Help choosing between orthodox catholic and lutheran

[Contarini]

Wynd

In what why has he left the Church? If in the past communion with Rome was important, how come? Did Jesus lie? He said he would build his Church and it would stand?

The Orthodox argument is that Jesus did not promise that any particular See would stand. You cannot automatically step from Matt. 16 to papal indefectibility, let alone infallibility–you have to make a number of somewhat controversial inferences to get there.

Either they followed Rome in the past because they knew it was important due to Christs teachings, or they do not follow Rome in which case what did Christ mean or did he lie or was he mistaken?

Again, the Orthodox view is that they followed the Church, not Rome in particular. Rome has a legitimate primacy within the Church as long as it teaches the Orthodox Faith.

For myself what Christ said only makes sense if you believe that he Placed the Church in Peters hands. He wanted someone to lead it so I am having trouble understanding what Protest movement is left for the Orthodox that is not fundamentally the same as Luther?

The difference is huge. Luther accepted papal authority, and then decided to reject it because he thought that the Papacy had adulterated the Gospel. Furthermore, this Gospel Luther believed in was by his own admission something quite different from what the Church had been teaching for centuries, and was not even clearly found in the Fathers.

Nothing like that applies to the Orthodox. The most that Catholic apologists can claim is that the Orthodox *gradually *backed away from the early Church’s adherence to Papal authority. But this alleged movement away from Petrine authority parallels the development of the Papacy. In other words, whether the East was moving or not can be disputed. That the West moved–that papal authority had a much stronger meaning in 1200 than it did in 200–is unquestionable.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

My (uneducated) view on this is that yes, there was undeniably an emphasis placed on the importance of being on communion with Rome in the early days of the Church. However, Rome is not part of the church at this point and we have to deal with that reality. We place the purity of the faith above communion with a certain bishop (whoever it may be), so if that bishop leaves the faith then obviously it’s not as important to be in communion with them.

Did Jesus in the great commission undo all that he established previously? No
That means union with Peter is necessary.

 

[Contarini]

Did Jesus in the great commission undo all that he established previously? No
That means union with Peter is necessary.

Petitio principii.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

It’s hard to respond to an emoticon. I assume that you don’t see how the underlined statements can be reconciled? Note that the first one “excommunicating each other left right and center” is massive hyperbole.

When you said

: emphasis mine
The fact that they have been excommunicating each other right left and center for much of that time is distressing, but only underlines their immense difference from Protestantism and the fact that something keeps them together in spite of all the tiffs.

I don’t see that as hyperbole. Excommunicate means they are NOT together. Have they all reunited again? I can think of one big split that hasn’t reunited.
C:

My point is that if you look at the Orthodox Church at any one moment in its history, you can usually find some kind of quarrel going on, and often you may even find that one of the autocephalous churches has excommunicated another one. I think that this is deplorable. But if you fast-forward another few centuries, you find that that particular quarrel has been mended and another one has broken out.

In other words, where the Roman Communion relies on central authority to maintain unity and Protestants have lost any pretense of visible unity long ago, the Orthodox keep quarreling, but the quarrels rarely lead to permanent splits.

The portion of the East which call themselves EO, have been diivided from the Catholic Church for 1000 years. While that’s not necessarily permenant, we have to agree, it has that look. The portion of the EAST who WERE EO and reunited to Rome are now Catholics again.

Jesus is the one who placed one apostle Peter in the center of authority. That’s part of the faith. By dividing from the CC, where is the center for the EO? It used to be of sorts, Constantinople now Istanbul. To use Eastern terminology, does it have primacy of honor anymore, and what does primacy of honor really mean anyway?

