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

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gabe,

Thanks, brother. I appreciate your kind words. I am kind of like Lazarus, aren’t I!? LOL

Thanks gurneyhalleck, your comment has opened new doors for me, I forgot how the early Eastern side of Catholicism was so rich in Greek philosphies and thought, that took the monastics to such great heights in mysticism.

It is no wonder the patriarchs from the East could not phantom the thought of the Western Latin’s ever developing and maturing into such great heights as they did from their pagan Greek culture to wit such as Jerome, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas in reaching deeper into the mysteries of God, when their Greek philosophical understandings became stagnant and object to anyone reaching farther into the mysteries revealed by God, especially when heaven confirmed them in the west with signs and wonders from heaven.

Your commentary has great logic and reason to be applied on such debates such as “development of doctrine” is not change, but a greater and deeper understanding of the mysteries of God, not that, they attempt to define or exhaust a mystery of God, but these great minds from both East and West has helped us grow in better understanding of God in our lives in every age and ages to come.

Peace be with you, BTW, good to see you back again:thumbsup:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Amen, you find no disagreement here. All apostolic successors possess the keys to the kingdom of God, can forgive sins, oversee and administer the sacred sacraments or mysteries of God in your case, bind and loose.

The distinction is every Apostolic successor acts and moves as an apostle within his domain. Just as the bishop of Rome, who is just bishop of Rome who is equal to all the apostolic successors world wide.

When and what sets the bishop of Rome apart as being first among equals, when he exercises the Keys from the authority of Peter’s Chair as Pope, when those powers and principalities from both secular and religious come against his brethren the other bishops, or faithful, it is from here Peter’s chair the head of the Church militant united with the body of Christ that the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail the body of Christ, his Catholic Church.

Yes it is from Simon bar jon’a faith (not Peter yet) that Jesus now changes his name, changes his discipleship to “Peter” = Kephas (Cephas) = Rock. St. Paul and St.Luke confrim this Rock by calling and referencing Peter from their New testament writings as “Cephas” = Rock, the name Jesus gave to Simon bar Jona.

I don’t think Jesus built his Church upon Peter’s faith, because Peter’s faith failled Jesus three times, so Peter’s faith was not rock, besides it was Simon bar Jona who made the profession of faith that Jesus was the Son of God, Peter was not known yet, until Jesus began to build his Church upon the removed Simon bar Jona to the New Rock = Peter. I would agree also with Church Fathers that Peter is the same Simon who professed his faith, before Jesus began building Church.

If Jesus was looking to build his Church upon a great “Faith only” he would of found it in the pagan centurion not from a Jew. The gospels record Jesus finds the greatest faith in all of Israel, from not a Jew, but a Roman Pagan Centurion. See here;

Mt. 8:5
4 When he entered Capernaum, 5 **a centurion **approached him and appealed to him,
6
saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.”
7
He said to him, “I will come and cure him.”
8
**The centurion said in reply, 6 "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word 10 **When **Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel 7 have I found such faith. **

The early Church Fathers agree that Jesus builds his Church upon Both Peter himself by renaming the already apostle from Simon, and choses Simon Peter to build his Church “upon You” Peter, from his profession of faith.

Find your source, would be interested in discussing it with you

Peace be with you

What about John 20:19-23, where Jesus says that the rest of the Apostles have the same authority? All the Apostles received this authority, and therefore all the rest of the bishops have the same authority to bind and loose, forgive and retain, as what Christ gave to Peter. Otherwise, the Pope would be the only valid bishop. St. Ignatius of Antioch also said, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm) So it seems that St. Ignatius of Antioch based the Catholic Church on Christ, not on Peter. Paul seems to make a similar conclusion. In addition, 44 Fathers believed that Peter’s confession of who Christ was is the Rock, not necessarily Peter himself. I’ll need to find the source of that; I know I had it before.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not to mention the fact that the entirety of Christ–Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity are ALL under either species! It’s not as if I take the consecrated Host and I’m not getting the blood of Christ as well…

You’re right, denial is a different matter…

False. It is not a fact. Precious Blood not being offered at the Mass or a specific Mass is not the same as stating it is DENIED. Big difference. Show me a document stating the Precious Blood is to be denied to faithful?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes.

