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.
dzheremi said:
Indeed, so if/when Catholics use Iranaeus to try to prove the infallibility or universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pope, they are reading things into past writings that are not appropriate for the time.

Irrelevant.

I find it so odd that Catholics, who are so (rightly) against Protestant doctrines like “Once Saved Always Saved” would turn around and endorse a variation of that thinking when it comes to the leadership of their church. The Pope in Rome is not “Once Peter, Always Peter”, neither is the Pope of Alexandria “Once Mark, Always Mark”. To say that the faith is guaranteed by the chair, rather than the content of the faith itself, makes absolutely NO sense at all. It really does remind me of Richard Nixon’s assertion that when the President does something it isn’t illegal. Well, I’m sorry, but when the Pope of Rome does something unorthodox and contrary to the faith, it is unorthodox and contrary to the faith and his occupying the chair of Peter does NOT protect him from judgment or the ability to fall into heresy. Pope Honorius was even anathematized decades after his death at the third council of Constantinople in 680 AD – a council which the then-current Pope of Rome, Leo II, accepted the decrees of, and the Roman Catholic Church thereby accepted and apparently accepts. So don’t give me this “the chair guarantees it” business. The chair does not protect its holder from heresy. History, included history that is uncontroversially accepted by today’s Roman Catholic Church, bears this out.

Everyone who doesn’t buy Roman Catholic arguments regarding this point, I suppose. So, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, probably a vast number of Catholics whose ecclesiology is not Roman.

Are you serious? Proof that Rome is not orthodox? Wow. Uh…let’s start with the fact that Rome changed the Creed (despite accepting the earlier conciliar decree that no changes could be made), leading many into error. The numerous post-schism innovations also do not bode well for any claims of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Certainly it is possible to be an orthodox Roman Catholic, but Rome’s beliefs and practices are themselves not orthodox, so that’s not really a good standard. The devotions which have taken root in the church that developed out of private revelations are also something that is unacceptable for orthodox worship (the novenas, chaplets, etc). It is easier to enumerate the ways that Rome may be considered to have kept in line with its own ancient faith than it would be to point to all the ways that it has not.

No, I’m not.

And I would say that you are opposing him by extending his words to the modern, unorthodox church in Rome. We can do this all day, but I’d rather not.

Geographically, yes. Doctrinally, no. Doctrine trumps geography every single time, no matter what church we’re talking about. You could be orthodox in Rome just as much as in Constantinople, Moscow, Alexandria, etc. But the Roman Catholic Church is not.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree. The Roman Pope has jurisdiction over his church to the extent that he teaches the faith unchanged, but he does not have jurisdiction over others’ churches. The Roman Pope cannot tell the Alexandrian Pope, or the Ecumenical Patriarch, or the Armenian Catholicos what to do. And really, he shouldn’t even be doing that to the churches that are in union with Rome, if they are indeed to be respected as self-governing churches, and encouraged as he has encouraged them to return to their roots. Well, their roots (as formerly Orthodox churches) include a conciliar model of organization and governance that would not give the Roman Pope the prerogative to interfere in their affairs whenever he feels he should. What was the overall message of the Middle Eastern Synod last year? That’s right, “Power to the Patriarchs”! And that is as it should be! To quote the story from National Catholic Reporter found here: “it’s an argument for greater collegiality, or shared decision- making, in Catholicism, as a corrective to what is perceived as excessive papal power.”

You see that? “Excessive papal power.” And that’s from the patriarchs of eastern churches that are in union with Rome! I think you’d have a hard time finding any easterner who wouldn’t agree at least in theory that this is the reality of the Roman communion’s organization, and that it is defective and wrong. Rome should NOT be telling anyone else what to do.
Click to expand...
Who gets to decide who is Orthodox and who isn’t? I’ve seen anti-ecumenists say the Patriarch of Constantinople is a heretic and should be deposed.
 
IowaJay said:
I have a question based on that comment -

I’m aware of the quotes from Scripture, Irenaeus, etc. referenced above which have been used to support papal primacy.

The problem I have from a historical perspective is how those passages were interpreted and put into use. In other words, what I see in terms of how primacy operated in the early church looks very different than the way it operates now. In the early Church, ecumenical councils were not called or presided over by the Bishop of Rome, but now they are. In the early Church, bishops were picked and ordained by locals (see Hippolytus’ “On the Apostolic Tradition” for example) - there is no evidence whatsoever of the Bishop of Rome having to approve of those elections.
Click to expand...
Ooo, I wish I had seen this before I wrote all that stuff to Steve B and Gurney, because this is exactly what I mean. We all know the quotes and how the RC church interprets them, but I personally believe (and I see that I am not alone in this) that those interpretations are erroneous and self-serving in so far as they are used today to support a situation that has no analogue in the early church in which they were written.
 