Maybe you know the answer to this. It’s my impression that the ROC comprises the vast majority of EO in the world by number. All the other EO church’s are small in number in comparison to the ROC. Is the ROC centralized?
c:

The most recent example is ROCOR. If the Catholic characterization of the Orthodox were true–if the Orthodox were more or less like the Protestants when it comes to unity–you would expect ROCOR to go on entrenching itself as an independent church long after the issue of Communism had been resolved. You would expect it to give rise to a number of independent churches of its own, and so on. In fact what happened is that some years after the fall of Communism, ROCOR was reunited to the majority Russian Church. And that’s generally what happens in Orthodox schisms.

Edwin

As I recall, back when Fr Ambrose (ROCOR) was posting here, ~3 years ago, he was estimating the ROCOR wa about 150,000 members scattered around. As I recall, they weren’t reunited then, but were close to an agreement. I’m not sure what caused the rift. But they felt a need to reunite to the ROC

Either way, as Cardinal Kasper head if ecumenism for the CC, said in 2002,

1. "We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,

2. it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches;

3. " there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=17658

From your view, has anything changed with the EO since Cardinal Kasper said this?

 

[steve_b]

Petitio principii.

Edwin

because you say so?

 

[Contarini]

because you say so?

Certainly not. I’m calling attention to a fact, which is that you are assuming (not proving) that

1. Jesus had previously “established” that union with Peter was necessary; and that
2. Union with Peter means union with Rome.

We all know that members of your Communion believe this. But when you *assume *this in an argument with people who are not members of your communion, you are obviously guilty of the petitio principii fallacy.

Edwin

 

[Saint_Dismas]

We didn’t “leave” anything. I seem to recall someone placing a papal bull of excommunication at the Hagia Sophia.

Also, you should read history more closely. The Filioque (what’s the filogue?) was opposed in Rome for a long time, and the Creed in its original form was put on public display by a pope in opposition to the pressure from the outside to change it. It was external imperial pressure that eventually caused the papacy to cave in. If I’m not mistaken the inscription which defends the original Creed in Rome might remain to this day.

As far as there not having been an Oecumenical Council since the schism, what do you believe is the nature and purpose of an Oecumenical Council?

As far as us not having visible heads, this is patently false. If you see a bishop, you see a head. If you mean that we are not ultramontane, then you are correct. But then again, neither were the autocephalous churches of the first millennium.

Our Holy and God-Bearing Fathers indeed called the Church Catholic, and so do we. We are the Catholic Church, and Rome broke away from us. You don’t have to agree, but we also don’t have to agree with you. - Smiley so I don’t get banned

Just like i stated it was political not theological. This is apart since the Churches held unity and then all of a sudden there was a split. If it was over theological differences it would have been a problem that could be traced way back. Yet it wasnt and the split is clearly due to peoples in the Church getting their toes stepped on so to speak. Now the split comes down to Papal authority which you deny, and which the Catholic Church accepts since the Gosples clearly show Peters suprimacy, and that the early Christis for example the Corinthians acknowledged Peters successors as also the Visible Head of Christs Church.

I will repost my responce reagarding chruch authority:

The Scriptures in Matthew say that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. Where Peter is then there is Christs Church. Peter was martyred in Rome and buried there and so His Bishopric and seat was established there. The Church in Rome is literally built on the bones of St. Peter and so it fulfills the scriptures in Matthew of the NT both symbolically and literally. This is why the Bishops of Rome are recognized as Vicars of Christ because Peter was the first Pope and all who took His office after He died would also be Pope.

There is evidence that the early Christians saw the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ in a letter from St. Clement (who was the third successor of Saint Peter) to the Corinthians! Yes the same Corinthians Paul writes to in His Epistle!

