Heart is pulling me towards Orthodoxy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stuartonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m actually fascinated by that period of history. Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, Jan Pallach, the Prague Spring, Velvet Revolution… I’ve soaked it all up. My interest in this is what took me to Czechia in the first place.
 
It’s not my field of study, as I’m more interested in Church history as whole, but I can’t deny it’s interesting. Hope you enjoyed your trip.
 
Psalm 41:11
"By this I know that You are well pleased with me,
Because my enemy does not triumph over me."

(Regarding the Council of Florence)
 
Last edited:
If your heart also says that the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Virgin is a LIE then go to the orthodox church because they refuse this dogma of our Church and a couple others that are very sacred for us traditional Catholics
 
morganandb2 said:
If your heart also says that the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Virgin is a LIE then go to the orthodox church because they refuse this dogma of our Church and a couple others that are very sacred for us traditional Catholics
Click to expand...
I’m trying to understand the landscape here, but I thought their issue with the IC is the nature of original sin. Far as I know they believe the Blessed Virgin was Immaculately Conceived, & lived her entire life without sin.

It’s the teaching of guilt as a consequence of original sin they disagree with.

I think.
 
ziapueblo said:
I think I posted this earlier I’m the the thread. It’s a good read:

» The New Eve is Conceived

ZP
Click to expand...
Thank you. A follow up question…
The Orthodox Churches rejected the dogmatic nature of this teaching pronounced by the pope as an act of piety on his own authority. Many also objected to it because it defines Mary’s holiness in terms of a certain understanding of original sin.
Click to expand...
Do Eastern Catholics reject this dogma as well, or is their understanding Catholic?
 
They do not, they do not really incorporate Original Sin into their theology either, but they do not reject this dogma- dogmas can not be rejected by Catholics after all. They just interpret theology behind it in Eastern way.
 
Justin_Mary said:
Do Eastern Catholics reject this dogma as well, or is their understanding Catholic?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics understand the IC in the same way in which our Orthodox brethren understand it. We do not reject the dogma, meaning, while we do not express it in the way in which the Latin Church understands it, we recognize that the Latin Church may theologize how she wishes, as long as those expressions are not imposed on us.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Eastern Catholics understand the IC in the same way in which our Orthodox brethren understand it.
Click to expand...
Justin_Mary said:
The Orthodox Churches rejected the dogmatic nature of this teaching pronounced by the pope as an act of piety on his own authority. Many also objected to it because it defines Mary’s holiness in terms of a certain understanding of original sin.
Click to expand...
Not in that way though, right? 😃
 
Uh, basically, Orthodox Churches reject this to be dogma, while Eastern Catholics take it as dogma (not as doctrine) in their own way- where Mary’s Holiness is not defined in terms of certain understanding of Original Sin. Orthodox Churches hold that Pope can not proclaim such dogma to be held by entire Church and therefore also reject it as an act of piety on his own authority. Eastern Catholics have no problem with that, therefore while Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology behind this is same, dogma is kinda binding (in Eastern sense) for Eastern Catholics and they do not object to Latin interpretation of it neither to Pope proclaiming dogma based on his infallibility.

Basically- Theology of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics behind dogma is same, ecclesiology and views on authority to proclaim dogma or dogmacity of such pronouncement itself is questioned by Orthodox but not by Eastern Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Again, we as Eastern Catholics do not deny Rome’s right to theologize in its own Tradition, but we do insist on our right to theologize in our own Tradition, too. At the level of the theologia prima, there is no substantive difference between the Western and Eastern positions–we ALL believe Mary was preserved without sin for her entire existence. The West, for reason particular to its own Tradition, felt the need to refine that further, but at the time Pius IX issued his edict declaring the belief “dogmatic”, the Church of Rome considered itself and the Catholic Church to be co-terminous. The Second Vatican Council adopted a different ecclesiology, the “ecclesiology of communion”, which recognized not only the existence of other true Churches in communion with the Church of Rome, but also true Churches that were NOT in communion with the Church of Rome. That had the effect of relativizing a lot of so-called dogmas defined by the Church of Rome when it thought it was the One True Church™.

Hope this answers your question.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Church of Rome considered itself and the Catholic Church to be co-terminous. The Second Vatican Council adopted a different ecclesiology, the “ecclesiology of communion”, which recognized not only the existence of other true Churches in communion with the Church of Rome, but also true Churches that were NOT in communion with the Church of Rome. That had the effect of relativizing a lot of so-called dogmas defined by the Church of Rome when it thought it was the One True Church™.
Click to expand...
This seems like Roman Centralization. Church is not only Roman, Church is Universal. Why do you insist on notion that Holy Spirit abandoned the East and simply wished Popes and General Councils of West to reveal truth to Western Catholics? Shouldn’t Eastern Catholics also have right to partake of this revealed truth? You seem to deny East’s participation in life of Church.

