EO church vs. RC church- one of the last stumbling blocks

[oneseeker]

for me in my conversion search. I have some trouble with the RC church claiming to be the one true church b/c I see the EO church which was one with the RC church at the beginning. It seems that they would’ve understood that the pope was the universal leader, and not left over that. From what I’ve read, initially the local church was the catholic church, each with its own bishop, and the bishop of Rome having prestige and prominence as first among equals. However, Jerusalem and Antioch were also considered prestigious, no?

Also, the doctrine of the two churches is different: RC has the idea of original sin= original guilt for all through Adam, Jesus “paying” for our sins on the cross, purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

The Orthodox have: original sin = the effects of personal sin and mortality, Jesus coming to reconcile us to our vocation of becoming more and more like God, and no purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

If the RC is the true church, how did they end up with such different doctrine? After all, they were together for over a thousand years. Did the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and all of us guilty due to Adam really not come about until Anselm and Augustine? If so, doesn’t that make it wrong and unscriptural?

Not trying to say that’s true, just very mixed up.

oneseeker

 

[angelusm]

for me in my conversion search. I have some trouble with the RC church claiming to be the one true church b/c I see the EO church which was one with the RC church at the beginning. It seems that they would’ve understood that the pope was the universal leader, and not left over that. From what I’ve read, initially the local church was the catholic church, each with its own bishop, and the bishop of Rome having prestige and prominence as first among equals. However, Jerusalem and Antioch were also considered prestigious, no?

Also, the doctrine of the two churches is different: RC has the idea of original sin= original guilt for all through Adam, Jesus “paying” for our sins on the cross, purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

The Orthodox have: original sin = the effects of personal sin and mortality, Jesus coming to reconcile us to our vocation of becoming more and more like God, and no purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

If the RC is the true church, how did they end up with such different doctrine? After all, they were together for over a thousand years. Did the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and all of us guilty due to Adam really not come about until Anselm and Augustine? If so, doesn’t that make it wrong and unscriptural?

Not trying to say that’s true, just very mixed up.

oneseeker

The dogma of Immaculate conception was confirmed by Mary in Lourdes in 1858. Purgatory exists, it was shown by Jesus to st. Faustina. Orthodox Churches are simply wrong, God doesn’t talk to them just like He doesn’t talk to protestants. He reveals His will to the CC.

 

[paradoxy]

Hello, oneseeker. May God lead you in your search.

You seem to have done your ‘homework’ well, but are still stuck. I suggest you visit some parishes, attend the Vespers, Morning/Evening Services, Divine Liturgy/Mass, talk to priests about your possible conversion and about other matters that may bug you.

And pray for guidance to the True Church. (Which I can tell you is the Orthodox Church, but don’t take MY word for it! )

 

[Manphibian]

The dogma of Immaculate conception was confirmed by Mary in Lourdes in 1858. Purgatory exists, it was shown by Jesus to st. Faustina. Orthodox Churches are simply wrong, God doesn’t talk to them just like He doesn’t talk to protestants. He reveals His will to the CC.

That’s a little harsh. God has and does use protestant and orthodox believers to accomplish his will, for a nice overview visit www.peterkreeft.com and download his talk on ecumenism, it’s brilliant.

Oneseeker, the main thing that drove me into Catholicism and not Eastern Orthodoxy is the Early Church Fathers. We can find seeds of the Papacy and the Immaculate Conception during the first 5 centuries of the church. Also, I am, for better or worse, a Western Christian, so here I am.

I would only say that technically speaking the Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in a “visible” Church in the sense that Catholicism does. And their scholars have willingly admitted that if one does believe in such a church, well, then Roman Catholicism is the only logical and consistent ecclisiology.

Lastly, Eastern Orthodoxy and it’s councils, or lack there of, are too strongly linked to civil authority. I believe that they require a king or ruler to call a council together before one can be had. Not to mention the sad lack of further theological development over the past centuries.

It makes perfect sense that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a result of their love for One Another, which the RCC has always taught.

For reccomended reading I would suggest 2 titles for you.

Stephen K. Ray - Upon This Rock (this book is an excellent treatment of the Papacy written for the laity and for mass consumption.)