About the year 95AD St Clement Bishop of the See of Rome found it necessary to write to the Catholics of Corinth regarding and issue with some Bishops that were expelled by some of the Corithians. Now throughout Clements letter he uses a tone of authority which is pretty clear:

“If any man,” says St. Clement, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger…Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit” (Ep 59:70). Now the following facts should be considered in regard to this Epistle of Clement:

1. Reference is made to “the good Apostles” Peter and Paul, those pillars of the Church martyrs, who gave such good examples to the Romans.
2. The whole Epistle is a implicit manifestation of Romes consciousness of possession of the Primacy in the Church, for A) instead of offering excuses for interfering in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, Clement begins by apologizing for his delay in writing. Unless it was his duty to write, there would be no reason for apologizing. B) Clement threatens, as we have quoted above, and demands obedience!
3. St John the Apostle was actually alive at Ephesus at the time. If the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which was far less accessible than Ephesus, it proves that they recognized the authority of Clement over even an Apostle; if Clements action were spontaneous, it shows that the Church at Rome was already conscious of a superior and exceptional authority.
4. The letter was WELCOMED by the Catholics of Corinth, which proves that they did not think that Rome had interfered unlawfully or exceeded her power. In fact, the Corinthians put this Epistle of St. Clement on almost the same level as the Scriptures, and for a century it was read in the Churches.

The Cambridge Ancient History, commenting on the Epistle of St. Clement , says:

“The Roman Community’s sense of its own importance is nevertheless unmistakable, and it finds expression in the whole tenor of the letter. Rome imparts profitable instruction to the Corinthian community and regards this as her right and duty: but one gets the impression that the Romans would have been greatly surprised had Corinth, let us say, in similar circumstances dispatched such a letter of admonition to Rome” (XII, 530)
–This is the Faith pg 165- 166

So as we can see when Peter died there is where his Chair was seated and the letter of Clement to the Corinthians shows that this was accepted and recognized by the Early Christians as it is today as the Head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ the Pope.

God Bless

---

 

[Saint_Dismas]

Please ignore the above. I type too fast and forget to spell check Here is a better post:

Just like I stated it was political not theological. This is apparent since the Churches held unity and then all of a sudden there was a split. If it was over theological differences it would have been a problem that could be traced way back. Yet it wasn’t and the split is clearly due to peoples in the Church getting their toes stepped on so to speak. Now the split comes down to Papal authority which you deny, and which the Catholic Church accepts since the Gospels clearly show Peters supremacy, and that the early Christians for example the Corinthians acknowledged Peters successors as also the Visible Head of Christ’s Church.

I will repost my response regarding church authority:

The Scriptures in Matthew say that Peter is the Rock on which Christ will build His Church. Where Peter is then there is Christ’s Church. Peter was martyred in Rome and buried there and so His Bishopric and seat was established there. The Church in Rome is literally built on the bones of St. Peter and so it fulfills the scriptures in Matthew of the NT both symbolically and literally. This is why the Bishops of Rome are recognized as Vicars of Christ because Peter was the first Pope and all who took His office after He died would also be Pope.

There is evidence that the early Christians saw the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ in a letter from St. Clement (who was the third successor of Saint Peter) to the Corinthians! Yes the same Corinthians Paul writes to in His Epistle!

About the year 95AD St Clement Bishop of the See of Rome found it necessary to write to the Catholics of Corinth regarding and issue with some Bishops that were expelled by some of the Corinthians. Now throughout Clements letter he uses a tone of authority which is pretty clear:

“If any man,” says St. Clement, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger…Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit” (Ep 59:70). Now the following facts should be considered in regard to this Epistle of Clement:

1. Reference is made to “the good Apostles” Peter and Paul, those pillars of the Church martyrs, who gave such good examples to the Romans.
2. The whole Epistle is a implicit manifestation of Romes consciousness of possession of the Primacy in the Church, for A) instead of offering excuses for interfering in the affairs of the Corinthian Church, Clement begins by apologizing for his delay in writing. Unless it was his duty to write, there would be no reason for apologizing. B) Clement threatens, as we have quoted above, and demands obedience!
3. St John the Apostle was actually alive at Ephesus at the time. If the Corinthians appealed to Rome, which was far less accessible than Ephesus, it proves that they recognized the authority of Clement over even an Apostle; if Clements action were spontaneous, it shows that the Church at Rome was already conscious of a superior and exceptional authority.
4. The letter was WELCOMED by the Catholics of Corinth, which proves that they did not think that Rome had interfered unlawfully or exceeded her power. In fact, the Corinthians put this Epistle of St. Clement on almost the same level as the Scriptures, and for a century it was read in the Churches.

