Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[dzheremi]

And yet, here we are, working.

Sometimes I think the biggest problem Roman Catholics have with us is that we still exist even without all the popes and infallibilities and definitions that they keep trying to convince the rest of Christendom are so necessary. Don’t have 'em, and yet have none of the problems they say will become rampant without them.

Of course, the problem is not with you guys specifically so much as it is with history. There is a certain breed of Roman Catholic who would like to have us all believe that things as they are today in Rome (or, in a nod to the so-called traditionalists of that camp, as they were prior to Vatican II) are essentially the same as they were in the days of the early church and its orthodox bishops. Anything that contradicts this idea, be it the presence and continued life of the EO, or the OO, or the “Old Catholics”, or the ACoE, or the whoever, is thereby unacceptable not really because it exists outside of Rome’s jurisdiction (because of course in RC ecclesiology Rome’s jurisdiction is the entire world without exception), but because its competing historical narrative challenges the monopoly that Rome and its partisans claim to have on all Christianity by virtue of the infallibility willed to its leader by Christ in the establishment of His Church. This is why Orthodox ecclesiology seems so “unworkable”: Jesus Christ left the Romans in particular something better/more clear/more authoritative (or so they say), so why do we insist upon less, or anything other than what is so clearly divinely mandated? Why can’t we see how much better they have it? Why don’t we want the same for ourselves and our churches? It boggles the mind, really.

Of course in the COC our Patriarch is both the Pope and Judge of the Universe (thunder crashing), so hey…I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

He’s also personally chosen by the risen Lord to be the custodian of the Gospel and apparently appears on the clothing of our Savior Jesus Christ and of several saints of the Church and all kinds of other good stuff, too. Beat that, Rome. Our leaders are all that without even having to be declared infallible by anyone. Not bad, I’d say.

Ahhh, titles. :compcoff:

 

[Rawb]

I’ll assume you’re attempting serious discussion with what you’ve said.

How do you figure? Making disciples of all nations? :nope:

The problem, well, one problem anyway is ethnocentricity which Fr. Harrison mentions in his article. I’m not Greek or Russian…I don’t speak either language…I don’t fit into that culture, and Orthodoxy has not proven its ability to be truly catholic at all. And to hear you tell the tale, you’ve been working at it just as long as we have.

I’m not Polish, Irish, Italian, or Mexican…I don’t speak those languages…I don’t fit into those cultures, so should I conclude Roman Catholicism isn’t for me? Or does the excuse of ‘not being of that culture’ only apply if a culture has abandoned its (Christian) cultural practices in America?

“Catholic” doesn’t mean “present everywhere” or The Church couldn’t have claimed the title until it had spread everywhere. Or wasn’t The Church Catholic before the conversion of Britain. Before Greece? Before it left Jerusalem? How much of the globe, in square feet of land, had to be occupied by Christians before we could claim the title Catholic?

Catholic means ‘whole’ or ‘universal’ and refers to the fullness of the truth, not the presence of a parish on every continent (Orthodox were the first to do this, btw). The Church was Catholic from the beginning - possessing everything necessary for Salvation as passed on from Our Lord to the apostles. Having the freedom to not be oppressed and martyred by Muslims and Soviets for hundreds of years is helpful, I’ll grant you. When you convert people by force I suppose it’s easy to claim you’re spreading Christ’s message faster than anyone else in history.

No, what I meant by “working” was a quality over quantity type arrangement. Our parishioners are statistically more likely to be theologically conservative, less likely to intermingle into other denominations, and far more likely to self-report their weekly services as being reverent, joyful, inspirational and thought provoking. Furthermore our parishes are more balanced between the genders and across the age spectrum. You can read all about that at study (from 2011) and others, at orthodoxreality.org (much of the research having been done by a non-affiliated Christian research institute, such as the Pew Forum)

It’s fairly easy to avoid some problems when your membership is largely confined to relatively small geographic areas and enjoys the advantage of ethnic homogeneity.

A stereotype you’re sure to be happy to be completely wrong about. We’re present in all fifty states and across the globe.

Our parishes are approaching 50% converts and the Orthodox perception of “ethnic vs. 'American” parishes being an issue is falling. Even as we adapt to speaking English and Christianizing American culture we still don’t find the problems present in Roman Catholicism with rampant disbelief in core doctrines and a liturgy that is the laughingstock of Liturgical Christianity.

