It’s more of a term people used to describe Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine rite, even though I normally don’t like the term. I normally don’t use it because the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox believe slightly different things. A good example would be papal supremacy.
It is more than that. Believe me. And I say this for the sake of Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholic who would want to “go East”. I came into the Eastern Catholic Church looking for Orthodoxy without breaking my communion with the Pope. I ended up in the Orthodox Church because that is where Orthodoxy is. This is a long discussion by itself and both sides of course will put forth their arguments for or against the idea of being “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. But I beg everyone not to tell people leaning towards the Orthodox Church to go to the Eastern Catholic Church instead. That is not who they are. Be Eastern Catholic because you want to be Eastern Catholic, because you love who they are. Not because of a misconceived notion that one can be Orthodox and be in communion with Rome through the Eastern Catholic Church. There is more to Orthodoxy than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and an iconostas.
I think we look at the material extravagancies the wrong way. If we have something (like money, property, gold, etc.), why shouldn’t we set it aside to glorify God? The notion that the Church should be materially simple and poor is nonsense. By using grand buildings and adorning it with gold and precious stones, we remind ourselves of God’s own grandeur which we cannot perceive by our senses. And the fact that we put these material riches to use for worshiping and glorifying God means we are using them correctly. Even in the Bible we see the instructions for the Jerusalem temple to be adorned with gold and precious stones. Better to do that than use these things for personal wealth and gain.
I’d like to address your other points here. There is no evidence in Scripture of St. Peter being the boss of the Apostles. They got stuff done because they have the truth and they have the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who gave them their marching orders. They knew what to do. St. Peter did have a leadership role with the Apostles, but it wasn’t like the other Apostles didn’t do anything without running it by St. Peter. He is not the “Apostolic Manager”.Hello,I also struggled with what you are thinking right now. But, I came to realize that the Catholic Church is the True Church.
Our Lord gave the keys to heaven to St. Peter. The Orthodox believe the Pope is the “first among equals” while Catholics believe that the Pope have direct authority over all bishops. I came to realize that if St. Peter was supposed to be first among equals, then how would anything get done? How would the Church stay alive if the Pope can’t control bishops who do things contrary to the Law of Christ?
If you feel attracted to the Orthodox Church, I suggest you explore the Byzantine Catholic Churches. They’re basically “Orthodox in communion in Rome,” to be put bluntly. However, I’m assuming that you’ve been baptized. This would mean that you are canonically a Latin Catholic. So you’d have to go through RCIA. If you haven’t been baptized, then you could convert through the Byzantine Catholic Churches and canonically become a Byzantine Catholic. It’s your choice, depending on if you’ve been baptized.
I pray for you on your spiritual journey.
God Bless.
Again u make strong case… from scripture.
Everything should be given for the glorification of God. Either using these things as vestments, adorning the Church, Sacred Vessels, or using the money to feed the poor, heal the sick, etc. We shouldn’t feel bad if it is in a Church building. Many poor people are edified by it. I’d be worried if your local bishop is driving a Ferrari, but if all the gold is staying inside the church and is used for Liturgical purposes, there is nothing wrong with that.
True enuf. I recall how thousands of artisans worked on the magnificent Catholic Cathedrals in Europe in Middle Ages … out of love for God, desiring to make their Churches edifices to God, not working out of love for money. Many desired no pay for their craftsmanship.
No we aren’t. This equation was wrong last time you brought it up, and it’s still wrong now. I don’t care what people you’re talking to say, “Easterness” is not a goal in and of itself.
So what? Who cares whether they’re “truly Eastern” or not when, again, that is not even the goal? We’re not not in union with the RCC communion because they’re not “Eastern” enough, but because we don’t believe the same things. The only Catholics who come to our liturgies in Albuquerque are Syrian Arabs…certainly “Eastern” enough culturally, right? But they don’t commune, and never will unless they accept the faith and get baptized just like the rest of us have (including me, a Westerner).
That variation is also dumb. I don’t know who you’re getting these ideas from, but they’re absolutely ridiculous.
