Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Vico]

…

So, we come to see that if you are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you are not within the Church of Christ. We believe that the Catholic Church that St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to is found in the Roman Pontiff and all bishops that are in communion with him and we continue to believe that this Church is as Catholic and Orthodox as in the first 1,000 years.

So, from our position the Orthodox church[e]s are true and were a part of the Catholic Church before the schism. But as a result of this schism, they are not within the Holy Catholic Church yet they are still linked to the Church in a deep way.

…

More precisely, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Orthodox churches are particular churches and the reformed churches are ecclesial communities, all outside the visible boundaries of the Church of Christ, even though they are salvic: Notwithstanding the explicit affirmation that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church, the recognition that even outside her visible boundaries “many elements of sanctification and of truth”[6] are to be found, implies the ecclesial character - albeit diversified – of the non-Catholic Churches or ecclesial Communities. Neither are these by any means “deprived of significance and importance” in the sense that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”[7]
…
Despite this unequivocal recognition of their “being particular Churches” and of their salvific value, the document could not ignore the wound (defectus) which they suffer specifically in their being particular Churches. For it is because of their Eucharistic vision of the Church, which stresses the reality of the particular Church united in the name of Christ through the celebration of the Eucharist and under the guidance of a Bishop, that they consider themselves complete in their particularity.[10] Consequently, given the fundamental equality among all the particular Churches and among the Bishops which preside over them, they each claim a certain internal autonomy. This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of Primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an “internal constitutive principle” of the very existence of a particular Church.[11]
…
The fifth question asks why the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognised as ‘Churches’.
In response to this question the document recognises that “the wound is still more profound in those ecclesial communities which have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist”.[13] For this reason they are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”[14] but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities”.[15]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

 

[Nine_Two]

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).

He did indeed.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Peter was never “pope or bishop of Rome” but he was the Roman Church’s founder, together with St Paul, and consecrated its earliest hierarchs.

Of course your explanation is correct, but to frame it in terms of whether or not Saint Peter counts as a “pope of Rome” is pure semantics. Those who call him “the first pope” do not mean to imply that he was the bishop of Rome according to the proper definition of bishop that you give; they mean, rather, that subsequent popes of Rome exercise his leadership and responsibility over the whole Church, that they too must strengthen and confirm their brothers.

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.” - 2 Timothy 2:14

I think Vouthan has done some great research and posting to show that the Catholic Church reaches far beyond the visible Church. And he did it all referencing Bulls and Ex-cathedra statements from 1500 to 500 years ago. The Orthodox Church is Catholic.

You’re talking past each other. See Vico’s reply below.

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.

Alex, of course it would not be heresy to claim that. Obviously Saint Peter wasn’t “bishop of Rome” in the (entirely accurate) sense of bishop you described above.

But no one that I know of ever meant to claim such a thing when they refer to Saint Peter as the first “bishop of Rome.” These positions are literally talking past each other.

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.

No kidding, because it’s pure semantics.

Dear and Revered Sir,

Again, I am ONLY presenting the Orthodox Church’s position. I am an Eastern Catholic with relatives who died as martyrs/confessors for union with Rome. That doesn’t mean I cannot present, in a dispassionate way, the positions of others.

I am for unity to be re-established between East and West with the Pope of Rome being the centre of that unity.

In terms of who was right or wrong - there is a myriad of ways that one may understand how this could come about. If Rome were to drop the Filioque in the Nicene Creed - that does NOT mean it was wrong before etc. It could say that it was returning to the original version.

There were and are Catholics who believe that Rome made a grave error in changing the liturgy and the Mass. For them, it was the same as Rome saying the old ways were no longer valid and yet I meet Latin Catholics today who study and know Latin and who want the Tridentine Liturgy and hunger for it. I’m not getting involved in that, I’m only reporting my experience in that regard. And I hope that by simply reporting it, I’m not demonstrating any bias one way or another.

If the Roman Primacy is to be redefined in terms of how it operates with respect to, say, the Eastern Churches - is that tampering with Tradition? I would certainly hope not. It does reflect development which is an ongoing thing.

Well said.

