Question:Why be Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

[josephdaniel29]

Is what this priest is saying an official teaching of Orthodoxy? I ask because I know that there are a couple of theories floating around concerning aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology, i.e., conciliarism, the theory of Pentarchy . . . .etc. I would just like to know what has been established by the Orthodox Churches?

Edit: Here’s an article I read concerning conciliarism, it might interest you:

The conciliarist approach is fundamentally ambiguous. “For Orthodoxy the sole criterion of the truth is the Holy Spirit himself, who will most assuredly guide the Church into all truth.” But how do we know when the Spirit has spoken? Through whom does he speak? How can we be sure what he is saying? What is the criterion of truth in the conciliarist scheme? In the ancient Church, “the criterion [of truth] was always truth itself, and not a visible organ of infallibility.” But the truth has to be articulated by someone. It does not suddenly appear out of the blue, perfectly apparent and clear to everyone.

Who is the guardian of truth in the Church? “[T]he sole guardian of truth is the Spirit of Truth which is loyal to the Church.” Again, the unanswered question is, through whom does the Spirit articulate and guard the faith? The Spirit is indeed loyal to the Church. But what happens when parts of the Church are disloyal to the Spirit? And how do we know they are in fact disloyal? The answer? “No institutional criterion, except the Spirit itself, can define the apostolic tradition.” Once more, how? Through whom? From conciliarism, still no answers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

I’ll post Fr Bulgakov again.

Anyone who is troubled by this lack of external evidence for ecclesiastical truth does not believe in the Church and does not truly know it. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is an unfathomable mystery which fulfils itself in human acts and human consciousness. The ecclesiastical fetishism which seeks an oracle speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit and which finds it in the person of a supreme hierarch, or in the Episcopal order and its assemblies — this fetishism is a terrible symptom of half-faith.

Here is the link to the entire work this quote was pulled from.

Link

Josie, the answer to your question is the Church knows itself. You are not part of the Church so you cannot possibly understand. This is precisely why the Orthodox say the Catholic Church has succumbed to humanism. For some reason Catholics need the comfort of a precisely defined institution. Your ecclesiology is indeed very neat and tidy but unfortunately it has enslaved the Holy Spirit to the whims of human beings.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided not to see.” You see that the Orthodox Church is still here. You see that we have maintained the Faith. Even Pope Benedict says as much.

“While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity”

"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

You see with your own eyes that it works but yet you still want answers. The way the Holy Spirit works in the Church is indeed a mystery. All I can say is that if you ever come home to Orthodoxy then you can begin to understand. Until that time it is impossible.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Yes, it is complicated, because what if one or several of those primates are out of communion with other primates, how do we know who is or isn’t in the “Orthodox Church”? And no, it is not the same way with the Catholic Church, i.e., anyone who is not in communion with the head of the Church, i.e., the bishop of Rome, is not in communion with the Church, they are in fact, in schism.

Note: We all are in communion with one another but we must all be in communion with Rome.

We can play “what ifs” all day. What if there are multiple claimants to the papacy as has happened many times in the past? Who is in schism then?

 

[josie_L]

It is all over the internet, but the source I will use is the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here I believe you will find the most sympathetic reading of the case.

“It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact”… and …

“The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century.”,

Yes, he was condemned as a heretic for not having stopped a heresy as befitting his role as head of the Church, i.e., “he was a heretic, NOT IN INTENTION, but in fact”. This does not mean as you yourself wrote that he was a secret Monothelite. Moreover, I have read the article from whence you took this quote, i.e., it qualifies in what manner Honorius was condemned as a Heretic.

 

[wmscott]

Because I’m trying to discern which church I should belong to.

Westly7, I am coming in late in this thread, and after reading many of the posts there have been a lot of good information, especially the links to the Jimmy Akins articles.

After your post saying that you were considering which church to belong to, and assuming that you are considering the Catholic Church (Latin Rite), I have noticed what I perceive as a very subtle attempt to draw your attention away from the Latin Rite of Catholicism. If you read carefully you will see the finger pointing and bickering not only among Orthodox and Catholic, but even Protestants getting into the mix. These are all attempts from the great deceiver to keep you away from the Body of Christ. It will only get more intense as you draw closer to the fullness of truth because he wants you farther away from it.

