In between Catholic Church and Orthodox Church

[EIF5A]

I guess my ultimate question is, How can the Holy Spirit reside in both churches while they disagree with each other and say they alone comprise the true catholic church? There are saints on both sides of the fence…and I use saints as models to follow after.

Both cannot be right.

 

[Nine_Two]

I guess my ultimate question is, How can the Holy Spirit reside in both churches while they disagree with each other and say they alone comprise the true catholic church? There are saints on both sides of the fence…and I use saints as models to follow after.

Both cannot be right.

It is good to use saints as models, but remember that at the end of the day they are fallible human beings. They had their own opinions and beliefs on a wide array of issues. Their sainthood doesn’t, on its own mean they were right.

My own experience, coming from the Anglican Church, and spending a considerable period of my youth in Evangelical Churches is that the Holy Spirit is present in other churches to the degree that those churches will allow it to be, but there is only one Church which holds the fulness of the truth.

 

[pablope]

I read St. Catherine’s book first, but not all of it. Then I picked up The Sayings from my roommate’s bookshelf and finished that one. Then I went back and finished The Dialog, and when I went back to finish it, the second half contained the story of a Desert Father which St. Catherine writes about. (Actually, it is God who reminded her that she had read about them, and God tells her how much He loves obedience.)

1Sam15:
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the LORD?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has rejected you as king.”

You should also read, if you have not, the story of King Saul and David, how David, despite having chances to do so, would not dare kill Saul, even though Samuel had annointed David as the new king. He waited for Saul to die to claim the throne.

Again, I only mention her specifically because she claims to have directly conversed with God under a state of ecstasy, I believe – correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Kirovsakya]

I guess my ultimate question is, How can the Holy Spirit reside in both churches while they disagree with each other and say they alone comprise the true catholic church? There are saints on both sides of the fence…and I use saints as models to follow after.

Both cannot be right.

Both churches agree on a number of issues. They have 1000 years of common history and saints. If you find the lives of Saints edifying, I would suggest concentrating firstly on the writings of those (east and west) who are recognized as saints by both Orthodoxy and the RCC.

If you wish to use this approach, it makes sense to build upon a foundation of agreement.

1 -100    Apostolic Peroid

100-325 Anti-Nicene Period
311-600 Nicene & Post Nicene Period
590-1073 Mediaeval Period

Since most writers are also readers, it is useful to read Christian writings in the order they were written. Look for doctrinal consensus and dissension within the early Church before moving forward toward the disagreements that lead to the E-W Schism and beyond.

After that exercise, if you have ANY doubts, forget about Orthodoxy. Go ahead and join the RCC, apply yourself fully and learn everything you can. Attend Mass, seek repentance through sacramental confession and receive the Eucharist frequently.

If the writings of the Fathers do not lead you directly to Orthodoxy, the Modern RCC often will. In the end, fully catechized Roman Catholics make better Orthodox Christians than the slackers.

 

[joe370]

Hello,

I’ve been lurking for a while after a thought was placed in my heart about the Catholic Church. (That was months ago, and I’ve still been searching.) Currently, I’m a Protestant (of the charismatic persuasion, no…not the jumping up and down and rolling on the floor kind), but the idea of a universal, catholic church has been appealing to me.

Then I discovered that there was such a thing as the Orthodox Church who also claims to be the true catholic church. Confused, I looked into their history, and they seem to make sense as well.

So now, I’m just kind of torn because I do want to find a spiritual home, and on the one side, I’m leaning towards the Catholic Church because they do seem to be Catholic in the global, worldwide sense (and perhaps primacy of Peter is true), but the Orthodox Church is also appealing because, well, they don’t seem to have statues (yes, I know, that sounds like an idiotic reason) and they don’t have quite an intellectual, rational approach to every spiritual mystery. Both Churches place a heavier emphasis on the Virgin Mary/Theotokos that I’m still not quite familiar with (e.g., Queen of Heaven, Bride of God). (I still have baggage leftover from reading/hearing about the Catholic Church being the h*rlot and all that business…)

The one major issue is the Real Presence of the Eucharist. My current church believes Communion is only symbolic. But I feel drawn to believe that Christ our Savior is present. (This belief has been made more firm after reading The Dialog of St. Catherine of Siena.)

So in about the six months I first posted here, I’ve barely made 1 step and I’m just as confused now because of the claim by the Orthodox Church.

I don’t really have a question, but if anyone switched from RCC to OC or OC to RCC, I would love to hear your opinion.

