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

  • Thread starter Thread starter thunderbolt94
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Sometimes it can be difficult to argue from letters, sometimes we need to look at actions taken for example;
prior to the great schism, history records St. Ignatius of Antioch before being executed in 110 a.d, writes a letter to the Romans, recognizing the Roman Church, “Worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification and presiding in Love, maintaining the Law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Sometimes it can be difficult to argue from letters, sometimes we need to look at actions taken for example;
prior to the great schism, history records St. Ignatius of Antioch before being executed in 110 a.d, writes a letter to the Romans, recognizing the Roman Church, “Worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification and presiding in Love, maintaining the Law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
steve_b said:
I’ve seen some of those flow charts also. Some don’t even follow the simplest of facts.
  • We know the Church of Rome was there in the 1st century. That’s why we have the book of Romans.
  • We know the Church from the 1st century was called the Catholic Church.
  • We know from the 4th century the Catholic Church is an article of faith. (N creed)
  • any flow chart that doesn’t show the Catholic Church coming from the 1st century, qualifies itself as nonsense
Click to expand...
I agree that the Catholic Church is the church Christ established, steve.

That said, I don’t think your above points themselves constitute evidence for that. The official name for the Orthodox Church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.” That’s what they call themselves. To state that the modern institution most commonly identified as the Catholic Church is the same church St. Ignatius of Antioch called “the Catholic Church” simply because of the shared terminology is question-begging.

Furthermore, those flowcharts do show the Catholic Church going back to the first century, so give credit where credit is due. What they don’t do is imply that the Orthodox Church “began” in 1054. They do in fact imply that both are apostolic.
dzheremi said:
It’s not a who, it’s a what: What does the tradition say?
Click to expand...
That’s just like when Protestants say that it’s really quite simple: what does the Bible say?

Well, different interpretations that are quite plausible *and *contradictory to each other are as possible of Tradition as they are of Scripture.

That’s why it’s simply academically lazy question-begging to assert that in 1054, it was “clearly” the Latin Church that fell into schism and not vice-versa. It would be like saying, “Well obviously it was the eastern churches who broke with Rome that entered schism, since they were the ones who broke with Tradition.” The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church both claim that it was their church who stuck with the fullness of the apostolic faith. That’s the very thing in dispute; it’s a waste of everyone’s time to take conclusions drawn from either’s assertion and try to use them as the discussion’s basic premises.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I guess the Lord is using a schismatic false bishop to get up on the world stage and proudly fight moral relativism, fight against abortion, go against the tide of the gay agenda, and to proclaim Christ crucified!? I guess God chose this schismatic and graceless communion to try to fight the evils of the modern world. Weird, isn’t it? :rolleyes:😛 The argument lacks common sense.
Click to expand...
To be fair, gurneyhalleck, the majority of Orthodox do not claim Pope Benedict XVI is a “false bishop.” Some maintain he is a valid (though schismatic) bishop, some maintain he is not a valid bishop, and many (most?) Orthodox churches simply do not care to take any authoritative position on the matter.

So Orthodox believers are not forced into calling Benedict “a schismatic false bishop.” Sure, they all believe that he is in schism, but technically we believe that His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I is in schism, and he’s obviously a great and wise Christian leader, and a valid bishop and patriarch.
IowaJay said:
To follow up on my earlier request for Catholic scholarship regarding how and why the primatial powers of the Bishop of Rome have expanded since the early Church, I also request references to recent scholarship which explains in detail the relationship between the papacy, the magisterium, and councils. I have some books by Avery Dulles which touch on these subjects but I am wondering if there are others.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Make sure to read the Second Vatican Council to learn about episcopal collegiality.
 
Shiranui117 said:
How is that a valid comparison at all?
Click to expand...
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

34 Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

Since you do not see that as a valid comparison, I will simply say: Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail, and even though Peter’s faith did fail temporarily, by denying Jesus 3 times, his faith was restored and he went on to strengthen his brothers, which was why Jesus said to Peter, feed my sheep… In verse 16 Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. In Greek, the word "feed’ is different from that used in verse 15. In this verse the word "feed’ means “to shepherd,” “to tend,” "to rule. "

So, Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail, and in the end, post Pentecost, Peter’s faith was 100% rock solid, pun intended. LOL…👍
 
You’re resorting to semantics and minutae. Think about it, he’s schismatic and invaild but not false? I think the fact that the Orthodox can’t even agree on the pope’s status is telling. Normally they pull that “we don’t know?” Cyprianic approach. I think you give them too much credit for being a wise leader and a great guy. I normally hear stuff like “dictator” in here in reference to the Holy Father. I have heard a lot of things, most of which are not flattering.

