Orthodoxy vs Catholisism

[excaliber]

I have come to see that the difference’s in the east and west are biger then I thought.

I don’t see how scripture alone will prove eather side.You will probably find quotes from church fathers that seem to prove both sides.

I truly don’t think east and west were EVER that united. And that is why neither side can simply look at how the east and west operated before the schism…they probably never did operate unitedly.

but do both sides agree that the differences between Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Oriental
Orthodox…etc are not serious enuff to jeapordize the salvation of the members of any of these churches?

 

[8eofilos]

Hello everyone

I am starting RCIA soon, I would like to enter it free of ( Major) doubts.

I will be blunt, I am not sure who is 100 percent correct in the schism. Catholosism has far more influence on me so I side with Catholics…but at the same time Im devided.

How is it that a MAJOR responsibility such as Vicor of Christ Infalible teacher of Christs church…was completely unknown by Antioc-Constantenople
etc…etc…

How is it that when the Bishop of Rome made an adjustment in the creed…EVERY other sea responded negatively…and completely disagree on the procession of The Holy Spirit.

Someone was way of in there doctrine about athority in the church, AND The Holy Trinity!!!

Why was there no council called to
make sure on these matters?

Several possibilities come into play…

1. Papal Infalibility was always taught by the whole church, HOWEVER Rome was a little negligent and aloud the eastern churches to not teach Infalibility. There for alowing them to take communion while at the same time not believing the apostolic faith.
2. Rome was Correct about Infalibility. However using this athority to adjust the creed, BEFORE the whole had a council and agreed on Infalibility…stumbeled every other sea but rome into schism. And stumbeling other christians is very serious.
3. No other sea had any qlue papal infalibility existed, because it didn’t. Rome called no council but instaled papal infalibility on its own…because a council would not aprove it. And by independantly proclaiming a doctrine without the whole church, forced the orthodox to break away so they could keep orthodoxy in tact.

This seams to be the last major obstruction for me to overcome. Any help will be apreciated.

Hello my fellow Christian! What I will say to you will not be something that other people say or don’t say. You ask which faith is true. I think you are asking the wrong question and in the wrong place because you will hear trues and lies even though it is a forum. But I will give you an answer to some of your questions not with my words but with Jesus Christ’s Words.
Read John 12. 20 -23 Jesus clearly states that the Greeks will be the ones to Glorify Him.
As for the dating of the Holy Easter does not mean because the Catholic Church celebrates on different dates that they are the right ones. If you truly want to experience the Miracle of the Light maybe you should go yourself. The Orthodoxy doesn’t deny Miracles that happen in other Churches. But the “POPE” denies the Miracle Of The Holy Light as the High Priest did in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago and say that it is the work of the devil. This Miracle happens since the first centuries after the Resurrection of Jesus. Instead of rejoicing to this they are negative.
My advice is to read the Bible carefully and with Prayer so that The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth. Don’t believe in any man’s word but to The Word of God only.
Catholic’s try to approach God through Philosophy when that is impossible. You think that any human or mortal can approach God like that? My friend if you need something, message to me anytime. I tell you again, look at all doctrines and canons of the Catholic and see if they agree to our Lords words. Any addition is wrong as Jesus said Matthew 5.19. Many people avoid reading Matthew as I assume from their sayings and you should read it many times and let your eyes see the depth of Jesus teachings.
Jesus again I tell you as I said to many others… Search the Scriptures so that you can know Him and the truth for man is selfish and in many occasions will lie in opposition of God that doesn’t lie.
I pray that you see the truth and believe in it because the truth is nor the Pope nor any Archbishop is the truth but Jesus is. Another thing to be aware of is that just because people go to church or say that they are close to the Lord that they are indeed close to Him. Jesus says that His path is not easy and I don’t think He is a liar. The Catholic makes it look like a walk and tells its followers that purgatory exists when it is conflicting to Jesus words. When He says eternal fire, He means eternal and not temporary. After death you cannot repent for your sins which is the only way to Heaven. All these false teachings and going back and forth from here to there tells me that God is not in the drivers seat of the Catholic Church. As for the Greek Orthodox they are the same and haven’t done any changes. All accusations are proof less. Again that doesn’t make the Greeks the saved ones but the Greek Orthodox Fathers have maintained their Faith always since it was given to them. The Pap ism only show the need for man to be in Power and Monarchy when the only King is Jesus. The Orthodox have a leader also but has not the power that the pope has because he needs to gather an ecumenical council for decisions about the church.
The Greek Orthodox Church asks you to follow the Lord’s will.