And as long as contraception, multiple marriages and married clergy are acceptable, how many problems do you really have to deal with any way?

I thought celibate clergy was a blessing, and nothing to do with sex abuse? (I would believe that, btw, though you apparently don’t). And yes, giving out annulments like they’re candy on Halloween certainly is going to solve that issue of multiple marriages! And I just bet that all the problems with Romans not believing in their own doctrines, no difference between the practices of a Roman Catholic and an atheist (statistically), a total lack of reverence in the average parish, the embarrassment about your own history and inability to face up to the ever changing cover-ups and revisions of history as your doctrine ‘develops’ is all a fault of people just not following your church’s teachings on contraception.

That you’ve survived the passage of time and the ravages of war, etc. is laudable. That you have not fulfilled the Great Commission seems to be the most serious charge against you.

That your pope continues to speak out against the sins of the world is laudable. That your laity, in the majority, have abandoned the apostolic faith and those who remain seem incapable of recognizing the serious discrepancy between historical Christianity and what you have today seems to be the most serious charge against you.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

How do you figure? Making disciples of all nations? :nope:

The problem, well, one problem anyway is ethnocentricity which Fr. Harrison mentions in his article. I’m not Greek or Russian…I don’t speak either language…I don’t fit into that culture, and Orthodoxy has not proven its ability to be truly catholic at all. And to hear you tell the tale, you’ve been working at it just as long as we have.

It’s fairly easy to avoid some problems when your membership is largely confined to relatively small geographic areas and enjoys the advantage of ethnic homogeneity.

And as long as contraception, multiple marriages and married clergy are acceptable, how many problems do you really have to deal with any way?

That you’ve survived the passage of time and the ravages of war, etc. is laudable. That you have not fulfilled the Great Commission seems to be the most serious charge against you.

As Rawb said, it is quite easy to spread across the globe when you aren’t hemmed in by Islam, and you have the sword of Western European Imperialism on top of that.

Orthodoxy spread where it could, across Russia, into Asia and even North America (The History of the Russian Alaska Mission and subsequent efforts is an interesting read).

He addressed your other concerns so I won’t rehash what he said, but I will leave you with this thought/question…one that troubled me in my old life before I became Orthodox:

Could the Roman Catholic Church survive without Rome? The Greek Church saw its holiest cathedral desecrated and turned into a mosque, and its Patriarchs executed and/or manipulated by foreign rulers. The other Sees suffered greatly as well (Antioch not even being in Antioch anymore), and I won’t even touch the sufferings endured by the Copts and OO under Islamic rule…their martyrs increase daily.

If the Vatican were destroyed tomorrow, could the Latin Communion carry on the way it has? What would such a scenario look like? Would that mean “the gates of Hell prevailed” if the Vatican were desecrated and left desolate?

In our view, we would say of course not…but I don’t see such certainty among the Latins.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll assume you’re attempting serious discussion with what you’ve said.

That would be a good assumption.

I’m not Polish, Irish, Italian, or Mexican…I don’t speak those languages…I don’t fit into those cultures, so should I conclude Roman Catholicism isn’t for me? Or does the excuse of ‘not being of that culture’ only apply if a culture has abandoned its (Christian) cultural practices in America?

I’m not either (well, technically I’m Irish, but we came here about 300 years ago, so not really). But you’re in luck! :irish2: The Catholic Church isn’t Polish, Irish, Italian or Mexican, either, so you’ll fit right in. Just sit in the back until you know the words - especially when we get to the creed.

However, being Russian is a big help if you are a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Being Greek is an advantage is you want to join the Greek Orthodox Church.

How is this not obvious?

“Catholic” doesn’t mean “present everywhere” or The Church couldn’t have claimed the title until it had spread everywhere. Or wasn’t The Church Catholic before the conversion of Britain. Before Greece? Before it left Jerusalem? How much of the globe, in square feet of land, had to be occupied by Christians before we could claim the title Catholic?

Acts 17:6
6 But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here too.

When we speak of “the world” in this context or of catholic as universal, we are certainly referring to the known world that made up the empire at the time these words were penned. But there’s more as the Catechism makes clear.

What does “catholic” mean?

