Catholic or Orthodox

[dzheremi]

What on earth is taking a definition of phyletism from Wikipedia supposed to show? How does that definition relate to the existence of ethnically-defined churches in the Roman communion, or more to the point, why is it the case that you guys don’t have the problem even though you have an even greater number of ethnically/nationally-defined churches than the EO do? (The Maronites, the Italo-Albanians, the various East Syriacs, etc.) Simply defining what phyletism is doesn’t answer anything.

 

[josie_L]

I can hardly see how one can pass off a rival college of cardinals electing another pope, claiming that the one elected just months prior was insane, as being merely an external issue. It certainly did reflect a structural issue within the Latin church at that time, as the case of the Avignon line of cardinals was canonically sound. Indeed, even contemporary Latins thought of the issue as a structural issue. Indeed, most theologians and canonists saw a sort of Gordian Knot, a situation with no clear solution; as canonist Conrad of Gelnhausen put it:It is impossible for the general council to be held or celebrated without the authority of the pope. But to convene such a council in the present case the authority of the pope cannot step in, because no single person is universally recognized as pope, nor is any individual generally obeyed as pope, and if the council were to be convoked by the authority of the one or the other person now in question, he would in virtue of this be recognized as pope; and from this it is to be inferred that they cannot both authorize it, because there cannot be more than one supreme pontiff.

Cavarodossi, has what happened in the 14th century ever happened again? And after condemning Phyletism have the EO been able to get rid of this heresy or does it still persist?

 

[Mike_SoCal]

The New Testament is Orthodox Christianity.

Any teaching or practice not outlined in the NT is added?

I’m not saying it is wrong, just not Orthodox.

For Example: Ephesians 2:7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Most Christian Religious groups today teach salvation by works or by sacraments.
This is not Orthodox.

Infant Baptism, not orthodox.

A Bishop (overseer or pastor) is described by Paul as a married man, a family man, of good reputation, and non drinker. 1 Timothy 3:2

If you seek Orthodoxy, Read the Bible. There is no other source.

 

[josie_L]

What on earth is taking a definition of phyletism from Wikipedia supposed to show? How does that definition relate to the existence of ethnically-defined churches in the Roman communion, or more to the point, why is it the case that you guys don’t have the problem even though you have an even greater number of ethnically/nationally-defined churches than the EO do? (The Maronites, the Italo-Albanians, the various East Syriacs, etc.) Simply defining what phyletism is doesn’t answer anything.

That you have an erroneous understanding of what phyletism is. As per the words of Metropolitan Jonah (Sept 2008) of the Orthodox Church in America:

The problem is not so much the multiple overlapping jurisdictions, each ministering to diverse elements of the population. This could be adapted as a means of dealing with the legitimate diversity of ministries within a local or national Church. The problem is that there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic, linguistic and cultural divisions: there is no synod of bishops responsible for all the churches in America, and no primacy or point of accountability in the Orthodox world with the authority to correct such a situation.[6]

And:

Father Josiah Trenham lists the following divisions of pastoral practice among the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States:[7]

1.Some Orthodox jurisdictions receive persons from Latin and certain Protestant bodies into Holy Orthodoxy by baptism and chrismation, some by chrismation alone, and some merely by confession of faith.
2.Some Orthodox jurisdictions receive Latin clergy converting to Holy Orthodoxy merely by vesting, while others ordain.
3.Some Orthodox jurisdictions recognize all marriages performed outside Holy Orthodoxy as being real marriages (though certainly not sacramental) whether performed for an Orthodox or non-Orthodox, while others recognize no marriages performed outside Holy Orthodoxy whether performed for an Orthodox or a non-Orthodox.
4.Some Orthodox jurisdictions bury suicides under certain circumstances, while others forbid the burial of suicides under all circumstances.
5.Some Orthodox jurisdictions bury a person who was cremated with all funeral rites in the church temple, others permit only Trisagion Prayers of Mercy in the funeral home, some forbid any prayers anywhere for a person who was cremated.
6.Some Orthodox jurisdictions recognize civil divorce as complete and sufficient for ecclesiastical purposes, while others do not recognize civil divorce at all and insist on Church Tribunals, while yet other deal with divorce in other ways.
7.Some Orthodox jurisdictions penance a person when he/she is divorced (either by civil or Church court), while others penance a person only after he/she enters into a second or third marriage.
8.Some Orthodox jurisdictions accept clergy suspended or even deposed by other Orthodox jurisdictions.
9.Some Orthodox jurisdictions ignore bans of excommunication pronounced by hierarchs of other Orthodox jurisdictions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Which Orthodox do you consider truth? It is my understanding there are multiple communions within Orthodox.

