Orthodox vs Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter markfromcanada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, Reuben. I think it’s important that, if someone is planning on becoming Catholic, they do so from the heart 100% and they truly buy into the theology. **It’s better that they run TOWARD Catholicism and not just AWAY from their former denomination. **It’s also important that the person fully understands the catechism and the faith. I also hate it when people throw their former denomination under the bus. I know a few former Anglicans who regularly get their jollies off trashing their former church home that was Anglican. They like to trash and mock the place that nurtured them for so many years and gave them so much piety and biblical awareness and nourishment. Not healthy.
You rightly say it GH. 🙂

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has the policy that a person should not enter it at the spur of the moment or on the rebound. For an adult, if one considers that it nearly take a year to go through the RCIA and that by no means a final step as a decision still has to be made by the interested person, it speaks volume of the need that one has to be convinced and to understand the faith before taking the final plunge. Often times the CC has taken lots of flak for taking such a long process before one can be baptized, but I think it underscores her position at the seriousness she takes the faith as it is. There are people who can’t wait and these eventually land up in some Protestant denominations.

God bless.
 
Agreed…but with the caveat in response to your last sentence that not all folks who “land” (:p) in Protestant churches don’t just do so out of impatience or unwillingness to hold their horses and be true to God, some just actually find they don’t agree with or believe what the Catholic Church teaches across the board and they find they believe more in line with a certain group whether it be Lutheran, Anglican, or otherwise…
You rightly say it GH. 🙂

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has the policy that a person should not enter it at the spur of the moment or on the rebound. For an adult, if one considers that it nearly take a year to go through the RCIA and that by no means a final srep as a decision still has to be made by the interested person, it speaks volume of the need that one has to be convinced and to understand the faith before taking the final plunge. Often times the CC has taken lots of flak for taking such a long process before one can be baptized, but I think it underscores her position at the seriousness she takes the faith as it is. There are people who can’t wait and these eventually land up in some Protestant denominations.

God bless.
 
Agreed…but with the caveat in response to your last sentence that not all folks who “land” (:p) in Protestant churches don’t just do so out of impatience or unwillingness to hold their horses and be true to God, some just actually find they don’t agree with or believe what the Catholic Church teaches across the board and they find they believe more in line with a certain group whether it be Lutheran, Anglican, or otherwise…
I know. I am not throwing a blanket statement. The principle of being convinced of what we want still applies. So you are being factual. 🙂

We had non-Christians who are sufficiently touched to enter Christianity through our program and couldn’t wait to be baptized into the Catholic Church and didn’t get baptized. These eventually landed up in a Protestant denomination. I would say this is a spur of the moment thing. The wisdom of waiting is being demonstrated here. Rightly or wrongly, most probably they are not called to the Catholic Church. Had they were baptized hastily, just imagine the embarrassment that they had to go through knowing that they did not make the right decision in the first place.

For me I’d rather have them made a thorough study and to realize as much as possible it’s what their hearts want and then, only then go for it. Thus my comment to the OP.
 
Oh I know, Reuben. I’ve read enough of your posts to know you’re not a blanket statement, ill-considered kind of poster. Would that all followed your charitable, intelligent, lucid example. I like your posts.

Now if I can get past the indulgences, treasury of merit, infallibility, state of being totally unimpressed with the lack of pastoral care, disagreement with NFP and anulments (even though they don’t really pertain to me :p), and the Catholic guilt, I’ll come back myself! 😛
I know. I am not throwing a blanket statement. The principle of being convinced of what we want still applies. So you are being factual. 🙂

We had non-Christians who are sufficiently touched to enter Christianity through our program and couldn’t wait to be baptized into the Catholic Church and didn’t get baptized. These eventually landed up in a Protestant denomination. I would say this is a spur of the moment thing. The wisdom of waiting is being demonstrated here. Rightly or wrongly, most probably they are not called to the Catholic Church. Had they were baptized hastily, just imagine the embarrassment that they had to go through knowing that they did not make the right decision in the first place.

For me I’d rather have them made a thorough study and to realize as much as possible it’s what their hearts want and then, only then go for it. Thus my comment to the OP.
 
My advice would be to attend Mass, and attend Divine Liturgy. Maybe alternate each week, or do a month at a time. Go to one Catholic or Orthodox parish for long enough to get a feel for it, but then try another one too.

You might consider emailing the priest or the most parish office to let them know you are coming if you might need some advice on what service to attend or someone to help you out - especially if you want to find a Divine Liturgy in English. Or if you have a friend who could go with you that can be great too - it is nice to have the moral support and someone to discuss it with.

I’d do that for a while, and then sit back and think a bit.
 
And grow a long ZZ top beard for camouflage! 😃
My advice would be to attend Mass, and attend Divine Liturgy. Maybe alternate each week, or do a month at a time. Go to one Catholic or Orthodox parish for long enough to get a feel for it, but then try another one too.