This is the historical reality. In the early church every Metropolitan See was separate - a Particular Church. It is odd that people have forgotten that fact.

Buried under all the canons that is still possible to detect, if one cares to learn about it.

Yes. I’m surprised by how many people claim to follow the Pope but not their own local Bishop. If not through our own local Bishop you can never claim communion with the Pope directly, unless of course you belong to the diocese of Rome where your local Ordinary also happens to be the Pope (then you can’t claim you don’t follow your local Ordinary ).

I’m sure in the Orthodox Church is the same, you can’t claim communion with your Patriarch if not through your Eparch and Metropolitan.

People do miss that and think that every Catholic is directly under the Pope.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Which one the poor one with Abraham, or that dead guy who Jesus raised from the dead?

Yeah, in any case somth’n smells different about you? I know, Its the hair cut from your picture!

Peace bro:thumbsup:

Hi Gabe,

Thanks, brother. I appreciate your kind words. I am kind of like Lazarus, aren’t I!? LOL

 

[Nicea325]

Not to mention the fact that the entirety of Christ–Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity are ALL under either species! It’s not as if I take the consecrated Host and I’m not getting the blood of Christ as well…

You’re right, denial is a different matter…

Amen brother! How is everything going?

 

[jam070406]

Amen, you find no disagreement here. All apostolic successors possess the keys to the kingdom of God, can forgive sins, oversee and administer the sacred sacraments or mysteries of God in your case, bind and loose.

The distinction is every Apostolic successor acts and moves as an apostle within his domain. Just as the bishop of Rome, who is just bishop of Rome who is equal to all the apostolic successors world wide.

When and what sets the bishop of Rome apart as being first among equals, when he exercises the Keys from the authority of Peter’s Chair as Pope, when those powers and principalities from both secular and religious come against his brethren the other bishops, or faithful, it is from here Peter’s chair the head of the Church militant united with the body of Christ that the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail the body of Christ, his Catholic Church.

Yes it is from Simon bar jon’a faith (not Peter yet) that Jesus now changes his name, changes his discipleship to “Peter” = Kephas (Cephas) = Rock. St. Paul and St.Luke confrim this Rock by calling and referencing Peter from their New testament writings as “Cephas” = Rock, the name Jesus gave to Simon bar Jona.

I don’t think Jesus built his Church upon Peter’s faith, because Peter’s faith failled Jesus three times, so Peter’s faith was not rock, besides it was Simon bar Jona who made the profession of faith that Jesus was the Son of God, Peter was not known yet, until Jesus began to build his Church upon the removed Simon bar Jona to the New Rock = Peter. I would agree also with Church Fathers that Peter is the same Simon who professed his faith, before Jesus began building Church.

If Jesus was looking to build his Church upon a great “Faith only” he would of found it in the pagan centurion not from a Jew. The gospels record Jesus finds the greatest faith in all of Israel, from not a Jew, but a Roman Pagan Centurion. See here;

Mt. 8:5
4 When he entered Capernaum, 5 **a centurion **approached him and appealed to him,
6
saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully.”
7
He said to him, “I will come and cure him.”
8
**The centurion said in reply, 6 "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word 10 **When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel 7 have I found such faith.

The early Church Fathers agree that Jesus builds his Church upon Both Peter himself by renaming the already apostle from Simon, and choses Simon Peter to build his Church “upon You” Peter, from his profession of faith.

Find your source, would be interested in discussing it with you

Peace be with you

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

 

[Nicea325]

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

But he did not change Andrew’s name as he did with Peter. When God changes one’s name there’s a significance behind it.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And THAT’s The problem I see with EO. No one is in charge in EO, because everone thinks they are in charge. Do you also think of your individual bishop as just a custodian also?