The Cambridge Ancient History, commenting on the Epistle of St. Clement, says:

“The Roman Community’s sense of its own importance is nevertheless unmistakable, and it finds expression in the whole tenor of the letter. Rome imparts profitable instruction to the Corinthian community and regards this as her right and duty: but one gets the impression that the Romans would have been greatly surprised had Corinth, let us say, in similar circumstances dispatched such a letter of admonition to Rome” (XII, 530)
–This is the Faith pg 165- 166

So as we can see when Peter died there is where his Chair was seated and the letter of Clement to the Corinthians shows that this was accepted and recognized by the Early Christians as it is today as the Head of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ the Pope.

God Bless

---

 

[fkjuliano]

With all due respect, Orthodox unity is a fiction. Eastern Orthodoxy is composed of a number of ethnic national churches, supposedly “autocephalous,” or self-governing, but in actuality very much in thrall to local secular governments, be they monarchical, communist or even Islamic. For instance, the Turkish government, today, not just in the time of the Ottoman sultans, imposes the rule that the Patriarch of Constantinople, first in precedence within Orthodoxy, be a Turkish citizen. This has the effect that the preeminent authority in the Orthodox churches must be chosen among the tiny remainder population of Greeks in Turkey. When an officially secular government, though one composed entirely of Muslims, can impose such an artificial and burdensome constraint on the governance of a church, I submit that church cannot possibly be the one Jesus Christ promised would never be overcome by the gates of Hell.

Furthermore, in Orthodoxy there is no real unity and no real church composed of people from all over the world. Even without recourse to history or Scripture, mere common sense tells us that none of the relatively tiny ethnic enclaves that compose Orthodoxy can possibly be the Church established by Jesus Christ to save all of mankind, for how would one choose among the various ethnic churches (which in reality, again, are entirely independent from each other and not a united body)? Would one pick the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, or the Serbian Orthodox Church. Perhaps would one would differ to the historical prestige of the Patriarch of Constantinople, ignore the fact that he lives under Turkish domination and consider his minute church the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In addition, Eastern Orthodoxy did only start in the 11th century, and largely for political reasons, namely that the prideful Byzantine emperors wished to have full control of the church within their domains, and to be free from they what they considered the extraneous influence of the Pope. Also, the Byzantines considered their civilization to be the “Second Rome,” greater than and superior to the Old Rome of the popes. Consequently, they resented the supremacy of the Roman pontiff, even if it is firmly grounded in Scripture (Matthew 16:18) and the earliest history of Christianity. Thus, they encouraged the schism that gave rise to Eastern Orthodoxy. Therefore, by virtue of owning its existence to temporal rulers, rather than to Jesus Christ, Eastern Orthodoxy has always had a tendency to conform to the whims of earthly powers. Besides the aforementioned example of the Muslim Turks being allowed to interfere in such a gross way in the selection of the Patriarch of Constantinople, we can also contrast the passivity of the Russian Orthodox Church in the face of communism to the defiance of the Catholic Church in Poland. We should respect the aesthetic beauty of Eastern Orthodoxy, but the unfortunate truth is that all too often, Orthodoxy has given Caesar what is Caesar’s and also given Caesar what is God’s.

Looking at the facts, it becomes patent that there is only one, true, catholic, apostolic church, and it is the aptly named Catholic Church, which by extension is the true defender of Christian orthodoxy. She is the Church that has always stood up to secular injustice and tyranny, from Caesar to Barbarossa, to Henry VIII, to Napoleon, to Hitler, to Brezhnev, to the U.S. Supreme Court and its concocted constitutional right to prenatal infanticide.

So my advice to the original poster is that he not slight Jesus Christ by rejecting the Church he founded to save all mankind, but rather honor Him and the sacrifice that He made by becoming a faithful Catholic Christian.

