Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[Mickey]

Until Vatican I there probably weren’t any differences that couldn’t be worked through with a little good will and patience. But with Vatican I the rules were changed.

Good point Jimmy.

 

[steve_b]

True, but there have always been differences. Ever since the west used Latin, the Mediterranean used Syriac, and etc there have been differences from church to church. But differences don’t necessarily mean division. For a long time the Greeks and latins had communion despite many differences. There was even a persistence of communion with the Syriacs despite differences.

Just a point for clarification, On the cross, the plack over Our Lord’s head was written in 3 languages John 19:19-20 Latin obviously being one of the popular languages of the day.
j:

Until Vatican I there probably weren’t any differences that couldn’t be worked through with a little good will and patience. But with Vatican I the rules were changed. The concept of infallibility changes the whole game. There is no potential for real dialogue anymore because there is a stamp of guarantee on the Catholic Church. The Roman Church is correct before any argument can be made, and consequently any argument that contradicts the established belief is automatically false. There can be no argument about how or why Rome is wrong because Rome is right.

for clarification, mischaracterizartions of the CC teaching on infallibility, is usually behind and cause, for all the fuss… Catholics see it all the time on these forums.

 

[jimmy]

Just a point for clarification, On the cross, the plack over Our Lord’s head was written in 3 languages John 19:19-20 Latin obviously being one of the popular languages of the day.

for clarification, mischaracterizartions of the CC teaching on infallibility, is usually behind and cause, for all the fuss… Catholics see it all the time on these forums.

I disagree with your second point. There is no concept of infallibility at all in the east. No person or group of persons is infallible. It doesn’t matter how many stamps are placed on it, it doesn’t become infallible. So it doesn’t matter how someone mischaracterizes the western doctrine of infallibility.

The fact is that the west believes infallibility can be invoked; the east doesn’t. And since it is Rome that invokes infallibility, and no one else, Rome is right and everyone else is ipso facto wrong. Apart from Rome there is no infallibility.

 

[dvdjs]

Until Vatican I there probably weren’t any differences that couldn’t be worked through with a little good will and patience.

But apparently that was not the view during those times. And, we see insurmountable obstacles now - but in the future will it seem that we missed opportunities owing to a lack of good will and patience?

 

[Peter_J]

I disagree with your second point. There is no concept of infallibility at all in the east. No person or group of persons is infallible. It doesn’t matter how many stamps are placed on it, it doesn’t become infallible. So it doesn’t matter how someone mischaracterizes the western doctrine of infallibility.

The fact is that the west believes infallibility can be invoked; the east doesn’t. And since it is Rome that invokes infallibility, and no one else, Rome is right and everyone else is ipso facto wrong. Apart from Rome there is no infallibility.

Not meaning to be difficult, but perhaps a little more precision here would help.

You say there *is *no concept of infallibility in the east, but I would say there *was *no concept of infallibility in the east traditionally – now there is (among Eastern Catholics, to be specific).

 

[dvdjs]

I disagree with your second point. There is no concept of infallibility at all in the east. No person or group of persons is infallible.

Of course the concept exists, not only in the East, but in every church. All churches claim that they speak the truth in their dogma, and that, as truth, it is irreformable. Papal infallability recognizes that the Pope gives the final word on matters of dogma - causa finitas est. This idea is, of course, dates from far before Vatican I. (This role does not grant authority as much as it circumscribes it; no Pope can change overturn a binding precedent.) Orthodox deny this role of the the Pope, and deny its implication in Primacy, but they do not dispute the concept of Primacy, neither do they deny the concept of irreformable truth, nor that the church pronounces it.

 

[jimmy]

Of course the concept exists, not only in the East, but in every church. All churches claim that they speak the truth in their dogma, and that, as truth, it is irreformable. Papal infallability recognizes that the Pope gives the final word on matters of dogma - causa finitas est. This idea is, of course, dates from far before Vatican I. (This role does not grant authority as much as it circumscribes it; no Pope can change overturn a binding precedent.) Orthodox deny this role of the the Pope, and deny its implication in Primacy, but they do not dispute the concept of Primacy, neither do they deny the concept of irreformable truth, nor that the church pronounces it.

There is a concept of indefectibility, and of providence, but not of infallibility. There is no guarantee that the Greeks, Syrians, Russians, or whoever will define doctrine accurately. There isn’t any gaurantee that they will remain true, or even survive. There is no guarantee that a council will be true. What there is is a gaurantee that the Church will always survive, and it will always remain true to its foundation. And God will always provide for it. It is basically the negative of infallibility. Whereas infallibility guarantees am authority that will bee able to define the truth accurately, the east (both eastern and oriental) believe there will always be a remnant that will hold to what was handed down.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…There is no guarantee that the Greeks, Syrians, Russians, or whoever will define doctrine accurately. There isn’t any gaurantee that they will remain true, or even survive. There is no guarantee that a council will be true. What there is is a gaurantee that the Church will always survive, and it will always remain true to its foundation. And God will always provide for it…

Very interesting. I’m not sure I could belong to the Orthodox Church which could be wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity.

