Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ziapueblo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pardon me, but I believe there is no communion with Rome in Orthodox Church. If Orthodox Church indeed is original Church of East, then Catholic Church is plain wrong, Papacy is wrong and communion with Pope of Rome (who would be heretic in that sense) is wrong.

If however Eastern Catholic Churches are authentic original Churches of East, and Orthodox Church therefore is not, Catholicism is correct, Eastern Catholics and their communion with Rome is desirable, Pope has primacy over Church and Catholic teachings are not heretical (Latin or Eastern).

You can not pick both. Church can not have severed communion with itself, Body of Christ can not contradict itself and there are no multiple Churches of Christ. This is pure nonsense.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Pardon me, but I believe there is no communion with Rome in Orthodox Church. If Orthodox Church indeed is original Church of East, then Catholic Church is plain wrong, Papacy is wrong and communion with Pope of Rome (who would be heretic in that sense) is wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that there is communion between the Orthodox Church and Rome now but there was in the first millennium. The break of communion does not fall on the feel of just Constantinople. It takes two to tango.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If however Eastern Catholic Churches are authentic original Churches of East, and Orthodox Church therefore is not, Catholicism is correct, Eastern Catholics and their communion with Rome is desirable, Pope has primacy over Church and Catholic teachings are not heretical (Latin or Eastern).
Click to expand...
The Orthodox Church is not authentic? That’s not what Vatican II states. Let’s be honest, the Eastern Catholic Chuches came into communion with Rome due to various reasons: political, internal and external stiff with their particular Orthodox Church and for protection. Not because they believed the Pope of Rome has supremacy over them.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
You can not pick both. Church can not have severed communion with itself, Body of Christ can not contradict itself and there are no multiple Churches of Christ. This is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...
I’m not picking both. I’m Orthodox in communion with Rome as it was in the first millennium. I’m just defending my Eastern Orthodox brothers and sister who are “True Chruches”, “Sister Churches”, have apostolic succession and valid sacraments.

ZP
 
Thank you @ziapueblo for defending us Orthodox!

As promising as the dialogues between our churches are, I wonder if the more hard-headed among both the Catholics and Orthodox will ever let communion actually be restablished.

It certainly is frustrating and disappointing to watch you and others have to constantly and repeatedly defend Eastern Catholics much less the Orthodox.
 
ziapueblo said:
I’m not saying that there is communion between the Orthodox Church and Rome now but there was in the first millennium. The break of communion does not fall on the feel of just Constantinople. It takes two to tango.
Click to expand...
Syllabus of Errors clearly states Roman Pontiffs are not to be held responsible for it, though I do agree Cardinal Humbert overstepped his authority and his invalid decree of excommunication was flawed. I agree there WAS communion with Rome, but Orthodox Church itself lost that and therefore lost it’s catholicity and full unity with Bride of Christ.
ziapueblo said:
The Orthodox Church is not authentic? That’s not what Vatican II states.
Click to expand...
Is there any scource that claims Orthodox Church is Christ’s Church, Bride of Christ or Ark of Salvation from Vatican II?
ziapueblo said:
astern Catholic Chuches came into communion with Rome due to various reasons: political, internal and external stiff with their particular Orthodox Church and for protection. Not because they believed the Pope of Rome has supremacy over them.
Click to expand...
I disagree, while political reasons were of course reasons, many Churches joined because they sincerely believed Pope has supremacy over them- as stated even in official documents. Be it as it may, once they entered Catholic Church they accepted this fact. For what political reasons did Melkite Church join though? I thought they were just “pro-Papal” back then, not necessarily anti-Orthodox.
ziapueblo said:
Eastern Orthodox brothers and sister who are “True Chruches”, “Sister Churches”, have apostolic succession and valid sacraments.
Click to expand...
They have valid sacraments, they might be true Churches in a sense because of it, but they are not full part of One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. This is pure indifferentism.
Isaac14 said:
As promising as the dialogues between our churches are, I wonder if the more hard-headed among both the Catholics and Orthodox will ever let communion actually be restablished.

It certainly is frustrating and disappointing to watch you and others have to constantly and repeatedly defend Eastern Catholics much less the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I do not question Eastern Catholics- on the contrary, what ZP just said questions their intentions and them being part of Catholic Church more than what I ever said- if taken into context with Ecumenical Councils, he is basically excommunicating Eastern Catholics. Same way Eastern Orthodox can not according to their faith accept Catholic Church as being non-heretical, we can not accept Orthodox Church to be catholic by Catholic faith.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absurd. Beyond absurd. Equivalence between the Orthodox and Protestantism makes no theological or historical sense.
 
