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

[BusterMartin]

I am not looking for a Church without scandal. That would be impossible. I am, however, looking for the Church that has passed down the fullness of the faith simce the time of the apostles. In that, I have come to the point of researching the role and, more specifically the use of the role, of the Pope in the first thousand years of the Church.

 

[Genesis315]

A quick google finds

• Rome in Schism with Milan and Quileia for over a century after Contantinople II (and all three in Italy!)
• the Photon Schism
• Chalcedon, of course (never repaired)
  *the best west schism over St. John Chrystosom
  *Emperor Zeno’'s schism between Rome and Constantionple

and so forth. There were plenty, some healed quickly, and others longer.

In all of these cases, there was a delineated separation (for the Acacian schism, the delineation was within the Church of Constantinople; the monks stayed in communion with Rome and did not follow the deposed bishop). Churches weren’t in one end and out the other.

I don’t deny that there have been separations from the Church throughout time, in East and West. But the idea that a particular Church can be separated from some particular Churches, but not others, while still belonging to the one Church professed in the Creed is a novelty that destroys that very oneness.

 

[Vonsalza]

A.K.A. “These don’t count!”
C’mon now…

 

[Vonsalza]

Buster, the straight dope is that most Catholic theologians will argue that the papacy developed.

The rub is whether it had the right to do that, which is something that really can’t be proven. If you don’t think it should/can, then you’re probably Orthodox. If you think it can, then you’re probably Catholic.

Either path you choose, I wish you the best in walking it. They’re both noble.

 

[BusterMartin]

Just so you know, it’s not about “going east” at all. I could just go to my local Ruthenian Catholic Church to do that (which I do). It’s about educating myself as best as possible, and praying a whole lot, so that I can find comfort in being in what I feel is the fullness of the faith and most full version of the Church Christ intended when he founded the Church. If that is east, then so be it. If that is west, then so be it. I, personally, feel the true role of the Pope in the first 1000 years of the Church is probably the best indicator of where I should be. So, I’m just looking for help in finding out that history - because I’m stuck.

 

[joeybaggz]

Either path you choose, I wish you the best in walking it. They’re both noble.

Have to second what Vonsalza said. Find the best place where you can truly grow in your relation to Christ and His Father. Like a friend of mine said when we were “teaching” RCIA, if you are a Baptist, be the best Baptist you can be, rather than a lukewarm Catholic. But do make a choice. Don’t just be content to sit on the fence like so many do.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Does “all churches must agree with Rome” because of its “superior origin” come from the European Middle Ages?

No. It comes from 2nd century Lyons, from Irenaeus whom himself was from the East.

That the Roman Church is head of all the Churches, and has a privileged protection by God to maintain orthodoxy, is not just a later European belief:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.

-Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90

 

[Vonsalza]

As we’ve discussed before, Irenaeus also defined the Petrine function as a final arbiter.

Point being that Iranaeus’ “papacy” of the second century and the post-middle ages papacy of today are two different birds which makes your attempt at equivalence here a bit strained, to say the very least. Your view is far more a matter of faith than fact, to be honest

Christ did say that the Church will never fail. But obviously “the Church” and “the Roman seat” are not synonyms - especially as that seat didn’t exist at the time Christ issued his guarantee.

 

[BusterMartin]

I do believe in those miracles. I also believe in the Orthodox’s miraculous (wonder-working) icons: Hawaiian Iveron Icon, Montreal Iveron Icon, the Icon of Saint Nicholas, the Icon of Our Lady Softener of Evil Hearts, etc… There are many miracles on both sides. God’s favor rests with both Churches. However, one Church is likely closer to what Christ intended when He founded the Church. That is what I am trying to find…which one is that?

 

[CatholicSooner]

Many, if not most, feel that this is a better system than ultimately leaving it up to one guy sitting on a chair in the Vatican. More heads are better than one.

Probably why large companies for boards. Probably why the SCOTUS has 9 justices instead of 1.

It seems that you don’t have a great understanding of how the RCC works

 

[UltimateChikorita]

because orthos don’t have petrine authority

in the early church it was like this

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
Session 2
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm
After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe.
PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.
So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

 

[Vonsalza]

Many, if not most, feel that this is a better system than ultimately leaving it up to one guy sitting on a chair in the Vatican. More heads are better than one.

Probably why large companies for boards. Probably why the SCOTUS has 9 justices instead of 1.

It seems that you don’t have a great understanding of how the RCC works

You might need to be a bit more specific here as I’m unsure what you’re saying. Is it that my assessment “that Catholic authority ultimately lies in the pope” is somehow wrong?

If so, I counter with the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

[882] The Pope , Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Now, I appreciate that there are many voices within the Catholic Church. I do.

But if the pope wishes to ignore those voices, he’s free to do so. Ergo, Catholic authority ultimately lies in the pope.

 

[Agathon]

Christ did say that the Church will never fail. But obviously “the Church” and “the Roman seat” are not synonyms - especially as that seat didn’t exist at the time Christ issued his guarantee.

Neither did the Church exist, and history proved Christ right. What is the point?

