Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

*Note for this thread just in case someone cares, RCC and EO will be used to denote each Church. Even if the terms aren’t technically correct they are unambiguous

As I was perusing the internet I became curious as to Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and their view of history. I will not state what some of my problems are because I do not want to discuss issues outside of my question. Anyways, throughout my reading I’ve noticed the different views on doctrinal development in the two churches, and this is the issue that if I could be convinced of the RC way of thinking would really help clear some of the doubt up. At the moment I do not take any view as I’m not educated enough on the defense of either. What I’m looking for is reasons why I should accept the Roman Catholic view on doctrinal development vs. the EO view. I would also like EO members to post their views/retorts so I can make sure there’s no strawmen going on.

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

Thank you to everyone in advance. And once again I implore you not to give me off-topic arguments

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your struggle is my struggle. As Clinton might say, “I feel your pain.” I truly do. I reverted to Catholicism in 2002 and for several reasons moral and theological I have struggled greatly do believe the catechism and Catholic agenda. For a couple of months now I have been back at my old Anglican parish as I just can’t be hypocritical. I have also thought of Orthodoxy but their views on Original Sin trouble me. I do not see how development doctrine a la Newman makes any sense. Indulgences, purgatory, infallibility, innovation, and other ideas trouble me greatly. Please IM if you’d like someone to talk to.

Orthodoxy seems to have done more to stay original to the deposit of faith, traditional church polity, and they never had the Reformation on their side. But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc. I tend to agree more with the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and thus prefer the Catholic view. But I agree more with Orthodoxy about confession and not holding indulgences and satisfaction for sins, etc. The Catholic Church post 1054 changed dramatically from its previous form whereas Orthodoxy stayed status quo for the most part. Orthodoxy has not undergone the watering-down of its liturgy with folk musicky songs, the removal of incense, people holding hands during the Our Father, and so many other abuses.

It’s a tough one. But overal development doctrine doesn’t seem Biblical or true to historical Christianity any more than sola scriptura does.

Is there anything other than development doctrine that bothers you?

 

[addictedkoala]

Your struggle is my struggle. As Clinton might say, “I feel your pain.” I truly do. I reverted to Catholicism in 2002 and for several reasons moral and theological I have struggled greatly do believe the catechism and Catholic agenda. For a couple of months now I have been back at my old Anglican parish as I just can’t be hypocritical. I have also thought of Orthodoxy but their views on Original Sin trouble me. I do not see how development doctrine a la Newman makes any sense. Indulgences, purgatory, infallibility, innovation, and other ideas trouble me greatly. Please IM if you’d like someone to talk to.

Orthodoxy seems to have done more to stay original to the deposit of faith, traditional church polity, and they never had the Reformation on their side. But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc. I tend to agree more with the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin and thus prefer the Catholic view. But I agree more with Orthodoxy about confession and not holding indulgences and satisfaction for sins, etc. The Catholic Church post 1054 changed dramatically from its previous form whereas Orthodoxy stayed status quo for the most part. Orthodoxy has not undergone the watering-down of its liturgy with folk musicky songs, the removal of incense, people holding hands during the Our Father, and so many other abuses.

It’s a tough one. But overal development doctrine doesn’t seem Biblical or true to historical Christianity any more than sola scriptura does.

Is there anything other than development doctrine that bothers you?

There are a couple things that bother me, but as I’ve been thinking about it all the issues seem to come down to, “Is this legitimate doctrinal development?” If the RCC is correct about it, then I have very little issue. However, if the EO are right about it I feel that I might be better served in their Church. But then again some things in EO bother me, such as the heterodoxy (might be the wrong word. I’m referring to their tendency to leave doctrine undefined). An example, the papacy. Most RC will admit the Papacy certainly did not look the same back then as it does now, but this falls under legitimate development for them and illegitimate for the EO. Historically I see less authority than RC gives them credit for, however development takes care of that, while I see the pontiff having more authority than the EO will say.

I want to explain the emotions I’m feeling about it all but I’m no good at expressing them, my mind is too logistical. I guess most of all I just wish I could live before the schism

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Don’t we all! But then again, Christianity has been a struggle and there has been internal disagreement since day one. Think about how many Christians were Arians for a long time! The Coptics left early and the monophysites as well. Look at Tertullian, what a great man, amazing theologian, leaves for Montanism. Things have always been contentious and drama-laden.

