Orthodox Article on Differences between "East" and "West"

[Paul_theApostle]

For clarification here; Roman Catholics are to refrain from recieving the sacraments from those Orthodox Church’s in schism with the Popes, unless certain circumstances apply. This is a fine line here to draw considering the different Orthodox Church’s.

Peace be with you

Can you give me reasons to believe in or help me to believe if possible that the Filioque is not a False Heretical Belief?

If say that 8th Ecumenical council was real and the Roman Fathers were also present to comdemn it ,what do you think about that?

Do you respect their decision?

Also if the Bishop of Rome is Peters sucessor ,so what,whats the big deal anyway,Orthodox Christians not in union with the Pope can still go to Heaven or become great Saints while here on Earth.

Do you think other Apostles like Andrew or James had the power to Bind and loose sins,giving this power also to their Sucessors at Jerusalem or with the Greeks?

Whats the big deal if Orthodox Christians are not united to Rome?

They can still make it to heaven cant they?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Paul, may I ask to which Church you belong? Are you considering Orthodoxy?

Can you give me reasons to believe in or help me to believe if possible that the Filioque is not a False Heretical Belief?

If say that 8th Ecumenical council was real and the Roman Fathers were also present to comdemn it ,what do you think about that?

Do you respect their decision?

Also if the Bishop of Rome is Peters sucessor ,so what,whats the big deal anyway,Orthodox Christians not in union with the Pope can still go to Heaven or become great Saints while here on Earth.

Do you think other Apostles like Andrew or James had the power to Bind and loose sins,giving this power also to their Sucessors at Jerusalem or with the Greeks?

Whats the big deal if Orthodox Christians are not united to Rome?

They can still make it to heaven cant they?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Paul, may I ask to which Church you belong? Are you considering Orthodoxy?

ive been initiated by both Churches RC and EO and spent good amount of time at both

latley been swaying from one to the other

trying to learn more bout history ,theological truths,

basically if i felt Rome was all ok id be at rome all the time but ive taken in alot of Orthodoxy and doubt Rome and consider it Heretical etc etc for most of the time

I like hearing positive stuff about Rome
I wish i could believe its all ok with Rome but believe me the Orthodox think it is far from ok

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You sound caught in between. That’s a tough spot to be in. I did that between the Anglican and Catholic churches for several years, bouncy bouncy throws off religious equilibrium I can tell you that. I still struggle with several Catholic doctrines and miss my old Anglican parish. I’d be lying if I said otherwise. There’s not even an Orthodox Church around here, closest one is an hour away up in Fresno. Orthodoxy has some parishes in SF and LA but even there they’re not significant in numbers.

Going back and forth between Anglican and Catholic so much, my dad told me I’m “velcro boy.” He said I should put on a patch that says “Anglican” and when I tire of some of their antics, go Catholic with the Catholic patch that I can velcro on as the other comes off lol…

It’s tough trying to figure it all out.

One minute you can read ten early fathers quotes or facts from early canons and councils that point toward papal supremacy and the pope always having the final say. You’ll read a bunch of quotes pointing toward PETER being the rock. Then you can turn and read a bunch of quotes saying the CONFESSION peter made as being the rock and the pope is equal to the others. Confusing as all heck.

What draws you toward Catholicism? What about Orthodoxy do you find lacking? I hear very few people in here owning up to finding something lacking in Orthodoxy.

ive been initiated by both Churches RC and EO and spent good amount of time at both

latley been swaying from one to the other

trying to learn more bout history ,theological truths,

basically if i felt Rome was all ok id be at rome all the time but ive taken in alot of Orthodoxy and doubt Rome and consider it Heretical etc etc for most of the time

I like hearing positive stuff about Rome
I wish i could believe its all ok with Rome but believe me the Orthodox think it is far from ok

 

[Paul_theApostle]

What draws you toward Catholicism? What about Orthodoxy do you find lacking? I hear very few people in here owning up to finding something lacking in Orthodoxy.

I grew up in Catholic Church ,my whole family is Catholic and im of Italian background as well,i feel uplifted and alive also when i go to a Mass ,i like the blessings i feel i recieve from the Catholic Church,i like the big Cathedrals and sitting in an empty large gothic Cathedral and just spending time with God.