 

[steve_b]

Certainly not. I’m calling attention to a fact, which is that you are assuming (not proving) that

1. Jesus had previously “established” that union with Peter was necessary; and that
2. Union with Peter means union with Rome.

We all know that members of your Communion believe this. But when you *assume *this in an argument with people who are not members of your communion, you are obviously guilty of the petitio principii fallacy.

Edwin

I think it’s fair to say

• I assume you’ll take the Protestant view
• you assume I will take the Catholic view.

If you were new here with a few posts, and I didn’t explain or prove the points I made, I’d give you the point… But since you have 10,000+ posts here, I figured I didn’t have to repeat with you things you already argued in favor of yourself over the years, particularly Rome’s primacy, Peter the head apostle, popes are his successor,the early Church looked to Rome, not the city, but because it’s the chair of Peter.

Maybe I missed something and you’ve changed your view,

 

[fkjuliano]

Certainly not. I’m calling attention to a fact, which is that you are assuming (not proving) that

1. Jesus had previously “established” that union with Peter was necessary; and that
2. Union with Peter means union with Rome.

We all know that members of your Communion believe this. But when you *assume *this in an argument with people who are not members of your communion, you are obviously guilty of the petitio principii fallacy.

Edwin

Nothing is assumed. Jesus Christ chose Peter, whom he called Rock, as the human foundation of His Church and gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:18-19). Because of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles, it was appointed to him to go to what was the world’s most important city, Rome, in order to become its first bishop. Upon his martyrdom his legitimate successors necessarily inherited his authority, as it cannot be logically argued that Peter would carry on that authority from Heaven, because if Jesus Christ had not thought it vital that the Church have a mortal leader on the earth, then He would have taken for Himself the role of governing her and would not have entrusted the Keys to Peter. Therefore, union with Peter, or better yet, submission to his authority, must mean obedience to his successors, for otherwise it can only mean a spiritual union with Peter in Heaven, a vague concept at best, and clearly not Jesus Christ’s will when He appointed a human being as earthly head of the Church.

As you are our brother in Christ, I urge you to look into your heart so that you will see that you do not honor Jesus Christ by being a member of a church founded, for the most profane and worldly reasons imaginable, by the abominable tyrant Henry VIII, for despite the great (once Catholic cathedrals) and the beautiful liturgy, that remains the fundamental fact of Anglicanism. Ask yourself: why am I not part of the Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church?

 

[Hesychios]

With all due respect, Orthodox unity is a fiction. Eastern Orthodoxy is composed of a number of ethnic national churches …

That is not all due respect.

It is your own personal distorted opinion. Holy Orthodoxy is organized in a very similar fashion to the early church, it is composed of local synods.

If you are going to make the argument that your church was never organized like in the past that you had better take another look at history. If you are going to make the argument that your church never had the scourge of secular governments breathing down it’s neck and influencing policy you had better take another look at history.

If you are going to make the argument that being centrally controlled from the city of Rome or Avignon is some kind of guarantor of unity or independence of the church, or of correct and honest administration you had better take another look at history.

 

[tdgesq]

Certainly not. I’m calling attention to a fact, which is that you are assuming (not proving) that

1. Jesus had previously “established” that union with Peter was necessary;

Union with all of the apostles, including St. Peter, is necessary. You can’t seriously contest that point.

and that
2. Union with Peter means union with Rome.

Again, all of my Anglican acquaintances admit that Rome is an apostolic See of St. Peter. So do many of the Orthodox Churches. For those that do, union with the See of Rome is necessary. For those that don’t - well - they disagree with every Episcopalian I have ever met.

We all know that members of your Communion believe this. But when you *assume *this in an argument with people who are not members of your communion, you are obviously guilty of the petitio principii fallacy.

All Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, believe that union with the See of St. Peter is necessary; even if you take the view that Petrine primacy simply means “first among equals.” Now you may blame the See of Rome for causing the problem of division, but that doesn’t mean that unity of the apostolic Churches isn’t required by Christ or that the apostolic succession of the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have its foundation in St. Peter.

 

[Contarini]

With all due respect, Orthodox unity is a fiction.

The fact that it doesn’ t look like your kind of unity doesn’t make it a fiction.

Coming from Protestantism, I know you are wrong. The Orthodox have something that the evangelical Protestantism of my upbringing clearly didn’t have. Catholic apologists would be a lot more convincing if they stopped pretending otherwise.

Eastern Orthodoxy is composed of a number of ethnic national churches, supposedly “autocephalous,” or self-governing, but in actuality very much in thrall to local secular governments, be they monarchical, communist or even Islamic. For instance, the Turkish government, today, not just in the time of the Ottoman sultans, imposes the rule that the Patriarch of Constantinople, first in precedence within Orthodoxy, be a Turkish citizen. This has the effect that the preeminent authority in the Orthodox churches must be chosen among the tiny remainder population of Greeks in Turkey. When an officially secular government, though one composed entirely of Muslims, can impose such an artificial and burdensome constraint on the governance of a church, I submit that church cannot possibly be the one Jesus Christ promised would never be overcome by the gates of Hell.

 

[Hesychios]

Union with all of the apostles, including St. Peter, is necessary.

Orthodox have this.

All Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, believe that union with the See of St. Peter is necessary …

What is necessary is the Received Truth.

Any See which changes the Apostolic Faith by addition or subtraction is no longer orthodox and is outside the church.

Fortunately, the Papacy is so close that little will be required of it in the way of changes to regain unity with the Holy Apostolic church, it only needs the will to do what is right.

 

[Contarini]

I think it’s fair to say

• I assume you’ll take the Protestant view
• you assume I will take the Catholic view.

If you were new here with a few posts, and I didn’t explain or prove the points I made, I’d give you the point… But since you have 10,000+ posts here, I figured I didn’t have to repeat with you things you already argued in favor of yourself over the years, particularly Rome’s primacy, Peter the head apostle, popes are his successor,the early Church looked to Rome, not the city, but because it’s the chair of Peter.

Maybe I missed something and you’ve changed your view,

Steve,

That’s a fair point. I certainly hope you haven’t read through all my posts on this subject (I’d never want to do so myself), but I think if you did you would see that I have fairly consistently maintained:

1. That “petros” and “petra” are being related to each other in a positive manner rather than contrasted (contrary to what some Protestants claim), so that Jesus did in some manner promise to build the Church on Peter;
2. That there are good reasons to believe that this promise has something to do with the See of Rome, given the consistent way that See has been associated with Peter; but also that
3. One cannot reasonably claim that the only possible interpretation of this passage is that the See of Rome is infallible or that communion with that See is necessary for membership in the true Church.

It seems to me that folks in these discussions frequently conflate probable reasons with demonstrative proof. When Catholics start saying things like “if Rome has ever erred then Jesus lied” they are straying this passage way beyond what it will bear.

Furthermore, the fact is that many of the Fathers interpreted this passage as referring to Peter’s faith and/or applying the promise to all bishops, and this introduces a further element of uncertainty into the picture.

I believe strongly, as you have noted in my other posts, that this passage should make us take the claims of Rome very seriously. But it’s not enough to establish them beyond doubt. It’s not enough to outweigh other factors that might make us think that Rome has in fact erred. There are plenty of ways to interpret this passage as leaving open the possibility that Rome might err.

It’s precisely because I have engaged in these debates for so long that I get frustrated when Catholics think they can take certain things for granted. We go round and round, and the flaws and ambiguities in the Catholic arguments get pointed out over and over, and yet some of you keep coming back with these untenable claims like “if Catholicism isn’t true then Jesus lied.” Sorry, but it just isn’t that simple.

Edwin

 

[tdgesq]

Orthodox have this.