The Orthodox paint a picture of Peter as Coryphaeus, the big brother, the jury forman. He deserves honor, primacy, and the head seat at the table because of his special, superior commission as the Rock. But he is not infallible, universal, supreme, etc. That is an innovation of the Middle Ages when the Bishop of Rome was the only game in town in all of Western Europe. While the East in Byzantium was divided by several patriarchates like Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. the West had ONE power—the Bishop of Rome. It is during that time, after the fall of the West, that the pope’s papal claims go unchecked and spread throughout Europe.

What I just said is the Eastern argument. Much of it makes sense.

The Catholics on one hand claim that the pope ALWAYS had total power, others claim it developed. Just like some Orthodox claim Peter was Coryphaeus, held the primacy, and was the Rock, while others claim he was never the Rock but rather the confession was the Rock.

Don’t let this issue tear you up. I’ve been there and done that. Take things slow. Read both sides, pray hard, keep your mind open, and ask Christ to guide you. May God bless!

There are a couple things that bother me, but as I’ve been thinking about it all the issues seem to come down to, “Is this legitimate doctrinal development?” If the RCC is correct about it, then I have very little issue. However, if the EO are right about it I feel that I might be better served in their Church. But then again some things in EO bother me, such as the heterodoxy (might be the wrong word. I’m referring to their tendency to leave doctrine undefined). An example, the papacy. Most RC will admit the Papacy certainly did not look the same back then as it does now, but this falls under legitimate development for them and illegitimate for the EO. Historically I see less authority than RC gives them credit for, however development takes care of that, while I see the pontiff having more authority than the EO will say.

I want to explain the emotions I’m feeling about it all but I’m no good at expressing them, my mind is too logistical. I guess most of all I just wish I could live before the schism

 

[FantomScholar]

The Catholics on one hand claim that the pope ALWAYS had total power, others claim it developed. Just like some Orthodox claim Peter was Coryphaeus, held the primacy, and was the Rock, while others claim he was never the Rock but rather the confession was the Rock.

Just as an outsider looking in on the conversation (I am sure a Baptist’s opinion on the situation is not as relevant!

I think this is where Rome’s argument against Eastern Orthodoxy begins to fall apart. The development of doctrine thesis by C. Newman, did a lot for Roman Catholic apologetic efforts to explain the origins of their doctrine. The problem with the theory is that Rome has never claimed it. Not historically, and certainly not dogmatically. From even a cursory glance of the First Vatican Council’s definition of papal authority, it is quite obvious that the official Roman position has been that the papacy as defined by Vat I has always been the papacy from Matt. 16:18 going forward. What Newman says was an acorn that developed into an oak tree, Rome says has always been an oak tree.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Just as an outsider looking in on the conversation (I am sure a Baptist’s opinion on the situation is not as relevant!

I think this is where Rome’s argument against Eastern Orthodoxy begins to fall apart. The development of doctrine thesis by C. Newman, did a lot for Roman Catholic apologetic efforts to explain the origins of their doctrine. The problem with the theory is that Rome has never claimed it. Not historically, and certainly not dogmatically. From even a cursory glance of the First Vatican Council’s definition of papal authority, it is quite obvious that the official Roman position has been that the papacy as defined by Vat I has always been the papacy from Matt. 16:18 going forward. What Newman says was an acorn that developed into an oak tree, Rome says has always been an oak tree.

I do not think that the Church has to adopt theologican opinions in order for them to have a measure of validity. It is clear that doctrine develops over time and certainly we can agree as Christians of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions that with respect to doctrines like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, understanding of the Truth that was left to the Church was parsed out over time, and in the face of challenge to those truths. So to can it be said with respect to the teaching authority of the Church and the position of the successor of Peter within that authority.

The Catholic position is that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, and that in looking to Peter’s place from the beginning there can be seen certain authorities and responsibilities given only to him. While our EO brothers and sisters are quick to assign him the position of first among equals, this interpretation is not supported by scripture or the early history of the Church.

