Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences part 1 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick-ancient Faith Radio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_Mallory
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_Mallory said:
Thanks for the response. I’ll have to read some of Pope Gregory the Great. If his appeal to papal primacy is so clear, then I wonder why Fr. Damick uses the saying of a Pope that refutes his own argument when the context is considered. Although, I find the argument for papal primacy (which the Orthodox do not dispute) a little weak. So Pope Gregory was speaking authoritatively and hence expected to be heard and obeyed. A lot of bishops have spoken authoritatively. That does not mean they want to be over every bishop.
Click to expand...
Never claimed it was proof of Papal Primacy, only that he clearly believed he had authority, derived from Peter, to overrule even other Patriarchs. Whether he was right or wrong to exercise such authority is another discussion, one that has been going on for at least a thousand years.

Pope Gregory is a favorite for those opposed to the Papacy because he is one of the only Popes to have writings that seem to go against Papal Primacy. In context the argument falls apart, but it is a tempting case to use against Catholic teachings.

I haven’t listened to the podcast in question, but in my experience any polemic that is presented, even by a priest, tends to be a collection of previous arguments and sentiments, rather than the result of extensive personal research. This is true even of priests and bishops. Very seldom do such polemics delve deeply into context or legitimate counter-arguments. They tend to make for poor discussion starters in and of themselves because they aren’t intended for discussion.

Peace and God bless!
 
Jon_Mallory said:
Thanks for the response. I’ll have to read some of Pope Gregory the Great. If his appeal to papal primacy is so clear, then I wonder why Fr. Damick uses the saying of a Pope that refutes his own argument when the context is considered. Although, I find the argument for papal primacy (which the Orthodox do not dispute) a little weak. So Pope Gregory was speaking authoritatively and hence expected to be heard and obeyed. A lot of bishops have spoken authoritatively. That does not mean they want to be over every bishop.
Click to expand...
This is slightly off-topic, but if you are curious about professional scholarship regarding the Late Antique and early medieval papacy, I highly suggest reading the following historiography by the acclaimed Thomas F. X. Noble:

Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (October, 1995): 505-540.

It’s 20 years old, but it still is a valid assessment of the field today. If you have trouble finding it, pm me.
 
Jon_Mallory said:
I repeat my challenge: Catholics, please tell me why ultrampntanism hasn’t been condemned as a heresy
Click to expand...
A couple of thoughts. First, perhaps there will someday be a condemnation against ultramontanism, but do you think it is fair to expect us to be able to say why it hasn’t been condemned thus far?

Second, as someone who spends a lot of time on the 'net, I find that I definitely need to get out into “real life” sometimes. Otherwise “ultramontanism”, “traditionalist Catholicism”, or whatever term you want to use, would eventually drive me crazy.
 
Peter_J said:
A couple of thoughts. First, perhaps there will someday be a condemnation against ultramontanism, but do you think it is fair to expect us to be able to say why it hasn’t been condemned thus far?

Second, as someone who spends a lot of time on the 'net, I find that I definitely need to get out into “real life” sometimes. Otherwise “ultramontanism”, “traditionalist Catholicism”, or whatever term you want to use, would eventually drive me crazy.
Click to expand...
I am sorry. I will try to get a life.😃
 
Ghosty said:
That’s good then. Feel free to not waste any more time on my posts. I wouldn’t either. Do read up on the actual teachings of the Church through the ages though, as it would serve your soul and your arguments.

If you don’t want to, that is fine as well. Just remember that God is Light, not darkness, wisdom and not ignorance. Pray to recognize the difference everyday, and strive to be in the Light and not the darkness.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the condescension. You do the same.
 
Ghosty said:
It is quite true that Orthodox bishops accepted Calvinism, and did so without excommunication (see Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril). This was not due to some kind of widespread heresy, but seems to be due to a lack of understanding of Latin theological tradition and an opposition to the Catholic Church (Protestants hated Catholic teaching as well, and were ready allies).

