Are the Orthodox right?

[ziapueblo]

And what about Dominus Iesus?

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

If the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox have a valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist they “are particular Churches,” and “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church . . .”

ZP

 

[steve-b]

And what about Dominus Iesus?

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

If the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox have a valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist they “are particular Churches,” and “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church . . .”

ZP

“particular” church is one issue. “Mother” to all the particular churches is another issue

 

[Vonsalza]

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

Sure it is. We have the direct words of Christ indicating their reality.

The papacy absolutely and unambiguously enjoys no such support.

Sorry Steve. Catholicism is born of faith, not fact.

When we “stand back and squint”, I think Orthodoxy is clearly the more defensible faith. Again, it’s fine that you disagree.

there was succession to Moses down to that day

Moses didn’t originate the priesthood - Melchezidek (sp?) did. You’ve another 500 years to link.

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.

It’s here where I think Orthodoxy shines. They preserve the traditions handed down while the Catholics have “developed”. Ratzinger agrees in the Ratzinger report, albeit he would argue such development is/was necessary.

So much for “holding fast” per Paul, right?

When Judas died, Peter called for his replacement. All voted and Judas office of bishop was replaced by Mathias.

Another check-mark for Orthodoxy, Steve. Mattias wasn’t a papal appointee as your bishops are now. He was elected as Orthodox bishops are now.

On him [Peter] he builds the Church,

As we all know, Augustine finished his life openly questioning this. The Church was built on the rock of faith. If you had to place foundation upon a man, Christ is your only choice.

 

[Mary888]

YES WE ARE.
10 characters MINUS FILIOQUE!

 

[Vico]

…

Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras wrote, 1971:

“Up till the year 1054 , when the schism occurred, there existed numerous differences between the two Churches, often expressed in a violent manner and going as far as a breaking-off of relations, as was the case under the Ecumenical Patriarch Saint Photius I. Nevertheless, unity in the sacraments, and notably in the Eucharist, the common cup, was undoubtedly constantly preserved. The schism of 1054 did not take place as the result of a decision of West and East; nor was it confirmed by decisions on the part of Rome and Constantinople, it imposed itself when the two churches ceased to love one another. Now the schism has been abolished …”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ion_service/pdf/information_service_15_en.pdf

 

[HeDa]

LaudeturIesus. You write that you have only been Catholic for a year and a half. Being Catholic is a process until the very last breath we take. The first three years are there for us converts to grow into the Church and find our place in the Church. What did God have in mind for me? Where does He want me to serve Him and my neighbour? There is a good reason also why converts have to wait three years before even thinking of entering into religious life or the priesthood. We need to stand with both feet solidly on the ground and not be driven by our emotions. To find our place in our parish and later in the diocese as a whole. I, myself noticed a big change in perspective after three years. Before being Catholic was like getting dressed like a little kid learning to put on clothes in wrong sizes and wrong order. After being received into the Catholic Church was like finally wearing clothes that fit me but slightly to large so that I can grow.

People sin by free will. The problem is that most often other people are affected by their decisions to choose to do what is evil. This is what I really like about being Catholic (coming from a protestant background) - we choose by free will to do good or evil. When we sin and are sorry for our sins we go to Confession and say we are sorry. Then hear we are forgiven “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”. Leave and do our best not to sin anymore. If someone commits a crime then deal with it in court according to the country´s jurisdiction.

 

[ziapueblo]

Sister Churches are churches that share apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist which the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox have both even if they are not in communion with us.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

Sure it is. We have the direct words of Christ indicating their reality.

You obviously missed the point about “not in writing”, and “oral tradition”.

Vonsalza:

The papacy absolutely and unambiguously enjoys no such support.

Sorry Steve. Catholicism is born of faith, not fact.

facts have all been properly referenced. You Don’t open links, and you Deny all the facts so do that all you want. People all over the planet can read these posts and open the links. They see the evidence.

Vonsalza:

When we “stand back and squint”, I think Orthodoxy is clearly the more defensible faith. Again, it’s fine that you disagree.

No squinting necessary. Your posts are completely absent of evidence.

Vonsalza:

Moses didn’t originate the priesthood - Melchezidek (sp?) did. You’ve another 500 years to link.

I never said anything about that. The point was Peters seat that you brought up. So I answered you here

And I also said

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.
[/quote]

Vonsalza:

It’s here where I think Orthodoxy shines. They preserve the traditions handed down while the Catholics have “developed”. Ratzinger agrees in the Ratzinger report, albeit he would argue such development is/was necessary.

So much for “holding fast” per Paul, right?

Dividing from Peter is deliberately going against Jesus, which won’t be good for those who do it and remain so.