I feel natural there as well and feel more at ease there,and more at ease with all the people there as well,

Maybe feeling like a non greek or non russian gets to me too much in the Orthodox Churches,i think maybe it could be a lame reason to not go to Orthodoxy but maybe i feel more at home at the Catholic Church,

But ive only been going back to RC over the last year or so ,i walked into a Cathedral today in a town im visiting and i felt shivers or awe from all the beautiful Marble at the front of the Church ,a women was literally balling her eyes out in the front pew and my heart became soft as i saw her weep for some reason.

Im just a weary with the filioque and immac. concep perhaps,

wherever God leads me i guess, its mercy of the heart he desires, im gonna try not to go insane over it all,like i said i went in an RC church today (which a strict Orthodox would not step foot in) and my heart became soft with compassion and i walked out feeling nice.

so should i have practiced Orthodox Strictness and not walked in ?

sickens me sometimes all the odds and confusion of the Churches dude…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There is an emotional element to religion that people neglect to consider in CAF, just always focusing on intellectual debate. I am with you when it comes to Catholicism. I was Anglican and would hear “Ave Maria” sung a certain way and it just gave me shivers, goosebumps, and I felt a yearning. I would see a crucifix and miss the Church.

You’re right. The Orthodox are highly-ethnic and it seems to not be Greek, Russian, Arab, or one of those ethnic groups, it’s somewhat alien and strange for someone who is of an Anglo background like myself. I cannot imagine myself getting chrismated and going to worship with these long-bearded priests in that liturgy that is so foreign and with that demographic that is so across one ethnic line like that. In my Catholic parish there are Mexicans, Italians, Filipinos, Irish, muts like me, Polish, Portuguese, Lahu (asians), you name it. It’s a melting pot, truly universal. We have a Coptic church here in town (who’d a thunk it!) and there are ONLY Egyptian folks that go to that parish. All Egyptians, arabic, the whole nine yards. I cannot imagine, as some do in CAF, converting to Coptic Orthodoxy and going over there being the only Anglo guy (and my wife is filipina!) with my wife and kids and having them all think, “what the heck?” It’s just weird. It’s not racist, it’s just a matter of comfort and feeling alien. I see Catholicism as being a part woven into the history of Western Europe and America. Orthodoxy is a part of the East, a whole different part of the world that has made little contribution or played little or no role in the history of the U.S. and my culture. It would be a strange experience.

I don’t have a problem with the immaculate conception.

I also find it hard to believe that the Rock of Peter, the primacy/coryphaeus as Greeks call him, the Church Presiding in Love as Ignatius calls it, the greatest of all the early churches, the Pope, would fall into sin, heresy, twisting the truth and perverting theology for personal gain. I just don’t buy it. Peter going rogue, the rest staying with Christ. Not buying it.

I don’t have a problem with the filioque at all. What exactly bothers you about it?

God bless you in your struggle. I know how you feel, trust me!!! Happy Lent, too!

I grew up in Catholic Church ,my whole family is Catholic and im of Italian background as well,i feel uplifted and alive also when i go to a Mass ,i like the blessings i feel i recieve from the Catholic Church,i like the big Cathedrals and sitting in an empty large gothic Cathedral and just spending time with God.

I feel natural there as well and feel more at ease there,and more at ease with all the people there as well,

Maybe feeling like a non greek or non russian gets to me too much in the Orthodox Churches,i think maybe it could be a lame reason to not go to Orthodoxy but maybe i feel more at home at the Catholic Church,

But ive only been going back to RC over the last year or so ,i walked into a Cathedral today in a town im visiting and i felt shivers or awe from all the beautiful Marble at the front of the Church ,a women was literally balling her eyes out in the front pew and my heart became soft as i saw her weep for some reason.