Peace,
Robert

 

[addictedkoala]

I do not think that the Church has to adopt theologican opinions in order for them to have a measure of validity. It is clear that doctrine develops over time and certainly we can agree as Christians of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions that with respect to doctrines like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, understanding of the Truth that was left to the Church was parsed out over time, and in the face of challenge to those truths. So to can it be said with respect to the teaching authority of the Church and the position of the successor of Peter within that authority.

The Catholic position is that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, and that in looking to Peter’s place from the beginning there can be seen certain authorities and responsibilities given only to him. While our EO brothers and sisters are quick to assign him the position of first among equals, this interpretation is not supported by scripture or the early history of the Church.

Peace,
Robert

That’s right, I don’t see the first among equals thing in history, I quite clearly see primacy. But I’m having trouble with how much it seems this and a few other doctrines developed and were defined. I’m right in the middle of the two Churches.

 

[addictedkoala]

I managed to call into Catholic Answers Live a few minutes ago (first time caller ) and Jim Blackburn actually helped me understand the development stuff, I’m feeling better about it, though continuing discussion would be nice. What’s not rested in my mind is my fear of being wrong. Unless I’ve misunderstood, it seems that Catholics have bad chances for salvation according to what I’ve read on orthodox EO sites. You could say that any other religion would say the same, but they aren’t linked back to Jesus. How can I alleviate these fears

 

[Harpazo]

There are a couple things that bother me, but as I’ve been thinking about it all the issues seem to come down to, “Is this legitimate doctrinal development?” If the RCC is correct about it, then I have very little issue. However, if the EO are right about it I feel that I might be better served in their Church. But then again some things in EO bother me, such as the heterodoxy (might be the wrong word. I’m referring to their tendency to leave doctrine undefined). An example, the papacy. Most RC will admit the Papacy certainly did not look the same back then as it does now, but this falls under legitimate development for them and illegitimate for the EO. Historically I see less authority than RC gives them credit for, however development takes care of that, while I see the pontiff having more authority than the EO will say.

I want to explain the emotions I’m feeling about it all but I’m no good at expressing them, my mind is too logistical. I guess most of all I just wish I could live before the schism

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I certainly understand what you are going through as I was going through the same thing 18 months ago. I’ll have to echo Gurney’s advice: take it slow and don’t make any impulsive decisions. If you have an Orthodox parish nearby, it would not hurt to visit and attend a Vespers service and discuss any questions about Orthodoxy with a priest.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[addictedkoala]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I certainly understand what you are going through as I was going through the same thing 18 months ago. I’ll have to echo Gurney’s advice: take it slow and don’t make any impulsive decisions. If you have an Orthodox parish nearby, it would not hurt to visit and attend a Vespers service and discuss any questions about Orthodoxy with a priest.

In Christ,
Andrew

Yeah I was thinking about visiting an Orthodox parish at the very least for information. Closest ones is a Greek and Romanian… what’s the difference besides the country, and would you recommend either. (The priest won’t ignore me since I’m not really considering conversion will he )

 

[jfoges]

I managed to call into Catholic Answers Live a few minutes ago (first time caller ) and Jim Blackburn actually helped me understand the development stuff, I’m feeling better about it, though continuing discussion would be nice. What’s not rested in my mind is my fear of being wrong. Unless I’ve misunderstood, it seems that Catholics have bad chances for salvation according to what I’ve read on orthodox EO sites. You could say that any other religion would say the same, but they aren’t linked back to Jesus. How can I alleviate these fears

You should not be this worried about your salvation. If you follow the teachings of Jesus and take part in the sacraments, you can be sure that you are on the road to heaven. Now, some people might say that we are supposed to fear hell and work out our salvation with “fear and trembling.” That may be, but the focus should be on our moral worthiness, not on what Church we belong to.

As for the development of doctrine in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, I don’t think they are as different as you seem to think. Both Catholic and Orthodox doctrine is understood to be found in the sensus fidei of the Church as a whole, mainly in the college of bishops, who are the leaders of the Church. The Pope is a source of unity who can define dogma ex cathedra, which he rarely does. Most of the time the Pope acts as the supreme legislator of the Church and as a spiritual leader, whose teachings we must submit to as long as they don’t conflict with our own well formed conscience. I probably am not explaining this right, but what I am trying to get at is that ultimately, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have similar ideas of the deposit of faith residing in the practice and beliefs of the Church as a whole, which persists through time, assured by Christ’s promise that it will not lose the kyrgma, or spoken teachings of Christ, entrusted to it.

