Catholicism and Orthodoxy

[narrowpath]

Thanks to all who have posted thus far…

The reason this is on the EC subforum is because I thought that Easterners would be the most knowledgable about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Searn, what were you before becoming EO? A catholic, a protestant, or something else?

Also, In Matthew 16:18, Peter is given the Keys of the Kingdom. Is there any part in scripture where the other apostles are given keys (or a similar archetype)?

 

[davymax3]

The Orthodox church never denied the primacy of Peter, only the supremacy. So, that’s something you’ll have to answer for yourself. When Christ gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, Roman Catholics interpret that to give him supremacy, amongst other things, such as the famous, “cephas” or rock part. Orthodox will say that the “rock” is not peter himself but his act of faith. Which I think is completely unfounded considering Peter’s name is “rock.” That would be a pretty unfairly tricky passage if God meant for it to be the act of faith and not Peter given that Peter’s name is rock. I don’t think Christ would do that.

 

[searn77]

Thanks to all who have posted thus far…

The reason this is on the EC subforum is because I thought that Easterners would be the most knowledgable about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Searn, what were you before becoming EO? A catholic, a protestant, or something else?

Also, In Matthew 16:18, Peter is given the Keys of the Kingdom. Is there any part in scripture where the other apostles are given keys (or a similar archetype)?

I was attending a Non-denominational church with Pentacostal roots. But when I yearned for the “New Testament Church”, I began researching Catholicism and through researching Catholicism I found Orthodoxy. After much research and prayer (including talking and emailing both Orthodox and Catholic priests), I went with Orthodoxy.

And here’s a quote that expresses the Orthodox view:

“The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching.”

So basically my view is that Peter was a leader and a great example of a Christian out of the disciples, but he wasn’t the sole rock. All the apostles and early fathers of the church were also the rock. And we are called to be the rock today as well.

This was the hardest topic that kept me from becoming Orthodox. But after researching on it way more than just looking up the Catholic view and thinking how the Catholic view is definitely the right view (I was very close to becoming Catholic and I thought I had my mind set on Catholicism as well), I researched it deeply and my view was swayed.

To Narrowpath: check your pm within the next couple days. If you don’t mind, I’d like to send you a more in-depth message.

 

[davymax3]

Your response isn’t completely accurate in describing Orthodox belief. They still recognize that Peter was primal, just not supreme.

 

[searn77]

Your response isn’t completely accurate in describing Orthodox belief. They still recognize that Peter was primal, just not supreme.

Yes, you are right. I’m sorry if I came off as saying that Peter wasn’t primal. I was trying to get this point across when I said Peter was a leader. But I should have been more clear and detailed when typing. I should have said he was primal but not supreme. I apologize. I am a newly chrismated Orthodox Christian and am relatively new to the faith, so please don’t just take my word as being the the infallible Orthodox voice. I really would recommend reading The Orthodox Church, attending both Orthodox and Catholic liturgys, and communicating with Orthodox and Catholic priests because they would definitely be more knowledgeable about any of this than me. And there are many places online to look for Orthodox views on subjects, including some parish websites. I almost became Catholic and pretty much made up my mind about it and almost started going to RCIA without really looking into Orthodoxy. But now I’m Orthodox. So I would just recommend to pray, don’t rush anything, and research both Orthodoxy and Catholicism as best as you can. Because even if praying and researching about Orthodoxy doesn’t change your mind, it will firm up your beliefs about Catholicism and make you more knowledgeable about both Orthodox and Catholics, making it a win-win situation for you. But I started by reading The Orthodox Church, and would highly recommend starting there for a basic Orthodox overview.

 

[davymax3]

I couldn’t agree with the above post more. One of the best things for my Catholic faith has been having a deeply religious Orthodox friend. We have had countless hours of conversation/debate about differences and shared beliefs. I think that every Catholic, Orthodox or Roman, does themselves a disservice by not researching and learning about the other faith in a very serious manner.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

The OP’s question is about him choosing between the two churches, so this is the perfect spot I think. Also, I would find it insulting for an Orthodox question to be put in a Non-Catholic board. Orthodoxy is a Catholic religion. A Non-Roman Catholic board, sure…

I realize you are newer here, but your thinking on this matter is simply not in line with the concepts and ideals for terminology laid out by CAF as to what “Eastern Catholic” means and what this forum is for.

“Eastern Catholic” in ther sense it is intended on this forum is meant to include those Eastern Christians who are in Union with the Holy See.

This thread is NOT about us.

 

[narrowpath]

Thank you, Searn!

I’ll be waiting.

A couple of questions (you can answer on the PM if you want:

The RCC considers EO mysteries valid. Does the EO sahre the same opinion about Catholic sacraments?

Should we come to a reunification, who would make the decision for the Orthodox Churches?

why does the EO scripture canon have more books than the Catholic canon. wasn’t this settled at the councils of Nicaea and Carthage, as well as Constantinople? I know I spelled those wrong…

And just a reply:

even if the term “to build” is used in this way, with Christ as chief cornerstone (which is the way I understand it), this still leaves the issue of the Keys of the Kingdom.

