Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Contarini]

The Church is Catholic. Written as such by Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Lactantius, etc etc etc. Only much later in history did EO come from schism from the Catholic Church.

You can’t make an argument from the use of the word “Catholic,” because the Orthodox use it as well, and indeed Protestants traditionally used it (they don’t do so too much any more, both because they are more ecumenical and have granted you the word out of courtesy, and because the doctrine of the Church held by most Protestants has become a pitiful, hyper-spiritualized thing).

You have to show that these Fathers held to the “Catholic” rather than the “Orthodox” view as defined today.

Ignatius, for instance, seems to line up quite well with Orthodox ecclesiology. The best your side can do is the phrase “presides in love” in the letter to the Romans–but that’s nothing that the Orthodox have problems with.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

You can’t make an argument from the use of the word “Catholic,” because the Orthodox use it as well, and indeed Protestants traditionally used it (they don’t do so too much any more, both because they are more ecumenical and have granted you the word out of courtesy, and because the doctrine of the Church held by most Protestants has become a pitiful, hyper-spiritualized thing).

Did you read the argument (both links) Irenaeus made?
here they are again

Bk 1 ch 10 (Against Heresies) ~ 180 a.d. ~ 80 years after St John dies.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm

ibid Bk 3 ch 3
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Can EO use Catholic? Nope!

Can Protestants use Catholic? Nope!
C:

You have to show that these Fathers held to the “Catholic” rather than the “Orthodox” view as defined today.

the links from Irenaeus “against heresies” says otherwise. He’s one man away from an apostle. He was taught by men who were taught by apostles. Read what he wrote again, then see if you can make that same comment.
C:

Ignatius, for instance, seems to line up quite well with Orthodox ecclesiology.

The floor is yours. Please make your case
C:

The best your side can do is the phrase “presides in love” in the letter to the Romans–but that’s nothing that the Orthodox have problems with.

Edwin

Clement of Rome, by settling sedition in Corinth among their bishops ~ 80 A.D. (Ignatius mentions him in his letter) couldn’t do what he did for the Corinthians if Corinth didn’t accord Clement primacy. Otherwise Corinth could ahve gone to bishops MUCH MUCH closer to Corinth to settle their sedition. Rome is a LONG way from Corinth. And given how bishops are supposed to stay in their own diocese, how could Clement have authority over this situation, unless his status is different from other bishops. AND considering St John is still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. This is a case of observing what people DO. Clement is 4th in line from Peter. The Church of Rome is already given the accord in the 1st century that continues throughout history.

We’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here. The best your side can do is deny that what you see is NOT what it looks like.

 

[Contarini]

Did you read the argument (both links) Irenaeus made?

I’ve read it many times–I was specifically responding to your claim about Ignatius. You have a better case with Irenaeus, and frankly I’ve been over this again and again and I’m just not willing to do it once more right now. Suffice it to say that the passage is compatible with an Orthodox or Anglican view of Roman primacy as well as with a contemporary “Roman” Catholic view. The same is true of Clement. I am not trying to convince you, because I’ve had detailed arguments on these texts recently with other Catholics and I need at least a few months’ break before I tread the weary round again

The floor is yours. Please make your case

No, you are the one who needs to make your case. I grant that you have some case with regard to Irenaeus.

Clement of Rome, by settling sedition in Corinth among their bishops ~ 80 A.D. (Ignatius mentions him in his letter) couldn’t do what he did for the Corinthians if Corinth didn’t accord Clement primacy. Otherwise Corinth could ahve gone to bishops MUCH MUCH closer to Corinth to settle their sedition. This is a case of observing what people DO.

We’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here. The best your side can do is deny that what you see is NOT what it looks like.

Not in the case of Clement. There is nothing about what Clement did that is in the slightest degree odd from an Anglican or Orthodox perspective.

