Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t know about the on and on part but the rest sound very reasonable

When couples should be allowed to space children, if there are other considerations on when/if to allow birth control, fasting regimens, prayer rules, issues/impediments regarding holy orders, issues regarding regular church attendance…and on and on.

 

[joe370]

josephdaniel29;7691986]Like I said I never heard of it till I read it from Catholic sources. I haven’t had any real reason to dispute it considering where the info is coming from.

So, if something is from a catholic source then no need to dispute it? Sounds like you put a lot of trust in the integrity and forthrightness of the CC; that’s cool.

 

[Shiranui117]

No problem. Thanks for the feedback, Shiranui.

But see, it’s precisely such ways of looking at the matter (“two foundations or one?”) that seem to me to most reinforce the Catholic position.

Can you clarify what you mean for me? I’m confused as to what you mean.

The study you mention with the Church Fathers? Now that’s something I need to look into.

But let me share this: when I look at the eastern Orthodox Church, I feel most deeply impressed when I perceive the great elegance, beauty, and nuance with which it handles theological and spiritual matters that on the surface receive, well, blunter (dare I say, more scholastic and rationalistic?) treatment from the Latin tradition.

When I read Orthodox sources or discussions on these things, I almost always find the subtlety and taste for paradox and mystery I so admire and often find lacking in the west.

But then, the minute they begin talking about the Catholic Church, suddenly - in my very limited experience - all that goes out the window. The article that started this thread is a great example: it basically implies - and I’ve heard Orthodox Christians assert this elsewhere too - that the contemporary Orthodox Church is essentially indistinguishable in belief and practice from the first-century church. For any contemporary Christian body to make this claim is simply historically ludicrous.

On other topics I’ve found similar things. I don’t remember if I read it in this article, but another source gave a beautiful and mysticised description from eastern theology of the nature and efficacy of Christ’s atonement for our sins on the cross, then proceeded to describe an absurdly legalistic, simplistic, and rationalistic description of the meaning of Christ’s suffering and death, called that the “Roman church’s version” as if the latter were meant to be exhaustive or the two could not coexist, and called it a day.

I agree with you entirely here, in that oftentimes Orthodox oversimplify Catholicism and attack it, which basically qualifies as a strawman. However, I’ve seen the same done the other way around by Catholics to Orthodox, particularly in one of Jimmy Akin’s articles (the title runs something like, "Why I’m not Eastern Orthodox.) It’s a sin that both sides commit; we can be absorbed in our own tradition and simply brush off other methods of expression found in other traditions.

As to the Orthodox stating that they believe EXACTLY as the early church, I will agree somewhat with your conclusion. However, in this case, I believe it’s a matter of not so much determining what church believes exactly as the early church, as doctrinal definitions and councils make that impossible, but determining which church is more similar to the early church in terms of faith, Tradition and structure.

 

[Shiranui117]

Other examples abound. The Orthodox insist they don’t believe in purgatory - fine; okay. But unless I’m completely mistaken, Orthodox Christians do pray for the dead, and whether they like it or not, that very practice itself tautologically includes all that the Catholic Church means by “purgatory.”

How can anyone not see the problems with this sloppy analysis? After criticizing the west’s trust in and reliance on reason just a few paragraphs earlier, this author now unleashes a shamelessly rationalistic metaphor. And to top it all off, it doesn’t even do justice to the Catholic vision of episcopal collegiality even before the analogy is applied. Ironically, as a Roman Catholic I find the description identified as the Orthodox position to be far more palatable to my theological sensibilities.

In short, in the admittedly quite small sample I’ve looked at so far of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, I’ve found a great deal of impatience, rationalism, and academic irresponsibility on the part of the Orthodox criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church - all attributes which I find totally absent from the profundity, paradox, and beauty that characterize the writings I’ve encountered in which the Orthodox Church simply expounds its own doctrines and practices without reference to the west.

