Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[AveOTheotokos]

Breaking from Peter is what is involved in this schism. Rome is the chair of Peter. Those in the East and elsewhere in the world, who ARE united, and remain united to Peter and those in union with Peter are Catholics.

Just a thought from a Catholic with much love for the Orthodox…

When Peter denied Jesus and fled, was John in schism because he remained at the foot of the Cross?

To what extent are we called to cling to Peter, and to what extent are we called to cling to the Cross?

Was John any less Catholic for not following Peter and remaining at the Cross?

I can also understand why the Orthodox feel like the successors of Peter have suffered from his same tendency to flee the Cross at times, and why they struggle to recognize an absolute, temporally uncontested supremacy.

I pray for reunification, but I find no more fault in our sister Church than in our own. Both Churches need to walk towards each other, not just wait around for the other to come to them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Breaking from Peter is what is involved in this schism. Rome is the chair of Peter. Those in the East and elsewhere in the world, who ARE united, and remain united to Peter and those in union with Peter are Catholics.

Just a thought from a Catholic with much love for the Orthodox…

When Peter denied Jesus and fled, was John in schism because he remained at the foot of the Cross?

When Peter denied Jesus, did Jesus say OH shoot NOW WHAT! My lead guy, the one I’m giving the keys to my kingdom to, the one I’m building my Church on just denied me. What NOW !

You already know the answer to this.

AveOTheotokos:

To what extent are we called to cling to Peter, and to what extent are we called to cling to the Cross?

Was John any less Catholic for not following Peter and remaining at the Cross?

ALL the apostles followed Peter. They were ALL together after the crucifixion. They were all together after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus back to heaven. They were all together as one, till their individual deaths. And when they all died, they were replaced in succession. And one Church on the planet is still together in communion with Peter.

AveOTheotokos:

I pray for reunification, but I find no more fault in our sister Church than in our own. Both Churches need to walk towards each other, not just wait around for the other to come to them.

Division is a choice. So is union.

 

[steve-b]

Just like the Orthodox are proud to be Orthodox in Christ’s Orthodox Church;
-like Anglicans in Christ’s Anglican Church
-like Baptists in Christ’s Baptist Church
-(ad infinitum)

As such, all you’re proving is that you’re a hard-liner for your faith. Just like the monks on Athos who are reasonably certain all non-Orthodox are going to hell, like the primitive Baptists in Appalachia who are reasonably certain all non-primitive Baptists are going to hell. Pride.

Yawn

Jesus is NOT behind division you speak of.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Just like the Orthodox are proud to be Orthodox in Christ’s Orthodox Church;
-like Anglicans in Christ’s Anglican Church
-like Baptists in Christ’s Baptist Church
-(ad infinitum)

As such, all you’re proving is that you’re a hard-liner for your faith. Just like the monks on Athos who are reasonably certain all non-Orthodox are going to hell, like the primitive Baptists in Appalachia who are reasonably certain all non-primitive Baptists are going to hell. Pride.

Yawn

Jesus is NOT behind division you speak of.

Sure. And as virtually all groups would mention the papacy as one of the common sources of division, Jesus is NOT behind the papacy, particularly in its more modern presentations of temporal supremacy.

Round and round it goes Steve. Which is why you should drop your current angle - it can’t create the edge you’re needing it to. All sides have theologians with PhDs.

 

[Vonsalza]

When Peter denied Jesus, did Jesus say OH shoot NOW WHAT! My lead guy, the one I’m giving the keys to my kingdom to, the one I’m building my Church on just denied me. What NOW

As the power to bind and loose belonged to all apostles (Matt. 18:18), it clearly wasn’t a problem.

ALL the apostles followed Peter. They were ALL together after the crucifixion.

They sure weren’t during, were they?

John and a few others hung tough. Peter schism-ed out of there and when asked, he was all “Who’s this Jesus guy you’re talking about?!?”

What a rock, right?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

Just like the Orthodox are proud to be Orthodox in Christ’s Orthodox Church;
-like Anglicans in Christ’s Anglican Church
-like Baptists in Christ’s Baptist Church
-(ad infinitum)

As such, all you’re proving is that you’re a hard-liner for your faith. Just like the monks on Athos who are reasonably certain all non-Orthodox are going to hell, like the primitive Baptists in Appalachia who are reasonably certain all non-primitive Baptists are going to hell. Pride.

