I owe you an apology to. Forgive my ignorance of the Orthodox Catholic church as opposed to the Roman.
No apology needed. The Orthodox Catholic Church (aka Byzantine Catholic, Greek Catholic, or Eastern Catholic Church) is very predominant in the middle of Europe, especially in the Slovak countries such as the Ukraine. I didn't even know about them until a friend of mine suggested I go visit their Liturgy.
It isn't a church we see much of in Scotland (I have never seen one although suspect it may be represented in one of our cities).
More's the shame, laddie! It is a beautiful and reverent worship experience. You just haven't ever HEARD the Psalms until you chant them accappella! The hymnology of the OC goes back to the 6th century, along with large parts of the Liturgy.
I know little of it beyond the most superficial history of the original split with Rome.
After the lamentable schism of 1054, the Eastern Orthodox continued on their way for another 300+ years outside of union with Rome. However, in the 14th(? -- I'm a bit shaky on the dates) century, the churches in central Europe were united back to the headship of the Roman Pontiff at the Union of Brest and the Union of Usurhod.
Traditional Eastern Orthodox churches call us "uniates" (which is the equivalent of calling a black man the "n" word) and spit when they talk about us.
No kidding.
We are considered traitors to the Orthodox Faith because we recognize that the Pope is the Head of the Church on earth.
Please bear with me as I digest your last post. You raised some very interesting points and from such a different perspective that it takes me time to think through the ramifications.
I had never heard of some of these ideas either until I began my serious study of Catholic theology (putting aside my intense hatred for Catholicism in general). Ray Sutton has a very good book on the Internet. The web site allows you to read it for free. It is a Reformed website, so you won't get corrupted <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Sutton's book can be read here:
It was written when he was a Presbyterian minister (He is now an Anglican bishop in the R.E. Church here in America).
While he lays a very good operational foundation in covenantal principle, I would disagree with the overall theme of the book which is based not on the familial covenant of the Bible, but on the Suzerainity covenants of the Middle East in the days of the patriarchs.
As I said in the first post in this thread, my aim is to try to understand (shorthand -why is everyone else wrong? HaHa!...Joke (honest)), sorry...to understand just where we depart into the covenant theologies we feel so strongly are right. Many seriously earnest and Godly souls hold divergent views and it is difficult to find irenic accounts of the differences.
[b]Oh my. It has, so far at least, been like a breath of fresh air in here compared to some sites where I visited briefly. Rather than engaging in substantive discussion, all I heard were ad hominums, perjoratives, yards of polemics, and very little exegesis of any sort. Sadly, many sites in the States manned by Fundamentalists have this sort of approach to anything they disagree with, not just Catholicism.
