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

[steve-b]

steve-b:

A defense of the Roman papacy may be possible, but Matthew 16:18 is not the way to go.

Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

No doubt that St. Peter is always singled out as head of the apostles and often speaks on their behalf. This is why I am Byzantine Catholic, I believe in the historical reasons for being in communion with Rome (and attend a very Orthodox parish that is in communion with Rome), but, this is not evidence of having supremacy over the entire Church. A special mission was given to him, yes, as can be witnessed in the writings of the early Church Fathers and historical evidence that appeals where made to the bishop of Rome from the East.

Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I will give, not I give you now. It is not until Matthew 18:18, when speaking to them all, that Jesus does what he said he will do, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Again, Rome herself acknowledges that the Pope of Rome did not have canonical jurisdiction over the East.

ZP

Consider :
50 biblical indications of Peter’s primacy http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/50-biblical-indications-of-petrine-primacy-and-the-papacy

As an aside,

One could ask, What part of the Church did Jesus say, Peter is not pope over?

 

[ChristMyLife]

@vonsalza would you agree that the East-West schism basically began in the 9th century, reached its zenith in the middle of the 11th century, and was finally “ratified” in the 13th century after the Massacre of the Latins then the sack of Constantinople?

 

[Vonsalza]

@vonsalza would you agree that the East-West schism basically began in the 9th century, reached its zenith in the middle of the 11th century, and was finally ratified in the 13th century after the Massacre of the Latins then the sack of Constantinople?

Sounds pretty fair, although I’d push the start back to more like the 6th. Many argue that Latin-Greek tension that accommodated the schism was in place before the Church even existed.

But be sure, the sack of Constantinople was much more important than the mutual excommunications.

 

[ziapueblo]

I don’t dismiss St. Peter’s primacy at all. I acknowledge it! I just don’t believe that primacy equals supremacy.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

Again, Rome herself acknowledges that the Pope of Rome did not have canonical jurisdiction over the East.

ZP

As a suggestion

Here is the Eastern Code of Canon Law CCEO 1990 Code of Canons of Oriental churches

Do a word search on "Pontiff".

Pontiff shows up 120 times. See how Pontiff is handled in the Eastern Code of Canon Law

While you’re searching, do a search on the word supreme

 

[ChristMyLife]

But be sure, the sack of Constantinople was much more important than the mutual excommunications.

Definitely.

I think both the Orthodox and Catholics who date the schism strictly to 1054 - as if all was hunky doory in 1053, then the disaster of 1054, then 1055 total schism are doing a disservice to the Church, to history, to themselves and to God.

The reality is much more nuanced than that, like me and you have agreed upon.

 

[steve-b]

Vonsalza:

But be sure, the sack of Constantinople was much more important than the mutual excommunications.

Definitely.

I think both the Orthodox and Catholics who date the schism strictly to 1054 - as if all was hunky doory in 1053, then the disaster of 1054, then 1055 total schism are doing a disservice to the Church, to history, to themselves and to God.

The reality is much more nuanced than that, like me and you have agreed upon.

Speaking of dates

As you previously eluded to

The massacre that the Orthodox seem to completely ignore. Have we ever heard from any of them about this?
Massacre of Latins in Constantinople by the Byzantines (Orthodox) 1182

That’s 22 yrs before the sacking of Constantinople, which the Orthodox don’t let anybody forget

 

[steve-b]

I don’t dismiss St. Peter’s primacy at all. I acknowledge it! I just don’t believe that primacy equals supremacy.

ZP

Consider this Here

 

[ChristMyLife]

That’s 22 yrs before the sacking of Constantinople, which the Orthodox don’t let anybody forget

And actually the sack of Constantinople was basically direct retaliation for the massacre of the Latins.

I am sure history-conscious Orthodox have denounced and apologized for the the massacre,and I’m inclined to think Patriarch Athenagoras probably apologized for it, but I’m not certain.