 

[addictedkoala]

You should not be this worried about your salvation. If you follow the teachings of Jesus and take part in the sacraments, you can be sure that you are on the road to heaven. Now, some people might say that we are supposed to fear hell and work out our salvation with “fear and trembling.” That may be, but the focus should be on our moral worthiness, not on what Church we belong to.

That’s the thing, knowing that either we or the EO are the correct Church with the fullness of the truth, if the EO are correct then I’m probably not receiving the sacraments. That’s my fear

 

[OrthodoxAngel]

I am an Orthodox Christian

I would like to clarify some of the things that have been said here.

First, the Roman Church and Orthodox Churches were all united up until approximately 1054 when the Papal Legate laid down the bull of excommunication on the altar in the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and Rome cut itself off from the other Churches in Christendom. Thus, Arianism and Iconoclasm are not “eastern heresies” but heresies that affected the whole Church. We pray for unity with the Roman Church but at the same time we cannot change our beliefs that Christ and the Apostles have taught so somewhere we have to find a balance.

On the 7th Sunday of Pascha we celebrate the Fathers of the 1st Nicene Council in 325. Arius was a priest who challenged his own bishop in the streets of Alexandria. This is already a problem. No priest should openly challenge his bishop publically. Arius was a heretic and wanted to push his beliefs as far as he could. This is an anamoly and the Orthodox Churches do NOT condone Arianism.

Iconoclasm more or less started with the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople did not have the politcal authority to override the Emperor when the Emperor wished that the churches be stripped of icons. Only the weight of an Ecumenical Council could override the Emperor. Also notice how a Council was formed instead of a simple decree being given from Rome. If the Bishop of Rome was this sort of supreme bishop whose teachings were protected by the Holy Spirit, then all it would have taken was a solemn decree to override the Eastern Emperor. But rather the Second Council of Nicea in 787 was called which ultimately destroyed Iconoclasm.

On Original Sin we teach that humans are currently born with the effects of sin, but are not born with the guilt of sin. That is, we are born with a clean slate with God in a broken body. Baptism brings us into the Church and removes any sin that we have committed and begins the process of theosis, that is becoming like Christ. Also, we believe Mary to be a holy woman like the kind of older ladies you see in church who are pious. But she was not sinless. Also we believe in the Assumption of Mary but we also believe that she died, that is fell asleep in the Lord.

On Salvation we teach that Heaven and Hell are not places but states of existence. There is only the Heavens and the Earth. We talk about God having essence and energies and that all contact that humans have, even in the Eucharist, is with the Energies of God. These Energies of God surround the Heavens. For those that love God they illuminate the souls and create a great and awesome afterlife. For those that hate and resist God those same energies burn that soul forever. Thus everyone will be surrounded by God and his love when they die but many will hate that. Its kind of like going to Church for eternity and not wanting to go to Church.

Our views on the Roman Church are that they have Apostolic Succession and thus have the Sacraments. We do not talk about Validity but rather intent. Now there are to a certain degree required elements but overall what matters is intent. You have to have bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy and only a bishop can confer Holy Orders.

I just wanted to clear some things up. Post some responses and I will try to help. May God bless you.

 

[addictedkoala]

Snipped the heresies part because I actually knew the Orthodox Churches didn’t promulgate them. But thank you for the info anyway

I am an Orthodox Christian
On Original Sin we teach that humans are currently born with the effects of sin, but are not born with the guilt of sin. That is, we are born with a clean slate with God in a broken body. Baptism brings us into the Church and removes any sin that we have committed and begins the process of theosis, that is becoming like Christ. Also, we believe Mary to be a holy woman like the kind of older ladies you see in church who are pious. But she was not sinless.

I have no opinion on the guilt involved with original sin at this time because I have no researched it, however I do believe in the immaculate conception. In any case, these are not issues I’m struggling with currently, they are too specific for now. I’ve just had a general awakening of, “hey, those guys can claim foundation by Jesus too.”

Also we believe in the Assumption of Mary but we also believe that she died, that is fell asleep in the Lord.

