Orthodox and Catholicism ???

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would say that you need to rethink this comparison.

For in Spain, France and Portugal the Catholic church was indeed joined politically to the monarchy.

In fact, in those times the Papacy had very little influence in those countries. What vexed king Henry VIII so much was that the church in England had a special subordinate arrangement with the Papacy that did not exist in some other countries. This traces back to the missions begun by Augustine to the British Isles when England did not actually yet exist, the entire territory was divided into many smaller states and the church operated across state lines with less reference to the local monarchs.

Eventually the “English” state was unified, finally, in the reign of Alfred the Great of Wessex. The church retained it’s own independence of initiative as long as possible from that time forward.

William the Conqueror asked for the Pope’s blessing to take England, and received it. This contributed to problems for him later because he found the English church not as submissive as he had expected, prompting persecution of the church to an eventual compromise.

King Henry II received a franchise to take over Ireland through a Papal Bull from Pope Adrian IV (The only English Pope). The alleged reason was to make the Irish church conform to Papal discipline. This seems to have made a lot of sense to Pope Adrian, he gave the go-ahead.

Heny II’s son, king John (there apparently was only one king John) tried to take control of the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury (senior bishop of the English and Irish churches) away from the local synod. This would have been in line with the authority of other monarchs of the day. The bishop of Rome was able to capitalize on the dispute by rejecting both candidates and naming his own (Stephen Langton). This frustrated both the local synod and the monarchy while enhancing Papal authority over the English church.

Others may recall this episode sparked a whole string of consequences. First John’s adamant refusal of Langton as the head of the English church, then the interdict (a major catastrophe all around) and eventually John’s excommunication, followed at a later date with his submission to Rome.

The terms of this agreement made the entire kingdom a vassal of the Papacy. (This is a matter of historical record).

In summary, the weaker position of the kings of England with relation to the Pope over the English church was due to the accumulated effect of all of these different conflicts and compromises over time. The situation of the English church at the time frustrated every English monarch who could see how the Spanish, Portuguese and French churches were so much more accommodating to their kings and less subject to Papal oversight. It was a source of great resentment, which led to consequences we all are generally familiar with.

Very good I am glad you raised this. Now here is the important factor for all of Christendom to remember this can be summed up by the words of our Savior and King himself “render to what is ceasars to Ceasar, render unto God what is God’s”.

You have recalled history of men confusing those sacred things which belong solely to God and infecting them with politics. Now today Mother Church is much wiser and the Mustard seed has blossomed into a fruit producing tree of God. You have delicately confirmed what I have been saying all along, it is man not the Church which is the body of Jesus Christ that infects humanity and tries to put God outside. Let us learn from history and give to Ceasar what is Ceasars, and give to God what is God’s.

On a side note, there is much in your commentary that can be rebutted and confirmed, but that is not my intention here today, so I will leave you with this “there are two sides to every story”

P.S there is much more history of the Roman Catholic church than the 14th century onward that has not even been touched upon that will accredit Holy Mother Church for heeding to only God at the expense of her Popes and Martyrs lives, but no one is willing to speak of such glories in the Roman Catholic church, and no one needs to for these Saints are in the Glory of God but history is history.
Peace be with you, and thank you for helping prove my point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would say that you need to rethink this comparison.

Cont. As I posted above my comparison remains unchanged by your commentary. If you want to dig out history, must we engage in the Political arena of the Pagan Emperor’s the Constantine’s who ruled over the Eastern Catholic church? I am sure you have your side of this history also, for the Eastern looks to Constantine as a Saint, whereby the Roman Catholic church looks to Constantine as a great man who freed the Catholic church from persecution. See my point render to God what is God’s and to Ceasar what is Ceasar.

The reason I bring this up, is so that with our King in mind Jesus, when he taught to render unto God what is God’s. If you reread your commentary with our Kings message in mind, may the Holy Spirit reveal to you how foolish man has been with the things of God. Secondly in your history venture, you yourself confused What is God’s with What is Ceasars in the conflicts over Church disciplines with political fighting to justify wars by including God’s church. Maybe prejudices or reservations are being exposed here about divine authority and the abuse of it?

This is what I draw your attention too, not the opinions of history.
Peace be with you

 

[Peter_J]

What about all the anti-protestantism?