As I said, Irenaeus is a bit more dubious. One can make it fit an Anglican/Orthodox view, but there is more of a reasonable debate to be had. The case from Clement and Ignatius is just plain bogus from beginning to end.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

I’ve read it many times–I was specifically responding to your claim about Ignatius. You have a better case with Irenaeus, and frankly I’ve been over this again and again and I’m just not willing to do it once more right now. Suffice it to say that the passage is compatible with an Orthodox or Anglican view of Roman primacy as well as with a contemporary “Roman” Catholic view. The same is true of Clement. I am not trying to convince you, because I’ve had detailed arguments on these texts recently with other Catholics and I need at least a few months’ break before I tread the weary round again

Did you present texts that deny the Catholic position in favor of your own position? If you did I’d like to see them. For my own education of course

As you know,

• these texts I presented say the Church is the Catholic Church. Not my opinion, THEIRS
• We know who the ECF’s said is the see of Peter. It’s Rome.
• Orthodox views came much later out of their schism from the Catholic Church. Anglican views came WAY later out of your schism from the Catholic Church.

C:

No, you are the one who needs to make your case. I grant that you have some case with regard to Irenaeus.

The point is, where is YOUR case.? You just state your opinion.

Irenaeus is a big case considering Irenaeus is writing only 80 years after the death of St John. And Irenaeus’ teachers, were all taught by an apostle. Therefore, what he writes in “Against Herresies” is what his predesessors taught.

So, who were the heretics according to Irenaeus?

Condensed

Those who didn’t agree with the Church of Rome were heretics. Where did this teaching come from? Peter and Paul + Linus, Anacletus, Clement, + succession of faithful bishops everywhere who maintained this tradition faithfully.

Who were other faithful bishops? Ignatius who was a contemporary of St John, as was Polycarp, who also were teachers of Irenaeus…

What Irenaeus writes, is what these earlier bishops taught and passed on faithfully down to his day. And he writes against those who don’t keep the faith taught by these faithful bishops.

All of them make the case for the Catholic Church. And you see this all over Irenaeus apology “Against Heresies”
C:

Not in the case of Clement.

Sure it is. Read my previous point again
C:

There is nothing about what Clement did that is in the slightest degree odd from an Anglican or Orthodox perspective.

Really?

You have to explain that one. Anglicans and Orthodox broke from the pope precisely BECAUSE of authority.
C:

As I said, Irenaeus is a bit more dubious. One can make it fit an Anglican/Orthodox view, but there is more of a reasonable debate to be had.

Which part of what I posted from Irenaeus is dubious?
C:

The case from Clement and Ignatius is just plain bogus from beginning to end.

Edwin

Why,

because you say so?

 

[Contarini]

• these texts I presented say the Church is the Catholic Church

That’s just a semantic game and worthless

We know who the ECF’s said is the see of Peter. It’s Rome.

No, we don’t. Sometimes they say that all bishops are the heirs of Peter.

Orthodox views came much later out of their schism from the Catholic Church.

No. The Orthodox resisted the novel claims made by the Gregorian Papacy. I know of no serious historian who denies that these claims were innovative. That’s just not open to reasonable doubt.

I will grant that in response to these novel and imperialistic claims, the Orthodox backed off on some of the language about Roman primacy that Eastern Christians had been willing to use earlier.

Anglican views came WAY later out of your schism from the Catholic Church.

I have no defense for Anglicanism as Anglicanism. We are a fragment of the Western Church, and our only defense is that the Western Church was already disordered by the arrogance of Rome. Recent events are making it clear–we must unite with either you or the Orthodox or give up our claims to any form of Catholicity.

Irenaeus is a big case considering Irenaeus is writing only 80 years after the death of St John. And Irenaeus’ teachers, were all taught by an apostle.

So, who were the heretics according to Irenaeus?

Condensed

Those who didn’t agree with the Church of Rome were heretics.

No, that’s not what he says. He picks Rome as an example of the apostolic succession that has been maintained throughout the church. It’s hard, given the context of the second century, to be sure exactly how strongly he is affirming the primacy of Rome, especially since we only have access to a later Latin translation of the original Greek. But we know from his behavior in the Quartodeciman controversy that he was capable of “rebuking” the Pope “sharply” when he thought he was wrong. So he is unlikely to be saying that everyone should just lie down and submit to whatever the bishop of Rome says (I say “unlikely” rather than “can’t possibly be saying” because of course people do change their minds, and they do sometimes act inconsistently with what they have said).

The authority of Irenaeus is not in dispute–you don’t need to establish it.