That is an allowed theological opinion in the RCC, no issues there

On Salvation we teach that Heaven and Hell are not places but states of existence. There is only the Heavens and the Earth. We talk about God having essence and energies and that all contact that humans have, even in the Eucharist, is with the Energies of God. These Energies of God surround the Heavens. For those that love God they illuminate the souls and create a great and awesome afterlife. For those that hate and resist God those same energies burn that soul forever. Thus everyone will be surrounded by God and his love when they die but many will hate that. Its kind of like going to Church for eternity and not wanting to go to Church.

That’s already my opinion of heaven and hell, and I do believe the RCC allows this thought too. Although our concept of what grace is differs, like the issues above, this is not currently on my list of things to deal with.

Our views on the Roman Church are that they have Apostolic Succession and thus have the Sacraments. We do not talk about Validity but rather intent. Now there are to a certain degree required elements but overall what matters is intent. You have to have bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy and only a bishop can confer Holy Orders.

I just wanted to clear some things up. Post some responses and I will try to help. May God bless you.

That makes me feel good, but is this the majority EO opinion? My impression from people on EO forums I’ve found seems to be no, but it’s very possible I hit some bad websites or something. It did turn me off when the RCC was compared to hangnail about to fall off though… (yes different forum, most EO here and in real life I respect very much)

And thank you for your perspective as an Orthodox

 

[DavidKays]

Hi! I am a Greek Orthodox Christian and will like to add to this discussion. First of all you may like to know that the Primacy of the Pope was given at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and this primacy has never been revoked. So the Eastern Church alongside the Church of Rome put down in writing what Primacy each Church has and to what the Popes and Patriarchs responsibilties entails. It was the Orthodox who at the time gave Rome its Primacy. Many people say in these forums that the Orthodox do not accept the Primacy of the Pope. I disagree. My understanding is this. Since the Orthodox were at the first 2 Ecumenical Councils to determine Primacy and that nobody obeys the Councils more than the Orthodox then why today do they reject Primacy? For them to do that will mean they do not accept their own councils decisions and nobody and I mean nobody obeys these councils better than ther Orthodox. It is my own understanding that there is something else. And this is my own personal opinion that the Eastern Church or the Orthodox Church were hurt! That is what simply it is. The Catholic Church got too involved into Orthodox affairs and over rided their authority by interferring into Eastern Church government which really opposes the earlier Council decisions and hurt very much the Eastern Orthodox, the Eastern Church’s way of life. To put simply, the Catholic Church was wrong, terribly wrong in the whole affair, and hurt their Eastern brothers and sisters to the point where they went their seperate ways and did not engage in dialogue for the next 1000 years. In the last 100 years great strides have been put in place when saintly Popes such as Paul VI and John Paul II started discussions with the East with the intention of bringing us together again and burying finally this feud. All the Popes especially John Paul II have formally apologized to the wrongful actions that the Church of Rome imposed towards the East especially the unfortunate disagreements that occured that led to a seperation in the year 1054AD. The problem was basically Roman. Rome has now accepted responsibilty to its own wrongful ways and now it is up for the Orthodox to accept the apology and to receive in each others arms once again. The 2 Churches are as necessary as bread and water. You can’t have one without the other. I will make a statement that may startle many and it may not. The Eastern Orthodox Church must have her rightful claim alongside the Church of Rome. When that is accomplished then this will the time of Unity. The Orthodox Church must have a say in the government of the Church of God. Rome is willing since His Holiness the late Pope John Paul II said that he is willing to have the same relationship with the Orthodox as the Church of Rome had earlier with the East prior before 1054AD. So it is coming! Full communion will be on its way. Both Churches have similar doctrines and both can help you, leading you to the Eternal Life with God. Jesus is both present on both altars and this same Jesus can give you Eternal Life. Today the EO still have reservations ( I do not ) about the West but that is due to the remembrance of past hurts enveloping again and again. The communication of your saintly Popes and beautiful Catholic people will hopefully bring much dialogue towards their Eastern brothers and sisters and finally bring about this Unity which Our Lord has so patiently desired and willed so that the world may benefit and see in us that Love which Our Lord flows into and which eventually can flow into the world. God Bless!

 

[jfoges]

That’s the thing, knowing that either we or the EO are the correct Church with the fullness of the truth, if the EO are correct then I’m probably not receiving the sacraments. That’s my fear

You are receiving the sacraments. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Trust in the Church, trust in Jesus. Exclaim, “Jesus I trust in you!”