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311

Catholic means ‘whole’ or ‘universal’ and refers to the fullness of the truth, not the presence of a parish on every continent (Orthodox were the first to do this, btw). The Church was Catholic from the beginning - possessing everything necessary for Salvation as passed on from Our Lord to the apostles. Having the freedom to not be oppressed and martyred by Muslims and Soviets for hundreds of years is helpful, I’ll grant you. When you convert people by force I suppose it’s easy to claim you’re spreading Christ’s message faster than anyone else in history.

No, what I meant by “working” was a quality over quantity type arrangement. Our parishioners are statistically more likely to be theologically conservative, less likely to intermingle into other denominations, and far more likely to self-report their weekly services as being reverent, joyful, inspirational and thought provoking. Furthermore our parishes are more balanced between the genders and across the age spectrum. You can read all about that at study (from 2011) and others, at orthodoxreality.org (much of the research having been done by a non-affiliated Christian research institute, such as the Pew Forum)

I don’t doubt any of that for a moment. It is easier for small groups to maintain that type of unity and single-mindedness, etc. Aside from the natural cultural ties that may bind them together due to ethnicity and heritage, anyone (like me) who would choose to join really has to want to be there. But this is true for us, also. Converts often make the most passionate apologists.

(cont.)

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Of course, the problem is not with you guys specifically so much as it is with history. There is a certain breed of Roman Catholic who would like to have us all believe that things as they are today in Rome (or, in a nod to the so-called traditionalists of that camp, as they were prior to Vatican II) are essentially the same as they were in the days of the early church and its orthodox bishops. Anything that contradicts this idea, be it the presence and continued life of the EO, or the OO, or the “Old Catholics”, or the ACoE, or the whoever, is thereby unacceptable not really because it exists outside of Rome’s jurisdiction (because of course in RC ecclesiology Rome’s jurisdiction is the entire world without exception), but because its competing historical narrative challenges the monopoly that Rome and its partisans claim to have on all Christianity by virtue of the infallibility willed to its leader by Christ in the establishment of His Church. This is why Orthodox ecclesiology seems so “unworkable”: Jesus Christ left the Romans in particular something better/more clear/more authoritative (or so they say), so why do we insist upon less, or anything other than what is so clearly divinely mandated? Why can’t we see how much better they have it? Why don’t we want the same for ourselves and our churches? It boggles the mind, really.

Of course in the COC our Patriarch is both the Pope and Judge of the Universe (thunder crashing), so hey…I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

He’s also personally chosen by the risen Lord to be the custodian of the Gospel and apparently appears on the clothing of our Savior Jesus Christ and of several saints of the Church and all kinds of other good stuff, too. Beat that, Rome. Our leaders are all that without even having to be declared infallible by anyone. Not bad, I’d say.

Ahhh, titles. :compcoff:

I will say, that your Patriarch of Alexandria has a cooler hat than our Patriarch of Alexandria.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A stereotype you’re sure to be happy to be completely wrong about. We’re present in all fifty states and across the globe.

But not to the same degree and you know this.

CNN doesn’t have round the clock coverage of the election of an Orthodox patriarch.

Our parishes are approaching 50% converts and the Orthodox perception of “ethnic vs. 'American” parishes being an issue is falling. Even as we adapt to speaking English and Christianizing American culture we still don’t find the problems present in Roman Catholicism with rampant disbelief in core doctrines and a liturgy that is the laughingstock of Liturgical Christianity.

Falling you say? So, you admit that it is and has been an issue. Thank you.

As for the rest, well, time will tell…but then haven’t you had the same amount of time we have had?

I thought celibate clergy was a blessing, and nothing to do with sex abuse? (I would believe that, btw, though you apparently don’t).

Who said anything about sex abuse? You have made a leap there, I’m afraid. My reason for mentioning clerical celibacy is two-fold: one, some good men cannot accept celibacy, so we do miss out on their gifts, and two, it is a point of contention between liberal and conservative Catholics. You simply avoided the “dialogue” by allowing priests to marry. A very popular decision, apparently. Of course, you do know celibacy is a discipline that can change, right?

And yes, giving out annulments like they’re candy on Halloween certainly is going to solve that issue of multiple marriages! And I just bet that all the problems with Romans not believing in their own doctrines, no difference between the practices of a Roman Catholic and an atheist (statistically), a total lack of reverence in the average parish, the embarrassment about your own history and inability to face up to the ever changing cover-ups and revisions of history as your doctrine ‘develops’ is all a fault of people just not following your church’s teachings on contraception.

Ah. The full-blown anti-Catholic screed, at last.