Hi grampben,

I have to admit that, as I was reading this thread, I didn’t think of anti-protestantism until I got to your post.

But you’re definitely right: there is such a thing as anti-protestantism too, and it too is a very real problem.

I agree, it seems many catholics take sola scriptura to mean ‘we can only look to the bible’. What is originally meant was that the ultimate authority on earth is scripture, as opposed to the magesterium.

If that’s what you mean by it, then I think you should call it something other than sola scriptura.

 

[Peter_J]

After all it was primarily the eastern churches that caused havoc with the first seven ecumenical councils. Hah! That should tweek your nose.

Yeah, why’d they have to go and stir up trouble by excommunicating Arius and Nestorius?

 

[Peter_J]

I see what you are saying, and I have seen this myself. These are more on the line of over-generalizations though. What I am really interested in is knowing if there is a specific Protestant belief that you feel we Catholics get completely wrong.

On a side note, over-generalizations definitely happen the other way as well. An extreme form of this is when Protestants say “I heard a Catholic say X, so therefore X is the Catholic position”.

 

[jblake]

Gabriel of 12;:

The Catholic church has never declared War on any nation.

The Holy See has formally declared war on other countries. Whilst The Catholic Church and The Holy See are two different things, they usually work in mutual harmony with each other.

This is without considering the issue of whether or not encouraging, or approving that countries to go war with each other is tantamount to directly going to war with a country.

There is also the issue of whether or not clergy of a church encouraging those of military age to go to war, is tantamount to that church going to war.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

Roman_Catholic;:

if there is a specific Protestant belief that you feel we Catholics get completely wrong.

“Protestant Theology” is a convenient fiction. You have to study the theology of each of the groups that are lumped into “Protestant Christianity”.
The major groups are:

• Lutheran, and offshoots;
• Anglicans and offshoots;
  ** Wesleyian Christianity;
• Reformed Christianity;
• Restoration Christianity;
• Anabaptists, and those who claim descent from them;
• Post Modern Christianity;

About the only thing that unites them, is that none of them submit to either the Pope, or any of the Orthodox Patriarchs.

jonathon

 

[Robertwilliam]

And the Orthodox Patriarchs do not submit to the Pope either.

 

[Hesychios]

And the Orthodox Patriarchs do not submit to the Pope either.

And for good reason!
It was not that way from the beginning.

This whole ‘submission’ concept has gotten way out of hand, completely alien to the early church practice, which is all Orthodox would know.

If the bishop of Rome would care to return to the practices of the early church I am sure we could work out some arrangement which is correct, scriptural and equitable in light of past practices.

The correctness of Holy Orthodoxy does not depend upon human political arrangements, but upon fidelity to the ancient received Faith. That means neither adding, nor rejecting what came before us. Frankly, we never needed the bishop of Rome nor any other to assure this, only Jesus Christ Himself.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cart05.jpg

 

[sambos671]

Yeah, why’d they have to go and stir up trouble by excommunicating Arius and Nestorius?

Yeah!!! Oh… Wait …Uh… yeah… uh what…?

I guess no nose tweeking then.

 

[cretu]

And for good reason!
It was not that way from the beginning.

This whole ‘submission’ concept has gotten way out of hand, completely alien to the early church practice, which is all Orthodox would know.

If the bishop of Rome would care to return to the practices of the early church I am sure we could work out some arrangement which is correct, scriptural and equitable in light of past practices.

The correctness of Holy Orthodoxy does not depend upon human political arrangements, but upon fidelity to the ancient received Faith. That means neither adding, nor rejecting what came before us. Frankly, we never needed the bishop of Rome nor any other to assure this, only Jesus Christ Himself.

so what do the 15 Greek Orthodox Traditional Churches that follow the old calendar say about Holy Orthodoxy and ancient Faith??

 

[brigantine]

so what do the 15 Greek Orthodox Traditional Churches that follow the old calendar say about Holy Orthodoxy and ancient Faith??

I believe there at least 20 Orthodox jurisdictions in the US with varying degrees of canonical validity. This does not include the all the “catacomb” Churches in Russian and Eastern Europe that all claim to be true authentic Orthodox Churches that are untainted by communism, ecumenism, or whatever ism of the day they want. I was doing some research into all the Orthodox Churches a few years back to try and see which claims are true but I stopped when my head started hurting!

