Catholicism and Orthodoxy

[Hesychios]

Have you taken a gander at the Catholic responses to these charges? Please give some quotes and refute them, if you can. I would love to see if you have been well-informed and fair-minded about the matter, or are simply parrotting anti-papal pundits.

Blessings

It looks like a quote from a Roman Catholic bishop who attended the Council.

Compared with other accounts that have been published, I thought it was a reasonably accurate description of the process of Vatican Council I of 1870AD. Do you not agree?

The council was apparently stage managed, and committees (picked in advance, not elected by the attending bishops) felt free to change the language of items after they had been voted on. It is not anti-Catholic or anti-Papal to discuss what really happened there. It is part of history.

Michael

 

[davymax3]

We weren’t discussing what happened at Vatican I though. You just started bringing that up out of nowhere. If you want to talk about that we should have another thread. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

We weren’t discussing what happened at Vatican I though. You just started bringing that up out of nowhere. If you want to talk about that we should have another thread. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It looks to me as though this discussion has been turning around Pio Nono for days now.

Vatican Council I, how it happened and why, is intrinsic to that.

Michael

 

[davymax3]

It looks to me as though this discussion has been turning around Pio Nono for days now.

Vatican Council I, how it happened and why, is intrinsic to that.

Michael

Well, I don’t see why. The Schism happened hundreds of years before this. It doesn’t make good sense to say oh, well, we knew you would do this a few hundred years later, so we left. It’s intellectually dishonest. Also, I don’t see the heresy? Certainly, no one denies that mistakes are made and that people err in the way they do things. The only thing Roman Catholics lay claim to is that the pope’s teachings ex cathedra are infallible. I don’t see how this undermines any of that.

 

[Hesychios]

Well, I don’t see why. The Schism happened hundreds of years before this.

Yes, it did.

It doesn’t make good sense to say oh, well, we knew you would do this a few hundred years later, so we left.

I may have missed something, who is saying that?

Certainly, no one denies that mistakes are made and that people err in the way they do things. The only thing Roman Catholics lay claim to is that the pope’s teachings ex cathedra are infallible. I don’t see how this undermines any of that.

Well, it comes out of Vatican Council I so I guess that makes the reference relevant.

In any case, as you state…it is a fact that at the time of the great schism, when the Papacy left Holy Orthodoxy, no one was claiming infallibility for the bishop of Rome.

Now that claim is out there, just one more thing that has to be dealt with on top of the others that split us apart originally. It is a very real and significant difference of opinion between the Papacy and Holy Orthodoxy. And to think it came out of a council that gives the appearance of a rigged event does not give Orthodox any encouragement.

On the other hand, it does give us some hope that the council can be overturned and it’s decrees retracted. Perhaps in the interest of Christian unity your church could explore that possibility.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

It looks like a quote from a Roman Catholic bishop who attended the Council.

Compared with other accounts that have been published, I thought it was a reasonably accurate description of the process of Vatican Council I of 1870AD. Do you not agree?

The council was apparently stage managed, and committees (picked in advance, not elected by the attending bishops) felt free to change the language of items after they had been voted on. It is not anti-Catholic or anti-Papal to discuss what really happened there. It is part of history.

The letter itself is part of history, not the warped viewpoint it held. There was an estimated 200 non-infallibilists at the Council. Do you know how many letters were written in opposition to the Council by the attendees? TWO, which includes the one quoted by brother Mickey, both written by French bishops who had an historical and contemporary axe to grind given the tension between Gallicanism and true Catholicism. 1% of the non-infallibilists complain about the freedom of the Council, a story sensationalized by several secular and anti-Catholic newspapers, and all of a sudden, it has become “a matter of history”? Are you kidding me? Where’s the objectivity? Where’s the scholarship? NOWHERE to be found, when it comes to anti-Catholicism.

Here is an other letter from another Council attendee, a “moderate” who voted placet juxta modem at the first voting for the decree on infallibility:

Every condition of a full and free debate was satisfied, the question was considered on all sides, both by writing in the closet and by the sifting process of public discussion. I might add that, in addition to the public discussions, there were many provate lights contributed towards the elucidation of the question; for no sooner had the doctrine been mooted than a number of pamphlets began to appear, and were left at the residences of the bishops. Of these I received about sixty. Written on different sides of the question, most of them exhibited both learning and ability; and several of them were known to have been the productions either of leading prelates of the Council or of skillful theologians. And if amongst them were to be found a considerable number of lucubrations opposed to the definition, this only proved more and more that all that could be said in opposition was fairly said out, and had a fair opportunity of being considered.
Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham.

