EO or RC. How can a Protestant decide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
Personally, I have been a little surprised at the number of posters who wish to identify themselves with the name “Catholic” while remaining outside of the very Church that has borne the name, unchanged, since the first century.
Click to expand...
Indeed. As St. Augustine said, (paraphrasing): everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks “Sir, can you please direct me to the nearest Catholic church?” we all know to which Church he is referring.
 
PRmerger said:
They are, essentially, high-church Protestants. :eek:
Click to expand...
I was making a point. The OO and the EO are two entirely different churches, and it makes no sense to point to that and say that the Orthodox aren’t one church, unless the PNCC or the Old Catholics prove the Catholic Church isn’t one.
 
RyanBlack said:
I was making a point. The OO and the EO are two entirely different churches, and it makes no sense to point to that and say that the Orthodox aren’t one church, unless the PNCC or the Old Catholics prove the Catholic Church isn’t one.
Click to expand...
It does make sense, Ryan, because the EO and OO are only following their paradigm of no supremacy regarding the patriarchs. As such, there is no unity when there is no authority.

The Old Catholics, however, are NOT following the Catholic paradigm of giving religious assent to the Bishop of Rome.
 
PRmerger said:
Indeed. As St. Augustine said, (paraphrasing): everyone wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when a stranger comes to your town and asks “Sir, can you please direct me to the nearest Catholic church?” we all know to which Church he is referring.
Click to expand...
We’ve dealt with this paraphrase before. Your argument here should lead you to abandon Rome’s claim to be orthodox and evangelical, since few people, asked for either of those, would direct to a parish in communion with Rome…
 
Novocastrian said:
We’ve dealt with this paraphrase before. Your argument here should lead you to abandon Rome’s claim to be orthodox and evangelical, since few people, asked for either of those, would direct to a parish in communion with Rome…
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with saying I am not a member of the Orthodox Church. Yet there are some people here who would have a huge problem with saying that they are not part of the Catholic Church.
 
PRmerger said:
It does make sense, Ryan, because the EO and OO are only following their paradigm of no supremacy regarding the patriarchs. As such, there is no unity when there is no authority.

The Old Catholics, however, are NOT following the Catholic paradigm of giving religious assent to the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
No, it makes no sense. They are two entirely separate groups who both happen to call themselves Orthodox.
 
RyanBlack said:
No, it makes no sense. They are two entirely separate groups who both happen to call themselves Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Really.

Perhaps you ought to send a “note to self” to remind yourself of this. For it appears in these posts below from other threads that you seem to view them as one entity.
RyanBlack said:
The Orthodox, while certainly holding the Early Church Fathers in high regard, tend to be much more circumspect than Catholics about identifying a particular point at which the patristic era ended. In my experience, the Orthodox generally hold St. Gregory Palamas in very high regard and consider him to be a Church Father.
Click to expand...
RyanBlack said:
Well, first of all the Orthodox Church is not a denomination; it is a Church. Second of all, the Roman Catholic Church does in fact teach that they have valid sacraments. The CCC, in section 1399, states:

The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.”
Click to expand...
RyanBlack said:
Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have basically the same beliefs about the Eucharist (although the Orthodox do not use the term “transubstantiation”), but are not in communion with each other, and are not in agreement on some matters of the faith. For these reasons, the Orthodox generally do not admit non-Orthodox to Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Really.

Perhaps you ought to send a “note to self” to remind yourself of this. For it appears in these posts below from other threads that you seem to view them as one entity.
Click to expand...
Actually, I retract the above “note to self” comment as it borders on snarky. My apologies!

Rather I amend to say “Perhaps it would help your argument if I hadn’t read some of your comments on other threads where you refer to the Orthodox as a single entity.”
 
dzheremi said:
You just listed three “sides”…
Click to expand...
In a sense I did.Or, I am aware that I did.
But, the OO has bigger fish to fry than to really get into about being the correct side. It is a matter of survival for them against the Islamists, so they feel too pressed to antagonize anyone about being the One True Church.

They are not really in the game anymore.

On the other hand, their claims are as ancient as the other two of the original churches still standing.

How is it in any way arbitrary?Because to pick and chose which one is right says as much about one’s own prejudices than it does about the validity of any of the claims
 
josie_L said:
We have 23 rites in our Church, i.e., we are referred to as the Catholic Church (always have). There is no “Roman” Catholic Church per se.
Click to expand...
I’m saying it for this discussion to avoid confusion. I don’t normally, and I understand your feelings.
 
PRmerger said:
Really.

Perhaps you ought to send a “note to self” to remind yourself of this. For it appears in these posts below from other threads that you seem to view them as one entity.
Click to expand...
The Eastern Orthodox are one, and the Oriental Orthodox are one. Each is a communion of churches, as is the Catholic Church. The fact that each one calls itself Orthodox is in no way proof, or even evidence, that either is not one “entity.” It makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Oriental Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as it makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Eastern Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox. Their respective separations from communion with the rest of the church was separated in time by more than speak 600 years, and was for different reasons. As for the posts of mine which you quoted, I was using the term “Orthodox” to refer specifically to the Eastern Orthodox, which is what most people mean when they use the term “Orthodox” without specifying either “Eastern” or “Oriental.”
 
RyanBlack said:
The Eastern Orthodox are one, and the Oriental Orthodox are one. Each is a communion of churches, as is the Catholic Church. The fact that each one calls itself Orthodox is in no way proof, or even evidence, that either is not one “entity.” It makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Oriental Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox, as it makes no sense historically or theologically to say that the Eastern Orthodox are not one because they are not in communion with the Oriental Orthodox. Their respective separations from communion with the rest of the church was separated in time by more than speak 600 years, and was for different reasons. As for the posts of mine which you quoted, I was using the term “Orthodox” to refer specifically to the Eastern Orthodox, which is what most people mean when they use the term “Orthodox” without specifying either “Eastern” or “Oriental.”
Click to expand...
Then perhaps you ought to always note that distinction in your posts.

For you cannot play both sides of the table and say, “When I say the Orthodox I mean [a]” sometimes. And other times you mean, "When I say the Orthodox I mean ".
 
PRmerger said:
Then perhaps you ought to always note that distinction in your posts.

For you cannot play both sides of the table and say, “When I say the Orthodox I mean [a]” sometimes. And other times you mean, "When I say the Orthodox I mean ".
In the threads in question, it was clear that the discussion was about EO, not OO.
Click to expand...
 
PRmerger said:
Then perhaps you ought to always note that distinction in your posts.

For you cannot play both sides of the table and say, “When I say the Orthodox I mean [a]” sometimes. And other times you mean, "When I say the Orthodox I mean ".

This proposal wasn’t directed at me, but FWIW you can count on me for a hearty No thank you. (And, of course, I’ll make a careful note of the fact that you believe that distinction should always be noted.)
Click to expand...
 
Peter_J said:
This proposal wasn’t directed at me, but FWIW you can count on me for a hearty No thank you. (And, of course, I’ll make a careful note of the fact that you believe that distinction should always be noted.)
Click to expand...
Huh? I have no idea what you are giving a “no thank you” to. :confused:
 
PRmerger said:
Huh? I have no idea what you are giving a “no thank you” to. :confused:
Click to expand...
I probably should have stressed the first part more, for clarity
Peter_J said:
**This proposal wasn’t directed at me, but **FWIW you can count on me for a hearty No thank you. (And, of course, I’ll make a careful note of the fact that you believe that distinction should always be noted.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top