Are the Orthodox right?

[Onthisrock84]

Something else that annoys me about the present Catholic Church is the constant rebuffing of Protestant criticisms. Like who cares? Take for example the biblical canon. Its always this bickering over who has the correct canon and since the Council of Trent the Catholic view on scripture is just as rigid as Protestants. Like it these “absolutes”. Before the Council of Trent books not considered canon were included in the Vulgate such as 3 and 4 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, which all were thrown to an appendix in the Clementine Vulgate following the Council but it became such an absolute thing. Like this is the Canon of scripture nothing else can have any inspiration from God.
I like the Orthodox view better where they traditionally view all of the books of the Septaguint as tradition and some books have higher precedence than others. A book worthy of being read in liturgy is canon to them. They never read from Revelation yet it’s still in their Bible. They say hey 4 Maccabees isn’t part of the canon but its still traditionally in the Septuagint so its worthy to be read so put it in an appendix after the old Testament. Like it just seems so much more relaxed and I believe the Catholic Church was like that prior to the whole reformation and sola scriptura myth. This didn’t effect the Orthodox like it did the Catholic Church and their canon is not this set in stone like it or anathema to you kind of thing. The Gospels have the most regard of course but 3 Maccabees by tradition is just as worthy as being read as 2 Maccabees. The Catholic Church says 1 and 2 Maccabees are scripture and if you don’t like it anathema to you but oh 3 and 4 Maccabees which are also in the Septuagint are unacceptable. It’s just so binding and rigid and the early Church wasn’t like that at all.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This only illustrates that East and West faced different problems and had to address different issues. This should cause us to see compatibility, not reason to say who’s “better.”

You said it yourself – the Catholic Church had to deal with the Reformation. Because of the Reformers’ teachings, the Church had to clarify what is authentic and what is not, regarding authority, justification, Scripture, etc. The same was true for the undivided Church when it encountered schisms and heresies early on. Doctrine demanded development.

Regarding the canon — well, when it comes down to it, either a book is inspired, or it’s not, no? Orthodox believe the Word of God to be inspired, as do Catholics. Someone had to make the decision for the New Testament early on. The Church felt the need to clarify even more when the Protestants got rid of certain OT books.

If anything, knowing what is canonical – authentically God’s Word – is a plus, not a negative.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m becoming discouraged that you even understand the Catholic view.

I do understand - I just think infallibility is clearly a Catholic “development”.

The context is quite clear that Christ called Peter “Satan” because of his doubt and misunderstanding.

No. Jesus actually tells us why he calls Peter “Satan” - “you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns”.

But I understand your desire to “spin” this.

Do you really think Peter in that moment was acting “ex cathedra,” i.e., speaking the Faith for the entire Christian community?

Oh no, the uniquely Petrine idea of “ex cathedra” hadn’t been invented yet and every apostle potentially spoke with such authority - as evidenced by Paul (and John) having more books in the bible than Peter’s 1, maybe 2.

If Peter isn’t meant to have a successor, then out goes the Orthodox theory as well; since in your view, the primacy in the Church (Constantinople) is the continuation of Peter’s role of primacy.

As I’ve said numerous times before, I hold to continuing Petrine primacy. But Orthodoxy doesn’t need it nearly as much as Catholicism. The Orthodox would just need a new convention for who led processions when they meet. NBD.

Besides, the historical witness is that he did have a successor – and that this successor in Rome held the primacy.

Actually, no. Early writings list that the Church in Rome held the primacy - not any one man. This is a perennial problem that necessitates some Catholic scholars to concede to papal “development”.

else what’s the point of the Keys?

Why can’t the keys pass like they did in Isaiah?

Huh? Rome would naturally be tied to its bishop,

Awesome, pro-Catholic assumption. But an assumption is all you’ve got - which is fine, but that makes your belief a far more religious idea rather than a statement of fact.

Try out that MacCoulloch I recommended. Best secular historians can tell (at the time of his writing), Rome likely had a bishop, but decisions (a la “Rome decides”) were likely generated from the curial body of Christian thinkers that would have congregated there, it being the most famous of Churches and capital of the empire.
Of course, the acting bishop would have endorsed it.

Natural enough.

No, deceptive enough; he simply doesn’t say it. And shame on you.

But, even if we admitted your interpretation, that would mean that Rome itself understood its own primacy in terms of supremacy even at this early date

I love it.

Victor’s defeat is actually evidence for papal supremacy.

At this point the rational part of the conversation is pretty safely over. I’ll leave it to you.

 

[ziapueblo]

That document is highly kind to our Orthodox brethren

It’s misleading to say the primacy of Rome re: Peter came into being at the fourth century. It was the earliest theory of the primacy we have! And is clear from 3rd and 2nd century.

