Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[DadDave]

There is one body as there is only one head, Christ. Orthodox and Catholics are part of the same body, that body being the Church.

To say that someone is almost in but not quite, is a bit of hogwash.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is one body as there is only one head, Christ. Orthodox and Catholics are part of the same body, that body being the Church.

To say that someone is almost in but not quite, is a bit of hogwash.

But how does that work without falling into the much-maligned “Anglican Branch Theory”?

 

[Peter_J]

But how does that work without falling into the much-maligned “Anglican Branch Theory”?

That’s really a 2 part theory, consisting of both of the following:
(1) Different groups, in schism from each other, can nevertheless all be part of the Church, each “branch” maintaining the faith of the original undivided Church and the Apostolic Succession
(2) That, at the present time, there are (at least) 3 such branches: Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy.
(Anglican posters can perhaps describe it better.) Now here’s my point: there’s no logical reason that someone could not agree with (1) but disagree with (2). In particular, someone could maintain that Catholicism is a branch of the Church, and Orthodoxy is a branch of the Church, but that Anglicanism is not.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s really a 2 part theory, consisting of both of the following:
(1) Different groups, in schism from each other, can nevertheless all be part of the Church, each “branch” maintaining the faith of the original undivided Church and the Apostolic Succession
(2) That, at the present time, there are (at least) 3 such branches: Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy.

(emphasis added)

“Some Anglican theologians also include the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Old Catholic Church, and the Church of Sweden.”

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_theory

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s really a 2 part theory, consisting of both of the following:
(1) Different groups, in schism from each other, can nevertheless all be part of the Church, each “branch” maintaining the faith of the original undivided Church and the Apostolic Succession
(2) That, at the present time, there are (at least) 3 such branches: Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy.
(Anglican posters can perhaps describe it better.) Now here’s my point: there’s no logical reason that someone could not agree with (1) but disagree with (2). In particular, someone could maintain that Catholicism is a branch of the Church, and Orthodoxy is a branch of the Church, but that Anglicanism is not.

So then the problem is with the conclusion of the theory (that Anglicanism is a branch on the tree), but not with the underlying premise?

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s really a 2 part theory, consisting of both of the following:
(1) Different groups, in schism from each other, can nevertheless all be part of the Church, each “branch” maintaining the faith of the original undivided Church and the Apostolic Succession
(2) That, at the present time, there are (at least) 3 such branches: Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy.
(Anglican posters can perhaps describe it better.) Now here’s my point: there’s no logical reason that someone could not agree with (1) but disagree with (2). In particular, someone could maintain that Catholicism is a branch of the Church, and Orthodoxy is a branch of the Church, but that Anglicanism is not.

The Orthodox Church, and I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church as well, disagree with point one.

 

[dzheremi]

There is one body as there is only one head, Christ. Orthodox and Catholics are part of the same body, that body being the Church.

To say that someone is almost in but not quite, is a bit of hogwash.

I’m sorry, DadDave, but what’s hogwash is the idea that somehow Catholics and Orthodox are part of the same church without being in communion with each other. If you’re not in communion with one another, you’re not in the same church. That’s how communion works: You have the same faith, so you commune together in the same church. That’s how you can tell it’s the same church: everyone communing in it will believe the same things insofar as is necessary to declare each other to be of one mind concerning the theology and ecclesiology of the church. Some groups are agreed in one aspect but not in the other (e.g., Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox appear to me to have the same ecclesiology, and indeed share much of the same theology but haven’t yet decided on an official level if their differing Christologies are really ultimately the same or not), so there is no communion between them (leaving aside pastoral agreements which are not meant to substantiate church-wide communion outside of the specific circumstances they address).

I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp, and why Catholics or others would say that the Orthodox are part of the same church, or for that matter why Catholics would take the Anglican branch theory (which is much maligned because it’s wrong on its face, by the way) and run with it for any reason. I thought the Anglicans were wrong and you were right? Heck, I thought that everyone else was wrong and you were right. Don’t try to be all things to all people. “Big tent” Catholicism is the death of your church (and I say this as an ex-Catholic who still has a lot of love for certain aspects of Catholicism and the people in it). It is better to have some backbone and conviction in declaring your beliefs to the world, as (thanks be to God) your current Pope seems to have in decrying relativism and increasingly anti-religious secular humanism.

