For Orthodox Christians here...re: St. John Chrysostom's support of the Papacy

[jimmy]

But why, Mickey, isn’t it obvious from the centuries preceding the schism that doctrines were developed and refined (this is not to say that the deposit of faith was lacking but rather that the truth would be more concise)? Don’t you see for example the development and refinement of the doctrine of the trinity?

It seems that there is a big difference between the preschism developments and the post schism developments. The pre-schism developments were all an answer to the question by Christ in Matt.16, “who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The Trinitarian debates of the fourth century and the Christological debates of the 5th through 7th centuries were all an answer in the face of serious error about who Christ is. They affirmed the faith of Peter as proclaimed in Matthew16. The Trinitarian debate was concerned with the fact that Christ was actually God while the Christological debates were concerned with the fact that He was man. Even the debates about icons were essentially a veiled Christological debate. It was a battle over whether Christ truely became man. The iconophiles proclaimed that the Word became man and united humanity, including the flesh, to Himself. Because Christ took on matter it was redeemed. The icon represents this and to deny the sacredness of an icon would be tantamount to denying the incarnation according to the fathers. This is the concept of the cosmic Christ. All of this early development is simply an explanation of what was always there.

And this question of who Christ is is the most important question any Christian can ask. The fact that Christ is God made man says something about our salvation. As St. Athanasius said, if Christ is not God then He can not make us gods because He cannot give what He doesn’t possess Himself. And if He was not truely man then our redemption is all a deception.

After the schism the idea of development is changed so that it is no longer centered around the question of who Christ is but is simply a development of ideas within the Church. There was the development of the authority of the Roman Church. You now have the development of Marian dogmas, which have no relation to who Christ was. It becomes an addition of new dogmas simply on the wim of the pope and the bishops. Mary was Immaculately Concieved not because it somehow affects our salvation or because it says something about who Christ is but rather because it is fitting and the pope has declared it infallibly.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

There is no logical connection between the quote you posted and the papacy. Just because St. John Chrysostom speaks of Peter in an honorific way doesn’t mean the same words would be applied to the pope.

You are right. I was wrong. I could explain how it is I saw that in the quote - but it’s pointless now as looking back at it, I made a huge mistake by receiving the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.

I am hoping that when I go to see my spiritual father (possibly this weekend), he will have mercy on me and allow me back into full communion with the Orthodox Church.

Last night I began the evening prayers of my Prayer Rule & after, I began reviewing my notes and the highlighted/underlined portions the writings of Elder Ephraim/Mount Athos and I can’t believe I let the richness of the Orthodox Spirituality fall away from me. I’ve made no Spiritual progress while in communion with the Catholic Church at all, in fact, it will take me a while just to get caught up to where I had been. I was feeling horrible about what I’d done and yet so excited about the possibility of getting the closeness with God back.

This morning God woke me up, literally, like I’ve never woken up in my life! With no alarm, I opened my eyes and was out of bed and in the living room with all the lights on in less than 10 seconds - me! I’m the one who sets the alarm at least an hour early so I can hit the Snooze button on that alarm & I set at least 3 other alarms also, which I also sleep through - This was ALL GOD - He did this so that I would be able to keep my morning Prayer Rule that I’ve neglected since going to the RCC first thing in the morning before any distractions took over or I was running so late I’d miss it.

God is working so strongly in my life right now leading me home to the Orthodox Faith it’s completely shocking and completely wonderul at the same time. With His help, may I never stray again.

I know I’m going in the right direction and I’m so excited - I just can’t explain it.

IRONIC: I started this thread with the intention of proving to the Orthodox that the Catholic Church is right on the issue of the Papacy, but at the same time, God began working in my life like crazy and I see how silly I was and I think it’s funny that starting with this thread hoping to bring Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church, I end up typing in this very thread that I hope with all hope that the Orthodox Church will allow me back.

WOW!

(This thread can be closed now.)

 

[YADA]

God Bless Monica …

I pray that you find peace in your relationship with Christ …

Remember Faith is a journey … Pax Christi

 

[josie_L]

You are right. I was wrong. I could explain how it is I saw that in the quote - but it’s pointless now as looking back at it, I made a huge mistake by receiving the Sacraments in the Catholic Church.

I am hoping that when I go to see my spiritual father (possibly this weekend), he will have mercy on me and allow me back into full communion with the Orthodox Church.

Last night I began the evening prayers of my Prayer Rule & after, I began reviewing my notes and the highlighted/underlined portions the writings of Elder Ephraim/Mount Athos and I can’t believe I let the richness of the Orthodox Spirituality fall away from me. I’ve made no Spiritual progress while in communion with the Catholic Church at all, in fact, it will take me a while just to get caught up to where I had been. I was feeling horrible about what I’d done and yet so excited about the possibility of getting the closeness with God back.