That your pope continues to speak out against the sins of the world is laudable. That your laity, in the majority, have abandoned the apostolic faith and those who remain seem incapable of recognizing the serious discrepancy between historical Christianity and what you have today seems to be the most serious charge against you.

Strong finish. Nicely done. I appreciate the time you invested here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As Rawb said, it is quite easy to spread across the globe when you aren’t hemmed in by Islam, and you have the sword of Western European Imperialism on top of that.

Orthodoxy spread where it could, across Russia, into Asia and even North America (The History of the Russian Alaska Mission and subsequent efforts is an interesting read).

He addressed your other concerns so I won’t rehash what he said, but I will leave you with this thought/question…one that troubled me in my old life before I became Orthodox:

Could the Roman Catholic Church survive without Rome? The Greek Church saw its holiest cathedral desecrated and turned into a mosque, and its Patriarchs executed and/or manipulated by foreign rulers. The other Sees suffered greatly as well (Antioch not even being in Antioch anymore), and I won’t even touch the sufferings endured by the Copts and OO under Islamic rule…their martyrs increase daily.

If the Vatican were destroyed tomorrow, could the Latin Communion carry on the way it has? What would such a scenario look like? Would that mean “the gates of Hell prevailed” if the Vatican were desecrated and left desolate?

In our view, we would say of course not…but I don’t see such certainty among the Latins.

Before I offer my answer, let me ask two questions:

First, how did you manage to survive when your Patriarchs were executed, etc.?

Second, do you know how many popes were martyred?

 

[dzheremi]

How do you figure? Making disciples of all nations? :nope:

The problem, well, one problem anyway is ethnocentricity which Fr. Harrison mentions in his article. I’m not Greek or Russian…I don’t speak either language…I don’t fit into that culture, and Orthodoxy has not proven its ability to be truly catholic at all. And to hear you tell the tale, you’ve been working at it just as long as we have.

Samuel Johnson is famous for saying that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I would modify that a bit for our purposes and say that the language/ethnicity canard is the last refuge of the armchair RC apologist who cannot hold his own in conversation with those outside of his own church. I mean, really…if the EO are to be blamed for the supposed ethnocentricity of their communion due to having national churches that serve primarily (though increasingly not exclusively, thanks to churches with large convert populations like the OCA and the Antiochian Orthodox Church) Russian and Greek populations, then the Roman Catholic communion will in very short order find itself in the same boat with regard to its own “ethnocentric” churches, such as those of the Maronites (Lebanese), Chaldeans (Iraqis), Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankarans (Indians, and mostly Malayali Indians at that), Armenians, etc. This would be a better argument to make if your church hadn’t carved out its own Eastern compatriots from sections of preexisting national churches of the East which already served defined communities. And given that at least some of these (like the Maronite, Syro-Malabar, and Chaldean, among others) have no direct Orthodox counterpart actually makes your communion quite a bit more self-consciously “ethnic” (by your use of the word, anyway) than the EO. So watch what you hurl at others; you’re bound to step in it yourself.

It’s fairly easy to avoid some problems when your membership is largely confined to relatively small geographic areas and enjoys the advantage of ethnic homogeneity.

Written like someone who has no real-world experience in any Orthodox church. You know who else isn’t ethnically or culturally Russian or Greek? The roughly 1.2 million native Africans within the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, all of which came to Orthodoxy following the acceptance of previously isolated, non-canonical groups in Uganda and Kenya in 1946.

What’s been happening in the RC world since 1946? Roughly the same thing in terms of growth in Africa, though the RCC is the colonial church in many places, so it is difficult to accurately gauge growth in that church via conversion versus births to preexisting nominal or active Catholic communities. So I would hesitate to say that the RC and the EO are even on equal footing, despite missionary efforts by both. When an Orthodox Church is established in rural Tanazania or wherever, you can bet that it is the result of missionary efforts. When a Catholic one is established, that’s not as often the case.

And as long as contraception, multiple marriages and married clergy are acceptable, how many problems do you really have to deal with any way?

How many problems according to the EO themselves, or according to Roman Catholics like you? As ignorant pseudo-questions like the one you’ve just asked show, they’re really not the same thing.

That you’ve survived the passage of time and the ravages of war, etc. is laudable. That you have not fulfilled the Great Commission seems to be the most serious charge against you.

