Choosing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism -- how and why did you do it?

[FabiusMaximus]

I wonder why Oriental Orthodoxy is not in the equation? Not to distract from the thread but I visited one of their churches once and found it so beautiful and their apostolic claims are not any different than the other two.

They unfortunately become dwarfed in the discussion. Probably because the majority of us are Westerners, and those who understand Oriental Orthodoxy are few (myself included).

 

[Marybeloved]

Please provide the “many” quotes from Fathers outside of Roman influence which show the type of authority the Pope today claims. I know the Ecumenical Councils are after 300 AD, but only power the canons give the Pope is the power to order a new trial for a deposed bishop if appealed to. He never had the power to interfere in another Bishops jurisdiction or to appoint bishops outside his patriarchy.

Really? Never could interfere with other Bishops jurisdictions?

Much of the modern form of electing and installing Bishops in RC church came after 1870 and Vatican I.

I don’t understand what the manner of election has got to do with anything?

also there is no mention in scripture about either the Bishop of Rome or Peters successors being in complete control.

Neither is there such mention of “complete control” present in Catholic Council teachings regarding the papacy, so this is making an argument against a phantom, really.

Both sides can quote Fathers all day and usually the same one for both sides of an argument. They do not hold absolute authority as do the First councils(truly Ecumenical) or Scripture.

Of course they have authority, and of course Councils did not define everything regarding church structure so as to justify any modern attempt at disregarding the church Fathers who predated the councils or lived through them on the matters of ecclesiastical structure.

I was a practicing RC who became interested in Orthodoxy and Papal authority when i started puzzling over why Peter was not the spokesman and author of the decision of the first real council in Acts 15

Funny, because my understanding of Acts is that he actually was the author of the doctrine upon which the disciplines of St. James were based and that his teaching of that doctrine at the Council is what brought the debate to a speedy resolution.

 

[Nine_Two]

The scripture doesn’t need to define St Peters successor. Does scripture need to mention Constantinople? What page is that on? The documents are at the Vativan with proof of St Peter’s 2-following successors, and a solid case has been made for the third.

You missed the point. Of course someone succeeded St. Peter on the See of Rome. The idea that that particular see became the ruling Bishopric of the Church is missing.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. And thats exactly how such wonderful ideas such as Contraceptives are approved at the EO. One size does fit all with Doctrine/Bible. Since when should a Priest have the authority to chance doctrine for personal issues?

How does it contradict it?

No need to get snippy. I was just stating a difference between Orthodox and Catholics on this, as you say, you believe one size fits all, we don’t. On the question of who is right, it depends on who is correct on the issue of authority. We disagree there, and I’m not going to try to change your mind (especially since that is against board rules), I merely state the Orthodox position.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think if anybody wants to learn a bit about the papacy and the great schism, you might consider trying to find a copy of Francis Dvornik’s Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. It is a rather fair historical assessment of the growth of two separate systems of ecclesial governance in the East and West, one based on what he calls the principle of accommodation and the other based on what is commonly referred to apostolicity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Please provide the “many” quotes from Fathers outside of Roman influence which show the type of authority the Pope today claims. I know the Ecumenical Councils are after 300 AD, but only power the canons give the Pope is the power to order a new trial for a deposed bishop if appealed to. He never had the power to interfere in another Bishops jurisdiction or to appoint bishops outside his patriarchy. Much of the modern form of electing and installing Bishops in RC church came after 1870 and Vatican I. also there is no mention in scripture about either the Bishop of Rome or Peters successors being in complete control. Both sides can quote Fathers all day and usually the same one for both sides of an argument. They do not hold absolute authority as do the First councils(truly Ecumenical) or Scripture. I was a practicing RC who became interested in Orthodoxy and Papal authority when i started puzzling over why Peter was not the spokesman and author of the decision of the first real council in Acts 15

Why don’t just go with the beloved Saint of "both churchs then, and make this painless, since its Christmas. But I’ll use the quotes from the EO? Hows that for fair?

St. Chrysostom’s habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])

Homily of SS. Peter and Elias (vol II, 727[731]) we find:

“Peter was to be entrusted with the keys of the church, or, rather, he was entrusted with the keys of heaven, and he was to be entrusted with the multitude of the people…That Peter the head of the apostles, the unshaken foundation, the unbroken rock, the first in the Church, the unconquerable port, the unshaken tower…he who was to be entrusted with the Church, the pillar of the Church, the port of the faith, Peter, the teacher of the whole world…Peter, that column, that bulwark.”

