Dilemma of authority

[wynd]

After reading church history and thinking in depth and praying about it I fell that orthodo a have the true claim. But as a Roman Catholic I would be charged with schism for this.

If you become Orthodox it’s because you believe the Orthodox Church is true and not the Catholic Church. Therefore, from that perspective you would be leaving schism instead of entering into it.

 

[Lucretius]

Perhaps you are not quite understanding what I am trying to say. To discipline means you are spoken to not necessarily listened to. In the Catholic Church the structure is geared more spoken to. In the Eastern Churches the structure is the other way around. You are more listened to which is what mentoring and nurturing involves. It is like a mother who gives out this sermon on the mount to the children all together because she needs to discipline them. The father however takes them aside individually to help explain to them this sermon. He does this by listening to them more than the mother. This is how the Eastern Church tends to live by, what the father does. What the Eastern Churches need to do is acquire more what the mother does and what the Catholic Church needs to do is to acquire more what the father is. You have to live in both Churches to discover this. I only said that the detailed catechism is part of this discipline because it is so ordered and structured which is a compliment to what the Church of Rome can give for us. Perhaps you do not see it this way but when you are an Eastern Christian a very orderly detailed catechism is very much like the “sermon of the mount”. Every one of us needs it but we also need someone to help explain it which a mentor can do for us not so much telling us but by listening to us. Do you see the difference?

Sorry, I didn’t know what you meant by discipline. I agree with you somewhat, but I think this only applies to this age. In the past, the East did a lot of discipline, as the first seven Ecumenical Councils were in the East.

I think the Latin Church’s emphasis on discipline today has to due with them having to deal with secularism and Modernism as an authority, while the Eastern Churches had to deal with it by trying hard to simply survive.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[recentrevert]

They would say, the Holy Spirit acting collegially.

What are you going on about - what about the Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara, Armenian, Syriac, Russian, and Assyrian Churches? This line of ‘reasoning’ is unreasonable.
And?

I think you have added a few Oriental Orthodox Churches there: A different communion with different beliefs. The Eastern Orthodox are indeed mostly in Eastern Europe and they are mostly only Eastern European people. The fact that the keys of the Church were given to Saint Peter and St. Peter’s successor is the Pope is one of the main signs of the Church.

 

[Casilda]

Ive reached a bit of a dilemma.

I completely agree that as a christian, we must submit our will to the authority of the church. If i do not understand or believe in a teaching, it is not the church which needs to change, but it is myself that needs to change.

This leaves a dilemma concerning authority. Both catholicism and orthodoxy claim full legitimate authority in which we must submit. How is one to choose which authority to submit to if both have equal claim?

Dear Ryan,

I understand your dilemma. I couldnt revert to Catholicism and I couldnt convert to Orthodoxy. I am a cradle Catholic, but one of those baptized before that big council thingy in the 60’s. Then, it just so happened, that my husband of 30+ years (who the church says was not my husband) decided to become an Eastern Catholic. So, I married an Eastern Catholic, and here I am. A nice compromise. Am I at peace? I am okay, until I here Latin. My soul is still torn.

 

[chimo]

Well, there are signs that the separated eastern churches are not the Church.
In those churches, who decides what the true doctrine is when there is disagreement or ignorance? On what authority? Why are they confined almost exclusively to eastern Europe and eastern Europeans? Did not Christ found His Church upon Peter and not the other Apostles and give him the keys? Is it not clear that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter?

It is impossible though that you will find the truth without the help of God. Whenever the devil temps me against faith I try to remember to pray to our Lady ‘Virgin most Faithful’, to St. Joseph ‘Joseph most faithful’ and to Saints Peter and Paul.

I do not think the Eastern Churches would be here today after 2000 years if they could not decide on matters of faith. The truth is the Eastern Churches can decide on matters of faith but as a Catholic you do not see this because the way matters of faith is determined by the Church of Rome goes about a different manner than the Eastern Churches. You have to live the Eastern faith to understand how the Eastern Churches go about it. You will be surprised if you did because you are witnessing how the Eastern Churches determine matters of faith without a first type principal of government. It is to my observations and by living in both Churches that the two types of government are necessary for the welfare of the whole Church. What we are witnessing today is incredible misunderstandings on both levels of Churches in admitting that each Church has this right to their own way of governing. Since you were born into one system of government and not in the other it is very easy for people not to accept what the other is. Perhaps better understanding will achieve a better appreciation that what works for one Church perhaps does not necessarily mean it will work for the other Church. It seems both Churches needed to draw out what is best in them so that a first principal type of government was flourishing in Rome and a more collegiality type of government was flourishing in the East. We are arguing too much that our own type of government is the only type of government without insisting that the other has their right to administer as they see fit. When people on both sides see the advantage of what the other can be for them than we have the principal of what this can be for the whole Church.