You have to explain that one. Anglicans and Orthodox broke from the pope precisely BECAUSE of authority.

Not because they rejected anything about authority said in these texts. Certainly not in the case of the Orthodox. As I said, I’m really not concerned to defend Anglicanism except insofar as we agree with the Orthodox.

Which part of what I posted from Irenaeus is dubious?

Whether “convenire” means “agree” or “come together”; whether “propter potiorem principatum” refers to the city or the church; what it means to say that the faith is held by those who exist everywhere, if he’s making a case for Roman primacy; whether the Latin we have is an accurate translation of the Greek original; and how the idea of “agreeing” with Rome is consonant with rebuking the bishop of Rome sharply when he tries to excommunicate people he believes to be heretics but you (Irenaeus) don’t.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

That’s just a semantic game and worthless

Turn it around. If Irenaeus wrote Anglican Church or Orthodox Church there, instead of Catholic Church, and I said to you what you’re saying to me, I gurantee you’d be all over me like a pit bull on a perfectly cooked prime rib.
C:

No, we don’t. Sometimes they say that all bishops are the heirs of Peter.

The EO try and float the term 1st among equals. It’s a nonsense term because under that rubric, if one is 1st all aren’t equal, and if all are equal no one can be 1st.
C:

No. The Orthodox resisted the novel claims made by the Gregorian Papacy. I know of no serious historian who denies that these claims were innovative. That’s just not open to reasonable doubt.

Such as?
C:

I will grant that in response to these novel and imperialistic claims, the Orthodox backed off on some of the language about Roman primacy that Eastern Christians had been willing to use earlier.

Such as?
C:

I have no defense for Anglicanism as Anglicanism. We are a fragment of the Western Church, and our only defense is that the Western Church was already disordered by the arrogance of Rome.

I think what you mean to say is, things got hugely disordered by the arrogance of Henry VIII.
C:

Recent events are making it clear–we must unite with either you or the Orthodox or give up our claims to any form of Catholicity.

You gave up Catholicity when you left the Catholic Church.
C:

No, that’s not what he says. He picks Rome as an example of the apostolic succession that has been maintained throughout the church.

Not as an example, It’s THE Church that everyone must agree with. How do we know this specifically? After he says “this Church” who does he name? The bishops of Rome in succession. This is the Church everyone EVERYWHERE must agree with.
C:

It’s hard, given the context of the second century, to be sure exactly how strongly he is affirming the primacy of Rome, especially since we only have access to a later Latin translation of the original Greek.

Of course he’s affirming the primacy of Rome. AND He is a Catholic bishop. Are you going to contest that too?
C:

But we know from his behavior in the Quartodeciman controversy that he was capable of “rebuking” the Pope “sharply” when he thought he was wrong. So he is unlikely to be saying that everyone should just lie down and submit to whatever the bishop of Rome says (I say “unlikely” rather than “can’t possibly be saying” because of course people do change their minds, and they do sometimes act inconsistently with what they have said).

St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope’s strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the “Philosophumena” (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.
C:

Not because they rejected anything about authority said in these texts. Certainly not in the case of the Orthodox. As I said, I’m really not concerned to defend Anglicanism except insofar as we agree with the Orthodox.

What’s THAT mean?
C:

Whether “convenire” means “agree” or “come together”; whether “propter potiorem principatum” refers to the city or the church; what it means to say that the faith is held by those who exist everywhere, if he’s making a case for Roman primacy; whether the Latin we have is an accurate translation of the Greek original; and how the idea of “agreeing” with Rome is consonant with rebuking the bishop of Rome sharply when he tries to excommunicate people he believes to be heretics but you (Irenaeus) don’t.

Edwin

You’re probably as an Anglican, going off of Schaff’s commentary on “convenire”. He states it’s a problematical term. Because it supports the Catholic Church’s view. And obviously Schaff being an Anglican, has a problem with that.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Since family and community ties play a large role in keeping me where I am, I am in no position to criticize. But I have to say that Free Methodist to Baptist seems like a move in decisively the wrong direction to me!

