Orthodox/Roman Catholic converts

[ForeverAdam]

Let’s face it the sigular problem with Orthodoxy is it’s lack of any means of authoritatively determining any Orthodox position without an Ecumenical Council - and it’s been 1200 years since you have had one.

Orthodox Christians follow Holy Tradition and it is this Tradition that has been always maintained in the Church that is our authoritative guide. Ecumenical Councils are sometimes necessary in refuting heresies, but they don’t add or subtract from what we already believe and teach as authoritative. This is also the stance of the ancient Church, which placed its authority in Tradition and used its knowledge of this Tradition to oppose heretics even before the first ecumenical council was convened. In fact, ecumenical councils depend on their re-affirmation of the Great Tradition for their validity.

Not at all. Orthodoxy left the Holy Catholic Church (like the Protestants left Catholicism) at least when it rejected the Council of Florence - just like the Orientals left the Church when they rejected Chalcedon. So just as the Protestants are derivative from Catholicism, so is Orthodoxy.

Only if your Church is right, my friend.

Of course not - but I can name one Bishop who does. Can you name any one person at all who speaks authoritatively for Orthodoxy?

No Church should be reduced to one person who speaks authoritatively for their Faith. History shows that it was taught even in your Church and by your Popes, themselves, that Popes could become heretics. Possible heretics cannot be a final authority in matters of faith. Maybe the fact that Popes got promoted to such incompetence is why your Church is such a mess right now.

You can’t even authoritatively say that the post-schism doctrines of Catholicism are truly not valid since you haven’t had an ecumenical council to address the issue. At best all you have is a bunch of opinions that bind no one.

Incorrect. Holy Tradition as taught and lived by all the faithful, at all times and in all places they are present is what binds Orthodoxy. Once again, ecumenical councils derive their authority from this Tradition and are only convened to defend the Faith, not show the faithful what the Faith actually entails. Ergo, we can condemn your heresies, and in fact are normally expected to, outside of ecumenical councils, which are exceptional actions of the Church and not the normal response to heresy.

One could also call it calcified, sclerotic and dead. It’s always struck me as strange that the orthodox were part of a vibrant church - the Holy Catholic Church - that defined dogma, held councils and made authoritative statements - and now claims that doing just that is a sign that Catholicism is no longer a part of the church!! Inconsistent.

I’ve never heard an Orthodox Christian say that Rome is wrong because she believes in defining dogma, having councils and making authoritative statements. Rather, it’s the untraditional mechanics of how these dogmas and councils are accomplished that is condemned (and, of course, the unorthodox things that result from these councils and dogmas). Also, it is a mistake to turn the Faith into dogmas, councils and authoratative statements. The Faith is chiefly and ideally imparted through liturgy, prayer and simply living an Orthodox life. All else is allowed for our weaknesses and daftness. Turning the exceptional into the norm turns Christianity into a religion of the book (the textbook), which the Fathers always condemned.

One could also claim Orthodoxy’s lasted because it’s been oppressed and has become a rump survivor of a greater tradition that has existed prior to the schism. Let’s not forget that Orthodoxy holds that the Athanasian Creed is one of the sources of orthodoxy - and that Creed clearly states the filioque. So much for tradition. Some are more consistent that others. But I will grant you that oppression forms unity.

Many men in Nevada claim to be Elvis too.

Pity it wasn’t always that way - such as when there was one church. The Catholic Church continues to be a font of revelation - while that font is dry - at least - in Orthodoxy The whole Church was katphatic - and now Orthodoxy is not. What does that say?!Because Orthodoxy has rejected the One True Church that continues to act like the early Church.

I never knew that the one, true Church was opposed to the early Church. And I will point out that the first millennium of Christianity was characterized by a surprising conservatism of doctrine and praxis compared to second millennium Roman Catholicism, where changes have been many and such radical change is seen as justified by the nature of the Church, itself. Besides, for someone with a signature lauding the importance of knowing history, you should know that Church history contains repeated affirmations that the faithful should hold to the Tradition that is taught and lived by the Church and that developments of expressing this always-affirmed Faith must develop as a human body develops. This effectively rules out any new beliefs and radical changes of expressing the Faith from occurring in the true Church.