Im just a weary with the filioque and immac. concep perhaps,

wherever God leads me i guess, its mercy of the heart he desires, im gonna try not to go insane over it all,like i said i went in an RC church today (which a strict Orthodox would not step foot in) and my heart became soft with compassion and i walked out feeling nice.

so should i have practiced Orthodox Strictness and not walked in ?

sickens me sometimes all the odds and confusion of the Churches dude…

 

[Nine_Two]

You’re right. The Orthodox are highly-ethnic and it seems to not be Greek, Russian, Arab, or one of those ethnic groups, it’s somewhat alien and strange for someone who is of an Anglo background like myself. I cannot imagine myself getting chrismated and going to worship with these long-bearded priests in that liturgy that is so foreign and with that demographic that is so across one ethnic line like that. In my Catholic parish there are Mexicans, Italians, Filipinos, Irish, muts like me, Polish, Portuguese, Lahu (asians), you name it. It’s a melting pot, truly universal. We have a Coptic church here in town (who’d a thunk it!) and there are ONLY Egyptian folks that go to that parish. All Egyptians, arabic, the whole nine yards. I cannot imagine, as some do in CAF, converting to Coptic Orthodoxy and going over there being the only Anglo guy (and my wife is filipina!) with my wife and kids and having them all think, “what the heck?” It’s just weird. It’s not racist, it’s just a matter of comfort and feeling alien. I see Catholicism as being a part woven into the history of Western Europe and America. Orthodoxy is a part of the East, a whole different part of the world that has made little contribution or played little or no role in the history of the U.S. and my culture. It would be a strange experience.

You do know that there are Catholic Churches that are ethnic, and Orthodox Churches that are diverse? I go to a very ethnicly diverse Orthodox Church, many of the people not even from countries with Orthodox backgrounds.

I also find it hard to believe that the Rock of Peter, the primacy/coryphaeus as Greeks call him, the Church Presiding in Love as Ignatius calls it, the greatest of all the early churches, the Pope, would fall into sin, heresy, twisting the truth and perverting theology for personal gain. I just don’t buy it. Peter going rogue, the rest staying with Christ. Not buying it.

There are two apostles in the Gospels who committed apostacy. Judas, and St. Peter. The difference is that St. Peter repented (and eventually gave his life for Christ). To believe that anyone is immune from a certain sin when the man whose authority he claims committed one of the greatest sins of all is just creating an environment where repentence becomes impossible.

 

[Milliardo]

Peter from Rome before his martyrdom placed Linus his Apostolic successor to continue on his authoritative ministry from Rome where Peter and Paul bones still remain today, not in Antioch.

So, if I am reading you right, do you mean to say here that the Apostolic Succession in Antioch ended or has no validity because, as per another post in another thread claims, Peter died in Rome, and not in Antioch?

Let us understand what is Apostolic succession and Apostolic successor.

Point being then…? I do not see any reason for the list, since even the lineage of the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem have their own lists.

Thank you for making that distinction between Eastern and the later to come Orthodox church.

If you’re talking about the Melkites, they actually were Orthodox first before becoming Eastern Catholic. It would rather be then the later to come Eastern Catholics.

When the Jews and Pagan Rome sought out to destroy Christianity did they seek out the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome?

Actually they would seek out more the succor of the bishops of their place; not the bishop of Rome per se as Rome is far from their Sees, as well as it would’ve blown their cover had they gone to Rome for help. Rome in itself at the time of the persecutions the very seat of Imperial power, and for the Christian communities to send communication, much less messengers, to Rome would be like signing your own death warrant. Before Constantine’s reign then the leaders of Christianity were the bishops of their Sees, not some centralized power emanating from Rome.

Does your Tradition maintain an unbroken successor from Peter to today?

No Catholic in his right mind would even dare ask this of an Orthodox; perhaps you forget your place here.

You will find that your Antioch successor disappears when the Patriarch from Constantinople comes on the scene. We have no more Antioch successor from Peter only a Bishop ordained when Peter was present in Antioch.

Now where again did this strange notion come from?

Here are some undisputed records from antiquity, that confirm the Bishop of Rome in the Popes succeeded from Peter.

No Orthodox disputes that list; where do you get the idea that Orthodox dispute the Petrene lieage of the bishop of Rome?

Many Eastern heretics and heresies that came from the Eastern Church were defeated by the Popes and Magisterium of the Catholic Church since the first century.

Actually, many of the heresies that came were defeated by the holy and great Synods of the Church, of which the bishop of Rome almost never attended and sent his legates to represent him.

 

[Milliardo]

But didn’t the three denials take place before Pentecost?

It certainly did; but that doesn’t negate the point that Peter can be wrong. After all, the promise of Christ is that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, not on one man alone. So to your next question, would the deposit of Faith still remain on the other bishops even if Rome has turned its back on it? The answer is yes, for Christ made that promise to the Church, that Hell will not prevail on it. So there will be people who will maintain this Faith even if there are bishops who will turn away from it, and the bishop of Rome is not exempt from going against the Faith.