 

[jimmy]

Very interesting. I’m not sure I could belong to the Orthodox Church which could be wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity.

It’s a question of faith. Why do you trust that Rome has remained true? Because they said so? Maybe, but I doubt it. Faith is the only way you can trust either the east or the west. You have faith, and so do the Orthodox. The only difference is that the Orthodox don’t make any guarantees on their authority. It is left to faith.

 

[Peter_J]

Very interesting. I’m not sure I could belong to the Orthodox Church which could be wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity.

Stylteralmaldo, do you believe that your pastor “could be wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity”?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

It’s a question of faith. Why do you trust that Rome has remained true? Because they said so? Maybe, but I doubt it. Faith is the only way you can trust either the east or the west. You have faith, and so do the Orthodox. The only difference is that the Orthodox don’t make any guarantees on their authority. It is left to faith.

Well, their aren’t any guarantees in life, so yeah, it does boil down to faith. It just seems odd that there is no claim by the Orthodox to be an authority in matters of faith.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Stylteralmaldo, do you believe that your pastor “could be wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity”?

I suppose he could be. However, I can measure what he may be teaching the faithful against the authority of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Actually, if I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox believe the Catholic Church is wrong about something as central as the Blessed Trinity. It seems to have caused a break in the Church in 1054.

But I guess I don’t have to worry about that because the Orthodox aren’t necessarily convinced they’ve got it all right anyway because they have no claim of a special charism of protection from error in such matters?

 

[Peter_J]

Oh now I see!

I guess the next step is we should call the Vatican and tell them the bad news about the Orthodox.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Please don’t mis-understand. I’m just having a difficult time grasping the concept of Christianity without the need for an authoritative body that you can rely on that does not err in it’s understanding of the faith.

For this Western thinker, it seems so well…Protestant-like.

 

[Peter_J]

Please don’t mis-understand. I’m just having a difficult time grasping the concept of Christianity without the need for an authoritative body that you can rely on that does not err in it’s understanding of the faith.

For this Western thinker, it seems so well…Protestant-like.

Thank you for realizing that I wasn’t serious in suggesting we need to call the Vatican.

 

[jimmy]

Well, their aren’t any guarantees in life, so yeah, it does boil down to faith. It just seems odd that there is no claim by the Orthodox to be an authority in matters of faith.

They do claim to be an authority, just not an infallible one.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thank you for realizing that I wasn’t serious in suggesting we need to call the Vatican.

No problem and no worries. After all, the Pope has a direct line to God at the Vatican. :tiphat:

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

They do claim to be an authority, just not an infallible one.

I appreciate the clarification. I was starting to wonder. Yet, I wonder how much certainty Orthodox have in their leaders. When I think of Protestants (for example), their claim for authority-reliance is to go to the Bible (sola scriptura). Protestants appear to treat the Bible as superseding the authority of their church leaders to the point of treating the Bible as the one and only infallible source. Yet it appears from this conversation that NOTHING is known to be infallible from the point of view of an Orthodox…just have faith that God will provide and trust you’re in the right place and don’t worry. With this logic, it seems you can’t trust anything is true with certainty but that’s somehow okay. Am I missing something in my analogy?

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

I appreciate the clarification. I was starting to wonder. Yet, I wonder how much certainty Orthodox have in their leaders. When I think of Protestants (for example), their claim for authority-reliance is to go to the Bible (sola scriptura). Protestants appear to treat the Bible as superseding the authority of their church leaders to the point of treating the Bible as the one and only infallible source. Yet it appears from this conversation that NOTHING is known to be infallible from the point of view of an Orthodox…just have faith that God will provide and trust you’re in the right place and don’t worry. With this logic, it seems you can’t trust anything is true with certainty but that’s somehow okay. Am I missing something in my analogy?

Im Orthodox and I trust his all holiness patriarch kirill and all church leadership. Im not sure what you are saying?

 

[ConstantineTG]

When I was catechized, the priest taught me that in order to accept the Catholic faith, I HAD to believe everything in the Nicene Creed. He specifically said that I did not have to accept any Marion doctrine if I did not choose to do so. Ultimately, I developed a deep devotion to Mary. But really, the average Catholic does not go around thinking about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception all the time. Maybe some do…but I’ve never met anyone who did. I might get verbally stoned by someone out there, but I don’t think it is worth arguing about. But I do think that miracles occur at Lourdes so, hmmm.

I wish that the Eastern and Western churches could reunite, but I don’t see the Orthodox Church wanting to any time in the near future (if ever.) I do agree that one Church under Rome would change much of what I LOVE about the Orthodox Church. And, I don’t see the Roman Church giving up on the primacy of the pope. So…sigh.

But that is wrong. It is a dogma in the Catholic Church, if people don’t understand it, then there is something wrong with their faith.

The Orthodox Church does want to reunite, but why do you think that is has to be under Rome? We believe we have the truth and Rome needs to accept this truth, which includes no one besides Rome being under Rome.