Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not according to Orthodox belief (similar to how according to Catholic belief, Orthodox aren’t catholic).

If we considered the Catholic Church to be orthodox, there would be no schism.
There are Orthodox Churches that are in schism from each other. It is not impossible that the Catholic Church is Orthodox, and still be in a state of schism in relation to other Orthodox Churches. In other words, a state of schism is not necessarily indicative that the Catholic Church is not or cannot be Orthodox/orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
To this I offer a few points:
In general, this was a well reasoned response. However, in terms of Orthodoxy, it “proves too much” as they say, specifically, at the end:
  1. Don’t judge it until you experience it - a reverent, solemn, chanted Ordinary Form mass is much closer to the Tridentine Mass than you might expect - the fundamental structure has remained intact
This is questionable. The N.O. does not look like either a tridentine mass or an Orthodox liturgy. Maybe with work it can, but now, and in general, no. Taking just two points of many from which we could select, the priest is facing the people and there is no screen.
  1. The Tridentine mass itself, in its present form, only dates back to the 16th century - and while fundamentally it finds its origins in the ancient Gregorian mass, we know that Pope St. Gregory himself implemented substantial changes to the structure of the Roman liturgy
The tridentine mass is much closer to the gregorian and pre gregorian mass (as well as to Orthodox liturgies) than the N.O. is to the tridentine. Moreover, the ancient masses were complex, and a high value was put on the proper performance of each ritual act. The Orthodox liturgies retain, for example, a careful vesting ritual, which exists vestigially in the trid. rite, but not at all in the N.O. The clothing of the altar inb the N.O. follows a similar pattern of deterioration in ritual compared with the trid. and D.L.
  1. The Catholic Church has always believed that the Church has the power (the binding and loosing authority given by Christ to his vicars the popes and bishops) to change the non-essential elements of the liturgy - yet the fundamentals remain unchanging… all the readings and prayers of the Ordinary Form are drawn upon Sacred Scripture and various ancient traditions of the West - many of the changes were a return to older pre-Tridentine practices, such as the restoration of the explicit epiclesis
Care must be taken with this argument, especially when addressing Orthodox. If, for example, things change that are “essential,” the argument actually undercuts the authority you are trying to support. For example, the fact that readings are drawn from scripture is not important - where else would they come from? To Orthodox, the fact that ancient settings are not used, the ancient pairings of reading with psalms and “tracts” (Orthodox have similar, more lengthy hymns that correspond to the trid. tracts) have been abandoned, is “essential.” Someone could read the church Dueteronomy, and it would in a sense be “traditional” since that is what the Jews did when they were allowed to return after the Babylonian exile. It would not be “traditional” in the Orthodox sense, though. It would be exactly the kind of Judaizing that the Fathers condemned.
  1. Do you really think that the Eastern liturgies haven’t evolved over the centuries? The Liturgy of St. John Chryostom was itself a drastic reform of the liturgy of St. Basil.
This gets into the concept of “recensions” in the Divine Liturgy. The Orthodox have not had anything on the scale of Vatican 2, and the recensions have not led to the kind of abuses that your post described. In fact, it is hard for Orthodox to digest those abuses you discussed because you seem to suggest that a crowd of evil people “hijacked” the mass. The Orthodox would ask “Where were the bishops, where the popes?” The silence of the bishops leads some Orthodox thinkers to draw the same conclusions as the Antiochian contributer to whom you were responding.
 
=JD27076;9083427]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…
Thanks
-Justin.
Also, a side question. Was Pope Shenouda III(God rest his soul) a real pope with infallible edicts such as the Roman Pontiff?
JESUS CHRIST WHO IS GOD; PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. FOUNDED ONLY ONE FAITH [ONE SET OF BELIEFS] AND ONLY ONE CHURCH. THAT IS TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH. PERIOD. THE BIBLE IS EXTREMLY CLEAR ON THIS POINT.👍
 
JESUS CHRIST WHO IS GOD; PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. FOUNDED ONLY ONE FAITH [ONE SET OF BELIEFS] AND ONLY ONE CHURCH. THAT IS TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH. PERIOD. THE BIBLE IS EXTREMLY CLEAR ON THIS POINT.👍
The Bible does not address the Great Schism. The Great Schism did not occur until 800 years after the canon of the Bible was agreed upon, and it was not fully realised generally until the 1200s.
 