---

Is it the fault of the Catholic Church that the Protestant rebels came upon error?

We can most certainly say that had Rome acted on Luther’s complaints sooner, Protestantism would not have flourished. But for a good number of years Rome spent more time defending itself rather than going through reforms, and only after a good number of years did the much-needed counter-reformation came. By that time it was already too late; Protestantism has grown and many who left the Catholic Church could not anymore turn their backs on what they have started.

Seeing as how I practicaly NEVER see Orthodox parishes anywhere and their numbers are so ultra tiny in California, my chances of needing emergency communion or unction from a Catholic parish are about a billion times better than ever needing to resort to having an Orthodox deal with me.

Well, that goes without saying…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**The successor of the Prince of the Apostles is in grave error, polluted all of Western Europe and eventually North America and parts of Africa, etc. with these agregious errors, lies, and manipulations while the Orthodox maintained the truth in its entirety. Peter walks out on the apostles. Jesus built his Church on a wobbly rock indeed. Not buying it. **

****Peter is given the keys in the context of Christ’s statement. We all know the language and context of keys being given to a vizier in ancient cultures and the importance and power that came with it. Though the other apostles were later given their keys, the moment of Matthew 16 is unique to Peter and the rock is Peter himself. And the gates of hell not prevailing against this church that Christ hands to the keys to Peter to protect, pretty blasted ironic that that same guardian’s successors would turn to dastardly self-absorption and destroy the theology and salvation of billions of people while the truth lay with a small group of Orthodox bottled in by Islam and later the Soviet Union with little missionary activity or impact on world affairs. Again, not buying it.

It certainly did; but that doesn’t negate the point that Peter can be wrong. After all, the promise of Christ is that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, not on one man alone. So to your next question, would the deposit of Faith still remain on the other bishops even if Rome has turned its back on it? The answer is yes, for Christ made that promise to the Church, that Hell will not prevail on it. So there will be people who will maintain this Faith even if there are bishops who will turn away from it, and the bishop of Rome is not exempt from going against the Faith.

---

This is Monday morning quarterbacking par excellance. An obscure little German monk in Wittenberg whining about indulgences amidst all the other heresies and problems of the day and the Pope himself should’ve ridden down to Germany himself to work with Luther…How do we know Orthodoxy would’ve done any better in handling this fiasco? Protestantism was destined to happen one way or another. Humanists like Erasmus, men like Jan Huss, Wycliff, all these guys preceded Luther and laid the groundwork. What was the solution? Kill 'em all? Luther probably would’ve had similar complaints against Orthodoxy. His sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gracia all goes against the grain of Orthodoxy as much as Catholicism. The priesthood of all believers that Luther envisaged was far out of line with Orthodoxy as well as the seven sacraments and other beliefs of Orthodoxy. It’s pure speculation and arrogance to think Orthodox bishops could’ve handled this onslaught better. Pure speculation and Monday morning hindsight being 20/20. The Orthodox always seem to almost revel in the Reformation as a gotcha to Catholics. Protestantism was ripe for its time. With the printing press making propaganda readily available, new ideas, a Renaissance of new thinking, individualism, the rise of nation-states, those times were something you and I can’t imagine. The Church handled Luther poorly, no doubt. They handled Protestantism poorly at times as well. But to ever think a bunch of Orthodox metropolitans could’ve saved the day…bah…

We can most certainly say that had Rome acted on Luther’s complaints sooner, Protestantism would not have flourished. But for a good number of years Rome spent more time defending itself rather than going through reforms, and only after a good number of years did the much-needed counter-reformation came. By that time it was already too late; Protestantism has grown and many who left the Catholic Church could not anymore turn their backs on what they have started.

Well, that goes without saying…

 

[Milliardo]

Peter is given the keys in the context of Christ’s statement. We all know the language and context of keys being given to a vizier in ancient cultures and the importance and power that came with it. Though the other apostles were later given their keys, the moment of Matthew 16 is unique to Peter and the rock is Peter himself.
I also thought like that before when I was still Catholic, until I realized some things in Matthew–first, a few seconds after Peter was given the keys, Jesus rebuked him. Later we see the keys given to the other Apostles as well. We see several things here then: first, Jesus promised to His Church that the gates of hell will not prevail on it. Not to one man again, but to the whole Church. This would encompass then the Apostles, one and all.

pretty blasted ironic that that same guardian’s successors would turn to dastardly self-absorption and destroy the theology and salvation of billions of people while the truth lay with a small group of Orthodox bottled in by Islam and later the Soviet Union with little missionary activity or impact on world affairs.