The bottom line is learn all that you can but in the end surrender to Jesus and pray, pray, and pray some more for the Holy Spirit to guide you to where you need to be. Peace be with you.

 

[josie_L]

We can play “what ifs” all day. What if there are multiple claimants to the papacy as has happened many times in the past? Who is in schism then?

Simple, the one who was chosen as per the customs/proceedings expressed in canon law, i.e., those ANTI-popes has they were called were just that ANTI-popes. And nobody was in schism per se because the question wasn’t about schism but who the true claimant to the papacy was (which also happened in the early Church). So my question still stands: what if certain primates were not in communion with other primates, who according to Orthodox ecclesiology is in the “Orthodox Church”?

 

[John_Larocque]

The same way you know if you’re in communion with the Catholic Church. If you are in communion with the primates of the other autocephalous Churches you are in communion with the Church. It’s not nearly as complicated as you seem to think.

In Christ
Joe

I’m paraphrasing, but I came across something along these lines. Constantinople apparently made a statement that to be in the Orthodox church, you should be in communion with Byzantium. The Russians shot back and said that this was a faulty ecclesilogy - communion in the Orthodox church isn’t defined by being in communion with specific Sees but by possessing the unity of faith.

 

[josie_L]

I’ll post Fr Bulgakov again.

Anyone who is troubled by this lack of external evidence for ecclesiastical truth does not believe in the Church and does not truly know it. The action of the Holy Spirit in the Church is an unfathomable mystery which fulfils itself in human acts and human consciousness. The ecclesiastical fetishism which seeks an oracle speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit and which finds it in the person of a supreme hierarch, or in the Episcopal order and its assemblies — this fetishism is a terrible symptom of half-faith.

Here is the link to the entire work this quote was pulled from.

Link

Josie, the answer to your question is the Church knows itself. You are not part of the Church so you cannot possibly understand. This is precisely why the Orthodox say the Catholic Church has succumbed to humanism. For some reason Catholics need the comfort of a precisely defined institution. Your ecclesiology is indeed very neat and tidy but unfortunately it has enslaved the Holy Spirit to the whims of human beings.

I am reminded of a quote from Ayn Rand, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided not to see.” You see that the Orthodox Church is still here. You see that we have maintained the Faith. Even Pope Benedict says as much.

“While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity”

"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

You see with your own eyes that it works but yet you still want answers. The way the Holy Spirit works in the Church is indeed a mystery. All I can say is that if you ever come home to Orthodoxy then you can begin to understand. Until that time it is impossible.

What you are implying here sounds like Gnosticism, but I’ll live it at that. God bless.

 

[Vico]

We can play “what ifs” all day. What if there are multiple claimants to the papacy as has happened many times in the past? Who is in schism then?

Yes, there have been about 40 anti-popes. There is certainly an unbroken chain of Papal succession, however, at some points it is not possible to determine which one was legitimate. So those in communion with such a bishop are not in schism.

 

[josephdaniel29]

He gave no source because there is no source, i.e., Honorius was not condemned by the 6th council as a Monothelite.

Baloney.

Session XIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: The Sentence Against the Monothelites

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations 343 of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.* We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches.

• (how’s that for confirming the bretheren )

Source

Session XVI

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!

Source

And the letter of Pope Leo II to the emperor.

“We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Source

And the lesson in the Old Roman Breviary for the Feast of St Leo, June 28th

“St Leo II accepted the Holy Sixth Council wherein were condemned Cyrus, Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus who asserted or preached one will and operation in our Lord Jesus Christ”.

Michael Whelton, "Popes and Patriarchs, pg 90, author cit #129: The British Library has two printed examples: Venice 1477 (F. Renner with Nicholas of Frankfort) and Venice 1491 (Johannes de Forlivio & Gregorius)

 

[patricius79]

Well they do hold some orthodox beliefs, most Christians do. What Michael is referring to is the fact that they do hold some heterodox beliefs and therefore can’t be called “orthodox” in the proper sense of the term.

In Christ
Joe

what heterodox beliefs are those?

I would like to talk about the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consulation and Joint Statement on the Filioque if you would.