 

[Lucretius]

I do not think the Eastern Churches would be here today after 2000 years if they could not decide on matters of faith. The truth is the Eastern Churches can decide on matters of faith but as a Catholic you do not see this because the way matters of faith is determined by the Church of Rome goes about a different manner than the Eastern Churches. You have to live the Eastern faith to understand how the Eastern Churches go about it. You will be surprised if you did because you are witnessing how the Eastern Churches determine matters of faith without a first type principal of government. It is to my observations and by living in both Churches that the two types of government are necessary for the welfare of the whole Church. What we are witnessing today is incredible misunderstandings on both levels of Churches in admitting that each Church has this right to their own way of governing. Since you were born into one system of government and not in the other it is very easy for people not to accept what the other is. Perhaps better understanding will achieve a better appreciation that what works for one Church perhaps does not necessarily mean it will work for the other Church. It seems both Churches needed to draw out what is best in them so that a first principal type of government was flourishing in Rome and a more collegiality type of government was flourishing in the East. We are arguing too much that our own type of government is the only type of government without insisting that the other has their right to administer as they see fit. When people on both sides see the advantage of what the other can be for them than we have the principal of what this can be for the whole Church.

How does the Eastern Church decide matters of faith? Both seem to use Ecumenical Council like the Catholics.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[chimo]

How does the Eastern Church decide matters of faith? Both seem to use Ecumenical Council like the Catholics.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Yes that is true regarding Ecumenical Councils which determined certain truths that needed to be addressed. But these Councils have determined what truths we have in order for us to help explain it to newer generations in words that would appeal to them. This then requires the work of the Holy Spirit to be able to inspire men and women to speak to the people on the level of understanding that would appeal to them. It doesn’t matter what councils have determined what the faith is if you do not have the Holy Spirit to carry it out. You still need the passion which the Holy Spirit can lead you into if the Faith is to be understood. For instance one of the greatest teachers of the Faith who was able to give to the people what the Holy Spirit wanted was the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He did not give direct statements of the faith which those Councils had determined but he was able by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to explain them in ways we could relate to and understand. This is in a small way what I meant when I said the Eastern Churches can decide on matters of faith. They have the Holy Spirit and there is no greater composition of the Faith than the Holy Spirit. If you have Him than matters of faith can be easily interpreted. But it is interesting that both Churches have different approaches in administering that Faith to its people. This could be misunderstood but it is to my observations and living in both Churches that both Churches go about it differently. These differences however are more complimentary. We seem to argue about each other what our greatest strengths are. The differences in both Churches in administering the Faith was ordained by the same God. Let me put this for you. The Eastern Churches structure is more geared for children and to the youth. The Catholic Church’s structure is more geared for adults. Children can come to experience the Lord in the Eastern Churches much more than what the average child of the Catholic Church can receive. That is because the structure of the Eastern Churches is more geared for children. In the Catholic Church a child must receive catechism before they enter into the Mass. The Eastern child however can enter into these experiences of God even before they are taught any catechism. The whole experiences of living out the Divine Liturgy is a catechism played out especially for the young mind. The Catholic Mass is not structured to do the same for the children. The Catholic Mass it seems to be more structured for the adult to experience God. I am talking about the Church structure here not the homes of these children. So matters of Faith is dependent on how your Church is structured. In the East it is first lived out that is experiences come before theory while in he Catholic Church it is done first by theory which leads to experiencing God. This is what I mean when the Eastern Churches go about it in a different way.