Here is one from an Ultramontane:
The infallibility was debated with great heat. Never have I heard such plain speaking in my life; never have I seen men more violently attached to their own opinion, or less ready to give way to their opponents. There were times when the excitement rose to fever heat, and when one is reminded of some of the earlier Councils, as, for instance, the Council of Chalcedon.
Abp Gibbons of North Carolina, U.S.A.

Here is one from another NON-infallibilist (voted non-placet):
I hear some are yet complaining of want of liberty. This is not fair. The whole conduct of the business was not as some of us had wished; but it was what the immense majority of the Council wished, and the Council cannot complain of its own acts. If there was any restrint, it was self-imposed. Even our absence on that last day - to which I was vehemently opposed - was the free act of the Minority, and was advised and effected by the persuasion of Mgr. Dupanloup.
Bishop Moriarty of Kerry.
There are hundreds of folio pages in Mansi of the recorded speeches, demonstrating to anyone, who is genuinely interested in the actual truth of the matter, the full freedom of debate that occurred at the Council.

[CONTINUED]

 

[mardukm]

[CONTINUED]

Here is an independent assessment by a French statesman at the time -
"***The same charges ***[of lack of freedom and oppression by the powers-that-be] were made against Trent and against most of the Councils. Provided that in an assembly no physical obstacle impedes the expression of opinion and the giving of a vote according to one’s judgment, no matter what procedure or restrictions may be imposed, or pressure exerted from above or below, liberty exists. Even were the grievances well-founded, how would they destroy the liberty of the Council? What does it matter whether the regulations were made by the Pope or the Council? that Italians or French were a majority? that the Univers and the Civilta were bitter? that the Pope made allocutions? Did all that prevent a single bishop from going into the ambo and saying what he thought? It did not! And seven hundred bishops assembled in St. Peter’s, and able to express their views unto satiety… For all spirits whom partisanship does not blind, it is certain that the discussion was as free as ever it was in any human assembly.
Emile Olivier, Premier.

By the way, brother Mickey left a very important part out of the letter by Bishop Le Courtier, which is an explanation of the manner by which the members were “oppressed” by the Supreme authority. Here it is:
See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our Head.

I’m not sure if brother Mickey intentionally left that part out, or if his source did so. In any case, it demonstrates what Bishop Moriarty was saying - the restraint on the Minority was self-imposed. Without this valuable piece of information, the quote given by brother Mickey makes it seem as though the Pope was actively pressuring every member of the Minority party - AND THAT WOULD BE A LIE.

As a matter of fact, Pio Nono did not even initially want to call the Council. ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS passed since the first murmuring of a Council, before Bishop Dupanloup was able to give the final push to Pope Pius IX to act on the matter. At the Council itself, the Pope was uninvolved for a good majority of the time. It was only in February, 1870 - after (1) numerous urgings by individuals and lay organizations from around the world (those letters contained in the official collections, along with the Pope’s responses to them) in support of the definitions, (2) several public attacks on the Pope himself in newspapers, and (3) rumors of war - that the Pope was motivated to have a more active role in the matter in order to move the Council along. The infallibility and primacy matters were in fact NOT on the original agenda of the Council. It was, in fact, external exigencies (rumors that the Council were called for the matter of infallibility, and subsequent unfounded attacks on it) that moved the Council to explicitly include the eventual papal dogmas on the agenda.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

1% of the non-infallibilists complain about the freedom of the Council, a story sensationalized by several secular and anti-Catholic newspapers, and all of a sudden, it has become “a matter of history”? Are you kidding me? Where’s the objectivity? Where’s the scholarship? NOWHERE to be found, when it comes to anti-Catholicism.

When I reread this just now, I realized it seems I was accusing you of anti-Catholicism. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I was actually thinking about the secular and anti-Catholic newspapers who sensationalized the story when I wrote that last line. It was not at all directed at you (or brother Mickey, for that matter).

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[patriciamn09]

My parish recently added a Syriac mass and there is now a tent set up to the right of the central alter. It’s interesting to me. There is a rooster (not a real one) atop the tent. I tried to see what was inside the tent and I think I saw a tabenacle? I think Syriac would be one of the eastern rite churches. If a reader has any information on this type of mass, please let me know if Roman Catholics can receive the Eucharist at the Syriac mass. If I attend their mass will it meet my Sunday obligation?