LOL! I agree. To be honest, as a Catholic-Orthodox fence-sitter, I don’t find the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory odd at all. I may take issue with some of the imagery being used (cleansing fire) but I don’t exactly know what’s gonna happen to me once I get there. I do, however, find it odd how indulgences are practically given a commercialist aspect; Pope Benedict XV basically advertising that devoutly kissing your Brown Scapular gets you 500 days off in Purgatory sounds “gimmicky” to me, but then again, so do the promises of the Brown Scapular in general. Our salvation isn’t guaranteed, and having a prayer rule or a Benedictine rule or anything spiritually-developmental is good, but I just don’t see the need to have promises such as a Sabbatine Privilege attached to anything; bettering ourselves spiritually and moving further along the path to God should be enough motivation, in my book.

To be honest - and this is the most accurate and succinct way I know how to put it - much of what I find in the Orthodox attitude toward Catholic Christianity reminds me of the Latin Church’s attitude about itself in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries pre-Vatican II: i.e. an historically simplistic narrative that emphasizes continuity over change to an academically dishonest extent, recklessly avoids necessary and nuanced clarifications about its relationship to other Christian bodies, etc.

I’ve never seen that take on it before. Very interesting.

That is one thing I don’t understand. As I said, when I read neutral Orthodox descriptions of the Orthodox faith, I am only ever astounded, impressed, and moved. Am I the only one who feels that some of the rich nuance of the east gets tossed out the window when the Orthodox mount apologetical arguments against notions like papal primacy? Is it only because I’ve been Catholic all my life that I get the genuine impression that the Catholic Church finds room for both hardcore, scholastic-style reason, philosophy, development, and paradox, mystery, nuance, and continuity?

Ahh, polemics. Makes everyone’s brains go out the window; especially the brains of those launching them!

Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I’m aware that - according to what it says on your profile - you’re not even Orthodox, Shiranui, so this was not directed at you particularly or you alone. But I was reminded of this general impression of mine by your question about how there can be two foundations of the Church. Because I really don’t think there are two. Of course Christ is the foundation of the Church, her true rock. That only makes it more conspicuous that he would rename Simon “Rock” and then make the apparently cryptic statement, “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”

I suppose I’m having trouble grasping what you’re getting at. Does it have to do with Peter representing Jesus on earth? If so, that leads me to another question: Why do we need someone to be a “representative” for Christ, when we all have the image of God in us and we are all part of the Body of Christ? I hope you don’t find my questions bothersome; I just want to know exactly for what reasons Catholicism elevates the Pope so.
he is the first among equals and he is the head of the See where Peter and Paul were martyred, and he occupies the last See founded by Peter; I understand all that.

It reminded me of when I once read a discussion in which a fundamentalist Protestant insisted that the Book of Job’s reference to “Leviathan” means that the bizarre and lame modernist claim that this is simply another name for a hippopotamus is necessary if one is to conclude that the Bible doesn’t teach man and dinosaurs coexisted.

Until that moment, it had literally never occurred to me to deny that despite the fact that sea monsters aren’t real, this Leviathan is, in that story, a great sea monster.

Ahh, Biblical literalism. Leads to a lot of blindness on a lot of things…

Yes, thank you for the links and the info, Shiranui. The history of eastern Christianity is definitely my weak point.

Admittedly, the history of Christianity in general is my weak point. I have much, much much yet to learn.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Scott,

I have real trouble believing that story. I would have just as much trouble with that as I would if someone told me that the Patriarch of Constantinople had someone lay down and he put his foot on his head or neck. Just sounds too absurd and outlandish to believe. Someone is full of that boloney you mentioned the other day…

I love it!

Yes, baloney flies around here quite a bit

Seriously though, before I saw that Joseph had posted as link, I was going to suggest once again that you ask an eastern Catholic (it’s just better if you learn about eastern Catholicism from eastern Catholics). I know you probably wouldn’t bother but every Melkite Catholic probably knows that story, for a reason.