 

[Lucretius]

Yes that is true regarding Ecumenical Councils which determined certain truths that needed to be addressed. But these Councils have determined what truths we have in order for us to help explain it to newer generations in words that would appeal to them. This then requires the work of the Holy Spirit to be able to inspire men and women to speak to the people on the level of understanding that would appeal to them. It doesn’t matter what councils have determined what the faith is if you do not have the Holy Spirit to carry it out. You still need the passion which the Holy Spirit can lead you into if the Faith is to be understood. For instance one of the greatest teachers of the Faith who was able to give to the people what the Holy Spirit wanted was the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen. He did not give direct statements of the faith which those Councils had determined but he was able by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to explain them in ways we could relate to and understand. This is in a small way what I meant when I said the Eastern Churches can decide on matters of faith. They have the Holy Spirit and there is no greater composition of the Faith than the Holy Spirit. If you have Him than matters of faith can be easily interpreted. But it is interesting that both Churches have different approaches in administering that Faith to its people. This could be misunderstood but it is to my observations and living in both Churches that both Churches go about it differently. These differences however are more complimentary. We seem to argue about each other what our greatest strengths are. The differences in both Churches in administering the Faith was ordained by the same God. Let me put this for you. The Eastern Churches structure is more geared for children and to the youth. The Catholic Church’s structure is more geared for adults. Children can come to experience the Lord in the Eastern Churches much more than what the average child of the Catholic Church can receive. That is because the structure of the Eastern Churches is more geared for children. In the Catholic Church a child must receive catechism before they enter into the Mass. The Eastern child however can enter into these experiences of God even before they are taught any catechism. The whole experiences of living out the Divine Liturgy is a catechism played out especially for the young mind. The Catholic Mass is not structured to do the same for the children. The Catholic Mass it seems to be more structured for the adult to experience God. I am talking about the Church structure here not the homes of these children. So matters of Faith is dependent on how your Church is structured. In the East it is first lived out that is experiences come before theory while in he Catholic Church it is done first by theory which leads to experiencing God. This is what I mean when the Eastern Churches go about it in a different way.

I know that at my Ukrainian Catholic Church the priest does a “child Homily” every month.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think you have added a few Oriental Orthodox Churches there: A different communion with different beliefs. The Eastern Orthodox are indeed mostly in Eastern Europe and they are mostly only Eastern European people. The fact that the keys of the Church were given to Saint Peter and St. Peter’s successor is the Pope is one of the main signs of the Church.

This is a nonsequitor, the Roman Church was for centuries only in Europe, did that make it less Catholic, less true? It doesn’t make sense to state that about the Orthodox, who make up the second largest Communion in the world with nearly 300 million members. The Oriental Orthodox are also all over with 40 million members. How does this disprove anything?

 

[JRS_88]

This is a nonsequitor, the Roman Church was for centuries only in Europe, did that make it less Catholic, less true? It doesn’t make sense to state that about the Orthodox, who make up the second largest Communion in the world with nearly 300 million members. The Oriental Orthodox are also all over with 40 million members. How does this disprove anything?

Well said.

 

[chimo]

I know that at my Ukrainian Catholic Church the priest does a “child Homily” every month.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

So does my priest at the Orthodox Church which I attend to. It is interesting that you brought this up for the people of my parish are connected more to the talks when given to the children. We need to include the children into the life of the structure of the Churches. In every Eastern Church there is an Icon of the Holy Mother of God with the child Jesus on her lap. The child Jesus reminds us of the importance of children and how we are connected to God through them. This Icon is often showed at the front of the Altar to the left of it. When children see this Icon they seem to see this connection with the child Jesus to show them how important they are even at this early age. The Book of Proverbs said if you are a little one come to Me. The enormous capacity children have to contain the Lord in their hearts is contained in those words. The Lord delights in children! We need to reveal this importance for them. Thank you for bringing it up because it will be good if other parishes will do the same.

 

[worldcitizen]

Excellent thought and I agree completely but the problem is both orthodox and catholic can respond by saying that they are the one true church. In fact, I had to look at your profile to see what religion you identified as because it’s impossible to know by the post.

After reading church history and thinking in depth and praying about it I fell that orthodo a have the true claim. But as a Roman Catholic I would be charged with schism for this.

So the question is, when it comes to authority, can we use logic and faith to determine who we submit to?

Please forgive me for intervening. Logic, reason and faith are gifts that come from God that He gave us to use in situations like this. He gave us a mind so we could distinguish right from wrong and search for truth and so you are only using what God has given you.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Excellent thought and I agree completely but the problem is both orthodox and catholic can respond by saying that they are the one true church. In fact, I had to look at your profile to see what religion you identified as because it’s impossible to know by the post.

After reading church history and thinking in depth and praying about it I fell that orthodo a have the true claim. But as a Roman Catholic I would be charged with schism for this.

So the question is, when it comes to authority, can we use logic and faith to determine who we submit to?

