Explain why Catholics cannot trace their apostolic succession past the 12th century?
For a millennium the Churches nowadays known as Catholic and Eastern Orthodox the one Church.
I would resist the temptation to set them as unambiguously in-contra to one another.
As some have pointed out, which Orthodox Church?
That’s news to me. I was of the understanding that the succession for one was the same as the other until somewhere between the 11th and 14th centuries - as the schism was a process and not an event.
This was the same conclusion that led our family to join the Orthodox Church. We converted to the RCC in 2013 knowing a little about the Orthodox Church, but assumed that since we live in the USA where RCC is more prevalent, we should join there, not thinking much about the differences between the 2 churches. But pretty soon after we felt that we were Orthodox Christians going to RCC church. I began to see that almost all RCC writers are completely fine with innovating and taking protestant ideas and making them the RCC teachings. They would claim to have the Church Fathers as their own, but never would they read or use their theology and traditions of asceticism. I would only read commentaries and theology from the Fathers of the Church and began to see that the RCC has rejected their teachings on things as important as the Sacraments and rules on prayer and fasting. The fact that the RCC knows that the proper form used for Baptism since the early Church was a triple immersion in water symbolizing Christ’s 3 days in the tomb, and yet continues to needlessly use a secondary form that might be allowed if the proper form is not possible, is indicative of all the shortcomings that have become the norm in the RCC. Orthodox preserve the teachings of the Fathers and are very skeptical of anyone trying to be innovative. Many Saints have lost their lives to preserve things such as the icons, and many RCC seminarians look forward to having a church with plain walls.
I think a lot of ex-protestants go in this direction. Going Orthodox allows them access to the same historical and sacred approach to Christianity as Catholicism without submission to the Chair of Peter - something they’ve likely been deeply conditioned to balk at if their upbringing was anything like mine.
Interesting. What would be an example of this?
I’ve heard the RCC described as “Augustine’s Church”. Most place him as a “father”.
Many have died in the name of defending the truth of the Catholic Church as well. But I would agree that the rise of Islam has been harder on Eastern Christianity. The Oriental communions are on the verge of non-existence and the Orthodox were massacred under the “Turkification” of Turkey (with a tragic follow-up by the rise of the soviets).
I’d caution against this language. Some (maybe most, by population) maintain that it was the Orthodox that split from the Catholics.
Yes forgive me. I agree with what you are saying. I know the split probably resulted from some pride on both sides, but from a Theological view, we (Orthodox) must view the split as the west breaking communion with the Church. Simply because there can only be one Church. Now if members of the RCC after death can become members of the Church, I think it is unanimously understood that this is possible and likely. But the clarification is that they are not truly in the Church until that point. Which in the big scheme of things will not matter once Christ comes again.
Very good points. And thank you for your kindness. I would just say that where Dr. Scott Hahn and others are generally looked at with great love, Orthodox theologians that speculate and veer off of the known Patristic path are not celebrated by laymen as much as they are celebrated amongst other academics and academics of other faiths. (I must confess that I owe Dr. Scott Hahn a great deal for helping to solidify our embracing the RCC which was a very important step for us. It was his shows on EWTN on “Genesis to Jesus” that showed me that the RCC could explain Genesis and the connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament of Christ.)No forgiveness given because no wrong was committed.
About Dr. Hahn, he demonstrates that there are a lot of educated Catholics out there who want to investigate different ideas. Which is a good thing.
But I’d be real slow to label anything they conclude as thoroughly “Catholic” until the Church issues any sort of statement to that effect.
I’m sure you know of educated Orthodox doing similar things.
Concerning Petrine Seat; I see your point. I even considered adopting it before I decided to go Catholic.
It seems that the historical narrative has always been “Ok, that guy does get some sort of authority. But how much?”
While I submit to it, I have a feeling that dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility wasn’t as good an idea as the theologians of that day thought - even if it’s true. The greatest effect of Vatican II (in my humble opinion) was the glorious destruction of the post-Vatican I idea/attitude of “Okay, I guess we’re not going to have councils anymore. We’ll just ask His Holiness”.
I hope this links will help you in your study:
I became Orthodox precisely because I could no longer in good conscience hold to the Latin teachings concerning the Pope of Rome, as well as the Latin teachings concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit.
A question based largely on ignorance of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is united in faith. The different jurisdictions in the United States and other missionary countries is a historical happenstance that has been explained here many times.
You may have to drop your Roman spectacles first, but the particular Eastern Orthodox Churches consider themselves together to be the Orthodox Church, just like the particular Catholic Churches (e.g., Latin, Maronite, Melkite, etc) consider themselves together to be the Catholic Church.
That was the council of Florence, early in the XV century. The Byzantine emperor, John VIII, persuaded the patriarch of Constantinople. Joseph II, to agree with Rome, eager to garner military support from Western Europe against the Turks. Given the situation of extreme duress, it can hardly be said that the Byzantine legates acted freely and consciously. Regardless, led by St. Mark of Ephesus, the only Byzantine legate to refuse to sign the acts of the council, the Byzantine faithful rejected it. And the rest is history…
I was puzzled by this too. If you go here, the episcopal lineage of most bishops come down to Card. Scipione Rebiba, who lived in the XVI century.