It is true, and it is the reason the Melkite Catholic church has consistently opposed the beatification and canonization of Pio Nonno (unsuccessfully, it seems now).

BTW, the author in the article on that website is none other than Father Roberson of the Paulist order, well known and respected authority on the eastern Catholic churches. The pages in that section are from his book, which he graciously donated to the organization, I have a copy of that book in my library. I believe -](not sure at the moment/-]) he has been involved in the interfaith dialogs with Orthodox. CNEWA is a Papal agency doing work for the Catholic church.

Edit: I just looked and found out more information on him.

Father Roberson is involved in the following committees:
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

The Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops

The Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation

The Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue

 

[josephdaniel29]

So, if something is from a catholic source then no need to dispute it? Sounds like you put a lot of trust in the integrity and forthrightness of the CC; that’s cool.

Anyway, I just wouldn’t have assumed that Catholics would make up and propagate a story that makes a pope look so bad.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello outhere Shiranui 117

All apostolic successors (bishops) are equal. Jesus himself sets Peter apart by giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of God, to bind and loose on “Earth”. At the same time the apostles are given the same authority to bind and loose upon the flock entrusted to them on the local level, where as Peter and his apostolic successors exercises his keys of the kingdom of God in the binding and loosing “On Earth”, meaning the whole universal Catholic Church.

Here is proof, Jesus after he resurrects from the dead and before he ascends into heaven when God binds and looses in heaven what Peter binds and looses on earth to tend, feed and teach the whole flock of Jesus Christ. Please see John 21:15-17

The bishop of Rome has no authority over my local bishop these are equal. Now the Pope speaking from the Chair of Peter which Jesus built upon Rock, an immovable office upon Peter, can bind or loose my bishop if found to be teaching error, heresy against the revealed teachings of Jesus Christ being lived out in the Catholic church. At the same time the Pope can defend his apostolic teachings revealed to him by Jesus Christ, against every wind of doctrine that comes against the whole church.

No single apostolic successor can face secular powers by himself and speak for the whole of Christendom except the Pope, this is the rock Jesus has built upon Peter. This is not to give the Pope secular power, this is to say, Jesus chose to proclaim his Kingdom from Peters bark (boat) off shore. The Pope is just the Vicar of our King of Kings on earth, while all the bishops are Vicars of Christ on the local level.

In other words the Pope is the bishop of Rome who sits in the Chair of Peter, it is his bishopric that makes him Peter’s apostolic successor. on a universal does not rule over any bishop on the local level, only to protect the flock of Jesus from the wolves, is when the Pope will go to bring back his brethren
Lk 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

peace be with you

Shiranui117;7689981]And if he is truly equal, then how can it be that the Pope exercises authority over his fellow patriarchs or bishops of other churches uninhibited? I’m having trouble balancing the notion of equality and the notion of Papal supremacy.

 

[Shiranui117]

Also, why didn’t Jesus build the rock on Andrew’s profession? He discovered the Christ before Peter.

Sorry I’ve been late getting back to you! I had to search through my Bible and chew on that question.
I don’t recall seeing that anywhere in the 4 Gospels. If you had a verse, that would be helpful.

Anyway, I suppose Jesus didn’t build the rock on anyone else’s profession before Peter’s, because it seems everyone else had a case of “seeing then believing” as everyone else had said that to Him after He had done some miracle. However, Peter confessed who Jesus was as the answer to a question that was posed to all the disciples, and he was the only one who said what he believed Christ to be, whereas everyone else gave the word on the street, so to speak, on who Jesus was.

 

[Shiranui117]

Amen, Nathanael was the first disciple to proclaim Jesus as the “Son of God” not Peter or Simon, another proclamation of faith that surpasses all of them is the one proclaimed by doubting Thomas, when he proclaimed his faith to Jesus as “MY LORD AND MY GOD”. Now this faith blows all the other recorded faiths away IMHO.

Ahh, but Thomas needed to see before he could believe. That’s knowledge, not faith.

