Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would that include choosing to ignore the eastern fathers who had recourse to the pope as final authority? Or the Orthodox who believed in the good of unity under the Pope like Peter Mohila?
 
Last edited:
You have to remember the Roman Catholic church picks and choose which so called Church Fathers that support it’s views. Roman Catholic church is no different than a Protestant Church. You have to remember I use to buy this stuff at one time until I started to read stuff written by the Catholic Church long time ago contradicting itself as far back 1947 on reversing the Altar…
 
Last edited:
Christ had founded the Catholic church first. The Orthodox came in later. It is true that the Orthodox liturgy is beautiful, but it is lacking things the Catholic church has. God Bless you and I will pray for you.
 
I just mean the Orthodox church in general is lacking such as the papacy.
 
I use to a Traditional Catholic and I know what all you think of those who don’t celebrate the Latin Tridentine Mass. You don’t air outside the circle of Traditionalists. You can’t hide from me they would be shocked to find out what are Traditionalists views on alot of subjects.
 
Last edited:
Versus populum practice is ancient enough on it’s own, there is no teaching that is contradicted. Same way Orthodox Church changed liturgies to better reflect faith- nothing wrong with that either. Roman Catholic Church shares pre-schism Fathers with Orthodox Church- except Roman Catholic Church holds to Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical Council proclaimed to be in agreement with Augustine and follow him in “all things”. However, Orthodox nowadays reject Augustine despite their own Ecumenical Council supporting him. There is simply too much contradiction in Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy has primus who is Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople- who was made Ecumenical because of practical reasons, despite Alexandria and Antioch (and even Jerusalem) having much better claim for it based on tradition. Nowadays though, there is no practical reason for Ecumenical Patriarchto be in Constantinople (Istanbul), yet Orthodoxy keeps him as primus. Why is that, if tradition did not matter back then and practical reasons did, that today it is reversed just to suit Constantinople?

Russian Orthodox Church not only rebaptizes people, which is contrary to Orthodox teaching and was solved in dispute with St. Cyprian, but also used to forbid many other things such as unleavened bread’s use for Eucharist (Patriarch Michael Cerularius did not want to deny allegations of stepping on it), but nowadays it is alright for Western Rite to use. Mortal and venial sin are criticized as Latin concepts, yet many Orthodox theologians write about them and Western Rite acknowledges them. Schism of 2018 in Orthodoxy does not help either, as it shows there were 2 uncanonical actions of Patriarchs yet Pan-Orthodox Council can’t be called because of lack of authority. Nevermind that, Orthodox Patriarch still excommunicate each other for jurisdiction issues over each other.

Orthodox Church has beautiful heritage from Eastern pre-schism Catholic Church to which it holds dearly and follows many wise and good teachings, possesses true sacraments and valid priesthood, and unity impairment with Catholic Church is very small and we can one day hope for reunion, but Orthodoxy clearly has issues that just show it is not real Bride of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Isaac14 said:
What, exactly, is the Orthodox Liturgy lacking?
Click to expand...
I think it was meant to imply Orthodox Church lacks things, not Liturgy. If not, it would be plain wrong.

Orthodox Church lacks unity with Peter and focus of unity and authority, to answer that question.
ziapueblo said:
East and West were in communion for a millennia.
Click to expand...
East =/= Orthodox, West =/= Catholic. Catholic East and Catholic West were in communion, but in Great Schism majority of East left Catholic Church and became Orthodox. Later on, some returned. That is simply Catholic perspective, whether Eastern or Western, endorsed not only by Papal encyclicals but also by Synods (counting Melkite Synod among those).
 
Last edited:
The I am assuming you mean the Council of Ephesus. As far as I remember the council itself listed St Augustine of Hippo as one of the saints. The Eastern Orthodox do accept him as a saint though; just not all of his teachings.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
East =/= Orthodox, West =/= Catholic. Catholic East and Catholic West were in communion, but in Great Schism majority of East left Catholic Church and became Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Archimandrite Robert Taft S.J. Of blessed memory, renowned liturgist and theologian of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church who was a professor at the Oriental institute of Rome, in his writings refers to the East as Orthodox, pre or post schism.

ZP
 
Perhaps that helps terminology issues and is politically correct way to address things, but as we know, Jesus started One Church, not multiple. He promised it He would preserve it. To divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism and imply neither of them is true Church by itself (or both are fully true) means either Lord lied to us and did not preserve Church from error, and perhaps also that he created multiple true Churches. I don’t see any way around that statement unless I am missing something important.
 
Last edited:
“We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.”

Seems to me like Ecumenical Councils declares that even Greek Fathers in every way follow St. Augustine and his writings on true faith. Do current Orthodox Bishops hold authority to dismiss teachings of Ecumenical Council? Sounds like contrary to popular belief, Orthodoxy actually has Pope- or rather, has multiple of Popes who are all infallible and can revert even Ecumenical Councils- whether that be all bishops or even all faithful, it’s kinda funny. Every man is his own Pope.
 
The correct interpretation of the council couldn’t have meant that 100 percent of St. Augustine’s teachings were to be accepted as dogmatic. This is because if we were to be consistent in applying this standard, we would have to accept St. Ambrose’s erroneous opinion that the baptism in the Name of one of the Trinity is valid.

“So those baptized in the Name of Christ are held to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if, that is, there is belief in the Three Persons, otherwise the baptism will be null. This also applies to baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit.”(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/34021.htm)
(Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 1:1:3)
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
To divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism and imply neither of them is true Church by itself (or both are fully true) means either Lord lied to us and did not preserve Church from error, and perhaps also that he created multiple true Churches. I don’t see any way around that statement unless I am missing something important.
Click to expand...
Or the interpretation of the concept “One True Church” could mean the unity of different groups of Christians united in the central Christian beliefs and with their clergy who have Apostolic continuity.
 
Sure, the early Church was Catholic and held the Orthodox faith. You can use the term Catholic/Orthodox or apples/oranges. East and West were in full communion.

I don’t quite understand why some Roman Catholics get bent out of shape when we say that the Orthodox (East) and Rome were in full communion for the first millennium? Full communion means One Church.

ZP
 
Perhaps, but at least most of them would. Also, none of Augustine’s teachings were ever annulled by Ecumenical Council nor any binding authority. However, nowadays there are very few of Augustine’s teachings Orthodoxy accepts, and even his sainthood and authority as one of Church Fathers is questioned. Augustine is said to be foundation of all “errors of the West”.
 
while Catholic was used to identify Church, orthodox was used to identify faith. Even nowadays, orthodox (small o though) is used to identify true faith while Orthodox is used mostly to identify group outside of full communion of Church.
ziapueblo said:
I don’t quite understand why some Roman Catholics get bent out of shape when we say that the Orthodox (East) and Rome were in full communion for the first millennium? Full communion means One Church .
Click to expand...
I did not get bent out of shape, but way you used it implied Orthodoxy existed pre-schism which is practically akin to saying Apostles were Protestant.

Also, early Church was Catholic and held orthodox faith, but current Catholic Church is also catholic and holds orthodox faith, while current Orthodox Church holds orthodox faith but is not necessarily catholic.
 
Last edited:
All I’m saying is that the Eastern Orthodox Church now was and is the same Church in the East as it was in the first millennium: liturgically, theologically, spiritually, prayer life, etc., in communion with Rome, again, during the first millennium.

ZP
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top