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.
Just my two cents: it’s not a numbers game. Remember that in the Old Testament, when the united Kingdom of Israel split in two, the one that remained faithful - the Kingdom of Judah - only had two of the twelve tribes of Israel.
I know I shouild not be getting sucked into stuff like this, but I wan’t clarification please.
Also just my two cents: I think you’re absolutely right to be asking these questions.

Know, however, that these are very complex issues, as I’m sure you can see…
Is the Orthodox Church the true Church?
The Orthodox Church is comprised of true churches. By our Catholic definition, a Christian community is validly called a “church” if it is organized around a valid bishop who - along with his priests - celebrates the Eucharistic Liturgy and other Sacraments. As such, an Orthodox diocese is a valid church.

I know that’s not what you meant, though: you were asking which communion constitutes the true church of Christ as a whole. I and other practicing Catholics believe that the Church of Christ, taken in the sense of a visible institution, subsists in the Catholic Church. Orthodox churches are valid churches but are not in communion with the Roman pontiff, which makes them imperfectly united to the Catholic Church.
Is the Catholic Church only 1000 years old?
The Catholic Church is 2000 years old. The Orthodox Church is 2000 years old. For the first thousand years we were the same church. Thus neither of us magically popped into existence at the dawn of the second millennium. Rather, the two halves of the Catholic Church simply drifted further and further apart until we realized we were in schism from each other. It’s a sad situation, to be sure.
How isn’t the OC not true?
I believe they do have the truth. The only thing keeping them from being a full part of the Catholic Church is that their churches are in schism from the Church of Rome, “the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (St. Cyprian).
When was it established?
The eastern Orthodox have been around since c. AD 33 just like we have - remember, we were all part of the same church back then, so neither side can say, “you popped into existence in 1054.” That’s not how it works.

If you want to get technical, neither Rome nor Constantinople existed as an arm of the Christian church when it first began. It was just the Church in Jerusalem.
Also, a side question. Was Pope Shenouda III(God rest his soul) a real pope with infallible edicts such as the Roman Pontiff?
God rest his soul indeed!

“Pope” is just an affectionate nickname for “father.” It’s not necessarily exclusively synonymous with the supreme and universal office of the bishop of Rome.

Two bishops/patriarchs were commonly called “pope”: the patriarch of Rome and the patriarch of Alexandria.

Pope Shenouda III was “a real pope” in the sense that he is a valid bishop and was truly a patriarch of Alexandria. Unlike the pope of Rome, however, he had no ability to exercise the Church’s infallibility personally or make universally binding decisions - not even the Oriental Orthodox (his church) would claim that about him.
Within Orthodox Christianity all Bishops are seen as the successors of all the Apostles.
And Catholic Christianity too. 🙂
How many different Orthodox Churches are there? Also what are the churches that used to be Orthodox but came back to the Catholic Church but still retain their own liturgies?
If you check the wikipedia pages on the “Eastern Orthodox Church,” “Oriental Orthodoxy,” and the “Eastern Catholic Churches” you will find in each a list of the churches that comprise each communion: as others have said, 14 or 15 in the eastern Orthodox Church, 6 in the Oriental Orthodox Church, and 23 in the Catholic Church.
…not some super-bishop above correction, as Hormisdas would have had it.
I don’t think the Formula of Hormisdas conceives of the pope of Rome as a “super-bishop above correction.” It simply asserts that the See of Rome is the Apostolic See “in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides.”

That is not the same thing as saying that the pope is above correction. Plenty of western post-schism saints, like St. Catherine of Siena, would say otherwise!
I guess it has no relevance for this post. Sorry. It is just all the bickering and lack of recognizing other Christians as brothers and sisters seems to be a problem in evangelizing the world. I’ve had a problem with this and I need prayer, lots of it!!🤷
I respectfully suggest that getting into the gritty details and debating with specificity - as Cavaradossi and Marduk have been doing - is not necessarily a breach of charity but is actually intellectually necessary to work through these issues.