Come now there have been numerous threads on whether orthodoxy accepts 8 or nine - why you well know the letter from the 4 Patriarchs and 3 synods of 1859 (?) (gotta check the date) references 8. In any event Florence was most certainly a valid council. Those rejecting a valid Council are in Schism and outside the Holy Catholic Church.

This comment has no meaning as it rests on an unproven assertion, viz., the belief that Roman Catholicism is correct.

(Cont . . .)

 

[ForeverAdam]

Well, just say for 500 years the whole true church was holding councils - and then for Orthodoxy it stopped. A power unused for 1200 years is suspect as to its existence, at least.

Your last council didn’t define dogmas. Maybe Catholicism has forgotten the true nature and purpose of ecumenical councils?

It’s how orthodoxy was spawned by its rejection of Florence; it’s how the Orientals were spawned by the rejection of Chalcedon. Arius, Nestorius??

This only has significance if the Council of Florence was a true council of the Church. If Florence is not, the Orthodox response was not only acceptable, but a sign of the true Church.

Not to mention Old Believers, Skoptsis, all manner of vagante Bishops and sects - Orthodoxy, too, has had splinters when one or more person ventured to offer an opinion.

With all due respect, but “vagante” bishops, priests and sacraments are the specialty of your Church, which unlike ours, believes that gifts of God are not lost through canonical deposition. In Orthodoxy, as in the ancient Church, one can only hold ecclesial office and possess true sacraments if they are in the Church. One cannot give what one doesn’t have.

Orthodoxy simply can’t truly say who’s right or wrong in any understandabble authoritative manner. See the Patriarchs and Synods on 8 councils, e.g.

What is right or wrong is defined by Holy Tradition, which is also taught outside of ecumenical councils. The ecumenical council is an exceptional, very regrettable action of the Church that is meant to restore order when the normal means of teaching the Faith (bishops teaching the Faith in unison) fail. It is not the only way that authoritative teaching can be given. You need to divest yourself of this idea as it is giving you a very skewed idea of Holy Tradition, the Church and the Faith, itself (not to mention a false impression of Holy Orthodoxy).

God bless,

Adam

 

[catherineajt]

I just want to point out that not all Orthodox churches hold to Tradition (or even tradition with a small ‘t’). I have been to parishes where a woman reads the epistle-even though there was an ordained reader present. It is my understanding that traditionally an ordained reader should be reading the epistle, not just anybody who signs up. While Orthodoxy claims Tradition, depending on the parish, that tradition will be ignored or explained away in the name of ecumenism.

 

[ForeverAdam]

One wonders how the Church did exactkly that for 7 councils from 300 to 800 AD? Are you rejecting those councils now ??? Just a tad inconsistent.

These Councils clarified and expressed the Faith in more precise language in order to confound the heretics. They didn’t give the faithful new beliefs that they discovered in the Deposit of Faith. That’s what we are saying.

Great point - so you cannot have rejected any post-schism doctrine of catholicism - since you’ve never had a council since 800. Theologoumens all around, guys!

I find it intriguing that you know the big Orthodox words, but you’re ignorant of our Faith, nonetheless. As I explained earlier, all the Tradition is authoritative and can be taught with authority outside ecumenical councils. It is because of this authority that heretics can be determined and opposed before such councils are even convened.

As to papal authority and infallibility, thos are certainly nuanced and controversial. Nice to know the Church continues to grow in understanding and revelation - rather than just caught in the 9th century forever ossified.

If you’re “growing” into new beliefs, you have embraced the worst possible slavery - the slavery of being tied to the popular beliefs of one age instead of the constant Faith of every age. Besides, the Holy Fathers had no concept that the Tradition they taught, used to rebuke heresy with and passed down could be the fertile ground of new beliefs. They words betray an Orthodox understanding of the constant nature of Holy Tradition and its teaching.

Praxis is praxis - and certainly changed over time for all.

Of course it did. However, it always developed in an organic fashion and was characterized by few changes not major ones. The same is true for Orthodoxy.

God bless,

Adam

 

[johnnykins]

Orthodox Christians follow Holy Tradition and it is this Tradition that has been always maintained in the Church that is our authoritative guide. Ecumenical Councils are sometimes necessary in refuting heresies, but they don’t add or subtract from what we already believe and teach as authoritative. This is also the stance of the ancient Church, which placed its authority in Tradition and used its knowledge of this Tradition to oppose heretics even before the first ecumenical council was convened. In fact, ecumenical councils depend on their re-affirmation of the Great Tradition for their validity.