Oh, I quite agree. Theologically, I am certainly not a Baptist. Before my wife and I married, she was invited to the church by a friend of hers, and I began attending with her when I would visit her side of the state. The church does not even have the “Baptist” name in the title, and it was not until we both went through a membership course some time later that I learned this (along with the accompanying OSAS and purely symbolic baptism). The church means a great deal to my wife, and our friends mean a great deal to us both. I have discussed my journey with the pastor, and he is understanding (he grew up Catholic, but, like so many, it didn’t seem to “stick”).

Theologically, I am not really a Free Methodist either anymore, though my sympathies are more in that direction than the Baptist. I have been studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy for five years now, not as long as many others, I realize. Before that, I grew up as a pastor’s son in Free Methodism. I have been a Christian, albeit a deeply flawed and often confused Christian, my entire life. My wife began attending this Baptist church after a long absence from the faith. It is a place of security and learning for her, where her faith has been rekindled and strengthened. Though it is not where I would choose to be, if left to myself, I understand its importance to her, and until I have a pretty solid commitment to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, I do not feel right leaving.

I am fully aware that I need to discuss my Catholic/Orthodox feelings more openly. However, I hesitate to say, “Here are my doubts and uncertainties about the Church. Let me pass them on to you.” If I become Catholic, it will be fairly easy to attend both, as mass times are frequent. The Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy tends to take the whole morning, so it really becomes an either/or.

Yes, I think it’s better to stay put unless or until you are clearly (I avoid the word "absolutely) convinced that one particular option is true. Or, as you have said, you could take the view that since you are a Western Christian, in the absence of certainty you should just return to Rome!

I think there are very few, if any things, of which we can be *absolutely *convinced. And yes, I think Rome is likely to get the benefit of the doubt, all other things being equal.

While I love and respect him as my brother in Christ, I have never wanted to have that kind of story. I’m not sure that the story of my last 15 years is any more admirable, but I have preferred to dither rather than to throw myself into successive incompatible certainties.

I agree. I have not committed to a new theological worldview apart from Free Methodism (which, of course, does not require me to believe Free Methodism has some kind of exclusive status). I would hate to become Catholic and then leave, and I would hate to become Orthodox and then leave. Such an act could also be seen as a deliberate rejection of and apostasy from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, something I do not believe I am doing now.

It’s imperative you find the true Church. Otherwise your journey is not over. How are you going to find which one is true?

Good question. I really do want to find out, so I hope my search will be rewarded with the truth.

The apostles would not leave Peter. You have a clear choice.

The Orthodox claim Peter too. If it helps, I really like the pope.

The faith diminishes with every split from Catholicism.

I agree that the faith dimishes with every split from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

That’s like saying one just moved to a new neighborhood in the same town. Not a convincing analogy when comparing it to someone deciding to move away from schism, and join and profess the historic faith Jesus prescribed.

I have heard the Orthodox describe Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin. I am sure they can explain this analogy better than I can.

Protestants joining Orthodox, both retaining their protest against the Catholic Church which they both were a part of at one time.

Maybe so.

 

[steve_b]

I have heard the Orthodox describe Catholicism and Protestantism as two sides of the same coin. I am sure they can explain this analogy better than I can.

Protestantism and EO have one thing in common. They both split from the Catholic Church.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Steve- You seem to be somewhat well-informed, which is why I’m very surprised about your insistence on the significance of the word “catholic” in Iranaeus. Of course he doesn’t say Anglican; there was no Anglican church, and the other poster you’re in discussion with is NOT DEFENDING THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, PERIOD. No one in this thread is.

But as for Orthodoxy, there was no split when Iranaeus wrote that, nor would there be for another 800 or so years. There was one church, catholic and orthodox, both titles that the modern Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church maintain. The EO church still, just like everyone else, says “catholic” in their creed, only difference is that technically, they’re the only ones who haven’t changed the creed since Nicea.

If it were 1537, or 1976, and he said Catholic, that would be one thing, but back then all it meant was “the church”, something both East and West have legitimate ties to.

Otherwise, the back and forth between you two, though it’s not really digging all that deep (may be assuming we all have a common denominator of knowledge that may not actually be there) hits on the major problem I’ve run into in this, which is that the ECF’s do not really provide a conclusive teaching either way on Roman primacy, probably because they didn’t imagine that there would be a schism that people would be arguing about on message boards in 1,900 years. From that hang-up, I really don’t know where to go.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Protestantism and EO have one thing in common. They both split from the Catholic Church.