I’m sure you know of the allusion to Isaiah 22:22. He would still be the “Prime Minister”.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

John Meyendorff also is the editor of The Primacy of Peter, a collection of essays written by Eastern Orthodox on the question of Peter. A very good book if one wants an Orthodox perspective on the matter.

That book is in my library, too. I’ve read it three or four times. Great read!

 

[davymax3]

Thank you, Searn!

The RCC considers EO mysteries valid. Does the EO sahre the same opinion about Catholic sacraments?

I think it depends on the local church and the Metropolitan/Archbishop. Bartholomew I think sees Catholic sacraments as valid, whereas the Russian Orthodox church does not.

Should we come to a reunification, who would make the decision for the Orthodox Churches?

Each local church would have to decide for itself. For instance if Bartholomew decided to reunify then he could make that decision. However, he would not longer be in communion with the rest of the Eastern Orthodox churches. i.e. he would not be part of any ecumenical councils, etc.

even if the term “to build” is used in this way, with Christ as chief cornerstone (which is the way I understand it), this still leaves the issue of the Keys of the Kingdom.

I’m sure you know of the allusion to Isaiah 22:22. He would still be the “Prime Minister”.

Yes. And in a purely hypothetical situation, if the Pope decided that the Eastern Orthodox churches were correct and would concede all points that the Eastern Church has problems with then at that point I think the Eastern Churches would see the Bishop of Rome as their “Prime Minister” as they did before the Schism.

 

[narrowpath]

Or if an exceptionally brave Pope called an ecumenical council of the ENTIRE universal Church, both the east and the west…

Wait. can that be done

 

[Aramis]

The question isn’t whether or not it can be done, but whether the Orthodox would bother to participate if it was done.

 

[davymax3]

Or if an exceptionally brave Pope called an ecumenical council of the ENTIRE universal Church, both the east and the west…

Wait. can that be done

Yea, that was done. And the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs didn’t show up except for I think Constantinople. I could be wrong on which one. But, yea. They tried to do that, but there were also political concerns and hindrances that impeded their unification. Then both went on their own paths and so they both grew further apart.

 

[prodromos]

Yes. And in a purely hypothetical situation, if the Pope decided that the Eastern Orthodox churches were correct and would concede all points that the Eastern Church has problems with then at that point I think the Eastern Churches would see the Bishop of Rome as their “Prime Minister” as they did before the Schism.

I don’t believe that would actually be the case. Too much water has gone under the bridge to simply go back to the order established before the schism. We do not recognise the bishops of Rome in the later centuries being anything like their predecessors of the early centuries. This is of course from an Orthodox perspective.

John

 

[davymax3]

I don’t believe that would actually be the case. Too much water has gone under the bridge to simply go back to the order established before the schism. We do not recognise the bishops of Rome in the later centuries being anything like their predecessors of the early centuries. This is of course from an Orthodox perspective.

John

Yea, of course, but only because you see them as strictly speaking, heretics. I don’t know if that gets in the way of apostolic succession.

 

[slavko]

As an newly-chrismated Orthodox Christian, I would also recommend this book.

To those wanting to grasp subtle, yet enormous, differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, I recommend the book “Ancestral Sin” by Fr. John Romanides of blessed memory.

A must read.

 

[slavko]

The Orthodox church never denied the primacy of Peter, only the supremacy.

Only the supremacy of the Pope of Rome based on successorship from Peter.

There are many successors of the Apostle Peter in the East, and only one in the West.

 

[davymax3]

Only the supremacy of the Pope of Rome based on successorship from Peter.

There are many successors of the Apostle Peter in the East, and only one in the West.

I never said otherwise… The statement I made holds true. It was always recognized that the Bishop of Rome is where Peter intended his primacy to be succeeded.

 

[Aramis]

Only the supremacy of the Pope of Rome based on successorship from Peter.

There are many successors of the Apostle Peter in the East, and only one in the West.

But none in the east were successors to his office as head of the apostles. None in the east were inheritors or heirs (successors by virtue of his death), only in the west was there a replacement due to his death. And all other forms of episcopal primacy pass normally at death or retirement, and the election is to determin who inherits the authority.

Why should Peter be held to a lesser standard than every other primatial bihsopric in the east?

 

[Ghosty]

To those wanting to grasp subtle, yet enormous, differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, I recommend the book “Ancestral Sin” by Fr. John Romanides of blessed memory.

A must read.

I haven’t read this particular work, but Fr. Romanides is notorious for not having the slightest grasp of Latin theological tradition. Most of what he derides as being “Western” is actually Protestant, and opposed by Latin Catholic theology. I can’t recommend anything of his if you want to learn about the differences between the Byzantine and Latin traditions, as he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to the West.

Peace and God bless!