Frank J. Sheed - Theology For Beginners ( a short and very understandable work. Very insightful, especially where the Filoque is concerned.)

Pax Christi.

 

[ERose]

Oneseeker, welcome to the search. I would like to point out that I am Catholic now but haven’t always been that way which means that I am a convert.

I would like to point out that the Catholic church is the one true church, but so is the Orthodox churches in my opinion. There really isn’t alot theologically that separates the two and really the primary reason for separation is more political and cultural related than anything else. Both are also Apostolic in that both churches can historically trace back to the Apostles themselves. No other denomination(s) can do that without going through either one of these churches. And the West & East have been working on reconcilation for some time now and from what I understand are making very good headway in that direction.

That being said the Catholic Church has the Pope on its side who is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church. The proof of this is the enormous historical success the Church has had in getting the message of Christ out into the world by being the largest religious group in the world. Theologically, we have progressed more than the EO. Really if you look at the differences in theology it is due to progression and not to being wrong.

A perfect example is the filioque clause. It is true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father which is what the EO hold to. But it is also true that the HS proceeds from the Son as well as the Father which the RC holds to. The RC’s claim is a progression of doctrine.

Anyway good luck. Hope you find home.

 

[bogoljub]

The dogma of Immaculate conception was confirmed by Mary in Lourdes in 1858. Purgatory exists, it was shown by Jesus to st. Faustina. Orthodox Churches are simply wrong, God doesn’t talk to them just like He doesn’t talk to protestants. He reveals His will to the CC.

God bless u !

You make it a bit tooooo easy.

I could post you hundrets of appearances of Christ, the Theotokos and other Saints and Angels. So in these appearances the Theotokos always said that the orthodox church is the right one also Christ and all the Saints.

I think you never heared about St. Seraphim of Sarov who often saw the Theotokos and other Saints - you know what the Mother of God said to the Apostels Paul and Peter ; Look his of our high !
He also was deemed worthy to see the mansions of the righteous in heaven.

or St. Sergije of Radonezh he also saw the Mother of God and other Saints

or St. Aleksander Svirskjie - the Mostholy Trinity appeared to him and his body is complete incorrupt until this day ( everything his nails hair…he is like sleeping I can send u a foto)

St. Parthenje of Kiew had Visions for hours of Christ and the Theotokos, he could speak with them about the Divine Liturgy the meaning of monasticism…

St. Euphemia of Serbia from Belgrade ( she died a few years ago) saw the Theotokos and she took her to heaven after this she could not speak eat or drink for 3 days

St. Myrtidiotissa ( died a few years ago) also saw the Theotokos often ( even daily)

There are so many I could go on for hours…our Synaxarion is full with such occurances.

And also we have many Saints and Elders who saw/experienced Hell, Paradise, the Last Judgement …what happens with the dead… and so on.

Appearances and Miracles happen unceasingly in the orthodox church.
Did u never hear of the 3 great Miracles of Orthodoxy ?

Every Year when the orthodox Patriarch celebrates the orthodox Pascha the Holy Fire appears and this is witnessed every year by thosends of People from around the world.

Every year when the orthodox chruch celebrates the Theophany of Christ in the Jordan and the Patriarch blesses the water of the River - the Jordan changes his Direction in front of Hundrets of people, every year and only when orthodox celebrates

And every year on the Orthodox feast of the Transfiguration the Holy Cloud appears and can be seen and experienced by everyone !! You should make a Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and alo witness them.

In CHRIST

 

[Marina14]

for me in my conversion search. I have some trouble with the RC church claiming to be the one true church b/c I see the EO church which was one with the RC church at the beginning. It seems that they would’ve understood that the pope was the universal leader, and not left over that. From what I’ve read, initially the local church was the catholic church, each with its own bishop, and the bishop of Rome having prestige and prominence as first among equals. However, Jerusalem and Antioch were also considered prestigious, no?

Also, the doctrine of the two churches is different: RC has the idea of original sin= original guilt for all through Adam, Jesus “paying” for our sins on the cross, purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

The Orthodox have: original sin = the effects of personal sin and mortality, Jesus coming to reconcile us to our vocation of becoming more and more like God, and no purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

If the RC is the true church, how did they end up with such different doctrine? After all, they were together for over a thousand years. Did the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and all of us guilty due to Adam really not come about until Anselm and Augustine? If so, doesn’t that make it wrong and unscriptural?