Yawn

Jesus is NOT behind division you speak of.

Sure. And as virtually all groups would mention the papacy as one of the common sources of division, Jesus is NOT behind the papacy, particularly in its more modern presentations of temporal supremacy.

The pope even suggested to the Orthodox, who BTW aren’t one, considering the papacy as it were in the 1st millennium, as the standard for consideration. No answer. Crickets. Meaning of course, the pope knew and the Orthodox knew, the papacy was always here.

Vonsalza:

Round and round it goes Steve. Which is why you should drop your current angle - it can’t create the edge you’re needing it to. All sides have theologians with PhDs.

As Paul taught, Titus 3:10-11

BTW, show me in writing, properly referenced, that the Orthodox Church existed then.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When Peter denied Jesus, did Jesus say OH shoot NOW WHAT! My lead guy, the one I’m giving the keys to my kingdom to, the one I’m building my Church on just denied me. What NOW

As the power to bind and loose belonged to all apostles (Matt. 18:18), it clearly wasn’t a problem.

Keys aren’t mentioned in Mt 18:18.

Meaning Peter, holding the keys can bind what they loose and lose what they bind.

ALL the apostles followed Peter. They were ALL together after the crucifixion.

Vonsalza:

They sure weren’t during, were they?

for the 3 hours?

Vonsalza:

John and a few others hung tough. Peter schism-ed out of there and when asked, he was all “Who’s this Jesus guy you’re talking about?!?”

What a rock, right?

All that was reconciled by Jesus. Are you new?

show us where Jesus took everything back that He gave to Peter alone?

 

[Vonsalza]

The pope even suggested to the Orthodox, who BTW aren’t one, considering the papacy as it were in the 1st millennium, as the standard for consideration. No answer. Crickets.

Ah, the good ole’ “Argument from Absence” fallacy.

BTW, show me in writing, properly referenced, that the Orthodox Church existed then.

The Orthodox consider themselves to also be the “Catholic” church, Steve. You’re really the only guy I know that considers that a meaningful argument. Truthfully.

Keys aren’t mentioned in Mt 18:18.

Meaning Peter, holding the keys can bind what they loose and lose what they bind.

Cool story, but that’s not what Jesus said there in Matt 18, is it?

Maybe Augustine is right and “The Rock” is faith, not Peter. Either way, all apostles can clearly bind and loose with no mention of Petrine dependence from God incarnate on the issue.

for the 3 hours?

Would have been a good time to stick around - support your savior as he died like John and others did. But the “Rock” rolled away.

Peter bailed, displaying the same selfishness Christ rebuked him for earlier in Matthew. It is a sin that Peter’s heirs would repeat with greater audacity over the following centuries until Christian men all over Christendom could no longer tolerate the corruption.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The pope even suggested to the Orthodox, who BTW aren’t one, considering the papacy as it were in the 1st millennium, as the standard for consideration. No answer. Crickets.

Ah, the good ole’ “Argument from Absence” fallacy.

are you admitting the Orthodox didn’t exist in the first century?

steve:

BTW, show me in writing, properly referenced, that the Orthodox Church existed then.

Vonsalza:

The Orthodox consider themselves to also be the “Catholic” church, Steve. You’re really the only guy I know that considers that a meaningful argument. Truthfully.

The Baptists think they are the catholic church too. So. do the Anglicans etc etc.

Keys aren’t mentioned in Mt 18:18.

Meaning Peter, holding the keys can bind what they loose and lose what they bind.

Vonsalza:

Cool story, but that’s not what Jesus said there in Matt 18, is it?

Jesus never mentioned keys in Mt 18: He only mentioned keys with Peter specifically in Mt 16:

Vonsalza:

Maybe Augustine is right and “The Rock” is faith, not Peter. Either way, all apostles can clearly bind and loose with no mention of Petrine dependence from God incarnate on the issue.

In that particular point in tn his retractations (which doesn’t mean retractions) , He mentioned 2 scenarios, and left the answer to the reader.

for the 3 hours?

Vonsalza:

Would have been a good time to stick around - support your savior as he died like John and others did. But the “Rock” rolled away.