Peace!!!

Your understanding is not correct. There are multiple Orthdox “churches” or “jurisdictions” according to which patriarch they are under, but there is one overarching Orthodox faith, and it is the same in Russia, or Greece or Romania, or wherever.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

It might help if you started by posting a link to the tract.

Sorry it took me a while to find it again. Turns out it’s more of a short essay than a tract.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

Given the way you have phrased that, would I be wrong in supposing that the article’s argument is based on the idea that we have an identical concept of infallibility as currently rests on the Pope in Roman theology.

I don’t think that’s the case, though I may very well be wrong since I’m neither Catholic nor Orthodox and am just trying to get a firm understanding of what each church believes about infallibility on its own terms. From the way I read the article it sounds like the author is assuming that both churches understand the Church’s infallibility the same way and then is trying to deduce from this a priori assumption that the Orthodox application of infallibility is circular.

The reason why I’ve asked for any published rebuttals to this argument (or similar ones)
is because there seems to be implicit premises of the author necessary for his argument to work and since I’m far removed from either church’s understanding of infallibility I’m unable to know if he’s applying the papal understanding of infallibility to said premises (just as you stated in your response).

It’s a bit of a read so I understand if you have no desire reading it, but if you know of any resources that either rebuts the idea of the Orthodox application of infallibility as being circular in logic, or one that succinctly explains the Orthodox understanding of infallibility in general, it would be quite helpful to me. Thanks Nine_Two!

I can say right off that aside from not believing in that sort of infallibility, the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is itself based on collegiality (as Eastern Catholics will point out), and the collegiality that grants that is based on the same principles of our own collegiality. Which means, in short, if our reasoning is circular, yours is equally circular, with an extra step at the end.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The New Testament is Orthodox Christianity.

Any teaching or practice not outlined in the NT is added?

I’m not saying it is wrong, just not Orthodox.

For Example: Ephesians 2:7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Most Christian Religious groups today teach salvation by works or by sacraments.
This is not Orthodox.

Infant Baptism, not orthodox.

A Bishop (overseer or pastor) is described by Paul as a married man, a family man, of good reputation, and non drinker. 1 Timothy 3:2

If you seek Orthodoxy, Read the Bible. There is no other source.

Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics on this forum will reject your presupposition of sola scriptura- scripture only. There are a host of good reasons for doing so, but I will give you two quick and decisive ones:

1. The Church produced the Bible, not the opther way around. The Church existed and surivived persecution for at least 300 years before the canon of the New Testament was compiled. If sola scriptura was correct, that would be impossible since the Church would be without the only source of authority- the Bible.
2. Sola scriptura is an oxymoron- a self-contradicting statement, since it is extra-scriptural- the New Testament nowhere teaches it.

Now back to our program.

 

[joe371]

Expatreprocedit;. Sola scriptura is an oxymoron- a self-contradicting statement, since it is extra-scriptural- the New Testament nowhere teaches it.

Exactly. I am told by SS advocates that Mary’s Assumption is extra-scriptural and therefore not to be believed, and yet their core doctrine is extra-biblical.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

tks Randy, wish I was so eloquent in explaining why I’m proud to be Catholic…I have recently befriended an Orthodox Priest, Monk,hieromonk to be exact…we have breakfast one day a week and we talk…our conversations have prompted me to do some reading…interestingly, he was once Catholic and studying in a Seminary. He claims he became disillusioned about the time of V-2. He knows that I am grounded in my faith and we don’t argue. the Papacy, filioque, original sin, and purgatory…ofcourse the Eastern Catholic church liturgy is the exact same liturgy as his…I have been to both (not in lieu of Mass)…I do have one question Randy, Fr. Pacwa (EWTN) had a guest on the other evening, a Monk , Eastern Orthodox …ofcourse they were fielding questions which were very fundamental…but nevertheless good for the average Catholic…my friend would have referred to these Byzantine Catholics as Uniate…my understanding is that this is somewhat of an ‘ugly’ term…to discribe what he would call those who jumped ship, so to speak…now…my question…which I was unable to call in…was…I am to assume that the Eastern rite catholics…accept EVERYTHING the Catholic church teaches…i.e. Puratory, original Sin, etc…would would imagine…but I would have loved to had the good Father answer my question…Please accept my comments/questions in the loving fashion in which they are intended…I have the utmost respect for my friend and it’s my understanding that they are considered the ‘other lung’ of the church…PAX…tks for letting me ramble

 

[Peter_J]

The New Testament is Orthodox Christianity.