 

[davymax3]

My parish recently added a Syriac mass and there is now a tent set up to the right of the central alter. It’s interesting to me. There is a rooster (not a real one) atop the tent. I tried to see what was inside the tent and I think I saw a tabenacle? I think Syriac would be one of the eastern rite churches. If a reader has any information on this type of mass, please let me know if Roman Catholics can receive the Eucharist at the Syriac mass. If I attend their mass will it meet my Sunday obligation?

Don’t quote me on it, but I think that you can receive the Eucharist, but that it doesn’t fulfill your Sunday obligation unless it was an extreme circumstance and the only one you could get to or something.

 

[Ghosty]

Don’t quote me on it, but I think that you can receive the Eucharist, but that it doesn’t fulfill your Sunday obligation unless it was an extreme circumstance and the only one you could get to or something.

If it’s a Syriac Catholic Liturgy then it would fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

My parish recently added a Syriac mass and there is now a tent set up to the right of the central alter. It’s interesting to me. There is a rooster (not a real one) atop the tent. I tried to see what was inside the tent and I think I saw a tabenacle? I think Syriac would be one of the eastern rite churches. If a reader has any information on this type of mass, please let me know if Roman Catholics can receive the Eucharist at the Syriac mass. If I attend their mass will it meet my Sunday obligation?

If it’s Syrian* Catholic, yes, it fullfils your obligation, and you may receive.
If it’s Syrian Orthodox, no, it doesn’t (unless you’re Syrian Catholic), and you might be permitted to receive.
If it’s Assyrian Church of the East, it doesn’t (unless you’re Chaldean Catholic), and you might be permitted to receive.

*Or Maronite, or Syro-Malanka, or Syro-Malabar, or Chaldean

 

[narrowpath]

I cannot express how much I’ve appreciated all your answers. I’ve decided to look into the Orthodox Church further. It seems that I knew next to nothing about the Orthodox view of the Church, or Christ, or His Sacrifice, etc, etc.

I’ve ordered The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (then Timothy Ware). Has anyone read this? I have had it recommended several times. I’m also interested in the gowing Orthodox western rite.

Thanks again to all.

 

[Madaglan]

I cannot express how much I’ve appreciated all your answers. I’ve decided to look into the Orthodox Church further. It seems that I knew next to nothing about the Orthodox view of the Church, or Christ, or His Sacrifice, etc, etc.

I’ve ordered The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (then Timothy Ware). Has anyone read this? I have had it recommended several times. I’m also interested in the gowing Orthodox western rite.

Thanks again to all.

The Orthodox Church is likely the most widely read book by persons looking into Eastern Christianity. I read it many years ago. Since then, my sister has taken it from me (for her Orthodox class and for her own edification)

WRO is interesting. I attended a WRO parish several times last year.

 

[wynd]

I cannot express how much I’ve appreciated all your answers. I’ve decided to look into the Orthodox Church further. It seems that I knew next to nothing about the Orthodox view of the Church, or Christ, or His Sacrifice, etc, etc.

I’ve ordered The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (then Timothy Ware). Has anyone read this? I have had it recommended several times. I’m also interested in the gowing Orthodox western rite.

Thanks again to all.

That’s a good book. I would also recommend The Orthodox Way by the same author. The former deals with the history and beliefs of Orthodoxy, while the latter gives an overview of the spirituality and interior life. I personally found The Orthodox Way much more enjoyable to read, and still pull it out from time to time.

 

[Sir_Alec]

If you can find a copy, Fr, Adrian Fortescue’s The Orthodox Eastern Church is an excellent source. Fr. Fortescue was one of the foremost authorities on the Eastern Church in the early 20th century.

 

[narrowpath]

Thanks Wynd. I heard that The Orthodox Way focuses more on spirituality, so I’ll get it after the first book.

 

[Harpazo]

If you can find a copy, Fr, Adrian Fortescue’s The Orthodox Eastern Church is an excellent source. Fr. Fortescue was one of the foremost authorities on the Eastern Church in the early 20th century.

Christ is risen!

I would not necessarily recommend the late Fr. Fortescue’s work. From what I read, he does not represent Eastern Christianity that well. To be fair though, he was a product of his time.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Randy_Carson]

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).

Ah…Augustine.

What did he really believe about Peter the rock?

Augustine on Peter
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Webster2Augustine.doc

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51).

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.” To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?” In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.” In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.” In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship.” (On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

 

[Randy_Carson]

John Chrysostom:

And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd…For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 54.2-3; pp. 332-334).

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X, Chrysostom, On Matthew, Homily 82.3, p. 494).

Ah…Chrysostom. What did he think about Peter’s position among the Apostles?

**John Chrysostom (347–407) **

"He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88). Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”