I am considering the Orthodox Church

[choy]

i too have been "tempted’ by Orthodoxy in the past year, and not because of the scandals

but you have to realize, its not just like switching from Coke to Pepsi. there are different beliefs in Orthodoxy and Catholicism and you have to look at yourself and ask, “do i really believe in everything this Church teaches?”

i stayed in the Catholic Church because i believe in the supremacy of the pope. i believe that Peter held a special place among the apostles and it served a purpose which still applies today. the filioque is not an issue for me, to be honest i hardly understand it and i would submit to the teaching of the Church on it. for original sin, my personal preference on it really is that it does not exist (Orthodox teaching) but as a Catholic i submit to the teaching of the Church on it and accept that it knows more than i do on this matter. and so on. basically the kicker for me is the authority of the one who sits on the seat of Peter

so think about it. does Orthodox teaching really something you believe in? or open to accepting?

 

[josie_L]

Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian II, 867 A.D., upon being restored to his See by Basil I in the conflict with Photios:

"Art has provided many physicians for the wounds in the limbs of men…but of wounds in the members of Christ our God and Savior, the Head of us all, and of His Spouse, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word, Orderer, Healer and Master, the God of all, has produced one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician, that is, your fraternal and fatherly goodness. **Wherefore He said to Peter, the great and chief Apostle: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ And again, ‘I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him He transmitted them to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome. **This is why, since the most ancient times, each occasion that heresy and prevarication have come to light, your predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, and imitators of his zeal for the Christian Faith, have torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected."

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy.** For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " **(testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

Pope St. Zosimus (417 a.d.):

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an authority to the Apostolic See , that no one should dare to dispute about a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has kept to this; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or discipline) descends, the reverence due, - for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who, by His will, should be found worthy to inherit his See, for he has charge both of all the Churches, and especially of the One wherein he sat: nor does he allow any storm to shake one particle of the Privilege, or any part of the Sentence of that See to which he has given his name as a foundation firm and not to be weakened by any violence whatever, and which no one can rashly attack but at his peril; - seeing then, that Peter is a Head of such great authority, and that he has confirmed the subsequent decrees (or statutes)of the Fathers; that, by all laws and regulations, both human and divine, the Roman Church is strengthened: and you are not ignorant, you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you are not ignorant, that we rule over his Place, and are in possession also of the Authority of his name, nevertheless, though so great be our Authority that none may refuse (or reconsider) our Sentence, we have not done anything, which we have not, of our will referred by letter to your knowledge, conceding this to the Brotherhood." (Zosimus Ep. xi. Ad Africanos, Galland T. ix. pp. 15,16)

to be continued. . .

 

[Lapell]

Let’s start again–we are having a communication breakdown. If someone has offended me and asks forgiveness I forgive them because Christ tells us to forgive seventy times seven times. If they need confession, I send them to an Orthodox priest or bishop. In confession, it is Christ who forgives a contrite heart.

The priest is a witness bearing testimony before Christ of all things which are being confessed.

Yes, using the words I quoted. He says: “I am forgiving you your sins in the Name of…” Don’t the Eastern Orthodox Church priests do the same thing?

 

[Lapell]

Peter (and his confession) was singled out as the Rock while they were at Caesarea Philippi.

Actually, it is also true that the Apostles were singled out among the disciples, just like the bishops and priests after them. But it’s also true that among the Apostles themselves Peter was singled out as the Rock. You have made excellent points.

 

[Lapell]

You say “Pascha” also?!? Wonderful!
God bless!

Actually, I usually say “Joyeuses P^aques!” in French, and “Happy Easter” because the English-speaking people usually say it, but having read where “Easter” came from, I just find that Pascha might be proper, provided that it’s not restricted to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I doubt it would since there are Catholics of the same Byzantine Rite…

 

[crazzeto]

St. Optatus of Milevis (ca. 370 a.d.):

"Blessed Peter, to whom after his denial, it were enough if he obtained pardon, merited both to be preferred before all the Apostles, and he alone received of the kingdom of heaven the keys** to be communicated to the others.** . . .Optatus, De Schism, Don, 1. vii. n. 3, Galland, t. v. p. 501, in Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 30.

St. John of Damascene (ca. 680-740 a.d.):

Peter’s faith is undoubtedly the unshakable rock upon which the Church rests, but this faith is not separable from Peter’s person: it is indeed Peter who is the rock." (Homily on Holy Saturday 33, col. 636., col. 560C)

“He is at the same time the** key-bearer **of the kingdom of heaven.” (Ibid., col. 556C)

“Orderer [Peter} of the Universal Church.” (Ibid., 16, col. 569D)

"The regulator **responsible

for the power of the keys." (Ibid., 16, col. 556C)

It is a reference of the power of the keys not a reference of who holds the keys.

