East vs. West

  • Thread starter Thread starter militantsparrow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

militantsparrow

Guest
I am a happy Catholic. But, I’ve heard a few good arguments from Orthodox friends lately which are giving me a little doubt about whether I am in the right/true Church.

I was hoping I could get a couple good responses for the following two claims:

  1. Councils were not automatically binding. They required the acceptance of the church at large. They did not require sign off by the Pope and/or the Emperor.
    • The Pope had a special place of authority, but never universal jurisidiction which would allow him to declare such things as papal infallibility or even to change the creed.

      Thank you very much.
 
I’m not familiar with an ecumenical council that did not seek the rubber stamp of the Roman Bishop. Perhaps they could provide examples of which council(s) the mean?

The second statement also does not provide us any evidence as to what they are talking about, but from the time of Peter into the early Church, the successor of his “sacerdotal throne” (as the early Church phrased it), certainly had primacy.

One of the things I think some Orthodox forget regarding their discussion of “how much” power the Roman bishop had in the early Church, is that doctrines can and do develop. It’s not even reasonable for them to bring up “infallibility” as being recognized in the early Church as it is today. The idea of papal infallibility, while extant in the seeds of Scripture and Peter’s special charism and the promise of the Spirit, was discerned more clearly in the Church throughout the centuries.

If it helps you, I did a public debate on another forum on the primacy and universal reach of the Roman bishop in the early Church. My posts are made under the name MrPolo. Here is that debate.
:o
 
Excellent. Thank you, MarcoPolo. I will check the debate out.

The rubberstamp claim is one I heard on an Orthodox version of the Journey Home. I will have to find it again to give you the details.
 
militantsparrow said:
I am a happy Catholic. But, I’ve heard a few good arguments from Orthodox friends lately which are giving me a little doubt about whether I am in the right/true Church.

I was hoping I could get a couple good responses for the following two claims:

  1. Councils were not automatically binding. They required the acceptance of the church at large. They did not require sign off by the Pope and/or the Emperor.
    • The Pope had a special place of authority, but never universal jurisidiction which would allow him to declare such things as papal infallibility or even to change the creed.

      Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
 
FCEGM,
This looks like an excellent article. I just read through it quickly, but it’s heady enough that I need to read it again to digest it properly.
 
Councils were not automatically binding. They required the acceptance of the church at large. They did not require sign off by the Pope and/or the Emperor.
Click to expand...
Ask them for an example of a single Council that did not cause a split in the Church at large. The Council of Nicaea (First) was not accepted by the Church at large; Arianism persisted for centuries. The Council of Ephesus (Third) was not accepted by the Church at large; the Churches of the East (sometimes called Assyrian, but were spread all the way through India and China) did not accept it. The Council of Chalcedon (Fourth) was not accepted by the Church at large; Antioch and Alexandria rejected them, hence the Syriac and Coptic Churches still existing today.

That Councils were ever accepted by the whole Church at large, or even more remarkably that such acceptance is what makes them infallible and binding, is simply ahistorical and absurd on the face. After all, how can something be binding if it is something that can be accepted or not accepted.
The Pope had a special place of authority, but never universal jurisidiction which would allow him to declare such things as papal infallibility or even to change the creed.
Click to expand...
Papal Infallibility is a bit of a seperate issue, but it is clear from the Early Church that Rome had a unique place in determining the orthodoxy of doctrines, and that this was an Apostolic ministry (specifically Petrine) and not something that grew out of its centrality in terms of worldly power. For a good collection of quotes from the East regarding this authority and power, check out this link:

veniaminov.blogspot.com/2004/11/and-you-can-quote-me-eastern-papal.html

Again, the question of Papal Infallibility can be left aside, as the fundamental question is about the unique role of Rome as the center of Communion and orthodoxy, not about the unilateral infallibility of the Pope. Even if the Orthodox reject Papal Infallibility, it is unreasonable for them to reject the role of Rome as the keystone of orthodoxy, and by rejecting Communion with Rome they put themselves at odds with the greatest Eastern Fathers.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty,
Very good. Thank you. You touched on a number of very good points. But I think your best point, and one first discovered in the article posted by FCEGM, is that one cannot claim a group has the right to define orthodoxy, but later add in the clause that the church at large may reject the definition. It, as you say, “…is simply ahistorical and absurd on the face.”

Thank you and God bless.
 
militantsparrow said:
Ghosty,
Very good. Thank you. You touched on a number of very good points. But I think your best point, and one first discovered in the article posted by FCEGM, is that one cannot claim a group has the right to define orthodoxy, but later add in the clause that the church at large may reject the definition. It, as you say, “…is simply ahistorical and absurd on the face.”

Thank you and God bless.
Click to expand...
I’m glad I could of some help. 🙂

In all of this it is important to remember that the Eastern (and other Orthodox Communions) Orthodox do maintain the true Faith, and the main problem with their belief is simply a flawed ecclesiology. That their ecclesiology is self-contradicting (regarding the Councils) is the biggest proof against them; it is not a sign that they are somehow cut off from Grace.

At most I think it’s best to view the Orthodox as holders of the Catholic Faith who have a mistaken and unreasonable ecclesial stance, but their points do carry some weight and can inform us to some degree of the proper role of the Papacy (as center-point for Communion and orthodoxy, the keystone of the College of Bishops, as opposed to an absolute theological monarch).

