family and our parents (which is commended of me as well), that is, I am in the position the rich man was in.
At this point my net worth is zero.
Presumption of salvation is arrogant, -- as is any arrogation of status not in evidence, -- and is, moreover, directly condemned in the Gospel.
My answer to the similar question would be similar to Kosta's. Catholicism is what we do, not merely what we theoretically know. Praxis matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.