And I agree that these splits did occur, and I do believe the continuing separation is absolutely tragic. It appears that from the perspective of the East, the West kept saying, “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further,” until the two “sides” proved to be irreconcilable. The doctrines and practices which led to the split between East and West gave the Protestants something to complain about, and schism happened again. Would Luther have started his rebellion, if there were no indulgences, and if purgatory and universal jurisdiction were not teachings of the Church?

Let me say, however, that I would love to be Catholic. I want the beautiful cathedrals, the worshipful hymns, the sacraments, the tradition, the history, and the steadfastness. I want to dance and sing and wear bright colors. I want to celebrate feast days. I want the code of chivalry and knightly orders. My spiritual ancestors tossed so much of that aside, and I miss it tremendously.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Of course, you do not discuss exactly what he did that made those Orthodox hooligans so upset

Edwin

The reason I only quoted the circumstances of St. Josaphat’s death is that I tried to point out his heroic virtue, how he freely embraced death for his flock and for the sake of loyalty to St. Peter’s successor, how God allowed his body to be miraculously preserved from corruption, and how his martyrdom ultimately led to the reconciliation of many people to the Catholic Church, including his rival Eastern Orthodox bishop Meletius Smotritsky.

The story of St. Josaphat is a bit like the story of Jesus Christ. What made Jesus Christ’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him? What made St. Josaphat’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him? I gave the links to St. Josaphat’s detailed story, but I think the short answer is simply our fallen nature. Would I have been better if I lived in those times? I’m not sure. I committed enough sins in my life to understand, I am hopelessly wretched, I’m not better than other sinners, and I need God’s saving grace just as much as other sinners do.

Just so that you won’t think that I’m trying to trash talk Orthodox people, here’s another inspirational story, that of EO saint Peter the Aleut, who was martyred by Catholics in San Francisco:

umich.edu/~ocf/saint_peter_the_aleut.htm

Saint Peter the Aleut
A native of Kodiak Island, Cungagnaq had been baptized by the monks of St. Herman’s missionary party, receiving the Christian name Peter.
In 1815, a party of 14 Aleut seal and otter hunter, including Peter approached the California shore by ship. The Russian-American Trading Company had in 1812 established Fort Ross (derived from the word “Russia”) about 50 miles north of San Francisco as a warm climate trading post and as a place to raise crops and cattle to support the communities in Alaska. At that time, Spain still owned California, and some Spaniards perhaps thought that Russia was planning to attack and take possession of San Francisco.
When, therefore, Peter and his party of young fur trappers approached near Fort Ross, Spanish sailors captured them and took them to San Francisco for a mock trial. Roman Catholic priests in California tried to force the Aleut hunters to embrace Roman Catholicism. The prisoners answered, “We are Christians; we have been baptized,” and they showed their baptismal crosses. “No, you are heretics and schismatics,” replied one of the priests. “If you do not agree to take the Catholic Faith we will toruture you,” and they were told to think it over.

  Returning a while later, the priests found that the Aleuts again refused to renounce Orthodoxy.  They took Peter and cut off a toe from each foot, but Peter simply repeated, "I am a Christian; I will not betray my Faith."  The Spanish priest-inquisitor ordered a group of California Indians to cut off each finger of Peter's hands, one joint at a time, eventually cutting off his hands altogether.  Finally, he ordered that Peter be disemboweled.  Peter quickly died as a result of the tortures, witnessing to his Faith in God to his last breath.   Just as they were ready to start on the next Aleut, the Spaniards received an order to stop the proceedinggs.  This eyewitness account of Peter's martyrdom is told by some of his comrades who were eventually released.
  When the incident was reported to St. Herman, back on Kodiak Island, the monk turned to his icon, crossed himself and exclaimed, "Holy, new-martyr Peter, pray to God for us!"  Peter the Aleut was formally glorified as a saint, as the "Martyr of San Francisco;" in 1980.  His feast day is commemorated on September 24.

orthodoxwiki.org/Peter_the_Aleut

 

[steve_b]

Steve- You seem to be somewhat well-informed, which is why I’m very surprised about your insistence on the significance of the word “catholic” in Iranaeus.

why don’t you find it significant?

