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

[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 !

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

One’s Partisanship and emotionalism aside, I provided this current ongoing dialogue in my last post Here

 

[ziapueblo]

Exactly!

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

in 2003 Melkite bishop emeritus, in a Q/A answered this way

• » How do the Pope’s encyclicals and teachings impact on the Melkites?

 

[BusterMartin]

I have. I have a good relationship with 3 of my local EO priests. I also have an ok relationship with my local EC priest, and a great relationship with my actual RC pastor. I attend services at all of them, and Mass every week. The communities are not an issue for me though. Even if I moved tomorrow, it would have little-to-no bearing on my decision.

 

[steve-b]

Exactly!

ZP

The dialogue on the subject in question, was covering 3 levels of the Church

1. local,
2. regional
3. universal

The universal level is the area we here, are usually discussing and pointing to.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

Unlike your arguments, unsubstantiated, I provide evidence properly referenced to support what I say

steve:

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

Vonsalza:

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

Unlike all others, who try and claim the name Catholic Church, with no proof or references properly referenced, Only one Church with Peter as the head, and those in union with Peter, traces her lineage back 2000 years to the beginning of the faith all properly referenced… Since Peter’s last see was Rome, that is the Apostolic see, the authoritative see looking forward in time for the entire Catholic Church.

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

Vonsalza:

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.

AND

The one with the keys,

“he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”.

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

Vonsalza:

Spare me your pro-papist interpretation. Truly.

My answer was from scripture Jn 21:17 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 only one He gives the keys to, and calls Rock) to feed and rule my sheep.

Jesus established Peter’s office. NOT me NOT you. AND Jesus intends it to continue. So it will.

Remember your answer to me when you see Jesus someday. I doubt you will say that to HIM

 

[dochawk]

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.

I wouldn’t even ever to “the other faith”, but prehaps “separated brethren”

I suspect that the end to schism comes bottom to top not top down.

Either that, or the various bishops of Antioch lock up the bishops of Rome and Constantinople in an old-style conclave . . . (Yeah, I know that Moscow would reject anything they came up with, but it’s such a wonderful image :crazy_face

 

[Vonsalza]

Unlike your arguments, unsubstantiated, I provide evidence properly referenced to support what I say

Be sure and let me know when my premises are wrong.

Your arguments from absence aren’t valid arguments. That’s covered in any intro to logic class when you cover the major fallacies.

Unlike all others, who try and claim the name Catholic Church…

I think you might be right among evangelicals, but every apostolic faith claims direct, visible lineage to the ancient church. It’s why they’re apostolic. And they all claim to be the “Catholic Church” just like the Roman Catholic Church makes an identical claim.

It’s just a silly argument, Steve.

The one with the keys,

You might be dismayed to know that many, maybe most outside Roman Catholicism, directly associate the power to “bind and loose” with the keys. And as Christ identifies all apostles in Matt 18 as having the power to bind and loose, then it’s a very small jump to say that the keys were given to all apostles with Peter being a mere representative of their order (Particularly as Paul seems to have done more lasting “binding and loosing” than Peter).

Moreover, when you come to realize that the disciples still experienced some confusion about the pecking order of their group right up until hours before Christ’s crucifixion (Master, who is greatest among us???) and also consider that the account of the supposed naming of Peter is present in only one of the synoptic gospels, the argument for Peter being a supreme pope (like we see post-middle ages) is tenuous. And “tenuous” is being very generous toward Roman Catholicism.

Remember your answer to me when you see Jesus someday. I doubt you will say that to HIM

Be sure, I don’t doubt your faith, Steve. Your conviction of the Catholic “truth” is not in question. The “truth” itself is.

I’ve seen your same 100%-give-my-life-positive conviction from Mormons, Muslims, Southern Baptists, and a zillion others. Their conviction absolutely equaled yours. Fiery eyes, strong words and all other derivatives of it always present in over-abundance.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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.

I wouldn’t even ever to “the other faith”, but prehaps “separated brethren”

I suspect that the end to schism comes bottom to top not top down.

Either that, or the various bishops of Antioch lock up the bishops of Rome and Constantinople in an old-style conclave . . . (Yeah, I know that Moscow would reject anything they came up with, but it’s such a wonderful image :crazy_face

I think old-style conclaves should be the norm in church council and government.

List of things that must be decided and those that make the decision locked in a room, ham sandwiches and port-a-pottys are the only things allowed in-and-out until consensus is reached.

If it takes a month or a year, so be it.

And of course, “Rome #3” would likely renege the minute it concluded.

 

[dochawk]

List of things that must be decided and those that make the decision locked in a room, ham sandwiches and port-a-pottys are the only things allowed in-and-out until consensus is reached.

Oh, you’re soft . . . crazy_face:)

When the people of Rome got fed up and locked up (con clave) the cardinals until they got down to business, all they sent in was bread, water, and wine (and I don’t know if it was enough wine for meals, or just Mass).

ISTR that the roof leaked too.

Ham and condiments, indeed. Harumph.

hawk

 

[Vonsalza]

I laughed out loud. “Soft”. Hahaha

 

[Roguish]

I support true ecumenism
not false ecumenism

The page you linked is extremely good. It has one heck of a powerful list of “Errors Every Catholic Should Know and Avoid”. There is no explicit mention of ecumenism on it though. Did you really intend to link this? Either way, the article is of exceptional quality. Here is one profound statement it makes.

[…] the proper relationship of a Catholic to the world is to have the world on trial. […] the world is to be on trial based on the light of the Gospel.