You might consider emailing the priest or the most parish office to let them know you are coming if you might need some advice on what service to attend or someone to help you out - especially if you want to find a Divine Liturgy in English. Or if you have a friend who could go with you that can be great too - it is nice to have the moral support and someone to discuss it with.

I’d do that for a while, and then sit back and think a bit.
 
And grow a long ZZ top beard for camouflage! 😃
Maybe a stick-on beard would be a better investment at this early stage?

I am thinking this may be my husband’s real issue with Orthodoxy though - he can’t grow a beard.😛
 
I almost envy him. I can grow a beard in about an hour! 😃 But if you look at the pictures of my wife and I on my profile album, I try to keep shaven! 😛

Your joke about the stick-on beard makes me laugh and think about my dad. My dad was making fun of me going back and forth between Anglicanism and Catholicism SO MANY times that he calls me “velcro boy.” He says I have one badge that says “Catholic” and another “Anglican” and I just rip them off velcro-style and keep replacing them LOL! :eek:😛
Maybe a stick-on beard would be a better investment at this early stage?

I am thinking this may be my husband’s real issue with Orthodoxy though - he can’t grow a beard.😛
 
My advice would be to look into Eastern Catholicism. That way, you can practice the fullness of Orthodox teaching and worship without thereby rejecting the validity or legitimacy of the West, and like the Fathers of the Church you will be in communion with your Roman brothers. Of course, I am an Eastern Catholic, so I am no exception to the no-bias rule. But just remember that it is not a choice between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy - one can be in the East without damning anything Western as false and heretical.

I also strongly recommend reading the Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers. You will find that they had a very high regard and love for the Western Church, and for the See of Rome in particular. Here are some examples:
Code:
“It is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [that of Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.”
-St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies

“Behold an edict, an even a peremptory edict, emanated from the Sovereign Pontiff, the Bishop of Bishops.”
	- Tertullian, De Pudicitia
“The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.” (St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

“How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.” (St. Maximus the Confessor, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

“Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who refuse obedience to His Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.” (Maximos the Confessor, Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustem)

“To follow Christ is to be in communion with the Pope, and therein lies the only security”. - St. Jerome

“Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council.” - St. Methodius (cf. Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

“To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.” - John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (6th c.)

May God bless you, and lead to to His Church in truth.
 
Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket or anything, but one thing to keep in mind when you read ANY quotes or sources (Catholic or Orthodox) is that Church history plays a huge part in placing any given piece of knowledge in context. For instance, all the quotes given in the previous post seem as though they probably support the RC position, but if you look at the saints they come from, they’re all from before the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD, and none of them touch any of the controversial doctrines that led to the split. Who’s to say what St. Maximos The Confessor would’ve thought about Rome if the Roman Pontiff had declared himself infallible back in 670 instead of 1870? That Rome was for a long period Orthodox is not debated by anyone, but obviously for the last thousand years or so there have been some major divergences in opinion on that matter…
 
Hi dzheremi,

I know this is off topic but I keep forgetting to ask. Forgive my ignorance here, but what do you mean in your signature “I support a free Assyria?” The term Assyria hasn’t been used in ages and free from what, Islam?" Pardon my ignorance here. When I think of Assyria, I think of Sargon and the gang! 😛
Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket or anything, but one thing to keep in mind when you read ANY quotes or sources (Catholic or Orthodox) is that Church history plays a huge part in placing any given piece of knowledge in context. For instance, all the quotes given in the previous post seem as though they probably support the RC position, but if you look at the saints they come from, they’re all from before the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD, and none of them touch any of the controversial doctrines that led to the split. Who’s to say what St. Maximos The Confessor would’ve thought about Rome if the Roman Pontiff had declared himself infallible back in 670 instead of 1870? That Rome was for a long period Orthodox is not debated by anyone, but obviously for the last thousand years or so there have been some major divergences in opinion on that matter…
 
I too think of Sargon, Gurney…Sargon Gabriel😉

Here is a very well-written condensed history of the Assyrian people, written by Assyrian historian Peter BetBasoo. For more on the history and modern plight of the Assyrians, I recommend Fredrick A. Aprim’s book “Assyrians: The Continuous Saga”, which is widely available. Lots and lots of books and such have been written (Wigram “The Assyrians and their Neighbors”, Rev. Naayem’s “Shall this Nation Die?”, etc.), but Aprim’s book is probably the best general introduction, as it deals with current events (the others I’ve mentioned were written in the 1920s, around the time of the Seyfo).
 
Not to be Mr. Wet Blanket or anything, but one thing to keep in mind when you read ANY quotes or sources (Catholic or Orthodox) is that Church history plays a huge part in placing any given piece of knowledge in context. For instance, all the quotes given in the previous post seem as though they probably support the RC position, but if you look at the saints they come from, they’re all from before the Great Schism was finalized in 1054 AD, and none of them touch any of the controversial doctrines that led to the split. Who’s to say what St. Maximos The Confessor would’ve thought about Rome if the Roman Pontiff had declared himself infallible back in 670 instead of 1870? That Rome was for a long period Orthodox is not debated by anyone, but obviously for the last thousand years or so there have been some major divergences in opinion on that matter…
I wanted to quote St. Symeon of Thessaloniki (who was post-schism) but ran out of room.

“Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.”
-St. Symeon of Thessalonika (Migne, PG 155:120-121)

In other words, even according to the Orthodox, unless you are seriously convinced that the Pope is a heretic (a claim harder to make now that the linguistic and semantic misunderstandings - such as regarding the Filioque - are cleared up and it is easier to know what Catholicism actually teaches), you do have a duty to obey the Pope “as if he were the Savior himself.”
 
I wanted to quote St. Symeon of Thessaloniki (who was post-schism) but ran out of room.

“Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.”
-St. Symeon of Thessalonika (Migne, PG 155:120-121)

In other words, even according to the Orthodox, unless you are seriously convinced that the Pope is a heretic (a claim harder to make now that the linguistic and semantic misunderstandings - such as regarding the Filioque - are cleared up and it is easier to know what Catholicism actually teaches), you do have a duty to obey the Pope “as if he were the Savior himself.”
THat is really the question though isn’t it? Even if we think the latins are not saying something different with the filioque, there are a heap of other issues that might be considered heresy, starting with the kind of power claimed by the Pope. And the list seems to get longer over time.😦
 
Yeah, I would tend towards Bluegoat’s hesitance over your reading, Cecilianus. It seems painfully obvious to me that St. Symeon framed that statement in the conditional (IF the Pope preserves the faith…) for a reason, and that he is not really saying anything different than what the Eastern Orthodox have always said: Let the Pope of Rome return to the faith he once shared with us and we will recognize him as first among equals. But obviously the EO do not believe that post-schism Popes share their faith, or we would have seen reunion between the EO and the RC already.
 
I wanted to quote St. Symeon of Thessaloniki (who was post-schism) but ran out of room.

“Let [the Latins] only show that the pope perseveres in the faith of Peter… and we acknowledge in him all the privileges of Peter, and we recognize him as the leader ,as the head and supreme pontiff… [W]e will proclaim him truly apostolic and we will consider him the first of the pontiffs and we will obey him not only as Peter, but as if he were the Savior himself.”
-St. Symeon of Thessalonika (Migne, PG 155:120-121)

In other words, even according to the Orthodox, unless you are seriously convinced that the Pope is a heretic (a claim harder to make now that the linguistic and semantic misunderstandings - such as regarding the Filioque - are cleared up and it is easier to know what Catholicism actually teaches), you do have a duty to obey the Pope “as if he were the Savior himself.”
We would say exactly the same thing about any bishop who preserves the Apostolic Faith. If you genuinely were “Orthodox”, as your religious descriptor says, you would know that. 😉

In Christ
Joe
 
THat is really the question though isn’t it? Even if we think the latins are not saying something different with the filioque, there are a heap of other issues that might be considered heresy, starting with the kind of power claimed by the Pope. And the list seems to get longer over time.😦
And my point was, if the OP sincerely thinks the Pope is a heretic, he should become Orthodox. If not (as I suspect considering that he is asking the question), then according to this he has a duty to become Catholic.
 
We would say exactly the same thing about any bishop who preserves the Apostolic Faith. If you genuinely were “Orthodox”, as your religious descriptor says, you would know that. 😉

In Christ
Joe
Only if the bishop has authority over you. I may reverence a bishop from China as if he were Christ himself, but if he were to institute some new fast or something, I would obviously not “obey” because he has no authority over me, and is not therefore not speaking to me when he pastors his flock. I do not live in China.

St. Symeon, however, lived in Thessaloniki, and was writing about the Pope of Rome…
 
Yeah, I would tend towards Bluegoat’s hesitance over your reading, Cecilianus. It seems painfully obvious to me that St. Symeon framed that statement in the conditional (IF the Pope preserves the faith…) for a reason, and that he is not really saying anything different than what the Eastern Orthodox have always said: Let the Pope of Rome return to the faith he once shared with us and we will recognize him as first among equals. But obviously the EO do not believe that post-schism Popes share their faith, or we would have seen reunion between the EO and the RC already.
St. Symeon spoke of obeying the Pope “as if he were Christ himself”, not “as a first among equals”.
 
Only if the bishop has authority over you. I may reverence a bishop from China as if he were Christ himself, but if he were to institute some new fast or something, I would obviously not “obey” because he has no authority over me, and is not therefore not speaking to me when he pastors his flock. I do not live in China.

St. Symeon, however, lived in Thessaloniki, and was writing about the Pope of Rome…
How can a schismatic bishop have authority over you? :confused:

Either way, for your misguided reading of St Symeon to hold water, you have to prove that Christians and bishops not under the pope’s jurisdiction obeyed him “as Christ himself” when he was orthodox. Quite the contrary we have example after example of bishops and rulers either completely ignoring or outright opposing the pope.

Of course even your reading of St Symeon is sheer heresy according to modern Roman Catholic teaching as the pope is the arbiter of orthodoxy. 🤷

In Christ
Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top