JB:

Of course he doesn’t say Anglican; there was no Anglican church, and the other poster you’re in discussion with is NOT DEFENDING THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, PERIOD. No one in this thread is.

I think you missed my point

JB:

the ECF’s do not really provide a conclusive teaching either way on Roman primacy,

The Irenaeus quotes I gave on this thread DO provide teaching on Roman primacy.

 

[Bluegoat]

why don’t you find it significant?

Because when they used the word, they meant both the Eastern and Western Christians, as they existed at that time. The word Catholic is used somewhat differently today.

Would you say the CC is not orthodox, because they are not the Orthodox Church?

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

Because when they used the word, they meant both the Eastern and Western Christians, as they existed at that time. The word Catholic is used somewhat differently today.

Would you say the CC is not orthodox, because they are not the Orthodox Church?

Right. In that era, it’s absolutely a throw-away word. There were no Christians at all not considered “catholic” or “orthodox”, at least not yet, and until the 11th/9th/13th/15th century, depending on who you ask, there were no non-Nicean Christians not considered both catholic and orthodox.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

The Irenaeus quotes I gave on this thread DO provide teaching on Roman primacy.

Yes, they do, but other Irenaeus quotes support the RC understanding of Roman Primacy much less, and the EO more, including instances where he directly reprimands the Roman Pontiff. This is my whole issue, outside of the context that we are in, where we are post-schism, and attempting to feel through things, the ECF’s were not thinking in our terms, and thus there are innumerable ECF sources that point in seemingly different directions in what would seem like harmless statements to them.

 

[rinnie]

I was baptised/confirmed Catholic 7 years ago, and have been observant and active ever since.

Recently, my wife and I, who is Russian Orthodox, have come to a point where we realize that our interfaith marriage is an untenable position for us. IN NO WAY DOES THIS SUGGEST DIVORCE, I do not mean for it to be taken like that.

What it means is that we, as traditionalist Christians, cannot subscribe to the idea that one faith is good for one person and one for another. That is relativism. It’s not good for either of our faiths, or for our young children, 8 months old and 2 years old.

Together, we have been exploring the tenets/histories of each of our faiths. There is no question to either of us that one of our churches is true; apostolic succession and tradition is overwhelmingly important.

What the question essentially boils down to on an intellectual level (which of course is only half the battle, if even), after plenty of fiddling about with innumerable bits of theology/history, etc, is that all disputes come back to the Roman Catholic view of the papacy vs. the Orthodox view, and on this I’m just not convinced anymore. I have yet to find conclusive proof that, though the Bishop of Rome had primacy of honor, he had any more than that, indeed, I’m finding it difficult to even establish that Peter ever held a seat in Rome, or a firm place of last word leadership over the early church.

I hate feeling torn like this, especially on something that, truly is the MOST important part of life. Help!

Wow this is really a hard call to make. I guess you have to look at the good thing. You both have valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession.

I think the main thing that You have to address is what makes you all of a sudden doubt the Primacy of the Pope. I am guessing you were always RC. Now If I was Orthodox all of my life and my husband was RC I would need something concrete to have me change to RC.

But on the other point if I was, which I am RC I would need something even more concrete to convince me to leave the RCC.

So to me as a RC here is what I would say to convince my spouse. Okay lets see what the gospel says. Peter has the keys to the kingdom. Now that means a heck of alot to me. He was given the keys from God. Now I am sorry but they were given only to Peter.

So answer me this, you said you are just not convinced ANYMORE. Okay what convinced you in the beginning? Now what changed since then?

 

[Jon_Hus]

Jim,

First let me say I appreciate your situation and your efforts to understand the implications. As I read through your posts I get many different emotional reactions and I suppose others do also. I’m sure you appreciate emotional responses and yet you probably would like clear thinking to guide you.

One of my emotional reactions is that I think at times you are over thinking the whole thing. This is of course preferable to under thinking the situation. However how do you get resolution that satisfies both you and your wife?

In your own mind, what are your baseline authority standards? Are they the ECFs, the councils, the popes, the traditions, the Bible or something else or a combination of several? In my opinion, task one is set your standard (s) of faith.