More precisely, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Orthodox churches are particular churches and the reformed churches are ecclesial communities, all outside the visible boundaries of the Church of Christ, even though they are salvic: Notwithstanding the explicit affirmation that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church, the recognition that even outside her visible boundaries “many elements of sanctification and of truth”[6] are to be found, implies the ecclesial character - albeit diversified – of the non-Catholic Churches or ecclesial Communities. Neither are these by any means “deprived of significance and importance” in the sense that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”[7]
…
Despite this unequivocal recognition of their “being particular Churches” and of their salvific value, the document could not ignore the wound (defectus) which they suffer specifically in their being particular Churches. For it is because of their Eucharistic vision of the Church, which stresses the reality of the particular Church united in the name of Christ through the celebration of the Eucharist and under the guidance of a Bishop, that they consider themselves complete in their particularity.[10] Consequently, given the fundamental equality among all the particular Churches and among the Bishops which preside over them, they each claim a certain internal autonomy. This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of Primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an “internal constitutive principle” of the very existence of a particular Church.[11]
…
The fifth question asks why the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognised as ‘Churches’.
In response to this question the document recognises that “the wound is still more profound in those ecclesial communities which have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist”.[13] For this reason they are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”[14] but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities”.[15]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

Thank you, Vico. People in this thread have been talking past each other for some time. The distinctions you’ve brought to this discussion were long overdue.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Also from the document Vico cited above from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” [in Lumen Gentium] does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” “many elements of sanctification and truth”] present in them.”

And further down:

“Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church.”

 

[Art321]

Of course your explanation is correct, but to frame it in terms of whether or not Saint Peter counts as a “pope of Rome” is pure semantics. Those who call him “the first pope” do not mean to imply that he was the bishop of Rome according to the proper definition of bishop that you give; they mean, rather, that subsequent popes of Rome exercise his leadership and responsibility over the whole Church, that they too must strengthen and confirm their brothers.

“Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.” - 2 Timothy 2:14

You’re talking past each other. See Vico’s reply below.

Alex, of course it would not be heresy to claim that. Obviously Saint Peter wasn’t “bishop of Rome” in the (entirely accurate) sense of bishop you described above.

But no one that I know of ever meant to claim such a thing when they refer to Saint Peter as the first “bishop of Rome.” These positions are literally talking past each other.

No kidding, because it’s pure semantics.

Well said.

Thank you, Vico. People in this thread have been talking past each other for some time. The distinctions you’ve brought to this discussion were long overdue.

My apologies. I didn’t mean to talk past anyone on this thread. Indeed, thank you Vico.

 

[Art321]

Also from the document Vico cited above from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” [in Lumen Gentium] does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” “many elements of sanctification and truth”] present in them.”

And further down:

“Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church.”

I found a documnet on EWTN that will also add to this.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.HTM

In which it says:

"The phrase *subsistit in * is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) for ever in the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately in the 40 years since the Council a great many books and articles have proposed an interpretation of the phrase *subsistit in * which does not correspond to the doctrine of the Council. Among the many reasons that could be put forward for this situation, it would seem that the most relevant is a problem which the Council left open and which centres on two affirmations made by the Council with equal clarity:

1. The Church of Christ in all its fullness is and remains for ever the Catholic Church. Before, during and after the Council this was, is and will remain the teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. There are present in other Christian communities ecclesial elements of truth and of sanctification that are proper to the Catholic Church and which impel towards unity with it.

Why are these elements called “ecclesial”?

One response would be that they are ecclesial because they are proper to the Catholic Church. This would be true to the teaching of the Council.

An alternative response would be that they are “ecclesial” because they give to these Christian communities a collective identity and that this identity merits the name “Church” or that at least the description “ecclesial”. That these communities have a collective identity is certain; that this characteristic merits the name Church is open to question. What is intended with the name “Church” and how is it to be demonstrated that it is theologically correct to apply the name to non-Catholic Christian communities?

A third response would be to justify the term “ecclesial” on account of a presence and an action of the Church of Christ. Now, in a proper sense this is not acceptable because the Church of Christ, that is, the Catholic Church, in its integrity is not present and operative in the Christian communities. A partial subsistence in being is a contradiction in terms, because it would be simultaneously both complete and a partial existence.

However, this could be possible in an analogous sense. If, for instance, one says that the United Nations has restored order in a particular country, what we are talking about is not the United Nations, nor even a part of it, but rather a group of soldiers with “blue helmets” acting on behalf of the United Nations.

In a similar though not identical way, one could say that the Church of Christ is operative in the Christian communities because of Christ, in so far as he is the Head (not the body) of the Church, through his Spirit, its soul (and not its body), is operative in these communities. Christ and the Spirit work in them, reinforcing the elements that impel towards the unity of Christians in the one Church."

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My apologies. I didn’t mean to talk past anyone on this thread. Indeed, thank you Vico.

Oh, no need to apologize, my dear friend!

 

[Schism_hater]

I found a documnet on EWTN that will also add to this.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.HTM

In which it says:

It has yet to be satisfactorily explained to me how (as is the present Roman Catholic position) the “Orthodox Churches” can have valid and efficacious orders and sacraments, and yet be outside the only body (the “Catholic Church”) in which the Church of Christ “subsists”. How can the sacraments operate outside the Body of Christ?