This morning God woke me up, literally, like I’ve never woken up in my life! With no alarm, I opened my eyes and was out of bed and in the living room with all the lights on in less than 10 seconds - me! I’m the one who sets the alarm at least an hour early so I can hit the Snooze button on that alarm & I set at least 3 other alarms also, which I also sleep through - This was ALL GOD - He did this so that I would be able to keep my morning Prayer Rule that I’ve neglected since going to the RCC first thing in the morning before any distractions took over or I was running so late I’d miss it.

God is working so strongly in my life right now leading me home to the Orthodox Faith it’s completely shocking and completely wonderul at the same time. With His help, may I never stray again.

I know I’m going in the right direction and I’m so excited - I just can’t explain it.

IRONIC: I started this thread with the intention of proving to the Orthodox that the Catholic Church is right on the issue of the Papacy, but at the same time, God began working in my life like crazy and I see how silly I was and I think it’s funny that starting with this thread hoping to bring Orthodox Christians to the Catholic Church, I end up typing in this very thread that I hope with all hope that the Orthodox Church will allow me back.

WOW!

(This thread can be closed now.)

Why wouldn’t they allow you back it’s not like you converted to a satanic cult for goodness sakes?

 

[josie_L]

Be careful not to read into the fathers you modern conceptions of the Church. The only fathers who claimed that the pope was the successor of Peter were the bishops of Rome themselves. For someone to say that “Peter has spoken” if they agree with something the pope says is hardly a pronunciation that the pope is successor to Peter. Peter was representative of the whole Church according to the Fathers (Augustine makes this association clearly). When an error was condemned it was as if Peter was speaking as in Matt.16, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. And the fact that these debates were essentially Christological in nature makes the reference back to Peter even more pertinent. Peter proclaimed the true nature of Christ in Matt.16. It is that which the councils affirmed, and it was that which Leo affirmed in his Tome supporting Flavian. So when they say that Peter has spoken they are referring back to the proclamation of faith (‘you are the Christ the Son of the living God’) by Peter in Matt.16, not to the keys of the kingdom which the pope supposedly holds.

Please refer to my previous posts and you will notice it is not just the Popes who claimed this for themselves. God bless.

 

[jimmy]

Why wouldn’t they allow you back it’s not like you converted to a satanic cult for goodness sakes?

I am sure they will let her back. But the Orthodox are more serious about who enters the Church. They tend to have long catechumenate periods to make sure that those who enter are serious about entering the Orthodox Church and are not simply church hopping. Those who enter the Orthodox Church must be serious in their pursuit.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Why wouldn’t they allow you back it’s not like you converted to a satanic cult for goodness sakes?

I committed heresy - I guess in political terms, it would be like committing treason - the term “off with their heads” comes to mind.

To answer your question though - I don’t know. They certainly don’t have to. My spiritual father has to watch out for my soul (& his) in such a serious matter. If he does allow me back, he has to be assured that I am strong enough in the Faith to never wander off again. What I think he will do (& it could be different) is I think he will have me live the Orthodox Faith without receiving the Holy Eucharist for an extended period of time - could be months or a year or more and then I will be able to partake in the Divine Mysteries of God again. That’s what I think because God is merciful and so our His priests.

 

[jimmy]

Please refer to my previous posts and you will notice it is not just the Popes who claimed this for themselves. God bless.

Yes, I see your posts. It is a rare occasion for it to be said outside of Rome, and even then it is a western thing. It could also be pointed out that one of your references, Jerome, spent a large amount of his time in Rome so there may be an influence there. You should also be sure to remember these statements within their context. Often times the quotes to support the popes say a lot more in their excerted form than they do when examined in context. When I refer to the context I am refering to the immediate context within the work, the entire body of writings of the saint, and the life of the saint itself. By ignoring the context a lot of apologists distort the fathers and it becomes like cherry picking of bibical texts by protestants to support their views.

Your quote from the council of Ephesus is from the legate of the pope. How can you expect him to say anything but what the pope would affirm? But still, even this is only the words of one priest. It is not part of the anathemas or any definition.

It is easy to point to early Christians to support and oppose a lot of things. The thing is to come to the truth through those saints. You must consider them all.

