Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Peter_J]

Didn’t the children of israel forsake God as sovereign ruler over them ,and chose a earthly king to rule them…arn’t the catholics doing like wise by putting a earthly fallable human being as supreme pontiff over them…

I’ve wondered about that too. But to me that speaks more to the question of whether it was wise to define those dogmas, than to whether they are true.

 

[ralphinal]

Didn’t the children of israel forsake God as sovereign ruler over them ,and chose a earthly king to rule them…arn’t the catholics doing like wise by putting a earthly fallable human being as supreme pontiff over them…

If you accept that Biblically, Peter was head of the early Church, no Catholics did not do the same thing. Jesus did.

 

[Mickey]

Second, your argument supports the idea that those dogma definitions were unwise (and I agree, btw), but you haven’t said anything to convince me that the dogmas were doctrinal innovations (i.e. teachings not contained in the original Deposit of Faith).

Holy Orthodoxy does not understand this so-called “develop of doctrine”. I could show many quotes from Church Fathers that speak against this so-called “ordinary universal jurisdiction”, and then you and others would post quotes that seem to indicate that the Pope of Rome always carried some type of infallibility and supremacy. But when all is said and done, history and Tradition shows an Orthodox bishop of Rome who did not carry a “uiniversal jurisdiction” and did not claim to possess some type of charism of infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

Then why is it that some Orthodox require rebaptism of Catholic converts and others don’t?

Because some say that a heterodox baptism is not valid, while others say that Chrismation affirms the Catholic baptism.

Why is it that some teach that none of the Catholic sacraments are valid (Cyprianic theory of apostolic succession) and others do not?

Some will say that heterodox sacraments are not valid, while others will not comment much about whether or not Catholic sacraments are valid. Holy Orthodoxy only knows that Her sacraments are valid.

Why is it that some permit belief in aerial tollhouses and others do not?

This is theological speculation–unlike your doctrine of purgatory.

Can you say Limbo?

Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about what the Holy Orthodox Church might think about your Church.

 

[Mickey]

Peter was head of the early Church

Really? That is news to me. I knew that St Peter was oftentimes a spokesman for the others—but all the Apostles were equal in authority.

 

[Peter_J]

Holy Orthodoxy does not understand this so-called “develop of doctrine”.

If something was not part of the Deposit of Faith to begin with, then Catholics saying “We dogmatically defined it” will not make it so, no matter how many times that statement is repeated.

But if something is part of the Deposit of Faith, then it is possible for it to be dogmatically defined.

 

[Mickey]

But if something is part of the Deposit of Faith, then it is possible for it to be dogmatically defined.

Ah, and then it becomes an infinite debate on whether or not something was part of the “deposit of faith”.

Is there anything in the first seven Ecumenical Councils regarding ordinary universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Peter_J]

Ah, and then it becomes an infinite debate on whether or not something was part of the “deposit of faith”.

Not infinite, I hope.

Is there anything in the first seven Ecumenical Councils regarding ordinary universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome?

Well I don’t know about that, but I think it’s clear that there were differences of opinion, even in the early Church, about the extent of the Bishop of Rome’s authority. Indeed, opinions varied even from one Pope to the next, and from one Patriarch of Constantinople to the next.

So a key question should be, is it still posible to have differences of opinion among united Christians?

 

[ralphinal]

Really? That is news to me. I knew that St Peter was oftentimes a spokesman for the others—but all the Apostles were equal in authority.

I am not so sure of that. It seems like there were three who were “Higher” than the others, Peter, James, and JOhn. They witnessed the Transfiguration and they were taken farther in the garden the night he was betrayed.

Peter did speak for the others. And he also passed sentences on those who cheated the Church. He had the dream about lifting the food ban and was the first to allow Gentiles in.

 

[Mickey]

I am not so sure of that. It seems like there were three who were “Higher” than the others, Peter, James, and JOhn.

Does Scripture and Tradition say that these three Apostles were “higher” than the others?

 

[Mickey]

So a key question should be, is it still posible to have differences of opinion among united Christians?

That’s a tough one. The Church of Rome elevated it to the status of doctrine. Big mistake.

 

[Matariel]

Christ is the head of the Holy Orthodox Church

But there isn’t one unified Orthodox Church. Just many national churches.

 

[Mickey]

But there isn’t one unified Orthodox Church. Just many national churches.

Your definition of unity revolves around the Pope of Rome. Many of your Eastern Catholic brethren hold more to the Orthodox praxis than the Latin teachings.

Your unity argument is old and wrong.

 

[Hesychios]

I am not either Orthodox or Catholic but I want to join one of them. I have been reading a lot about them and am not sure what one to join.To be honest I think I am leaning more towards Catholicism. Can someone tell me the differences between the two and why the Catholic way is right? Much appreciated

Outside of this forum the question would be: “which Catholic way is right?”

Essentially both traditions are Catholic. The Latin Church, and the particular churches under the Papacy has continued to change more over the centuries, especially theologically.

It seems to be a point of pride that they should have done so. The Protestant churches have continued this practice at a more accelerated rate.

The issue of Papal Primacy is quite simple really. It has developed in the west into something the early church would not recognize.

If you want to see how Papal Primacy was exercised 1000 years ago, just look at the Orthodox Catholics. When Rome broke with the eastern churches the Primacy fell to Constantinople by default, and the Patriarch of Constantinople exercises that Primacy pretty much just as the early Popes had. It has not evolved in any significant way for two significant reasons:

• …because the Orthodox are by nature very conservative, and reluctant to introduce new ways of operating which has not been given to them by predecessors.
• …because the local synodal tradition continues to be as strong in the east as it was over the entire church at one time. This functions as an effective counterbalance to pretensions of power and pride which may rise in one localized faction or another. The “default setting” for the church is “that which has been done before”.
  The church does not look outside itself for a model of how to function or what to believe. It is it’s own model, it follows it’s own pattern.

Michael

 

[Mickey]

The Latin Church, and the particular churches under the Papacy has continued to change more over the centuries, especially theologically.

It seems to be a point of pride that they should have done so. The Protestant churches have continued this practice at a more accelerated rate.

The issue of Papal Primacy is quite simple really. It has developed in the west into something the early church would not recognize.

Sometimes you will hear that the Roman Catholic Church is the first protestant Church.

 

[Hesychios]

Sometimes you will hear that the Roman Catholic Church is the first protestant Church.

Yes, some people think so.

 

[cazayoux]

Sometimes you will hear that the Roman Catholic Church is the first protestant Church.

Protestantism isn’t the same as schism.

The Catholic/Orthodox schism had to do with authority, not a difference in doctrine.

Protestants, on the other hand, left (not reformed) on doctrinal differences.

michel

 

[Peter_J]

That’s a tough one. The Church of Rome elevated it to the status of doctrine. Big mistake.

I would say rather that Rome elevated it to the status of dogma. I believe that it was always a doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

Sometimes you will hear that the Roman Catholic Church is the first protestant Church.

You’ll ‘sometimes’ hear a lot of things. Like you’ll ‘sometimes’ hear that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the first Protestant Church.

 

[Mickey]

I believe that it was always a doctrine.

Papal infallibility?