 

[jam070406]

Sorry I’ve been late getting back to you! I had to search through my Bible and chew on that question.
I don’t recall seeing that anywhere in the 4 Gospels. If you had a verse, that would be helpful.

Anyway, I suppose Jesus didn’t build the rock on anyone else’s profession before Peter’s, because it seems everyone else had a case of “seeing then believing” as everyone else had said that to Him after He had done some miracle. However, Peter confessed who Jesus was as the answer to a question that was posed to all the disciples, and he was the only one who said what he believed Christ to be, whereas everyone else gave the word on the street, so to speak, on who Jesus was.

John 1:41

 

[Shiranui117]

John 1:41

Ahh, thanks. I skimmed right around that, it seems. But, looking at that, Andrew’s still missing the “Son of the Living God” bit.

Otherwise, did my theory answer your question?

Actually, the history of the church does not show even Saint Peter with the kind of powers the bishop of Rome claims for himself.

There is no evidence that he assigned any of the other apostles their territories or zones of work.

There is no evidence of him declaring dogma ex cathedra, on his own authority. In fact the individuals who did exercise this liberty were heretics.

The bishops of Rome did not attempt anything like this whatever for many hundreds of years. If he did have such authority, one would expect it to have been common knowledge, even if he refrained from using this power.

But, in fact there were many opportunities for him to use this power in the past, and how convenient it would have been. All of the major theological questions were settled in council, as were the disciplinary questions which involved more than one Metropolitan See, sometimes over the objections of the bishops sitting in Rome.

I’m actually agreeing with you on this one; I was addressing Catholic beliefs about the Papacy. I tend to agree more with the Orthodox in this area of dispute.

 

[jam070406]

Ahh, thanks. I skimmed right around that, it seems. But, looking at that, Andrew’s still missing the “Son of the Living God” bit.

Otherwise, did my theory answer your question?

Not really, because, Jesus makes it clear Peter was specifically chosen, hence the name change… and the fact that He said the Father was the one that revealed it to him.

 

[Shiranui117]

Not really, because, Jesus makes it clear Peter was specifically chosen, hence the name change… and the fact that He said the Father was the one that revealed it to him.

I thought I made an explanation on why Jesus chose Peter specifically, because Peter confessed it not as the result of witnessing a miracle or multitude of miracles, but because he boldly stated what he had learned to be true, something that the other Apostles did not do in the same set of circumstances. And, as you said, because the Father had revealed it to him.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are popes that the Church admits are far worse than the pope you referenced with the melkite incident! We’re talking fathering kids all over the place, free sex, graft, you name it. This guy is mild compared to some.

Anyway, I just wouldn’t have assumed that Catholics would make up and propagate a story that makes a pope look so bad.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Brother Michael,

Thanks for this post. I’ll be sure to take your advice. I have never met a Melkite in my LIFE so I’ll have to ask folks on here or somewhere online. The story sounds pretty outrageous but anything is possible. I’ll look into it. I want to be Oscar Meyer free!

I just got back from a Catholic funeral for the father of a girl in my class. Her stepfather committed suicide last weekend. It shell-shocked everyone, me included. The girl’s mom is so sweet and doesn’t deserve this. It’s amazing the things human beings will do. What an afternoon…I started a prayer thread here on CAF for the family. They’re awesome people. So sad to see this stuff happen. As a teacher, I see stuff that would knock your socks off.

So anything’s possible, even popes being nasty to Melkites I suppose

Hi Scott,



I love it!

Yes, baloney flies around here quite a bit

Seriously though, before I saw that Joseph had posted as link, I was going to suggest once again that you ask an eastern Catholic (it’s just better if you learn about eastern Catholicism from eastern Catholics). I know you probably wouldn’t bother but every Melkite Catholic probably knows that story, for a reason.

It is true, and it is the reason the Melkite Catholic church has consistently opposed the beatification and canonization of Pio Nonno (unsuccessfully, it seems now).