 

[josie_L]

It seems that there is a big difference between the preschism developments and the post schism developments. The pre-schism developments were all an answer to the question by Christ in Matt.16, “who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The Trinitarian debates of the fourth century and the Christological debates of the 5th through 7th centuries were all an answer in the face of serious error about who Christ is. They affirmed the faith of Peter as proclaimed in Matthew16. The Trinitarian debate was concerned with the fact that Christ was actually God while the Christological debates were concerned with the fact that He was man. Even the debates about icons were essentially a veiled Christological debate. It was a battle over whether Christ truely became man. The iconophiles proclaimed that the Word became man and united humanity, including the flesh, to Himself. Because Christ took on matter it was redeemed. The icon represents this and to deny the sacredness of an icon would be tantamount to denying the incarnation according to the fathers. This is the concept of the cosmic Christ. All of this early development is simply an explanation of what was always there.

And this question of who Christ is is the most important question any Christian can ask. The fact that Christ is God made man says something about our salvation. As St. Athanasius said, if Christ is not God then He can not make us gods because He cannot give what He doesn’t possess Himself. And if He was not truely man then our redemption is all a deception.

After the schism the idea of development is changed so that it is no longer centered around the question of who Christ is but is simply a development of ideas within the Church. There was the development of the authority of the Roman Church. You now have the development of Marian dogmas, which have no relation to who Christ was. It becomes an addition of new dogmas simply on the wim of the pope and the bishops. Mary was Immaculately Concieved not because it somehow affects our salvation or because it says something about who Christ is but rather because it is fitting and the pope has declared it infallibly.

The Church was handed down a deposit of faith that did not just include the Holy Trinity but other such issues as baptism, the real presence, the sacraments , , , etc., every bit of it is important, that is, there is no delineation of inferior and superior beliefs when it comes to truth, as all of it is truth. Moreover, do not attempt to tell me that we introduced new dogmas, the deposit of faith has not changed except to be delineated and refined further, this is not innovation.

p.s. How doesn’t Marian dogma have anything to do with Christ (she’s his mother) and wasn’t there a heresy concerning her (the Nestorians I believe) which the Church had to resolve and refine? So why was it necessary for the early Church to delineate such a belief if as you put it it has no relation to who Christ is?

p.p.s Recollect that the pope or rather the Latins were on the right side of truth concerning the iconoclast heresy.

 

[josie_L]

I committed heresy - I guess in political terms, it would be like committing treason - the term “off with their heads” comes to mind.

To answer your question though - I don’t know. They certainly don’t have to. My spiritual father has to watch out for my soul (& his) in such a serious matter. If he does allow me back, he has to be assured that I am strong enough in the Faith to never wander off again. What I think he will do (& it could be different) is I think he will have me live the Orthodox Faith without receiving the Holy Eucharist for an extended period of time - could be months or a year or more and then I will be able to partake in the Divine Mysteries of God again. That’s what I think because God is merciful and so our His priests.

Are you kidding me, you committed heresy simply for partaking of the sacraments in the Catholic Church? And now you’ll be denied the eucharist for an extended period of time (what right does he have if you have now come back home?), possibly months or a year, holy smokes? Don’t you realize you need the eucharist in order to strenghten you?

 

[josie_L]

Yes, I see your posts. It is a rare occasion for it to be said outside of Rome, and even then it is a western thing. It could also be pointed out that one of your references, Jerome, spent a large amount of his time in Rome so there may be an influence there. You should also be sure to remember these statements within their context. Often times the quotes to support the popes say a lot more in their excerted form than they do when examined in context. When I refer to the context I am refering to the immediate context within the work, the entire body of writings of the saint, and the life of the saint itself. By ignoring the context a lot of apologists distort the fathers and it becomes like cherry picking of bibical texts by protestants to support their views.

Your quote from the council of Ephesus is from the legate of the pope. How can you expect him to say anything but what the pope would affirm? But still, even this is only the words of one priest. It is not part of the anathemas or any definition.

It is easy to point to early Christians to support and oppose a lot of things. The thing is to come to the truth through those saints. You must consider them all.

You failed to miss the point that it was said at a (infallible) council which according to what we know, many bishops were present, and yet there is no record of them disagreeing with said comment. If this was truly an anomaly then I must say the bishops present were ignorant of this fact.

 

[YADA]

Yes, I see your posts. It is a rare occasion for it to be said outside of Rome, and even then it is a western thing. It could also be pointed out that one of your references, Jerome, spent a large amount of his time in Rome so there may be an influence there. You should also be sure to remember these statements within their context. Often times the quotes to support the popes say a lot more in their excerted form than they do when examined in context. When I refer to the context I am refering to the immediate context within the work, the entire body of writings of the saint, and the life of the saint itself. By ignoring the context a lot of apologists distort the fathers and it becomes like cherry picking of bibical texts by protestants to support their views.