To the Roman Catholic, they look no further than the teachings of the church, the evangelical no further than the Bible. This of course colors how each person within those groups define certain key terms such as the “church”, what it is and who belongs to it.

If you are looking for a pure organization or for pure doctrine I think you may never find it. Others here may disagree due to their belief that such a pure organization exists and that by associationg with such organization some how saving grace will fall into their lap dispite their personal failures. Sin is the problem, it is ever present, even a great man of God like Moses had sin and it had it’s power over him.

There is a point Jim where you have to make a decision and just toss out the anchor. I’m not suggesting that you compromise on something that really causes you concern and I’m not qualified to advise further however I would throw out for your consideration the idea that you do not have to agree 100% with every doctrine or practice with whatever church you decide on. Remember, God looks at the heart. Make sure you are living to please Him, let Him guide you in your everyday living and be a testimony to His Son who died on the cross to pay the penilty of your sin. If you have sin in your life, get rid of it, clear the decks of your mind and petition the Father through the Son to lead, guide and direct. Then act.

Take care,
Jon

…Yes they do, but other Irenaeus quotes support the RC understanding of Roman Primacy much less, and the EO more, including instances where he directly reprimands the Roman Pontiff. This is my whole issue, outside of the context that we are in, where we are post-schism, and attempting to feel through things, the ECF’s were not thinking in our terms, and thus there are innumerable ECF sources that point in seemingly different directions in what would seem like harmless statements to them.

 

[Hesychios]

The story of St. Josaphat is a bit like the story of Jesus Christ. What made Jesus Christ’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him? What made St. Josaphat’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him?

Comparing Josaphat to Jesus? I think you had better find new sources of information.

I gave the links to St. Josaphat’s detailed story, but I think the short answer is simply our fallen nature.

Evidently it is not detailed enough, Josaphat had a fallen nature, Jesus did not.

Bishop Josaphat was a very violent man, so much so that the Polish/Lithuanian authorities commented on his excesses. In his youth he reported his monastic superior for Orthodox sympathies (and eventually took the job for himself when it was offered to him). Later, in his zeal as a bishop he and his Polish soldiers hunted down the Orthodox with their pikes and swords. He turned them out of their temples, and later when they erected tents in remote places he hunted them down there too. This was just like the Irish situation, but instead of the oppressors being English Protestants turning out Catholics it was Polish Catholics turning out Orthodox.

His canonization by a Pope (not by his own Eastern Catholic church, which does not have the right to canonize it’s own people any longer) was during the ‘cold war’ period of church history when Orthodox were regarded as enemies to be vanquished and even Eastern Catholics were regarded with mistrust as potential schismatics. And it had the opposite effect, instead of strengthening the faith of the local people by canonizing one of their own, it enraged them.

His legacy today? His old diocese of Polotzky today is entirely Orthodox, the people repudiated the Unia as soon as the power of the Polish government dissipated. He is regarded as a national saint among the Polish people, who have many parishes named after him (probably because of the sanitized version of hagiography they have been told), but his own people in Ukraine and Belarus continue to remember him as a butcher. Canonizing him must seem to them like canonizing the priest who tortured Peter the Aleut.

I don’t approve of murder, and I cannot justify the man’s death, it was most unfortunate. But most of us live in a time and place where most disputes of this nature can be handled by law courts (even evictions from houses of worship), most constitutions guarantee religious liberty and police are fairly even handed in their dealings with the public. It is not an age where bishops would personally lead gangs of armed men to evict priests and parishioners, then hunt them down when they worship in tents in the woods.

It is very hard to place ourselves in the setting and understand how such an unfortunate thing could happen. One thing is certain though, it was not the Orthodox church who killed him, and it was not an Orthodox government working with Orthodox priests and bishops which did the deed, it was some anonymous peasant who might have actually finished out his days as a Catholic, since the Orthodox church was suppressed to achieve exactly that purpose.

 

[Hesychios]

The story of St. Josaphat is a bit like the story of Jesus Christ. What made Jesus Christ’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him? What made St. Josaphat’s adversaries so upset, that they killed him?

Comparing bishop saint Josaphat to Jesus?

I gave the links to St. Josaphat’s detailed story, but I think the short answer is simply our fallen nature.