God is gracious; why question His will? If that’s how it took to preserve His Church all these years, then so be it; He is just. So Orthodoxy was under Islamic rule and later Communists, yet through all that time Orthodoxy despite such trials remained true to the ancient Faith. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church opens its doors on one error after another, the latest of which would be trying to go modern. One of the things that had troubled me as a Catholic was the entry of Protestant hymns into Mass. That might be for another thread though, but such a small, benign thing like that can grow and be cause for further errors.

How do we know Orthodoxy would’ve done any better in handling this fiasco?

I wouldn’t know, since Protestantism is largely a Western problem.

Protestantism was destined to happen one way or another.

If this is how the Catholic Church thinks, then it does deserve Protestantism. Or in other words, no, that shouldn’t be how the Catholic Church thinks, because it could’ve done better.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Paul theApostle;6328317]Can you give me reasons to believe in or help me to believe if possible that the Filioque is not a False Heretical Belief?

Sure you if you are sincere in seeking Truth, here is neutral site that explains from both East and West sides that “Filioque” is not heretical. “And that an attempt to divide the bone from the marrow does not negate it is not of the bone” Mine in quotations.

In fact Early Church Fathers are quoted here as defining “Filioque”. The more you expose yourself to this apostolic teaching and not bury your head in Orthodoxy, the more you will see “filioque” by Eastern and Western standards is not heretical as Schismatics falsely claim.

The main problem here is “recognized authority” and language understanding of words from both sides, Greek trying to define Latin, and Latin trying to define Greek. Once you get passed this phase, you will find that the Early Church taught and believed in “Filioque”.

Besides we are not far from reaching agreement on this invisible line that exists. Those who try to make protest of it today remain in the Past and have not progressed (eaten meat) in the gospel and remain on the milk. sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

If say that 8th Ecumenical council was real and the Roman Fathers were also present to comdemn it ,what do you think about that?

Do you respect their decision?

IF your 8Th Ecumenical council was in 1583, and you think this was Ecumenical, you have been greatly deceived my brother. The following is a list of the great Catholic Councils,although the Pope never attended any of the councils which remains a mystery. (my guess would be, to protect the Vicar (Popes) of Christ from any terrorism) From these great councils one will find that the Pope ratified the councils decisions, he always sent delegates to the councils. The Pope not being present at councils only makes one wonder his respected authority. His presence was made known from his delegates which displays a greater authority over a secular Emperor or King who attended these councils.

Many times the Eastern Emperor would get the Popes approval from his councils decisions sometimes when the Pope protested to authenticate or ratify your Eastern Emperors council decisions, the Pope was met with Threats of his life or imprisonment.

General Councils of the Church
Jerusalem (Acts 15:2)
Nicea I
Constantinople I
Ephesus
Chalcedon
Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II
Constantinople IV
Lateran I
Lateran II
Lateran III
Lateran IV
Lyons I
Lyons II
Vienne
Constance
Florence
Lateran V
Trent
Vatican I
Vatican II

One thing that should be noted is that; from history there have been many Roman priests who disagreed with the Pope, but in the end, they repented or repaired the conflict or excommunicated themselves, such as Martin Luther. Truthfully I have never read your 8Th Ecumenical council documents from a Schismatic Orthodox Church’s position, except the council in 1583, so I could not comment on it here, sorry:shrug:

Also if the Bishop of Rome is Peters successor ,so what,whats the big deal anyway,Orthodox Christians not in union with the Pope can still go to Heaven or become great Saints while here on Earth.

Do you think other Apostles like Andrew or James had the power to Bind and loose sins,giving this power also to their Successors at Jerusalem or with the Greeks?

Whats the big deal if Orthodox Christians are not united to Rome?

They can still make it to heaven cant they?

The big deal is that the Orthodox Church’s (in schism only) protest the authority of the Pope. The only one who comments on this issue you raise, is Jesus " Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (Mt. 12:30).