And yes, the internet hyperdox LOVE the sack of Constantinople by those evil rabid heretical schismatic Latins…

But @vonsalza is not an internet hyperdox… He’s a real Orthodox Christian. That’s why yoi don’t see nonsense like that coming from him - only that he rejects the modern Papacy, which is something one either accepts or rejects on faith. So I don’t fault people for not accepting dogmas or doctrines which require a certain faith to accept.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That’s 22 yrs before the sacking of Constantinople, which the Orthodox don’t let anybody forget

And actually the sack of Constantinople was basically direct retaliation for the massacre of the Latins.

I am sure history-conscious Orthodox have denounced and apologized for the the massacre,and I’m inclined to think Patriarch Athenagoras probably apologized for it, but I’m not certain.

And yes, the internet hyperdox LOVE the sack of Constantinople by those evil rabid heretical schismatic Latins…

Actually I haven’t seen any apologies by the Orthodox. If one exists and I hope it does exist, I’d like to see the evidence.

Then JPII , apologized to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I for sacking Constantinople , in 1204 , by Catholic Crusaders. Bartholomew accepts the apology News Features | Catholic Culture

However,

Where was Bartholomew’s apology in return for 22 years earlier in 1182, in Constantinople for Byzantine Massacre of Latins in Constantinople 1182

 

[ziapueblo]

Two things about the Eastern Catholic Codes of Canon Law. First, yes they do say we are under direct authority of the Pope. Second, no Eastern Catholic Patriarch, Bishop or priest takes that seriously. The Eastern Catholic Codes of Canon Law are primarily a Latin document. The mentality of Eastern Catholics is the canons say what they say but as long as Rome doesnt interfere with us being who we are then there is no issue. Its definitely not a perfect communion.

ZP

 

[steve-b]

Two things about the Eastern Catholic Codes of Canon Law. First, yes they do say we are under direct authority of the Pope. Second, no Eastern Catholic Patriarch, Bishop or priest takes that seriously. The Eastern Catholic Codes of Canon Law are primarily a Latin document. The mentality of Eastern Catholics is the canons say what they say but as long as Rome doesnt interfere with us being who we are then there is no issue. Its definitely not a perfect communion.

ZP

From Melkite Bishop John Elya emeritus,

As a Melkite Greek Catholic, it’s not uncommon to witness many traits of false ecumenism within our church. You may have come across many Melkites in whom are very pro – Eastern Orthodox to the point that they begin to reject Catholic doctrine and dogma: something in which is absolutely grave matter considering that Catholics are bound to accept everything the Church teaches.
The rejection of Catholic doctrine and dogma comes from false ecumenism in order to please those outside the Church. However, the Eastern Catholic code of canon law opposes this…
[snip for space]

First claim: We are the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome!”
Objection: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however 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) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

He had some great Q/A responses

 

[Vonsalza]

And yes, the internet hyperdox LOVE the sack of Constantinople by those evil rabid heretical schismatic Latins…

It’s actually a pretty decent bit of history to read up on, the massacre.

The Empire was on the wane and Genoese and Venetian influences (and a few others) were aggressively expanding in the immediate area around the Aegean and Black seas. Both having a strong presence in the city, they didn’t make very good bed fellows. Had this nasty habit of carrying their conflicts into the city itself. Kept the Constantinopolitan fire brigades in steady work, to the chagrin of the rest of the city.

By the time Andronikos’s coup occurred, the animus toward Latins had been building for years - particularly as they dominated the trade and financial institutions of the city due to the previous empress being rather Latin-friendly. When the emperor died and the throne was inherited by a child, the writing on the wall was fairly obvious and most of the Latins wealthy enough to leave did so shortly before or during the riots. Some authors describe those that left as “most”. Take it or leave it.

As is usual in history, when the Greek mob began liquidating the city of Latins, poor and working class people that probably had little to nothing to do with the causal factors constituted most of the members of the corpse heaps. The dead are usually numbered in the thousands by impartial sources.

Trade resumed fairly quickly afterwards, but there was evidence of residual tension in the Latin world. A few crusader kings threatened to attack the city.