Yes, we are to look to St. Peter who lives on in the bishops of Rome.

More:
Theodoret of Cyr (393-457)

Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for “On this rock,” He says, “I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. buildeth thereon.

 

[SSTeacher]

i too have been "tempted’ by Orthodoxy in the past year, and not because of the scandals

The pope declared that the priests and religious in Ireland who abused children betrayed the trust that was placed in them by innocent young people and their parents. The result is that great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life. It’s very sad.

but you have to realize, its not just like switching from Coke to Pepsi. there are different beliefs in Orthodoxy and Catholicism and you have to look at yourself and ask, “do i really believe in everything this Church teaches?”

That’s a good question. And perhaps another question that should be asked along with it is, “What presuppositions or biases am I working from?”

i stayed in the Catholic Church because i believe in the supremacy of the pope. i believe that Peter held a special place among the apostles and it served a purpose which still applies today. the filioque is not an issue for me, to be honest i hardly understand it and i would submit to the teaching of the Church on it. for original sin, my personal preference on it really is that it does not exist (Orthodox teaching) but as a Catholic i submit to the teaching of the Church on it and accept that it knows more than i do on this matter. and so on. basically the kicker for me is the authority of the one who sits on the seat of Peter

I left the Evangelical world, steered around Catholicism, and headed to Orthodoxy. I don’t think there’s any question that Peter held a special place amongst the Apostles so I have no difficulty accepting the notion of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It’s the metamorphosis into papal supremacy that presents an obstacle for me.

so think about it.

I agree 100%. Think long and hard – and don’t omit your prayers as you do so.

does Orthodox teaching really something you believe in? or open to accepting?

Yes.

Definitely,
Mick

 

[jam070406]

It’s the metamorphosis into papal supremacy that presents an obstacle for me.

May I inquire why?

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6471245:

It’s the metamorphosis into papal supremacy

that presents an obstacle for me.May I inquire why?

Certainly. Given the title of the thread I should indeed have stated why it was an obstacle for me and not just passed over it leaving nobody the wiser. Many thanks for your courteous prompt.

It’s an obstacle because when I weigh up the advantages and the dangers, the dangers come out in the ascendancy and because I haven’t got a Catholic mindset I naturally progress to the logical conclusion. Here’s a précis of my thinking.

Initially, I was swayed by the idea and saw only the advantages. I perceived the notion of papal supremacy tightly locked to the notion of papal infallibility (in the minds of Catholics, at least) and I was very much drawn to it because it seemed such a refreshing contrast to the cacophony of the Evangelical world I was leaving behind wherein “everyone is his or her own pope.” However, as I went on to compare and contrast the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in more detail, I saw a connection between three serious historical disruptions – all of which could be tied to the papacy and which probably wouldn’t have occurred without it. They were:

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

As far as I can tell the internecine strife within Orthodoxy doesn’t intrude into areas of doctrine. And if there are any squabbles about worship then they could perhaps be described as minutiae. Thus not only does the Orthodox Church continue to function without papal supremacy it seems that by retaining the notion of primacy it has been able to maintain a unity that is very much lacking in the West.

Frankly,
Mick

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council[/INDENT]

From a practicing Catholic perspective the schism deals with pride from men, not the authority Jesus placed on Peter.

The reformation occurs because the Roman Catholic Church would not accept change to protestantism and defended the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith from entering new protestant innovations such as their newly invented Sola theologies. What does this have to do with the Pope aside from pride of men and freewill abused?

The Second Vatican Council has nothing to do with Peter’s Chair in the Pope, but a clarion call to the Apostolic Faith to a new people, language and culture. So that these new languages and cultures are given permission to hear the unchanged Gospel of Jesus Christ in ones own language.

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

As far as I can tell the internecine strife within Orthodoxy doesn’t intrude into areas of doctrine. And if there are any squabbles about worship then they could perhaps be described as minutiae. Thus not only does the Orthodox Church continue to function without papal supremacy it seems that by retaining the notion of primacy it has been able to maintain a unity that is very much lacking in the West.

Frankly,
Mick

What do you think of this commentary?

“Consequently for the Orthodox the Church’s purpose is mainly to worship God, and to teach its members how to glorify Him in the right spirit. This de-emphasis of doctrine affects the importance given to different types of doctrinal positions, whether they belong to dogma, theologumena, or theological opinion.** In the absence of an infallible defining authority, there is considerable overlapping of dogmatic teaching among churchmen, and numerous areas of uncertainty not found in Roman Catholicism.** Dogmas are universally binding among the orthodox, as emanating directly divine revelation; theologumena are traditionally held doctrines hallowed by the authority of ancient and respected Church teachers; theological opinions are the vast body of disputed theories and explanations that scholars have devised over the centuries.” by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

I am curious? What do you know of the founding of Orthodoxy in the West in comparison to the founding Orthodoxy in the East? are these both one and the same?

