Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[truthseeker32]

This view has become so damaging that it is a problem now within Orthodoxy in the west. Converts approach the liturgy like it is an opera. After the novelty wears off, boredom ensues.

Some, maybe, but not most.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Simply put: EO are Truth, nearest and dearest of all non-Catholic christians.

 

[Dmitri77]

So I am going to ask and it is not meant to be snarky, just want to know. With the things you have cited here, doesn’t these things listed pretty much sum up what separates the two churches? and if so which items would be negotiable?

There are some pastoral exceptions that could be made but not on many of them. I’ll link a podcast for you if you want to hear our position (and possibly get into a rage). Hope you enjoy/

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/what_does_rome_need_to_do_part_1

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/what_does_rome_need_to_do_part_2

 

[rcwitness]

I appreciate Rome’s return to synodality and concurrent deemphasizing of ultramontanism. Unfortunately, so long as the doctrines of papal supremacy and infallibility remain on paper, there can be no union. The possibility of Rome reasserting a strong view of papal supremacy still exists. Reinterpreting Papal Supremacy to give it a more conciliar tone is a nice gesture but the Pope still retains the power to unilaterally impose his will upon the entire Church. I hope Rome returns to the teaching regarding papal authority articulated by one section of the council of Constance. It’s too bad this section was abrogated after the Great Schism. Perhaps if it had been retained, the schism between East and West would have been over by now.

The Council of Constance–“Legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic Church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members”

Wiki has this statement after the quote of this decree from the Council:

This decree, however, is not considered valid by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, since it was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors, and was passed by the Council in a session before his confirmation. The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an invalid and illicit assembly of bishops, gathered under the authority of John XXIII.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Wiki has this statement after the quote of this decree from the Council:

This decree, however, is not considered valid by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, since it was never approved by Pope Gregory XII or his successors, and was passed by the Council in a session before his confirmation. The Church declared the first sessions of the Council of Constance an invalid and illicit assembly of bishops, gathered under the authority of John XXIII.

Did the Church declared the first session invalid or did Pope Gregory XII? The point I’m trying to make is that papal supremacy has been a controversial dogma even within Roman Catholicism. Why else would it have to be reinterpreted at Vatican II to give it a more conciliar flair? Vatican I and Vatican II are markedly different in tone when it comes to the papacy. Regardless, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, the papacy is not central to the Church being the Church (The great commission and apostolic succession are essential). If it is, then the Orthodox Church cannot rightly be called a part of the Church. Rome, however, does regard the Orthodox as being within the Church. They are even allowed to commune at a Roman Catholic Church is they wish.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

If I hadn’t seen the context of your response, I would have assumed it is a criticism of post-Vatican II Catholic liturgies that seem more concerned with appeasing the contemporary masses than conveying the rich symbolism and worship that was found in the pre-Vatican II Mass and is still found in Eastern liturgy. To describe Eastern liturgy as “entertaining” is silly.

I agree with you if we narrow entertainment to mean guitars and gospel music. Entertainment is whatever titillates the senses. Orthodox worship is full of sacred icons and incense, which is meant to help lift our minds and hearts to heaven. If we focus on the icons and incense by themselves without considering what they symbolize, then the Divine Liturgy becomes a kind of entertainment. Instead of a rock concert, it becomes a kind of opera. In my opinion, most Orthodox criticisms of the modern Roman Rite fall within the category of aestheticism and the debate degenerates into whose preference is better.

 

[Fuerza]

Did the Church declared the first session invalid or did Pope Gregory XII? The point I’m trying to make is that papal supremacy has been a controversial dogma even within Roman Catholicism. Why else would it have to be reinterpreted at Vatican II to give it a more conciliar flair? Vatican I and Vatican II are markedly different in tone when it comes to the papacy. Regardless, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, the papacy is not central to the Church being the Church (The great commission and apostolic succession are essential). If it is, then the Orthodox Church cannot rightly be called a part of the Church. Rome, however, does regard the Orthodox as being within the Church. They are even allowed to commune at a Roman Catholic Church is they wish.