 

[pgnat1]

Jesus appointed Peter the leader of His Church on Earth. There is a list of 264 popes after Peter who continued to lead Jesus’ Church. Jesus did not appoint Andrew (The First Patriarch of Constantinople) to be the leader of His Church on Earth.

“And upon this rock i will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

 

[Wisely]

Jesus appointed Peter the leader of His Church on Earth. There is a list of 264 popes after Peter who continued to lead Jesus’ Church. Jesus did not appoint Andrew (The First Patriarch of Constantinople) to be the leader of His Church on Earth.

“And upon this rock i will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus didn’t appoint Andrew!?

 

[Nine_Two]

Jesus didn’t appoint Andrew!?

There is only one Apostle, and Christ is his prophet ?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Jesus appointed Peter the leader of His Church on Earth. There is a list of 264 popes after Peter who continued to lead Jesus’ Church. Jesus did not appoint Andrew (The First Patriarch of Constantinople) to be the leader of His Church on Earth.

“And upon this rock i will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

St Andrew was not the first patriarch of New Rome. Pope St Gregory I, I believe, did talk about the Petrine Churches as including Rome, Constantinople and Antioch together with Alexandria that was founded by Peter’s disciple, St Mark.

From the Orthodox position as the first Rome fell into heresy, it was left to the New Rome to be the centre of the Church’s unity. In either case, St Peter is involved.

Alex

 

[GaryTaylor]

All still in question 1700 hundred years later and who fell in error and when is always a hot topic through the years. However, there it is not error today but a inability of those who actually have the Apostolic Succession intact, to discuss the evolution of these Doctrinal changes, and to come to a rational conclusion of what obviously needs to be done.

And certainly before anymore are made the ones made need to be placed through the check and balance of the Apostilic Churchs. And if there is an error at the end of all that, then it need be corrected.

Politics aside, that is what should be done, since we can conclude since Isaiahs prophecy came true and has been venerated for 2000 years, in these weeks, in these very church’s, and when you look at the liturgy of the Eucharist they are all stickingly similiar. And as this climatic period we live in pushs foward, seems to me the only rational voice is the Apostolic Churchs. And under the usual martydom to this day.

Terrible situation we have arrived at in period of social transition.

Peace

 

[Alexander_Roman]

 

[CopticChristian]

It has yet to be satisfactorily explained to me how (as is the present Roman Catholic position) the “Orthodox Churches” can have valid and efficacious orders and sacraments, and yet be outside the only body (the “Catholic Church”) in which the Church of Christ “subsists”. How can the sacraments operate outside the Body of Christ?

I am not sure how you see this based on what you write. The OHCAC is Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West and all those baptized in the trinitarian formula.

This is what I mean when I speak of the OHCAC. The Orthodox all call themselves Catholic and I am sure you would agree that Christ did not separate them as we consider what we call separation. God looks down from heaven and sees His people arguing. We look from our perspective and see what we choose to see.

In this paradigm the sacraments operate within the Body of Christ. This is why Protestants that use the trinitarian formula without a priest are considered properly baptized and incorporated in the Body of Christ. It is our differences that create conflict. Christ said baptize all nations and the nations are being baptized.

You are considering choosing and you should choose as your conscience leads you.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Once again -

 

[John_of_Patmos]

You are considering choosing and you should choose as your conscience leads you.

Schism hater-I too hate schism and they are most awful, but stay Catholic. I really recommend the “Russian Church and the Papacy” by V. Soloviev.
God bless.

 

[Cinoeye]

Hi all! I am reading this forum for a long time and tried to stay out of disscutions, but decided to say something. I do understand all of the Catholics who belive they are members of true original church. However, to belive its the only one is not true. Orthodox church is as old, holy and true original as Rhe Catholic is. They where one for 1054, when political issues caused the split between the Patriarchs of Rome vs 4 other Patchriarhs(Antioch, Alexsandria, Jerusalem, Constantinopolis), primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy)—and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014. Orthodoxy is not denomination but just equaly old holy and apostolic as Catholic. As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and all other strong Orthodox empires such as Bulgaria and Serbia. Rome, remained strong and spread Catholicism thrue colonies. Somebody said that Orthodox church is not one and that is wrong. Dogmaticly, they are united, and they are or equal in organisational structure. I understend thet some of you have no knowlage of this, but those do and overlook this for a reason to attract pure numbers of people to stay in Carholicism, think if that is in a spirit of Christianity.

 

[Cinoeye]

Also, Carholic is only a synonim for Universal- comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (kath’holou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”, and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning “about” and όλος meaning “whole”.

 

[hazcompat]

Psalm-prayer

When you took on flesh, Lord Jesus, you made a marriage of mankind with God. Help us to be faithful to your word and endure our exile bravely, until we are called to the heavenly marriage feast, to which the Virgin Mary, exemplar of your Church, has preceded us.

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱέ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.

peace