 

[mercytruth]

The true church is the church that is not pilfering from the ‘money bag’. The true church is the church that is not represented by Judas Iscariot who served mammon, rather than God. The true church is the church of disciples who are living out the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the true church which Jesus will welcome into his kingdom, saying, ‘well done, thou good and faithful servants’.

 

[Marybeloved]

Is it branch theory to say that other Christians are imperfectly united to the Church through baptism? My little “theory” above was not meant to say that every “Church” is a part of the true Church, but rather that every Christian outside the communion with Rome (The people) are imperfectly united with her in differing degrees. I think there’s a difference between the two and that it is the first one (The Churches are part of the one Church) that is branch theory (heresy). But if I’m wrong feel free to correct me, the thoughts expressed are just attempts at reconciling the paradoxical truths taught in Christianity. But I don’t think they are too far off, IMHO.

 

[Art321]

Is it branch theory to say that other Christians are imperfectly united to the Church through baptism? My little “theory” above was not meant to say that every “Church” is a part of the true Church, but rather that every Christian outside the communion with Rome (The people) are imperfectly united with her in differing degrees. I think there’s a difference between the two and that it is the first one (The Churches are part of the one Church) that is branch theory (heresy). But if I’m wrong feel free to correct me, the thoughts expressed are just attempts at reconciling the paradoxical truths taught in Christianity. But I don’t think they are too far off, IMHO.

Actually, I believe you are right. Rome does teach the Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of Christ and all true particular churches outside its visible confines are called to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. Still, the Church does teach that all Chirstians outside her confines are linked in some way to the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

The Orthodox Church, and I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church as well, disagree with point one.

Originally Posted by DadDave
There is one body as there is only one head, Christ. Orthodox and Catholics are part of the same body, that body being the Church.

Actually, quite a number of other Catholic posters on Catholic Answers Forums say what DadDave is saying. I can’t quote them from memory, but they have a very significant presence on this forum.

 

[DadDave]

I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp, and why Catholics or others would say that the Orthodox are part of the same church

Because they were for 1,000 years in communion. But due to the fallen nature of man they are no longer in communion.
But since Orthodox have valid sacraments, and hence they have a real Church, and since there is only one Church – Catholics and Orthodox are part fo the same church from a Catholic perspective. Although I understand many Orthodox don’t see it that way.

I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp, and why Catholics or others would say that the Orthodox are part of the same church, or for that matter why Catholics would take the Anglican branch theory (which is much maligned because it’s wrong on its face, by the way) and run with it for any reason. I thought the Anglicans were wrong and you were right? Heck, I thought that everyone else was wrong and you were right. Don’t try to be all things to all people. “Big tent” Catholicism is the death of your church (and I say this as an ex-Catholic who still has a lot of love for certain aspects of Catholicism and the people in it). It is better to have some backbone and conviction in declaring your beliefs to the world, as (thanks be to God) your current Pope seems to have in decrying relativism and increasingly anti-religious secular humanism.

That’s a pretty big step from my comment about RC and Orthodox to anti-religious secular humanism.

 

[dzheremi]

Actually, quite a number of other Catholic posters on Catholic Answers Forums say what DadDave is saying. I can’t quote them from memory, but they have a very significant presence on this forum.

Yeah, and they’re wrong.

Because they were for 1,000 years in communion. But due to the fallen nature of man they are no longer in communion.
But since Orthodox have valid sacraments, and hence they have a real Church, and since there is only one Church – Catholics and Orthodox are part fo the same church from a Catholic perspective. Although I understand many Orthodox don’t see it that way.

So it’s a matter of different opinions? I don’t think so. It’s not my opinion that we worship God in His holy church according to the ways of our fathers and masters the Apostles and those who sat at their feet and the feet of their disciples throughout the first years of Christianity, and that it is this keeping of the apostolic faith that marks the Church, and not some legal category of “validity” that is conferred upon us from outside should we satisfy legal criteria X, Y, and Z in the minds of the rationalist Roman theologians who are divorced from even their own history (which is Orthodox). That’s not opinion at all. That’s reality as experienced in the Church itself, not as proclaimed on high from afar off (be it in Rome, or in Alexandria, or in Constantinople, or wherever). In other words, we are not part of the same church just because we declare that we are. We are part of the same church because our faith is the same. The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I’ve been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!

That’s a pretty big step from my comment about RC and Orthodox to anti-religious secular humanism.

What can I say? I stand with your Pope in opposing those things. I do not agree with the church that he is the head bishop of, but that’s not going to stop me from giving credit where credit is due.

 

[DadDave]

Yeah, and they’re wrong.

So it’s a matter of different opinions? I don’t think so. It’s not my opinion that we worship God in His holy church according to the ways of our fathers and masters the Apostles and those who sat at their feet and the feet of their disciples throughout the first years of Christianity, and that it is this keeping of the apostolic faith that marks the Church, and not some legal category of “validity” that is conferred upon us from outside should we satisfy legal criteria X, Y, and Z in the minds of the rationalist Roman theologians who are divorced from even their own history (which is Orthodox). That’s not opinion at all. That’s reality as experienced in the Church itself, not as proclaimed on high from afar off (be it in Rome, or in Alexandria, or in Constantinople, or wherever). In other words, we are not part of the same church just because we declare that we are. We are part of the same church because our faith is the same. The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I’ve been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!

What can I say? I stand with your Pope in opposing those things. I do not agree with the church that he is the head bishop of, but that’s not going to stop me from giving credit where credit is due.

So you’re disagreeing with what I have said?

 

[dzheremi]

I’m saying that our churches don’t operate the same way when it comes to deciding who is or is not in the church, so it kind of doesn’t matter if one side or the other thinks that we’re part of the same church based on some criteria not agreed upon by both, or even understood by both (as I’ve never heard any Orthodox person talk about “validity” unless it is to explain that this is not a part of our mindset, since we’re not Roman Catholics).

 

[Marybeloved]

The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I’ve been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!

I’m afraid your making your personal experience the standard that determines the sameness of the faith of the two groups pretty much proves it’s personal opinion, contrary to your protests to the contrary. There are many with greater experience than yours, some even here at CAF, who say very differently than you.

 

[dzheremi]

So, in other words, Mary, those who disagree with my stance based on their own personal experience are right, but it is somehow wrong for me to proceed based on what I’ve actually experienced in both churches? Hmm. Think about that one for a little while. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Besides, I only put that in there because otherwise I fear that my stance might be seen as unreasonably anti-Catholic; mere (e-)Orthodox polemic, if you will. The actual proof of the differences in the faith of the churches is amply found in the writings of their respective bishops, saints, fathers, etc. which inform their theology, their ecclesiology, and the practice of and approach to their faith. While there may be many similarities at some level, the faith of Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, or Mary Faustina Kowalska is transparently not the same as that of the Orthodox saints, and neither is the faith of the Catholic bishops (including Pope Benedict) the same as that of the Orthodox bishops. They’re just not the same, and to insist that they are (which you would have to do if you want to commune in an Orthodox church) is deeply misinformed. You don’t have to be a theologian to figure that out.

 

[Wisely]

I’m afraid your making your personal experience the standard that determines the sameness of the faith of the two groups pretty much proves it’s personal opinion, contrary to your protests to the contrary. There are many with greater experience than yours, some even here at CAF, who say very differently than you.

No, he’s right… the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith are ontologically different.

 

[Marybeloved]

So, in other words, Mary, those who disagree with my stance based on their own personal experience are right, but it is somehow wrong for me to proceed based on what I’ve actually experienced in both churches? Hmm. Think about that one for a little while. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Nope! Not what I said. What I did was point to the logical inconsistency that is plain when you claim to speak an objective truth based on a subjective experience when there are clearly a good number of people who claim similar/greater experience who conclude very differently than you.

 

[Marybeloved]

No, he’s right… the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith are ontologically different.

If you look at my posting History, you will find that there are things I find wrong in the modern expressions and claims of E.Orthodoxy some of which live on in Eastern Catholicism. I don’t wish to argue that everything we believe is the same, and you will never catch me insisting that we have one belief where there are clearly differences- especially as expressed by the Orthodox in discussion. (Though I’m pretty certain from my reading and participation of many debates that most of what is claimed by “differences” by E.O Polemicists usually involves an imposition of false understandings of catholic Doctrine on Catholics- They love to tell us what we believe, assuming they understand Catholic Doctrine better than the Church herself! Which is why I call these particular ones Polemicists rather than Apologists for E.O). But you can’t claim to express an objective fact and then reference personal experience in support, especially when there are those whose personal experience in the same situation has lead to a different conclusion.