 

[Vonsalza]

Hi Agathon,

The point is that any apostolic Church can lay decent claim to be The Church! and that in order for one to argue that the modern-day Catholic Church is “The Church” requires a concession for papal development since the papacy was, rather indubitably, a different institution during it’s first 1000 years compared to the next 1000 years, particularly after the rise of Islam.

Naturally, it also assumes that ancient references to “Rome” are synonymous with “the pope” which is highly debatable for the first few centuries after Christ because much of the influence of the Roman seat also arose from Paul being co-founder and being it being the imperial capital.

If one doesn’t concede to the necessity of these developments, it becomes more difficult to argue that the Catholc Church is “The Church”. Orthodoxy becomes more representative even as it has it’s own issues.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Literally every Christian concept in the 2nc century and as later expressed in the Middle Ages, whether in West or East, are of “two different birds.”

Do you see groups of 2nd century Christians worshiping in grand basilicas with an atmosphere of incense and Byzantine icon-covered walls? No.

Neither do you have the formulation of the Trinity.

Or the canon of the Bible.

The point is, you can’t so simply call the Catholic view a “Middle Ages European” invention. I think we have to be a little more responsible with the data than that

Again, see Maximus the Confessor. He comes a bit before Medieval Europe – and from the Byzantine East, too.

 

[Vonsalza]

Literally every Christian concept in the 2nc century and as later expressed in the Middle Ages, whether in West or East, are of “two different birds.”

Well… I think it’s great that you can admit to development. But the Deposit of Faith (if you’re Catholic)/Holy Tradition (if you’re Orthodox) can’t develop.

So this becomes a discussion about what can and what cannot develop and how we determine that.

Neither do you have the formulation of the Trinity.

Like here, for instance. The doctrine of the Trinity has always been part of the Deposit/Tradition, as the theory goes. It just wasn’t dogmatically defined by Ecumenical Council for a few centuries.

Or the canon of the Bible.

Sure. Catholics defined their cannon in the affirmative at nearly the same time and didn’t close it in the negative until after the Protestant Reformation was underway - unsurprising for an apostolic religion (as opposed to one centered on personal revelation like our Evangelical friends typically prefer).

The point is, you can’t so simply call the Catholic view a “Middle Ages European” invention.

Oh I’m not nearly so vague.

Papal supremacy and the associated papal powers would be the referenced innovation.

Before Islam swallowed the other Patriarchal Sees, if the Roman bishop said “All must believe X!”, Alexandria and Constantinople were apparently happy to tell the Roman bishop to kick rocks if they felt the decree unreasonable.

Now, if the Roman bishop says “All must believe X!” (assuming he performed the necessary steps to make it a valid “Simon Says”), the only correct reply for Catholic bishops worldwide is “Yes, Your Holiness”.

I think we have to be a little more responsible with the data than that

Emphatically, genuinely - I could not agree more.

Again, see Maximus the Confessor. He comes a bit before Medieval Europe – and from the Byzantine East, too.

Sure. Augustine is also pre-Middle Ages and considered a western Christian - maybe the father of them.

At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16. At the beginning of his ministry Augustine had written that the rock was Peter. However, very early on he later changed his position and throughout the remainder of his ministry he adopted the view that the rock was not Peter but Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ.

Being careful with the data, a present understanding of the papacy is extremely difficult to derive from ancient sources, which is why Catholic Theologians typically fall back to admitting to development at that point.

For ancient non-Catholics, some of that development that makes the modern papacy possible is heretical.

 

[Thom18]

Orthodox sacraments are valid, per the RCC.

For those considering, try the OCA - Orthodox Church in America. Its success will do much to break the reputation of American Orthodoxy being primarily composed of immigrant churches.

Of course, but one still isn’t permitted to leave the Church for Orthodoxy.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Orthodox sacraments are valid, per the RCC.

For those considering, try the OCA - Orthodox Church in America. Its success will do much to break the reputation of American Orthodoxy being primarily composed of immigrant churches.

Of course, but one still isn’t permitted to leave the Church for Orthodoxy.

Sure. But it does raise the issue that if Orthodox reconciliation is valid, what punishment do transferees (sp?) incur?

Honest question as their sin, if any, is forgiven, right?

 

[Thom18]

Sure. But it does raise the issue that if Orthodox reconciliation is valid, what punishment do transferees (sp?) incur?

Honest question -

None from the Church, but I’d imagine that there would be some ramifications at their particular judgement.

 

[KatyA]

I love that! I wasn’t so aware and can’t wait to research about the Orthodox Church’s miraculous icons. I think we agree that both Catholic and Orthodox teachings are correct. I personally believe the Roman Catholic Church is most favored because Jesus says to Peter immediately after granting the keys to the kingdom “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” I also appreciate that the Roman Catholic Church rules that Orthodox is essentially correct, whereas the Orthodox doesn’t grant the same respect (for lack of a better word at 2:30 am) to visiting Roman Catholic parishioners seeking communion. In that sense we can say that Orthodox is validated through the Catholic Church but not the other way around. So if not the other way around, why is Catholic still receiving these favors. It makes sense if Catholic then both would receive favors.