Peter bailed, displaying the same selfishness Christ rebuked him for earlier in Matthew. It is a sin that Peter’s heirs would repeat with greater audacity over the following centuries until Christian men all over Christendom could no longer tolerate the corruption.

Well, since you show a complete lack of how the story progressed from there, here’s how that concluded.

ποιμαίνω poimainō Jn 21:17 = (rule, govern )
After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, AGAIN, singled out Peter, and told Peter ( the one He gives the keys to, and calls Rock) to feed and rule my sheep

Scripturally, Jesus didn’t use

keys with anyone else other than Peter, and Jesus didn’t use
rule with anyone else other than Peter.

simply said, Jesus is going to make Peter the “ruler over His household”, “over all His possessions” when He changed Simon’s name to Rock, & gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and told him to feed, tend and rule his flock.

 

[Vonsalza]

are you admitting the Orthodox didn’t exist in the first century?

No. I’m admitting that your argument is bad according to the rules governing arguments. You apparently haven’t been exposed to such rules.

steve:

The Baptists think they are the catholic church too. So. do the Anglicans etc etc.

Right! And, oddly, so does the Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus never mentioned keys in Mt 18: He only mentioned keys with Peter specifically in Mt 16:

Sure. As Isaish showed us, keys can pass to another.

But, very importantly, the power to bind and loose IS NOT solely Peter’s. All 12-13-14 (depending on how you count) enjoyed that power.

Well, since you show a complete lack of how the story progressed from there, here’s how that concluded.

Spare me your pro-papist interpretation. Truly.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

When Peter denied Jesus, did Jesus say OH shoot NOW WHAT! My lead guy, the one I’m giving the keys to my kingdom to, the one I’m building my Church on just denied me. What NOW !

You already know the answer to this.

When Peter denied Jesus, did Jesus say “John, what are you doing here? Why are you and Mary just standing here? I gave Peter the keys, follow him! He is always right and you can never contest his supremacy. Go!”

You already know the answer to this.

Peter was not always right, and when he was at his worst, it would have been foolish to follow him. Why would his successors not suffer from these same problems?

There are times when standing with Peter and his successors could put you on the wrong side of the shadow of the Cross. The schism is not a wrong committed by only one side, and its resolution will only come from a choice on both parts to step toward union.

When Peter was wrong, he was still part of the Church, but so were those that recognized when he was wrong and called him out on it.

The criticism of the Orthodox faith not being “One” is a bit hypocritical, as it neglects to acknowledge the fact the the Church after the schism no longer had the same character of “Oneness” that it had before the schism.

For the West to act like it was only the East who left or fell away from the “Oneness” while the West did nothing wrong is naive and lacks self reflection.

The Church was “One” before the schism, but since the schism the “Oneness” of BOTH the West and the East has been injured and impaired. Until both lungs of the Church can come together to breath as ONE, then we will continue to be a body that is weaker than it should be.

The “One” Church is not the East. The “One” Church is not the West. The “One” Church is the wounded body whose lungs are both suffering from various respiratory ailments and are not functioning in sync.

Again, I am a Western Catholic. I look towards the Chair of Peter with hope that the men who sit in that Chair will heal this body; that they will unify and heal our Church.

I also recognize the failings of the West as well, and that we cannot expect the East to just come crawling back in subservience without first stepping down from our position of arrogance and superiority to ask for mercy and forgiveness as well.

Division is a choice… on both parts. So is Union

 

[AveOTheotokos]

for the 3 hours?

Peter was missing for quite a bit longer than 3 hours…

 

[Vonsalza]

Division is a choice… on both parts. So is Union

I can’t express to you how happy I feel when I hear rumors of neighboring Orthodox and Catholic parishes who ignore the schism and offer communion anyway to members of the other faith.

If the rumors are true, then in some places the schism is ended, God be praised.

 

[ziapueblo]

The pope even suggested to the Orthodox, who BTW aren’t one, considering the papacy as it were in the 1st millennium, as the standard for consideration. No answer. Crickets. Meaning of course, the pope knew and the Orthodox knew, the papacy was always here.

@steve-b,

Even Rome has acknowledged that the bishop of Rome had a different relationship with the East in the first millennium. Yes, when asked to intervene on certain matters by Eastern bishops he did, but, he never exercised canonical authority over the Eastern Churches.