(I’m still not sure why the Filioque was such a giant deal…it sort of seems like…semantics…? Please don’t stone me for saying that…)

Now I’m off to Mass (missed the one at 11:30 am). Thank God the parish that is two blocks away has multiple Masses… It’s actually been a while since I’ve been to Catholic Mass, even though the parish has been right there all along…

The good thing to remember is: both churches have a valid priesthood and 7 valid sacraments, and that was so important to me when I was where you are right now. By the way regarding icons and statues in eastern orthodoxy: westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/06/eastern-orthodox-statues.html

I myself love both the one Catholic Church and all of the autocephalous eastern orthodox churches. What settled it for me was the Petrine office, and how it functions in conjunction with the ecumenical council. What bothered me about eastern orthodoxy was the fact that they do not believe what Matthew 16 tells us about Jesus building His church on Kepha. In other words they do not believe the following passage. Rather, they believe that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Rock, I guess for no reason, and then reffered to Himself as the rock He would buld His church on; makes no since to me. Plus, everyone knows that Jesus is the Divine God Rock/Cornerstone. It would be silly for Jesus to state the obvious, and it makes no sense grammaticaly, if what they suggest is true.

From a different perspective: Fatima was a big deal to me, and is impossible to deny; it certainly was not the sole reason for my conversion, but it certainly convinced me that the CC is in fact Jesus’ church. Mind-blowing event in 1917…Phew…Modern -day miracle predicted by little children and witnessed by 70000 people - many scoffers and non-believers were changed forever.

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter (kepha) , and on this rock kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you (only Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven…

 

[dzheremi]

The common Orthodox understanding of that passage (and by “common”, I mean I have heard it from both people in my communion and the EO, so I take it that it is a very early and widespread interpretation) is that the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16 is the “rock” of Peter’s faith, meaning his confession of Christ’s divinity. No one less than the master Origen (who, for all his faults and wanderings, was probably the among the finest biblical scholars ever) has put it like this:

And if we too have said like Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “You are Peter,” etc.

You can read the passage in context here, from a thoroughly RC source. We should all be as Peter was, and indeed all bishops are Peter, as they all confess his same confession.

 

[joe370]

The common Orthodox understanding of that passage (and by “common”, I mean I have heard it from both people in my communion and the EO, so I take it that it is a very early and widespread interpretation) is that the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16 is the “rock” of Peter’s faith, meaning his confession of Christ’s divinity. No one less than the master Origen (who, for all his faults and wanderings, was probably the among the finest biblical scholars ever) has put it like this:

You can read the passage in context here, from a thoroughly RC source. We should all be as Peter was, and indeed all bishops are Peter, as they all confess his same confession.

Catholic church teaches both Simon as the rock and his faith. Is that the case with the EOC? Origen believed in both. Do eastern orthodox take into consideration the bevy of quotes that say what the CC says today i.e. Peter is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built? Or do they deny that interpretation of Matthew 16?

 

[dzheremi]

Nobody denies that some Fathers also taught that the rock is Peter himself, though we would contend that this does not mean what the RCC thinks it does, as there are no Church Fathers who explicitly tie that identification with Peter with the Roman Pope exclusively as the RCC does.

 

[joe370]

Nobody denies that some Fathers also taught that the rock is Peter himself, though we would contend that this does not mean what the RCC thinks it does, as there are no Church Fathers who explicitly tie that identification with Peter with the Roman Pope exclusively as the RCC does.

Sure they do. I have quite a few quotes; you and I discussed this already awhile back. If you like I will share them with you tomorrow? It’s 2 AM here. I am talking about eastern church fathers, by the way…

 

[achmafooma]

I guess my ultimate question is, How can the Holy Spirit reside in both churches while they disagree with each other and say they alone comprise the true catholic church? There are saints on both sides of the fence…and I use saints as models to follow after.

Both cannot be right.

Glib, unhelpful answer: The Holy Spirit resides everywhere .

But seriously, you are right. Both cannot be right. In my personal faith journey I became convinced that these were the only two possible ‘right’ answers, and, in my own study, I came to the conclusion with some certainty that the Catholic Church is the ‘true’ church. I would say, when I decided to become a Catholic, I was maybe 80/20 between Catholic and Orthodox, and through continued study and practice I’ve become even more sure.

But I’m not infallible…so please don’t take that as a condemnation or negative on Orthodoxy. I can completely understand why somebody might land on the other side from where I did. There are good, solid arguments to be made either way.

After all, the biggest sticking point is the authority of the Pope, and any Catholic who has studied the history knows that the Papacy, as we understand it today, developed from a very Orthodox configuration (‘first among equals,’ if you will) to the current Catholic configuration (supreme over the church). The question isn’t about whether that development happened, but whether that is what the Holy Spirit intended. I think it was. I can completely understand somebody thinking it wasn’t.