 

[Roguish]

You were asking him for his references on the history (1st time) Catholic Church appears Here …correct?

I asked him, Steve, not you. Furthermore, I asked when “Greek Catholic” is mentioned for the first time, not “Catholic” in general. You write crafty answers to questions that weren’t asked.

Looked to me like you weren’t buying his conflicting answer … correct?

I gave no indication of having a problem with his answer, so you’re being presumptuous.

You also seem to write (to me) from the assumption that you need to talk me through early Church history and other basics. (“Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop.” Oh really?) You don’t need to do that, Steve. It’s off-putting. You’re not the only one who knows a thing or two.

Anyway, my stance on the whole papal supremacy “issue” is that appeal to scripture and other docs is not the way to go, and I’ve already given two reasons for that (which I won’t repeat). If the papacy is to be defended, it must be defended on its intrinsic merits, and that I have not seen you do – not in this thread anyway.

50 biblical indications of Peter’s primacy http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/50-biblical-indications-of-petrine-primacy-and-the-papacy

50 is a lot! Fortunately the linked page only has 5. A typo? (EDIT: I get it now. It’s 5 reasons backed by 10 bible references each. Mathematics!)

Anyway, it’s the usual highly selective selection and interpretation of verses, mostly from Acts (of course). What is overlooked is that most of the NT corpus does not mention Peter. None of the Pauline epistles give any indication that the Christian communities addressed by Paul were to report to Peter, submit to him, keep in touch with him, or anything of the sort.

 

[Roguish]

[…] I’d push the start back to more like the 6th. Many argue that Latin-Greek tension that accommodated the schism was in place before the Church even existed.

That’s exactly the feeling I have. I suspect that the historical event of the schism wasn’t something that split a Church that had been unified up to then. Rather, it “confirmed” a division that had been there for a very long time already, possibly since the very beginning.

This also explains why, no matter how far back you go, you can’t find a common style in the artwork, for example. There never was any cross-over, not just before 1054, but not before it either.

 

[steve-b]

I asked him, Steve, not you.

Let’s not forget, This IS an open forum.

AND

Apparently you don’t seem to follow your own rules. See below.

Roguish:

Furthermore, I asked when “Greek Catholic” is mentioned for the first time, not “Catholic” in general. You write crafty answers to questions that weren’t asked.

It was a crafty question. Are you lecturing me on crafty?

Roguish:

You seem to write (to me) from the assumption that you need to talk me through early Church history and other basics. (“Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop.” Oh really?)

Okay, you already knew that. My bad.

Roguish:

Anyway, my stance on the whole papal supremacy “issue” is that appeal to scripture and other docs is not the way to go, and I’ve already given two reasons for that (which I won’t repeat).

You and I have had few discussions. So I’m not familiar with your particular restrictions

Roguish:

If the papacy is to be defended, it must be defended on its intrinsic merits,

Re: an intrinsic argument

• A King making one man His chief steward,
• noted by, the King giving His keys to His kingdom to His named chief steward,
• His steward is given orders and authority to feed and rule those in His kingdom,
• that has HUGE intrinsic value necessary to meet the argument.

50 biblical indications of Peter’s primacy http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/50-biblical-indications-of-petrine-primacy-and-the-papacy

Roguish:

50 is a lot! Fortunately the linked page only has 5. A typo? (EDIT: I get it now. It’s 5 reasons backed by 10 bible references each. Mathematics!)

That point was NOT to you. Remember your restrictions? I guess you don’t follow your own rules. BTW, I personally don’t have such rules. After all this is a forum open to millions of people.

That said, As to the point of the article, It said 50 biblical references. The article provided those references.

Roguish:

What is overlooked is that most of the NT corpus does not mention Peter.

From the same author of that article above

1. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Roguish:

None of the Pauline epistles give any indication that the Christian communities addressed by Paul were to report to Peter, submit to him, keep in touch with him, or anything of the sort.

writings from the “Christian communities”, tell a different story. That’s why I ALSO give Early Church Fathers.