Wow - so is there no need for councils any more - and the ancient church was using a forum not required - NOW that’s a change from Tradition.

Only if your Church is right, my friend.

Well, yeah - that’s like the Oriental Churches telling Orthodoxy and catholicism we are not he Church because they are - duh

No Church should be reduced to one person who speaks authoritatively for their Faith.

so - you take a vote, its voluntarism? What. Why does your opinion of what “should” be matter?

History shows that people of all ages (even in Catholicism) believed that Popes could become a heretic.

in their personal position, sure - what does that have to do with their teaching infallibly? Zip.

Possible heretics cannot be a final authority in matters of faith.

1. That why the Holy Spirit is at work - and by your argument, since we are all possibly heretics, the Church couldn’t be a final authority in anything.

Maybe the fact that Popes got promoted to such incompetence is why your Church is such a mess right now.

How is it a mess? It’s the spotless Bride of Christ with many very messy members.

Incorrect. Holy Tradition as taught and lived by all the faithful, at all times and in all places they are present is what binds Orthodoxy.

I thought is was a common enemy that did. So the 8 councils referenced in the 1854 letter by 4 patriarchs and 3 synods is part of which tradition? They say there are 8 - you say 7 - who’s right?

Once again, ecumenical councils derive their authority from this Tradition and are only convened to defend the Faith, not show the faithful what the Faith actually entails.

I would think the Church, if it’s the TRU Church, could call a council for whatever reason it deemed prudent . A living vibrant Church certainly could do that - and not be hemmed in by the reasons the first 7 were called.

Ergo, we can condemn your heresies, and in fact are normally expected to, outside of ecumenical councils, which are exceptional actions of the Church and not the normal response to heresy.

You can condemn, but you can’t know its true - just like those who condemn the new calendrists, etc.

I’ve never heard an Orthodox Christian say that Rome is wrong because she believes in defining dogma, having councils and making authoritative statements. Rather, it’s the untraditional mechanics of how these dogmas and councils are accomplished that is condemned (and, of course, the unorthodox things that result from these councils and dogmas).

interesting, if the forms are followed, the decrees of the catholic Church can be dogmas for Orthodoxy? I gotta think on that gem.

Also, it is a mistake to turn the Faith into dogmas, councils and authoritative statements. The Faith is chiefly and ideally imparted through liturgy, prayer and simply living an Orthodox life. All else is allowed for our weaknesses and daftness.

so revealed Truth has a secondary role - a real opportunity for rapprochement here.

Really? Turning the exceptional into the norm turns Christianity into a religion of the book (the textbook), which the Fathers always condemned.

Really? Norm? Who said anything about that? Of course I said the opposite - non-use for 1200 years. Inapt response.

Many men in Nevada claim to be Elvis too.

sure, but one was an alternative reasonable explanation, and Elvis is a non sequitur.

I never knew that the one, true Church was opposed to the early Church.

it’s not

And I will point out that the first millennium of Christianity was characterized by a surprising conservatism of doctrine and praxis compared to second millennium Roman Catholicism, where changes have been many and such radical change is seen as justified by the nature of the Church, itself.

and you point? Wasn’t much incense used in the first century!

Besides, for someone with a signature lauding the importance of knowing history, you should know that Church history contains repeated affirmations that the faithful should hold to the Tradition that is taught and lived by the Church and that developments of expressing this always-affirmed Faith must develop as a human body develops.

OK

This effectively rules out any new beliefs and radical changes of expressing the Faith from occurring in the true Church.

another non-sequitur - but I’m glad of your opinion which is non-binding on me or anyone.

This comment has no meaning as it rests on an unproven assertion, viz., the belief that Roman Catholicism is correct.

(Cont . . .)

Just like the Orientals and Chalcedon.

BTW - the Letter of 1854 does reference 8 councils and is subscribed by the 4 patriarchs and 3 synods.

 

[catherineajt]

I must add one warning that applies to the Ruthenian Catholic Church. They recently revised the Divine Liturgy. You may not be comfortable unless you like gender-neutral language.