But yes, I certainly understand how disheartening our disagreements can be. I need prayer too, Lego! We all do, I think. 🙂
 
JESUS CHRIST WHO IS GOD; PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. FOUNDED ONLY ONE FAITH [ONE SET OF BELIEFS] AND ONLY ONE CHURCH. THAT IS TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH. PERIOD. THE BIBLE IS EXTREMLY CLEAR ON THIS POINT.👍
Tell you what, if you can tell me where in the bible, without resorting to eisegesis, it says that the Catholic Church is right, and the Orthodox Church is wrong, in those places where their faiths collide, I will convert for the Annunciation

If you want to make this interesting, you’ll convert tomorrow if you can’t. 😃
 
I need to apologize for being overly harsh in my last post. I’m frustrated at what I see at the average Catholic parish, but I shouldn’t be so quick to blame the Pope for what’s occurred. I truly wish to see Catholicism return to a more traditional way of celebrating the liturgy, and the ones that I’ve attended that were have indeed been very spiritually fulfilling. I come from a Protestant background where we fought the “worship wars”, and it’s hard for me not to react strongly when I see similar things happening when I visit Catholic parishes. Asking your forgiveness this Lent,

Don
 
I need to apologize for being overly harsh in my last post. I’m frustrated at what I see at the average Catholic parish, but I shouldn’t be so quick to blame the Pope for what’s occurred. I truly wish to see Catholicism return to a more traditional way of celebrating the liturgy, and the ones that I’ve attended that were have indeed been very spiritually fulfilling. I come from a Protestant background where we fought the “worship wars”, and it’s hard for me not to react strongly when I see similar things happening when I visit Catholic parishes. Asking your forgiveness this Lent,

Don
Don,

Don’t sweat it. The liturgical abuses that have become so prevalent in modern-day Roman Catholicism in the U.S. are a subject of extreme sensitivity even for Roman Catholics.

I’m with you in the desire to see Roman Catholicism (at least in this country) return to a more traditional way of celebrating the Mass.

Phillip
 
Tell you what, if you can tell me where in the bible, without resorting to eisegesis, it says that the Catholic Church is right, and the Orthodox Church is wrong, in those places where their faiths collide, I will convert for the Annunciation

If you want to make this interesting, you’ll convert tomorrow if you can’t. 😃
:rotfl:
Great post. You’ve just made my night. 👍
 
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…

Thanks
-Justin.

Also, a side question. Was Pope Shenouda III(God rest his soul) a real pope with infallible edicts such as the Roman Pontiff?
It would depend who you ask - Orthodox Christians would say yes and that the Orthodox Church was established 2,000 years ago. Catholics would disagree.

Pope Shenouda did not accept “papal infallibility” as that is an RC dogma. The Patriarchs of Alexandria were, in fact, the first to use the term “pope” at a time when the primate of the Roman Church was the “Bishop of Rome.”

Alex
 
JESUS CHRIST WHO IS GOD; PERFECT IN EVERY WAY. FOUNDED ONLY ONE FAITH [ONE SET OF BELIEFS] AND ONLY ONE CHURCH. THAT IS TODAY’S CATHOLIC CHURCH. PERIOD. THE BIBLE IS EXTREMLY CLEAR ON THIS POINT.👍
Could you let me know which version of the Bible you are using and where I may buy a copy? 😉

Alex
 
Not according to Orthodox belief (similar to how according to Catholic belief, Orthodox aren’t catholic).

If we considered the Catholic Church to be orthodox, there would be no schism.
Actually according from what I have learned the Catholic Church views the Orthodox as catholic but not Catholic.

It may seem that they are the same but trust me, they are different.
 
I’m frustrated at what I see at the average Catholic parish, but I shouldn’t be so quick to blame the Pope for what’s occurred. I truly wish to see Catholicism return to a more traditional way of celebrating the liturgy, and the ones that I’ve attended that were have indeed been very spiritually fulfilling. I come from a Protestant background where we fought the “worship wars”, and it’s hard for me not to react strongly when I see similar things happening when I visit Catholic parishes. Asking your forgiveness this Lent,

Don
Fustration is two street in all the Apostolic Churchs. Its why as hard as it may be sometime to re-call the purpose of the virtues of the Lord, its imperative to regain focus on this whenever we stray. And lets face it we all stray, some have a firmer grasp than others, but the sin in this physical world is daily reality.