jam070406 said:
Who gets to decide who is Orthodox and who isn’t? I’ve seen anti-ecumenists say the Patriarch of Constantinople is a heretic and should be deposed.
Click to expand...
It’s not a who, it’s a what: What does the tradition say? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople coming up with his own doctrines or interpretations of doctrine that are not supported by the conciliar decisions and actions of the early church? Is his understanding and therefore exposition of doctrine a break with the past? If not, then I would say it is pretty easy to rebuke the “anti-ecumenists” (or anyone else) who say that he should be deposed.
 
dzheremi said:
It’s not a who, it’s a what: What does the tradition say? Is the Patriarch of Constantinople coming up with his own doctrines or interpretations of doctrine that are not supported by the conciliar decisions and actions of the early church? Is his understanding and therefore exposition of doctrine a break with the past? If not, then I would say it is pretty easy to rebuke the “anti-ecumenists” (or anyone else) who say that he should be deposed.
Click to expand...
No, but they use Scripture, Tradition and the Fathers to show that him gathering together with Catholics makes him a heretic.
 
That’s pretty funny, since “Catholics” as a distinct category of Christians separate from “Orthodox” most likely didn’t exist at the time when those writings were made (depending on how you understand the use of terms like “Tradition” and “Fathers”). More self-serving injection of today’s situation into the ancient past. I don’t like it when Catholics do it, I don’t like when Orthodox do it.
 
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.
jam070406 said:
I agree. The apparant evidence is hard to ignore.
Plus, I see only the Pope addressing issues on the world stage, that affect all of humanity.
Click to expand...
 
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...
Yes, he is anti-Christ. :rolleyes: Indeed, how moronic.
 
It’s a good thing, then, that disagreeing with Rome’s interpretation of ecclesiastical history and its own place in it is not at all the same as arguing that the Pope is the anti-Christ, or that he is not doing any of the good things that Gurney mentioned…
 
jam070406 said:
Who gets to decide who is Orthodox and who isn’t? I’ve seen anti-ecumenists say the Patriarch of Constantinople is a heretic and should be deposed.
Click to expand...
And there are some Roman Catholics who say that the last four or five popes have been heretics and therefore not popes at all. A better question is who decides whether the pope is orthodox when no one can judge the pope? :whacky:
 
dzheremi said:
It’s a good thing, then, that disagreeing with Rome’s interpretation of ecclesiastical history and its own place in it is not at all the same as arguing that the Pope is the anti-Christ, or that he is not doing any of the good things that Gurney mentioned…
Click to expand...
The anti-ecumenists think so.
 
josephdaniel29 said:
And there are some Roman Catholics who say that the last four or five popes have been heretics and therefore not popes at all. A better question is who decides whether the pope is orthodox when no one can judge the pope? :whacky:
Click to expand...
Yes, some want to be their own Pope eh?
As far as judging whether a Pope is heretic is what a magisterum and councils are for.
Not sure what makes you believe you are allowed to judge his intent?
 
jam070406 said:
As far as judging whether a Pope is heretic is what a magisterum and councils are for.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Dzheremi - It doesn’t really make sense to point to it as being an example of an “easterner” assenting to some sort of infallibility as Rome claims for itself.
Click to expand...
Dzheremi, does the Eastern Orthodox Church, when speaking as a council, claim to speak infallibly when it comes to faith or morals?
 
dzheremi said:
Think of it this way, Gurney my good man: We both agree that Christ prayed that Peter’s faith not fail, right? (I’m going to assume that you do, since you brought it up.)

Well, if the church is founded upon the person of Peter, why should our Lord and Savior have to pray for Peter’s faith? As I tried to explain just now to Steve B, if the orthodoxy of the chair is guaranteed by virtue of the person holding it rather than the faith held by the person in it, then the content of his faith should not matter. Of course we both know that it does matter, so it is better/safer/more sensible to say that the problem is not with Christ’s assurances, but with the modern Roman Catholic church’s interpretation of them.
Click to expand...
The same question could be asked regarding the following; why did Jesus feel it necessary to pray that that hour might pass from him, knowing full well the answer already?
Code: 
  And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, **while I shall pray**. 33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; 34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

  35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
 
I do not currently have a church affiliation. This is pretty irrelevant to anything I’ve posted so far, though, as the person I’ve found who most closely mirrors the questions I would like answered in this thread is a Lutheran, and I’m definitely not that.
 
joe370 said:
The same question could be asked regarding the following; why did Jesus feel it necessary to pray that that hour might pass from him, knowing full well the answer already?
Code: 
  And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, **while I shall pray**. 33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; 34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

  35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
Click to expand...
How is that a valid comparison at all?
 
joe370 said:
Dzheremi, does the Eastern Orthodox Church, when speaking as a council, claim to speak infallibly when it comes to faith or morals?
Click to expand...
No. Only the Church is infallible. A council is infallible only so far as it proclaims the Orthodox faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top