Because

Schism is a condemned activity.

That said

When Judas died, Peter called for his replacement. All voted and Judas office of bishop was replaced by Mathias. THAT’S the Catholic way.

Vonsalza:

Another check-mark for Orthodoxy, Steve. Mattias wasn’t a papal appointee as your bishops are now. He was elected as Orthodox bishops are now.

Who called for the vote? Peter.

the Orthodox left Peter. A very unorthodox move.

On [Peter] and those in union with Peter, Jesus builds His Church.

Vonsalza:

As we all know, Augustine finished his life openly questioning this. The Church was built on the rock of faith. If you had to place foundation upon a man, Christ is your only choice.

In the end, Augustine always followed the Catholic Church. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have been made a doctor of the Church.

 

[steve-b]

Sister Churches are churches that share apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist which the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox have both even if they are not in communion with us.

ZP

There is only ONE Mother Church

 

[AlNg]

There is only ONE Mother Church

I thought that the Church had two lungs? Was Pope Francis wrong to hope so?
https://mercyetcetera.com/2016/02/19/pope-francis-hoping-church-to-breathe-with-two-lungs/

Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe Together Again? - Europe - International - News - Catholic Online

Move toward full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches most important development of the Third Christian Millennium The move toward full communion between the Orthodox and Catholic ...

www.catholic.org

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

There is only ONE Mother Church

I thought that the Church had two lungs? Was Pope Francis wrong to hope so?

• https://mercyetcetera.com/2016/02/19/pope-francis-hoping-church-to-breathe-with-two-lungs/
• Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe Together Again? - Europe - International - News - Catholic Online

What I’m seeing, article after article, is after 1000 years of division, we might be using fluffy language these days, but we’re still divided with no positive change in that position, in sight. Popes have offered truly stunning suggestions, and still no changes have occurred.

Re: 2 lungs:

That’s also been used for converts to the Catholic Church, and obviously Eastern Catholic Rites.

 

[ziapueblo]

As a Byzantine Catholic I don’t disagree with you. I have never said that the Catholic and Orthodox Church are in full communion. I’ve only said that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as True Churches and Sisiter Churches. By doing so we acknowledge the Orthodox priesthood and Eucharist. At the very least we are in an imperfect communion with the Orthodox.

ZP

 

[fhansen]

Is there a single, unified voice from within the Orthodox world that can speak for what is “right” for the various churches? Or, is there a consistent, unified set of beliefs that they can together base their positions on?

 

[fhansen]

As a Byzantine Catholic I don’t disagree with you. I have never said that the Catholic and Orthodox Church are in full communion. I’ve only said that the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox as True Churches and Sisiter Churches. By doing so we acknowledge the Orthodox priesthood and Eucharist. At the very least we are in an imperfect communion with the Orthodox.

ZP

From the Catholic perspective we’re in that communion. But who could ever speak from the Orthodox side to even affirm such a position?

 

[Vonsalza]

You obviously missed the point about “not in writing”, and “oral tradition”.

slaps forehead

We have Christ’s words on the topic… because they’re written, Steve.

You Don’t open links,

It might surprise you to know that I’m already familiar with almost everything you’ve referenced.

I’m simply unconvinced, Steve. Sorry.

Based on the facts I have seen and my conscience, I simply cannot affirm the Catholic Church as the same Church started by Jesus Christ.

Dividing from Peter is deliberately going against Jesus, which won’t be good for those who do it and remain so.

“Peter” divided away from Orthodoxy.

Christ forewarned us of it when he told Peter “you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” shortly after calling him “Satan”.

Schism is a condemned activity.

I eagerly await your submission to Orthodoxy.

When Judas died, Peter called for his replacement. All voted and Judas office of bishop was replaced by Mathias. THAT’S the Catholic way.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope appoints the bishops. But I bet you already knew that while you waffle here between “development” and “tradition” on your priesthood.

Who called for the vote? Peter.

The Orthodox have no problem with Peter sitting at the head of the table.

But they get to vote, as the election of Mattias shows.

In the current development of the Catholic Church, they only get a “vote” through milquetoast “collegiality” - IF the pope allows it at all…

the Orthodox left Peter.

No, “Peter” left Orthodoxy.

On [Peter] and those in union with Peter, Jesus builds His Church.

Again, it’s “faith” and not Peter.
Christianity just emerged from a tradition with a strong centralized priesthood. Christ was very generous in his condemnations of it.

In the end, Augustine always followed the Catholic Church. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have been made a doctor of the Church.

I can’t speak to why he was named a doctor, but his Retractations is where he presents that Peter’s faith is the “Rock of the Church”.

His death was soon after.

