I am considering the Orthodox Church

[SSTeacher]

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.

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I remember reading the Hahn book, Rome Sweet Home, just like you said, and Hahn mentions the Orthodox for about ten seconds and how they’re too ethnic, etc. I remember rolling my eyes thinking how our local parish is completely DOMINATED by the Portuguese and Mexicans and the Irish, Italians, Filipinos, and other Anglos just are along for the ride…lol…too ethnic in the world of Orthodoxy but in Catholicism things aren’t? As Stephen A. Smith says on ESPN…puhhhhh leeze!

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick

 

[blazerdave]

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick

Jumping in late to the party here, but I noticed your ideas for food after the fast. They sound excellent! Congrats on the chrismation. That has to be very exciting!

 

[josie_L]

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,

Mick

I would like to know how you define primacy and supremacy because definition-wise they are similar?

Primacy: The state or condition of being prime or first, as in time, place, rank, etc., hence, excellency; supremacy.

allwords.com/word-primacy.html

These are the synonyms of “primacy” that I derived from a Thesaurus: supremacy, leadership, command, dominance, superiority, dominion, ascendancy, pre-eminence.

thefreedictionary.com/primacy

Moreover, Catholic apologists focus on Protestants because there happens to be more of them and because that is essentially where most of the attacks are coming from. This however does not mean that the arguments that are used by Protestants are not also used by the Orthodox, like, for example, the rock in Matthew 16:18 is referring only to Peter’s confession as opposed to Peter and his confession, or that all the Apostles (and their successors) are key-bearers as opposed to Peter and his successors (the bishops of Rome). I guess what I’m saying is that Catholic apologist are “killing two birds with a stone” when they argue against those who reject the papacy (which would include both Protestants and Orthodox alike).

My second point is this, that the schism (which was not in 1054) had much to do with caesaropapism (as opposed to the papacy), i.e., the state (Byzantine emperor) intervening and in many ways controlling the Church to the point of introducing many heresies via the bishops of Constantinople. Furthermore, Orthodoxy did not need “reforming” because not long after the schism much of Orthodoxy was subjugated by either Islam and/or tyrant Czars, and then, of course, by Communism. In other words, Orthodoxy was always contained by outside forces from feeling the effects of a free and liberal society that the Catholic Church had to contend with (which ultimately gave rise to competing ideas and perspectives). I think the first 1000 years of Church history gives us a clue as to how necessary it was for the East to rely on the papacy, i.e., the bishops of Rome for their orthodoxy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=dzheremi;6474774]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

.

Do you think the Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’s in communion with the Pope believe in the Authority placed on Peter from Jesus? I would assume here that you are an Orthodox Church from the West that is not in communion with the Chair of Peter vested in the Popes these past 2000 years?

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.

I have wondered when one studies with an Orthodox church not in communion with the Pope, if these studies are dominated to justify their stance in protest to Jesus’s authority vested in Peter’s successors in the Popes?

I find many Protestants and non catholic christian communities to increase in numbers when ever they preach against and protest publicly to their audiences against the teaching of the Apostolic Catholic Church and the Popes. Have you experienced this type of catechises in your formation as an Orthodox not in communion with Peter and his successors in the Popes?

I have studied my Bishops Lectionary R.C.I.A program, and it never refutes or protests against any one church community and remains faithfult to teaching only biblical and Apostolic Truth. Yet I find in other christian communities that their main objective to winning souls is when they protest the Catholic Church. Can you explain this phenomenon?

 

[josie_L]

I remember reading the Hahn book, Rome Sweet Home, just like you said, and Hahn mentions the Orthodox for about ten seconds and how they’re too ethnic, etc. I remember rolling my eyes thinking how our local parish is completely DOMINATED by the Portuguese and Mexicans and the Irish, Italians, Filipinos, and other Anglos just are along for the ride…lol…too ethnic in the world of Orthodoxy but in Catholicism things aren’t? As Stephen A. Smith says on ESPN…puhhhhh leeze!

If they are dominated by Portuguese and Mexicans . . . etc. it may because the surrounding community is mostly Portuguese and/or Mexican, for example, I live in a neighborhood that for the longest time was a predominantly Italian enclave, therefore the parish Church was mostly made up of Italians. That being said just because it was mostly Italian, we did not call our Church, the “Italian Catholic Church”. The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.