I haven’t noticed any difference between the Divine Liturgy used at my Ruthenian parish and the Divine Liturgy used at the Orthodox church I was attending. Then again, I tend to not focus on every little word, so any gender neutral references may have slipped past me. In any case, that doesn’t really bother me, unless they’re calling God our Mother or Jesus a girl.

 

[ForeverAdam]

I think the answer is that the Fathers and Holy Tradition always require some arbiter of their meaning.

The Fathers keep pointing to Holy Tradition and Ecumenical Councils as their arbiter, not Popes. Explain why this is.

On this forum we have had Orthodox priests dispute postings by orthodox Bishops, Patriarchs and synods. We had threads on the fights between monks at Esphigmenou and the Ecumenical Patriarch on ecumenism, et al. The answer is that Orthodoxy has no clear way to authoritatively interpret the fathers or Holy Tradition - and catholicism does.

Were you aware that the teaching of “religious liberty” underwent serious debate in your Church prior to the Second Vatican Council? Charges of error were thrown around here and yet your Church survived. And even when there were debates at Vatican II, Pope John XXIII responded by saying that “We’re not all friars in choir.” It is rather hypocritical for your Church to be so accommodating to disputes, even of a theological nature, and yet expect Orthodoxy to be free from these. I’ll also add that the debates we have in Orthodoxy are often about maintaining traditional practices (no pews, Julian calendar, no praying with heretics, etc.) that your Church neglected without hardly any debate. This speaks highly of which of our Churches values Tradition more. If we are so concerned with the small things, you can be assured we put even more concern into the weightier matters of doctrine.

Fr Herndon might rely on the Holy Spirit to preserve the One True Church - I agree. How do you know that any Orthodox interpreter has it right at any given moment without a councilor decree?

We know because we have never lived on a diet of dogmatic/official statements from one man. In fact, nobody in the first millennium did.

yeah - like the old believers, all those vagante bishops, the old calendrists, the Esphigmenou monks - not an issue at all in Orthodoxy?

Your ecclesial revolt is a true revolution that entails rejecting the very mechanism of your Church’s authority. This hasn’t happened with the troubles in Orthodoxy, which are much smaller anyway.

Well, if you want to believe that an ossified, petrified, sclerosis is the normal and usual state for a church that was vibrant, authoritative and kataphatic through at least 7 councils - I don’t have a real answer.

And yet these Seven Ecumenical Councils didn’t introduce major changes into the Church, unlike your own councils, which have successfully modernized your Church.

duh

Your adolescent slip is showing.

God bless,

Adam

 

[johnnykins]

Your last council didn’t define dogmas. Maybe Catholicism has forgotten the true nature and purpose of ecumenical councils?

A council is for whatever the Church needs it - a healthy vibrant Church is not limited as you propose.

This only has significance if the Council of Florence was a true council of the Church. If Florence is not, the Orthodox response was not only acceptable, but a sign of the true Church.

How can the Orthodox Church know other than voluntarism?

With all due respect, but “vagante” bishops, priests and sacraments are the specialty of your Church, which unlike ours, believes that gifts of God are not lost through canonical deposition. In Orthodoxy, as in the ancient Church, one can only hold ecclesial office and possess true sacraments if they are in the Church. One cannot give what one doesn’t have.

Somehow I always thought the same Spirit worked in the Western fathers - say Augustine as in the eastern fathers as Cyprian. You can get an answer from catholicism on the sacraments, etc., in Orthodoxy the answer you get is “we don’t know” and Economy is used to make the invalid valid - good trick.

What is right or wrong is defined by Holy Tradition, which is also taught outside of ecumenical councils. The ecumenical council is an exceptional, very regrettable action of the Church that is meant to restore order when the normal means of teaching the Faith (bishops teaching the Faith in unison) fail. It is not the only way that authoritative teaching can be given. You need to divest yourself of this idea as it is giving you a very skewed idea of Holy Tradition, the Church and the Faith, itself (not to mention a false impression of Holy Orthodoxy).

God bless,

Adam

I understand Holy Tradition quite well, I also understand “authoritatively” quite well. It’s the authoritative part that orthodoxy has issues.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Your last council didn’t define dogmas. Maybe Catholicism has forgotten the true nature and purpose of ecumenical councils?

This only has significance if the Council of Florence was a true council of the Church. If Florence is not, the Orthodox response was not only acceptable, but a sign of the true Church.

