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

[ziapueblo]

Here are a few more documents. This was put together in 1993 by the JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH and it is known as the Balamand Document. This document deals with such issues such as “no salvation outside the Church” which this document states that salvation is found within the Orthodox communion, the role of the Eastern Catholic Churches, that there is to be no proselytization between the two Churches and more.

These next two documents, found on the USCCB webpage, are produced by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation: Apostolicity as God’s Gift in the Life of the Church and An Agreed Statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church. The Chieti Document that I linked earlier was put together in 2016. These two documents are from much earlier, 1986 and 1989 I believe, so there may be issues that have been discussed and reconciled (it’s been a while since I read them).

I hope these help. Are there any Byzantine Catholic Churches in your area? What Orthodox Churches are in your area?

ZP

 

[Vonsalza]

That said, remarkably, they do point to Roman primacy.

As someone pursuing Orthodoxy, I’d agree fully.

As Irenaeus stated, it is the church founded by “the Glorious Apostles Peter and Paul”. It was at the political and logistical heart of the empire, so it naturally replaced Jerusalem as the head Church of its day.

If you lived in a coastal city, there might have been a boat that occasionally went to the ports that served Jerusalem. But there was always a boat headed toward Rome.

Rome’s supremacy would be expected to be latent in this period, no?

Supremacy? No. And that’s kind of the question he’s asking.

But please note that if you can settle those three points as I stated above…

I hate, hate, HATE it when someone thinks they have the right to frame an issue for someone else.

Please get out of that intellectually lazy and dishonest habit. He doesn’t have to approach the issue like you do. Not now, not ever.

 

[BusterMartin]

Thank you for the links! I’ll read them…it just might take time. As for Churches in my area, I have a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church 10 minutes away. I go there semi-regularly…no stranger to it. I also have an OCA parish across the road from the Byz. CC. I go there semi-regularly for Vespers and the occasional DL. Aside from those, there’s another OCA parish about 25 minutes away (I only go once a while), a Greek Orthodox Cathedral about 20 minutes away (rarely attend), and a Serbian Orthodox Church about 5 minutes away (rarely attend). Beyond that, the Latin-Rite CC parishes abound, including a FSSP parish. We are truly blessed in my area by all of these apostolic Churches.

 

[steve-b]

My main concern is focused around Papal Supremacy. First, the Catholic Church views the Pope’s power as “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely" (Canon 331). And it also states that, “no appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff” (Canon 333 section 3).

Can you think back in scripture where that is supported?

What is the purpose of the keys, and the person who holds them?

Isaiah 22:

• indicates the power behind the keys given by the king , as in giving authority to one he elects to exercise authority over his kingdom.
• the keys go to one person NOT everybody.
• the keys come from the King to His prime minister.

Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom, to Peter. What he opens and shuts with those keys , no one can open or shut…according to Jesus Not me.

THAT is the definition of supremacy. “The state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status”

BusterMartin:

That, to my understanding and put very simply, means the Pope is technically free to do what he wants, when he wants, and no one can overrule him.

That’s a mischaracterization, that is not true and never has been true.

BusterMartin:

I know plenty of arguments to say that it wasn’t how the early Church viewed the Bishop of Rome, but good, solid arguments saying that was how the Church viewed the Bishop of Rome (pro-Catholic view here) is what I’m hoping to see here.

Thoughts? Thanks for all and any help!!

As a suggestion

Always ask the one posing the point,

If you have an example properly referenced, to support a mischatacterization, please show it?

Otherwise, don’t even consider a mischaracterization

 

[Vonsalza]

Can you think back in scripture where that is supported?

What is the purpose of the keys, and the person who holds them?

Isaiah 22 is actually one of the passages of scripture better known by a few Orthodox apologists.

Here we read about haughty and prideful Shebna being stripped of his royal authority with the “key” being passed to the righteous and enduring Eliakim.

I wonder what the Orthodox think that mirrors…

And let’s not forget, 5 verses or so after Christ supposedly gives the keys to Peter alone He then refers to Peter as a prideful “Satan”.

Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom, to Peter. What he opens and shuts with those keys , no one can open or shut…according to Jesus Not me.

