Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Art321 said:
If the Orthodox churchs were truly Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any need for talks of reunion since they would be within the Holy Church. Also to note, Rome teaches that the visible Church of Christ is found with the Bishop of Rome and all bishops in communion with him.
Click to expand...
If by “Catholic” we mean the Roman Church, then you are correct. But “Catholic” can also mean the Eucharistic model of the Church where the whole of the Church is present in the part. In that sense, the Orthodox Church (which is composed of autocephalous and self-governing Churches) is truly Catholic insofar as it has a valid Eucharist and other sacraments, a valid episcopate and the Apostolic Faith.

Again, the Orthodox Church affirms that Rome has fallen into heresy and is therefore outside the Catholic Church and its Orthodox Faith. (Not my position but Orthodoxy’s position, as a point of clarification in advance)>

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Sir, I am presenting the view of the Orthodox Church and possibly of some Eastern Catholics - that is all.
Click to expand...
Thank you for presenting this position. It may seem that I appear to a bit hostile. My apologies as I never want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.
Alexander_Roman said:
However, a few Catholic theologians have told me it would not be heresy to believe that the Roman Church was founded by Sts Peter and Paul and that Peter was not the first pope/bishop of Rome in the strict sense.

I don’t think this is a matter that should be something to divide East and West on and more than one view could prevail.

Alex
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t know about this. The Catholic Church places much emphasis by saying St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. If Peter never was, then the doctrine of the Papacy falls apart really.
 
Alexander_Roman said:
No sir - Art’s position, while perfectly acceptable from a Catholic POV, is NOT the only position of the Catholic Church in its approach to Orthodoxy and certainly not the approach of Pope Benedict XVI. There is much that is written on this by Catholic ecumenical theologians and I could not possibly do them any kind of justice in a few lines here.
Click to expand...
Please if there is another position of the Catholic Church on this, I would very much like to know. The Catholic Church views the Orthodox churchs with much praise and as do I. But I have only presented what I have read. The Church views the Orthodox churchs as completely valid but also goes on to say that they lack something fundemental as particular churchs because the lack of full communion. What have I really missed?:confused:
Alexander_Roman said:
Orthodoxy represents the faith and practice of the entire Catholic Church prior to the breakup of East and West. The later Latin additions, especially the Filioque and what was promulgated in the 14 ecumenical Councils of the Latin Church - are these necessary to maintain the fullness of Catholic faith and practice when they were not around for the first 1,000 years of the Church’s existence? That is the question and time will tell what a possible Ecumenical Unity Council between East and West can come up with by way of an agreement.
Click to expand...
From the Orthodox point of view, I would tend to agree. But I believe Catholicism represents fully the faith and practice of the Church before the schism. There are Orthodox in communion with Rome and yet continue to keep everything they believed before they came into communion with Rome. The practices, theology, etc from the East and West come together within Catholicism as it is supposed to be.
Alexander_Roman said:
I am an Eastern Catholic because, well, I was born into an EC family and there are other reasons why I remain with my UGCC. I’ve no problem accepting the primacy and leadership of the Pope or being in communion with him. I have always supported the right of the UGCC and other EC Churches to govern themselves. And have always been dismayed at how Rome, although it has the fullness of everything, will bow to what it perceives to be the sensitivities of Orthodoxy with respect to recognizing the patriarchal status of the UGCC.

I respect the papal loyalty evinced here - I just wish it reflected a reality that Rome once possessed but seems to no longer possess. I say this as an EC who, along with many others, would want the Pope to be MORE of a Pope than he has been in the last several decades.

Alex
Click to expand...
What exactly do you mean here? How exactly has the Pope lacked being the Pope?
 
Alexander_Roman said:
If by “Catholic” we mean the Roman Church, then you are correct. But “Catholic” can also mean the Eucharistic model of the Church where the whole of the Church is present in the part. In that sense, the Orthodox Church (which is composed of autocephalous and self-governing Churches) is truly Catholic insofar as it has a valid Eucharist and other sacraments, a valid episcopate and the Apostolic Faith.

Again, the Orthodox Church affirms that Rome has fallen into heresy and is therefore outside the Catholic Church and its Orthodox Faith. (Not my position but Orthodoxy’s position, as a point of clarification in advance)>

Alex
Click to expand...
Again, this is only what I have read. Every apostolic church is catholic, because of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist, and everything else in between. But to be Catholic, one needs to be in communion with Rome.
 
adoglover1956 said:
The VISIBLE Church. Many are part of the Church that is not visible. That is clear from the many posts from Vouthan. All based on papal declarations.
Click to expand...
Yes, the visible Church of Christ is founded the Roman Pontiff and those bishops in communion with him. Although there is the invisible Church, in which whoever belongs to it is known only by God. So I do agree. God is not restricted by His own Church.
 
Alexander_Roman said:
With respect to the UGCC, the Chair of Peter seems to be in Moscow, the “Third Rome” with the Russian Orthodox Church since whatever IT says should be done with the UGCC (short of exterminating it altogether) is what Roman Vatican bureaucrats have accepted as defined doctrine (i.e. recognition of the patriarchate, accusations of all sorts of wrong-doing etc.).

My Church has no problem recognizing the Chair of Peter in Rome. It’s how the first Rome has been **kow-towing **to the Third Rome is what is annoying.