Ahh, so your one of those Orthodox who falsely believes that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the Eastern Church’s defeating the Arian heresy and the Iconoclasts heresy which came from the Eastern Church’s. If You are TRIUMPHANTLY claiming victory over such Eastern heresies to yourself (Orthodox). Then you have concluded that the Arian heresy is from the Eastern Church’s and the Arian heresy belongs to the triumphant Orthodox Church who single handled their Arian heresy. I rest my case.
I was following you along the Eastern Church’s falling in and out of heresy up until you changed the topic to the Western heresies? What is you point?
Your opinion is debatable and contradicts historical facts of the councils findings which needed the Emperor’s approval who got his from the bishop’s of Rome. The councils are never ecumenical without the bishop of Romes approval.
When you get to know me better on these boards as past Orthodox have. You will find that this Roman Catholic does not back peddle. I will admit when I am wrong, or if you misunderstood my statement. But I see no need to back peddle from sharing my faith or correcting others who misunderstand my faith.
Ignorance does not call for forgiveness, it calls for peaceful clarification and understanding. If one refuses to exchange or engage on the subject at hand with me, that is not lacking charity, but a refusal from allowing charity a chance. I do not want to change your mind on anything. I only ask that you don’t tell me what my Catholic faith teaches and believes, contrary to the way you present Catholic Teachings.
Reread my posts I never make that assertion that the Orthodox were Arians. Only what you and I both revealed at the top of this post, Orthodox claiming to the sole victory of Arianism to the Orthodox church. It appears you wish to dish out, but when it comes full circle back to you, you cry foul.
I will repeat what I stated in my previosu posts. The Arian heresy came out of the Eastern Church’s, the early church councils defeated the Eastern heresy’s which came from the sister church’s to the Orthodox, who taught heterodoxy.
That’s a good point dzheremi, I could of been more clearer here; Because the Orthodox are autocephalous (self governing independent church’s from one another), reveals an independent thinking from each Church that gives it’s own objection to the filioque with different opinions from one another. They all object to filioque but not all for the same reason and understanding.
What is this? with the bishop of Rome defeating heresy all by himself? Do you Orthodox really believe that the Popes are super supreme humans with super hero powers? The Pope included the filioque that defeated the Arians from infecting the flock with a heretical view of the Nicene Creed. It was all the bishops united with the Pope that took this stance against Arianism. As far as the Eastern heresies, the Popes always sent delegates to the councils, they did not attend councils if rarerly. All defeated heresies is a united front by the whole church. Who thinks this way about the Church? That one bishop defeats a heresy?
Hmm. I’ve read refutations of the Filioque from my own church, from the Antiochians (EO), and others, and they seem pretty consistent.
No, no. My point was to these (probably hypothetical) Orthodox you mentioned who talk about defeating heresy without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the Roman bishop. as though that’s any more realistic than the RC idea that we have Rome to thank for crushing heresies via the filioque (which is not at all what the filioque actually did; Arianism existed, especially in the West, into the 7th century). No one bishop can be said to have stopped Arianism, and certainly not through the filioque addition.
Except that’s not what the filioque did. That may be what its supporters think of it as doing, but that’s not what actually happened. King Garibald (671 AD) is recorded as the last of the Arian kings of Europe, and Arianism survived in North Africa (among the Latin churches there) pretty much until the rise of Islam.
People who put so much importance on a particular bishop’s (name removed by moderator)ut might…
I’m not Orthodox, I’m Catholic, and I did not say that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the defeat of the Arian heresy in the Eastern Church, and I’ve said nothing about the Iconoclast heresy. What I have said is that the history of the Arian heresy in the East and the history of the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils (which were basically Eastern affairs-Nicaea was almost entirely made up of Eastern bishops, and Constantinople had not one single western bishop in attendance) shows that most of the work in defeating Arianism in the East was done in the East, by eastern bishops, particularly St. Athanasius the Great, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. This is pretty straightforward, basic church history.Ahh, so your one of those Orthodox who falsely believes that the bishop of Rome had nothing to do with the Eastern Church’s defeating the Arian heresy and the Iconoclasts heresy which came from the Eastern Church’s. If You are TRIUMPHANTLY claiming victory over such Eastern heresies to yourself (Orthodox). Then you have concluded that the Arian heresy is from the Eastern Church’s and the Arian heresy belongs to the triumphant Orthodox Church who single handled their Arian heresy. I rest my case.
My point is that it’s perfectly understandable that the sort of absurd, triumphalist rhetoric that comes from some bigoted, ill-informed (or perhaps dishonest) Roman Catholics who blame every heresy in history on the East, while ignoring the West’s own history of history, is met with a tendency on the part of the Orthodox to minimize, or even deny entirely the role of the bishop of Rome in defeating eastern heresies. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s understandable.
I never said that councils are not deemed to be ecumenical without the approval of the bishop of Rome. So no, what I stated made no sort of contradiction whatsoever. However, history is quite clear that most of the work for defeating Arianism at the first two Ecumenical Councils was done by eastern bishops. There’s simply no way around it, regardless of how much Latin triumphalists would like to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.
All of the errors you continue to make about basic early church history, which any first year theology student would be able to spot from a mile away suggests otherwise.
Retreat from your inflammatory, insulting way of dealing with the Orthodox, as well as your historical inaccuracies, and I’ll be much more inclined to take what you’re saying seriously.
As I said before, the way you were continually calling Arianism “their Eastern heresy,” it was perfectly reasonable that I, or anyone else, would conclude that you were blaming the Orthodox for the Arian heresy. If all along you meant what you now claim you intended, then why didn’t say that all along, instead of putting it in such insulting, inflammatory language?Reread my posts I never make that assertion that the Orthodox were Arians. Only what you and I both revealed at the top of this post, Orthodox claiming to the sole victory of Arianism to the Orthodox church. It appears you wish to dish out, but when it comes full circle back to you, you cry foul.
Here you are blaming the Orthodox again for heresy, and you expect me to take seriously your claim that you’re not blaming the Orthodox for Arianism? And you accuse me of crying foul?
I suppose, in charity, I should take this at face value, but, as an Eastern Christian, I’m really having a hard time doing so, given your anti-eastern polemic.
I’ve often encountered Catholics that want to convert to Orthodoxy because they are tired of the sexual abuse problem or because they feel the Novus Ordo Missae is boring. For example, for a while, I went to an Orthodox Church. I met a guy there that converted to Orthodoxy because of the sexual abuse problem in his former parish. He still believed in Catholic doctrine, i.e. papal supremacy, the Immaculate Conception, etc. A reason like this is not a good reason to convert to Orthodoxy.
I guess my post would have been clearer if I had said: “What we’re talking about here is a two-edged sword – namely, the idea that incorrectly equates easternness with Orthodoxy.”
I quite agree: I’m not going to encourage anyone to convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy – or from Orthodoxy to Catholicism either.
If your assumption was a fact in 671 a.d. You would have all Latin Church’s under King Garibald practicing Arianism. But your assumption is never the case. The latin church refused the Arian heresy from infecting the Latin Church. If you what you assume is true, then today you would be calling my Roman Catholic faith “Arian” today. But your assumption is false.
Simply put; Who approved the councils findings? I rest my case.
Hello! the subject is about the Eastern Arian heresy. We are not discussing Western heresies.
I will be gladly humbled by any first year theology student here to refute the historical facts that I have presented here. I have not found one yet. You object to them, but have not refuted them with facts. Are you a first year theology student? I would welcome your refutation with facts. Not with insults please and thank you.
Retreat? Insulting? Show me where I have done one of these to which you judge me? As far as historical inaccuracies, don’t stone the messenger, they are not my writings of history.
Probably because the post was addressed to the second person in the dialogue, you entered the conversation third person and picked up on your own assesments that contradict what was an ongoing dialoque between first and second persons. And you insult me and blame me for your late entry and misunderstandings of an established dialogue?
Actually, the Filioque was employed in the Spanish Church to combat Arianism and it did in fact serve to bat down Arianism in the West. It did not extinguish the heresy but Nestorianism and Monophysitism heresies in the East were never totally destroyed either.