Rome was never One True Church. While Rome was always part of One True Church (from establishment of it’s See, of course), it was never full One True Church by itself. Many other Churches in communion with Rome have always constituted True Church of Christ, unlike those outside it. I am pretty sure Pope Pius IX proclaimed it as dogma, not as doctrine. I trust that Vicar of Christ guided by Holy Spirit did not infallibly speak error 😃
 
Last edited:
Not only can not branch theory survive within Catholicism, it can not survive within Orthodoxy either. Bishop Kallistos Ware says that “Orthodox writers sometimes speak as if they accepted the ‘Branch Theory’, once popular among High Church Anglicans”, but explains that this opinion “cannot be reconciled with traditional Orthodox theology”.
Western Orthodox Julian Joseph Overbeck:
But what do we see in the Anglican Church? Heresies are not only tolerated and publicly preached from the pulpits, and the schismatical and heretical Church of Rome is by a great many fondled and looked up to, but a theory has sprung up, the so called Branch-Church theory, maintaining that the Catholic Church consists of three branches: the Roman, Greek, and Anglican Churches. Only fancy! the Roman and Greek Churches contradicting and anathematising each other, and the Anglican Church (in its Articles) contradicting both, and besides full of heretical teaching-these are the component parts of the One Catholic Church, the abode of the Spirit of Truth!!! And on this theory rests the “Corporate Reunion of Christendom,” which entirely ignores all Apostolic teaching concerning schism and heresy!

Catholic stance:
Adrian Fortescue wrote of the Eastern Orthodox: “The idea of a church made up of mutually excommunicate bodies that teach different articles of faith and yet altogether form one Church is as inconceivable to them as it is to us (Catholics)”
In 1870, English bishops attending the First Vatican Council (attended by Melkites too) raised objections to the expression Sancta Romana Catholica Ecclesia (“Holy Roman Catholic Church”) which appeared in the schema (the draft) of the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius. These bishops proposed that the word “Roman” be omitted or at least that commas be inserted between the adjectives, out of concern that use of the term “Roman Catholic” would lend support to proponents of the branch theory.
 
Dominus Iesus:

“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ ( 1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [ subsistit in ] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57 17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”
-end of Dominus Iesus quotation-

Branch theory can not be accepted by Eastern or Western Catholicism, whether it includes Anglicans or only those with true Apostolic Succession, or anyone else. If Branch Theory is true, then any bishop who does not like anything in his Church can just leave and establish his own True Full Church. How far do we go? Are heretics with Apostolic Succession part of True Church or not? Are only those in schism? Both Orthodox and Catholic theologians put it nicely, that Apostolic teachings on Schism disregard this theory. Hence it can not be supported by anyone in communion with any of those Churches.
 
Last edited:
Justin_Mary said:
I’m trying to understand the landscape here, but I thought their issue with the IC is the nature of original sin. Far as I know they believe the Blessed Virgin was Immaculately Conceived, & lived her entire life without sin.

It’s the teaching of guilt as a consequence of original sin they disagree with.

I think.
Click to expand...
Justin - I think you’re on the right track here. As evidenced by our (i.e. Orthodox) hymns about Mary, it is abundantly clear that we view Mary as sinless…to quote a few, “Commemorating our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary…” and “More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim! Without defilement you gave birth to God the Word; true Theotokos, we magnify you.”

As you note, it is the difference in how original/ancestral sin that plays into the Orthodox not expressing the Immaculate Conception. We believe that Mary did indeed inherit ancestral sin (i.e. the propensity to sin) while remaining sinless. Thus Jesus also inherited this, but through His life, death, and resurrection destroyed that bond of sin, healing us, and allowing us to receive salvation.

Edit: I should have said Orthodox don’t believe there is any guilt that attaches to an individual but rather it is both the propensity to sin and the result of original sin, death, that needs to be dealt with. Jesus conquered that ultimate consequence of death through His resurrection
 
Last edited:
ziapueblo said:
The West, for reason particular to its own Tradition, felt the need to refine that further, but at the time Pius IX issued his edict declaring the belief “dogmatic”, the Church of Rome considered itself and the Catholic Church to be co-terminous.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to defend yourself or anything you’ve said. I just want to make sure I understand your position.

The Pope speaks for the Roman Catholic Church & not the Catholic Church?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top