Not trying to say that’s true, just very mixed up.

oneseeker

You could also take a deeper look at Eastern Catholic Rites within the Catholic Church. They maintain union with Rome without jepordizing their Orthodox faith/beliefs. www.melkite.org

You may want to read the short little encyclical by Pope John Paul II: Light of the East.

Also keep in mind that there is No Perfect Church this side of Heaven as each of the truly Apostolic Churches (Catholic & Orthodox & Oriental) are made up of human beings which have not been fully deified.

The Catholics are the only Church which, even though doctrines differ - even in regards to the Most Holy Trinity - maintains the unity of Churches of all three Apostolic Churches: Catholic (Roman, etc.) Orthodox (Maronite, Melkite Greek Catholic, etc.) and Oriental (Coptic Catholics, Armenians, etc.).

Jesus prayed that we “all be one”. It looks like the Catholics are the ones willing to have that unity despite the differences in theology and doctrine.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Gosh, I love the Eastern Rite Catholics… I can’t wait to go into one once I return from Iraq.

 

[ForeverAdam]

for me in my conversion search. I have some trouble with the RC church claiming to be the one true church b/c I see the EO church which was one with the RC church at the beginning. It seems that they would’ve understood that the pope was the universal leader, and not left over that. From what I’ve read, initially the local church was the catholic church, each with its own bishop, and the bishop of Rome having prestige and prominence as first among equals. However, Jerusalem and Antioch were also considered prestigious, no?

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t deny that these other Sees were prestigious. She honors that, even while affirming that St. Peter left his role of primacy in the Roman See to be exercised in humility by the Pope. Overbalanced words and actions of the past shouldn’t be misunderstood to be the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church nor reflective of her stance at the present.

Papal infallibility simply means that at certain times the Pope may declare a dogma and thus be infallible by virtue of proclaiming the truth in such an authoritative fashion. In Orthodox language, this could be seen as saying that the Pope sometimes confesses the truth is such a fashion that his confession perpetually stands as a confirmation of doctrine. If we look at Church History, I’m sure we could find several examples of such occurrences. Orthodoxy doesn’t emphasize this because to her dogma is not as paramount as it tends to be in the West. We don’t emphasize the need to have dogmas, as we like to emphasize all the Faith as already under obligation of belief. Besides, we focus primarily on the Ecumenical Council as the chief organ for the confirmation of the Faith to come from (something the Roman Catholic Church also agrees with, at least in principle).

Roman Catholics see universal jurisdiction as the right of the Pope, by virtue of being the successor of Peter in his leadership, to safeguard the true nature and mission of the Church. This necessitates that he sometimes intervene outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction. Fr. Louis Bouyer, the great liturgical scholar, has said that if the Pope were to impose himself as a perpetual third party outside his patriarchate that he would reveal that he understands nothing of his role. Orthodoxy would go a step further and state that such actions would not only reveal ignorance - they would be invalid because they aren’t provided for in the role of the Pope. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are coming closer on the teaching of universal jurisdiction, but we still have some way to go.

Also, the doctrine of the two churches is different: RC has the idea of original sin= original guilt for all through Adam, Jesus “paying” for our sins on the cross, purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that original sin entails personal guilt. However, it is seen as a lack of grace. Insofar as this is not how God wants us to be, this lack of grace is seen as a “stain.” Baptism takes it away by uniting us with God.

The Orthodox have: original sin = the effects of personal sin and mortality, Jesus coming to reconcile us to our vocation of becoming more and more like God, and no purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

I don’t believe that Orthodoxy denies that original sin is a lack of grace and communion with God that is filled in baptism.

(cont . . .)