That’s not entirely accurate. Rome considers the Orthodox, both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian, as well as the Assyrians to be true Churches, rather than ecclesiastical communities. They are viewed as being in “imperfect communion” with the Church due to their possessing valid sacraments through apostolic succession, but are not fully within the Church. They are permitted to receive the sacraments in a Catholic Church because they themselves have valid sacraments and share Rome’s view of the Real Presence. That does not equate to being within the Church, political correctness aside.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

That’s not entirely accurate. Rome considers the Orthodox, both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian, as well as the Assyrians to be true Churches, rather than ecclesiastical communities. They are viewed as being in “imperfect communion” with the Church due to their possessing valid sacraments through apostolic succession, but are not fully within the Church. They are permitted to receive the sacraments in a Catholic Church because they themselves have valid sacraments and share Rome’s view of the Real Presence. That does not equate to being within the Church, political correctness aside.

But what does “imperfect communion” mean? You’re either in communion or you’re not. Also, you wrote in your first sentence that Rome considers the Orthodox and Assyrians to be true Churches but then you’re last sentence seems to suggest they are not within the Church?

 

[rcwitness]

But what does “imperfect communion” mean? You’re either in communion or you’re not. Also, you wrote in your first sentence that Rome considers the Orthodox and Assyrians to be true Churches but then you’re last sentence seems to suggest they are not within the Church?

are Baptist churches in communion with yours? It’s like this, but Orthodox are much more united, lacking very little in ecclesiastical matters.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

are Baptist churches in communion with yours? It’s like this, but Orthodox are much more united, lacking very little in ecclesiastical matters.

seeing as I attend an Orthodox Church, they are definitively not in communion with us. They are not even churches in the technical sense of the word because they are heterodox and do not possess apostolic succession. There is no gray area.

 

[rcwitness]

seeing as I attend an Orthodox Church, they are definitively not in communion with us. They are not even churches in the technical sense of the word because they are heterodox and do not possess apostolic succession. There is no gray area.

They are not completely heterodox, though. They have Baptism, believe in the trinity, and the Gospel. They are “a” church.

 

[rcwitness]

he was talking about Baptist churches

 

[rcwitness]

Outside the Church (819)

Outside of the Catholic Church there are many elements of sanctification (God’s Word, interior virtues, gifts of the Spirit, and some visible elements). Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation. Their power derives from the fullness that Christ gave to the Catholic Church. All these blessings lead to Christ and are calls to “Catholic unity” (Second Vatican Council).

 

[Abu]

Jon Mallory #45
The point I’m trying to make is that papal supremacy has been a controversial dogma even within Roman Catholicism. Why else would it have to be reinterpreted at Vatican II to give it a more conciliar flair? Vatican I and Vatican II are markedly different in tone when it comes to the papacy

.
This is the reality from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25: **“definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
**

The actual vote for Mallory’s “controversial dogma” is that “many of the bishops who attended Vatican I left the council prior to the discussion/vote on papal infallibility because they disagreed with the idea of formally proclaiming such teaching.” That set the tone for downgrading the actual dogma, and trying to restrict the Pope through an Ecumenical Council. In fact, at the Public Session 433 voted for the Definition, 2 against, and 66 absentees wrote the Pope as against. All of the absentees eventually declared their full acceptance, a massive majority of the original 601 bishops present.” (Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier, 1975, p 159).

The Authority Of The Pope by Jeffrey A. Mirus, Ph.D.
“Finally, it is often remarked that the late date of Vatican I’s teachings shows **the primacy **to be a new idea. To the contrary, as has been indicated here, the idea is as old as Christianity itself. The Church defines a doctrine only when necessary, and her relative silence over many long centuries actually suggests that this portion of the faith was rarely doubted. The Church has ever believed that the popes alone have the keys to salvation in Christ. Moreover, she has always affirmed that in providing grace and truth, the papacy liberates, not enslaves. It frees men from error and sin, and assists them in attaining a spiritual maturity, which greatly facilitates the continual choice of the good”. [My bold].
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4319

Regardless, from a Roman Catholic standpoint, the papacy is not central to the Church being the Church (The great commission and apostolic succession are essential). If it is, then the Orthodox Church cannot rightly be called a part of the Church.