The document that you refer to as “highly kind” was put together by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. It’s on the Vatican website for everyone to read: SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH

 

[AlNg]

Leaving for the Orthodox means you will leave behind many of your Roman Catholic customs.

Not necessarily. You can join a western rite Orthodox Church.

 

[Onthisrock84]

Yah actually in America the Orthodox Church in America is very similar to the Catholic Church. The Divine Liturgy is said in English and everything.
What I’m curious about when it comes to Orthodoxy, do they use a common Missal? Like do all the Orthodox have the same readings of the day like in the Catholic Church?

 

[ziapueblo]

Yes. The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics use the same liturgy, Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great. The same liturgical cycle is used in both Churches however most Byzantine Catholics are on the Gregorian calendar (some on the Julian or Revised Julian) and Eastern Orthodox are on the Julian Calendar. Maybe some Orthodox are on the Revised Julian, I’m not sure.

ZP

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Maybe some Orthodox are on the Revised Julian, I’m not sure.

Most are here in the US.

 

[steve-b]

The unifying anchors of Orthodoxy are Jesus Christ and his Holy Tradition.

steve-b:

Jesus wants His Church to be perfectly one with Peter + those in union with Peter. THAT does NOT describe the “Orthodox” in schism. So the Orthodox in schism have abandoned the anchor Jesus gave, in favor of their own system, their own tradition…

Vonsalza:

The Orthodox have the Ecumenical Patriarch that serves in the primacy of honor, but they do not have the functional equivalent of a pope because Christianity doesn’t call for it.

steve-b:

Primacy of honor? What’s THAT mean when he calls for a Pan Orthodox council and a majority of Orthodox boycott the council and don’t show up?.

Vonsalza:

Like it or not, the Orthodox are ONE CHURCH. You just refuse to see that for polemical purposes. Which I kinda understand.

steve-b:

I showed you otherwise, with evidence, that they are NOT one Church. Card Kasper, in 2002, was head of ecumenical relations at the Vatican at the time He wrote that article I quoted. He had boots on the ground in his assessment. You’d see that if you opened links

steve-b:

No Pan Orthodox council took place.

vonsalza:

The fact that this is perfectly fine is difficult to accept for anyone who loves Catholic ecclesiology. If a Church wants to abstain from council, they are allowed to do that. It’s probably the single greatest reason Orthodoxy doesn’t have nearly the level of dogmatization and “development” seen in the west.

steve-b:

Those(the majority) who didn’t attend boycotted the council.

• Jesus specifically gave Peter the authority to rule. The Orthodox are still arguing over that.
• What’s the purpose of the EP in Orthodoxy when the majority of Orthodox don’t accept his authority either?

steve-b:

I can’t think of a single instance where the pope called a council (as in ecumenical) and a majority of the Church, via representatives, boycotted.

Vonsalza:

Really? I can.
The first seven ecumenical councils weren’t called by a pope, so they don’t count. After that, the east was gone.
Come to think of it, I can’t think of a council actually called by a pope that was actually ecumenical.

steve-b:

I said when the pope called the council.

BTW, The Catholic Church has had 21 Ecumenical councils.

Vonsalza:

And just like the story in Isaiah, they keys have passed because of amassing Petrine pride that Peter himself foreshadowed in Matthew 16:22-23.

steve-b:

God gave Peter the keys. Peter didn’t ask for them. He didn’t lobby for them. He didn’t ask for top job. He was to do what Jesus wanted of him as leader of the Church when Jesus returned to heaven. And Peter’s office was to continue throughout time with all the authority Jesus gave Peter and his office…

Vonsalza:

Christ guaranteed the Church, not Peter or any other fallible man.

Jesus guaranteed both

 

[theCardinalbird]

The Orthodox right now are in a crisis it seems, in terms of unity:

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBNmypc?m=en-ca&referrerID=InAppShare

and

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBNk8Ou?m=en-ca&referrerID=InAppShare

 

[steve-b]

I myself am insecure with my Catholicism. Especially when my irreligious friends joke that I change my religion every 2 seconds (I was raised as a non-denominational Evangelical, was an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian for a year, and I’ve now been a Catholic for a year and a half). Like countless other Catholics, I’m scandalized and dissaffected by ubiquitous liturgical abuses, the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc.

I feel torn. I don’t know how I can remain Catholic in good conscience, but I don’t know if I could be Orthodox in good conscience either. You don’t know how it feels until you come out of Mass in tears, asking yourself what has happened to your Church.

Both sides seem to make good points. Becoming Orthodox would require me to give up many things that I hold dear. (post-schism Catholic saints who at best would be material heretics, indulgences, the Traditional Latin Mass, scholastic theology, etc). Yet, I’m not certain that what I believe as a Catholic is false, that maybe the Church is just in one of its biggest low points righr now. Of course, I want to belong wherever the Truth lies and I pray that God guide me.