What did you discover in church history that vindicates the Orthodox? I find it telling that most people convert to Orthodoxy because of history whereas most people convert to Catholicism based on feelings or because they like Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Peter_J]

Ive reached a bit of a dilemma.

I completely agree that as a christian, we must submit our will to the authority of the church. If i do not understand or believe in a teaching, it is not the church which needs to change, but it is myself that needs to change.

This leaves a dilemma concerning authority. Both catholicism and orthodoxy claim full legitimate authority in which we must submit. How is one to choose which authority to submit to if both have equal claim?

Hi RyanJPII, and thank you for starting this thread. To echo something I said elsewhere, people often use the terms “converts” and “cradles”, but I prefer to think of myself as a “loyalist” (not to be confused with the political sense of the term of course ).

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with people calling me a “cradle” (and I’ve called myself that on numerous past occasions) but I just find that “loyalist” has better accentuation – I could have chosen to switch from this church to another, but I didn’t.

 

[truthseeker32]

I’m not going to tell you whether Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy has the legitimate claim to being the Church founded by Christ, but I am going to point out some things that helped me when I was trying to answer the same questions during my time in RCIA. Hopefully you find them valuable.

1. The key question is papal primacy and how it is understood. There are other doctrinal issues that may also be barriers, such as the filioque, but papal primacy is the issue everyone agrees is a dividing factor. Issues like ethnicity and disorganization, while having some rhetorical persuasion, do not demonstrate or undermine truth claims. As others have already pointed out, the Roman Catholic Church has been ethnically and geographically concentrated for most of its history. Furthermore, if our primary basis for choosing a church is organization and efficiency then Mormonism would be the right choice, and we certainly wouldn’t have opted for early Christianity, which was often a disorganized mess, especially during councils and synods.
2. Look to the best resources both sides have to offer. As one gets away from the apologetics and digs into the scholarship, things seem a lot less clear. History is messy, and so too is figuring out which church has the better claim.
3. Remember that being a Christian, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or otherwise, is a method for living and not merely an ideology. If, in the end, you aren’t sure who is correct about papal primacy, think about which church will help you better live the Christian life.

 

[Lucretius]

What did you discover in church history that vindicates the Orthodox? I find it telling that most people convert to Orthodoxy because of history whereas most people convert to Catholicism based on feelings or because they like Thomas Aquinas.

I find a lot of people convert to Orthodoxy because it doesn’t have the negative views that Catholicism has in Protestant culture. No Protestant went around call the Patriarch of Constantinople the Anti-Christ

That’s also why many of them have a congressional style ecclesiology, despite the traditional views: they are still mixing their Protestantism in (mostly unintentionally, I presume).

There is also the fact that today’s liberal democracts don’t like the doctrine of the Papacy: it sounds just like monarchy to them.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Peter_J]

I find a lot of people convert to Orthodoxy because it doesn’t have the negative views that Catholicism has in Protestant culture. No Protestant went around call the Patriarch of Constantinople the Anti-Christ

You’re right that some protestants call the Pope the Anti-Christ, and so on; but your understanding of Catholic and Orthodox is way off. We (Catholics and Orthodox alike) don’t accentuate similarities that exist between us and Protestants. If anything, any similarities that exist between Orthodox and Protestant will be used as an argument for Catholicism, and similarities between Catholics and Protestants will be used as an argument for Orthodoxy.

 

[recentrevert]

This is a nonsequitor, the Roman Church was for centuries only in Europe, did that make it less Catholic, less true? It doesn’t make sense to state that about the Orthodox, who make up the second largest Communion in the world with nearly 300 million members. The Oriental Orthodox are also all over with 40 million members. How does this disprove anything?

The Catholic Church was never only in Europe (It began in Jerusalem) but has been, of course, confined to the known and accessible world of the age. As new parts of the world have become known to those who hold the Faith the Church has spread. The Eastern Orthodox churches are confined, even in this day and age, largely to Eastern Europe and Eastern European people. Around half of all Eastern Orthodox are in Russia. This is a sign that this communion of churches is not the Church, which Christ founded to teach all nations.

 

[recentrevert]

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/confront.htm

In reply to the OP - I hope this helps.

 

[Peter_J]

If you become Orthodox it’s because you believe the Orthodox Church is true and not the Catholic Church. Therefore, from that perspective you would be leaving schism instead of entering into it.

We Catholics could equally say that someone who leaves Orthodoxy for Catholicism isn’t entering into schism from our perspective.