 

[Roguish]

Roguish:

If the papacy is to be defended, it must be defended on its intrinsic merits,

Re: an intrinsic argument

• A King making one man His chief steward,
• noted by, the King giving His keys to His kingdom to His named chief steward,
• His steward is given orders and authority to feed and rule those in His kingdom,
• that has HUGE intrinsic value necessary to meet the argument.

This a scriptural argument with the relevant NT verses paraphrased by you. It’s the same argument you make over and over again. We have read and understood it. We just don’t agree with it.

By intrinsic argument I mean a defense of the papacy in terms of why it is good/necessary to have a single visible head of the Church now. No bible quotes. No Church Fathers. No appeal to history. A defense of the papacy based on how it is good for the Church now.

(By comparison: when faced with the question of whether to drive on the left side, right side, or in the middle of the road, a scriptural argument would be "right because it’s written in the 1905 Code of Traffic Law that that’s the way to do it. A historic argument would be “We’ve always driven on the left, so it’s only appropriate to keep on doing that.” An intrinsic argument would be: “We should drive in the middle because traction is best in the middle of the road!”)

Anyway, I’m not asking you to address the question. I’m just explaining to you what I mean by intrinsic argument.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Roguish:

If the papacy is to be defended, it must be defended on its intrinsic merits,

Re: an intrinsic argument

• A King making one man His chief steward,
• noted by, the King giving His keys to His kingdom to His named chief steward,
• His steward is given orders and authority to feed and rule those in His kingdom,
• that has HUGE intrinsic value necessary to meet the argument.

This a scriptural argument with the relevant NT verses paraphrased by you. It’s the same argument you make over and over again. We have read and understood it. We just don’t agree with it.

That argument is also the definition of an intrinsic argument

Roguish:

By intrinsic argument I mean a defense of the papacy in terms of why it is good/necessary to have a single visible head of the Church now. No bible quotes. No Church Fathers. No appeal to history. A defense of the papacy based on how it is good for the Church now.

The papacy is an office in the Church. Therefore, bible quotes, Church Fathers, and Church history, are intrinsic to its defense

Roguish:

(By comparison: when faced with the question of whether to drive on the left side, right side, or in the middle of the road, a scriptural argument would be "right because it’s written in the 1905 Code of Traffic Law that that’s the way to do it. A historic argument would be "We’ve always driven on the left, so it’s only appropriate to keep on doing that."An intrinsic argument would be: “We should drive in the middle because traction is best in the middle of the road!”)

Anyway, I’m not asking you to address the question. I’m just explaining to you what I mean by intrinsic argument.

Intrinsic is rational but it is also predicated as you mention, on authority, as in law.

THAT was the reason I gave the story of Job, where Job was arguing with God and God’s response to Job was quite telling. Job 38:1-41 RSVCE - The LORD Answers Job - Then the LORD - Bible Gateway

When God started out by saying to Job

"“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me.

It’s pretty clear things aren’y going to go well in Job’s corner.

 

[Roguish]

OK Steve, I withdraw the adjective “intrinsic”. This isn’t supposed to be a discussion about what “intrinsic” means exactly. Forget I ever said it.

My question is: Can the papacy be defended NOW, based on the merits it has NOW, without appeal to scripture or history.

If you don’t want to defend it that way, that’s fine. I’m just saying that’s the only defense that I think is worthwile.

 

[steve-b]

OK Steve, I withdraw the adjective “intrinsic”. This isn’t supposed to be a discussion about what “intrinsic” means exactly. Forget I ever said it.

My question is: Can the papacy be defended NOW, based on the merits it has NOW, without appeal to scripture or history.

If you don’t want to defend it that way, that’s fine. I’m just saying that’s the only defense that I think is worthwile.

The papacy is a Church office. It was NOT an invented office by any apostle. Jesus established Peter’s office and it is to continue. And when an apostle died their office (in that case bishop) was to continue. THAT’S why Peter called for Judas bishopric to be filled after Judas died. The same goes for the office Peter holds when he died. He had successors.