All apostles and their respective successors have the power of binding and loosing, forgiving sins, exercising the new covenant sacraments of salvation in Jesus Christ. No Catholic does not protest this fact.

Peter is the only one Jesus builds his Church upon, the Roman Catholic Church believes this because Jesus said and did this. Proof is that we have an unbroken apostolic succession from Peter in the Popes to today. This never negates the apostolic succession of the Eastern Orthodox Church’s, who exercise their God given authority over their own communities. Peter and his successors in the Popes live on to guarantee that the Gospel is proclaimed “Christ Crucified” and that this Apostolic Faith remains built upon “Rock” Cephas = Peter = Popes today and will remain until Jesus returns for his bride “The Catholic Church”.

Jesus is the one who commands Peters to feed and tend his flock until his comes. Jesus only prays for Peter singularly, that satan will not keep him, and when Peter has gained his faith, Peter is to recover all his brethren. This prophecy of Jesus has been lived out since the first century when Peter first denied Jesus, repented and recovered the lost sheep to meet our resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Praise be Jesus Christ both now and forever;

 

[mark_a]

Hi marc, are you a Catholic

Yes

Absolutely not!

You post websites from their point of view so I’m just wondering what your purpose is? Thanks

The article I posted is from “This Rock” magazine, which is part of this website. It gives an insight as to why Orthodoxy is so much more appealing than Catholicism to Evangelicals.

 

[mark_a]

If this is how the Catholic Church thinks, then it does deserve Protestantism.

So much for Orthodoxy being more appealing than Catholicism to Protestantism.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is a typical answer to infallibility. You assume that because the pope is infallible in faith and morals in an official doctrinal capacity, then any time Peter stumbles or sins somehow his infallible office is affected? Yes, Peter was rebuked. I fail to see the point. He also denies Christ three times. He’s human. That’s not up for debate. But as leader of the Church Peter’s capacity as chief theologian and final say on moral matters has nothing to do with his own personal lack of impeccability. Impeccability and infallibility are two seperate issues. I can tell you’re a former Catholic from the tone …My grandma was what we called a “reformed smoker.” She smoked two to three packs a day for years until she quit. After she quit she trashed every smoker she came in contact with as being trashy scum lol…it can happen that way with religion!

I also thought like that before when I was still Catholic, until I realized some things in Matthew–first, a few seconds after Peter was given the keys, Jesus rebuked him. Later we see the keys given to the other Apostles as well. We see several things here then: first, Jesus promised to His Church that the gates of hell will not prevail on it. Not to one man again, but to the whole Church. This would encompass then the Apostles, one and all.

God is gracious; why question His will? If that’s how it took to preserve His Church all these years, then so be it; He is just. So Orthodoxy was under Islamic rule and later Communists,

yet through all that time Orthodoxy despite such trials remained true to the ancient Faith

. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church opens its doors on one error after another, the latest of which would be trying to go modern. One of the things that had troubled me as a Catholic was the entry of Protestant hymns into Mass.
Not all Protestant hymns are tunes for the devil. Many are quite beautiful. This shows a preoccupation with the superficial over core doctrine. True, Amazing Grace is Baptisty Calvinist mumbo jumbo at its worst but A Mighty Fortress by Luther is a great hymn and Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring is lovely as well. You’re painting these hymns with a big brush.

That might be for another thread though, but such a small, benign thing like that can grow and be cause for further errors.
**Seeing as how Orthodox are allowing birth control in many regions of Orthodoxy, they certainly aren’t perfect either. Maybe that would be a good topic to discuss as well **

I wouldn’t know, since Protestantism is largely a Western problem.
Orthodoxy had few problems because it was bottlenecked up in a small area of the world thanks to Islam. If anything it stagnated and made little contribution to the Christian world, just stayed cooped-up from either Communism or Muslims. John Paul II did more to end communism in Russia than the Russian Orthodox did…

If this is how the Catholic Church thinks, then it does deserve Protestantism. Or in other words, no, that shouldn’t be how the Catholic Church thinks, because it could’ve done better.
This is triumphalism at its best. Sad that you wish ill on the Catholic Church. If you were truly sincere about your faith you’d want reconciliation between East and West, not relish in the differences and bask in the downfalls of the other. That seems to be the tone. Catholicism spanned all the way from Italy to England to Germany to the Nordic regions to the New World, truly all over the world. The notion that there would eventually be rogue groups not faithful to the Church should not be shocking at all. And to blame Catholicism for Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and company is just plain silly. These same men would’ve been disgusted at Orthodoxy’s preoccupation with icons, its similar view of faith and works, the “absolution certificates” that existed from the 17th to the 20th centuries were akin to the indulgence certificates the Catholic Church wrote up that set Luther off, etc. The narrow-minded view that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin is always goofy.