 

[Peter_J]

As for the dating of the Holy Easter does not mean because the Catholic Church celebrates on different dates that they are the right ones. If you truly want to experience the Miracle of the Light maybe you should go yourself. The Orthodoxy doesn’t deny Miracles that happen in other Churches. But the “POPE” denies the Miracle Of The Holy Light as the High Priest did in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago and say that it is the work of the devil. This Miracle happens since the first centuries after the Resurrection of Jesus. Instead of rejoicing to this they are negative.

Whoa, slow down 8eofilos. You haven’t even provided the quote from the pope that “denies the Miracle Of The Holy Light”.

 

[Peter_J]

I have come to see that the difference’s in the east and west are biger then I thought.

That’s certainly possible. It’s important to take things you hear (and, even more so, things you read on the internet) with a grain of salt. For example, here’s a statement that was posted yesterday and created a bit of stir:
Prodigal Son1:

Reformers definitely believe a reformation of the Catholic Church took place in the 1500s. Until that time there was only ONE Church, the same Church Christ created and St. Paul wrote about.

 

[Hesychios]

I have come to see that the difference’s in the east and west are bigger then I thought.

Perhaps, but not to worry. You could pick any one of the churches we have discussed and be far, far better off than not doing anything.

I would say the similarities may be much greater than you had realized as well. That you are looking at Apostolic Christianity is a great sign of hope, for you and others.

I truly don’t think east and west were EVER that united. And that is why neither side can simply look at how the east and west operated before the schism…they probably never did operate unitedly.

You may be onto something. This is part of the reason “communion” has so much importance to us.

We recognize others as fellow sojourners in Christ by what they believe, and share communion with them. There is no “control” over churches far away, simply recognition. Each bishop recognizes the bishops around him who teach truly, and sometimes they would gather to discuss the issues of the church. That is the origin (in very basic terms) of the synods.

There were synods in North Africa, synods in Gaul, in Syria, in Egypt, in Italy, in Asia Minor, etc. etc. Each one hosted and lead by a Metropolitan. Metropolitans had the biggest congregations and the most disposable assets, so they could be counted on to underwrite a gathering of bishops and put money behind a proposal, if they agreed to it. They could support missionaries better than the newer, smaller dioceses.

As the church began to fill in the empty spaces on the map sometimes priests of two different bishops would be working in the same area, the church eventually had to demarcate each territory so that the missionary efforts would not be redundant. We have old canons relating to this, requiring a priest to gain permission from the local bishop before he begins work in a new area.

So we have an image here of bishops, often working alone in remote places, but always in communication with the other bishops in the region, whether by letter or visit.

but do both sides agree that the differences between Catholic-Eastern Orthodox-Oriental
Orthodox…etc are not serious enuff to jeapordize the salvation of the members of any of these churches?

Some dogmas are not essential to salvation. For instance, does knowing the world is round have any impact on us as Christians? Not much I dare say. Not knowing this fact is not an endangerment to anyone spiritually.

So, if a church were to make a dogma that the world is round I might say that it was pretty unnecessary, no matter how true. If that was the only goofy thing they did I would say that most of their followers are probably in pretty good hands.

Now, if that same church were to claim that denial of this dogma (that the world is round) makes one anathema, condemned and cast out of the church. I would have to say that it was wrong to do this, because there may be that some people, no matter how hard they try, will not understand this new teaching. There is no reason to condemn people for not getting a grasp on unnecessary doctrines. This will cause people to drift away, disappointed and hurt, lost to proper spiritual care because of a completely unnecessary teaching or demand of the church.

To the extent that any church does this, they jeopardize the chances of some of the faithful to find their way to God.

 

[8eofilos]

Perhaps, but not to worry. You could pick any one of the churches we have discussed and be far, far better off than not doing anything.

I would say the similarities may be much greater than you had realized as well. That you are looking at Apostolic Christianity is a great sign of hope, for you and others.
You may be onto something. This is part of the reason “communion” has so much importance to us.

We recognize others as fellow sojourners in Christ by what they believe, and share communion with them. There is no “control” over churches far away, simply recognition. Each bishop recognizes the bishops around him who teach truly, and sometimes they would gather to discuss the issues of the church. That is the origin (in very basic terms) of the synods.

There were synods in North Africa, synods in Gaul, in Syria, in Egypt, in Italy, in Asia Minor, etc. etc. Each one hosted and lead by a Metropolitan. Metropolitans had the biggest congregations and the most disposable assets, so they could be counted on to underwrite a gathering of bishops and put money behind a proposal, if they agreed to it. They could support missionaries better than the newer, smaller dioceses.