Or about the Papacy.

peace, pat

 

[josie_L]

I’m paraphrasing, but I came across something along these lines. Constantinople apparently made a statement that to be in the Orthodox church, you should be in communion with Byzantium. The Russians shot back and said that this was a faulty ecclesilogy - communion in the Orthodox church isn’t defined by being in communion with specific Sees but by possessing the unity of faith.

This does not make sense, i.e., how can the “Orthodox Church” be one through unity of faith, if certain primates were not in communion with others (this implies schism)?

 

[josephdaniel29]

What you are implying here sounds like Gnosticism, but I’ll live it at that. God bless.

Then you don’t understand the history of the Church or gnosticism. Were you not aware of the fact that the ancient Church dismissed catechumens before the Liturgy of the Eucharist because they had not been “illumined” and could not understand? They also were not taught the Lord’s Prayer until just before baptism for the same reason. Were they gnostic?

 

[Hesychios]

“he was a heretic, NOT IN INTENTION, but in fact”… .

No one* intends* to be a heretic. People believe what they believe because they think it is the Truth, otherwise they would believe something else.

He believed an untruth and he was found out. Your own church understood this for centuries, which is why the condemnation was repeated in the Roman Catholic breviary. Thus every priest of your church, under the standard church discipline to say the Hours daily, condemned him annually for his error until the 18th century!

 

[John_Larocque]

This does not make sense, i.e., how can the “Orthodox Church” be one through unity of faith, if certain primates were not in communion with others (this implies schism)?

I’m just going from memory. My guess would be: in the schism one of the parties would be outside the Church. There’s a lot of mind-boggling issues involving autocephaly and nationalism, but the upsot is, if you aren’t recognized as a catholic bishop by your fellow primates and bishops, your declaration of ecclesiastical independence becomes null and void and in effect, you are outside the church. Same goes if you deviate from the faith you have received, similarly you are no longer within the boundaries of the church.

 

[josie_L]

And the letter of Pope Leo II to the emperor.

“We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

I never denied Honorius was a heretic, I said that he was not condemned as a Monothelite, i.e., Pope Leo II qualifies in what manner Honorius was condemned, it’s in fact right there before your eyes: he was condemned as a Heretic because he failed to stop a heresy by doing his duty as head of the Church to teach authoritatively.

Note: There is no source that states Honorius was a Monothelite that is why Hesychios said “secret Monothelite” because if it was obvious that he was then there would no point in Hesychios using the word “secret”.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I would like to talk about the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consulation and Joint Statement on the Filioque if you would.

Yes, we can talk about it as soon as the Catholic Church removes the filioque from the Creed as recommended by the Consultation.

 

[bauerice]

So many detailed answers. I will make a simple observation. Because the Orthodox is so foriegn to Americans. There is virtually no outreach and are not accessible. What I have read about OC beliefs are very inspiring. Yet the Church in this western world is not very accessible.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I never denied Honorius was a heretic, I said that he was not condemned as a Monothelite, i.e., Pope Leo II qualifies in what manner Honorius was condemned, it’s in fact right there before your eyes: he was condemned as a Heretic because he failed to stop a heresy by doing his duty as head of the Church to teach authoritatively.

Note: There is no source that states Honorius was a Monothelite that is why Hesychios said “secret Monothelite” because if it was obvious that he was then there would no point in Hesychios using the word “secret”.

From the Sixth Ecumenical Council (again )

…the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas

And

And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Josie this case has been closed for over a millennium. You gotta let it go my sister.

 

[patricius79]

Yes, we can talk about it as soon as the Catholic Church removes the filioque from the Creed as recommended by the Consultation.

well, I know they said:
*
that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit*;

which recommendation are you referring to?

probably this one:

*that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. *

that is no problem to me

what did you think of the quotation from gregory of nyssa in the text?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Joseph, I appreciate your tenacity on this issue. Honorius was indeed condemned as a heretic for his participation in Monothelitism, not for a failure to teach. That, as you pointed out here, is explicit, and the fact, as Hesychios accurately pointed out, is evidenced by the Catholic Church in the West upholding the anathemas against him for centuries in the breviery. All true. Honorius is the guy many would like to sweep under the rug!

From the Sixth Ecumenical Council (again )

…the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas

And

And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Josie this case has been closed for over a millennium. You gotta let it go my sister.