 

[cretu]

I believe there at least 20 Orthodox jurisdictions in the US with varying degrees of canonical validity. This does not include the all the “catacomb” Churches in Russian and Eastern Europe that all claim to be true authentic Orthodox Churches that are untainted by communism, ecumenism, or whatever ism of the day they want. I was doing some research into all the Orthodox Churches a few years back to try and see which claims are true but I stopped when my head started hurting!

i reffered to the 15 Churches in Greece not USA, they dont have a very good opinion about new calendarists, ofc i dont know how much of the population in Greece are members of these Churches but they really have a bad opinion about Orthodoxy of today,

you probably seen this because you are more familiar with these churches:

"And in December, 1996, he wrote flatly that the Moscow Patriarchate was “the Church of the evil-doers, the Church of the Antichrist”, which “has completely sealed its irrevocable falling away from the body of the Church of Christ”

roacusa.org/SOBOR_2008_Protocols.pdf

some synod of old calendarists or something, dunno exactly, seen it on an Orthodox forum.

 

[Hesychios]

so what do the 15 Greek Orthodox Traditional Churches that follow the old calendar say about Holy Orthodoxy and ancient Faith??

I don’t know how many Old Calendar groups exist, I never took a tally and your figure surprises me. However Canonical Orthodoxy knows these to be true Orthodox churches if they teach no errors (these people tend to be very perspicacious), their sacraments are very real and the pewpeople usually have no difficulties when visiting the canonical church, which is huge by comparison.

I suppose then, that they would say something like the SSPX (and the multiple smaller sedevacantist bodies) would say about Vatican II. Does that answer your question?

As you probably know, doing commemorations on the wrong day can be problematic. The RC has what are called Holy Days of Obligation, and if one is skipped for a non-important reason, or forgotten, or “substituted” to another convenient day it may be considered a mortal sin! So suddenly these issues take on a dimension of great importance for the very scrupulous, which may be the case here.

One other argument some bishops favoring the Old Calendar have made is that it has the (unintended) effect of reducing the number of Fast days, which is true. From their point of view this unnecessarily endangers the Christian in their spiritual development. If that be the case, it would be a great moral failing for a spiritual leader to advocate the New Calendar. (This could, once again, compare to some conservative Catholic people’s opinion of the New Mass, the adjustment of the Friday Fast to allow substitution or the one hour pre-Eucharistic Fast).

Personally, I think the Orthodox have more than enough fast days any way one counts them.

I do not see the calendar issue as a good enough reason for schism, and it is unfortunate. There are Canonical Orthodox on both calendars, just as there are Eastern Catholic churches on both calendars, it should not have resulted in schism, but thankfully in those cases the small uncanonical groups are just as cautious about theology. In that sense they are truly Orthodox, prayers all around for reconciliation.

 

[Hesychios]

i reffered to the 15 Churches in Greece not USA, they dont have a very good opinion about new calendarists, ofc i dont know how much of the population in Greece are members of these Churches but they really have a bad opinion about Orthodoxy of today,

you probably seen this because you are more familiar with these churches:

"And in December, 1996, he wrote flatly that the Moscow Patriarchate was “the Church of the evil-doers, the Church of the Antichrist”, which “has completely sealed its irrevocable falling away from the body of the Church of Christ”

some synod of old calendarists or something, dunno exactly, seen it on an Orthodox forum.

If one is looking for dirt to sling on another church, that is easily enough done around the internet.

But be cautioned, I have read the same degree of high criticism of the RC church by people who are communicants or otherwise claiming to be RC. There will probably always be the fringe elements around any good church. Some are just vagantes who like to dress up and wish they had a congregation.

For starters, try reading the archives here of the Traditionalist Catholic section (if they are complete and available). I will not repeat any of that stuff here, go see for yourselves. I have been reading it for five years in real time, and believe me, nothing you can say about Holy Orthodoxy disturbs me after that long-running eye-popping experience

 

[Hesychios]

I believe there at least 20 Orthodox jurisdictions in the US with varying degrees of canonical validity. This does not include the all the “catacomb” Churches in Russian and Eastern Europe that all claim to be true authentic Orthodox Churches that are untainted by communism, ecumenism, or whatever ism of the day they want. I was doing some research into all the Orthodox Churches a few years back to try and see which claims are true but I stopped when my head started hurting!