I was really surprised to learn that according to EO ecclesiology, the laity, and even the Emperor/Tsar can overrule the decisions of the clergy - see how they rejected the Unions of Florence and Brest.

In Moscow, the Tsar wanted none of that Roman business signed at Florence, and incidentally, he also wanted to shake the rule of Constantinople. I guess Constantinople interfered with his cesaro-papist plans. Thus, he deposed and jailed Metropolitan of Moscow Isidore who signed the Union of Florence, and installed a new Metropolitan who proclaimed himself Patriarch of Moscow - that’s how the Moscow Patriarchate was born and became an autocephalous Church. Until that point, Moscow only had a Metropolitan under the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In the Byzantine Empire, the people and the lower clergy rejected what their Bishops agreed upon at Florence

It’s not something that happens in the Catholic Church, that the laity or some emperor would have the final say, or that they could dictate to the Bishops, what to do. But as the aftermath of Florence shows, and the events following the Union of Brest, Orthodox laity may simply choose to axe their leaders if they are not happy with them. See, for example, St. Josaphat Kuncevyc.

http://saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.jpg

Sorry I couldn’t resist

 

[steve_b]

I know that, that’s not what I wanted the reference to.

Here’s the quote again that you wanted a reference to

:

Originally Posted by jam070406 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I disagree. I’ve heard scholars say that Islam did have an influence on Eastern thought. Especially in the idea of an inscrutable God. Especially when the Patriarch of Constantinople could be deposed at the whim of Muslim rulers.

The underlined part you say you already know so no reference needed… So is it then, you want references to the part about Islam had a part in the influence on EO thought re: an inscrutable God?

Inscrutable= incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized; impenetrable.

Isn’t that what the article the OP opened with, was discussing? EO’s antagonism to scholastics, and attempts to explain and analyze with reason and logic and philosophy and theology, etc, the mysteries? The Catholic Church desn’t shy away from, or feel incapable of, penetrating and explaining mystery. Bp Ware OTOH, said scholastics was considered bad by the EO because of Islamic occupation of the EO keeping them from higher learning?
H:

You just answered it, the millet system, which was a political office created by the Turks.

Yes the patriarchal system was a political AND religious office under the Turks. But what about before the Turks? Before the millet system?
H:

That’s a different subject. But all bishops are equal, Metropolitans and Patriarchs chair synods of bishops.

IOW, in EO all are equal, no one is in charge, neither Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch?
H:

Why is it so important not to admit that?

In a hierarchy, all aren’t equal…by definition.

In your dreams.

Christ is in charge.

And Jesus put certain people in charge, and one in particular in charge of the whole.
H:

If my bishop suggested a new dogma, I would adocate he step down. That’s my responsibility. Oddly enough, it works.

What about doctrine? The ROC teaches about toll houses. The ROC is the biggest of all EO combined. Other EO churches don’t teach about toll houses. If your particular EO church didn’t teach toll houses, but for unity sake, your bishop said we are now going to teach toll houses, what would you say? Does he have that authority?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I wasn’t aware that there was a tension between Melkites and Roman Latin Catholics? I quickly can admit that I have never even known a Melkite Catholic or even seen a Melkite Church anywhere in California in my travels but I always thought they were in communion and friendly to one another?

In my hometown there is a Melkite parish - Holy Resurrection Melkite Catholic Church - and I feel like we Latin Catholics get along very well with them. When I was a young teenager, I participated in a day program - “International Awareness” - specifically designed for Roman Catholic Boy Scouts; we spent the day at their parish learning about the eastern Catholic rites and churches. The culmination of the experience was that we got to participate fully in their Liturgy to experience the Byzantine Rite for ourselves.

I think post-Vatican II, a lot of the tension has been defused now that the role of the eastern Catholic churches has been better defined, and now that they no longer have to endure having Latin disciplines forced on them. We’ve come a long way.

Neither Catholic churches nor Orthodox churches are denominations, the same rules apply.