Your quote from the council of Ephesus is from the legate of the pope. How can you expect him to say anything but what the pope would affirm? But still, even this is only the words of one priest. It is not part of the anathemas or any definition.

It is easy to point to early Christians to support and oppose a lot of things. The thing is to come to the truth through those saints. You must consider them all.

Yes - what you state here is true - at leats in part.

You may note that many a learned scholar [schooled in biblical and ancient writings - greek and hebrew linguists - catholic and even non-catholic] have studied those writings - in context and full corpus - and came down on the side of the Latin church - not the Orthodox …

But alas, that is why the schism remains … Pax Christi

 

[prodromos]

Are you kidding me, you committed heresy simply for partaking of the sacraments in the Catholic Church? And now you’ll be denied the eucharist for an extended period of time (what right does he have if you have now come back home?), possibly months or a year, holy smokes? Don’t you realize you need the eucharist in order to strenghten you?

She will have the prayers of her spiritual father to strengthen her for whatever period of penance he deems fit for the purpose of healing her soul and body. We receive God’s grace in many ways in the Church. Primarily in the Eucharist, but not only. You seem to hold a dim view of the disciplinary canons of the Church. What qualifies you to judge them?

John

John

 

[Jehoshua]

If you wish to return to the Orthodox Church then do so.

---

However id consider carefully your return. Make sure you are aware of Catholic teaching on more than a single issue such as papal primacy before you return, as you want to be certain that leaving the church is the best thing.

Likewise if you’ve been stuck at a novus ordo mass in your time in the church id advise going to an extraordinary form (tridentine) mass if you havent already been to one. THe novus ordo mass has been taken out of its correct place by many rogue elements in the priesthood, and going to a mass of the extraordinary form may help you see what the church is really about as its extremely unlikely that it is taken out of the correct context.

Please consider trying this before returning to the Orthodox Church. Discretion is the better part of valour, and you must be certain, absolutely certain that your set in returning before you make the choice. Likewise the possibility that you’ve been in a parish with heterodox teachings is possible. Going to a tridentine mass may help you understand the true nature of the Catholic Church if that is the case.

 

[prodromos]

You may note that many a learned scholar [schooled in biblical and ancient writings - greek and hebrew linguists - catholic and even non-catholic] have studied those writings - in context and full corpus - and came down on the side of the Latin church - not the Orthodox …

and many have come down on the side of the Orthodox Church.

John

 

[YADA]

and many have come down on the side of the Orthodox Church.

John

Yes, as I said that is why we have schism … and Heaven’s tears … That Christianity is fractured is a deep sadness :sad_yes:

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Are you kidding me, you committed heresy simply for partaking of the sacraments in the Catholic Church? And now you’ll be denied the eucharist for an extended period of time (what right does he have if you have now come back home?), possibly months or a year, holy smokes? Don’t you realize you need the eucharist in order to strenghten you?

Perhaps you don’t have a full appreciation of what the Eucharist is…it is the Very Body and Very Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of ALL.

It is an extremely serious matter to receive Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not for everyone all the time. That would be an grave abuse of the Very Special and Amazing Gift of the Eucharist.

Your attitude is very typical of many Catholics - as if receiving the Holy Eucharist is a right.

Reception of the Most Holy Eucharist is not a “Right”, it is a “Gift”.

Our hearts and minds must be in the proper state to receive Him. An Orthodox priest would never give someone the Eucharist who was not properly disposed as is a father and loves his spiritual children and would never place them in harms way (1 Cor. 11:23-32 with a special emphasis on verse 30 “For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” - my bold) & he knows he will face the Jesus for judgement himself - the Very Body and Very Blood Of Jesus is not to be taken lightly.

You should really read the lives of the Saints for instance the life of St. Mary of Egypt who only received the Eucharist twice in her life - once when she was like 15 and had just converted and the last time was before she died in her very old age. She was a Saint who actually walked on water like Jesus did when He lived on earth. She is recognized as a Saint in both the Catholic & Orthodox Churches.

We must work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. We must not be complacent about the wonderful gift of the Holy Eucharist by partaking of it so frequently that we bring judgement on ourselves for receiving it unworthily.

*IF *my spiritual father tells me that I must obstain for a period of time, then with my obedience will come many blessing from God to sustain and stregthen me during that time.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

If you wish to return to the Orthodox Church then do so.

Okay ​

However id consider carefully your return. Make sure you are aware of Catholic teaching on more than a single issue such as papal primacy before you return, as you want to be certain that leaving the church is the best thing.