That you’re lying and slandering a fellow apostolic communion in order to puff your own up is definitely the saddest thing that could occur in this conversation, or any conversation. Look, I’m not even EO, and we COC certainly have our own missionary efforts and challenges ongoing in Africa (being the sole native apostolic African church seems to help, though), but it doesn’t take self-interest to find out the truth that you’re unwilling to recognize in order to maintain your fantasy of the EO communion being some kind of hermetically-sealed Greco-Slavic wonderland of navel-gazing, so here you go:

Orthodox Africa (Tanzania)

The Orthodox Church in Mexico (gee, that’s some funny-sounding Greek…even I can understand it!)

Finnish Orthodox procession in North Karelia (with beautiful Finnish Orthodox chant)

Japanese Orthodox Church - Theophany in Tokyo

Orthodox Church, Congo

Prescantified Liturgy in Guatemala

Fr. John Tanveer, Orthodox priest in Pakistan, on Pakistan Orthodox mission

…and about a million others. Basically, if you search for “Orthodox” + any given country, you’re likely to come up with something, though it won’t always be EO depending on the area (the number of Coptic Orthodox missionary videos from Africa has really exploded since the missionary efforts picked up with the expansion of the Coptic diaspora in the 1990s and today. And it doesn’t stop there: just the other day I received our diocesan newsletter which mentioned another missionary trip to Mexico to support the Church in Morelos and further invite the people to explore Orthodoxy; the previous newsletter mentioned mission trips to Costa Rica and Trinidad & Tobago…I’m sure there’s more where these came from!)

 

[dzheremi]

I will say, that your Patriarch of Alexandria has a cooler hat than our Patriarch of Alexandria.

Ladies and gentlemen, ecumenism: Orthodox-style.

(Thanks, Misplaced Book.)

 

[Rawb]

But not to the same degree and you know this.

CNN doesn’t have round the clock coverage of the election of an Orthodox patriarch.

No, not to the same degree, but I have a feeling if I were in Russia and saying “There is no Roman Catholic parish here, but there’s one thirty minutes away all in English” you’d be telling me to go there, even though according to the philosophy you’re espousing here I should be decrying it as foreign.

In fact, were I in America with just a Spanish Mass available, I should be boycotting it because I’m not of that culture or language.

I’m German btw, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

Falling you say? So, you admit that it is and has been an issue. Thank you.

Of course I’ll admit it was a problem. I’ve never admitted otherwise. Your church had the same problem, as can be seen with side-by-side Polish and Italian Roman Catholic parishes in some areas. We solved it differently, and ours is taking a bit longer but preserving a Christian culture whereas Roman Catholics are thoroughly American, in the worst possible sense.

You simply avoided the “dialogue” by allowing priests to marry. A very popular decision, apparently. Of course, you do know celibacy is a discipline that can change, right?

Actually, your church ignored the dialogue by ignoring the canons of Ecumenical Councils which told them to stop mandating celibacy and imposing a foreign, non-Christian tradition onto your clergy. Yes, I know it’s a discipline that can change, I was a devout Roman Catholic once. My oldest posts on this forum might be an entertaining dichotomy to my present ones.

Ah. The full-blown anti-Catholic screed, at last.

I brought it out to match the rampant ignorance and stereotypical anti-Orthodoxy you’ve displayed throughout the posts I’ve responded to. It’s a fairly common arrogance of online Roman Catholics, I’ve found. I’d encourage you to actually spend some time experiencing and understanding what it is you’re saying about my faith, because you’ve been consistently wrong and clearly have no experience with the subject matter.

Strong finish. Nicely done. I appreciate the time you invested here.

Honestly, the vitriol you’re experiencing is not totally your fault. I’ve just had it trying to explain to Roman Catholics time and time again that my church is not the one where your ethnicity defines your ‘enrollment’ and attempting time and time and time and time and time again to counter the same arrogant tones and straw man arguments of Romans who memorized a few out-of-context quotes and are free to insult my Church because this forum only bans those (in secret, btw. Many people who just stop responding are actually banned posters who were making too many good points) who point out the flaws in Roman Catholicism.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Before I offer my answer, let me ask two questions:

First, how did you manage to survive when your Patriarchs were executed, etc.?

Second, do you know how many popes were martyred?

First: By the Grace of God. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, and we trust that promise.