Agreed. The churches that together make up the Orthodox Church are no more “denominations” than the twenty-three Catholic churches.

I was not “mudslinging”, I was using the same language he used to prove a point. Of course I know the various Catholic Churches are not denominations. They are in fact organized in an almost identical fashion to the Orthodox Church with individual primates and self governing synods. The Catholic Church even has areas with overlapping ethnic jurisdictions just like we do. My point is that it is no more appropriate to call the various Orthodox jurisdictions denominations that it is to call the various Catholic jurisdictions denominations.

Well said. I feel you used an entirely legitimate reductio ad absurdum to make a very necessary point.

What about John 20:19-23, where Jesus says that the rest of the Apostles have the same authority? All the Apostles received this authority, and therefore all the rest of the bishops have the same authority to bind and loose, forgive and retain, as what Christ gave to Peter.

I’m no expert, so this is a sincere question: does the kind of authority Christ bestows on the Apostles in John 20:19-23 really sound like the exact same kind he bestows on Peter in Matthew 16? Binding and loosing, yes - but is there something that connects John 20:19-23 back to Matthew 16’s reference to “the keys to the kingdom” and that verse’s allusion to Isaiah 22?

So it seems that St. Ignatius of Antioch based the Catholic Church on Christ, not on Peter. Paul seems to make a similar conclusion.

Isn’t that a false dichotomy? Of course the cornerstone of the Church is Christ. That doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said to Simon, “You are Rock [kepha] and on this Rock [kepha] I will build my church” (yes, I know Matthew itself is in Greek, but historically we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and where else could the name “Cephas” have come from if not the Aramaic word for “rock”?).

In addition, 44 Fathers believed that Peter’s confession of who Christ was is the Rock, not necessarily Peter himself. I’ll need to find the source of that; I know I had it before.

Yes, I would like to see that. I’ve always found the idea that Peter’s confession is the rock genuinely unconvincing. How can the rock be Peter’s confession when Peter literally means “rock”?

But as I said, I’m no expert. I genuinely want to learn more.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

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

 

[josephdaniel29]

I was really surprised to learn that according to EO ecclesiology, the laity, and even the Emperor/Tsar can overrule the decisions of the clergy - see how they rejected the Unions of Florence and Brest.

Catholics don’t have the ability to disobey heretical bishops? If for instance your bishop formally withdrew his diocese from the Catholic Church in order to enter the Episcopal Church you would be bound to follow him? Do lay Catholic have absolutely no responsibility to defend the faith?

 

[Shiranui117]

Amen, you find no disagreement here. All apostolic successors possess the keys to the kingdom of God, can forgive sins, oversee and administer the sacred sacraments or mysteries of God in your case, bind and loose.

The distinction is every Apostolic successor acts and moves as an apostle within his domain. Just as the bishop of Rome, who is just bishop of Rome who is equal to all the apostolic successors world wide.

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.

When and what sets the bishop of Rome apart as being first among equals, when he exercises the Keys from the authority of Peter’s Chair as Pope, when those powers and principalities from both secular and religious come against his brethren the other bishops, or faithful, it is from here Peter’s chair the head of the Church militant united with the body of Christ that the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail the body of Christ, his Catholic Church.

Why can’t any other bishop or Patriarch do just the same as the Pope when it comes to defending against outside religious and secular influences?

Yes it is from Simon bar jona’s faith (not Peter yet) that Jesus now changes his name, changes his discipleship to “Peter” = Kephas (Cephas) = Rock. St. Paul and St.Luke confrim this Rock by calling and referencing Peter from their New testament writings as “Cephas” = Rock, the name Jesus gave to Simon bar Jona.

I don’t think Jesus built his Church upon Peter’s faith, because Peter’s faith failled Jesus three times, so Peter’s faith was not rock, besides it was Simon bar Jona who made the profession of faith that Jesus was the Son of God, Peter was not known yet, until Jesus began to build his Church upon the removed Simon bar Jona to the New Rock = Peter. I would agree also with Church Fathers that Peter is the same Simon who professed his faith, before Jesus began building Church.