Actually, Jesus placed his eternal seal on the Church, not the Petrine seat, and certainly not the third Petrine seat in Rome which wouldn’t exist for years at that point.

Steve’s interpretation of scripture is a fine one. But it’s just that - an interpretation. And it’s one advocated by a Christian sect that has MUCH to gain by the wide-spread acceptance of their specific interpretation.

That’s a mischaracterization, that is not true and never has been true.

Except that the Catechism clearly says that the pope can practice his supremacy… “unhindered”, I think is the word. If he has a “check”, to his power, it’s certainly not temporal (of this earth).

As a suggestion

Always ask the one posing the point,

That’s what he’s doing. Instead of just assuming Roman Catholic papal supremacy, he wants you guys to prove it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Supremacy? No. And that’s kind of the question he’s asking.

Actually, yes.

Catholics may say the Pope has supremacy. Orthodox may say he doesn’t.

But if he in fact does, we should well expect it to be latent in the earliest Church. For the reasons I gave.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Why does the Church of Rome have authority to intervene in the affairs of the Church of Corinth, as expressed in the 1st century Letter to the Corinthians?

Is this not an example of the Church with Primacy exercising its authority over another autonomous Church? Why should the Corinthians have to listen to the orders of the letter and comply with the legates sent from Rome?

 

[Vonsalza]

Given how the early pasha controversy panned out, “primacy” is the strongest word I’d readily attach to the early Roman seat.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s no different from what every Orthodox bishop does today when another church is perceived to be in error.

“Correct course or we’ll break communion with you.”

 

[BusterMartin]

Good point - I knew there was an early controversy, but I had to do some quick reading-up on that as it relates to the Pope and his position vs. the outcome.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Can you think back in scripture where that is supported?

What is the purpose of the keys, and the person who holds them?

Isaiah 22 is actually one of the passages of scripture better known by a few Orthodox apologists.

Here we read about haughty and prideful Shebna being stripped of his royal authority with the “key” being passed to the righteous and enduring Eliakim.

I wonder what the Orthodox think that mirrors…

Given the times Jesus gives the keys to Peter, it’s the King setting up a new covenant, and a new kingdom, a new hierarchy, on Peter as chief steward.

We don’t see The Orthodox
show up for hundreds of years.

Vonsalza:

And let’s not forget, 5 verses or so after Christ supposedly gives the keys to Peter alone He then refers to Peter as a prideful “Satan”.

Let’s not over react

Peter was there with the apostles, but so was Satan. As soon as Satan saw who Jesus was giving the keys to, Satan attacked Peter. Jesus didn’t tell the apostles this until the Last Supper, when Jesus said to THEN, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but who does Jesus pray especially for? Peter… .that HIS faith would NOT fail. And after Satan sifted Peter, it is Peter to strengthen the apostles after THEY have been sifted [Lk 22]. Jesus is fully behind Peter as the greatest AMONG THE Apostles, and the leader of Our Lord’s Church.

As for Mt 16, Peter thought he was defending Jesus. Jesus hadn’t explained everything yet to Peter and the apostles , nor that Satan was allowed to sift the apostles. That’s NOT Peter’s fault.

Besides, Jesus didn’t change a thing regarding Peter’s primacy. Jesus validated it.

steve-b:

Jesus gave the keys of His kingdom, to Peter. What he opens and shuts with those keys , no one can open or shut…according to Jesus Not me.

Vonsalza:

Actually, Jesus placed his eternal seal on the Church, not the Petrine seat, and certainly not the third Petrine seat in Rome which wouldn’t exist for years at that point.

Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter. And gave Peter the keys. Meaning Peter is the human leader of Our Lord’s kingdom on earth…

to be continued

 

[steve-b]

continued

Vonsalza:

Except that the Catechism clearly says that the pope can practice his supremacy… “unhindered”, I think is the word. If he has a “check”, to his power, it’s certainly not temporal (of this earth).

Context, Context, Context my friend.

The context is NOT anything and everything one can imagine.

The context is

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

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

• footnote 403 =LG 22; cf. CD 2,9.http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

to be continued due to space limits

 

[steve-b]

to be continued due to space limits

Finally, your point has been answered., Phew!