Second: I know it was a fair number. They were all Orthodox, by the way (and it was before the year 700). How many Popes were martyred since 1000? (And the ones who were murdered or alleged to have been murdered because of Papal Court intrigue don’t count).

This isn’t about comparing body counts, Randy (which is a pointless and childish internet habit). My point, is that since the Schism, Old Rome has not experienced persecution. Your Ecclesiology has never endured the strain that the EO and OO has…you have never really been “put to the test” so to speak. That time may be coming soon…and the question is, what will happen? The signs I see are not encouraging.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Ladies and gentlemen, ecumenism: Orthodox-style.

(Thanks, Misplaced Book.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Samuel Johnson is famous for saying that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I would modify that a bit for our purposes and say that the language/ethnicity canard is the last refuge of the armchair RC apologist who cannot hold his own in conversation with those outside of his own church. I mean, really…if the EO are to be blamed for the supposed ethnocentricity of their communion due to having national churches that serve primarily (though increasingly not exclusively, thanks to churches with large convert populations like the OCA and the Antiochian Orthodox Church) Russian and Greek populations, then the Roman Catholic communion will in very short order find itself in the same boat with regard to its own “ethnocentric” churches, such as those of the Maronites (Lebanese), Chaldeans (Iraqis), Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankarans (Indians, and mostly Malayali Indians at that), Armenians, etc. This would be a better argument to make if your church hadn’t carved out its own Eastern compatriots from sections of preexisting national churches of the East which already served defined communities. And given that at least some of these (like the Maronite, Syro-Malabar, and Chaldean, among others) have no direct Orthodox counterpart actually makes your communion quite a bit more self-consciously “ethnic” (by your use of the word, anyway) than the EO. So watch what you hurl at others; you’re bound to step in it yourself.

I don’t recall that either Fr. Harrison or I “blamed” you for the obvious ethnicity of your churches. It’s just an obvious statement of fact, and one that seems to undermine your claim to true catholicity.

Look, no one is saying that you’re not in communion with Rome or that you’re not members of a true Church. You have a long and honorable history and heritage, and your faith has been watered by the blood of martyrs same as ours.

You just haven’t maintained the proper perspectives on the papacy, and that has made all the difference.

You’re in a tight orbit like Mercury around the sun - better than many others, but a distinct body in orbit nonetheless.

Written like someone who has no real-world experience in any Orthodox church.

Um…doesn’t that prove my point to some degree? Orthodoxy is largely irrelevant in much of the world. Maybe not in YOUR world, but everywhere else outside of a few European and Asian countries.

What’s been happening in the RC world since 1946? Roughly the same thing in terms of growth in Africa, though the RCC is the colonial church in many places, so it is difficult to accurately gauge growth in that church via conversion versus births to preexisting nominal or active Catholic communities. So I would hesitate to say that the RC and the EO are even on equal footing, despite missionary efforts by both. When an Orthodox Church is established in rural Tanazania or wherever, you can bet that it is the result of missionary efforts. When a Catholic one is established, that’s not as often the case.

How many problems according to the EO themselves, or according to Roman Catholics like you? As ignorant pseudo-questions like the one you’ve just asked show, they’re really not the same thing.

That you’re lying and slandering a fellow apostolic communion in order to puff your own up is definitely the saddest thing that could occur in this conversation, or any conversation.

Okay. Normally, I’m up for a good row, but that’s not why I started this thread. And whuile folks don’t always agree with my positions or like my presentation style, that’s the first time anyone on CAF has called me a liar.

You may have the last word if you wish to say anything else.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Honestly, the vitriol you’re experiencing is not totally your fault. I’ve just had it trying to explain to Roman Catholics time and time again that my church is not the one where your ethnicity defines your ‘enrollment’ and attempting time and time and time and time and time again to counter the same arrogant tones and straw man arguments of Romans who memorized a few out-of-context quotes and are free to insult my Church because this forum only bans those (in secret, btw. Many people who just stop responding are actually banned posters who were making too many good points) who point out the flaws in Roman Catholicism.

Then why are you here?

 

[Rawb]

Then why are you here?

Because I used to like this website. It was instrumental in my discovery of historical and liturgical Christianity and my becoming Roman Catholic. I left for a while after I converted because of these issues, but came back because I like discussing religion and this is one of the most active religion forums online. Unfortunately it’s just gotten worse and worse as the moderators ban those who are interested in actually discussing issues and not just parroting their talking-point, straw man apologetics. Not just within other religions - though I think Orthodoxy might get the brunt of their banning, there are still those who remember the time the moderators purged the site of all Orthodox posters - but I’ve seen Roman Catholics who are interested in deeper level debates get banned because they don’t roll over and accept incorrect Catholic Answer answers.