 

[ForeverAdam]

Purgatory (in Latin terms) is a condition in which small, unconfessed sins are remitted and satisfaction is made for those sins that have been forgiven, through the prayers and good works of the Church Militant. The Orthodox belief is that those with small unconfessed sins and/or having not brought forth fruits of repentance for those sins that are forgiven will descend into Hades to be delivered from its punishment (which for these souls is of a temporal duration) by the prayers and good works done for them by the Church on earth. The only real problem with the Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory is the idea of making “satisfaction” for the debt due to sin. However, several Roman Catholics have confirmed to me that this “satisfaction” simply means that these souls must manifest their repentance in work, and not only with faith. This is logical, as Christians are justified by a living, working faith. If souls die having only asked forgiveness and not manifested this forgiveness with actions, which bring them closer to the satisfaction of Christ (called “works of satisfaction” by Rome) they will inherit the debt of their sins, viz., and punishment until they can be delivered from this condition through the prayers and good works of the Church done for them. This seems to be essentially the same as the Orthodox teaching on the need for Christians to bring forth “fruits of repentance.” The language that Rome uses for purgatory is more of a barrier than the actual teaching is, IMO.

The Filioque is understood by Rome to not refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from only the Father. Rather, it refers to the belief that the Son is an eternal participant in the procession of the Holy Spirit from only the Father. This makes sense to me; as how can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, yet totally bypass the Son? It would make sense for the Son to be involved in this eternal procession from the Father alone, in some unique way, since the Son can never be excluded from the eternal actions of the Holy Trinity.

The Immaculate Conception is understood by Rome to mean that the Holy Theotokos was conceived in a state of communion with God. Orthodoxy would tend to see this as impossible as nobody could have a full relationship with God until the coming of Christ. Thus, the Orthodox Church sees Mary as delivered from the original sin at the Annunciation and not at any time before this. The Immaculate Conception dogma is one of the teachings of Catholicism that I cannot see mirrored in Orthodoxy. I’ll keep studying it though.

If the RC is the true church, how did they end up with such different doctrine? After all, they were together for over a thousand years. Did the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and all of us guilty due to Adam really not come about until Anselm and Augustine? If so, doesn’t that make it wrong and unscriptural?

Many theories of the Atonement were present in the early Church. If there were only one, strict interpretation, the Church would have lacked the truth for much of its history. The essential truth is that the Atonement did make satisfaction for sin (by removing its power over us) by defeating it through the Holy Cross and Resurrection of Christ. East and West have always believed this, even if non-essential opinions on the mechanics of this Atonement have differed at different times in Church History.

Regarding which Church to join, I encourage you to study the issues in an in-depth fashion. I converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy because I believed that Rome had lost parts of the ancient Faith. Now, however, I see that in many areas we agree and are just talking in a different language. I will say that I find the Orthodox Church to be completely correct, so you cannot go wrong in becoming Orthodox. I’ll be praying for you.

God bless,

Adam

 

[jam070406]

Purgatory (in Latin terms) is a condition in which small, unconfessed sins are remitted and satisfaction is made for those sins that have been forgiven, through the prayers and good works of the Church Militant. The Orthodox belief is that those with small unconfessed sins and/or having not brought forth fruits of repentance for those sins that are forgiven will descend into Hades to be delivered from its punishment (which for these souls is of a temporal duration) by the prayers and good works done for them by the Church on earth. The only real problem with the Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory is the idea of making “satisfaction” for the debt due to sin. However, several Roman Catholics have confirmed to me that this “satisfaction” simply means that these souls must manifest their repentance in work, and not only with faith. This is logical, as Christians are justified by a living, working faith. If souls die having only asked forgiveness and not manifested this forgiveness with actions, which bring them closer to the satisfaction of Christ (called “works of satisfaction” by Rome) they will inherit the debt of their sins, viz., and punishment until they can be delivered from this condition through the prayers and good works of the Church done for them. This seems to be essentially the same as the Orthodox teaching on the need for Christians to bring forth “fruits of repentance.” The language that Rome uses for purgatory is more of a barrier than the actual teaching is, IMO.

The Filioque is understood by Rome to not refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from only the Father. Rather, it refers to the belief that the Son is an eternal participant in the procession of the Holy Spirit from only the Father. This makes sense to me; as how can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, yet totally bypass the Son? It would make sense for the Son to be involved in this eternal procession from the Father alone, in some unique way, since the Son can never be excluded from the eternal actions of the Holy Trinity.