Such a denial of Christ tries to debunk history:

1. Christ built His Catholic Church on Peter
2. He **alone **was given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven; promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her; mandated by Christ to Strengthen your brethren; feed My sheep.

#48
But what does “imperfect communion” mean? You’re either in communion or you’re not. Also, you wrote in your first sentence that Rome considers the Orthodox and Assyrians to be true Churches but then you’re last sentence seems to suggest they are not within the Church?

False.

Spiritual union or unity does not exist, and cannot exist, where truths of faith are denied such as divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF, and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

.
This is the reality from Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25: **“definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
**

The actual vote for Mallory’s “controversial dogma” is that “many of the bishops who attended Vatican I left the council prior to the discussion/vote on papal infallibility because they disagreed with the idea of formally proclaiming such teaching.” That set the tone for downgrading the actual dogma, and trying to restrict the Pope through an Ecumenical Council. In fact, at the Public Session 433 voted for the Definition, 2 against, and 66 absentees wrote the Pope as against. All of the absentees eventually declared their full acceptance, a massive majority of the original 601 bishops present.” (Questions People Ask, Dr Leslie Rumble, Chevalier, 1975, p 159).

The Authority Of The Pope by Jeffrey A. Mirus, Ph.D.
“Finally, it is often remarked that the late date of Vatican I’s teachings shows **the primacy **to be a new idea. To the contrary, as has been indicated here, the idea is as old as Christianity itself. The Church defines a doctrine only when necessary, and her relative silence over many long centuries actually suggests that this portion of the faith was rarely doubted. The Church has ever believed that the popes alone have the keys to salvation in Christ. Moreover, she has always affirmed that in providing grace and truth, the papacy liberates, not enslaves. It frees men from error and sin, and assists them in attaining a spiritual maturity, which greatly facilitates the continual choice of the good”. [My bold].
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4319

Such a denial of Christ tries to debunk history:

1. Christ built His Catholic Church on Peter
2. He **alone **was given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven; promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her; mandated by Christ to Strengthen your brethren; feed My sheep.

False.

Spiritual union or unity does not exist, and cannot exist, where truths of faith are denied such as divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF, and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches.

You’re anti-ecumenist antagonism towards the Orthodox flies in the face of Church teaching regarding the Orthodox. Clearly some spiritual unity exists from Rome’s point of view if Orthodox are allowed to take communion in Roman Catholic Churches (not to mention they have valid holy orders. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate such honest and clear language regarding your view of the Orthodox Church but I don’t think the Vatican shares your view. The Orthodox likewise have a strong view of the RCC. It is in heresy and there can be no false unity without one side giving up its most fundamental doctrines. Also, the Orthodox Church is united by Christ the true head of the Church. We have no need for some temporal, mortal “super bishop” to impose unity from above. You’re view of the papacy, in my opinion, idolizes the Pope and makes him more than human.

 

[truthseeker32]

.
Such a denial of Christ tries to debunk history:

1. Christ built His Catholic Church on Peter
2. He **alone **was given the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven; promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her; mandated by Christ to Strengthen your brethren; feed My sheep.

Rather, such a denial is more representative of current historical consensus and the view of the Church Fathers.

Response to 1: Patristic interpretation of Matt. 16:18 was far from unanimous, and more of the Fathers saw the rock upon which Jesus built his church as Peter’s confession, and not Peter himself. Furthermore, even if one did concede that it was indeed Peter the man upon whom Christ established his church, that would be a far shot from proving the Roman Catholic view of Papal Supremacy. Orthodox Christianity holds that all bishops are successors of Peter, and this position is found in the Church Fathers.

“Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and to the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter, I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates.” St. Cyprian, 33rd Epistle.

St. Cyprian directly ties the promise of Christ to St. Peter to the office of the episcopacy.