I generally don’t make a habit of pointing out poor grammar, but I think I should in this case because capitalizing “orthodox” messes up what you’re trying to say here.

 

[adf417]

Your understanding is not correct. There are multiple Orthdox “churches” or “jurisdictions” according to which patriarch they are under, but there is one overarching Orthodox faith, and it is the same in Russia, or Greece or Romania, or wherever.

Thank you, and others, for helping me begin to understand even though it has been told to me before without understanding. I think I’m beginning to grasp.

The question is now, how does one learn which orthodox church is of the true orthodox faith? Surly they are all going to say “they” are. So how does one determine the true faith?

Peace!!!

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you, and others, for helping me begin to understand even though it has been told to me before without understanding. I think I’m beginning to grasp.

The question is now, how does one learn which orthodox church is of the true orthodox faith? Surly they are all going to say “they” are. So how does one determine the true faith?

Peace!!!

Well consider: suppose I start a new denomination and call it “the Roman Catholic Church”. Would that create a problem for your faith?

 

[dzheremi]

And the crowd goes wild! Peter J, with the walk-off home run! (Sorry…I’ve been watching a lot of baseball lately.)

Seriously, folks…I’m not going to say that it’s ridiculous that people wonder these things (after all, it’s not your church, so it’s natural to wonder), but a lot of trouble or confusion could be saved by thinking “Would the same situation, if it were to exist in my church (or if I could admit to myself that it already does, e.g., phyletism) suddenly cause me to consider my own communion as confusing or unstable or broken or (insert your own adjective here) as I am assuming the Orthodox communion is by virtue of the fact that its ecclesiological view and structure is not exactly the same as that of my communion?” If the answer to this question is “No, it wouldn’t”, then you can safely assume that the answer for the Orthodox is the same (i.e., there may be problems, but they don’t call into question the fundamental nature of the Church or its ecclesiology).

 

[josie_L]

And the crowd goes wild! Peter J, with the walk-off home run! (Sorry…I’ve been watching a lot of baseball lately.)

Seriously, folks…I’m not going to say that it’s ridiculous that people wonder these things (after all, it’s not your church, so it’s natural to wonder), but a lot of trouble or confusion could be saved by thinking “Would the same situation, if it were to exist in my church (or if I could admit to myself that it already does, e.g., phyletism) suddenly cause me to consider my own communion as confusing or unstable or broken or (insert your own adjective here) as I am assuming the Orthodox communion is by virtue of the fact that its ecclesiological view and structure is not exactly the same as that of my communion?” If the answer to this question is “No, it wouldn’t”, then you can safely assume that the answer for the Orthodox is the same (i.e., there may be problems, but they don’t call into question the fundamental nature of the Church or its ecclesiology).

Sorry, but you have an erroneous understanding of what phyletism is.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m sure there are some external factors involved but I also think that Orthodoxy has internal issues because of its structure/ecclesiology (such as phyletism), i.e., it’s hard to resolve issues in Orthodoxy because there is no tangible way of practically enforcing them.

It may be due to internal issues, I don’t know. the link didn’t go into the issues and I haven’t been able to find any.

But assuming your theory that the issues of the 14th century are correct (and once more I remind you they aren’t), isn’t state influence in the church an internal issue? I’m sure you’d say it was an internal thing when the Emperors were able to interfere with the EC. What is true for one must be true for both, you can’t have it both ways.

Dzheremi answered that phyletism charge quite well. It just seems you’re throwing around insults just to defame us. Please don’t. It doesn’t help.

 

[josie_L]

It may be due to internal issues, I don’t know. the link didn’t go into the issues and I haven’t been able to find any.

But assuming your theory that the issues of the 14th century are correct (and once more I remind you they aren’t), isn’t state influence in the church an internal issue? I’m sure you’d say it was an internal thing when the Emperors were able to interfere with the EC. What is true for one must be true for both, you can’t have it both ways.

Dzheremi answered that phyletism charge quite well. It just seems you’re throwing around insults just to defame us. Please don’t. It doesn’t help.

I’m not trying to defame ANYONE (a false insinuation), i.e., there are people within the Orthodox Church hierarchy who clearly understand the situation better than you or Dhzeremi:

In June 2008, Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America delivered a talk on “Episcopacy, Primacy, and the Mother Churches: A Monastic Perspective” at the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius at St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary.