 

[Bluegoat]

That makes me feel good, but is this the majority EO opinion? My impression from people on EO forums I’ve found seems to be no, but it’s very possible I hit some bad websites or something. It did turn me off when the RCC was compared to hangnail about to fall off though… (yes different forum, most EO here and in real life I respect very much)

And thank you for your perspective as an Orthodox

Not all EO believe this. There are two answers I think to your question.

The best answer is probably that they have no opinion. They are the Church, and God gave his Sacraments to the Church. But who can limit God? Who can say what is outside the Church?

But many EO will say that the Sacraments proper are only available in the Church, and outside it they do not exist. So while their might be valid apastolic succession in the RCC, there would be no validity to the priesthood because you can’t be a priest outside the Church.

I’ve considered both the CC and the EOC myself, and could not reconcile myself to the idea that they alone are The One True Church. To my mind, even if we imagine that the Great Schism was all the fault of the West, or the Reformation of the reformers, those breaks stain both sides. Rather like the fall, where the fall of man impacts all of creation, schism in the Church affects all of the Church Militant, so we are no longer visibly One or Unified in the way we should be.

I see this in the development of doctrine issue. Look at how the West has forgotten what tradition is, and the Anglicans are ordaining women and turning to gutted liturgy, and the Catholics have that awful folk music and liturgy and the various “developments in doctrine” that just go way too far.

On the other hand, the EOC seems to resist change far more than they did in the past, even to where it seems to have kind of solidified or congealed at times - not in a good way. They are so inward looking you meet the most terrible hostility if you go to their forums, often they don’t even look at the pre-schism writers in the West, many adamantly oppose the idea of Western Orthodoxy and don’t consider such parishes to be “really” Orthodox. M.

It seems like each is missing the others, Catholics, Orthodox, Reformers, each goes to far and needs something it lacks.

As far as I can see there is no really catholic or orthodox Church, just Churches that try hard at catholicity or orthodoxy. And I can’t align myself to a group that says they have it when I know they don’t, so I am an Anglican. Despite their faults, which are different than those of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, they at least don’t claim to constitute the Church on their own.

 

[Nine_Two]

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

Without reading the rest of the thread (yet) I’ll answer a few things in here.

First it isn’t that the EO doesn’t recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, it is that we don’t claim to have the knowledge, we don’t recognize them as either valid or invalid, we know only that our own are valid.

As for why Orthodox here are less hostile, I think it is largely because those Orthodox who come here understand that we are guests and we should treat our hosts (Catholics) with a certain level of respect. You are also getting a subset of us who are more willing to engage in discussion. Also if those of us here were hostile to Catholics all the time we wouldn’t get much discussion going, which defeats the purpose of a discussion forum.

 

[Hesychios]

The ‘Primacy’ issue is very simple.

Primacy and supremacy are two completely different things. Primacy is functional throughout the Orthodox church, down to the parish. There is always a senior when two or more are working together, even among altar servers and up through the episcopal ranks. That is the Orthodox way, and was also once the common practice in the west.

Supremacy is a new concept, which was not present, even in the west in the early centuries.

So Orthodox do not argue against the early time primacy of the bishop at Rome, it is a historical fact. It is also a historical fact that this primacy devolved onto the next See, Constantinople, when the See at Rome (really just a couple of renegade Cardinals at first) led the western bishops out of the Orthodox communion.

In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates, one of the reasons cited was the Eastern Church’s deletion of the “Filioque” from the original Nicene Creed. In fact, it was precisely the opposite: the Eastern Church did not delete anything. It was the Western Church that added this phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Wiki

The complaints (in brief) the Cardinals put into writing …

1. … like Simoniacs, they sell the gift of God;
2. … like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy;
3. … like Arians, they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins;
4. … like Donatists, they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world;
5. … like Nicolaitists,they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar; l
6. … like Severians,they say that the law of Moses is accursed;
7. … like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son;
8. … like the Manichaeans among others, they state that leave is ensouled (animatum);
9. … like the Nazarenes, they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth and,
10. … in refusing to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women, they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan;
11. … and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

Notice that there is no complaint listed that says “they do not believe in Papal universal jurisdiction and Papal infallibility”. It is not because they did believe it and changed their collective minds later but that this was unknown even in the west.

