Choosing between Apostolic Communions

[Abu]

Mongo #19
Do you realize that this thread isn’t about the specific differences between the Catholic Church and other Churches?
The subject of the thread is concerned with how you discern the truth between different communions.

Communion: a group of Christians with a common religious faith who practice the same rites.

The only way to “discern the truth between different communions” in Christianity is to examine the foundation by Christ of His one, holy, apostolic and Catholic Church and compare it with the others thus highlighting the similarities and the differences.

Thus can the differences and similarities be exposed and compared with Christ’s foundational teaching. Real Catholics have examined the teaching of Christ and of His Church and having the fullness of truth offer it to all others, by reasoned explanation and defence of that truth.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

A popular topic on this board is “Catholicism or Orthodoxy?” Protestants who come to the realization that the early Christians were sacramental, liturgical, and placed great emphasis on Apostolic succession often reach a point where they seriously consider both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Count me among such people (except that I’ve never been Protestant).

To me this is an unfair evaluation. Why is Oriental Orthodoxy left out?

You can’t be certain that it has been left out. It’s quite possible that such posters have investigated Oriental Orthodoxy and have found it lacking while finding Chalcedonian Christianity to be true. This would naturally leave such posters at the foot of the dichotomy between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, I understand what you’re saying, and I don’t seriously believe that most who have investigated Roman Catholicism and/or Eastern Orthodoxy ever gave Oriental Orthodoxy or the Assyrian Church any benefit of the doubt.

If I were still a Protestant, I would feel obliged to seriously consider all three communions. I don’t understand why Oriental Orthodoxy is so quickly dismissed. Certainly in the past we in the West dismissed them as “monophysite heretics”, but this is no longer true (the Catholic Church, under Pope St. John Paul, for example, signed common declarations on Christology with both the Coptic and Syriac Churches).

Pragmatically speaking, I think it mostly boils down to ignorance of said communions. I know I personally had no idea that they existed until I first seriously started considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism and was informed by knowledgeable Christians that these communions existed. These posters may be on the preliminary stages of their journey such that they won’t know about the Oriental Orthodox (or the Assyrians for that matter) until they’re actually told of them here on CAF! It may not necessarily be a matter of these individuals excluding these communions from their apostolic calculus.

For me it comes down to papal primacy…that’s why I’m Catholic. If I were to reject papal primacy, as understood by Catholics, I would have to very seriously evaluate both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy because without the primacy of Rome I don’t see the Council of Chalcedon as being clear cut.

For me it comes down to the infallibility of the Church. How that infallibility should be exercised, is exercised, and was intended to be exercised is the sticky question. I don’t have definitive enough answers to those questions to compel me to join a particular communion (I’ve been attending Catholic Mass and Orthodox Divine Liturgy on and off for 9 years now). I’m nevertheless whittling down my rationalizations and coming closer to where I ought to be.

 

[Abu]

Brandon Cal #22
For me it comes down to the infallibility of the Church. How that infallibility should be exercised, is exercised, and was intended to be exercised is the sticky question. I don’t have definitive enough answers to those questions to compel me to join a particular communion

That you recognise the infallibility conferred by the Christ is a great accomplishment.

What could be clearer than Jesus, the Christ, establishing His Catholic Church, and no other, on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar and the twelve, and specifically mandating the authority He was conveying on St Peter and His Successors? [See posts #9, 18].

Who but St Peter and his successors have been so authorized by the Christ? Why the uncertainty? Which other group has such a record of unchanging dogma and doctrine, meeting every challenge and change in the world, over 2000 years?

 

[czarlazar]

To somewhat get back on track to the original post. I think the reason that you see less of the OO verues the EO is that, the EO has considered the OO “outside” the church and therefore the main/major Christian discussions are between RC and EO, not OO. In addition, some of these OO either always were or have drifted far from EO (for example Ethiopian OO). Finally, most in the EO would view the OO as a breakaway and excluded group, similar to the RC relationship with Lutherans or any number of breakaway groups. The EO would never lump in RC and Lutherans, and I dont think most people put EO and OO together; although from a “western” perspective they seem very similar.