Jesus never promised the Church He established, would be impeccable. Afterall, He selected Judas. Jesus never promised no Judases in the Church looking forward in time… If I were to take a guess, Jesus selected Judas because He knew misbehavior looking forward in time would always be an issue. So this is not a reason to get derailed.

As a suggestion, keep your eyes on the good shepherds in the Church, and don’t let bad shepherds derail you.

 

[Onthisrock84]

What you think the Catholic Church isn’t in a crisis right now? We’re front page news in scandal.

 

[theCardinalbird]

What you think the Catholic Church isn’t in a crisis right now? We’re front page news in scandal.

Are we going to say that unity between Churches is the same as heinous abuses? Also this thread is about the Orthodox Church, I just am merely showing what is happening to their Church right now. I am not assuming anything I am observing.

 

[Vonsalza]

Got a scripture reference for that?

In all my decades of informal study and my few years with the Baptist seminarians, I’ve simply never seen it.

 

[steve-b]

Got a scripture reference for that?

In all my decades of informal study and my few years with the Baptist seminarians, I’ve simply never seen it.

Be specific, what scripture reference(s) do you want for what I said.

 

[Vonsalza]

This isn’t the same as a break in communion, so I wouldn’t call it a crisis - yet.

For those familiar with the history, what Kiev wants to do is highly understandable. But Kiev’s success means the ROC gets noticeably smaller. And it’s a slap in the face to Russian nationalistic notions of pan-slavism and a single Church that matches.

 

[Vonsalza]

Christ’s explicit guarantee of the petrine seat.

I’ve just never seen it.

 

[ziapueblo]

Re: true churches
Schism is a mortal sin. Those Orthodox who are separated from Peter and those in union with Peter are in schism.

First off, the excommunications were lifted.

Re: sister churches

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html 2000

I have read this document several times. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as sister Churches. Read the last paragraph:

1. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as having a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

Dominus Iesus
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

I believe that Lumen Gentium has a similar statement, but I’d have to read through the document again.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

Christ’s explicit guarantee of the petrine seat.

I’ve just never seen it.

Where in the OT do we see that Moses had a seat? It’s NOT there… in writing
Where in the OT do we see the scribes and pharisees sit on Moses seat? It’s not there…in writing
Where in the OT do we see everyone is to obey them because they sit on Moses seat? It’s not there…in writing

Do People in the NT take exception to that information, when they hear this? No

Why?

Where did Jesus and everyone else get Moses seat from? Oral Tradition.

And

Jesus validates oral Tradition’s authority.

Did Moses have a literal chair he ruled from? It’s a symbol. Much like a judge’s bench he rules from. He doesn’t need to sit at a literal bench in order to rule. But it is a phrase everyone understands because of tradition.

AND

there was succession to Moses down to that day

AND

Tradition oral and written, carries on in the NT

When Paul says to hold fast to the traditions you were taught by us, he adds, both oral and written traditions. IOW it’s both not either / or but BOTH. That’s because NOT everything is written down in scripture. As John so pointedly describes John 21:25 RSVCE - But there are also many other things - Bible Gateway

SO

When Judas died, Peter called for his replacement. All voted and Judas office of bishop was replaced by Mathias. Just like when Peter died his office was replaced by another and another and another down to our day.

As Irenaeus wrote in his day ~ A.D. 180, he names 12 bishops of Rome in succession of Peter in making his points against the heresies going on in his day. Count them yourself Bk 3 Ch 3 para 2-3

Fast Forward ~250 A.D.

St and Bp Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [ cathedra ], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

Re: cathedra

Remember back on Jesus statement about “Moses seat”

In Greek that reads
Μωϋσέως = Móusés = Moses
καθέδρας = kathedra = seat, chair

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: true churches
Schism is a mortal sin. Those Orthodox who are separated from Peter and those in union with Peter are in schism.

First off, the excommunications were lifted.

But schism persists.

Re: sister churches

1. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html 2000

ziapueblo:

I have read this document several times. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as sister Churches. Read the last paragraph:

1. Finally, it must also be borne in mind that the expression sister Churches in the proper sense, as attested by the common Tradition of East and West, may only be used for those ecclesial communities that have preserved a valid Episcopate and Eucharist.

That doesn’t discount what was said in para 10. There is a distinction being made

1. In fact, in the proper sense, sister Churches are exclusively particular Churches (or groupings of particular Churches; for example, the Patriarchates or Metropolitan provinces) among themselves.[7] It must always be clear, when the expression sister Churches is used in this proper sense, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Universal Church is not sister but mother of all the particular Churches.[8]