Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wesley7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With all due respect to the Roman Catholics here (and Mr. Akin, should he come across this post), I would take Jimmy Akin’s article with a grain of salt. I read it a long time ago, and found a lot of it is historically inaccurate (such as the “no new ecumenical council cuz no pope” argument, which Madaglan covered in the post before me) while much more of it is logically fallacious (“There are more Catholics than Orthodox!” argumentum ad populum, any one?).

Note that I am not saying a person wouldn’t have a good reason to choose Catholicism or Orthodoxy outside of the article, but that if any one wants to argue with it, they should do so carefully. That’s all. 🙂
 
Because you have built a whole ecclesiology on Rome’s power grabs.

Why are you so slow to see the distinction that your own apologists make all the time between practical abuse and theological error?

Orthodox ecclesiastical politics is just as corrupt as yours. But they seem to me to have a sound ecclesiology underneath the politics. Your ecclesiology has become fundamentally tainted by your politics.

Edwin
Excuse me, Contarini, I think that there is more than enough evidence (through Scripture and Tradition) that the papacy is a divinely instituted office, that some would differ and say that it isn’t, have no justification from a scriptural and traditional point of view. The see of Constantinople however is something altogether different, i.e., the people who were pushing for Constantinople’s leap over Alexandria and Antioch did so for political reasons (why don’t you read Pope St. Leo’s objections to canon 28 of Chalcedon?). What really gulls me about your post is that you have the temerity to say that our ecclesiology is tainted by our politics, when in fact the very idea of a Church state (such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and even Orthodoxy.) sprang from the loins of the East, i.e., with Caesaropapism.
 
I have a book Rome,Constantinople,Moscow,.

It looks like in the East, Constantinople and Byzantium have a Bishop and Patriarch.

And in the West there is the Bishop of Rome in the Catholic Church. (Holy Mother Church)

In the Russian Orthodox Church they have a Patriarch.
 
The Pope of Rome did not call any of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Councils were all held in the East and the Pope did not attend any of them (though he sent legates for most of them). The image of the Pope calling the shots in the East and the Eastern bishops docilely submitting to papal commands is not an accurate representation of Christianity in the 1st millenium.

Oliver Clement’s book (mentioned above in the thread) is an excellent work that is even-handed and offers recommendations for both sides.
The popes had the prerogative to call a council, and they initiated if I’m not mistaken a few (Chalcedon being one of ones I can remember), i.e., that they didn’t call for them all isn’t really an argument against the papacy. Moreover, no one here said that the pope “called the shots” (that’s a vulgar understanding of what the papacy stands for), however, the pope did have many prerogatives one of which is the binding force of his consent with regard to ecumenical councils.

Note: The pope sent legates to every ecumenical council with the exception of one which was not at first intended to be ecumenical.
 
There is truly a strong connection between both sides of the Church. East (Orthodox) and West (Catholic). John Paul II called them “the lungs” of the one and same Church. There are more similarities than differences yet I ultimately side with the Catholics because of the Papacy and its founding in Scripture. Matthew 16:18. You can dance around it all you want but the fact is Our Lord chose Peter above the other Apostles. Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and that Office has not gone under…it is very much alive! Even in Scripture you will see Peter and then the Apostles. Never just the Apostles, but Peter addressed first and the Office of Peter is held by the Pope of the Catholic Church. I believe and pray strongly that we will become one Church again and things have never been better for that to become a reality. Either way I do not worry about the Orthodox as much as I worry about the protestants.
 
Because you have built a whole ecclesiology on Rome’s power grabs.

Why are you so slow to see the distinction that your own apologists make all the time between practical abuse and theological error?

Orthodox ecclesiastical politics is just as corrupt as yours. But they seem to me to have a sound ecclesiology underneath the politics. Your ecclesiology has become fundamentally tainted by your politics.

Edwin
And you have built yours from an Episcopalian ecclesiology and your anti-Roman Catholicism senitments are very LOUD & CLEAR!

And Episcopalian politics is not corrupt? LESBIAN bishops? Corruption at its best!
But it is not tainted by politics? Could have fooled me!
 
Excuse me, Contarini, I think that there is more than enough evidence (through Scripture and Tradition) that the papacy is a divinely instituted office, that some would differ and say that it isn’t, have no justification from a scriptural and traditional point of view. The see of Constantinople however is something altogether different, i.e., the people who were pushing for Constantinople’s leap over Alexandria and Antioch did so for political reasons (why don’t you read Pope St. Leo’s objections to canon 28 of Chalcedon?). What really gulls me about your post is that you have the temerity to say that our ecclesiology is tainted by our politics, when in fact the very idea of a Church state (such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and even Orthodoxy.) sprang from the loins of the East, i.e., with Caesaropapism.
Contarini constantly displays his dislike towards the Catholic Church. But look at the Episcopalian Church and its own politics? Ordaination of lesbian bishops?

BTW: Does not matter what one provides Contarini and how many times one explains it.He will not accept it because frankly he does not care,thus the whole thing is a waste of time,including him.
 