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first “by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,” and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

 

[Vonsalza]

We don’t see The Orthodox show up for hundreds of years.

To the contrary, we don’t see contemporary Catholicism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Secular historians with no spiritual “dog in the fight” often speculate as to whether the papacy as we understand it even existed in the early church until Leo.

Let’s not over react

No, but let’s also avoid spin.

Christ’s words in full are "But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” (NASB)

Sounds like a perfect microcosm of the steady evolution of the papacy from an early primacy to a post-middle ages supremacy that you presently defend as continuous throughout the entire history of the church.

Besides, Jesus didn’t change a thing regarding Peter’s primacy. Jesus validated it.

By slapping him down with arguably the greatest insult the savior could wield while in front of the others?

Interesting view.

Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter.

Augustine argues that it was Peter’s faith that the savior built the church on. But I understand why you need to be granted this essential point in order to deduce the Catholic view.

Context, Context, Context my friend.

No, “Spin, spin, spin my friend”.

Re-read CCC 880-887. Everyone understands collegiality. Everyone also understands that the pope is under no restriction from it.

The pope is a monarch and assuming he’s performed the needed steps to make it an official “Simon Says”, your only reply as a good Catholic is “yes, your holiness” to whatever issues forth from his mouth.

Squirm against it all you wish.

The pope’s primary restriction now isn’t collegiality. It’s that past perceived papal abuses have produced groups that are waiting to catch defecting Catholics should he say something too conservative or too liberal.

He isn’t preserved by his fellow bishops so much as he’s fully bracketed by alternatives.

 

[Diaconia]

His All Holiness, Bartholomew, is the successor to Andrew, Peter’s brother. Not the success of Peter - that is, and always has been, the bishop of Rome.

Of course, Peter was the bishop of Antioch first, and then to Rome later on.

When I met with Bartholomew, in 2013, it was during the planning stages of Bartholomew and Francis going to the Holy Land together in 2014 to pray and commemorate the 50th anniversary of Athenagoras and Paul VI meeting in Jerusalem as sister Churches seeking unity.

It was a moving and holy encounter to see the direct successors to brothers Andrew and Peter, embracing and praying in the Holy City for unity and fraternity.

Let us take their good example in charity when responding to each other.

The division of the Church into East and West hurts the unity of the mystical Body of Christ.

I remain a sinner,
Deacon Christopher

PS: The Patriarchate in historic Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) refers to itself as “New Rome,” and to the city in Italy as “Old Rome.”

 

[Catholicwife32]

I’m exploring Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I can’t really say that I’m converting, but I’m curious enough to understand better what they believe.

The similarities.
So both the Catholic Church and Orthodox churches believe that the primary infallibility within the Church is rooted in the Ecumenical Counsels. In Catholicism, not all doctrines are infallible. There are varying levels of authority. Dogma is the highest levels. But, for instance, Catholics are permitted to believe in Marian apparitions like Fatima, but we are not required to. When the Church gives its permission to believe in such apparition, she is merely stating that she finds nothing being taught contrary to the Faith.

Because there are varying levels of authority in her teaching, doctrine does develop over time. While this does scandalize those who cling to a conservative view of religion–where doctrine must be preserved like an ancient artifact to prevent decay, the Catholic Church views the Faith as like a seed. So as time goes on, we grow in our understanding of Divine Revelation. Discerning between legitimate doctrinal develop and heresy is a matter of arguing from established and more authoritative doctrines. Ultimately, controversies and disputes over these develops result in ecumenical councils.

Papal infallibility did not become a Catholic dogma until the first Vatican Council. There is evidence before this period that the belief existed, but it had not reached the level of dogma until Vatican I. Also, in terms of what infallible statements the Pope has ever made, there are only two dogmas we considered definitively declared by the Pope through this authority. There are speculations on other ones that existed before, but there are disagreements about them among theologians. Moreover, the Popes since Pope Pius IX have been reluctant to use the authority. This may be due to a desire to end the schism between the east and the west. Afterall, we do believe that the Orthodox bishops have apostolic succession. They simply disagree about the details of the Pope’s primacy and this keeps us in schism.