So now I don’t know why I’m here. Maybe I still feel it’s some obligation to defend my church against the blatant inaccuracies perpetuated by CA members.Maybe because it’s the only place I get to read Cavaradossi and dzheremi, as I don’t spend a lot of time on OC.net

 

[Randy_Carson]

First: By the Grace of God. Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, and we trust that promise.

I agree.

Second: I know it was a fair number. They were all Orthodox, by the way (and it was before the year 700). How many Popes were martyred since 1000? (And the ones who were murdered or alleged to have been murdered because of Papal Court intrigue don’t count).

I agree.

This isn’t about comparing body counts, Randy (which is a pointless and childish internet habit).

I agree. Just don’t confuse me with newbies just starting out in apologetics who make stupid arguments like that. Fair?

My point, is that since the Schism, Old Rome has not experienced persecution. Your Ecclesiology has never endured the strain that the EO and OO has…you have never really been “put to the test” so to speak. That time may be coming soon…and the question is, what will happen? The signs I see are not encouraging.

MB-

The reason that the signs are not encouraging is because Satan is attacking the head of the Church knowing that if he can take down the Catholic Church, the rest of Christianity will be merely mopping up. And I can’t wait to read the howls of protest that will be posted soon over that.

Now, I could cite the vision of Satan that Pope Leo XIII had in 1884, but you either already know it or can Google it easily enough. And to be fair, it was private revelation, so I put it into the appropriate spot, okay? But it does seem to fit.

The Catholic Church is in bad shape today because we’re bearing the brunt of the spiritual warfare. This is our time of spiritual testing that Satan asked for and was granted.

Oh, my answer: If the Vatican is destroyed, the cardinals would gather from around the world and elect another pope. Simple really.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I agree.

I agree.

I agree. Just don’t confuse me with newbies just starting out in apologetics who make stupid arguments like that. Fair?

MB-

The reason that the signs are not encouraging is because Satan is attacking the head of the Church knowing that if he can take down the Catholic Church, the rest of Christianity will be merely mopping up. And I can’t wait to read the howls of protest that will be posted soon over that.

Now, I could cite the vision of Satan that Pope Leo XIII had in 1884, but you either already know it or can Google it easily enough. And to be fair, it was private revelation, so I put it into the appropriate spot, okay? But it does seem to fit.

The Catholic Church is in bad shape today because we’re bearing the brunt of the spiritual warfare. This is our time of spiritual testing that Satan asked for and was granted.

Oh, my answer: If the Vatican is destroyed, the cardinals would gather from around the world and elect another pope. Simple really.

Randy,

You say that you put the private revelation “in its place” and then proceed to use it as part of your argument. This doesn’t make sense.

You’re bearing the brunt? WE ALL are bearing the temptations of Satan…every Christian battles with evil, in our hearts…where the true fight is. You say you don’t discount us, and then you proceed to discount us.

I am pointing this out, because I don’t think that you are acting maliciously. I think you honestly don’t see how rude and belligerent your posts come across to us. It smacks of a Triumphalism that provokes a response in us.

I too am asking myself “Why are you here?” This is a Roman Catholic board. quite obviously you are being prickly and defensive because you perceive our arguments and posts as an attack on Holy Mother Church. You seek to best us in the argument, and when that fails you resort to sarcasm and the fall back apologetic talking points that Latins use. Perhaps you view the very fact that we are vigorously arguing these points as an attack. In real dialogue, things can get prickly.

We are not going to accept Universal Jurisdiction, nor are we going to “Come Home to Rome”…our view is that “Rome needs to come Home.” Our respective leaderships are trying to meet in the middle, but it is a long process.

I have noticed that many online Latin Apologists are particularly defensive when arguing with Orthodox (be they EO or OO) because as someone else pointed out…we are an alternative historical narrative. Our existence is a threat to Roman Ultramontane apologetics, and we are not easily pushed over…Rome does not own the word “Catholic”…

Perhaps this last post will result in my banning. So be it. I don’t wish to argue with you or anyone else anymore after today…

Lord have mercy on us.