With all due respect, but “vagante” bishops, priests and sacraments are the specialty of your Church, which unlike ours, believes that gifts of God are not lost through canonical deposition. In Orthodoxy, as in the ancient Church, one can only hold ecclesial office and possess true sacraments if they are in the Church. One cannot give what one doesn’t have.

What is right or wrong is defined by Holy Tradition, which is also taught outside of ecumenical councils. The ecumenical council is an exceptional, very regrettable action of the Church that is meant to restore order when the normal means of teaching the Faith (bishops teaching the Faith in unison) fail. It is not the only way that authoritative teaching can be given. You need to divest yourself of this idea as it is giving you a very skewed idea of Holy Tradition, the Church and the Faith, itself (not to mention a false impression of Holy Orthodoxy).

God bless,

Adam

Holy Tradition has always been part of the churches teaching that did not stop heresies. heresies has always existed and always will. so councils are always necessary and cannot cease to exist.

 

[johnnykins]

These Councils clarified and expressed the Faith in more precise language in order to confound the heretics. They didn’t give the faithful new beliefs that they discovered in the Deposit of Faith. That’s what we are saying.

Come now, the distinction between homoousia and homoiousia, the hypostatic union and all that when properly understood is no different from the catholic explanation of how new dogma are found in the Deposit of Faith. If those dogma had been so clearly understood the wrangling attendant to their explanation would not have been so intense.

I find it intriguing that you know the big Orthodox words, but you’re ignorant of our Faith, nonetheless. As I explained earlier, all the Tradition is authoritative and can be taught with authority outside ecumenical councils. It is because of this authority that heretics can be determined and opposed before such councils are even convened.

Again you stumble on “authoritative” Oh well.

If you’re “growing” into new beliefs, you have embraced the worst possible slavery - the slavery of being tied to the popular beliefs of one age instead of the constant Faith of every age. Besides, the Holy Fathers had no concept that the Tradition they taught, used to rebuke heresy with and passed down could be the fertile ground of new beliefs. They words betray an Orthodox understanding of the constant nature of Holy Tradition and its teaching.

Catholicism simply does what the ancient Church did - while Orthodoxy stagnates

Of course it did. However, it always developed in an organic fashion and was characterized by few changes not major ones. The same is true for Orthodoxy.

God bless,

Adam

well change in Orthodoxy is admitted - mark the date.!

 

[Jakub]

I do love to read that the Orthodox Faith and practice is cast in amber…yes indeed, they need some of those ancient American Catholic innovations to renew their faith and Church…good grief

james

 

[johnnykins]

The Fathers keep pointing to Holy Tradition and Ecumenical Councils as their arbiter, not Popes. Explain why this is.

Because the Popes were inextricably linked to both.

Were you aware that the teaching of “religious liberty” underwent serious debate in your Church prior to the Second Vatican Council? Charges of error were thrown around here and yet your Church survived. And even when there were debates at Vatican II, Pope John XXIII responded by saying that “We’re not all friars in choir.” It is rather hypocritical for your Church to be so accommodating to disputes, even of a theological nature, and yet expect Orthodoxy to be free from these. I’ll also add that the debates we have in Orthodoxy are often about maintaining traditional practices (no pews, Julian calendar, no praying with heretics, etc.) that your Church neglected without hardly any debate. This speaks highly of which of our Churches values Tradition more. If we are so concerned with the small things, you can be assured we put even more concern into the weightier matters of doctrine.

We all have warts

We know because we have never lived on a diet of dogmatic/official statements from one man. In fact, nobody in the first millennium did.

Rome has spoken, etc.

Your ecclesial revolt is a true revolution that entails rejecting the very mechanism of your Church’s authority. This hasn’t happened with the troubles in Orthodoxy, which are much smaller anyway.

Tell that to Esphigmenou and Estonia

And yet these Seven Ecumenical Councils didn’t introduce major changes into the Church, unlike your own councils, which have successfully modernized your Church.

no major changes at all - lost Armenia, Egypt and parts of the Levant - nah…

Your adolescent slip is showing.

God bless,

Adam

Nah - just being modern and up to date - not a fuddy duddy

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This thread is now closed.

Thanks for your participation.

God bless-

Rachel