In the January 2009 issue of “The Word”, publication of The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, His Eminence Metropolitan Philip Saliba decried the divisions of Eastern Orthodoxy in North America into separate ethnic-national Churches. We have, he lamented, “more than fifteen jurisdictions based on ethnicity contrary to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.” His important article reproduced the talk he gave at the Conference of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius held at St. Vladimir’s Seminary in Scarsdale, NY, on June 4-8, 2008. There he admitted canonical chaos had resulted from the century-old grip of Ethno-phyletism on their Churches. [Ethno-phyletism is the view that each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church, resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

Metropolitan Philip declared:

“Our canons clearly state that we cannot have more than one bishop over the same territory, and one metropolitan over the same metropolis. I regret to tell you that we Orthodox are violating this important ecclesiological principle in North America, South America, Europe and Australia. In New York, for example, we have more than ten Orthodox bishops over the same city and the same territory. I can say the same thing about other cities and territories in North America… The same thing has happened in Paris, France. There are six co-existing Orthodox bishops with overlapping ecclesiological jurisdictions. In my opinion and in the opinion of Orthodox canonists, this is ecclesiological ethno-phyletism. This is heretical. How can we condemn ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872 and still practice the same thing in the twenty-first century in North America ?”
Metropolitan Philip further observed that:

"Ironically enough, when ethnic ecclesiology began to flourish and prosper in the nineteenth century, it was the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Constantinople itself that condemned ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as a heresy in 1872."

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

 

[TheosisM]

IThe problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.

You mean like the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Albanian Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc.?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If they are dominated by Portuguese and Mexicans . . . etc. it may because the surrounding community is mostly Portuguese and/or Mexican, for example, I live in a neighborhood that for the longest time was a predominantly Italian enclave, therefore the parish Church was mostly made up of Italians. That being said just because it was mostly Italian, we did not call our Church, the “Italian Catholic Church”. The problem with Orthodoxy is that Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.

Great post josie, be careful here, I introduced this in another thread and was accused of needing medication from Orthodox posters. I truly believe that most converts to Orthodox in the west are not aware of these border line heresies that they tread upon? among many other issues that are not discussed here.

Happy Pasqua

 

[dzheremi]

.
Do you think the Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’s in communion with the Pope believe in the Authority placed on Peter from Jesus? I would assume here that you are an Orthodox Church from the West that is not in communion with the Chair of Peter vested in the Popes these past 2000 years?

I’m not sure what you are trying to ask in the second question, but yes, I would assume that the Eastern Catholic churches believe in the doctrines promulgated by Rome concerning Petrine supremacy, or else they wouldn’t be a part of the Roman communion.

I have wondered when one studies with an Orthodox church not in communion with the Pope, if these studies are dominated to justify their stance in protest to Jesus’s authority vested in Peter’s successors in the Popes?

No. Or at least not in my case. One of the reasons I haven’t gone ahead and started the process of becoming a catechumen in the Orthodox Church is that I want to be sure that I am converting to something, not away from something else as it seems like I was when I joined the Catholic Church after a very unhappy experience in my local Presbyterian church. This takes a lot of prayer and honest introspection. I’m nowhere near where I need to be. At any rate, if you want to call honestly having trouble with some RCC positions “protest”, that’s on you. To other Apostolic communities YOU are the Protestants, so I would be careful throwing around that kind of language if I were you.

I find many Protestants and non catholic christian communities to increase in numbers when ever they preach against and protest publicly to their audiences against the teaching of the Apostolic Catholic Church and the Popes. Have you experienced this type of catechises in your formation as an Orthodox not in communion with Peter and his successors in the Popes?

I am not Orthodox. See my previous answer. I have read many viciously anti-Catholic writings from some people claiming to represent Orthodoxy in some way, but I dismiss many of these as extremism (no different than the same zealotry from the Catholic side). Reading more serious documents from people of some significant position within the Orthodox communion is, if not exactly more hopeful, at least less polemical and more easily digestible for it.

I have studied my Bishops Lectionary R.C.I.A program, and it never refutes or protests against any one church community and remains faithfult to teaching only biblical and Apostolic Truth. Yet I find in other christian communities that their main objective to winning souls is when they protest the Catholic Church. Can you explain this phenomenon?

No, I can’t, because I haven’t experienced it. In the Presbyterian church in which I was raised, the Catholic Church never really came up, at least not from the pulpit. This is probably a side-effect of growing up in a town that was (at that time) roughly equally split between anglos and latinos. It is hard to demonize your neighbors, you know? In my limited experience with the Orthodox, it hasn’t often come up, either. Generally they are just happy to have someone who is interested in their traditions. Their objections to Catholic doctrine are well known, so they probably don’t feel a need to beat anyone over the head with them, especially someone coming from Roman Catholicism like I am.