Back to your question…my own belief is that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth…that it is the fullest, most ‘right’ expression of Christianity. But the Orthodox come in a close second, and the Holy Spirit is most certainly present there…although I would argue that they do not have the ‘fullness’ of the truth, having 99% of it is pretty darn good, and better than any other available option [except Catholicism]. Again, this is my opinion, and I mean absolutely no disrespect whatsoever to our Orthodox brethren.

But you’re right; in the end, one is right and the other is wrong (unless we’re both wrong!). But personally I believe that God is pleased when anybody becomes either Catholic or Orthodox, because his Sacraments and the Holy Spirit are present in both. In either case, somebody is coming home to Christ’s Church.

God bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello,

I’ve been lurking for a while after a thought was placed in my heart about the Catholic Church. (That was months ago, and I’ve still been searching.) Currently, I’m a Protestant (of the charismatic persuasion, no…not the jumping up and down and rolling on the floor kind), but the idea of a universal, catholic church has been appealing to me.

Then I discovered that there was such a thing as the Orthodox Church who also claims to be the true catholic church. Confused, I looked into their history, and they seem to make sense as well.

So now, I’m just kind of torn because I do want to find a spiritual home, and on the one side, I’m leaning towards the Catholic Church because they do seem to be Catholic in the global, worldwide sense (and perhaps primacy of Peter is true), but the Orthodox Church is also appealing because, well, they don’t seem to have statues (yes, I know, that sounds like an idiotic reason) and they don’t have quite an intellectual, rational approach to every spiritual mystery. Both Churches place a heavier emphasis on the Virgin Mary/Theotokos that I’m still not quite familiar with (e.g., Queen of Heaven, Bride of God). (I still have baggage leftover from reading/hearing about the Catholic Church being the h*rlot and all that business…)

The one major issue is the Real Presence of the Eucharist. My current church believes Communion is only symbolic. But I feel drawn to believe that Christ our Savior is present. (This belief has been made more firm after reading The Dialog of St. Catherine of Siena.)

So in about the six months I first posted here, I’ve barely made 1 step and I’m just as confused now because of the claim by the Orthodox Church.

I don’t really have a question, but if anyone switched from RCC to OC or OC to RCC, I would love to hear your opinion.

(I’m still not sure why the Filioque was such a giant deal…it sort of seems like…semantics…? Please don’t stone me for saying that…)

Now I’m off to Mass (missed the one at 11:30 am). Thank God the parish that is two blocks away has multiple Masses… It’s actually been a while since I’ve been to Catholic Mass, even though the parish has been right there all along…

I’m coming in late here, but I was RC for 33 years, EC for 2 years, now I am Orthodox. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sure they do. I have quite a few quotes; you and I discussed this already awhile back. If you like I will share them with you tomorrow? It’s 2 AM here. I am talking about eastern church fathers, by the way…

I need to find this other quote I have that states the folly of quoting Church Fathers. Think of it this way, if it annoys you how Protestants can slice and dice Scripture and make it into something it is not, the same can be done with the Church Fathers.

 

[EIF5A]

I need to find this other quote I have that states the folly of quoting Church Fathers. Think of it this way, if it annoys you how Protestants can slice and dice Scripture and make it into something it is not, the same can be done with the Church Fathers.

I’ve always wondered at what point do church fathers become as authoritative as Scripture?

Is Sacred Tradition made up of people or is Sacred Tradition the guidance of the church by the Holy Spirit through people? In other words, what is Sacred? The power of the Holy Spirit or the people?

Like papal infallibility, is there a certain situation or period where their words are authoritative and the rest of the time, it’s their opinion?

 

[dzheremi]

There is no mechanical way to determine such things. We don’t necessarily need to know how everything works to trust that it does, because we trust that God is living and guiding His Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’ve always wondered at what point do church fathers become as authoritative as Scripture?

Is Sacred Tradition made up of people or is Sacred Tradition the guidance of the church by the Holy Spirit through people? In other words, what is Sacred? The power of the Holy Spirit or the people?

Like papal infallibility, is there a certain situation or period where their words are authoritative and the rest of the time, it’s their opinion?

On this question the Orthodox answer would be that they are authoritative as long as they are consistent with the rest of Holy Tradition.

In other words, while it is all well and good if someone can pluck out a quote from the Father’s, they were mortal, fallible men. The value of their words has to be judged by how it conforms with the Church as a whole.

If some great theologian had written that God is a pink bunny, we would be able to dismiss this as opinion (possibly heretical opinion) since it doesn’t conform to Holy Tradition as a whole (which says that God cannot and should not be comprehended in such a manner).