The Immaculate Conception is understood by Rome to mean that the Holy Theotokos was conceived in a state of communion with God. Orthodoxy would tend to see this as impossible as nobody could have a full relationship with God until the coming of Christ. Thus, the Orthodox Church sees Mary as delivered from the original sin at the Annunciation and not at any time before this. The Immaculate Conception dogma is one of the teachings of Catholicism that I cannot see mirrored in Orthodoxy. I’ll keep studying it though.

Many theories of the Atonement were present in the early Church. If there were only one, strict interpretation, the Church would have lacked the truth for much of its history. The essential truth is that the Atonement did make satisfaction for sin (by removing its power over us) by defeating it through the Holy Cross and Resurrection of Christ. East and West have always believed this, even if non-essential opinions on the mechanics of this Atonement have differed at different times in Church History.

Regarding which Church to join, I encourage you to study the issues in an in-depth fashion. I converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy because I believed that Rome had lost parts of the ancient Faith. Now, however, I see that in many areas we agree and are just talking in a different language. I will say that I find the Orthodox Church to be completely correct, so you cannot go wrong in becoming Orthodox. I’ll be praying for you.

God bless,

Adam

:clapping:
I must commend you for a fair, well balanced & honest post.
Well done my friend.

 

[Fuerza]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t deny that these other Sees were prestigious. She honors that, even while affirming that St. Peter left his role of primacy in the Roman See to be exercised in humility by the Pope. Overbalanced words and actions of the past shouldn’t be misunderstood to be the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church nor reflective of her stance at the present.

Papal infallibility simply means that at certain times the Pope may declare a dogma and thus be infallible by virtue of proclaiming the truth in such an authoritative fashion. In Orthodox language, this could be seen as saying that the Pope sometimes confesses the truth is such a fashion that his confession perpetually stands as a confirmation of doctrine. If we look at Church History, I’m sure we could find several examples of such occurrences. Orthodoxy doesn’t emphasize this because to her dogma is not as paramount as it tends to be in the West. We don’t emphasize the need to have dogmas, as we like to emphasize all the Faith as already under obligation of belief. Besides, we focus primarily on the Ecumenical Council as the chief organ for the confirmation of the Faith to come from (something the Roman Catholic Church also agrees with, at least in principle).

Roman Catholics see universal jurisdiction as the right of the Pope, by virtue of being the successor of Peter in his leadership, to safeguard the true nature and mission of the Church. This necessitates that he sometimes intervene outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction. Fr. Louis Bouyer, the great liturgical scholar, has said that if the Pope were to impose himself as a perpetual third party outside his patriarchate that he would reveal that he understands nothing of his role. Orthodoxy would go a step further and state that such actions would not only reveal ignorance - they would be invalid because they aren’t provided for in the role of the Pope. I think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are coming closer on the teaching of universal jurisdiction, but we still have some way to go.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t teach that original sin entails personal guilt. However, it is seen as a lack of grace. Insofar as this is not how God wants us to be, this lack of grace is seen as a “stain.” Baptism takes it away by uniting us with God.

I don’t believe that Orthodoxy denies that original sin is a lack of grace and communion with God that is filled in baptism.

(cont . . .)

ForeverAdam,

This is probably the most accurate and unbiased portrayal of the differences/similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that I have seen from an EO on this site recently. If our bishops could manage to talk to each other like this we would be well on our way to reunification.

 

[paradoxy]

ForeverAdam,

This is probably the most accurate and unbiased portrayal of the differences/similarities between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that I have seen from an EO on this site recently. If our bishops could manage to talk to each other like this we would be well on our way to reunification.

I second/‘third’ the appreciation of ForeverAdam’s post.

 

[johnnykins]

for me in my conversion search. I have some trouble with the RC church claiming to be the one true church b/c I see the EO church which was one with the RC church at the beginning. It seems that they would’ve understood that the pope was the universal leader, and not left over that. From what I’ve read, initially the local church was the catholic church, each with its own bishop, and the bishop of Rome having prestige and prominence as first among equals. However, Jerusalem and Antioch were also considered prestigious, no?

Also, the doctrine of the two churches is different: RC has the idea of original sin= original guilt for all through Adam, Jesus “paying” for our sins on the cross, purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

The Orthodox have: original sin = the effects of personal sin and mortality, Jesus coming to reconcile us to our vocation of becoming more and more like God, and no purgatory, filoque, immaculate conception, etc, etc,.