But the holy Doctor does not mean merely that certain disciples (and especially Peter) were honored by their Master because of their greater love. He adds, further, that Peter had a rank, a precedence…

“See the unanimity of the apostles,” he says, on Acts 2:4: “they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach.” “Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ’s right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others.”

There was no Constantinople before 300. its was called the “Catholic Church” so [Rome has what to do with the above statement] by St Ignatius id Antioch. Do you want to read those also?

I’ll be waiting for one from Rome which state’s contrary:shrug:

Peace

 

[Nine_Two]

Really? Never could interfere with other Bishops jurisdictions?

I’d just like to clarify him, the post you’re replying to said he didn’t have the power to interfere. Orthodox tradition is quite clear that he could, and often was invited to interfere, but this interference would then be on the terms of those who invited him to interfere.

Within modern Orthodoxy this same standing has fallen to the Patriarch of Constantinople. With one notable exception (a geographic region in Greece where the Churches are officially under him but administered by the Church of Greece), Constantinople has no power to interfere, and indeed claims no such power. Nonetheless he is often invited to rule on disputes. The most noteworthy recent case I can think of is when he ruled that the desposition of Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus was illegal, after being asked by the bishops of the island and the Archbishop to decide.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I learned about Orthodoxy in my quest for apostolic Christianity. I was fascinated by their liturgy, and I learned that they have the same claims to apostolicity as the Catholic Church does. I began to question the papacy at this point. Through research, especially through reading stuff by Irenaeus, I learned that the early church really did hold the church of Rome to be authoritative and the bishop of Rome to be the sort of unifying figure in the Church. Also, I had to consider the nature of the Orthodox faith. There seems to be a lot of divisions in Orthodoxy. Also in my part of the country there aren’t really that many Orthodox churches. Catholic churches are much easier to come by. Even if the Orthodox have it 100 percent right, I can’t really be blamed for not being Orthodox if there are no Orthodox missions in my area.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the earlier ECFs…

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)
“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.):
“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret)

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):
“Peter, the Rock of the Church …” (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):
“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …” (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded.” (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

“Peter, upon whom is built Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.” (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)

St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):
“For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring …” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

“God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord’s word, upon a Rock …” (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

“There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord’s authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

“Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church …” (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).

St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):
“Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

“Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’” (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).

"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, ‘Far be it from Thee, Lord.’ [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah the same unhelpful list of quotations. The papacy of today, unfortunately looks nothing like the papacy they knew. Add to that the fact that they are talking about Peter half the time and not the papacy and you have a pretty weak case.

 

[Jacob50]

Ah the same unhelpful list of quotations. The papacy of today, unfortunately looks nothing like the papacy they knew. Add to that the fact that they are talking about Peter half the time and not the papacy and you have a pretty weak case.

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

 

[GaryTaylor]

Ah the same unhelpful list of quotations. The papacy of today, unfortunately looks nothing like the papacy they knew. Add to that the fact that they are talking about Peter half the time and not the papacy and you have a pretty weak case.

Ah its a statement to exactly what everyone from the period of ECFs thought, which is the EO’s calling card… ECFs.

The Papacy was their in 370…St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):
“Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter because you will support “all its buildings”. {You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me}. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

The Chair of St Peter is the Popes chair:shrug: And as it was then, so to it is now. Has change occurred? Of course.

Nothing is constant but change. However, I don’t see the Pope looking to control anything. Actually I see it very much on the contrary.

 

[Jacob50]

Ah the same unhelpful list of quotations. The papacy of today, unfortunately looks nothing like the papacy they knew. Add to that the fact that they are talking about Peter half the time and not the papacy and you have a pretty weak case.

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276 [A.D. 430]).
-John Cassian

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197[A.D. 450]).
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria

 

[Nicea325]

Bezant:

In summary, that the Bishop of Rome had local influence, not a decisive, universal authority over the church, during the first few centuries of the Church.

Not true at all. I can provide numerous cases were an Eastern bishop travelled hundreds of miles to present his case to the Bishop of Rome. Why travel extensively if the pope has no universal jurisdiction?

