Contemplating Orthodoxy

[Art321]

Agreed. The nature of that leadership is questionable though.

Yes, that is the part we disagree on. One question. Do you agree as I mentioned in my last post that only one of the groups has the fullness of the Faith?

I believe earlier you mentioned the Orthodox. Just checking.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Matthew 16:18

***And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. ***

.

My former spiritual father an Orthodox priest told me a few weeks ago the church wasnt built on Peter but his faith in the Son of God

yes i accept Jesus and Christianity but his church has split up into thousands of pieces each believing different things

i will just keep praying to be in the right church or in the church God wants or hopes for me to be in

 

[Vico]

…
We do not see unity as resting in Rome, and we will not accept a unity based on Rome. …

Does Rome hold that opinion? The unity is in Christ manifested in his Church with the infallibility given to his Church, and governance is “by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.
In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

... the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

 

[Art321]

My former spiritual father an Orthodox priest told me a few weeks ago the church wasnt built on Peter but his faith in the Son of God

yes i accept Jesus and Christianity but his church has split up into thousands of pieces each believing different things

i will just keep praying to be in the right church or in the church God wants or hopes for me to be in

The four marks of Christ’s Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I have learned that they are apart of the divine constitution of His Church and no schism how long lasting or deep rooted it is can truly undo this.

So it stands to reason that either the Orthodox or the Catholics have the fullness of the Faith. But who that is is something we disagree upon. Best of luck on your journey.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, that is the part we disagree on. One question. Do you agree as I mentioned in my last post that only one of the groups has the fullness of the Faith?

I believe earlier you mentioned the Orthodox. Just checking.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Nine_Two]

Does Rome hold that opinion? The unity is in Christ manifested in his Church with the infallibility given to his Church, and governance is “by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.
In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “churchless void”. What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society… governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”, then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.

... the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

I was speaking about the position of an individual. I know Rome’s vision for unity, at this point in time, is very similar to our own view. However the view of most Catholics is, sadly, not.

 

[Pork_Roll]

actually the most effective in the Papal claims are the RC Converts, because the vast majority of them studied Orthodoxy when they found out that the Papacy claims are nothing but a mirage.

The people who leave Catholicism for the EO church that I know usually got involved with the SSPX. There, they became critical of the modern popes and Vatican II. At some point they made the connection that if Vatican II is wrong, and the modernist popes, then the whole concept of papal infallibility is up for debate. Basically, they become pseudo-protestant before they become orthodox. Which is why many protestants I believe become EO. You don’t have to submit to the Holy Father. This is much more difficult than accepting some nebulous concept of Holy Orthodoxy–whatever that is.

We are one, The Holy See of Alexandria, the Holy See of Antioch, the Holy See of Jerusalem and the Holy See of Constantinople, each of those Pre-eminent Churches kept the unity except Rome perused its own ways after separated itself from the unity of the Holy Catholic Church of God.

You are not one. The see of Alexandria is Oriental Orthodox who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Ironically we have Catholic Coptic liturgies but the EO there in Alexandria use the Byzantine liturgy.

Constantinople was never part of the original sees but became one when Constantine moved the empire there. Rome was reluctant at first to recognize it. It is much like Moscow in that it granted itself higher honors than it initially deserved. This isn’t to say Hagia Sofia wasn’t the greatest church on earth. I wish I could have seen it in its glory.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

And yes, I love Taylor Pork Roll.
.

Do you eat a pork roll everyday?..

jerseyporkroll.com/products.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

The people who leave Catholicism for the EO church that I know usually got involved with the SSPX. There, they became critical of the modern popes and Vatican II. At some point they made the connection that if Vatican II is wrong, and the modernist popes, then the whole concept of papal infallibility is up for debate. Basically, they become pseudo-protestant before they become orthodox. Which is why many protestants I believe become EO. You don’t have to submit to the Holy Father. This is much more difficult than accepting some nebulous concept of Holy Orthodoxy–whatever that is. You are not one. The see of Alexandria is Oriental Orthodox who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Ironically we have Catholic Coptic liturgies but the EO there in Alexandria use the Byzantine liturgy.

Constantinople was never part of the original sees but became one when Constantine moved the empire there. Rome was reluctant at first to recognize it. It is much like Moscow in that it granted itself higher honors than it initially deserved. This isn’t to say Hagia Sofia wasn’t the greatest church on earth. I wish I could have seen it in its glory.

I can think of at least two posters here who came into Orthodoxy from Catholicism, and not one of them was involved with SSPX.

Also your comment that the Orthodox are not one is a silly remark. Is Catholicism not one because of the Old Catholics?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

The four marks of Christ’s Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. I have learned that they are apart of the divine constitution of His Church and no schism how long lasting or deep rooted it is can truly undo this.

So it stands to reason that either the Orthodox or the Catholics have the fullness of the Faith. But who that is is something we disagree upon. Best of luck on your journey.