Excuse me, Contarini, I think that there is more than enough evidence (through Scripture and Tradition) that the papacy is a divinely instituted office, that some would differ and say that it isn’t, have no justification from a scriptural and traditional point of view. The see of Constantinople however is something altogether different, i.e., the people who were pushing for Constantinople’s leap over Alexandria and Antioch did so for political reasons (why don’t you read Pope St. Leo’s objections to canon 28 of Chalcedon?). What really gulls me about your post is that you have the temerity to say that our ecclesiology is tainted by our politics, when in fact the very idea of a Church state (such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and even Orthodoxy.) sprang from the loins of the East, i.e., with Caesaropapism.
I meant to say State Church.
 
It all boils down to who do you believe? One side claims the pope is infallible, universally possessing a jurisdiction of primacy over other bishops, indulgences, purgatory, transubstantiation, a treasury of merit, a celibate priesthood, a co-redemptrix role for Mary, and the idea that the Pope is the Rock.

The other claims Peter always had a primacy, a primacy of honor, the Coryphaeus, the big brother at the head of the table, but not infallible by a longshot or universally supreme over the rest. They are more in favor of bishops all having power over their domain and being equal. They don’t believe in an Augustinian view of Original Sin but rather a more Christus Victor idea. They don’t believe in indulgences and purgatory, don’t choose to define how the Eucharist is what it is, don’t force celibacy on their priests, love Mary but not as a co-redemptrix, and they believe that the Church was, is and should be conciliar, not unilaterally papal.

Read the Early Fathers, read both sides, draw your conclusions. End of story. That’s my response to the OP. Don’t let Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers define all this for you. Read indpendently everything in context, ignore the polemics and emphatic apologetical energies of both sides, and make up your own mind intellectually and prayerfully. God bless.
 
Read the Early Fathers, read both sides, draw your conclusions. End of story. That’s my response to the OP. Don’t let Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers define all this for you. Read indpendently everything in context, ignore the polemics and emphatic apologetical energies of both sides, and make up your own mind intellectually and prayerfully. God bless.
No offense,but this is the exact type of belief and approach that has divided Christianity.

The ‘everyone make up their own mind’ approach has not worked and will not work.
 
No offense taken Nicea. So if I can’t make up my mind about which Church is true, are you the one who will make up my mind for me? Who? I thought I had the religious liberty to choose my faith and come to Christ of my own free will? What exactly are you proposing here? Are you saying the common soul doesn’t have the brains to find your Catholic Church or that someone should force him to join or…what do you mean here? You need to elaborate. Blessings to you.
No offense,but this is the exact type of belief and approach that has divided Christianity.

The ‘everyone make up their own mind’ approach has not worked and will not work.
 
Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

Can experienced Catholics give some ideas and (name removed by moderator)uts ? . .
Because Jesus said so.
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Really, to disagree over this is mind-boggling. People can disagree about this and that in history, but Jesus established His Church with Peter.

Anyone who disagrees with this is disobeying God’s Plan. How I feel about events in history is irrelevant.
 
Because Jesus said so.
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

Really, to disagree over this is mind-boggling. People can disagree about this and that in history, but Jesus established His Church with Peter.

Anyone who disagrees with this is disobeying God’s Plan. How I feel about events in history is irrelevant.
I’ve always accepted and acknowledged the existence of the papacy. (the Bishop of Rome)

Even if I were a non-denominational Christian.
 
I’ve always accepted and acknowledged the existence of the papacy. (the Bishop of Rome)

Even if I were a non-denominational Christian.
Don’t you think Jesus wants us all together in one church?
 
QUOTE=gurneyhalleck1;6978626]
Read the Early Fathers, read both sides, draw your conclusions. End of story. That’s my response to the OP. Don’t let Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers define all this for you. Read indpendently everything in context, ignore the polemics and emphatic apologetical energies of both sides, and make up your own mind intellectually and prayerfully. God bless.
And this I have done, upon myself, I have concluded that most Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, does not have a true understanding of what the Catholic church has defined Infallible. In fact the posters I have read here, never reveal the True definition of Infallibility of the Pope, all of these including your commentary voice negative influenced overtones from our seperated brethren. As far as Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, Filioque etc… one must come to learn why and how these Apostolic Doctrines become revealed in a critical time in human history, not to mention how they are defined by the Catholic Church first, before one draws any negative conclusions from those who protest these Apostolic teachings.

One tends to forget how the Western Catholic Church and her Popes defeated the Eastern heretics and hersies that came from the Eastern Church, and how the Pope was able to defend and keep the Apostolic faith from falling victim into these Eastern heresies.

So, yes, the Pope always has and always will defend these Apostolic teachings in every age. Even if he has to defend them in a new language that the Eastern Church objects to for example the biblical teaching of “filioque”.

What many protestants falsely see in infallibility, purgatory, indulgences etc… I myself see the Pope and the other apostolic successors championing the Apostolic faith and defending this 2000 year old unchanged Catholic faith, defining it to new worlds, new tongues, new peoples, new nations. Then defending this Apostolic faith when it comes under attack by defining Transubstantiation, filioque etc… to mans new inventions such as “communism” which the Eastern Church was infected by.