If the RC is the true church, how did they end up with such different doctrine? After all, they were together for over a thousand years. Did the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and all of us guilty due to Adam really not come about until Anselm and Augustine? If so, doesn’t that make it wrong and unscriptural?

Not trying to say that’s true, just very mixed up.

oneseeker

The Catholic Church is the only Church that has continued to act as the early Church did. The early Church faced heresy, held councils, declared dogma and set the praxis of the Church. The Orthodox have not had a council or declared a dogma since the 7th Ecumenical Council (maybe 8th or 9th - it’s an issue for the EO how many Ecumenical Councils there have been - see the patriarchs 1858 letter to Pius IX for a reference to 8, and some theologians for more). Any change in praxis - see the Nikon reforms in Russia in the 17th century or the change in calendar issue or even the reaction of the Esphigmenou Monastery to ecumenism - all of which lead various Orthodox groups to hold one or the other in schism. Yet with no central authority - no one ever knows what’s what for sure. The Orthodox will say they can have a council - but a power used regularly for 400 years and then quiet for 1200 years is at best a questionable power.

The Orthodox like to say the Catholics invented the Immaculate Conception, etc. However, that’s like Arians saying the Church invented the Trinity or non-Chacedonians saying the Church invented the idea that Christ is one person with 2 natures. The Catholic Church has merely been acting like the ancient Church.

The Orthodox have much good - and might right. But they clearly lack the fullness of the Church found in Catholicism. Catholicism ended up with different doctrines for the same reason that the ancient Church declared dogma and doctrine - it needed to to protect the faith. The Orthodox had the Islamic persecution to deal with. An oppressed minority mentality - still evident to this day - remains. Catholicism explored the deposit of faith and elucidated and clarified it with the western philosophical/theological framework just like the ancient Church expanded, elucidated and clarified the faith.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Any change in praxis - see the Nikon reforms in Russia in the 17th century or the change in calendar issue or even the reaction of the Esphigmenou Monastery to ecumenism - all of which lead various Orthodox groups to hold one or the other in schism. Yet with no central authority - no one ever knows what’s what for sure.

Your Church adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century and the Pope, as Patriarch of the Latin Church, introduced his own controversial liturgical reforms to the Latin Liturgy in 1969. Your Church continues to have resistance to this latter move, despite the supposed “central authority” of your Church. Interestingly enough, most Roman Catholics believed that the pre-Vatican II liturgy was abrogated until a few months ago, when Pope Benedict XVI confirmed the traditionalist stance that it wasn’t abrogated. Is this not a sign that even with the Pope, one can be unsure about the true nature of reform?

The Orthodox will say they can have a council - but a power used regularly for 400 years and then quiet for 1200 years is at best a questionable power.

The Orthodox will also say that a Church who’s last Council didn’t define dogma is an aberration of the true nature and purpose of ecumenical councils. It’s better to wait a long time to have a real ecumenical council than to have one that doesn’t even fit the criteria of an ecumenical council. Besides, what doctrinal crisis has so ravaged Orthodoxy since the first millennium that would force us to have an Ecumenical Council?

The Orthodox like to say the Catholics invented the Immaculate Conception, etc. However, that’s like Arians saying the Church invented the Trinity or non-Chacedonians saying the Church invented the idea that Christ is one person with 2 natures. The Catholic Church has merely been acting like the ancient Church.

The ancient Church only defined dogmas in Ecumenical Councils. The Pope defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This doesn’t seem like an example of “acting like the ancient Church.”

Catholicism explored the deposit of faith and elucidated and clarified it with the western philosophical/theological framework just like the ancient Church expanded, elucidated and clarified the faith.

Are the Eastern Catholics lacking something because, like the Orthodox, they also didn’t experience scholasticism? You should respect the very living Tradition of Holy Orthodoxy that has explored, elucidated and clarified Holy Tradition in its own way, instead of evaluating us on purely Western standards.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

The Catholics are the only Church which, even though doctrines differ - even in regards to the Most Holy Trinity - maintains the unity of Churches of all three Apostolic Churches: Catholic (Roman, etc.) Orthodox (Maronite, Melkite Greek Catholic, etc.) and Oriental (Coptic Catholics, Armenians, etc.).

