Eastern Catholics defending Orthodoxy vs Roman Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter OraProNobis333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not articulating well, I apologize. I know that is what Rome teaches. But my point is this. While non sacramental communions (protestants, muslims, jews, etc) “can” be saved individually “despite” their religions, the Orthodox are saved “because” of their religion, just as we Catholics are. If the Orthodox religion was false, Christ would not be showing up in their Sacraments and on their Altars. He stopped showing up for the Anglicans when they changed their religion so much that it could no longer be reconciled with their Catholic/Apostolic origins. Just as sedevacantists and other “independent” chapels remain Catholic, even while being outside of visible communion with Rome, the same is true of the Orthodox (even if they see it as the other way around).
 
Am I interpreting your example correctly to mean that it is impossible for the Orthodox to be saved since we’re outside the church?
It is impossible for someone saved to be Orthodox- because we believe that if someone is saved he is shown complete Truth and hence becomes Catholic. (Catholic point of view)
While non sacramental communions (protestants, muslims, jews, etc) “can” be saved individually “despite” their religions, the Orthodox are saved “because” of their religion, just as we Catholics are.
Not entirely. Protestants are still saved “because” of their faith in Christ and “despite” not being Catholics. Orthodox are saved “because” of their faith, sacramental life and “despite” not being Catholics. Muslims are saved “because” of their faith in God “despite” not being Catholics (not believing in Trinity and not having Sacraments). Catholics are saved “because” they are Catholics “despite” their sins and weaknesses and falls.

And then, no one can guarantee Salvation… of Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, Protestant… of anyone…
If the Orthodox religion was false, Christ would not be showing up in their Sacraments and on their Altars.
And again, we all agree that Donatists were incorrect. Yet Christ appeared on their altar. How do you fit that into your theory?
He stopped showing up for the Anglicans when they changed their religion so much that it could no longer be reconciled with their Catholic/Apostolic origins.
He stopped showing up when they didn’t believe He would show up. When they lost Priesthood… etc… not merely because they were wrong about something.
Just as sedevacantists and other “independent” chapels remain Catholic
They don’t. They are not Catholics. They call themselves Catholics but to deny visible hierarchy is incompatible with Catholicism. They are ipso facto excommunicated.
 
Last edited:
Who knows how long that will be binding? Modern popes are moving away from traditional Catholic teachings and positions.
 
You are putting yourself in a dangerous position. How can we be faithful Catholics if we put ourselves at odds with a Pope teaching on something related to faith or morals?
 
Wow.

Pope Francis:
We should never proselytise the Orthodox! They are our brothers and sisters, disciples of Jesus Christ.
Well that itself doesn’t mean much. Call to not proselytize is different in context than what we are doing.

Anyhow, there is call in Gospel for us all to spread Truth and search for it. Nobody can say we shouldn’t spread what is true or attempt to spread it or search for it and be right.
You are putting yourself in a dangerous position. How can we be faithful Catholics if we put ourselves at odds with a Pope teaching on something related to faith or morals?
Technically, this isn’t infallible teaching because Pope did not teach this in his capacity as teacher of all Christians. Though refraining from calling Pope “wrong” would be nice for sure.
 
Last edited:
In context, to not proselytize is different than it sounds in practice. Pope Francis is affirming statements of some joint commissions. I doubt that Pope who moved missionary work above everything else is now trying to undermine Gospel. Perhaps he was misunderstood, misquoted or perhaps quote is out of context. In any case, Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur .
 
You’re right. I apologize, I misconstrued what you said.
 
I provided a link to the statement, feel free to judge the context.
 
Yet Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and now Francis are all moving the Church away from these teachings and into a new direction. Who is to say that this isn’t the will of the Holy Spirit? For Rome to change. God is unchanging, not the Roman Church.
 