 

[NJC89]

Read this article, it’s part of a Master’s Thesis on the role of the Bishop of Rome in the first 8 Ecumenical Councils, by an Orthodox Christian. Highly instructive!

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Churches in the First Millenium

Were the Western Orthodox Fathers ignored in the committee’s search for a common understanding of the role of the Pope in the First Millenium?

www.aoiusa.org

 

[BusterMartin]

I haven’t seen this before. I will definitely read it as soon as time allows. Thank you so much!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

We don’t see The Orthodox show up for hundreds of years.

To the contrary, we don’t see contemporary Catholicism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

The Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with him has been there from the beginning.

Vonsalza:

Secular historians with no spiritual “dog in the fight” often speculate as to whether the papacy as we understand it even existed in the early church until Leo.

Our beliefs aren’t based on speculation.

Vonsalza:

Christ’s words in full are "But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” (NASB)

What did I say?

"Peter was there with the apostles, but so was Satan. As soon as Satan saw who Jesus was giving the keys to, Satan attacked Peter. Jesus didn’t tell the apostles this would happen until the Last Supper, when Jesus said to THEM, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but who does Jesus pray especially for? Peter… .that HIS faith would NOT fail. And after Satan sifted Peter, it is Peter to strengthen the apostles after THEY have been sifted [Lk 22]. Jesus is fully behind Peter as the greatest AMONG THEM and the one to rule

As for Mt 16, Peter thought he was defending Jesus. Jesus hadn’t explained Satan’s roll yet to Peter and the apostles , nor that Satan was allowed to sift the apostles. That’s NOT Peter’s fault."

I’ve shown you this before in another thread Peter’s primacy.

Jesus changed nothing regarding Peter’s primacy. He validated it

Vonsalza:

By slapping him down with arguably the greatest insult the savior could wield while in front of the others?

All explained later by Jesus. Peter is Jesus pick for leader of the Church

Vonsalza:

Augustine argues that it was Peter’s faith that the savior built the church on. But I understand why you need to be granted this essential point in order to deduce the Catholic view.

His faith isn’t what was given the keys. The keys went to Peter. Perer’s name was changed NOT his faith. When Jesus was talking to Peter directly, Jesus was NOT talking to Peter’s faith.

Vonsalza:

Re-read CCC 880-887. Everyone understands collegiality. Everyone also understands that the pope is under no restriction from it.

I gave you those quotes so you couldn’t misrepresent the way you do and did.

 

[Vonsalza]

The Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with him has been there from the beginning.

We’ve been over this. Augustine argues that Christ established the church on Peter’s faith, not his person. After all, it’s only a few verses later that Christ calls Peter “Satan”.

Our beliefs aren’t based on speculation.

A kinder word for it would be “faith”.

What did I say?

You began spinning, as any devout Catholic would do in the face of that passage which is so unkind to Petrine development. The fact that your scenario in unmentioned in the biblical narrative is unimportant - to you, at least.

As for Mt 16, Peter thought he was defending Jesus.

Ah! So the savior was over-hasty or out-right wrong to compare Peter to Satan!

Good grief Steve…

I’ve shown you this before in another thread Peter’s primacy.

From this thread;

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Churches in the First Millenium

Were the Western Orthodox Fathers ignored in the committee’s search for a common understanding of the role of the Pope in the First Millenium?

www.aoiusa.org

Peter is Jesus pick for leader of the Church

At that time? No doubt!

But his leadership was as a first among equals, not a supreme monarch.

His faith isn’t what was given the keys.

Steve, honey, there were probably no physical keys exchanged. And if you think Augustine is wrong, then fine.

Just remember your text in Isaiah about those keys - the original guy that held them abused his position so much that they passed to another.
As such, Christ placed his guarantee on the church. Not any one person or seat. To disagree is to add to scripture what simply is not there.

I gave you those quotes so you couldn’t misrepresent the way you do and did.

There’s no misquote Steve. The pope has no temporal check or counter.

It’s just the flip side of Supremacy, Steve. You can’t cry “Papal Supremacy!” in one breath and then attempt to fabricate or resurrect long-dead checks to supremacy in the next.

It seems to be yet another corner the west has dogmatized itself into…