Alex
Click to expand...
Kow-towing?:confused:
 
Art321 said:
Kow-towing?:confused:
Click to expand...
There is nothing that you’ve written in response to my posts that I would disagree with - it is only a matter of emphases and you’ve raised a number of interesting points which would serve for many hours of interesting and intellectually satisfying debate. My first point.

Rome refuses to acknowledge the patriarchal status of the UGCC, the largest EC Church, because the ROC (indeed, all of Orthodoxy) is against it.

But why? If we as Catholics are entities unto ourselves, why would that matter?

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
There is nothing that you’ve written in response to my posts that I would disagree with - it is only a matter of emphases and you’ve raised a number of interesting points which would serve for many hours of interesting and intellectually satisfying debate. My first point.

Rome refuses to acknowledge the patriarchal status of the UGCC, the largest EC Church, because the ROC (indeed, all of Orthodoxy) is against it.

But why? If we as Catholics are entities unto ourselves, why would that matter?

Alex
Click to expand...
Well, I would love to see the UGCC be granted patriarchal status! That would be amazing, no doubt. But as to why Rome won’t allow it, I don’t know.

Although I do have an idea perhaps as to why. Maybe it is because of the recent talks of union. If the UGCC would be granted patriarchal status, maybe that would anger the Orthodox in some way and they would then cease all talks with Rome? I heard something that the Russian Orthodox Church considers Ukraine to be under its jurisdiction and if the Russian Orthodox Church reunites with Rome, Moscow would want to have UGCC under its jurisdiction?

Just an idea.

But please I still want to know what you meant by the Catholic Church having another position on Orthodoxy. As much as I have read from CAF and even on some Vatican documents, they have never suggested but what I presented in my posts.
 
Wisely said:
Oh! I know! I know!

Antioch!
Click to expand...
THE WORK OF ST. OPTATUS BISHOP OF MILEVIS AGAINST THE DONATISTS

…You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas ,

1 St. Cyprian was the first Father to use the term Cathedra (Chair). He applied it (as a word in common use at the time) to the See of Rome which he termed the Cathedra Petri. Parmenian, evidently, had claimed the Cathedra, stating that it belonged to him through the Angelus or Bishop (in other words We have valid Orders, and therefore we are in the Church ). St. Optatus replies to this in the text by making direct appeal to Rome. No man can possess a Cathedra, argues Optatus, who is not in communion with the one Cathedra, which, in all but successive sentences, he calls una Cathedra, singularis Cathedra and Cathedra unica. …
.
Evidently St. Optatus had no fear that any objection should be taken to what he was about to urge, as to something new. On the contrary, it was well known and recognised by all. You cannot deny that you do know. Petro primo. This in answer to who it was who first sat on the Cathedra . The answer is Peter. in urbe Roma. This in answer to the question where was he the first to sit (ubi ?). The answer is Rome. 3 Cathedram episcopalem esse conlatam. Evidently this is an instance of paronomasia or play upon words (Cephas from Kea-f)). It is so atrocious etym logically to derive an Aramaic from a Greek word that Balduinus thinks that that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. …

This is the doctrine so often and so clearly expressed by St. Cyprian, cf. e.g. Una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum, origine unitatis et ratione fundata (Ep. Ixx, 3), and Petro primum Dominus, super quern aedificavit Ecclesiam, et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam dedit (Ep. Ixxiii, 3), and Deus unus est et Christus unus, et una Ecclesia, et Cathedra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata (xliii, 5) . We should always bear in mind that St. Cyprian was at this time the great authority in Christian Africa, not only in the eyes of Catholics, but also in those of Donatists.

peace
 
Art321 said:
Well, I would love to see the UGCC be granted patriarchal status! That would be amazing, no doubt. But as to why Rome won’t allow it, I don’t know.

Although I do have an idea perhaps as to why. Maybe it is because of the recent talks of union. If the UGCC would be granted patriarchal status, maybe that would anger the Orthodox in some way and they would then cease all talks with Rome? I heard something that the Russian Orthodox Church considers Ukraine to be under its jurisdiction and if the Russian Orthodox Church reunites with Rome, Moscow would want to have UGCC under its jurisdiction?

Just an idea.

But please I still want to know what you meant by the Catholic Church having another position on Orthodoxy. As much as I have read from CAF and even on some Vatican documents, they have never suggested but what I presented in my posts.
Click to expand...
Ecumenical Council?
 
CopticChristian said:
Would there be a Council that may serve the purpose of resolving some issues or not?
Click to expand...
From what I have read here on CAF, a council wouldn’t be the best option. It is best as we are doing it know. By discussing these issues with another, we can hopefully get past them. If we can get passed this, a council would be in order to declare the schism a thing of the past.

Just a thought.
 
Art321 said:
From what I have read here on CAF, a council wouldn’t be the best option. It is best as we are doing it know. By discussing these issues with another, we can hopefully get past them. If we can get passed this, a council would be in order to declare the schism a thing of the past.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Thought number 173 and 174.
 
Nine_Two said:
…an Archbishop or a Metropolitan are not over other bishops, they do hold positions of greater responsibility and honour.
Click to expand...
This responsibility is key. The Supreme Pontiff is the Servant of the Servants of God. He has a greater responsibility in his universal munus (office).
 
Vico said:
This responsibility is key. The Supreme Pontiff is the Servant of the Servants of God. He has a greater responsibility in his universal munus (office).
Click to expand...
Indeed. The Roman Pontiff is called to serve rather than to be served.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top