 

[josie_L]

You mean like the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Albanian Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc.?

Did you read the article I posted that delineates what the real issue is (and did you notice why I responded as I did)?

 

[dzheremi]

You mean like the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Albanian Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc.?

Hahahaha.

Good point (except for the Melkites…I dunno how they ended up there. Granted, they’re mostly of Arab origin, but they’re not really associated with one nationality).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hahahaha.

Good point (except for the Melkites…I dunno how they ended up there. Granted, they’re mostly of Arab origin, but they’re not really associated with one nationality).

I think you missed the point?
Originally Posted by TheosisM
You mean like the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Albanian Catholic Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc.?

These are Eastern Orthodox Church’s that do not equate with the Orthodox church’s in the West founded from the Anglican protestant Church Rite.

 

[Nine_Two]

Orthodox Churches in the West have nothing to do with Anglicans.

 

[josie_L]

Hahahaha.

Good point (except for the Melkites…I dunno how they ended up there. Granted, they’re mostly of Arab origin, but they’re not really associated with one nationality).

From the article I posted:

[Ethno-phyletism is the view that **each ethnic or national group can have its own independent or autocephalous Church,

resulting in multiple and rival hierarchies in the same territory].

This is the real issue with the ethnic ecclesiology of Orthodoxy. Moreover, the Churches mentioned by Theosis M are not seeking independence, i.e. they are in communion with the bishop of Rome, the center/heart of the Universal Church (so irregardless of the churches mentioned the CC is not structured on national/state lines seeking independence from the primate, i.e., the bishop of Rome (his purpose is to unite in order that we be one), if it were there would be utter chaos.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6476552:

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your

place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:I remember reading the Hahn book, Rome Sweet Home, just like you said, and Hahn mentions the Orthodox for about ten seconds and how they’re too ethnic, etc. I remember rolling my eyes thinking how our local parish is completely DOMINATED by the Portuguese and Mexicans and the Irish, Italians, Filipinos, and other Anglos just are along for the ride…lol…too ethnic in the world of Orthodoxy but in Catholicism things aren’t? As Stephen A. Smith says on ESPN…puhhhhh leeze!

Enthusiastically agreed. However, when I reflected upon why Dr. Hahn did that, I remembered that the book was written after he had converted to Catholicism and so his purpose necessarily had to be to influence people to consider Catholicism over Holy Orthodoxy. Those are the rules of the polemical game, of course, and it’s difficult to see how it could be played any other way.

To be fair to the authors, though, I enjoyed the book very much. I think the Hahns came out of the PCA (the conservative Presbyterian sub–denomination) and I was saddened when I read about how they were treated by their former friends in the PCA when they moved out. In fact, I seem to recall reading that one of their friends actually urged Kimberly Hahn to divorce her husband because he was committing heresy by becoming a Catholic! So anti–Catholic sentiment is apparently alive and well in the PCA. What a surprise, huh? The Hahns’ respective journeys into Catholicism weren’t at all easy rides – but it seems likely that this is a state of affairs that’s often attendant to genuine conversions. I daresay the Hahns have been a help to many people and I wish them well in all their endeavors.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6474349:

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

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

Many thanks for providing one practicing Catholic’s perspective.

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.

Thanks for another Catholic perspective.

What does this have to do with the Pope aside from pride of men and freewill abused?

Fair question. Perhaps you ought to start a new thread?

SSTeacher;6474349:

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: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.

The connection I’ve drawn between the Second Vatican Council and the papacy is that Pope John XXIII was the impetus behind the council being called in the first place. This 21st council of the Western Church was called for no particular reason whatsoever as evidenced by the sixteen documents that were subsequently published which, according to the post–conciliar Catholic commentators, altered nothing. However, I think it likely most objective observers would probably conclude that the pre–conciliar Catholic Church is very different from the post–conciliar Catholic Church and that much has, in fact, been altered for no good reason.

So that these new languages and cultures are given permission to hear the unchanged Gospel of Jesus Christ in ones own language.

That’s the standard post–conciliar line but I’m aware that Catholic Traditionalists register two objections to it.

a) The Gospel was always read in the vernacular at Tridentine Masses.

b) Canon 1X, Chapter IX, Session XXIII of the Council of Trent, which states:

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

It seems as though there’s been change inside Catholicism – in thinking, at the very least.

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 think it’s an extract from an apologetic piece written by a Jesuit promoting Catholicism over Holy Orthodoxy.