If Jesus was looking to build his Church upon a great “Faith only” he would of found it in the pagan centurion not from a Jew. The gospels record Jesus finds the greatest faith in all of Israel, from not a Jew, but a Roman Pagan Centurion. See here;

I suppose I should have said confession instead of faith. My mistake.

The early Church Fathers agree that Jesus builds his Church upon Both Peter himself by renaming the already apostle from Simon, and choses Simon Peter to build his Church “upon You” Peter, from his profession of faith.

Find your source, would be interested in discussing it with you

I can’t find a link to the study itself, but three links make allusion to the study being made by a certain Roman Catholic scholar, Mr. Lenoy… Perhaps you’re familiar with this?
tecmalta.org/tft305.htm
sljinstitute.net/sermons/new%20testament/pages/is_peter_the_rock.html
westernorthodox.com/quovadis.html

To be brief and save you a lot of reading, here are his findings, taken from the second link, which are also alluded to in the other two links:

Mr. Lenoy counted the comments of the fathers, looked at 85 interpretations of this passage from the church fathers. He found that 17 of the fathers believed that Peter was the rock—17 out of 85. That eight of them believed the apostles were the rock. 44 of them believed that the statement of verse 17 was the rock, and 16 of them believed that Jesus Christ was the rock. So were 60 out of the 85 of the church fathers believed that the statement, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,” has to do with the truth that the church is grounded upon our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Shiranui117]

I’m no expert, so this is a sincere question: does the kind of authority Christ bestows on the Apostles in John 20:19-23 really sound like the exact same kind he bestows on Peter in Matthew 16? Binding and loosing, yes - but is there something that connects John 20:19-23 back to Matthew 16’s reference to “the keys to the kingdom” and that verse’s allusion to Isaiah 22?

Well, Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose, and binding and loosing seems quite similar to the language used by Christ in giving authority to the rest of the Apostles. I’m not entirely sure what to make of the Isaiah 22 allusion yet.

Isn’t that a false dichotomy? Of course the cornerstone of the Church is Christ. That doesn’t change the fact that Jesus said to Simon, “You are Rock [kepha] and on this Rock [kepha] I will build my church” (yes, I know Matthew itself is in Greek, but historically we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and where else could the name “Cephas” have come from if not the Aramaic word for “rock”?).

As I’ve noted, there’s a mixed bag of opinion on how the Fathers interpreted what the Rock was. But, going with the Catholic view the Church is built both on a cornerstone and a rock. My question: Two foundations or one? Food for thought. :whacky:

Another thing I’ve been pointed to in support of Christ being the Rock is 1 Peter 2:4-9:

** 4** As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual housea] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”b]
** 7** Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”c]
** 8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
** 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Yes, I would like to see that. I’ve always found the idea that Peter’s confession is the rock genuinely unconvincing. How can the rock be Peter’s confession when Peter literally means “rock”?

But as I said, I’m no expert. I genuinely want to learn more.

I suppose it can depend on what “this rock” was referring to. Too bad the Bible isn’t in video format as well; I’m sure Jesus’ hand gestures and tone of voice and everything else would have cleared everything up.

Anyway, I posted the results of the study in my above post. It seems the Fathers were all over the place about this…

I realize that neither of those links is quite in favor of Catholicism, which is why I include three, to show consistency and to show that they all point to one source. I know there was another link, and neither of those three is it, but for the life of me I can’t find it. I hope those will do.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose, and binding and loosing seems quite similar to the language used by Christ in giving authority to the rest of the Apostles. I’m not entirely sure what to make of the Isaiah 22 allusion yet.

No problem. Thanks for the feedback, Shiranui.

As I’ve noted, there’s a mixed bag of opinion on how the Fathers interpreted what the Rock was. But, going with the Catholic view the Church is built both on a cornerstone and a rock. My question: Two foundations or one? Food for thought. :whacky:

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. 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.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.”

One final example, this one from the original article:
"the article in the OP:

According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

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.