The only issue I left the Orthodox Church over was Papal Supremacy - as indicated in the OP. I have always fully believed the Orthodox position on all other matters which currently separates the Churches; however, believing that if Papal Supremacy was correct, then all other issues I’d have to assume the Catholic position & defend it - so I did even though in my heart it never felt right.

Likewise if you’ve been stuck at a novus ordo mass in your time in the church id advise going to an extraordinary form (tridentine) mass if you havent already been to one. The novus ordo mass has been taken out of its correct place by many rogue elements in the priesthood, and going to a mass of the extraordinary form may help you see what the church is really about as its extremely unlikely that it is taken out of the correct context.

I have been to Tridentine Masses - they simply don’t compare with the beauty of the Divine Liturgy. However plain the N.O. may be, it is the Doctrine of Papal Supremacy that matters - if it’s true or not.

It’s ironic how, my mom who lives in another State, who is not a member of any religion although she is currently enrolled in Catholic RCIA - she called me this week and told me that she recently visited a Tridentine Mass. She’d a few years back had attended a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy. After going to that Tridentine Mass with her good friend, she says that it inspired her to go back to the Greek Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy as she said the Tridentine did not compare with it and now she’s asking her friend to go with her. What is ironic to me, is that I was feeling that same strong pull back to the Orthodox Church at the same time as she was!

Please consider trying this before returning to the Orthodox Church. Discretion is the better part of valour, and you must be certain, absolutely certain that your set in returning before you make the choice. Likewise the possibility that you’ve been in a parish with heterodox teachings is possible. Going to a tridentine mass may help you understand the true nature of the Catholic Church if that is the case.

I was in a Roman Catholic Church, one that is completely faithful to the Magestarium of the Catholic Church, soley because of the quote on I listed on the OP, but when I read the quote back then - in the mist of the spiritual struggle for perfection which is very difficult, I saw that the Catholic Church was soooo much “easier” than the Orthodox Church and I allowed that to overshadow my reading of the quote of St. John Chrysostom and rather than investigate it, I embraced it and left the Orthodox Church. Now that I investigated it and seen that my interpretation of it was so silly and completely out of context, I’m coming home.

Hurray! I’m coming home!

 

[josie_L]

Perhaps you don’t have a full appreciation of what the Eucharist is…it is the Very Body and Very Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of ALL.

It is an extremely serious matter to receive Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not for everyone all the time. That would be an grave abuse of the Very Special and Amazing Gift of the Eucharist.

Your attitude is very typical of many Catholics - as if receiving the Holy Eucharist is a right.

Reception of the Most Holy Eucharist is not a “Right”, it is a “Gift”.

Our hearts and minds must be in the proper state to receive Him. An Orthodox priest would never give someone the Eucharist who was not properly disposed as is a father and loves his spiritual children and would never place them in harms way (1 Cor. 11:23-32 with a special emphasis on verse 30 “For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” - my bold) & he knows he will face the Jesus for judgement himself - the Very Body and Very Blood Of Jesus is not to be taken lightly.

You should really read the lives of the Saints for instance the life of St. Mary of Egypt who only received the Eucharist twice in her life - once when she was like 15 and had just converted and the last time was before she died in her very old age. She was a Saint who actually walked on water like Jesus did when He lived on earth. She is recognized as a Saint in both the Catholic & Orthodox Churches.

We must work out our Salvation with fear and trembling. We must not be complacent about the wonderful gift of the Holy Eucharist by partaking of it so frequently that we bring judgement on ourselves for receiving it unworthily.

*IF *my spiritual father tells me that I must obstain for a period of time, then with my obedience will come many blessing from God to sustain and stregthen me during that time.

Single Mom Monica, my attitude is what it is because to be denied the eucharist for months even a year is harsh. It isn’t that I don’t believe we should be clean of heart (in fact the Church expects that you are) when you’re receiving the eucharist, it’s that who traditionally set such a time limit before one could receive it? Don’t you have reconciliation (I would figure if you are truly penitent that you can thus receive the eucharist) to absolve you of your sins? It seems rather unnecessary to deny someone the body and blood of Jesus when you need it the most? And however much Mary of Egypt was a saint who didn’t partake of the eucharist (but twice), there are thousands more who partook of it everyday in order to strengthen their spirits and their faith.

 

[josie_L]

**She will have the prayers of her spiritual father to strengthen her for whatever period of penance he deems fit for the purpose of healing her soul and body. **We receive God’s grace in many ways in the Church. Primarily in the Eucharist, but not only. You seem to hold a dim view of the disciplinary canons of the Church. What qualifies you to judge them?

John

John

For the purpose of healing her body and soul, geez, you guys must think very little of the Catholic Church.