Your last paragraph’s admonition eludes me?:confused:
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
To be fair, gurneyhalleck, the majority of Orthodox do not claim Pope Benedict XVI is a “false bishop.” Some maintain he is a valid (though schismatic) bishop, some maintain he is not a valid bishop, and many (most?) Orthodox churches simply do not care to take any authoritative position on the matter.

So Orthodox believers are not forced into calling Benedict “a schismatic false bishop.” Sure, they all believe that he is in schism, but technically we believe that His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I is in schism, and he’s obviously a great and wise Christian leader, and a valid bishop and patriarch.

Make sure to read the Second Vatican Council to learn about episcopal collegiality.
Click to expand...
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
That’s just like when Protestants say that it’s really quite simple: what does the Bible say?
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. It is actually the exact opposite of that. The Protestants say that to justify whatever bizarre doctrines they come up with from their own personal readings of the scriptures. But relying on the Fathers is the exact opposite of that: It is relying on the wisdom of those who hashed out the very same doctrine that we all claim to adhere to, rather than letting whoever is in charge now guide us without reference to what the apostles and their disciples and students thought.
Well, different interpretations that are quite plausible *and *contradictory to each other are as possible of Tradition as they are of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Of course. This is why there is not just a Latin/Western school of thought, or an Alexandrian school of thought, or an Antiochian school of thought, etc. But there is such a thing as having different views that are complementary, and such a thing as different views that are not complementary.
That’s why it’s simply academically lazy question-begging to assert that in 1054, it was “clearly” the Latin Church that fell into schism and not vice-versa.
Click to expand...
And that’s why the vast majority of apologetics on either side do not say such things.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
I agree that the Catholic Church is the church Christ established, steve.

That said, I don’t think your above points themselves constitute evidence for that. The official name for the Orthodox Church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...
The moderators have already ruled on this


FB:
To state that the modern institution most commonly identified as the Catholic Church is the same church St. Ignatius of Antioch called “the Catholic Church” simply because of the shared terminology is question-begging.
Click to expand...
What’s THAT all about?
FB:
Furthermore, those flowcharts do show the Catholic Church going back to the first century, so give credit where credit is due. What they don’t do is imply that the Orthodox Church “began” in 1054. They do in fact imply that both are apostolic.
Click to expand...
Here’s an example of name change. Byzantium became Constantinople which became Istanbul.
  • Does Byzantium still exist?
  • Does Constantinople still exist?
  • What place does Istanbul take now?
It’s the same city, or is it?
FB:
That’s just like when Protestants say that it’s really quite simple: what does the Bible say?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with them using the bible. They are using our book. Written in, by, and for the Catholic Church. It was canonized by the Catholic Church. as long as they use it properly I don’t have a problem
FB:
Well, different interpretations that are quite plausible *and *contradictory to each other are as possible of Tradition as they are of Scripture.

That’s why it’s simply academically lazy question-begging to assert that in 1054, it was “clearly” the Latin Church that fell into schism and not vice-versa. It would be like saying, “Well obviously it was the eastern churches who broke with Rome that entered schism, since they were the ones who broke with Tradition.”
Click to expand...
Where’s the chair of Peter? Rome. The seat of the Catholic Church. One is either in union with Peter or not. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
FB:
Make sure to read the Second Vatican Council to learn about episcopal collegiality.
Click to expand...
Here’s the dogmatic constitution on the Church

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

this is at the end of the document.College is further explained


***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***
3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.
 
steve_b said:
The moderators have already ruled on this
Click to expand...
That just means that the Mods are Roman Catholic, thus they obviously believe theirs to be the Catholic Church as addressed by St. Ignatius. The Orthodox believe that THEIR Church is the Church that St. Ignatius was referring to, and that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church.
What’s THAT all about?
Click to expand...
Honestly, if a church calls itself Catholic, and you automatically assume that it’s the same Catholic Church as in the time of the Apostles because of the name, then I would say you’re not thinking this out clearly… With that logic, what about the Old Catholics? What about any of the numerous out-there groups touting the name “Catholic?” Are they the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch is referring to as well?
Here’s an example of name change. Byzantium became Constantinople which became Istanbul.
Click to expand...
  • Does Byzantium still exist?
  • Does Constantinople still exist?
  • What place does Istanbul take now?
Click to expand...
It’s the same city, or is it?