…almost all national Churches have extended their jurisdictions beyond their geographic and political boundaries to the so-called diaspora. But Orthodox Christians who are faithful to the Gospel and the Fathers cannot admit of any such thing as a diaspora of Christians. Only ethnic groups can be dispersed among other ethnic groups. Yet the essential principle of geographic canonical boundaries of episcopal and synodal jurisdiction has been abrogated, and every patriarchate, every mother Church, now effectively claims universal jurisdiction to serve “its” people in “diaspora.” …

This situation arose in reaction to the mass emigration of Orthodox from their home countries, and is continued as a means of serving the needs of these immigrant communities. It is perpetuated as a means of maintaining ethnic, cultural and political identity for those away from their home country; but also as a means of financial support for the mother churches from their children abroad.

The confusion of ethnic identity and Orthodox Christian identity, expressed by competing ecclesiastical jurisdictions, is the incarnation of phyletism. Due to this confusion of the Gospel with ethnic or political identities, multiple parallel communities, each with its own allegiance to a foreign mother church, divide the Orthodox Church in North America and elsewhere into ethnic and political denominations. This distorts the Apostolic vision, and has severely compromised the catholicity of the Orthodox Churches, in which all Christians in a given territory are called to submit to a local synod of bishops.

The problem is not so much the multiple overlapping jurisdictions, each ministering to diverse elements of the population. This could be adapted as a means of dealing with the legitimate diversity of ministries within a local or national Church. The problem is that there is no common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic, linguistic and cultural divisions: there is no synod of bishops responsible for all the churches in America, and no primacy or point of accountability in the Orthodox world with the authority to correct such a situation.[6]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry it took me a while to find it again. Turns out it’s more of a short essay than a tract.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

I don’t think that’s the case, though I may very well be wrong since I’m neither Catholic nor Orthodox and am just trying to get a firm understanding of what each church believes about infallibility on its own terms. From the way I read the article it sounds like the author is assuming that both churches understand the Church’s infallibility the same way and then is trying to deduce from this a priori assumption that the Orthodox application of infallibility is circular.

The reason why I’ve asked for any published rebuttals to this argument (or similar ones)
is because there seems to be implicit premises of the author necessary for his argument to work and since I’m far removed from either church’s understanding of infallibility I’m unable to know if he’s applying the papal understanding of infallibility to said premises (just as you stated in your response).

It’s a bit of a read so I understand if you have no desire reading it, but if you know of any resources that either rebuts the idea of the Orthodox application of infallibility as being circular in logic, or one that succinctly explains the Orthodox understanding of infallibility in general, it would be quite helpful to me. Thanks Nine_Two!

Sadly that entire document is looking at things through Catholic eyes. I.E. Since Orthodox do things differently the Catholic Church must be correct.

Taking the section dealing with the issue of councils, for example (I’m not going to go through the whole thing):

However, does this mean that the Orthodox recognize the authority of all the same ecumenical councils that we Catholics recognize? Unfortunately not. While our separated Eastern brethren claim that, in principle, any ecumenical council between Pentecost and Judgment Day would enjoy the charism of being able to issue infallible dogmatic decrees,

While we wouldn’t necessarily phrase it that way, the teaching of an ecumenical council is the teaching of the church and must be obeyed - I suppose that is close enough to an infallible dogmatic decree as you’re going to get from us. What is lacking here is a description of exactly what an Ecumenical Council is.

they recognize as ecumenical only the first seven councils: those that took place in the first Christian millennium, before the rupture between East and West. Indeed, even though they claim theirs is the true church, since that medieval split they have never attempted to convoke and celebrate any ecumenical council of their own.

We universally recognize seven councils which occurred during a 450 year period of the first millennium. The last of these seven was held several hundred years before the Great Schism. There are a few other councils recognized by others as Ecumenical. Several of these did occur after the Great Schism. One council often called “Ecumenical” is scheduled for two years from now (I personally don’t buy into this status, but that is beside the point) - this contradicts the next point:

For they still recognize as a valid part of ancient tradition the role of the See of Peter as enjoying a certain primacy—at least of honor or precedence—over the other ancient centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria).

This is completely untrue. Sadly many Catholics do seem to jump to this conclusion. After all with their multitude of Ecumenical Councils and our few that some call Ecumenical (that they conveniently ignore), it is clear we must believe the pope is necessary! On the contrary, perhaps it is that we don’t believe an ecumenical council has been quite so necessary.

Thus, mainstream Orthodox theologians, as I understand them, would say that for a thousand years we have had a situation of interrupted infallibility.

I’ve never heard that and I’ve read at least a few mainstream Orthodox theologians. This seems a bit like the Chick Tracts in which Chick’s ex-Jesuit buddy confirms the Jesuits were a papal plot to spread Islam - or whatever nonsense it is he claims.