They have unity with one See of Peter, that of Antioch (possibly excluding the Eastern Catholic Churches), but not that of Rome.

Any See which changes the Apostolic Faith by addition or subtraction is no longer orthodox and is outside the church.

Meaning the Roman Catholic Church. So are you seriously claiming that the bishop of Rome is not an apostolic successor of Peter? It that is your position, then you disagree with most Orthodox Churches.

 

[grace_singh]

both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have Apostolic succession. so in that sense, both are “true”.

i suggest talking to a Catholic priest, and to an Orthodox priest, and going to a service in both Churches yourself. read up on history, theology, liturgy, spirituality, and the diverse traditions of both churches.

some websites that may be helpful :

vatican.va/phome_en.htm (Vatican Website)

newadvent.org/ (New Advent, a Catholic Site)

goarch.org/ (for the Greek Orthodox Church in America)

russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/indexeng.htm (for the Russian Orthodox Church)

copticchurch.net/ (for the Coptic Orthodox Church)

sor.cua.edu/Intro/index.html (for the Syriac Orthodox Church)

 

[Hesychios]

They have unity with one See of Peter, that of Antioch (possibly excluding the Eastern Catholic Churches), but not that of Rome.

You are completely misreading the comment.

All Orthodox bishops are successors of all the Apostles.

So are you seriously claiming that the bishop of Rome is not an apostolic successor of Peter?

I don’t know what he is, exactly. He is out of the church and therefore irrelevant to Orthodox. We cannot actually even positively affirm that a man outside the church is a bishop, although I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt . It was nice when the diocese of Rome was Orthodox, but that has long since passed.

To Orthodox, when a diocese separates from the church it is just an institution. Much the same as when the Church of England separated from your church, the institution survived but is no longer ‘the church’ to you. The Pope is still very polite when he meets Rowan Williams, and very nice things are said when they stand together but the reality is Rowan Williams is nothing to the Latin Catholic church until he converts.

If Rowan Williams did convert, the Pope might not even let him be a priest, or if a priest probably not a bishop.

That’s the reality behind all of the flowery talk.

We understand that the Pope is the defacto absolute and supreme leader of a large faction of Christianity, and therefore very relevant to you who are a follower. We wish no harm to befall him or his flock and only pray for his conversion and a renewed Christian unity as in the early church.

It that is your position, then you disagree with most Orthodox Churches.

You would have to provide some references to support your position, because I won’t know what you are talking about until I can see them.

 

[Filioque]

Good luck finding that reverent OF Mass. And even if you do there’s no telling what kind of schismatic ideas you might get from the parishoners there. In fact I know of 2 reverent OF Masses in my diocese and know for fact that homosexuality, birth control, and women’s ordination are frequently supported within the congregation and even the Clergy! That and you’ll often hear that there’s no need to convert because we’re all Christians!

In any case, a Parish with the Tabernacle front and center and reverenced anytime it’s aproached is a safe bet. It contains God afterall.

Try try again, I say. If you are truly seeking Christ you will one day be Catholic.

I can think of St. Therese in Alhambra, where the Ordinary form is reverently Celbebrated, and the EF at 1PM every Sunday (great choir at the EF by the way) and then there is SS Peter and Paul in Wilmington, (again one EF every Sunday) the Norbertine Fathers offer a very reverent OF. Santa Theresita Hospital Chapel, where the OF in Latin is offered each Sunday. Even St. Victor’s in West Hollywood, has an occasional EF, (I can’t vouch for the OF there, I’ve not attended) Holy Trinity in Attwatter is also very orthodox, the priest there sponsors a chapter of Courage, a Catholic group that advocates that homosexuals remain abstinent. Masses are reverent and the lines at the confessional on Saturday afternoon are longer than most parishes before Vatican II. All of this (and more that I’ve heard rumors of in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. All long before the new Ordinary was announced. Even if most of the parishes have followed the current example of the current ordinary, there are parishes within most people’s areas where you will find orthodox teachings, and sound liturgics.