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.

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?

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.”

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.

Anyway, I posted the results of the study in my above post. It seems the Fathers were all over the place about this…

I realize that neither of those links is quite in favor of Catholicism, which is why I include three, to show consistency and to show that they all point to one source. I know there was another link, and neither of those three is it, but for the life of me I can’t find it. I hope those will do.

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

 

[valentino]

Shirani117: Christ is the cornerstone.Peter is the rock.Christ is the church and all the people in the church are part of Christ.the church becomes Christ living on earth with all His different aspects as each person becomes as aspect of Christ.Peter is the visible part of Christ on earth the people are the visible aspects of Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

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.

 

[Hesychios]

…you want references to the part about Islam had a part in the influence on EO thought re: an inscrutable God?

Inscrutable= incapable of being investigated, analyzed, or scrutinized; impenetrable.

Isn’t that what the article the OP opened with, was discussing? EO’s antagonism to scholastics, and attempts to explain and analyze with reason and logic and philosophy and theology, etc, the mysteries? The Catholic Church desn’t shy away from, or feel incapable of, penetrating and explaining mystery. Bp Ware OTOH, said scholastics was considered bad by the EO because of Islamic occupation of the EO keeping them from higher learning?

That’s just silly. You are stringing together a bunch of unrelated facts. To you (or I) God will always be essentially unknowable. That has always been true.

It is why ours is a religion of revelation. We can only know what God Himself reveals about Himself, not add to it with our imagination and cleverness.

The gnostics believed that what one knows can save them. We believe that knowing the Gospel (the Good News) and living it is the path to salvation. We “put on Christ” at baptism, and strive to be Christ-like in our lives, we cannot be Christ or know what He knows.

Such speculation on our part is unnecessary and unwise. The wisdom of the world is foolishness in the eyes of God.

Knowledge is useful in life. Wisdom, as far as we can acquire it, is a good thing. The people of the east have always excelled in these, and have always used philosophy and the sciences, “scholarship” to full effect in every endeavor (including posting treatises on the internet ). But it cannot be the source of our knowledge of God, the truth of religion is not a science, it is a revelation of God from Christ through the apostles.

As ‘inscrutable’ as this may make God, we did not learn to trust the revelation of Christ over everything else from the Muslims.

Yes the patriarchal system was a political AND religious office under the Turks. But what about before the Turks? Before the millet system?

This might surprise you, but it was much like churchmen everywhere.

It is (I believe) a distortion and a travesty to have the church allied closely with government, but it happened for many hundreds of years in the east and the west. I am a modern man and I oppose the concept in favor of a total separation of church and state.

Nevertheless, it happened, in the east and the west. There are so many examples I need hardly mention them.

It’s not where we learned that no one can see God.

IOW, in EO all are equal, no one is in charge, neither Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch?

God is in charge, everywhere.

But more to the point, every (Orthodox) bishop has as much authority within his own diocese as the bishop of Rome has in his own diocese.

In a hierarchy, all aren’t equal…by definition.

Think of a board of directors. The chair does not ordinarily have power to decide issues without the rest of the board. In matters before the board each member gets one vote, the chair, respected as he may be, does not have absolute control, he must work with the rest of the board to reach a consensus. He may be outvoted in some cases and has to accept that.

Yet, there is a lot of prestige in being the chair, and it can be a persuasive position.

This is how Orthodox synods ordinarily work, in accordance with the canons.

What about doctrine? The ROC teaches about toll houses.

Wrong. The Russian Orthodox church does not teach about toll houses. It is a folk belief.

There are a few people out there who were apparently raised with the belief, including one old retired bishop I know of, but it cannot be more than a theologoumenon for obvious reasons.

… If your particular EO church didn’t teach toll houses, but for unity sake, your bishop said we are now going to teach toll houses, what would you say? Does he have that authority?

I realize that this is a hypothetical question.

The answer is no.

New doctrine is not allowed. He does not have the authority to introduce a new belief to his diocese.