Thank you God be with you

i am learning about St Peter and the papacy and i like it and i seem to be conforming to it

Its all new to me and although it seems to make sense and feel right,i still have doubts as i spent many years in Orthodoxy and heard and believed much of their arguements against Rome

For someone whos always been Catholic maybe its easier for them to make up their mind but ive been in EO and my mind has been filled with years of talk and writings against RC

what do i do?

Lord have mercy

 

[Peter_J]

Paul theApostle, could you clarify: are you thinking about swimming the Tiber, or have you done so already?

 

[Peter_J]

The people who leave Catholicism for the EO church that I know usually got involved with the SSPX.

I don’t know who you know, but I’d say that very few Catholic converts to Orthodoxy got involved with the SSPX first.

And regarding those few who did, what’s wrong with that? The fact that you personally dislike the SSPX isn’t a valid argument.

 

[Peter_J]

Here is a well balanced EO summary of history of the schism between the east and west.

By “balanced” do you mean that it isn’t stupid, or what?

 

[Art321]

I was speaking about the position of an individual. I know Rome’s vision for unity, at this point in time, is very similar to our own view. However the view of most Catholics is, sadly, not.

When it comes to unity, I believe Rome would not want any of our Orthodox brethren to convert to the Latin Church but rather that your churchs be in communion with the See of Rome. I believe Rome views that all the Eastern Church would keep their independence, liturgy, traditions, etc. Everything down to how your Bishops are elected. The only thing would be to recognize the authority of Rome which would mean in dire situations where the unity of the Holy Church would be threatened, the Pope would step in to resolve the issue.

I believe Rome sees it like this and I don’t believe I have claimed anything in my last posts anything that Rome wouldn’t approve of. It would seem that the Orthodox view unity in a different light.

My apologies if I am wrong.

 

[Art321]

Thank you God be with you

i am learning about St Peter and the papacy and i like it and i seem to be conforming to it

Its all new to me and although it seems to make sense and feel right,i still have doubts as i spent many years in Orthodoxy and heard and believed much of their arguements against Rome

For someone whos always been Catholic maybe its easier for them to make up their mind but ive been in EO and my mind has been filled with years of talk and writings against RC

what do i do?

Lord have mercy

The only advice I feel I can give you is to simply pray. Pray to God and He will lead on the right path.

 

[Peter_J]

When it comes to unity, I believe Rome would not want any of our Orthodox brethren to convert to the Latin Church but rather that your churchs be in communion with the See of Rome.

Actually, you could go further than that. When a cradle Orthodox converts to Catholicism (and, yes, that does happen sometimes) he/she is automatically enrolled in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches by default (although he/she can petition for permission to join the Latin Catholic Church instead).

 

[Byz_Guy]

Thank you God be with you

i am learning about St Peter and the papacy and i like it and i seem to be conforming to it

Its all new to me and although it seems to make sense and feel right,i still have doubts as i spent many years in Orthodoxy and heard and believed much of their arguements against Rome

For someone whos always been Catholic maybe its easier for them to make up their mind but ive been in EO and my mind has been filled with years of talk and writings against RC

what do i do?

Lord have mercy

Paul, have you seen the book “His Broken Body” by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck, an OCA priest?

books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&dq=his+broken+body+cleenewerck&sitesec=reviews

I think it does the best job from an Orthodox POV talking about the differences. It’s quite a bit different from some of the polemics on both sides. A lot of it is online at Google Books.

For example, he gives the Catholic perspective here and then follows with an Orthodox perspective:

books.google.com/books?id=oeKOUb6OcG4C&lpg=PA1&pg=PA242#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just wondering if you’ve seen this in your journey?

 

[Nine_Two]

When it comes to unity, I believe Rome would not want any of our Orthodox brethren to convert to the Latin Church but rather that your churchs be in communion with the See of Rome. I believe Rome views that all the Eastern Church would keep their independence, liturgy, traditions, etc. Everything down to how your Bishops are elected. The only thing would be to recognize the authority of Rome which would mean in dire situations where the unity of the Holy Church would be threatened, the Pope would step in to resolve the issue.

I believe Rome sees it like this and I don’t believe I have claimed anything in my last posts anything that Rome wouldn’t approve of. It would seem that the Orthodox view unity in a different light.

My apologies if I am wrong.

That is my understanding of the current view of the Roman Church. While it still holds differences with our own view, it is still much closer than what most Western Catholics seem to believe.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byz Guy,

I will await the further comments you have on Allatae Sunt before responding, so I can address them in toto.

Also, I think our discussion on Allatae Sunt deserves its own thread. I would like to take the time to pick out our specific posts on this topic and ask the Moderator to move them to another thread. Unfortunately, I don’t have that time right now.

Suggestion: If you do have other comments on the matter, do you mind waiting until that new thread is started?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother in Christ Cavaradossi,

Though we disagree with the application of the Essence/Energy distinction as far as the filioque issue is concerned, I like your responses to the Larson article.

Blessings,
Marduk