I actually think that’s a better argument for Orthodoxy than Catholicism; it’s the same city, with different names. So thus, you can say that the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, just with a different name. Or that the Lutheran Church is the Catholic Church, just with a different name.
Where’s the chair of Peter? Rome. The seat of the Catholic Church. One is either in union with Peter or not. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...
I still think you’re oversimplifying the issue; what if the Pope, as he has done before, goes into heresy? What if the whole of the Roman Church went into outright, full heresy, God forbid? Would the gates of Hell prevail because one See fell, because that one See was the seat of the Catholic Church? Without Rome or the Pope, could there be any Catholic Church at all?
http://www.vatican.va/img/vuoto.gif
***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***
3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said “to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church.” This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ’s Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ’s whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised—whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church’s welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
4. As Supreme Pastor of the Church, the Supreme Pontiff can always exercise his power at will, as his very office demands. Though it is always in existence, the College is not as a result permanently engaged in strictly collegial activity; the Church’s Tradition makes this clear. In other words, the College is not always “fully active [in actu pleno]”; rather, it acts as a college in the strict sense only from time to time and only with the consent of its head. The phrase “with the consent of its head” is used to avoid the idea of dependence on some kind of outsider; the term “consent” suggests rather communion between the head and the members, and implies the need for an act which belongs properly to the competence of the head. This is explicitly affirmed in n. 22, 12, and is explained at the end of that section. The word “only” takes in all cases. It is evident from this that the norms approved by the supreme authority must always be observed. Cf. Modus 84.
It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of “College.” This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.
Click to expand...
With this, it almost seems to make the Pope seem like a king over the Church, and makes the College seem like a Parliament that the Pope can convene and dismiss at his will. The Pope has the choice of acting with the advice of this “Parliament” or as an absolute monarch. Do I have that right, going off this?
 
Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12:
prior to the great schism, history records St. Ignatius of Antioch before being executed in 110 a.d, writes a letter to the Romans, recognizing the Roman Church, “Worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification and presiding in Love, maintaining the Law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name.”
Click to expand...
Something to bear in mind is that in the earliest days of the Church, it was the Roman Church (and not specifically her bishop) that had pre-eminence, and we often find writings from and to “The Roman Church” rather than a specific bishop. The Roman Church was magnified in honor by the fact that the two great Apostles, SS Peter and Paul, were martyred there.
We also have Irenaeus revealing Pope Victor 180 a.d (exercising the keys of Peter) by excommunicating the Asian group visiting Rome opting for Easter to be celebrated for the 14th of Nissan, and then threatened to excommunicate the diocese of Asia, when Irenaeus did not question the Popes authority to excommunicate or intervene in the workings of another diocese, he questioned the severity in the matters.
Click to expand...
The account of which I’m familiar is found in Eusebius. It was not only Irenaeus who corrected Pope Victor. A great number of bishops “sharply rebuked” Pope Victor for his rashness. Ultimately, it was St. Irenaeus who was the “peacemaker” between the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of Asia Minor.
The bishop of Carthage “Cyprian” appealed to Pope Stephen, when the bishop of Arles “Marcion” proved lapsi to the church proving that the bishop of Rome could intervene.
Click to expand...
I am not familiar with this incident. However, Carthage is in North Africa, and Arles in the south of Gaul (modern day France), so it would make sense for St. Cyprian to appeal to Pope Stephen, who was closer. There may also have been ties between Arles and Rome, in which case it would be appropriate for Pope Stephen to investigate the matter and perhaps form a local council to judge on the matter.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
You’re resorting to semantics and minutae. Think about it, he’s schismatic and invaild but not false?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s semantics, gurneyhalleck. After all, we Catholics make the same distinctions in our position that the Orthodox are in schism, though with genuine apostolic succession and valid Sacraments - including Holy Orders: valid bishops, priests, and deacons.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I think the fact that the Orthodox can’t even agree on the pope’s status is telling. Normally they pull that “we don’t know?” Cyprianic approach.
Click to expand...
I agree.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I think you give them too much credit for being a wise leader and a great guy.
Click to expand...
I stand by what I said about Patriarch Bartholomew I. In addition to being a bishop, he’s an extremely responsible world leader who also happens to be very ecumenically minded. He’s met with Pope Benedict XVI before, celebrated the Liturgy with him, etc. His ecumenical activities and pro-dialogue approach with the Catholic Church has gotten him a lot of grief from some Orthodox like the Mount Athos monks, and as a Catholic I very much appreciate that he thinks we’re worth the trouble. Because some Orthodox definitely do not.
gurneyhalleck1 said:
Your last paragraph’s admonition eludes me?:confused:
Click to expand...
Oh, that wasn’t directed at you. I was responding to the Lutheran poster who was asking for information about the Catholic position on exactly how the Magisterium functions: the role of individual bishops in the context of the idea of the papacy.
dzheremi said:
Of course. This is why there is not just a Latin/Western school of thought, or an Alexandrian school of thought, or an Antiochian school of thought, etc. But there is such a thing as having different views that are complementary, and such a thing as different views that are not complementary.
Click to expand...
Agreed. 🙂
dzheremi said:
And that’s why the vast majority of apologetics on either side do not say such things.
Click to expand...
I’m glad to hear that. I agree that neither side should do that lest they present circular arguments. I’m thinking we don’t disagree about the parameters of this debate as I thought we did when I wrote my previous reply.
steve_b said:
The moderators have already ruled on this
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant to my point. Regardless of the rules on this forum, it remains true that the Orthodox - throughout the world - officially refer to their church as the “Orthodox Catholic Church.” That is what they call themselves. Yes, on this forum it would muck things up terminologically if they called themselves “Orthodox Catholics,” but the only thing I was trying to make clear is that their official name that they use for their church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”
steve_b said:
What’s THAT all about?
Click to expand...
I’m Catholic, so we ultimately agree, steve. I’m just pointing out that the early church’s self-identification as “the Catholic Church” doesn’t in and of itself prove that that church is the same entity as the contemporary Catholic Church. That’s all. The fact that the conclusion is correct doesn’t mean it logically follows from an argument purporting to prove it.
steve_b said:
I don’t have a problem with them using the bible. They are using our book. Written in, by, and for the Catholic Church. It was canonized by the Catholic Church. as long as they use it properly I don’t have a problem
Click to expand...
Dude, this was a completely different part of the discussion. Same with my collegiality reference. I said what I said to emphasize that Sacred Tradition requires interpretation as much as Sacred Scripture does. I don’t think we’re in disagreement about this at all.
steve_b said:
Where’s the chair of Peter? Rome. The seat of the Catholic Church. One is either in union with Peter or not. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...
Ultimately I agree, or I wouldn’t be Catholic. But this is a complicated matter. It definitely does get simpler than this, on a lot of things.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
Any bishop who teaches the Orthodox faith does so infallibly.
Click to expand...
Joe, if any Eastern Orthodox Bishop can teach infallibly regarding faith or morals, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bishop of Rome can teach infallibly, regarding faith or morals? :confused:
 
joe370 said:
Joe, if any Eastern Orthodox Bishop can teach infallibly regarding faith or morals, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bishop of Rome can teach infallibly, regarding faith or morals? :confused:
Click to expand...
Because you have it backwards.

For not from his [the pope’s] Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. -** Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848**

When the pope teaches intending to bind the faithful his teachings are de facto orthodox and are “of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.” For us it is precisely opposite. The episcopacy is not an authority over and above the Church. A bishop or group of bishops is infallible only so far as they express the mind of the Church. Regardless of intent, a single bishop or group of bishops is never inherently infallible. That is the difference.
 
josephdaniel29;7704613]Because you have it backwards.
Click to expand...
When the pope teaches intending to bind the faithful his teachings are de facto orthodox and are “of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.”
Click to expand...
So your contention is, unlike the eastern bishops who teach with lawful authority entrusted to them by Jesus Christ, the bishop of Rome (who’s teachings are de facto) - teaches without the lawful authority from Jesus Christ???
The episcopacy is not an authority over and above the Church. A bishop or group of bishops is infallible only so far as they express the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
OK…Seems reasonable…
Regardless of intent, a single bishop or group of bishops is never inherently infallible. That is the difference.
Click to expand...
First you say, a bishop or group of bishops is infallible only so far as they express the mind of the Church, then you say, a bishop or group of bishops is never inherently infallible. :confused::confused::confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top