 

[dzheremi]

When I was going through RCIA, Papal infallibility and primacy were described as the ways by which Christ has safeguarded His Church against corruption. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” and all that. It made a lot of sense…if you were willing to accept it within that framework. At the time, I was, probably mostly because I didn’t know any better. I knew that the Orthodox Church, for instance, didn’t believe in it, but I didn’t know what they believed instead. Perhaps if I had done the research that Mick did, I wouldn’t have become Catholic in the first place (my experience with the Orthodox prior to becoming Catholic were limited to visits to the local OCA which were not punctuated by doctrinal discussions with anyone). Questions that were asked about Papal infallibility were answered with reference to Protestant objections only, as there were no Orthodox among us. As I was coming from Protestantism, these answers satisfied me.

They don’t now. To the Catholic Church’s credit (as it is through the RCC that I developed an appreciation for the distinction between Apostolic and non-Apostolic Christianity), I have learned enough about Orthodoxy since becoming Catholic to know what questions I should have asked then, for whatever that’s worth.

 

[Lapell]

Certainly. Given the title of the thread I should indeed have stated why it was an obstacle for me and not just passed over it leaving nobody the wiser. Many thanks for your courteous prompt.

It’s an obstacle because when I weigh up the advantages and the dangers, the dangers come out in the ascendancy and because I haven’t got a Catholic mindset I naturally progress to the logical conclusion. Here’s a précis of my thinking.

Initially, I was swayed by the idea and saw only the advantages. I perceived the notion of papal supremacy tightly locked to the notion of papal infallibility (in the minds of Catholics, at least) and I was very much drawn to it because it seemed such a refreshing contrast to the cacophony of the Evangelical world I was leaving behind wherein “everyone is his or her own pope.” However, as I went on to compare and contrast the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in more detail, I saw a connection between three serious historical disruptions – all of which could be tied to the papacy and which probably wouldn’t have occurred without it. They were:

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

As far as I can tell the internecine strife within Orthodoxy doesn’t intrude into areas of doctrine. And if there are any squabbles about worship then they could perhaps be described as minutiae. Thus not only does the Orthodox Church continue to function without papal supremacy it seems that by retaining the notion of primacy it has been able to maintain a unity that is very much lacking in the West.

Frankly,
Mick

How have you viewed the notion of “supremacy”?
Oh, and when it comes to “ex cathedra” teachings on matters of faith and morals, do you have a problem with it? Because that’s what papal “infallibility” covers, you know?
And even then, the encyclicals are not just the pope’s… They are the fruit of discussions with the collegium of the bishops which the pope presides. But then the pope writes them and signs them. At least, that is what I recollect is supposed to happen when it comes to publishing encyclicals.

 

[Lapell]

When I was going through RCIA, Papal infallibility and primacy were described as the ways by which Christ has safeguarded His Church against corruption. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” and all that. It made a lot of sense…if you were willing to accept it within that framework.

I am not sure what you mean exactly by "that framework’… as opposed to what, for instance?

 

[Lapell]

Does it mean that since then you have come to think it can’t be right? If so, what didn’t make sense to you?

 

[Lapell]

I think English is virtually alone in calling it “Easter”. Wikipedia has a pretty interesting section on its etymology in various languages here.

I call it “Pascha”, too…if I am speaking Russian. But also in Spanish we call it “Pascua” (from the same root), so I probably use that more than “Easter” because I know more religious latinos than anglos.

?Es Usted espanol? (Sorry, I don’t know how to switch into Spanish printing on this keyboard…) Or is it just that you go to a Latino-American Church?

 

[Lapell]

Anyhow, Joyeuses P^aques, everyone! God bless you richly and greatly! And may God bless our pope and straighten the false things that some medias have spread against him these days… and earlier too!

 

[jam070406]

Certainly. Given the title of the thread I should indeed have stated why it was an obstacle for me and not just passed over it leaving nobody the wiser. Many thanks for your courteous prompt.

It’s an obstacle because when I weigh up the advantages and the dangers, the dangers come out in the ascendancy and because I haven’t got a Catholic mindset I naturally progress to the logical conclusion. Here’s a précis of my thinking.