Evidently it is not detailed enough, Josaphat had a fallen nature, Jesus did not. Your posts have been very even-handed and I respect that, but I must say I would not be responding to your post except that you are comparing this man to Jesus.

Bishop Josaphat is remembered as a very violent man, so much so that the Polish/Lithuanian authorities commented on his excesses. In his youth he reported his monastic superior for Orthodox sympathies (and eventually took the job for himself when it was offered to him). Later, in his zeal as a bishop he and his Polish soldiers hunted down the Orthodox with their pikes and swords. He turned them out of their temples, and later when they erected tents in remote places he hunted them down there too. This was just like the Irish situation, but instead of the oppressors being English Protestants turning out Catholics it was Polish Catholics turning out Orthodox.

His canonization by a Pope (not by his own Eastern Catholic church, which does not have the right to canonize it’s own people any longer) was during the ‘cold war’ period of church history when Orthodox were regarded as enemies to be vanquished and even Eastern Catholics were regarded with mistrust as potential schismatics. And it had the opposite effect, instead of strengthening the faith of the local people by canonizing one of their own, it enraged them.

His legacy today? His old diocese of Polotzky today is entirely Orthodox, the people repudiated the Unia as soon as the power of the Polish government dissipated. He is regarded as a national saint among the Polish people, who have many parishes named after him (probably because of the sanitized version of hagiography they have been told), but his own people in Ukraine and Belarus continue to remember him as a butcher. Canonizing him must seem to them like canonizing the priest who tortured Peter the Aleut.

I don’t approve of murder, and I cannot justify the man’s death, it was most unfortunate. But most of us live in a time and place where most disputes of this nature can be handled by law courts (even evictions from houses of worship), most constitutions guarantee religious liberty and police are fairly even handed in their dealings with the public. It is not an age where bishops would personally lead gangs of armed men to evict priests and parishioners, then hunt them down when they worship in tents in the woods.

It is very hard to place ourselves in the setting and understand how such an unfortunate thing could happen. One thing is certain though, it was not the Orthodox church who killed him, and it was not an Orthodox government working with Orthodox priests and bishops which did the deed, it was some anonymous peasant who might have actually finished out his days as a Catholic, since the Orthodox church was suppressed to achieve exactly that purpose.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Right. In that era, it’s absolutely a throw-away word. There were no Christians at all not considered “catholic” or “orthodox”, at least not yet, and until the 11th/9th/13th/15th century, depending on who you ask, there were no non-Nicean Christians not considered both catholic and orthodox.

“Catholic” and “orthodox” have meanings outside of the title of the Churches being discussed. Those titles came from the secular meanings of the words. “Catholic” means universal. “Orthodox” means doctrinally correct. The Catholic Church came to be called The Catholic Church precisely because she is universal and is the repository of correct Christian doctrine. The Orthodox Church did not exist until after the 11th (or 13th) Century split. The Orthodox SAY it did, but you will not find any reference to an “Orthodox Church” capitol “O” in early Church history. Consequently, all Christians were Catholics until the split.

The split had as much or more to do with language, culture and pride as it did with doctrine. That aside, there is a common sense element to this. The absence of an “Orthodox Church” for many centuries after the Apostles is one element. ANother is the facts of the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople when he taught his heresy. I.e., he was a Catholic bishop. When he tried to separate the two natures of Christ, he was opposed primarily by Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Both appealed to Pope Celestine for adjudication. The council had already been called, but Cyril would no budge from Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. The Pope ignored Nesorius and wrote to Cyril authorizing him to speak in the Pope’s name and to tell Nestorius to either disown his heresy or be anathematized. It is clear, a that time, the primacy of the pope was not in dispute.

On the matter on infallibility, it’s not about obeying every word the pope says. The doctrine of infallibility is stated in the negative – that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit acting through the pope and the Magesterium… The Orthodox have no guarantee they are protected from error. They say their councils are infallible, but they haven’t held one for centuries. If you can believe the Lord would leave His Church with no guarantee she is teaching the truth, then you can listen to Orthodox claims.

Finally, Mt. 16:19 either means what it says, or we can toss the entire Bible.

Peace. I hope you resolve this matter. I will pay for you and your family.