Jesus prayed that we “all be one”. It looks like the Catholics are the ones willing to have that unity despite the differences in theology and doctrine.

Since when did the Holy Fathers and the entire ancient Church ever define true unity as anything less that one common Faith? If the Pope is defining true unity on an “agree to disagree” basis and not on the basis of the one, true Faith, he is supporting a serious innovation on the traditional belief in the true unity of the Church. This would prove that Papal Rome does not preserve the Deposit of Faith inviolate, and thus couldn’t be the true Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[johnnykins]

Your Church adopted the Gregorian calendar in the 16th century and the Pope, as Patriarch of the Latin Church, introduced his own controversial liturgical reforms to the Latin Liturgy in 1969. Your Church continues to have resistance to this latter move, despite the supposed “central authority” of your Church. Interestingly enough, most Roman Catholics believed that the pre-Vatican II liturgy was abrogated until a few months ago, when Pope Benedict XVI confirmed the traditionalist stance that it wasn’t abrogated. Is this not a sign that even with the Pope, one can be unsure about the true nature of reform?

One can be sure - go with the Pope. In Orthodoxy one can’t be sure - who do you follow. It degenerates into a form of voluntarism. That’s the only point. Clearly protestants didn’t follow the Pope - but they are no longer Catholic.

The Orthodox will also say that a Church who’s last Council didn’t define dogma is an aberration of the true nature and purpose of ecumenical councils. It’s better to wait a long time to have a real ecumenical council than to have one that doesn’t even fit the criteria of an ecumenical council.

well there are certainly the others beside VII - say, e.g., VI and Trent. It’s not an aberration - because the True Church can certainly call a council for whatever reason it deems appropriate. It is not bound by what was needed 1200 years ago only.

Besides, what doctrinal crisis has so ravaged Orthodoxy since the first millennium that would force us to have an Ecumenical Council?

Well the dispute with the west for one obvious matter. It would seem that was worth a council or two. Oh yeah!! Lyons and Florence, but y’all say they weren’t councils. Seems like one to anathematize the filioque etc would have cleared things up.

The ancient Church only defined dogmas in Ecumenical Councils. The Pope defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. This doesn’t seem like an example of “acting like the ancient Church.”

By acting like the ancient Church the Church continues to grow in its understanding. there was no council before Nicea. What basis did the church have for that other than it was the Church. Now you seems to say it’s locked into 4th century models while catholicism continues to claim the power to address Church needs as needed. Sounds like Catholicism is acting like the ancient church to me.

Are the Eastern Catholics lacking something because, like the Orthodox, they also didn’t experience scholasticism?

Never said that and never implied it. Reread my post. Eastern Catholics are every bit as much a part of the catholic Church as the Roman Church. Please quote where I ever said anything different.

You should respect the very living Tradition of Holy Orthodoxy that has explored, elucidated and clarified Holy Tradition in its own way, instead of evaluating us on purely Western standards.

Where - please quote - did I ever say that you must be evaluated on purely western standards. Please quote it. I submit I never said anything even remotely approaching that - and I take offense you would publicly suggest I did so. What is True and right and correct and holy in Orthodoxy I do respect. I do respect much in Orthodox theology and praxis. All of Orthodoxy that is in common with Catholicism; and all of Orthodoxy that is not in contradiction or denial with Catholicism - either East or West or both - is good, wonderful, holy, helpful, etc.

 

[ForeverAdam]

One can be sure - go with the Pope. In Orthodoxy one can’t be sure - who do you follow. It degenerates into a form of voluntarism. That’s the only point.