We can sit today and judge from afar, but where was the Eastern Church and where the protestants when the evil one attacked the Apostolic teachings, that the Pope and the Apostolic successors had to define and defend the true presence of Jesus in his Eucharist to a mad world who rejected God and invented man came from a monkey theory and not God, the Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Mary proved to communism that God dwells with the human race. Yet protestants forget that it is the Pope and the Catholic Bishops world wide in unity with Peter’s chair throughout the ages that has kept this Apostolic faith intact with out change, but clarified and defended against the enemies of God.

Learn first what the Catholic church has defended by defining the Apostolic Teachings these past 2000 years to Her enemies of powers and principalities, before judging by those negative opinions against these apostolic teachings. Yet there is nothing new under the sun for the Catholic Church, She is battled tested.

Peace be with you
 
You’re perfectly entitled to these opinions. The thread OP is asking why be Catholic and not Orthodox. You’ve answered it from your point of view just fine. I’m a bit puzzled by the last paragraph, though, in red. Was this addressed to me or to the OP? You put my quote on your post so I’m guessing it might be to me. I know you say the Catholic Church has defined the truths of the last 2,000 years. I wouldn’t disagree with that? I would hope you know that I’m already learned in that department as are you. And I would also hope you realize that the popes did not fight heresies alone and they’re not the sole warriors against heterodoxy? That would be a limited vision. Men like Athanasius fought heresies all by themselves with great persecution and threats to their lives. Augustine was the bravest of warriors against pelagius and donatus, etc. and they all might deserve a little recognition as well. The East has had some great saints arise throughout the last 2,000 years who have been warriors against the evils of heresy. You’re right when you say “the Catholic Church” in each of the sentences of your last paragraph. The Catholic Church, of course, to be accurate here, must include the Orthodox. The East just as much as the West fought heresies and dangerous thinking over the years before 1054. I don’t think your post here really is compelling or convincing though in trying to persuade a person that the Orthodox are wrong and the Catholics are right? I don’t see the argument against Orthodoxy here?
40.png
Gabriel_of_12:
And this I have done, upon myself, I have concluded that most Eastern Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, does not have a true understanding of what the Catholic church has defined Infallible. In fact the posters I have read here, never reveal the True definition of Infallibility of the Pope, all of these including your commentary voice negative influenced overtones from our seperated brethren. As far as Transubstantiation, Assumption of Mary, purgatory, Filioque etc… one must come to learn why and how these Apostolic Doctrines become revealed in a critical time in human history, not to mention how they are defined by the Catholic Church first, before one draws any negative conclusions from those who protest these Apostolic teachings.

One tends to forget how the Western Catholic Church and her Popes defeated the Eastern heretics and hersies that came from the Eastern Church, and how the Pope was able to defend and keep the Apostolic faith from falling victim into these Eastern heresies.

So, yes, the Pope always has and always will defend these Apostolic teachings in every age. Even if he has to defend them in a new language that the Eastern Church objects to for example the biblical teaching of “filioque”.

What many protestants falsely see in infallibility, purgatory, indulgences etc… I myself see the Pope and the other apostolic successors championing the Apostolic faith and defending this 2000 year old unchanged Catholic faith, defining it to new worlds, new tongues, new peoples, new nations. Then defending this Apostolic faith when it comes under attack by defining Transubstantiation, filioque etc… to mans new inventions such as “communism” which the Eastern Church was infected by.

We can sit today and judge from afar, but where was the Eastern Church and where the protestants when the evil one attacked the Apostolic teachings, that the Pope and the Apostolic successors had to define and defend the true presence of Jesus in his Eucharist to a mad world who rejected God and invented man came from a monkey theory and not God, the Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Mary proved to communism that God dwells with the human race. Yet protestants forget that it is the Pope and the Catholic Bishops world wide in unity with Peter’s chair throughout the ages that has kept this Apostolic faith intact with out change, but clarified and defended against the enemies of God.

**Learn first what the Catholic church has defended by defining the Apostolic Teachings these past 2000 years to Her enemies of powers and principalities, before judging by those negative opinions against these apostolic teachings. Yet there is nothing new under the sun for the Catholic Church, She is battled tested.

Peace be with you**
 
No offense,but this is the exact type of belief and approach that has divided Christianity.

The ‘everyone make up their own mind’ approach has not worked and will not work.
Unfortunately that is all we have today. No one can force the OP to accept the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. He must look into them and accept them for himself.
 
I’ve always accepted and acknowledged the existence of the papacy. (the Bishop of Rome)

Even if I were a non-denominational Christian.
It is not so much his denial of the office,but his primacy,which is an issue. What so many FAIL to comprehened is the fact 1st century Palestinians were very theocratic and some how many believe Christ established some sort of democractic or ‘equality’ church. It was Peter ALONE who received the keys and no where else do I read in the NT others receiving the keys. If the church did not have an hiearchy,then why bother establishing the mentioned offices in the NT?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top