Orthodox vs Catholic

[Cecilianus]

How can a schismatic bishop have authority over you?

You’re arguing in circles. If the Pope is the orthodox vicar of Christ, how could he be in schism from the Church? It was upon him that Christ built His Church.

He may be in schism from you, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have authority over you. A group of dissidents who go into schism against their bishop are sinning by disobeying him, as St. Clement affirmed in his epistle to the Corinthians and St. Cyprian affirmed concerning the Novatians.

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.

Usually they did, and when they didn’t they should have.

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.

It is sedevacantism - the indefectibility of the Church guarantees that it couldn’t happen. But that’s tangential; my point was this was St. Symeon’s statement as an Orthodox father.

If you think my reading is wrong, then what are his words supposed to mean? They seem pretty clear to me. I gave the reference, so look it up for yourself if you’re not convinced. I did find a copy of the Patrologia some months ago to check it, and the Latin translation Migne gives (I don’t read Greek) said pretty much what this English translation does.

 

[dzheremi]

This is getting downright silly. “If the Pope is the Orthodox vicar of Christ”…? Yes, that is a big “if”! That’s what all of us have been trying to say in response to your reading of the saint, Cecilianus. I think it is dangerous thinking to establish the Pope of Rome (or really anybody) as the arbiter of Orthodoxy in and of himself such that the content of his ideas are not tested on their own with reference to their conformity with what came before…this is, to my non-Orthodox understanding, the way that the Orthodox faith has come to be preserved to this very day, and so of course anything that adds to it (like the Rome-particular doctrines that the rest of world Christianity do not agree with) is, by its very nature, not Orthodox. If the EP or any other Orthodox leader would come out in support of the IC, for instance, the EP would cease to be Orthodox due to his accepting this addition to the faith. The IC would not become Orthodox by virtue of its supporters, whether they be the Pope of Rome, the EP, any particular saint (though I do not believe that any EO saint held a view of the modern Roman Papacy comparable to yours), etc.

 

[Bluegoat]

It seems to me that what Cecilianus is saying is that his quote suggests that the rightful attitude to an orthodox Pope is more than one of “first among equals”. That is, he is interpreting it to say that if there was an Orthodox Pope, we should obey him in all things. Including other Bishops.

This is a problem though I think - if this is the case - who determines if the Pope is orthodox? I don’t think it supports the Roman case really, which seems to say thay by definition the pope’s teachings are what defines orthodoxy.

 

[SolarWinds63]

Hi all, I’m markfromcanada.

I am an Anglican contemplating conversion to either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Both lay claim to be the faith of Jesus and the apostles.

How can I tell which is the correct one? Which one should I convert to and why?

Thanks!!

Don not ask here, there are alot of liars and imposters. Go to church and talk to priests. I am RC and the bigest diffrence is the Pope… and they are Eastern we are western go figure. Eventually one will have to give in and join the other and the rest will follow. Tune into EWTN on cable telivision and there you will see masses and all the thoughts of the RCC are talked about. Good luck to you. God bless you.

 

[Cecilianus]

Don not ask here, there are alot of liars and imposters. Go to church and talk to priests. I am RC and the bigest diffrence is the Pope… and they are Eastern we are western go figure. Eventually one will have to give in and join the other and the rest will follow. Tune into EWTN on cable telivision and there you will see masses and all the thoughts of the RCC are talked about. Good luck to you. God bless you.

No, the Catholic Church has both Eastern and Western lungs - so it’s nto true that “they are Eastern and we are Western”. But EWTN is a really good station.

 

[Cecilianus]

It seems to me that what Cecilianus is saying is that his quote suggests that the rightful attitude to an orthodox Pope is more than one of “first among equals”. That is, he is interpreting it to say that if there was an Orthodox Pope, we should obey him in all things. Including other Bishops.

This is a problem though I think - if this is the case - who determines if the Pope is orthodox? I don’t think it supports the Roman case really, which seems to say thay by definition the pope’s teachings are what defines orthodoxy.