Initially, I was swayed by the idea and saw only the advantages. I perceived the notion of papal supremacy tightly locked to the notion of papal infallibility (in the minds of Catholics, at least) and I was very much drawn to it because it seemed such a refreshing contrast to the cacophony of the Evangelical world I was leaving behind wherein “everyone is his or her own pope.” However, as I went on to compare and contrast the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in more detail, I saw a connection between three serious historical disruptions – all of which could be tied to the papacy and which probably wouldn’t have occurred without it. They were:

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

As far as I can tell the internecine strife within Orthodoxy doesn’t intrude into areas of doctrine. And if there are any squabbles about worship then they could perhaps be described as minutiae. Thus not only does the Orthodox Church continue to function without papal supremacy it seems that by retaining the notion of primacy it has been able to maintain a unity that is very much lacking in the West.

Frankly,
Mick

For me, I see the Papacy as a gift from God. A place to turn to weather the storms that rock society. Especially these days. Perhaps you should listen to the current Pope’s messages on the youtube Vatican channel. He seems to be the only voice of reason in this chaotic world. Or read his encyclical concerning the current financial situation, etc. When there are moral issues I believe we can look to him, and I believe he speaks with The Holy Spirit as he bucks the trends and evils that rip apart society. It’s not like he’s saying come bow before me because I hold supremacy over you. I really feel like many have painted this cartoon character of the Papacy. The things you mentioned were not the Pope’s fault, as another poster has pointed out. I really can’t see how any of those things would somehow negate the Office of the Papacy. Squabbles about worship within the Church bother me, for sure. But it’s bigger then that. It’s not so shallow IMHO. I could write more but gotta run.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not sure what you mean exactly by "that framework’… as opposed to what, for instance?

If you are willing to accept that Jesus would establish the Papacy as it currently exists (with supremacy, infallibility and all) as the safeguard of His Church, then why wouldn’t you accept that such doctrines are sensible? After all, Christ did not hand His Church over to just anybody, and there must be a way to assure that the Church is being rightly guided. I figured that the RCC doctrines relating to the deference granted to the Pope as the supreme pontiff of the Church is the RCC’s way of explaining how that guidance is assured.

Now, after learning much more about the variety of Christianity around the world, I see it to be one explanation of how that particular church communion is structured, but I do not see it as the only one that “makes sense” (for lack of a better way to put it), or for that matter as the preferable way to me personally, especially given the arguments against it not just by the Eastern Orthodox but also by the Orthodox “Papists” p), the Coptic Orthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

?Es Usted espanol? (Sorry, I don’t know how to switch into Spanish printing on this keyboard…) Or is it just that you go to a Latino-American Church?

All churches in my part of the country are latinoamerican churches. But no, I’m not myself. My grandmother came from Mexico City, but I am as white as it comes. I just speak the language, since I grew up with it.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6471245:

It’s the metamorphosis into papal supremacy

that presents an obstacle for me.May I inquire why?

SSTeacher;6474349:

Certainly. Given the title of the thread I should indeed have stated why

it was an obstacle for me and not just passed over it leaving nobody the wiser. Many thanks for your courteous prompt.

It’s an obstacle because when I weigh up the advantages and the dangers, the dangers come out in the ascendancy and because I haven’t got a Catholic mindset I naturally progress to the logical conclusion. Here’s a précis of my thinking.

Initially, I was swayed by the idea and saw only the advantages. I perceived the notion of papal supremacy tightly locked to the notion of papal infallibility (in the minds of Catholics, at least) and I was very much drawn to it because it seemed such a refreshing contrast to the cacophony of the Evangelical world I was leaving behind wherein “everyone is his or her own pope.” However, as I went on to compare and contrast the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in more detail, I saw a connection between three serious historical disruptions – all of which could be tied to the papacy and which probably wouldn’t have occurred without it. They were:

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

As far as I can tell the internecine strife within Orthodoxy doesn’t intrude into areas of doctrine. And if there are any squabbles about worship then they could perhaps be described as minutiae. Thus not only does the Orthodox Church continue to function without papal supremacy it seems that by retaining the notion of primacy it has been able to maintain a unity that is very much lacking in the West.

Frankly,
Mick
:thumbsup:For me, I see the Papacy as a gift from God. A place to turn to weather the storms that rock society. Especially these days. Perhaps you should listen to the current Pope’s messages on the youtube Vatican channel. He seems to be the only voice of reason in this chaotic world. Or read his encyclical concerning the current financial situation, etc. When there are moral issues I believe we can look to him, and I believe he speaks with The Holy Spirit as he bucks the trends and evils that rip apart society. It’s not like he’s saying come bow before me because I hold supremacy over you. I really feel like many have painted this cartoon character of the Papacy. The things you mentioned were not the Pope’s fault, as another poster has pointed out. I really can’t see how any of those things would somehow negate the Office of the Papacy. Squabbles about worship within the Church bother me, for sure. But it’s bigger then that. It’s not so shallow IMHO. I could write more but gotta run.

Many thanks for your commentary.

Appreciatively,
Mick