It was an error, but an honest one. It happens, and it really isn’t a big deal. Same things have happened in the Catholic Church. These incidents help us realize that misunderstandings can and do happen, especially across cultures and languages.

That some Orthodox still speak as if the stain of sin is a thing, rather than the absence of a thing, and some Catholics think that the teaching of uncreated grace (which is an explicitely Catholic teaching as well, though expressed in many different ways) leads to pantheism is proof that neither side has a good grasp on the language and practice of the other.

These discussions can’t move forward because the intent is to debate rather than share, and debates can’t bring people together.

God is Wisdom and Communion, not strife. We won’t find God nor Communion nor Wisdom by proof-text arguing, and I don’t care to win arguments yet lose Communion with God.

If people want to know what the Church teaches it is very easy to find. If people can’t understand what was written it should be a matter for discussion rather than debate.

I say this as someone that has received the Body and Blood of Christ from an Orthodox priest as my Catholic Bishop concelebrated at a Catholic Divine Liturgy. That is reality, and no amount of debate will change it. That is what matters to me, and it didn’t happen because of a debate.

I also say this as someone that is no stranger to debate onthese matters, as folks like twf can attest. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Care to give his name? His Bishop needs to know about it. Period.
 
Erich said:
This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes the following points with respect to the filioque clause:
In Rev 22:1, it speaks of the “river of the water of life.” What is the “river of the water of life”? Well, it’s the Holy Spirit, right? After all, is not the Holy Spirit the living water that Jesus promised to give? Well, let’s look at where the Holy Spirit comes from according to Rev 22:1, “…flowing from the throne of God AND of the Lamb.” The Holy Spirit, according to Scripture, flows from the throne of the Father and the Son. Scripture says, “and the throne of the Lamb”…the Creed says, “and the Son.” Is the Lamb not the Son?

Also, the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6), the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9), and the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19); just as it calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of the Father” (Matthew 10:20) and the “Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2:11). In other words, the Bible attributes to the Holy Spirit the same relation to the Son as the Spirit has to the Father. So, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit is referred to in the Bible in the same relational way to both the Father and the Son, then the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father.
Click to expand...
What the heck is a Bible Christian Society Newsletter? Sounds like something I’d use as kindling or set to be sent to my spam folder.
 
Possibly no one will be able to answer this, but I have to ask anyhow: why all the polemics against the Orthodox lately? (I mean in general, not just on this thread.)
 
PatrickC said:
Care to give his name? His Bishop needs to know about it. Period.
Click to expand...
Don’t presume that this happened without the knowledge and approval of his Bishop. You don’t even know what Orthodox Church the priest is from, nor what ecclesial laws bind him, nor the standing pastoral provisions between his Church and mine, nor the circumstances, and I won’t share them with you now.

Not all of us come from places where we can be so picky about which priestly hand brings us Christ.

Pray on it and let God care for his own.

Peace and God bless!
 
PatrickC said:
Care to give his name? His Bishop needs to know about it. Period.
Click to expand...
If its any consolation to you, I also take part in the Catholic Eucharist whenever I find myself at a Catholic mass. As to whether or not bishops are notified, that’s something I really don’t care about, and really I think only Orthodox Christians who have Donatist tendencies really care about these matters. Also, I have post-facto dispensation from my priest on this matter, if that is any consolation.
 
Ghosty said:
Don’t presume that this happened without the knowledge and approval of his Bishop. You don’t even know what Orthodox Church the priest is from, nor what ecclesial laws bind him, nor the standing pastoral provisions between his Church and mine, nor the circumstances, and I won’t share them with you now.

Not all of us come from places where we can be so picky about which priestly hand brings us Christ.

Pray on it and let God care for his own.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
You’re saying that you live in one of those places? Give me a break. This isn’t some backwater town in the Middle East where something like that would be necessary. I’m fairly sure. If he’s Antiochian he’s taking advantage of limited pastoral provisions pertaining to certain places in the Middle East.
 