Amen.

P.S. I just realized I’m totally off-topic here. Sorry, OP!

 

[Roguish]

@dochawk @Vonsalza @steve-b

I think it’s unfortunate that this thread, which according to its title should be about reasons for switching (or not) from RC to EO, has devolved into the usual discussion about the East-West schism. For me the question of papal supremacy isn’t particularly interesting. It is a governance issue, which is only very indirectly related to theological, liturgical, and doctrinal matters. Furthermore I do not believe an effective defense of the papacy is possible based purely on scriptural or historical considerations. I’m not saying a defense of it isn’t possible; it might be. But the RC’s use of scripture and history to defend the papacy is really rather biased, so it can’t possibly be convincing to anyone who isn’t RC.

But enough of that. What I personally find much more interesting when considering whether to stick with RC or switch to some form of Orthodoxy, is that while the EO Church generally takes a more traditional, conservative approach to things, at the same time it has been the RC Church that has been much more vocal in speaking out explicitly against modernist developments. I am thinking mostly of the late 19th century and early 20th century, when the RC Church was ferociously anti-modernist. As far as I know the EO Church ever spoke out against modernism in a way that was anywhere similar to what the RC popes of that era voiced.

This is strange, isn’t it? One would expect that the more traditional, conservative variety of Christianity would be the one to speak out most strongly against modernism. But between the RCC and EOC, this hasn’t been the case. The RCC spoke out strongest against modernism, not the EOC. And what’s stranger still is that now the RCC herself seems much more infected with modernism than the EOC. It’s as if the cost that the RCC has had to pay for attempting to address the evils of modernism is that She herself has become infected with that very modernism.

But in a subtle way it makes sense: one can only powerfully condemn what one understands. But when one understands an evil thing thoroughly, this demonstrates that one has in a way already been “infected” by it. For me this idea is further born out by the act that other religions that I know well do not understand modernism at all. Their theologians, clergy, and laity are just too traditional at heart to even “get” modern thinking and the terrible evils that are its source and consequences – and thus those traditional religions cannot and do not speak out against it.

 

[ziapueblo]

It is a governance issue, which is only very indirectly related to theological, liturgical, and doctrinal matters.

I have a friend who speaks of this, Catholic to Orthodox or vis versa, as only changing upper management

I don’t believe that belief in the Pope of Rome as having supreme jurisdiction over the churches has anything to do with ones salvation. I believe the Catholic Church believes the same when you read Vatican II documents and other ecumenical documents on the dialogue between the RCC and the OC. As a Byzantine Catholic I believe in communion with the bishop of Rome as it was in the first millennium but I could easily do orthodox as well.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

Unlike your arguments, unsubstantiated, I provide evidence properly referenced to support what I say

steve-b:

Unlike all others, who try and claim the name Catholic Church…

Vonsalza:

every apostolic faith claims direct, visible lineage to the ancient church. It’s why they’re apostolic. And they all claim to be the “Catholic Church” just like the Roman Catholic Church makes an identical claim.

steve-b:

Melkite Bp Elya emeritus says differently. From: » Are we Orthodox united with Rome?

"being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic. To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”

According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)"

steve-b:

The one with the keys,

Vonsalza:

You might be dismayed to know that many, maybe most outside Roman Catholicism, directly associate the power to “bind and loose” with the keys. And as Christ identifies all apostles in Matt 18 as having the power to bind and loose, then it’s a very small jump to say that the keys were given to all apostles with Peter being a mere representative of their order (Particularly as Paul seems to have done more lasting “binding and loosing” than Peter).

Under the king are many stewards. However there is always a chief steward under the king, (the one with the keys) over all the other stewards.

ANYBODY can see, THAT’S how Jesus set up His kingdom.

Vonsalza:

Moreover, when you come to realize that the disciples still experienced some confusion about the pecking order of their group right up until hours before Christ’s crucifixion (Master, who is greatest among us???) and also consider that the account of the supposed naming of Peter is present in only one of the synoptic gospels, the argument for Peter being a supreme pope (like we see post-middle ages) is tenuous. And “tenuous” is being very generous toward Roman Catholicism.

Your argument isn’t any different than their argument, the one Jesus already settled.

 

[Learner1969]

Is it possible to think that both churches are the true church but going through temporary separation?

 

[ziapueblo]

Vatican II refers to the Orthodox churches as “true Churches.” I would say yes! Of course, the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not in full communion, but, the Catholic Church recognizes that we are at least in an imperfect communion.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I support true ecumenism
not false ecumenism

The page you linked is extremely good. It has one heck of a powerful list of “Errors Every Catholic Should Know and Avoid”. There is no explicit mention of ecumenism on it though.

Not being an enabler or spreading false information, is necessary for ecumenism

Roguish:

Did you really intend to link this? Either way, the article is of exceptional quality.

It was intended

Roguish:

Here is one profound statement it makes.

[…] the proper relationship of a Catholic to the world is to have the world on trial. […] the world is to be on trial based on the light of the Gospel.

Amen.

P.S. I just realized I’m totally off-topic here. Sorry, OP!

Isn’t ecumenism a form of putting the world on trial?

 

[BusterMartin]

Thanks for the apology, but I am enjoying the sidebar reading! Carry on…

 

[Roguish]

Isn’t ecumenism a form of putting the world on trial?

How is that? As I see it, ecumenism, as the term is commonly understood, is a very worldly effort. It has little do with truth, and a lot with men compromising in order to “get along”.