Yet Pope John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and now Francis are all moving the Church away from these teachings and into a new direction.
Not sure about Francis, but other two explicitly affirmed that outside of Catholic Church in communion with Roman Pontiff there is no Salvation.
Who is to say that this isn’t the will of the Holy Spirit? For Rome to change.
If that is true, Church has been wrong. If Church has been wrong, let us run as fast as we can from Catholicism and pitty those who remain. Yes, if Catholicism has been wrong there is no room for compromise- then Catholicism should just transform to other, True Faith.
 
Doesn’t he? That’s the point. It’s something needed to clarify.
I get that. Yet it is important to know that because of reverence we show towards Eucharist (even Schismatic Eucharist).
I see what you’re saying. Well, Russian bishops said EP is in schism and we can’t receive or reverence their eucharist. If I want to be a Russian Orthodox faithful, I have to accept the judgment of the Bishops.
Schismatic Eucharist
Ultimately, such an item can’t exist - there’s True Eucharist and schismatic bread. But I understand what you meant.
 
Last edited:
Pope does not equate to Catholic Church. He has his role in the Catholic Church but he is not the defining feature of the Catholic Church.
very true. I’ve always noted as to how powerless a pope is. he has his limitations.
 
since 2018, the SyroMalabar Church has been authorized to use the Anaphora of Nestorius. Does that make us the Indian Church of the East in communion with Rome? 🙂
 
Who knows how long that will be binding? Modern popes are moving away from traditional Catholic teachings and positions.
You are wrong. Church doctrine has NEVER changed and will not change.
Pope Francis who got misunderstood in the press on several occasions publicly addressed this and stated no teachings have changed or will change.
 
Ultimately, such an item can’t exist - there’s True Eucharist and schismatic bread. But I understand what you meant.
I guess that’s the difference between Catholic and Orthodox view. In the end, each side disproves Branch Theory.

Orthodox Church doesn’t quite recognize difference between Schism and Heresy … validity and liceity of Sacraments are more Western terms too. Your understanding of Eucharist is akin to St. Cyprian’s understanding of Baptism.
 
Last edited:
But this is not good. It’s disrespectful to the valid Eastern traditions and rich treasury of grace the East has accumulated over the last two millennia.
I think you are denying the historical interplay between traditions where the West and East borrowed liturgical/devotional practices and ascetical teachings from each other. They were never air-tight, self-contained , pristine traditions that never met or had influence on each other, especially in the first thousand years of undivided Christendom, things were developing in East and West with a beautiful, harmonious, and sometimes clashing interplay.

Playing the Devil’s Advocate, don’t you think if our eternal salvation depended on holding the One True Faith from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that the merciful Lord who loves mankind would make that One True Faith and True Church apparent to all, rather than allow us poor blind children of Adam and banished children of Eve to try and sort out whether East or West is correct?
, there is call in Gospel for us all to spread Truth and search for it.
Yes but whose truth? Is not Truth a person, that perfect Revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Does not the Catholic Church hold the orthodox vision of Christ, and does not the Orthodox Church hold the orthodox vision of Christ?

Things are not so black and white as this strict interpretation (from self-proclaimed traditionalists on both sides) suggests. Historically there is much room for play with the idea and reality of impaired communion between East and West rather than the creation of two separate faiths. What is wrong with the realization that the Schism is within the Church, rather than from the Church? This is not a branch theory, as Anglicans have touted for years, but rather a merciful vision of our mutual positions. The Catholics need orthodoxy and the Orthodox need catholicism. Could not this be the Holy Spirit illuminating us to see our own faults and seek reconciliation?

Catechism is not dogma–catechism is an expression of dogma and doctrine bound to a certain time, place and audience. Thus we have so many different catechisms throughout the history of the church written in every age and language for the edification of a certain people. I am not denying there are teachings that are constant in them, but a dogmatic statement comes either when the pope says “I define, and declare” or by an Ecumenical Council (Orthodox position) as ratified by the Pope (Catholic position).
 
No they are not.
[/quote]

Save me a seat next to you in hell, @Isaac14! 😄
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top