 

[Nine_Two]

You see nothing wrong with believing the office to be infallible when the first one to hold it had committed apostacy?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You see nothing wrong with believing the office to be infallible when the first one to hold it had committed apostacy?

There is everything wrong with infallibility from your understanding and view. Your view of infallibility is not what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

 

[Milliardo]

You assume that because the pope is infallible in faith and morals in an official doctrinal capacity, then any time Peter stumbles or sins somehow his infallible office is affected?

As far as teachings go, they are not affected, for as long as he teaches what is orthodox. However, when he deviates from that, then it is affected. So do we Orthodox believe the bishop of Rome to be infallible? No, we don’t.

Many are quite beautiful.

This might derail the topic, but I will address the issue nonetheless; yes, the Protestant hymns can be beautiful. I hear them and I enjoy them from a musical viewpoint. However, to introduce them into Mass is another issue; it is not about beauty we are talking here, but what they are actually teaching. There are songs that might be benign and that’s all well and good, but the danger I see here is letting a song that is contrary to the Catholic faith slip through, and that is where everything starts. Already I see charismatic praise-and-worship type of services, and some groups even putting it with more importance than the Mass. I don’t see any bishop making an active effort to halt or even warn people. The Catholic Church has slowly tried to modernize, but in the process it also has begun to accept even those which it previously did not.

Seeing as how Orthodox are allowing birth control in many regions of Orthodoxy

There is a difference between birth control and abortion; the ancient Church decried about abortion, not birth control. Contraception is largely a modern phenomena brought about by the use of pills and medicine. But yes, this is another topic for another thread.

Orthodoxy had few problems because it was bottlenecked up in a small area of the world thanks to Islam. If anything it stagnated and made little contribution to the Christian world, just stayed cooped-up from either Communism or Muslims. John Paul II did more to end communism in Russia than the Russian Orthodox did…

Seeing such triumphalistic posts like this only, unfortunately, makes me realize how much true Orthodoxy is as opposed to Catholicism, and is it any surprise that I encounter these from Catholics? Then again, as I said, God works in mysterious ways. So it be that He has kept Orthodoxy hidden, as it is, for so long; in that way it has remained true to the ancient Faith. So it is that only now is it emerging; perhaps that is God’s will more than anything else, if only to show to the West how the Faith should be.

Sad that you wish ill on the Catholic Church.

Actually, if you would notice, I do not wish ill for the Catholic Church, but that it should’ve done better. The fatalistic view that you posted, that Protestantism was meant to be, would in my mind be the one wishing ill the Catholic Church; it would mean then that there is nothing the Catholic Church could’ve done to stop it. That is simply not true; it could’ve done something, as we saw in the counter-reformation. But that came a bit too late to stave off Protestantism. By then, most of Europe had turned to Protestantism, and the Catholic Church had to look elsewhere to revitalize itself or be surrounded by Protestants.

 

[wynd]

Just wanted to throw my two cents in.

You’re right. The Orthodox are highly-ethnic and it seems to not be Greek, Russian, Arab, or one of those ethnic groups, it’s somewhat alien and strange for someone who is of an Anglo background like myself.

Have you been to an Orthodox church? There’s a lot of “it seems like” or “I can’t imagine” in your posts when it comes to this topic. If you have been, I’m sorry you’ve had this experience but I must say it’s not the case everywhere. I’m white, born and raised American, and I’ve been to several Orthodox churches across the USA and I’ve never felt like a stranger.

I cannot imagine myself getting chrismated and going to worship with these long-bearded priests in that liturgy that is so foreign and with that demographic that is so across one ethnic line like that.

I’m sure people of other religions feel much the same way about joining the RCC. Does that make the RCC a bad choice?

 

[Monte1945]

Do we really need these polemics?

The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of the subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any other mode but this.

John Stuart Mill