Your point would only hold up if following the Pope actually resulted in being right about the nature of reforms. However, this is incorrect. For example, one couldn’t be sure about whether the traditional Roman Liturgy was abrogated by going with the Pope. As was revealed with the publication of *Summorum Pontificum *in July, those who went with the Pope before 2007 had erroneously thought that the traditional Roman Liturgy was abrogated. Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that it was actually the traditionalists who were right about whether it was abrogated or not. Orthodoxy has yet to suffer such an embarrassing reversal on issues such the Nikon reforms and the like. Regarding the old calendar, you should know that nearly 90% of Orthodoxy still uses this calendar and most of the remaining 10% don’t feel any real attachment to it, only seeing it as permissible, even if not ideal. This is hardly voluntarism - it is the sense of faithful in communion with their bishops speaking as the true Church. Following the traditional sense of the faithful results in being right, following only the Pope’s opinion will eventually prove to be faulty. The official Roman Catholic reversal of the nature of the traditional Roman Liturgy is a prime example of this – the traditional faithful of Catholicism were justified over and above the opinions of those who followed only the Pope.

well there are certainly the others beside VII - say, e.g., VI and Trent. It’s not an aberration - because the True Church can certainly call a council for whatever reason it deems appropriate. It is not bound by what was needed 1200 years ago only.

In effect, you’re saying that the true Church can ignore the ancient criteria for an Ecumenical Council. You have a right to say that, just remember that in doing so, you’re affirming that the true Church has a right to embrace innovation, even in such a weighty matter as the nature of an Ecumenical Council. Such affirmations carry little weight in Orthodoxy, which values highly the ancient conservatism of the Holy Fathers and sees this conservatism as a mark of the ancient and true Faith.

Well the dispute with the west for one obvious matter. It would seem that was worth a council or two. Oh yeah!! Lyons and Florence, but y’all say they weren’t councils. Seems like one to anathematize the filioque etc would have cleared things up.

We’ve never lived on a diet of dogmatic statements in order to know our Faith. Like the ancient Church, we only issue dogmas when the faithful are losing the Faith. This hasn’t happened regarding the filioque or much any other issue since the first millennium.

By acting like the ancient Church the Church continues to grow in its understanding. there was no council before Nicea. What basis did the church have for that other than it was the Church. Now you seems to say it’s locked into 4th century models while catholicism continues to claim the power to address Church needs as needed. Sounds like Catholicism is acting like the ancient church to me.

You’re forgetting that until 1854, the Christian world never knew of a dogma coming from anything but an Ecumenical Council. Your Church changed this. How is this an example of “acting like the ancient Church”?

Never said that and never implied it.

I must have interpreted your words wrongly. Happy Thanksgiving!

God bless,

Adam

 

[bogoljub]

God bless !

Some quotes from the Fathers about the Primacy:

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

“We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If** one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood.** The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces,** render a Bishop neither greater nor less.”**

It cannot be more distinctly stated that the rule of truth dwells only in the entire episcopal body, and not at Rome; that the Bishop of Rome is no more, as bishop, than the humblest bishop of the Church;

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how **Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. **. . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

If you believe," he says, Origen, Commentary on St. Matt. "that God has raised the whole building of his Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the son of the Thunder? What will you say of each of the Apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, **but shall prevail against the others? **Are not the words, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, **addressed to them all? **Have not these words had their fulfillment in each one of the Apostles?"

St. Ambrose, On the Incarnation. “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell.” The truth confessed by St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently, to his subjective faith.

In explaining these words in the epistle to the Galatians, “I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,” he says: "It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superiour to him and to the other Apostles? No; but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be intrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No; but that Peter might know that Paul had received “the power which had also been given to himself.”

St. Augustine Retractions, Book I. ch. 21. "In that book, I said in one place, in speaking of St. Peter, that the Church had been built on him as on the rock. This thought is sung by many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, who says of the cock, that “when it crew the Rock of the Church deplored his fault.’ But I know that subsequently I very frequently adopted this sense, that when the Lord said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ **he meant by this rock, the one which Peter had confessed in saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God;’ **so that Peter, called by the name of this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon that rock, and which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In fact, it was not said to him, Thou art the rock; but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ. Peter having confessed him as all the Church confesses him, he was called Peter. Between these two sentiments, let the reader choose the most probable.”

A few of hundrets or thousends similar !

No one thought of Peter or the Pope that they are infallable…but if you like I can post more also from councils and Synods.

In CHRIST

 

[excaliber]

I am only observing this thread.
But I have a question.
If Christ said he would build his church not on peter but only on his faith…what claim do the orthodox
have of being the ONE true church?
The Catholic church has the same faith that Jesus is the son of God.
Also MANY of the thousands of protestant churches have the same faith, that Jesus is the son of God. Is Christ building his Church on all of them?