 

[ziapueblo]

That’s a tough question. I think that it depends. What is on paper and what is practiced is different. In the “old country,” Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there is a lot of intercommunion going on. Think about it, there are family members that are Greek Catholic and others that are Eastern Orthodox. They don’t see a difference other than one is in communion with Rome and the other is not.

In my experience, many of the Orthodox I know don’t see a difference between the two Churches. The ones that see differently, so those who don’t recognize Catholic sacraments as being valid for example, tend to be Protestant coverts to Orthodoxy. Again, this is just my experience.

Overall, the Orthodox have been welcoming to my family and I. Maybe it’s because we are Byzantine Catholic so they see us as having something more in common with them (Liturgy, theology, etc.)? When we are out of town on vacation we go to Orthodox Churches. There have been occasions were the priest has allowed us to receive communion. Of course, these as Churches that tend to have a large Byzantine Catholic counterpart such as the Antiochian Orthodox Church or ACROD, and the OCA at times. I have a friend that when he goes back home to see his family there are no Byzantine Catholic Churches so he attends Liturgy at the local OCA. They all know that he is a Greek Catholic and they allow him to receive.

Here are some quotes I’ve found from the Orthodox perspective. Now, it’s not that many but I think it shows what most Orthodox think:

Father Georges Florovsky said there is ecclesiology in the Roman Catholic Church in his article “On the Limits of the Church.”

Fr. Georges Florovsky said that “the Church is operative in the Roman Catholic Church, but not fully present.”

Reception of Roman Catholics by Chrismation was affirmed by the Council of Trullo, the 1667 Synod in Moscow and the Council of Jerusalem.

Saint Mark of Ephesus after the Council of Florence, forbade the rebaptism of Roman Catholics.

Saint Philaret of Moscow spoke of the separation as a wound in Christ’s body, and he speaks of the Western Church as wounded half dead limb. He calls the Roman Church a Church that’s not “fully true.” He doesn’t call Rome a false Church.

 

[theCardinalbird]

But they get to vote, as the election of Mattias shows.

1:23. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

1:24. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

1:25. To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

1:26. And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It does not appear that the apostles voted on majority rules as to who would, in the end, recieve the bishopric.

The essence of apostolic succession is that each bishop has been ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone, etc., all the way down to the original apostles. Apostolic succession is dependent upon the valid passing on of the sacrament of holy orders.

Local bishops have been chosen in various ways throughout history. Sometimes it was done by local clergy with the approval or rejection by bishops from the surrounding area. Other times the metropolitan bishop decided himself who would be a bishop. By the Middle Ages, the practice had been adopted that the monarch would choose or have a veto over who would be a bishop in his kingdom. Even in the early nineteenth century, the British monarch held veto power over who could be appointed a Catholic bishop in Ireland. This matter was highly contentious throughout history. Sometimes the Church had agreements with governments, and sometimes there were great disagreements over the terms.

It must be noted that while monarchs could sometimes choose who would be appointed to a diocese within his kingdom and who would become a bishop, they did not ordain anyone bishop. The sacrament of holy orders was always passed on through the laying on of hands and appropriate Church ritual. Therefore, apostolic succession was perfectly protected, even though the selection of the bishop was a less than ideal process.

 

[theCardinalbird]

“Peter” divided away from Orthodoxy.

Christ forewarned us of it when he told Peter “you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” shortly after calling him “Satan”.

Seriously?

22 And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee.

23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.

That is taking what Jesus said out of context. He rebuked hm because Peter didn’t want him to be crucified. He didn’t fall away from Orthodoxy for good! If that were so, then why didn’t Jesus remove him from his position before his ascension? Why did he charge Peter, who you say fell from Orthodoxy, to feed his sheep? To feed his lambs? Why was Peter given the power of the Holy Ghost? Why was he part of the Council of Jerusalem?

He said this after he died on the cross:

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

18 Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.

19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

20 Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee?

21 Him therefore when Peter had seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me.

23 This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die; but, So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee?

Your assertions that Peter divided away from Orthodoxy forever are not supported by scripture or even tradition. The Church Father’s also have not even said Peter divided away from Orthodoxy. In fact, even scripture shows Peter doing great things for the early Church, especially in Acts.

 

[fhansen]

I’m sure there’s plenty of friendliness out there from both sides, along with some intense contention, but people are generally speaking from a personal basis in that case, laity or theologians alike-whereas the RCC has an official position, FWIW. I just wonder how the required unity could take place on high enough Orthodox levels at this point for them to be able to make a real difference in this matter, if they had the wherewithal.

 

[AlNg]

we might be using fluffy language these days,

So in other words, the two lung theory is “fluffy language” and not to be taken seriously?