I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit WOULD let the Pope commit heresy - He promised to be with us at all times, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His church - especially since the Roman See is the ONLY one to have never had a heretic on its throne for two thousand years. Other sees - such as Constantinople - have been presided over by Arians, Nestorians (like Nestorius, for example), Iconoclasts, and Protestants (Cyril Lukaris); only the Roman See has been preserved this way. And we have Christ’s promise to Peter.

If for some reason you did think the Pope was a heretic, obviously you would not accept the statement I just gave above, and obviously you would not be looking into becoming Catholic. If you do not think that the Pope is a heretic, then even the Fathers of the Orthodox Church after the schism acknowledge that if the Pope were to be free from heresy he must be obeyed as the Vicar of Christ.

St. Symeon’s words were plain and simple - I am simply repeating them, not giving an “interpretation”. What is your “interpretation”, if you think I am reading them wrong?

 

[Harpazo]

This is getting downright silly. “If the Pope is the Orthodox vicar of Christ”…? Yes, that is a big “if”! That’s what all of us have been trying to say in response to your reading of the saint, Cecilianus. I think it is dangerous thinking to establish the Pope of Rome (or really anybody) as the arbiter of Orthodoxy in and of himself such that the content of his ideas are not tested on their own with reference to their conformity with what came before…this is, to my non-Orthodox understanding, the way that the Orthodox faith has come to be preserved to this very day, and so of course anything that adds to it (like the Rome-particular doctrines that the rest of world Christianity do not agree with) is, by its very nature, not Orthodox. If the EP or any other Orthodox leader would come out in support of the IC, for instance, the EP would cease to be Orthodox due to his accepting this addition to the faith. The IC would not become Orthodox by virtue of its supporters, whether they be the Pope of Rome, the EP, any particular saint (though I do not believe that any EO saint held a view of the modern Roman Papacy comparable to yours), etc.

This reminds of the classic Socratic dilemma on whether something is good or not:

1. It is good because the gods love it.
2. The gods love it because it is good.

We could easily apply it to modern Roman Catholicism:

1. The faith is Orthodox because of the pope of Rome.
2. The pope is Orthodox because of the faith.

Obviously the Orthodox would subscribe to number 2. But the second choice in both of them allow for a transcendent standard beyond themselves to be accountable to. We do not believe the pope is Orthodox, because he does not profess the same faith as us.

BTW, there IS an Orthodox Bishop of Rome now:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Metropolitan SYLVANUS (Siluan) of Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit WOULD let the Pope commit heresy - He promised to be with us at all times, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His church - especially since the Roman See is the ONLY one to have never had a heretic on its throne for two thousand years. Other sees - such as Constantinople - have been presided over by Arians, Nestorians (like Nestorius, for example), Iconoclasts, and Protestants (Cyril Lukaris); only the Roman See has been preserved this way. And we have Christ’s promise to Peter.

If for some reason you did think the Pope was a heretic, obviously you would not accept the statement I just gave above, and obviously you would not be looking into becoming Catholic. If you do not think that the Pope is a heretic, then even the Fathers of the Orthodox Church after the schism acknowledge that if the Pope were to be free from heresy he must be obeyed as the Vicar of Christ.

St. Symeon’s words were plain and simple - I am simply repeating them, not giving an “interpretation”. What is your “interpretation”, if you think I am reading them wrong?

First, I don’t know what any other post schism fathers say on this, so I would not take this as a definitive text alone.

But, if you are assuming the Pope can’t err, you are kind of begging the question, really. I mean, you have given as a proof the fact that Rome hasn’t erred like other sees, but of course that assumes it’s true, which is the substance of the dispute.:hypno:

I wouldn’t assume the OP thinks the Pope hasn’t erred. I suspect he has no idea whether the claims of Orthodoxy or Catholicism are stronger.