Last edited:
As much as equivalence between Catholic and Orthodox is absurd. Being absurd in that sentence is what I wanted to achieve.
RyanBlack said:
they might be true Churches in a sense because of it,
Click to expand...
Sure, in such sense yes. Being full body of Christ though is impossible for two or more disunited Churches. This assumption is akin to condemned Anglican triple-Church theory.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
As much as equivalence between Catholic and Orthodox is absurd. Being absurd in that sentence is what I wanted to achieve.
Click to expand...
There is far, far more in common between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. An equivalence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, though not problematic, makes far more sense than an equivalence between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
 
Yes, but they do not equal each other, nor are they two parts of same thing.
 
Isaac14 said:
As promising as the dialogues between our churches are, I wonder if the more hard-headed among both the Catholics and Orthodox will ever let communion actually be restablished.
Click to expand...
There is always hope for full communion. Most Roman Catholics ands and Orthodox I know are perfectly fine with each other and see we should have communion with each other just as we are. They know there are differences but don’t argue over what I see as small things (Purgatory, St. Palamas, Filioque, etc.).

My opinion is that it’s the internet Uberdox and RadTrads that have a problem with each other.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
There is always hope for full communion. Most Roman Catholics ands and Orthodox I know are perfectly fine with each other and see we should have communion with each other just as we are. They know there are differences but don’t argue over what I see as small things (Purgatory, St. Palamas, Filioque, etc.).
Click to expand...
There is nothing against charity between Orthodox and Catholics- on the contrary, it is of utmost importance. However, in charity there can not be false courtesy and as such we do not support each other in our errors, and we are called to find solutions where possible, not bury problems. My only concern is when people fall into heresy of indifferentism where they believe heresy that “it does not actually matter if you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we are same Church just a bit divided because Christ’s body can be divided, both are right and Latin Church is just huge autocephalous primate of entire Church”. Such things only hurt people in the end, they do not help, it is therefore not real charity.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
it does not actually matter if you’re Catholic or Orthodox, we are same Church just a bit divided because Christ’s body can be divided,
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is itself divided on many issues:
Can a Jew get to heaven?
Can a Hindu get to heaven?
Should the filioque be in the creed?
Was it acceptable to drop the atomic bomb on Japan?
Will an unbaptised infant go to limbo?
Was the Blood shed for many or was it shed for all?
Did the Church ever approve of the buying and selling of slaves?
Leavened or unleavened Bread?
Was Michael Cerularius excommunicated? Some Catholics, including Pope Paul VI, have said yes. Other Roman Catholics say No.
Etc.
 
Last edited:
I heartily agree.

Sadly the internet know-it-all’s are so loud, it’s often difficult to hear the more reasonable (and indeed more numerous) voices that don’t turn acceptable differences into reasons for division.
 
Yes Jew or Hindu can go to Heaven. God is judge. Other things you listed are a joke. I explained those relevant to you already and others are irrelevant.

But- Filioque can and does not have to be in Creed
Michael Cerularius was invalidly excommunicated hence he was not validly excomminicated.
Blood was shed for all and theres many in all.
Unbaptized can go to Heaven or Limbo, God is judge of that.
Both bread forms are fine.
Others are jokes.
Counter question to Orthodoxy: Toll Houses or no? Augustine or no? 8th Ecumenical Council or no? Leavened or unleavened bread? Mortal and venial sin or no?

Orthodoxy has western rite too, same concept.
 
Does it have to be so cut and dry? So all or nothing. So black and white. There are usually 2 sides to every story.
 
Yeah as I stated earlier schism was gradual and contrary to popular belief did escalate after 1054. But there is clearly one side that remained Church of Christ and one that did not. To pretend otherwise is heresy of indifferentism.
 
Please consider all Apostolic. Bishoprics sees dioceses. Directly, founded by Apostles. For example, Jerusalem Antioch Alexandria Corinth Rome in so on

now consider only those which Christianized their surrounding society. So for example, maybe this doesn’t include Saint Thomas in India.

Now consider only those which having become Christian. Remained Territorially Christian from ancient times until today.

Are there any which still qualify for Jesus’s prophetic pronouncement that? Nothing would prevail over the church?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top