The interruption, they would maintain, has been caused above all by the “ambition,” “intransigence” or " hubris" of the bishops of the See of Peter, who are said to have overstepped the due limits of the modest primacy bestowed on them by Jesus.

Other than the word “interruption” this is the first accurate sentence in the entire thing.

However (it is said), once the Roman pontiffs come to recognize this grave error and renounce their claims to personal infallibility and universal jurisdiction over all Christians, why, then the deplorable schism will at last be healed! The whole Church, with due representation for both East and West, will once again be able to hold infallible ecumenical councils.

Given everything else I’ve written it is probably evident what I’ll reply here - Yes that would heal the schism, but it wouldn’t change anything with regards to Ecumenical Councils.

We Orthodox firmly believe we are the Entire Visible Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not trying to defame ANYONE (a false insinuation), i.e., there are people within the Orthodox Church hierarchy who clearly understand the situation better than you or Dhzeremi:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletism

You quoted that once already. What makes you think quoting it over and over again is going to suddenly show us wrong? Working on Goebbels principle that a lie repeated often enough suddenly becomes the truth?

Phyletism is an issue with the Orthodox Church in North America, undeniable, Metr. Jonah is correct. That doesn’t mean the Catholic Churches don’t have the same issue.

If you’re not trying to defame anyone you’d stop launching accusations that have nothing to do with the subject being discussed. As Dzheremi said - do you have something to show the EP’s objections to the new Metropolitan in the Czech lands has something to do with him not being Greek? Because if you don’t then it has nothing to do with Phyletism, and you are simply bringing up arguments to try to defame the Church. I would appreciate it if you would cease this behavior. When you aren’t trying to defame us you have some interesting posts, and I would hate to have to add you to my ignore list.

 

[josie_L]

You quoted that once already. What makes you think quoting it over and over again is going to suddenly show us wrong? Working on Goebbels principle that a lie repeated often enough suddenly becomes the truth?

What lie have I repeated, Nine Two, if as you said Metr. Jonah is correct?? And I repeated it because you don’t seem to quite grasp what Phyletism is, i.e., it is more than just about ethnicity, it’s about not having a “common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic, linguistic and cultural divisions: there is no synod of bishops responsible for all the churches in America, and no primacy or point of accountability in the Orthodox world with the authority to correct such a situation.”

So I’m going to ask in what way does the lack of a “common expression of unity that supersedes ethnic, linguistic and cultural divisions: there is no synod of bishops responsible for all the churches in America, and no primacy or point of accountability in the Orthodox world with the authority to correct such a situation”, represent itself in the Catholic Church?

Phyletism is an issue with the Orthodox Church in North America, undeniable, Metr. Jonah is correct. That doesn’t mean the Catholic Churches don’t have the same issue.

If we lack a common expression of unity that supercedes ethnic, linguistic, and divisions: there is no synod of bishops responsible for all the churches in America . . .etc., than I would agree, but that is not an issue in the CC.

If you’re not trying to defame anyone you’d stop launching accusations that have nothing to do with the subject being discussed. As Dzheremi said - do you have something to show the EP’s objections to the new Metropolitan in the Czech lands has something to do with him not being Greek? Because if you don’t then it has nothing to do with Phyletism, and you are simply bringing up arguments to try to defame the Church. I would appreciate it if you would cease this behavior. When you aren’t trying to defame us you have some interesting posts, and I would hate to have to add you to my ignore list.

Doesn’t have anything to do with the thread, it’s about Catholics and Orthodox, i.e., we are discussing our differences, ecclesiology and all. And I never said that Phyletism was the issue between the EP and the Czech Metropolitan per se, but Phyletism does affect your ecclesiology and the ability to resolve internal issues as Metr. Jonah pointed out.

P.S And I don’t really care if you put me on your ignore list. Moreover, I have never ever received an infraction in any Orthodox thread I have participated in, so this “defaming” thing you have going on, is bunk.

 

[Nicea325]

To tell the truth I was Catholic before I became Orthodox. I changed for several reasons. First even though I love the Holy Father I think he has Primacy and not Supremacy. I don’t believe he should have Universal immediate jurisdiction.

There were other more trivial reasons. I dislike the Novus Ordo Mass, and guitars and
'praise bands" in church. I also dislike getting only the body of Christ and not his blood. We are given both in Orthodoxy.

I considered being Eastern Catholic, but the nearest EC church is 500 miles away.

Your generalizing every parish. Not all parishes use guitars and praise bands. And you are wrong about not receiving both species. I receive both every Sunday. Not sure where you attended before as an ex-Catholic.