As the church began to fill in the empty spaces on the map sometimes priests of two different bishops would be working in the same area, the church eventually had to demarcate each territory so that the missionary efforts would not be redundant. We have old canons relating to this, requiring a priest to gain permission from the local bishop before he begins work in a new area.

So we have an image here of bishops, often working alone in remote places, but always in communication with the other bishops in the region, whether by letter or visit.

Some dogmas are not essential to salvation. For instance, does knowing the world is round have any impact on us as Christians? Not much I dare say. Not knowing this fact is not an endangerment to anyone spiritually.

So, if a church were to make a dogma that the world is round I might say that it was pretty unnecessary, no matter how true. If that was the only goofy thing they did I would say that most of their followers are probably in pretty good hands.

Now, if that same church were to claim that denial of this dogma (that the world is round) makes one anathema, condemned and cast out of the church. I would have to say that it was wrong to do this, because there may be that some people, no matter how hard they try, will not understand this new teaching. There is no reason to condemn people for not getting a grasp on unnecessary doctrines. This will cause people to drift away, disappointed and hurt, lost to proper spiritual care because of a completely unnecessary teaching or demand of the church.

To the extent that any church does this, they jeopardize the chances of some of the faithful to find their way to God.

One thing that I don’t agree with any Church is to give Anathema to something. I think the only one that can do that is God.

 

[Peter_J]

Some dogmas are not essential to salvation. For instance, does knowing the world is round have any impact on us as Christians? Not much I dare say. Not knowing this fact is not an endangerment to anyone spiritually.

So, if a church were to make a dogma that the world is round I might say that it was pretty unnecessary, no matter how true. If that was the only goofy thing they did I would say that most of their followers are probably in pretty good hands.

Now, if that same church were to claim that denial of this dogma (that the world is round) makes one anathema, condemned and cast out of the church. I would have to say that it was wrong to do this, because there may be that some people, no matter how hard they try, will not understand this new teaching. There is no reason to condemn people for not getting a grasp on unnecessary doctrines. This will cause people to drift away, disappointed and hurt, lost to proper spiritual care because of a completely unnecessary teaching or demand of the church.

To the extent that any church does this, they jeopardize the chances of some of the faithful to find their way to God.

I think I might agree with the underlying point your making, but not the terminology.

In particular, wouldn’t you agree that whenever something is declared/defined as dogma, there is an implied condemnation of anyone who doesn’t agree with said dogma?

 

[Hesychios]

I think I might agree with the underlying point your making, but not the terminology.

In particular, wouldn’t you agree that whenever something is declared/defined as dogma, there is an implied condemnation of anyone who doesn’t agree with said dogma?

Yes, I suppose so.

Declaring a dogma is pretty heady business, a weighty affair. It shouldn’t be done just because some people think it would be nice.

In the early classic models I can recall, positive definition of dogma always followed a declaration of error by someone acting on their own and spreading the error. Thus, if the church is going to declare a Truth in order to clarify the Faith over and against a known heresy, declaring the dogma will involve condemning those who refuse to renounce the heresy in question.

If a new “dogma” just pops out as a popular idea some how, not as a corrective to an existing threatening heresy, what purpose can it serve? It may polarize the flock where there was no danger of division before.

Human institutions are prone to factionalism, and sometimes a faction gains the upper hand and promotes it’s own ideas. The body of Christ should not be blowing in the wind under the influence of one faction or another. It should be calm and stable, protecting the Gift it was given.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I suppose so.

Declaring a dogma is pretty heady business, a weighty affair. It shouldn’t be done just because some people think it would be nice.

In the early classic models I can recall, positive definition of dogma always followed a declaration of error by someone acting on their own and spreading the error. Thus, if the church is going to declare a Truth in order to clarify the Faith over and against a known heresy, declaring the dogma will involve condemning those who refuse to renounce the heresy in question.

If a new “dogma” just pops out as a popular idea some how, not as a corrective to an existing threatening heresy, what purpose can it serve? It may polarize the flock where there was no danger of division before.

Human institutions are prone to factionalism, and sometimes a faction gains the upper hand and promotes it’s own ideas. The body of Christ should not be blowing in the wind under the influence of one faction or another. It should be calm and stable, protecting the Gift it was given.

That, I can agree with.

Indeed I think that Cardinal Newman – who opposed the decision of the First Vatican Council to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility – is vindicated by the current Catholic policy of admitting Orthodox (as well as Assyrian and PNCC Christians) to communion (as I said in the Cardinal Newman vindicated? thread).

In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church is willing to give communion to someone who doesn’t agree with Papal Infallibility and even considers it to be a heresy, doesn’t that imply that defining PI as a dogma was a mistake?