If one has any questions about how this primacy functioned for Rome in the first millennium, one has only to look at how it functions today in Constantinople.

The last major event I can think of was in 2005, when the Patriarchal Synod of Jerusalem decided to depose it’s Patriarch (Irenaios I ) and send him back to the monastery. The See of Constantinople chaired a few meetings of the involved parties and the other Patriarchs, and they agreed to recognize Theophilos III as the new Patriarch for Jerusalem, essentially standing behind the synod’s actions. The State of Israel was furious and withheld recognition for a long time but the church was at peace.

That’s how the church works, and that’s what the Pope would do if he got his old job back. No directing, but working collegially with his brother bishops when asked or invited to help build up a consensus. He would use his own prestige as a knowledgable and holy man leading a highly reputed orthodox and holy community, not using some claimed ‘powers’.

There would be none of this ‘appointing bishops around the world’ and requiring ad limina visits. No erecting and suppressing dioceses upon his own authority beyond his Metropolitanate. No regulating the liturgy on his own authority. No writing the canons on his own authority, editing and deleting the work of the fathers in council on his own authority.

In an Ecumenical Council he would sit with the rest, speak in his turn and get one vote like everyone else present. It would be a return to Roman primacy as we knew it once, not the supreme universal jurisdiction that they have claimed for the past 140 years.

 

[addictedkoala]

The ‘Primacy’ issue is very simple.

Primacy and supremacy are two completely different things. Primacy is functional throughout the Orthodox church, down to the parish. There is always a senior when two or more are working together, even among altar servers and up through the episcopal ranks. That is the Orthodox way, and was also once the common practice in the west.

Supremacy is a new concept, which was not present, even in the west in the early centuries.

So Orthodox do not argue against the early time primacy of the bishop at Rome, it is a historical fact. It is also a historical fact that this primacy devolved onto the next See, Constantinople, when the See at Rome (really just a couple of renegade Cardinals at first) led the western bishops out of the Orthodox communion.

The complaints (in brief) the Cardinals put into writing …Notice that there is no complaint listed that says “they do not believe in Papal universal jurisdiction and Papal infallibility”. It is not because they did believe it and changed their collective minds later but that this was unknown even in the west.

If one has any questions about how this primacy functioned for Rome in the first millennium, one has only to look at how it functions today in Constantinople.

And this is exactly why I am trying to look at legitimate vs false development of doctrine. I would think we can admit the Pope was not known/thought to be infallible back then, it is established through development, and it can’t just be claimed that papal infallibility was just some declaration out of absolutely nowhere at Vatican I. It might be said that the RCC took primacy too far, but it’s not like the Pope at Vatican I just stood up and said, “Listen guys, you see me? I’m infallible!”

The last major event I can think of was in 2005, when the Patriarchal Synod of Jerusalem decided to depose it’s Patriarch (Irenaios I ) and send him back to the monastery. The See of Constantinople chaired a few meetings of the involved parties and the other Patriarchs, and they agreed to recognize Theophilos III as the new Patriarch for Jerusalem, essentially standing behind the synod’s actions. The State of Israel was furious and withheld recognition for a long time but the church was at peace.

That’s how the church works, and that’s what the Pope would do if he got his old job back. No directing, but working collegially with his brother bishops when asked or invited to help build up a consensus. He would use his own prestige as a knowledgable and holy man leading a highly reputed orthodox and holy community, not using some claimed ‘powers’.

There would be none of this ‘appointing bishops around the world’ and requiring ad limina visits. No erecting and suppressing dioceses upon his own authority beyond his Metropolitanate. No regulating the liturgy on his own authority. No writing the canons on his own authority, editing and deleting the work of the fathers in council on his own authority.

In an Ecumenical Council he would sit with the rest, speak in his turn and get one vote like everyone else present. It would be a return to Roman primacy as we knew it once, not the supreme universal jurisdiction that they have claimed for the past 140 years.

Concerning pragmatic leadership I think the EO Church has the RCC beat and in a way I wish the RCC was like that. Unfortunately it isn’t otherwise we would all be EO. However this only helps me establish which model of hierarchy is more visibly useful, not which is truthful.