 

[wynd]

To somewhat get back on track to the original post. I think the reason that you see less of the OO verues the EO is that, the EO has considered the OO “outside” the church and therefore the main/major Christian discussions are between RC and EO, not OO. In addition, some of these OO either always were or have drifted far from EO (for example Ethiopian OO). Finally, most in the EO would view the OO as a breakaway and excluded group, similar to the RC relationship with Lutherans or any number of breakaway groups. The EO would never lump in RC and Lutherans, and I dont think most people put EO and OO together; although from a “western” perspective they seem very similar.

Really? Most EOs I know consider the OO to be 99% the same. Conversely, there were a few Ethiopians at my old (EO) parish who attended because there wasn’t an OO church in a reasonable distance.

 

[brigid12]

Good question. I am sure that a lot of it has to do with the fact that the majority of people that post here live in America. Oriental Orthodoxy here in the states is nearly impossible to find, unless you live in a major metro area that has a large immigrant population. Even then, most liturgies in Oriental churches are still recited in their native dialect. I think the large bulk of it has to do with that, as opposed to specific theological issues revolving around the Council of Chalcedon.

On the West Coast, even major metropolitan areas don’t have OO. Very many don’t have more than one EO. OO is out of the question.

 

[czarlazar]

Really? Most EOs I know consider the OO to be 99% the same. Conversely, there were a few Ethiopians at my old (EO) parish who attended because there wasn’t an OO church in a reasonable distance.

I didnt say they were not “99% the same”, in fact I stated that they are similar from a western perspective. But being similar is not the same, the Roman Catholic Church is also similar to the EO church, but its not the same. But in fact, the OO, is far from similar in any form of belief or practice to the EO.

I am not surprised that OO attended an EO church, but I think EO would not usually attend a OO church. And as I stated previously, the Ethiopian church is far from mainstream Orthodox belief and practice.

 

[Peter_J]

I didnt say they were not “99% the same”,

Okay I’ll bite. Are they 99% the same?

 

[Kmon23]

I didnt say they were not “99% the same”, in fact I stated that they are similar from a western perspective. But being similar is not the same, the Roman Catholic Church is also similar to the EO church, but its not the same. But in fact, the OO, is far from similar in any form of belief or practice to the EO.

I am not surprised that OO attended an EO church, but I think EO would not usually attend a OO church. And as I stated previously, the Ethiopian church is far from mainstream Orthodox belief and practice.

I’m not too familiar with OO practice/belief. How are they different from mainstream Orthodox practice/belief?

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not too familiar with OO practice/belief. How are they different from mainstream Orthodox practice/belief?

The OO Churches split from the “Undivided Church” (which later split into Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the various Protestant groups) following the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

That’s far from a great description, but there’s plenty you can read if you want to.

 

[czarlazar]

The OO Churches split from the “Undivided Church” (which later split into Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the various Protestant groups) following the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

That’s far from a great description, but there’s plenty you can read if you want to.

Well, we see it the other way around…Rome split from the Orthodox

 

[Denise1957]

Something that I find interesting is that most everyone in the Americas and Europe and even parts of Africa know who the Pope is. They know that the name of the Catholic Pope is Francis. And yet, how many know the names of the Orthodox Patriarchs? There’s something about the office of the Papacy that commands one’s attention, even by non-Catholics. The same cannot be said for the Orthodox leaders, however. That’s not to disparage them at all; I’m just making an abservation about the Papacy.

 

[Abu]

Peter J #30
The OO Churches split from the “Undivided Church” (which later split into Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the various Protestant groups) following the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Christ’s Catholic Church did not “split” from anything. Christ’s Catholic Church, the “Roman Catholicism” referred to by Peter J, is and always has been one, holy, catholic and apostolic – the only one founded by Christ Himself on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

Thus at the Council of Chalcedon
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Christ’s Catholic Church did not “split” from anything. Christ’s Catholic Church, the “Roman Catholicism” referred to by Peter J,

I think you’re a little confused. I am Peter J.

 

[Kmon23]

I think you’re a little confused. I am Peter J.

lol

And to your previous post, yes I am aware of the origins of Oriental Orthodoxy, but I was mainly asking on how they differ in practice with Eastern Orthodoxy.