BTW, the author in the article on that website is none other than Father Roberson of the Paulist order, well known and respected authority on the eastern Catholic churches. The pages in that section are from his book, which he graciously donated to the organization, I have a copy of that book in my library. I believe -](not sure at the moment/-]) he has been involved in the interfaith dialogs with Orthodox. CNEWA is a Papal agency doing work for the Catholic church.

Edit: I just looked and found out more information on him.

Father Roberson is involved in the following committees:
The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation

The Joint Committee of Orthodox and Catholic Bishops

The Oriental Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation

The Polish National Catholic-Roman Catholic Dialogue

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are correct, although you must admit, there is a difference between the gospels proclaiming Jesus as the “son of man”, “Son of God”, “Messiah”… Thomas proclaims Jesus as " My God" after the resurrection. His revelation sparks his doubting faith into new heights higher than the gospels record.

Ahh, but Thomas needed to see before he could believe. That’s knowledge, not faith.

 

[jam070406]

I thought I made an explanation on why Jesus chose Peter specifically, because Peter confessed it not as the result of witnessing a miracle or multitude of miracles, but because he boldly stated what he had learned to be true, something that the other Apostles did not do in the same set of circumstances. And, as you said, because the Father had revealed it to him.

Gotcha.

 

[jam070406]

There are popes that the Church admits are far worse than the pope you referenced with the melkite incident! We’re talking fathering kids all over the place, free sex, graft, you name it. This guy is mild compared to some.

I believe that’s why Jesus gave us the example of Judas. To show there will always be scoundrels.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But my concern about such things is that we Catholics put so much stock in the popes’ actions. We are told in Lumen Gentium that we are supposed to surrender mind and intellect to the pope even when they are NOT speaking ex cathedra. I don’t like seeing popes behave this way. One wonders why the Holy Spirit guides popes only to intellectual infallibility and not to better behavior. I’m not looking for impeccability but for God’s sake, stepping on people’s heads or necks to humiliate them and having mistresses and all this nonsense? I don’t like the whole “popes can blow up the Pentagon but no matter what they cannot err with theological or moral matters.” It seems that a tree should bear good fruit and that the charism should enter their hearts in a deeper way. If they all behaved like John Paul II morally and with such integrity, history might’ve been kinder to Catholicism. It was the “bad popes” that did so much to take away credibility. Credibility matters and it is key in healing wounds like the schism with the Orthodox. Ecumenism needs a strong element of credibility to make it work. Luckily the last couple of popes have it. But with these pedophilia scandals it does a lot to injur credibility with the public. I’d like to see Benedict start a Credibility 2011 marathon of trying to get clergy worldwide to regain being good examples…

I believe that’s why Jesus gave us the example of Judas. To show there will always be scoundrels.

 

[jam070406]

But my concern about such things is that we Catholics put so much stock in the popes’ actions. We are told in Lumen Gentium that we are supposed to surrender mind and intellect to the pope even when they are NOT speaking ex cathedra. I don’t like seeing popes behave this way. One wonders why the Holy Spirit guides popes only to intellectual infallibility and not to better behavior. I’m not looking for impeccability but for God’s sake, stepping on people’s heads or necks to humiliate them and having mistresses and all this nonsense? I don’t like the whole “popes can blow up the Pentagon but no matter what they cannot err with theological or moral matters.” It seems that a tree should bear good fruit and that the charism should enter their hearts in a deeper way. If they all behaved like John Paul II morally and with such integrity, history might’ve been kinder to Catholicism. It was the “bad popes” that did so much to take away credibility. Credibility matters and it is key in healing wounds like the schism with the Orthodox. Ecumenism needs a strong element of credibility to make it work. Luckily the last couple of popes have it. But with these pedophilia scandals it does a lot to injur credibility with the public. I’d like to see Benedict start a Credibility 2011 marathon of trying to get clergy worldwide to regain being good examples…

I agree. But, I have to imagine that they are under tremendous spiritual attack. We must pray for the Holy Father!