ZP

 

[AlNg]

Jesus is NOT behind division you speak of.

The Roman Pope has not accepted union with the Eastern Orthodox Church. In 1996 the Melkite Church put forward the Zogby initiative to unite the two churches but the Roman Church refused to agree to a union with the Orthodox church.

 

[Constantin]

You cannot be serious. Of course, we should pray for unity - the East-West schism may be one of the greatest feats of the enemy. Still unity must not come at the cost of truth. And intercommunion must not happen without unity in teaching and ecclesiology first. It has always been that way.

If tomorrow the bishop of Rome were to call himself Patriarch of the West and do away with papal infallibility
and universal jurisdiction, start saying the creed without the filioque, close the gap in terms of the immaculate conception, original sin, purgatory and a few others, the result would just be other severe schisms:
Most of the traditional communities would not follow him practically revising Vatican I.
On the other hand, there are groups within Orthodoxy which would definitely decline being in communion with the bishop of Rome one way or another and schisms would also happen on the Orthodox side.
Nobody can really want that.

I fear that nothing but extreme outside pressure (such as persecution) can bring about unity and event then, it is difficult and we should not pray for it to happen. Over the last decades, the Roman church has moved a considerable distance towards Protestantism, simultaneously moving the same distance away from Orthodoxy.

 

[AlNg]

If tomorrow the bishop of Rome were to call himself Patriarch of the West and do away with papal infallibility
and universal jurisdiction, start saying the creed without the filioque, close the gap in terms of the immaculate conception, original sin, purgatory and a few others, the result would just be other severe schisms:

That is your opinion with nothing to corroborate your claim. Already some Catholics say the creed without the filioque and I haven/t seen any schism being started because of that. The evidence concerning the omission of the filioque from the creed and no resulting schism proves that you are wrong.

 

[Vonsalza]

You cannot be serious.

I’m extremely serious.

It takes two to schism just like it takes two to dance.

Reunification will not happen on exclusively western terms. It will not happen on exclusively eastern terms.

the result would just be other severe schisms:

I don’t think so - already extant sects would experience population shifts. Over two thousand years the Roman Catholic Church has fully bracketed itself with alternatives for those who think it too far gone in either direction. But on the flip side, I think apostolic churches the world over would unify.

The net result would be a united Church that was larger than the Catholic Church prior. Most Orthodox Churches as well as most Anglican Communions would very likely reunite.

The desire for a united Church isn’t just felt by a few Roman Catholics.

Most of the traditional communities would not follow him practically revising Vatican I.

He wouldn’t have to. Ratzinger before he ascended the papacy eloquently put that a unified Church would be one where eastern communities wouldn’t be under direct papal authority. In effect, the pope would be the eastern primus while continuing to be the western supremus.

Over the last decades, the Roman church has moved a considerable distance towards Protestantism, simultaneously moving the same distance away from Orthodoxy.

Interesting opinion, but not one I share (particularly the last part).

 

[AveOTheotokos]

I think apostolic churches the world over would unify.

Yes, I find it confusing how the West can view itself as “One” when the other Apostolic Churches are not united with it. Likewise, I find it confusing how any in the East could view themselves as “One” without the successor of Peter standing among them.

For the West or the East to say:

“We are ‘One’… They all decided to leave our ‘Oneness’ so they are outside of the true Church… which is clearly wherever we are no matter what because we are never wrong…”

seems to come from a place of arrogance that prevents them from saying what they should be saying:

“We were ‘One’, but we have become fractured from one another. The wounding of our ‘Oneness’ has left us both stranded somewhere that falls short of the true Church we used to be and should be. We both have clearly fallen short of what was intended for us, so let us help each other to get back to where we are meant to be.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The pope even suggested to the Orthodox, who BTW aren’t one, considering the papacy as it were in the 1st millennium, as the standard for consideration. No answer. Crickets. Meaning of course, the pope knew and the Orthodox knew, the papacy was always here.

@steve-b,

Even Rome has acknowledged that the bishop of Rome had a different relationship with the East in the first millennium. Yes, when asked to intervene on certain matters by Eastern bishops he did, but, he never exercised canonical authority over the Eastern Churches.

ZP

From 2016 and the continuing dialogue between the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue
between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...stuni_doc_20160921_sinodality-primacy_en.html