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?

My struggles have been trying rightly to divide doctrinal issues. But if you have historical data readily available that you think might help the Original Poster then I cordially invite you to post it forthwith.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

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:How have you viewed the notion of “supremacy”?

One guy with too much power.

Oh, and when it comes to “ex cathedra” teachings on matters of faith and morals, do you have a problem with it?

Yes indeed.

Because that’s what papal “infallibility” covers, you know?

That’s the theory, certainly. In practice, the veneer of infallibility appears to intrude into every aspect of Catholicism.

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.

No doubt.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[TheosisM]

Did you read the article I posted that delineates what the real issue is (and did you notice why I responded as I did)?

You were attempting (as a number of Catholic apologists do) to create a dichotomy between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in saying that in Orthodoxy “Churches are formed along national lines as opposed to being Catholic, i.e., universal in scope.”, while implying that the converse is true for Catholicism. This ignores the Eastern Catholic churches, all of which are “formed along national lines”, most of which have the nationality in the name itself. You didn’t call your church “Italian Catholic Church” because I assume it was under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church (this is no different than the Russian Orthodox parish in an African country still being called “Russian Orthodox” despite it being made up of African parishoners). Though if you were in certain parts of Italy, it may be under the “Italo-Greek Catholic Church”.

The “real issue” is that Catholicism has “ethnic” parishes just like Orthodoxy does, and also has “ethnic” sui iuris churches, organized along national lines. As the article states, a Synod has already condemned phyletism, and the jurisdictional situation in the USA is irregular. But then, is the jurisdictional situation of Eastern Catholicism and Roman Catholicism in the USA any different?

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6476552:

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your

place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:I would like to know how you define primacy and supremacy because definition-wise they are similar?

Primacy: The state or condition of being prime or first, as in time, place, rank, etc., hence, excellency; supremacy.

allwords.com/word-primacy.html

These are the synonyms of “primacy” that I derived from a Thesaurus: supremacy, leadership, command, dominance, superiority, dominion, ascendancy, pre-eminence.

thefreedictionary.com/primacy

Moreover, Catholic apologists focus on Protestants because there happens to be more of them and because that is essentially where most of the attacks are coming from. This however does not mean that the arguments that are used by Protestants are not also used by the Orthodox, like, for example, the rock in Matthew 16:18 is referring only to Peter’s confession as opposed to Peter and his confession, or that all the Apostles (and their successors) are key-bearers as opposed to Peter and his successors (the bishops of Rome). I guess what I’m saying is that Catholic apologist are “killing two birds with a stone” when they argue against those who reject the papacy (which would include both Protestants and Orthodox alike).

My second point is this, that the schism (which was not in 1054) had much to do with caesaropapism (as opposed to the papacy), i.e., the state (Byzantine emperor) intervening and in many ways controlling the Church to the point of introducing many heresies via the bishops of Constantinople. Furthermore, Orthodoxy did not need “reforming” because not long after the schism much of Orthodoxy was subjugated by either Islam and/or tyrant Czars, and then, of course, by Communism. In other words, Orthodoxy was always contained by outside forces from feeling the effects of a free and liberal society that the Catholic Church had to contend with (which ultimately gave rise to competing ideas and perspectives). I think the first 1000 years of Church history gives us a clue as to how necessary it was for the East to rely on the papacy, i.e., the bishops of Rome for their orthodoxy.

All valid points. Many thanks for your contribution. I hope the Original Poster finds your post helpful.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6476552:

I think most Catholic apologetic responses are directed toward Protestant objections. The Orthodox Church is so often forgotten or passed over. I seem to remember Scott and Kimberly Hahn spent something like two whole paragraphs on it in their book. Ah, well. For myself, I believe that after several years of uncertainty following my exit from Evangelicalism I’ve now found the place that God prepared in advance for me in the Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church that has never needed reforming. I’m to be chrismated on the morning of Holy Saturday. That’s less than two days away. I’m looking forward to it with much anticipation.

And I must confess that I’m also looking forward to the end of the fast. I have in mind a fried egg sandwich with brown sauce. Chocolate ice cream seems like a good idea, too. After that, I’ll be in Orthodox kindergarten. How wonderful!

I hope you’ll soon find your

place, dzheremi.

Joyfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:Jumping in late to the party here, but I noticed your ideas for food after the fast. They sound excellent! Congrats on the chrismation. That has to be very exciting!

Thanks for your encouraging and convivial words. I am indeed very excited. :bounce:

Gratefully,
Mick