For anyone curious, here is the link to SCOBA, the umbrella group for Orthodoxy. There are ten jurisdictions. The one member which has some contention over canonicity is the OCA, yet it is represented here.

We realize the organizational situation in North America is unique and untraditional. There are reasons why it happened which can be discussed later, but the point I would make is that this is really not a case of schism, but simply reporting order of the bishops.

It can be fixed but it is not an endangerment. One could say that the multiple overlapping Catholic jurisdictions are essentially the same phenomena, and for many of the same reasons.

Michael

 

[brigantine]

For anyone curious, here is the link to SCOBA, the umbrella group for Orthodoxy.

We realize the organizational situation in North America is unique and untraditional. There are reasons why it happened which can be discussed later, but the point I would make is that this is really not a case of schism, but simply reporting order of the bishops.

It can be fixed but it is not an endangerment. One could say that the multiple overlapping Catholic jurisdictions are essentially the same phenomena, and for many of the same reasons.

I don’t want to get into a big argument with you Hesychios but while what you say is somewhat correct when it comes to SCOBA your not taking into account the multiple old calander, anti-ecumenism, etc… that are multipling each year. They all “claim” THEY not SCOBA are the Orthodox Church and some hold that SCOBA juristictions don’t even have valid sacriments.

This multiple overlapping is not confined to the US as some Orthodox claim. While the US, Russian, and Eastern European situation was mostly caused by the Russian Revolution The situations in Western Europe and Greek situations were not. Greece has many juristition most not in communion with each other but all claiming to be the ONE. Western Europe is now plagued by the EP running around creating sees wherever he finds the MP at. Also, soon as a Bishop under the MP gets mad he leaves, uncanonical, and is recognized by the EP.

Its a mess and I’ve spent enough time in Orthodoxy to see its not getting better. What is the answer? I don’t know but I’m begining to think the Lord may have intended one Bishop to be above the others to prevent this.

 

[brigantine]

The one member which has some contention over canonicity is the OCA, yet it is represented here.

This is the jurisdiction I belong to. I believe it is canonical and the only reason it is not recognized by the others is once the OCA is recognized the the other churches have to fall under it. With the exception of Russia, which could stand on its own, the other “Mother” Churches would loose their cash cow America. This is especially true of the EP!

This only goes to show with no other higher authority beyond squabling Patriachates what do you do? The situation in America is uncanonical and everyone knows it but it just stays as it is because nobody can stop it.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t want to get into a big argument with you Hesychios but while what you say is somewhat correct when it comes to SCOBA your not taking into account the multiple old calander, anti-ecumenism, etc… that are multipling each year. They all “claim” THEY not SCOBA are the Orthodox Church and some hold that SCOBA juristictions don’t even have valid sacriments.

You are talking about vagantes.

There are literally hundreds of Catholic and Orthodox vagantes.

It is just pointless to imply Orthodox vagantes are a black eye to the church but Catholic vagantes are not.

This multiple overlapping is not confined to the US as some Orthodox claim.

It is not confined to Orthodoxy either.

The eastern Catholic jurisdictions overlapping is also uncanonical. But it happens, we have to deal with it as a fact and change it when we can.

Its a mess and I’ve spent enough time in Orthodoxy to see its not getting better. What is the answer? I don’t know but I’m begining to think the Lord may have intended one Bishop to be above the others to prevent this.

I was a Roman Catholic for fifty years, and spent five years in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church.

Believe me (you don’t have to believe me, it’s more of an expression ) Having the “one bishop over all” does not prevent problems like this. It sometimes even exacerbates them (especially by exhibiting favoritism). For instance, there is really no reason why the UGCC and the Ruthenian BCC in the USA were not merged into one hierarchy. The fact that they are separated is a scandal, and if you read the history of how that happened you will understand why. And there is no reason for celibacy to be forced upon the clergy of any Eastern Catholic church, but the Papacy favored the Latin opinion and leaned on the Eastern Christians unfairly. This kind of favoritism (manifested in different ways) is not just an old story, it is still happening all over the world in different scenarios to this day.

But if that’s what you want, it will not disappoint me if you become a Roman Catholic. I happen to like them and their church and it won’t change my opinion of you. Just do it.

I would suggest, if you have any interest, that you try to find a Melkite parish close by. If there is it may be worth a visit.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

This is the jurisdiction I belong to.

As well as I.