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. It occurs upon reading Nine_Two’s excellent reply that I may have misread EIF5A’s question. Are you asking at what particular point in time something becomes authoritative, or how we can know whether something is authoritative? Because I agree with Nine_Two’s answer to the second question, but as to the first, I’m not aware of any set rule on that. For example, as far as concerns the councils, they were confirmed by the church as a whole, and you can find reference to them being thought of as authoritative in the texts of subsequent councils (e.g., “in keeping with the holy faith of the 318 assembled at Nicaea, we at the current council declare xyz, etc.”), but I don’t know that this answers the question of when they became so. Even in the first council itself, at Nicaea, the Fathers appeal to preexisting tradition in explaining the preeminence of certain sees, so we know they are not just making it up out of whole cloth, but there is no indication in the texts themselves as to when that tradition was recognized by subsequent generations as being in keeping with the faith of the apostles. Maybe it’s best just to say that as our Fathers were taught by St. Mark (or whoever originally came to the see in question) and entrusted the bishops ordained at his hands (and subsequently) to preserve what they had been taught without deviation, this gave us the appropriate context in which to say “Ah, this thing is new”, or “this is in keeping with what our Father Mark brought”, when doctrinal controversies came up in subsequent decades or centuries. After all, in making the Holy Myron we cannot pull out any one drop and isolate it from the rest and say “Ah, this is from the original oil used by the Apostles; the other drops are new.” It is more the case that it is infused throughout, so that everyone who receives it knows that they are receiving from the original charism of the Apostles. So it is with doctrine, whether it comes from the Early Church Fathers or modern theologians: It is considered in relation to the whole, rather than based on isolated Fathers or quotes (as the Fathers of course were not isolated, but were also attempting to expound according to the faith that they had received…it was those who had gone off on their own who are condemned as having strayed from the path.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve always wondered at what point do church fathers become as authoritative as Scripture?

St. Ireneus or St. Ignatius, I forgot which, it could be someone else altogether. Forgive me here, but a Church Father said that we shouldn’t listen to him if what he says does not align with Scripture. Certainly anyone cannot just go make stuff up and we say it is authoritative based on a certain criteria based upon them as a person. Jesus came and taught His disciples and these teachings were recorded into Scripture. Scripture tells us what the truth is. The benefit of the Church Fathers is they carry the tradition of how the Scriptures are to be understood. So if a Church Father is to be tested, it is tested against Scripture and other Church Fathers as well.

Is Sacred Tradition made up of people or is Sacred Tradition the guidance of the church by the Holy Spirit through people? In other words, what is Sacred? The power of the Holy Spirit or the people?

Sacred Tradition is the passing down of the correct teaching from one to another. This includes Scripture, discipleship (learning from a Father), rites, rituals, prayers, etc. The Holy Spirit is not magic, one doesn’t suddenly become authoritative based on the claim that one has the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in Scripture will you see someone know something because of the Holy Spirit. I’m not talking about prophesy here, prophesy is about events. I’m taking about understanding Scripture or receiving Divine Revelation.

Like papal infallibility, is there a certain situation or period where their words are authoritative and the rest of the time, it’s their opinion?

This is why as an Orthodox Christian, infallibility makes no sense. When is the Pope infallible? What is the criteria? If he says he infallibly declares something and we say it can’t be because it is against Scripture, who’d win that debate? By Catholic teaching, the Pope. He is the final interpreter of Scripture, right? So it is a no-win situation. We’re told he’ll never teach heresy, but nothing can ever be heresy until he says it is heresy.

In Orthodoxy, only Christ is authoritative, only He is infallible. So His teachings which we receive by Tradition (which in Orthodoxy includes Scripture) is always the measure of what is truth or not.

 

[EIF5A]

In Orthodoxy, only Christ is authoritative, only He is infallible. So His teachings which we receive by Tradition (which in Orthodoxy includes Scripture) is always the measure of what is truth or not.

Technically, aren’t ecumenical councils authoritative and infallible?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Technically, aren’t ecumenical councils authoritative and infallible?

No, they are not. Ecumenical Councils are accepted because they are consistent with Tradition, not because they are authoritative in by themselves. For example in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Maximos the Confessor used teachings from the likes of St. Athanasius the Great on defending dyothelitism.

Note that there were other councils that were convoked and first thought to be Ecumenical, but were later condemned and rejected. The first council labelled as the “Seventh” actually taught iconoclasm. Imagine if by virtue of being called “Ecumenical” then that council was authoritative, then we won’t have icons or statues today.

 

[joe370]

I need to find this other quote I have that states the folly of quoting Church Fathers. Think of it this way, if it annoys you how Protestants can slice and dice Scripture and make it into something it is not, the same can be done with the Church Fathers.

Fair enough…I digress…