I hear you. IMO the late-60’s till about the 90’s created a situation which became suspect in some parishs. Unfortunate when someone really doesn’t know thus is able to comprehend whats right or wrong. Its following in the belief one is doing the right thing, but the right thing may well be suspect to begin with from correct understanding. Especially when catechised laity seemed to lack for a couple generations. Though I am more familiar with the CC this too seems apparent in all the Apostolic Churchs from what I read here.

Well have to see what the effect Pope Benedict in Nov 2011 has had. The collective effort from Bl JP-II and Pope Benedict already has some positive impact. Although the change now isn’t radical, you can see the difference, and change for the positive has occured. I have seen it in a few short months in parishs I refused to attend last year.

The impact of all the Protestant evangelization has a impact on both the CC and the EO. In this case I have seen just here alone the thinking of what the Apostolic Church is extend far into mixed theology. And hey lets face it this is world wide, while the USA is known so is Russia, China, and most areas where Christianity is at work.

When we take this truth combine it with a lack, or incorrectly catechised laity in either or any Apostolic Church. Then you have an issue which takes time to resolve. These beliefs run very deep especially when incorrectly taught in the developmental years of a youthful mind.

In these situations I’m of the opinion CAF is a Blessing in this regard. To me its never the idea to convert anyone, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. And when one could come here and can open their mind to thinking, knowledge thus truth. I have no issue with what Apostolic Church they attend. Obviously I would like to see everyone in communion, but culture’s are going to vary to a degree. I witnessed it all my life just between the Polish Catholic Church and the Italian Catholic Church. Though I have seen much more acceptance over the years. As a child there were deep breaks in ethnic thinking, not so much the mass. Civil Rights thus race created another severe break in unity. After many decades much has changed but its far from perfect. This is in all aspects of Christianity throughout the USA. If this is self evident in the model of christianity at CAF, then too its a reality and the larger scale model of the USA thus the world.

Everyone hopes and prays for a better world for the most part. Everyone would like to see world peace and a genuine effort to love and care about one another. Seems to me these changes do occur, yet they are met with great opposition, so it becomes just another click of the grinding wheel, and that click may consume ones entire life.

In this valley of death, land of exile, we are called to focus correctly on one goal. And thats to save souls and our soul through the genuine apostolic succession of the Bishops which has continued since Christ Jesus. Even if thats limited to the conversion of sinners through prayer to an individual. Certainly that prayer intercession has an impact.

In this period of which we live its really not logical to think of the churchs swallowing one another up as the so-called “true-church”. Nor would it be logical to believe Christianity will swallow up Islam or the Buddists and the Jews to take the thinking even further.

At the moment the sanctity of life is so diminished that its imperative in this information age we communicate in charity and love. If we continue to teach this, then the results or the fruits at some point have to bear witness. Now with the advanced technology especially the last decade where access is freely permitted we see many souls questioning there own countries imposed beliefs, through world wide communication. The next decade should be very interesting.

Anyway my apology to all for any ill conceived feelings. This lent has been in particular insightful though. Not sure as to why. Just a presense felt I assume.

Peace
 
I need to apologize for being overly harsh in my last post. I’m frustrated at what I see at the average Catholic parish, but I shouldn’t be so quick to blame the Pope for what’s occurred. I truly wish to see Catholicism return to a more traditional way of celebrating the liturgy, and the ones that I’ve attended that were have indeed been very spiritually fulfilling. I come from a Protestant background where we fought the “worship wars”, and it’s hard for me not to react strongly when I see similar things happening when I visit Catholic parishes. Asking your forgiveness this Lent,

Don
The important is Consecration and Communion. all the rest is superfluous.
 
Does anybody think that focusing so much on what church body you belong to could detract from your faith in Jesus Christ as your savior?
 
Does anybody think that focusing so much on what church body you belong to could detract from your faith in Jesus Christ as your savior?
The possibility is there, of course.

However the dangers of indifference are far more dire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top