 

[Nicea325]

Ah the same unhelpful list of quotations. The papacy of today, unfortunately looks nothing like the papacy they knew. Add to that the fact that they are talking about Peter half the time and not the papacy and you have a pretty weak case.

Who ever said the papacy of today would look exactly as it did centuries ago? Does the U.S. government look the same as 1789? Your argument holds no validity at all.

 

[Bezant]

CC or EO isn’t my thinking. Non-religious, and the fact you can’t support your claim with evidence. Basically its talk.

I’m afraid I don’t follow you.

However, I think I should make it clear that I’m not looking to prove anything.

Ah but we’ve already established that ECFs disagree with you, and none support your claim above, as you stated you read the ECFs when I stated I have them on-file if you would like to read them. So stated you did but seem to yet disagree. So my question again is where is the proof from the ECFs. Can you supply one such document which dates before 300-AD that Rome St Peter is not the governing body of Christianity?

I said I would read your files. But just because the Eastern Rites are in communion with Rome, it doesn’t mean that the usual Catholic historical arguments for the pope are necessarily accurate.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m afraid I don’t follow you.

However, I think I should make it clear that I’m not looking to prove anything.

I said I would read your files. But just because the Eastern Rites are in communion with Rome, it doesn’t mean that the usual Catholic historical arguments for the pope are necessarily accurate.

Well if they are not accurate as you stated,then kindly present the historical arguments/sources which do present the authentic accuracy?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Well many times here at CAF, members often quote the Church Fathers to see what they taught regarding Petrine Primacy. I shall quote those who even though they may not be considered “Church Fathers”, nevertheless wrote or spoke of what the Church believed before the Great Schism (around 1050s A.D.).​

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to** the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound**. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for ‘Peter,’ saith He, ‘lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.’ And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority …And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.
-Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645 A.D.)

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).
-Emperor Justinian (520-533), Writting to the pope

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now** presides over all the churches which are under the sun**? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers** (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome**. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
-St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

• John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they** (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles**. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

• St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Writing to Pope Paschal:
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

• St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826)

 

[Bezant]

Well if they are not accurate as you stated,then kindly present the historical arguments/sources which do present the authentic accuracy?

I didn’t say they were inaccurate. I said that just because the Eastern Rites united with Rome, it doesn’t necessarily prove that the usual Catholic historical arguments for the papacy are accurate. I also said that I’m not here to prove anything.

 

[Bezant]

Dear brother Bezant,

I propose that you have perhaps a Low Petrine understanding of ecclesiology. The thing that primarily differentiates Low and Absolutist Petrine ecclesiology, on the one hand, from High Petrine ecclesiology, on the other, is that Low and Absolutist Petrine advocates view ecclesiology in terms of the body in competition with the head, or vice versa, while High Petrine advocates view ecclesiology in terms of a the union of head and body. If a Low Petrine advocate finds a few examples of the head bishop being corrected, they immediately conclude - “Ahhh, the head bishop has NO authority, but only has a primacy of honor.” If an Absolutist Petrine advocates finds a few examples of the body or members of the body being corrected by the head, they immediately conclude - “Ahhh, the head bishop has absolute authority in the Church, and the other members have no say in anything.”

The High Petrine view, in contrast, understands that the authority established by Christ is a collegial authority, where the head and body work together as one - in some instances, you may find that members of the body needs correction by the head; in other instances, you may find that the head needs correction by the body. All that is par for the course in High Petrine ecclesiology, and one need not accept the polar extremes evident in Absolutist Petrine (which always views the body in subjugation to the head) or Low Petrine (which always views the head in subjugation to the body) views.

Since you percieve ecclesiology as a contest of competing authorities, it is understandable that you might interpret the situation as you did - that Rome had little authority early on and only claimed greater authority later. As a High Petrine advocate, I would view the reality simply as one in which the supreme primatial authority of the head bishop was not used that much in the early centuries, but perhaps became more drastically needed in later centuries. It does not mean that the supreme primatial office did not exist in early centuries, nor that it was only created in later centuries. For indeed, there has always been a collegial authority established by Christ (head and body working TOGETHER).

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank-you for your informational explanation Marduk.