 

[dzheremi]

This reminds of the classic Socratic dilemma on whether something is good or not:

1. It is good because the gods love it.
2. The gods love it because it is good.

We could easily apply it to modern Roman Catholicism:

1. The faith is Orthodox because of the pope of Rome.
2. The pope is Orthodox because of the faith.

Obviously the Orthodox would subscribe to number 2. But the second choice in both of them allow for a transcendent standard beyond themselves to be accountable to. We do not believe the pope is Orthodox, because he does not profess the same faith as us.

Exactly! Thanks fleshing out this idea a bit more. It is nice to see that Orthodox Christians such as yourself have a similar litmus test. Why it cannot be applied by “Orthodox in Union with Rome”, I don’t know…seems like they like the ring of that title, but not the faith that would actually earn it.

 

[Cecilianus]

Exactly! Thanks fleshing out this idea a bit more. It is nice to see that Orthodox Christians such as yourself have a similar litmus test. Why it cannot be applied by “Orthodox in Union with Rome”, I don’t know…seems like they like the ring of that title, but not the faith that would actually earn it.

I would also adopt the same solution to this dilemma that Christianity has adopted as a solution to Socrates’ dilemma (we know it is good because God loves it, and God loves it because it is His nature to love the good - goodness is inseparable from His nature).

The faith is Orthodox because that is what is taught by the Pope of Rome (i.e., if we are having trouble figuring out which doctrine is the Orthodox one, that’s why the Church has a teaching function or “office”, the Magisterium).

And, simultaneously, the Pope teaches what he does because it is the Orthodox Faith, and NOT the other way around. (The Pope has no authority or power to change one iota of the Orthodox Faith, and the promise of Christ is that the Holy Spirit will not let him officially do so, because he speaks as the head and spokesman for the whole college of bishops on whom rest the charism of infallibility.)

 

[Monica4316]

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 think the argument was that if the Pope is not a heretic, then he is much more than “first among equals”… if the EO believe that the Pope is a heretic today, surely they would not see the early pre-Schism Popes as heretics, - does this mean they were seen as more than “first among equals”, but as St Symeon describes? This would take a lot of research to figure out.

 

[Monica4316]

To the OP

I suggest doing a lot of research, praying lots, and visiting different churches… visit a Catholic Mass, an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, a Tridentine Latin Mass, an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy… trust God and pray and ask Him to lead you to the truth I would be careful comparing liturgies though…the Novus Ordo is still being revised and is a work in progress… and that is why I also suggested to visit an Eastern Catholic liturgy and a TLM.

God bless.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the argument was that if the Pope is not a heretic, then he is much more than “first among equals”… if the EO believe that the Pope is a heretic today, surely they would not see the early pre-Schism Popes as heretics, - does this mean they were seen as more than “first among equals”, but as St Symeon describes? This would take a lot of research to figure out.

I would certainly say that it does not seem that all thought of it that way, or acted that way. If they did, it would be simple.

 

[dzheremi]

The faith is Orthodox because that is what is taught by the Pope of Rome (i.e., if we are having trouble figuring out which doctrine is the Orthodox one, that’s why the Church has a teaching function or “office”, the Magisterium).

This is exactly the kind of thinking I am arguing against. The faith is Orthodox NOT because of the geographical location of the See that proclaims it, but because of its content.

And, simultaneously, the Pope teaches what he does because it is the Orthodox Faith, and NOT the other way around.

No.

(The Pope has no authority or power to change one iota of the Orthodox Faith,

It seems that the Orthodox Christians would argue that the Pope of Rome has already done so.

 

[Cecilianus]

This is exactly the kind of thinking I am arguing against. The faith is Orthodox NOT because of the geographical location of the See that proclaims it, but because of its content.

You’re either equivocating on or misunderstanding my use of the word “because”.

Why did such-and-such an event happen in the Middle East? Because the newspaper said so.

Why did you hear beautiful music coming from the next room? Because Susie is playing the piano.

