Orthodox objection

[Saul1]

Hi not sure where to post this but an Orthodox Christian told me the Orthodox Church uses a Synod of Bishops to decide the appointment of new bishops whereas the Catholic Church only has the Pope or one man to appoint or decide .
And that the church and Apostles always used the Synod to decide matters using the example of St Paul at Antioch or how they needed to decide regarding whether to circumcise new converts .
Also he mentioned baptism by sprinkling is untraditional and confirmation at a older age rather then as a baby is also.
I’d rather feel comfortable about the Catholic Church so does anybody know how to reply to these things ? Thanks

 

[adamhovey1988]

I think that’s a misrepresentation on both sides. I’m (admittedly) not well-educated in this area, so hopefully this comment gets this thread noticed.

 

[twf]

It is true that synodality played a vital role in the early Church. This Orthodox Christian, however, seems to have a very simplistic view of how the Catholic Church operates. The Catholic Church continues to see ecumenical councils, which are also called general synods, as vital to the life of the Church. Interestingly, the Orthodox have not held an ecumenical council (or at least not a universally recognized one) since the schism. The most recent ecumenical council, the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), called for a renewal of collegiality among the bishops in the Catholic Church. This led to the establishment of conferences of bishops in each country which are not quite true synods but a step in that direction. It also led to the establishment of regular synods in Rome - which are now held at least every couple years - with representatives from each conference of bishops around the world.

Regarding the appointment of bishops, it is true that the status quo in which the Pope appoints nearly every bishop on the planet is a novelty and not the historic norm. That being said, the reality is much more complex than presented in the OP. For most sees around the world, this is the general process:

1. In consultation with the local churches / bishops, the Apostolic Nuncio (pope’s ambassador to a country) compiles a list of three names and submits those names to Rome.
2. In Rome, the Congregation for Bishops, a special Vatican committee of bishops, reviews the list and selects a candidate.
3. The Congregation for Bishops recommends a candidate to the Pope who normally goes with their recommendation and makes the formal appointment.

That being said, there are exceptions. In some European dioceses, the cathedral chapter (group of special priests associated with the cathedral) elect their bishop - subject to confirmation by the Pope.

Finally, the Eastern Catholic Churches of major archepiscopal or patriarchal status elect their own bishops in the same manner as the Orthodox… by the local synod.

 

[MiserereMei25]

Please read what the Didache has to say about baptism.
The didache is an early Christian instruction manual and permits sprinkling of water

 

[Saul1]

Thank you.

These arguments were put to me as to why I should be Orthodox compared to Catholic …
do you think they are a good reason to leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy ?

I think not obviously for Catholics but the Orthodox person was actually a Priest ,so any thoughts?

I understood your answers …but just saying he used those points as to why I should be Orthodox

 

[1ke]

Saul if this person is trying to undermine your fatih, you need to stop the conversation.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

do you think they are a good reason to leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy ?

Anyone; Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, who argues in favor of schism as opposed to full communion is engaged in a grave evil. Bishop, priest, or layman. Re-communion could take many different forms, different traditions, different liturgies can all be accommodated.

 

[Roguish]

do you think they are a good reason to leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy ?

No. It is possible to argue for leaving the RCC in favor of Orthodoxy, but the matters you’re inquiring about are not good reasons. You’re asking primarily about matters of governance. Governance in both the RCC and Orthodoxy is politicized. The idea that governance in the Orthodox world is done “right” while in the RCC it’s done “wrong” is naive. Both have very serious governance problems. Second, on the points of sprinkling baptism and late confirmation, these are details in my opinion, and they probably have little relevance to you personally. There are much bigger differences to consider between RC and Orthodoxy if you are seriously considering the switch. Think theology, liturgy, moral teachings, and especially community and culture.

 

[Genesis315]

The process for the appointment of bishops is much more involved and involves other bishops from the locality where the appointment is to be made as well as the congregations in Rome. In almost every case, it is the Pope confirming who is put forth, rather than simply appointing whoever he wants, whenever he wants.

It is always better to do things collegially when possible–and Catholic history (even after the schism) bears this out. We have always had a robust synodal life.

But ultimately, the final say belongs to the Bishop of Rome.

The Apostles had the same principles. As St. John Chrysostom (a bishop of Constantinople and an important Father of the Church) points out, St. Peter could have unilaterally appointed Judas’ replacement, but he wisely chose to defer the decisions to the group–this is the Catholic approach.

St. John Chrysostom:

Then after the event, he [Peter] appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein” Acts 1:20 Psalm 69:25: this is said of the field and the dwelling: And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who has foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness. “Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time.” Acts 1:21 Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, “Men and brethren. It behooves” to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: “Of these,” he says, “which have companied with us all the time.” To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of time; for he says not simply, “These who have companied with us,” but, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection” Acts 1:22: that their college (ὁ χορὸς) might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.

newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, none of the issues in the OP have ever been considered impediments to unity. The consistent objections from the EO side are the primacy in principle (not even really in practice) and, for some, the Filioque.

From the Catholic side, the problem with the EO Churches is their ecclesiology (which includes the lack of primacy). They simply cannot be said to be one catholic Church, as the Creed requires. The current real, full blown schism between the Constantinople Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church is a symptom of this–where is that one Church professed in the Creed found now–Constantinople or Moscow?

The EOs are simply a confederation of independent national Churches(in fact, that’s what the schism is all about: who gets to be independent from who).

 

[dochawk]

From the Catholic side, the problem with the EO Churches is their ecclesiology (which includes the lack of primacy). They simply cannot be said to be one catholic Church, as the Creed requires.

Even this isn’t a barrier.

The various churches, patriarchies, etc. predate the creed, and were the norm at the time it used that language.

hawk

 

[RealisticCatholic]

1. First, the Catholic Church is NOT only Latin/Roman Catholic. Many practices and spiritual and theological expressions from the Eastern Orthodox (i.e., Byzantine East) will be found in Byzantine Catholic churches. This includes practices regarding Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation — like the ones you mention.

And of course, the Catholic Church doesn’t just include Byzantine tradition in its Eastern expressions, but also Syriac, Chaldean, Coptic, and Syro-Malabar as well. The Catholic Church is much more than Western, even if the vast majority are in fact Roman Catholics!

1. Second, things change over time. We have to be careful about what we identify as “essential.”

So for instance, how bishops are chosen. Why should this be the deciding factor over who is more right? In the early church, many bishops were appointed by the emperor. Or, on the other hand, some were appointed by the people’s (lay people’s) choice. Some weren’t even clerics before they were ordained! Like the great Ambrose of Milan, who was a government official before the people decided him to be their bishop.