 

[chimo]

The guys in Rome are kinda smart, chimo.

Is the problem that they don’t understand your model? Or that that they DO understand it and reject it?

It is not that the Pope doesn’t understand it for he does. The problem is not with Rome but it is with her own people.

 

[jimkhong]

Thanks, chimo, your answer is very interesting and I look forward to any sources that you can dig up. I am aware of the reversal of the Council of Florence decision but was always under the impression that it was bishops who did not attend, some clergy and the Emperor who led the opposition, not so much the laity as we understand it today.

In fact an Ecumenical Council decision cannot be accepted fully until another Council ratifies it which means do the Laity accept the decisions of the Council that was formed first. If in time the Laity can exercise their disapproval then the Council decisions of the first Council meeting can be revoked. This is what is contained within the Canon structure for the Eastern Church to help govern it.

What is interesting in the Eastern Church is that all levels of government must say yes if anything is to be agreed on. If one party says no then it is rejected.

A few questions on your above points:
1 This “another Council” - what kind of council is this? Another Ecumenical Council?
2 If an ecumenical council decision is reversed, is it then retrospectively delisted? Or does it get confirmed at a later point - if so when and would it be considered as only a provisional council until then?
3 “Canon structure” does this have the same meaning as Canon law in Catholic Church?
4 “all levels of government” - is this similar to the CoE’s three houses?
5 Would this be an Eastern equivalent of the Western concepts of sensus fidelium and acceptance by the people? I noticed sensus fidelium was in the quote by Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck (I presume he is Orthodox) posted by Randy Carson.

Sorry if this is too Latin thinking trying to grasp at Eastern concepts. I am disappointed that what could have been a valid line of inquiry has degenerated into a debate over Petrine primacy, when the positions of both sides are already well understood by the other side, even if not agreed to. I hope my search for light do not get darkened by the heat of the debate.

 

[chimo]

Ah, but that wasn’t always the case, was it? This is why I see the Orthodox approach as unworkable. At one point in history, doctrine was still in development as the Church sought to understand the revelation delivered once for all to the saints. Then, at some point in history (according to you), it became true that “all the major doctrines and teachings have already been formulated into doctrine”?

When was this? Do you have a date in mind? Even narrowing it down to within a century or two would be something. And who gets to decide which are major doctrines and which are minor any way?

If you were a Protestant, I’d ask you for a verse to prove your position…because I know you have none.

But here’s the thing, and there’s no getting around this for you: at one stage in Church history doctrine developed, and you cannot point to any legitimate reason, basis or causation for the discontinuation of doctrinal development. It’s an arbitrary cut-off designed specifically to insulate your beliefs from the advance of Roman Catholic theology. “Major teachings and doctrines” have all been developed (since they did not always exist), but conveniently for the Orthodox, this occurred before the development of the doctrine concerning papal infallibility and anything else distinctively Roman that you want to ignore? I don’t buy it for a second. :nope:

This reminds of the Great Apostasy theory put forth by Mormons and some Protestants who hold that at some point, the Catholic Church went off the rails thus making it possible (surprise, surprise) for their group to step into the void as the true Church. Funny, but I’ve never been given a firm date by any of them, either.

The major doctrines of our Lord Jesus were formulated in the first 8 centuries and were accomplished by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. No major doctrine of our Lord was never developed independently. Both Churches got together to define truth better. That’s history. The Orthodox defined their doctrines alongside Rome when those Ecumenical Councils were convened. They both contribute to it. Your own doctrines of Jesus Christ had a lot of Eastern (name removed by moderator)ut. And our doctrines had a lot of Western (name removed by moderator)ut. Check out this history and you will find this for yourself. I am not trying to imply we had one and the West had one model but after the unfortunate split about 1000 years ago than two models had to occur. That was my point in the first few posts. Since there is no more sharing of East and West in determining how to deliver doctrine both Churches had to develop different models. But the model before this unfortunate split hardly resembles anything that Rome has today. The model Rome uses today is far different than the one used in the first 8 centuries. Now this does not mean Rome must go back to the former model. I respect Rome too much to ask for that. I believe in Rome just as much as I believe in my Orthodox Church. I believe as Orthodox we must respect Rome’s right to her own model and I am hopeful the Catholic Church will respect the Orthodox right to their own model. We seem today not to want to acknowledge the other their right to be. I hope one day we will and not try to insist the other to change into what we think they should be.