Rohzek said:
If its any consolation to you, I also take part in the Catholic Eucharist whenever I find myself at a Catholic mass. As to whether or not bishops are notified, that’s something I really don’t care about, and really I think only Orthodox Christians who have Donatist tendencies really care about these matters. Also, I have post-facto dispensation from my priest on this matter, if that is any consolation.
Click to expand...
That’s no consolation. You know perfectly well it’s not normally allowed, and you seem to feel entitled to just do whatever you want. Go for it, but you should know better.
 
PatrickC said:
That’s no consolation. You know perfectly well it’s not normally allowed, and you seem to feel entitled to just do whatever you want. Go for it, but you should know better.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t “know better,” because I’m not a rabid Donatist like you are. I understand the desirability to have communion in one’s own church, but to go as far as to try to punish priests who allow intercommunion due to circumstances sounds like something the pharisees would do.
 
Rohzek said:
If its any consolation to you, I also take part in the Catholic Eucharist whenever I find myself at a Catholic mass. As to whether or not bishops are notified, that’s something I really don’t care about, and really I think only Orthodox Christians who have Donatist tendencies really care about these matters. Also, I have post-facto dispensation from my priest on this matter, if that is any consolation.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Rohzek. Fortunately my experiences in the real world with Orthodox have been more along the lines of people like you.

I am a Catholic, and I agree with the teachings of the Church, but I recognize that schism is first and foremost a sickness of the heart, and it infects both sides.

Obviously, I am more than willing and joyful to receive from an Orthodox priest. I wish the opportunity came up more often. While I too recognize the importance of recognizing the difficulties that remain between us, the schism doesn’t run so deep in my informed view, and it doesn’t run through me. If Christ is there in an Orthodox Church, then I am there too if I am with Christ.

Peace and God bless!
 
Rohzek said:
No, I don’t “know better,” because I’m not a rabid Donatist like you are. I understand the desirability to have communion in one’s own church, but to go as far as to try to punish priests who allow intercommunion due to circumstances sounds like something the pharisees would do.
Click to expand...
Donatist nothing. There are no Orthodox Churches anywhere near you? If that’s true, just say your prayers and commute when you can get to one. I don’t appreciate being called a Donatist for simply following what we both know is the normative discipline of our Churches. In my own parish you’d have to have a serious talk with the priest if he found out you’d been receiving in RCC Churches. We both know that’s the norm. Communion implies and requires unity, and receiving in Catholic Churches just because you feel like it’s a fine thing to do doesn’t make it so. Is there some extenuating circumstance where you can’t get to an Orthodox Church or do you just like to do whatever you want? You’re calling most of the Orthodox world Pharisees.
 
Ghosty said:
Thank you, Rohzek. Fortunately my experiences in the real world with Orthodox have been more along the lines of people like you.

I am a Catholic, and I agree with the teachings of the Church, but I recognize that schism is first and foremost a sickness of the heart, and it infects both sides.

Obviously, I am more than willing and joyful to receive from an Orthodox priest. I wish the opportunity came up more often. While I too recognize the importance of recognizing the difficulties that remain between us, the schism doesn’t run so deep in my informed view, and it doesn’t run through me. If Christ is there in an Orthodox Church, then I am there too if I am with Christ.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Then join it. You know it’s not the norm and you’re just choosing to take advantage of questionable practices. That seems deeply dishonest to me. The Schism is sad, but it’s borne out of serious differences in practice and belief. I get a bit annoyed with the implication that Orthodox ‘in the real world’ are or would be fine and that my disagreement is due to some sort of ‘netodox’ fanatic scrupulous phenomenon. It isn’t, and I’m anything but a fanatic, but you know you’re flaunting the rules and taking advantage of situations to do what we normally don’t allow, because, ‘hey, they let me, that’s on them if it’s wrong’. It’s dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top