In the first case, the word “because” denotes an epistemological function. How do we KNOW that something is the case? Because the newspaper reports it; because the Pope, in his teaching authority, defines it. (Or because an Ecumenical Council defines it. Same thing.)

In the second cause, the word “because” denotes the metaphysical reason. Susie playing the piano is the cause of the beautiful music. The content of the Faith is the REASON why it is Orthodox.

Some days I think the Latins do have it right by making everybody study philosophy - helps you think clearly. A lot of time can be wasted by people arguing past each other without grasping each other’s words.

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, I am out of the energy necessary to continue this conversation at the moment. It is sufficient to say that no matter what you think about my particular method of argumentation, I am not the only one who has problems with the way you are presenting Orthodox saints and Orthodox faith. I think that other people’s objections deserve some consideration…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s deep, man. I feel like we need some beatnick music. I need to meditate on this and get back to ya! …psychadelic and socratic!

This reminds of the classic Socratic dilemma on whether something is good or not:

1. It is good because the gods love it.
2. The gods love it because it is good.

We could easily apply it to modern Roman Catholicism:

1. The faith is Orthodox because of the pope of Rome.
2. The pope is Orthodox because of the faith.

Obviously the Orthodox would subscribe to number 2. But the second choice in both of them allow for a transcendent standard beyond themselves to be accountable to. We do not believe the pope is Orthodox, because he does not profess the same faith as us.

BTW, there IS an Orthodox Bishop of Rome now:
http://episcopia-italiei.it/images/phocagallery/PrimaLiturghieRoma/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_pict0382.jpg
Metropolitan SYLVANUS (Siluan) of Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Reuben_J]

Since proselytizing is not allowed in this Forum we can only state our own belief respectively with no pressure on anyone to agree or not to agree. I think most posters of different belief respectively here have been very honorable to the OP. We can only state what we believe and perhaps give an honest advice to him and it is for him to move on as he thinks is best for him. One can only lead the horse to the water but one cannot force it to drink.

I still maintain that the great divide between the Catholic and the Orthodox is the position of the Pope. Some Orthodox may have maintained the purity of their doctrine from the very beginning before the schism but as we can see now even among themselves they are not that standardized. So there may be some changes crept in along the way during the passage of time.

Similarly the Catholic Church; there has been changes in disciplines and practices. We can however argue for the Pope who is given the power to loose and to bind. I don’t know about the Orthodox though; I have not been too successful in finding out especially the disparity, if at all it exists, among the different patriarchs.

Will go on an oversea trip today and so will be away from the Forum for a while.

God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

May God protect and bless you on your trip, Reuben! Where are you going? My Philippines vacation this past June was enough to last me another five or six years till I get the travel bug again!

Anyway, may God keep you and yours safe on your journey! blessings…

Since proselytizing is not allowed in this Forum we can only state our own belief respectively with no pressure on anyone to agree or not to agree. I think most posters of different belief respectively here have been very honorable to the OP. We can only state what we believe and perhaps give an honest advice to him and it is for him to move on as he thinks is best for him. One can only lead the horse to the water but one cannot force it to drink.

I still maintain that the great divide between the Catholic and the Orthodox is the position of the Pope. Some Orthodox may have maintained the purity of their doctrine from the very beginning before the schism but as we can see now even among themselves they are not that standardized. So there may be some changes crept in along the way during the passage of time.

Similarly the Catholic Church; there has been changes in disciplines and practices. We can however argue for the Pope who is given the power to loose and to bind. I don’t know about the Orthodox though; I have not been too successful in finding out especially the disparity, if at all it exists, among the different patriarchs.

Will go on an oversea trip today and so will be away from the Forum for a while.

God bless.

 

[Harpazo]

That’s deep, man. I feel like we need some beatnick music. I need to meditate on this and get back to ya! …psychadelic and socratic!

Groovy.

I can thank a Jesuit for teaching me about Socrates. BUT now the RCs cannot say we aren’t in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

In Christ,
Andrew