 

[excaliber]

That, I can agree with.

Indeed I think that Cardinal Newman – who opposed the decision of the First Vatican Council to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility – is vindicated by the current Catholic policy of admitting Orthodox (as well as Assyrian and PNCC Christians) to communion (as I said in the Cardinal Newman vindicated? thread).

In other words, if the Roman Catholic Church is willing to give communion to someone who doesn’t agree with Papal Infallibility and even considers it to be a heresy, doesn’t that imply that defining PI as a dogma was a mistake?

If it is Correct teaching how can it be a mistake to define it?

 

[Peter_J]

If it is Correct teaching how can it be a mistake to define it?

I don’t really understand your logic. Are you saying that if something is correct teaching, then it can’t be a mistake to define it?

There are lots of truths of the faith that haven’t been dogmatically defined. So according to your logic, should they all be dogmatically defined?

Indeed, Papal Infallibility itself wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1870. So does that mean that the Church was making a mistake by not defining it for all those centuries?

 

[8eofilos]

I don’t really understand your logic. Are you saying that if something is correct teaching, then it can’t be a mistake to define it?

There are lots of truths of the faith that haven’t been dogmatically defined. So according to your logic, should they all be dogmatically defined?

Indeed, Papal Infallibility itself wasn’t dogmatically defined until 1870. So does that mean that the Church was making a mistake by not defining it for all those centuries?

Popes in the past have made many mistakes and that no Catholic can deny. So that itself proves that the Pope is not infallible…anyway who does he think he is??? God???

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hello everyone

I am starting RCIA soon, I would like to enter it free of ( Major) doubts.

 

[Peter_J]

However, I think a major factor in making your decision shoud be that the early eastern fathers acknowledged the papacy. If they accepted in early on, then I must assume that it was politics that forced some to splinter later in the Church’s history.

There were certainly some politics involved. For example, consider the year 1014, when King Henry II was crowned Emperor in Rome. What’s noteworthy about this event is that, at Henry’s request, the Pope agreed to have the Creed sung with the filioque inserted. (Prior to this time, the filioque insertion was common in France, but in Rome the Popes had always insisted on the 381 version of the Creed.) This upset the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in fact it is from 1014 onward that the Pope of Rome wasn’t named in the dyptichs at Constantinople. (As you probably know, the formal excommunications were 40 years after this, in 1054.)

So yes, politics played a role; but there are also doctrinal differences. In particular, Roman Catholics believe that the Pope has “universal ordinary jurisdiction”, whereas the Eastern Orthodox do not believe that.

 

[excaliber]

There were certainly some politics involved. For example, consider the year 1014, when King Henry II was crowned Emperor in Rome. What’s noteworthy about this event is that, at Henry’s request, the Pope agreed to have the Creed sung with the filioque inserted. (Prior to this time, the filioque insertion was common in France, but in Rome the Popes had always insisted on the 381 version of the Creed.) This upset the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in fact it is from 1014 onward that the Pope of Rome wasn’t named in the dyptichs at Constantinople. (As you probably know, the formal excommunications were 40 years after this, in 1054.)

So yes, politics played a role; but there are also doctrinal differences. In particular, Roman Catholics believe that the Pope has “universal ordinary jurisdiction”, whereas the Eastern Orthodox do not believe that.

I have seen no error in the creed.
If the Pope did not teach error, it dose not matter? plus it was in response to a herasy.

 

[Peter_J]

I have seen no error in the creed.
If the Pope did not teach error, it dose not matter?

I didn’t say that.

plus it was in response to a herasy.

“Charlemagne sought Pope Leo’s approval of the use of the creed with the Filioque (Mansi 14.23-76). A meeting between the Pope and a delegation from Charlemagne’s council took place in Rome in 810. While Leo III affirmed the orthodoxy of the term Filioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal professions of faith, he explicitly disapproved its inclusion in the text of the Creed of 381, since the Fathers of that Council - who were, he observes, no less inspired by the Holy Spirit than the bishops who had gathered at Aachen - had chosen not to include it.” (quote taken from usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml)

Pope Leo was not responding to heresy (on the contrary he “affirmed the orthodoxy of the term filioque”) but that didn’t give Charlemagne leave to just ignore the Pope’s instructions or to treat them as suggestions.

(Note: The use of the filioque did later become legal, after Pope Leo III’s time, but that does not retroactively justify Charlemagne’s disobedience.)

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. At the risk of getting a little off-topic, this is one of the main reasons that I could never be Protestant: they accept the insertion of the filioque into the Creed, yet they deny the very authority (the Pope) that authorized such an alteration to the Creed in the first place. It just doesn’t make any sense.