Peace and God bless!
 
At most I think it’s best to view the Orthodox as holders of the Catholic Faith who have a mistaken and unreasonable ecclesial stance, but their points do carry some weight and can inform us to some degree of the proper role of the Papacy (as center-point for Communion and orthodoxy, the keystone of the College of Bishops, as opposed to an absolute theological monarch).
Click to expand...
I agree. I love the Orthodox. I see them and the Catholic Church as “two lungs” as Pope John Paul stated.
 
The first statement is a novelty that the Orthodox have introduced in order to explain away the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. Both times, the Orthodox delegates agreed that the Catholic position on everything from the filioque to the papacy was correct.
 
I am asking these questions because when I first heard the Orthodox arguments, I was flabbergasted. I thought they might just be right and I just might be in the wrong church. But thanks to the folks here and other’s who have helped me in a more personal way, I have begun to see the cracks in their arguments.
Kook said:
The first statement is a novelty that the Orthodox have introduced in order to explain away the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. Both times, the Orthodox delegates agreed that the Catholic position on everything from the filioque to the papacy was correct.
Click to expand...
Kook, the statement you address was one of the big ones for me. I heard the conversion story of a gentleman who converted to Catholicism from some form of Protestism only to later “realize” that the Orthodox Church was the true church. He based his belief on the concept that not every council was automatically binding and such. But as you pointed out, I see no evidence that councils required acceptance by the church at large. Nor does such a claim stand up on its own as the article posted by FCEGM explains so well.

This council issue really solves all other issues. How do we know what orthodoxy is? We know because of the councils, the bishops, and the pope. A few may reject declarations on orthodoxy from a council, but that does not make the council non-binding. It couldn’t or we’d never know what orthodoxy was. And so it follows that if a council declared papal infallibility, even though some rejected it, the teaching itself must be orthodox.

Thank you all so much for you help.

God bless.
 
Thank you for this thread and for asking these questions. The info presented has clarified some things that have come up in my own discussions with Orthodox friends.
 
cecilia97 said:
Thank you for this thread and for asking these questions. The info presented has clarified some things that have come up in my own discussions with Orthodox friends.
Click to expand...
You are welcome, cecilia97. It’s amazing how God helps us help each other–even when we don’t even realize it.
 
militantsparrow said:
I am a happy Catholic. But, I’ve heard a few good arguments from Orthodox friends lately which are giving me a little doubt about whether I am in the right/true Church.

I was hoping I could get a couple good responses for the following two claims:

  1. *]
    Councils were not automatically binding. They required the acceptance of the church at large. They did not require sign off by the Pope and/or the Emperor.

    1. *]The Pope had a special place of authority, but never universal jurisidiction which would allow him to declare such things as papal infallibility or even to change the creed.

      Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

    1. Articles on Eastern Orthodoxy

      Eastern Orthodoxy
      catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

      **AN EASTERN VOICE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS **
      By Ray Ryland
      catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2.asp

      **SEEING PETER THROUGH EASTERN EYES **
      By Ray Ryland
      catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9604eaw.asp

      **PETER AND THE ORTHODOX: A REPRISE **
      By Ray Ryland
      catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp

      The Eastern Doctrine of the Catholic Church
      By Ray Ryland
      catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510fea1.asp

      THE EPIPHANY OF THE ROMAN PRIMACY
      By Ray Ryland
      catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9702eaw.asp

      **Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest **
      By Rev. Chrysostom Frank
      catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea2sb2.asp
 
militantsparrow said:
I am asking these questions because when I first heard the Orthodox arguments, I was flabbergasted. I thought they might just be right and I just might be in the wrong church. But thanks to the folks here and other’s who have helped me in a more personal way, I have begun to see the cracks in their arguments.

Kook, the statement you address was one of the big ones for me. I heard the conversion story of a gentleman who converted to Catholicism from some form of Protestism only to later “realize” that the Orthodox Church was the true church. He based his belief on the concept that not every council was automatically binding and such. But as you pointed out, I see no evidence that councils required acceptance by the church at large. Nor does such a claim stand up on its own as the article posted by FCEGM explains so well.

This council issue really solves all other issues. How do we know what orthodoxy is? We know because of the councils, the bishops, and the pope. A few may reject declarations on orthodoxy from a council, but that does not make the council non-binding. It couldn’t or we’d never know what orthodoxy was. And so it follows that if a council declared papal infallibility, even though some rejected it, the teaching itself must be orthodox.

Thank you all so much for you help.

God bless.
Click to expand...
No problem. When my wife was still Protestant, she was very attracted to Orthodoxy. She also couldn’t reconcile the Orthodox account of these items with reality.

A couple of other things. The lone Eastern dissenter was a guy named Mark of Ephesus. He spent a lot of time arguing against the filioque. When the patristic sources were provided that supported the Catholic view, his only defense was to claim they were all forgeries.

Moreover, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America counts the Athanasian Creed as one of the basic sources of the Orthodox faith. The Creed also explicitly teaches the filioque.
goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7064

And that isn’t even bringing up contraception . . .
 
Kook said:
And that isn’t even bringing up contraception . . .
Click to expand...
It’s funny you should mention contraception. I have read conflicting stances on contraception from Orthodox sources. Some say “as long as it’s not abortive” while others have a much more Catholic stance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top