“66. Priests Britain has, but foolish ones; a great number of ministers, but shameless; clergy, but crafty plunderers; pastors, so to say, but wolves ready for the slaughter of souls, certainly not providing what is of benefit for the people, but seeking the filling of their own belly. They have church edifices, but enter them for the sake of filthy lucre; they teach the people, but by furnishing the worst examples, teach vice and evil morals; they seldom sacrifice, and never stand among the altars with pure heart; they |165 do not reprove the people on account of their sins, nay, in fact, they commit the same; they despise the commandments of Christ, and are careful to satisfy their own lusts with all their prayers: they get possession of the seat of the apostle Peter61 with unclean feet, but, by the desert of cupidity,62 fall into the unwholesome chair of the traitor Judas.”

-St Gildas, De Excidio Britanniae

“I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom.” -St. Gaudentius of Brescia (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).

Response to 2: Peter was the first to be given the keys because he was head of the apostles, but the rest of the twelve received them as well. Even Roman Catholic theologians and historians recognize this.

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” (John Chrysostom. Homily 1 on the Gospel of John)

 

[Abu]

Jon Mallory #57
We have no need for some temporal, mortal “super bishop” to impose unity from above. You’re view of the papacy, in my opinion, idolizes the Pope and makes him more than human.

Such a personal opinion is totally against what Christ Himself mandated (“from above”), and is not my “view”.

The recognition of Christ’s very own, which you reject, is essential:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18).

The “need” is amply demonstrated by the thousands of Protestant sects, all differing; when the various Orthodox have such dissent among themselves over many years when trying to call a “Council”; by the historical evidence of Karl Rahner and many other theologians denouncing the infallible definition in Pope Paul VI’s *Humanae Vitae *against contraception.

As Bishop Gasser pointed out re Vatican I and infallibility:
**1) The Pope is restricted as to subject: **“He has to speak as “universal teacher and supreme judge.”
**2) The Pope is restricted by reason of the object: **only “matters of faith and morals.”
3) The Pope is restricted by reason of the act itself: defining “what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.”
[The *Relatio of Bishop Gasser (the most prominent theologian at Vatican I) in The Gift of Infallibility, translation and commentary by Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius Press, 2008, p 49].

 

[Abu]

truthseeker32 #58
Rather, such a denial is more representative of current historical consensus and the view of the Church Fathers.

A “historical consensus” by whom?

Patristic interpretation of Matt. 16:18 was far from unanimous, and more of the Fathers saw the rock upon which Jesus built his church as Peter’s confession, and not Peter himself.

’247. Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)?
Extract:
The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.” ’
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-se…q=equally&db=5

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often. [Keating, p 208-11].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament. [My emphases].

**“Jesus’ choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman.

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”

**“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. *[See And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81]. [My emphases].

 

[Abu]

truthseeker32 #58
Peter was the first to be given the keys because he was head of the apostles, but the rest of the twelve received them as well. Even Roman Catholic theologians and historians recognize this.

False.

**To St Peter as Christ’s Primate ALONE
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18).
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19) **

First to St Peter
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**To St Peter as Christ’s Primate ALONE – Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17). **
[My emphases].

 

[Duane1966]

Response to 1: Patristic interpretation of Matt. 16:18 was far from unanimous, and more of the Fathers saw the rock upon which Jesus built his church as Peter’s confession, and not Peter himself. Furthermore, even if one did concede that it was indeed Peter the man upon whom Christ established his church, that would be a far shot from proving the Roman Catholic view of Papal Supremacy. Orthodox Christianity holds that all bishops are successors of Peter, and this position is found in the Church Fathers.

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

Any teacher of grammar will tell you that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

Did Christ change any of the other Apostles names? This changing of names follows a very important pattern in scripture – Abram (father) became Abraham (father of many nations). Jacob (He who grasps the heel) became Israel (Ruling with God) when his mission was changed when he become the father of 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. Notice carefully that Abraham and Jacob became leaders and fathers following their name change. ** A male name change in the bible indicates leadership and fatherhood.**

The word “rock” also has special significance. On one hand, to be called “rock” was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered “rock” because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

Also, no one except God was called specifically “rock,” nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name “rock” to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority.