Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a thorn man these days, between east and west. It reflects my postings too. Will stick to this thread and not afraid admitting that the doubts of which part of the church that administrates the seven sacraments and the liturgy closest to how Lord Jesus Christ wanted us to do it, is what bugs me a bit.

On the other side, my greatest fear is to insult God, Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Virgin Mary and Peter`s chair. What i probably need is to do some reading, some talking with priests and not making any hasty-rashed decisions.
 
On the other side, my greatest fear is to insult God, Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Virgin Mary and Peter`s chair.
That’s understandable, of course; but you needn’t fear that you’ll offend anyone just by wanting to hear the arguments for both sides. I myself participate a lot on the OrthodoxChristianity forum (aka OCnet) even though I don’t agree with their views.
 
I am a thorn man these days, between east and west. It reflects my postings too. Will stick to this thread and not afraid admitting that the doubts of which part of the church that administrates the seven sacraments and the liturgy closest to how Lord Jesus Christ wanted us to do it, is what bugs me a bit.

On the other side, my greatest fear is to insult God, Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Virgin Mary and Peter`s chair. What i probably need is to do some reading, some talking with priests and not making any hasty-rashed decisions.
Read “The Russian Church and the Papacy”. Excellent, it helped me. Just remember: “Peter, you are the Rock, and on this rock, I shall build my Church”. Also, one can be truly Eastern, and in Communion with Rome, like these monks. Their abbot’s father was Greek Orthodox, his mother was RC. He’s super Eastern Catholic, so it’s like a mix between his parents.
 
Read “The Russian Church and the Papacy”. Excellent, it helped me. Just remember: “Peter, you are the Rock, and on this rock, I shall build my Church”. Also, one can be truly Eastern, and in Communion with Rome, like these monks. Their abbot’s father was Greek Orthodox, his mother was RC. He’s super Eastern Catholic, so it’s like a mix between his parents.
I’ve read this book and he does have some good criticisms of Orthodoxy, I admit. I personally believe that you can make good arguments for the papacy, and I find the correct explanation of the filioque to be acceptable, so my objections to Catholicism right now are of a more practical nature. The liturgy in the average Catholic parish is frankly scandalous to us, and reminds me strongly of liturgical Protestantism with added Marian and eucharistic devotions. I simply could not feel spiritually satisfied in at least 9 out of 10 parishes. The liturgical “reform” after Vatican II was a disaster, and the Catholic Church is barely recognizable as the same thing now as it was then. I don’t mean this to be harsh but I’ve said it here before, and I don’t see the need to pull punches.
 
I’ve read this book and he does have some good criticisms of Orthodoxy, I admit. I personally believe that you can make good arguments for the papacy, and I find the correct explanation of the filioque to be acceptable, so my objections to Catholicism right now are of a more practical nature. The liturgy in the average Catholic parish is frankly scandalous to us, and reminds me strongly of liturgical Protestantism with added Marian and eucharistic devotions. I simply could not feel spiritually satisfied in at least 9 out of 10 parishes. The liturgical “reform” after Vatican II was a disaster, and the Catholic Church is barely recognizable as the same thing now as it was then. I don’t mean this to be harsh but I’ve said it here before, and I don’t see the need to pull punches.
But then there’s Summorum Pontificum.🙂
Besides, Liturgy isn’t a reason to abandon the Church.
Traditional priests are coming back, as it seems the younger seminarians like the older Mass, as I read.
 
Brother dcointon used to be Lutheran, according to his personal page.
 
Thanks. From the conversation it sounded like he had left the Church, but I wanted to get my facts straight rather than “assuming”. 🙂
 
Hi to both of you. dcointin, just to help me understand where you coming from, are you ex-Catholic? You may have mentioned it before, but if so I don’t recall.
I was never Catholic, no. I was raised LC-MS Lutheran and left after college for Orthodoxy. I am engaged to a Catholic woman, so I’ve been investigating it which is what brought me here. Again I’m not trying to sound unfair in my criticism, but I have to be honest about how it looks from the outside for an Orthodox.
 
Read “The Russian Church and the Papacy”. Excellent, it helped me. Just remember: “Peter, you are the Rock, and on this rock, I shall build my Church”. Also, one can be truly Eastern, and in Communion with Rome, like these monks. Their abbot’s father was Greek Orthodox, his mother was RC. He’s super Eastern Catholic, so it’s like a mix between his parents.
Will check out this book. 🙂
 
Not sure however where to find this book as our catholic bookstore in the diocese of Oslo don`t have it. But, i bought a orthodox prayerbook and the divine liturgy. Will read, keep an open mind, pray, trust the Lord and love my brothers and sisters (i concider also the orthodox as my brothers and sisters).

I wish you all a blessed sunday. 👍
 
Yes, the Mass of Paul VI did “restore” a number of ancient elements, some of which the East should appreciate - for example, the inclusion of a more explicit epiclesis in the three “new” Eucharistic Prayers and greater lay participation (“dialogue masses” are now the norm). In addition, many of the “new” texts were drawn from ancient Western liturgies. That being said, I’ve also struggled with many of the changes and have often found myself asking “why?”. The reality is, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (Mass of Paul VI / Novus Ordo), as typically celebrated in the majority of our parishes, seems, on the surface, a far cry from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Tridentine or Gregorian mass - pre-Vatican II). When properly celebrated as the Council Fathers intended, however, we see a very different picture…and I think anyone who has been blessed to worship at a particularly traditional parish or witnessed a mass celebrated by our Holy Father would agree. Many elements of the Tridentine mass that appear to have disappeared in most parishes today remain valid options for the Ordinary Form - they have simply fallen into disuse. If one compares an Ordinary Form mass chanted in Latin, ad orientem, using Eucharistic Prayer I, incense, asperges (the sprinkling rite), the contrast with the Tridentine Mass becomes much less striking. While many of the propers (readings and prayers) for each day have drastically changed, the basic structure of both forms of the Roman Rite remain the same - in Latin the Kyrie (in this case Greek), Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei, fundamental prayers of the mass, remain the same…and Eucharistic Prayer I, which is still “preferred” by the Church for solemn occasions, is, of course, the Roman Canon of the Tridentine Mass.

At my cathedral the ordinary form mass is chanted (mix of English and Latin), incense is heavily used, the music is reverent, traditional, and inspiring, the faithful are given the option of receiving Our Lord kneeling at the altar rail, and Holy Communion is distributed almost exclusively by priests. There are a few parishes throughout the diocese where the pastor requires the faithful to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner - kneeling at the altar rail - where reverent, chanted, traditional masses are the norm. I honestly believe that we are slowly seeing, in the words of our Holy Father, a “reform of the reform”…it may take decades, but we will undo the damage inflicted by liberals and heretics and restore the Roman Rite to its former glory. The Holy Father is leading by example.
Excellent observations, and very fair and balanced. Sometimes it’s hard for people to keep a level head concerning liturgical matters, but I think these thoughts of yours are quite just and patiently, humbly, yet honestly offered. 🙂
I’ve read this book and he does have some good criticisms of Orthodoxy, I admit. I personally believe that you can make good arguments for the papacy, and I find the correct explanation of the filioque to be acceptable, so my objections to Catholicism right now are of a more practical nature. The liturgy in the average Catholic parish is frankly scandalous to us, and reminds me strongly of liturgical Protestantism with added Marian and eucharistic devotions. I simply could not feel spiritually satisfied in at least 9 out of 10 parishes. The liturgical “reform” after Vatican II was a disaster, and the Catholic Church is barely recognizable as the same thing now as it was then. I don’t mean this to be harsh but I’ve said it here before, and I don’t see the need to pull punches.
Don’t worry, it doesn’t sound too harsh. As you basically said, straightforward honesty is preferable. I think it’s eminently fair to say that while the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is in and of itself perfectly acceptable and reverent, in application/practice it often comes to have an inappropriately Protestant feel to it.

We’re working on it. 🙂
 
Not sure however where to find this book as our catholic bookstore in the diocese of Oslo don`t have it. But, i bought a orthodox prayerbook and the divine liturgy. Will read, keep an open mind, pray, trust the Lord and love my brothers and sisters (i concider also the orthodox as my brothers and sisters).

I wish you all a blessed sunday. 👍
How about, “Jesus, Peter and the Keys” by Scott Butler?
You could order “The Russian Church and the papacy” online.
 
Not sure however where to find this book as our catholic bookstore in the diocese of Oslo don`t have it. But, i bought a orthodox prayerbook and the divine liturgy. Will read, keep an open mind, pray, trust the Lord and love my brothers and sisters (i concider also the orthodox as my brothers and sisters).

I wish you all a blessed sunday. 👍
Happy Sunday!🙂
 
The thing is this:
  • I always seek to be as near the truth as possible
  • I always think like: how did they pray in the beginning, what was mass back then like?
It’s a good thing to want to be as near to the truth as possible! Just don’t let it drive you mad or let it get in the way of your spiritual growth.

Two books I highly recommend:

1.) The Mass of the Early Christians (Mike Aquilina)

This book is by far the best walk-through of the Early Church and the origins of the Mass I’ve ever read. It’s divided into two parts, where part one explains the origins of the Liturgy and the Eucharist with brief quotes from source material dating back to the Apostolic era.

Then comes the part two, which is actually the best part! It’s the actual works from the Early Church Fathers, including letters from the Apostle Paul, Justin Martyr, Pliny the Younger, Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement, The Didache, St. Hippolytus, The Didascalia, etc. It’s pretty awesome, and it’s just the early Christians in their own words. Nothing added or taken away. I got it over Amazon for about $10 and I don’t regret it.

2.) Prayer Book of the Early Christians (John A. McGuckin)

This is a pretty straightforward and cool collection of the ancient Church’s prayers. I came across a copy of it at Barnes and Noble and it was very eye-opening and interesting to say the least. I didn’t buy it though because it was like $20, but I think you can get them used on Amazon for around $7.

I hope you find these books helpful! I know I did.

Peace.
 
It’s a good thing to want to be as near to the truth as possible! Just don’t let it drive you mad or let it get in the way of your spiritual growth.

Two books I highly recommend:

1.) The Mass of the Early Christians (Mike Aquilina)

This book is by far the best walk-through of the Early Church and the origins of the Mass I’ve ever read. It’s divided into two parts, where part one explains the origins of the Liturgy and the Eucharist with brief quotes from source material dating back to the Apostolic era.

Then comes the part two, which is actually the best part! It’s the actual works from the Early Church Fathers, including letters from the Apostle Paul, Justin Martyr, Pliny the Younger, Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement, The Didache, St. Hippolytus, The Didascalia, etc. It’s pretty awesome, and it’s just the early Christians in their own words. Nothing added or taken away. I got it over Amazon for about $10 and I don’t regret it.

2.) Prayer Book of the Early Christians (John A. McGuckin)

This is a pretty straightforward and cool collection of the ancient Church’s prayers. I came across a copy of it at Barnes and Noble and it was very eye-opening and interesting to say the least. I didn’t buy it though because it was like $20, but I think you can get them used on Amazon for around $7.

I hope you find these books helpful! I know I did.

Peace.
But do you understand that this is before 1054. Everyone was still in union at this time. So I don’t know if these will do any good. Any books between 900-1200 would be good about Catholic and Orthodox relations.
 
I’ve read this book and he does have some good criticisms of Orthodoxy, I admit. I personally believe that you can make good arguments for the papacy, and I find the correct explanation of the filioque to be acceptable, so my objections to Catholicism right now are of a more practical nature. The liturgy in the average Catholic parish is frankly scandalous to us, and reminds me strongly of liturgical Protestantism with added Marian and eucharistic devotions. I simply could not feel spiritually satisfied in at least 9 out of 10 parishes. The liturgical “reform” after Vatican II was a disaster, and the Catholic Church is barely recognizable as the same thing now as it was then. I don’t mean this to be harsh but I’ve said it here before, and I don’t see the need to pull punches.
I’m “inside”, and I feel like you.
 
Considering the filoque, posted a recent thread, and that the Orthodox Church has 4 Apostolic Patriarchs, and the Catholic Church has only 1, the Roman Pontiff.

I know I shouild not be getting sucked into stuff like this, but I wan’t clarification please.

Is the Orthodox Church the true Church? Is the Catholic Church only 1000 years old?
How isn’t the OC not true? When was it established?
All the important questions…
The whole “when was it established” question is a red herring.

Four contemporary Communions (Rome, Constantinople, the “non-Chalcedonians,” and the Church of the East) all have reasonable claims to continuity with the ancient Church, and thus to having been “founded by Christ” 2000 years ago.

The Catholic claim against the Orthodox, in what I find its strongest form, is simply that the differences between East and West never warranted schism. Since both are essentially orthodox, and the Orthodox mistakenly claim otherwise, the Orthodox are guilty of schism though not of heresy.

The two counterclaims would be the Filioque and Papal authority.

I’m pretty convinced that the Filioque shouldn’t have been added to the Creed, but I’m not convinced it’s heretical. The Roman Communion is willing to allow the East not to say it. So unless it’s clearly heretical, that still makes the Easterners schismatic, I think (but it’s a tough issue and sometimes I think the East is really right on this one).

On papal authority, the question is whether the essential Western claims are false or whether it’s just that papal authority has been exercised badly.

If you frame the dispute over whether the distinctive Petrine ministry of the See of Rome is of divine institution or just an ecclesiastical tradition of political origin, then I would say that again, it’s a tough issue, but I find the arguments for the former position convincing.

I would recommend Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter as the best treatment of this issue I know. Clement was an Orthodox theologian who never sought union with Rome individually, and he has many criticisms of how Roman primacy came to be exercised. But I think he makes a convincing argument against the standard orthodox view that Roman primacy is just the same sort of thing as the 5-fold Patriarchate.

And by the way, since you mentioned the “4 vs. 1” issue, that’s not a serious argument. Everyone agrees that the five-fold Patriarchate is just an ecclesiastical arrangement dating to the era of imperial Christianity. It’s not of apostolic origin and not necessarily a permanent part of the Church’s structure. (It’s a venerable ecclesiastical tradition that should be respected–the question is whether Roman primacy is the same kind of thing or, as the Catholic Church teaches and I believe, something quite different.)
Also, a side question. Was Pope Shenouda III(God rest his soul) a real pope with infallible edicts such as the Roman Pontiff?
“Pope” is an honorific that has taken on a specific theological meaning in the West.

I do not believe that Coptic Popes have ever claimed to be infallible.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top