Roman Catholic bishops vs Orthodox bishops

[Here_For_Donuts]

Well, the Orthodox believe that a council doesn’t become ecumenical unless its teachings become the general faith of all churches.

When the Council of Constantinople was convened by Emperor Theodosius (not only was pope Damasus uninvolved with convening it–the emperor did it of his own accord–but two of the three presiding bishops were illegitimate, according to Damasus, and the rest of the council fathers–all of whom were eastern bishops–completely disregarded Damasus’ protest), it wasn’t accepted as ecumenical until years later.

In fact, the very first ecumenical council (Nicea) was convened by Emperor Constantine, but not for religious purposes. He was still a pagan at the time, and a very superstitious one at that; he believed that the Christian God was just one of many alongside the Greek gods and that, by creating peace within the Church and helping Christians to live peacefully without fear of persecution, the Christian God would spare his empire from natural disaster.

Constantine structured this council similarly to how the Roman Senate met. It’s also worth noting that he only summoned bishops within his empire. He didn’t care to summon Persian bishops because they lived in another empire and were not his concern.

The argument can be made that the pagan Constantine didn’t care much for theological discussion within the Council of Nicea. He wanted unity, regardless of what doctrine came out. His plan was to support the majority of bishops and outlaw those who disagreed.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Regarding purgatory and original sin:

The Orthodox believe in ancestral sin, not original sin. They also pray for the dead, but the concept is vastly different than the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

Mark of Ephesus wrote extensively on the differences, I believe.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Don’t count out the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Catholics (such as myself) in your search, it isn’t just Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic out here in the ecclesial realm.

 

[Sirach2]

I see that you are pretty well fixed in your beliefs, and as you indicated in your OP, you have pretty well decided to become Orthodox. I see that further discussion is not necessary, nor welcomed, for you are all set to refute whatever contradicts your beliefs.

God bless, then …

 

[ffg]

I love the OP’s screen name. I hope they haven’t left the forums.

There are many folks with that purpose at Mass on Sundays! (Especially my kids, well, to be fair to the older ones, half my kids)

Interesting reading some of the variance information on Hell.

I have a question - what does the Orthodox teach about the folks in Limbo (hell, whatever you want to call it) of whom Jesus would have visited after death, before the Resurrection?

If I read correctly, it would seem these folks would have already been in God’s presence, some in pain, some in glory?

Thank you,

Mike

 

[SyroMalankara]

I love the OP’s screen name. I hope they haven’t left the forums.

There are many folks with that purpose at Mass on Sunday’s! (Especially my kids, well, to be fair to the older ones, half my kids)

Interesting reading some of the variance information on Hell.

I have a question - what does the Orthodox teach about the folks in Limbo (hell, whatever you want to call it) of whom Jesus would have visited after death, before the Resurrection?

If I read correctly, it would seem these folks would have already been in God’s presence, some in pain, some in glory?

Thank you,

Mike

The Orthodox would presumable teach as Eastern Catholics do, that they are in a state not yet fully in Heaven, but in a state that prayers are efficacious in their journey should they be open to it. (Latins call it purgatory, and add a lot of theological baggage that we don’t like)

 

[franklinstower]

I love the OP’s screen name. I hope they haven’t left the forums.

There are many folks with that purpose at Mass on Sundays! (Especially my kids, well, to be fair to the older ones, half my kids)

Interesting reading some of the variance information on Hell.

I have a question - what does the Orthodox teach about the folks in Limbo (hell, whatever you want to call it) of whom Jesus would have visited after death, before the Resurrection?

If I read correctly, it would seem these folks would have already been in God’s presence, some in pain, some in glory?

Thank you,

Mike

Check out “Hellbound” on Netflix. Don’t let the beginning fool you. There is a lot of really solid information given in this documentary.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Great post. One of the things I like most about the Orthodox Church is their level of comfort with not knowing. In a number of areas they just say we are not sure-- to me that is the only honest answer to many questions pertaining to the spiritual life. I have a deep respect for their willingness to stick to their guns on many points of not knowing even when scholarly criticism from the west has taken issue with it.

I like the early Church fathers for the same reason you don’t. I appreciate the mystery of it and to me it shows that on certain matters there was not consensus and that leaves room for mystery and wonder. Also, not knowing for certain has the effect of keeping me honest and also focused on what really matters-- growing in union with God which can be clearly measured by just plainly observing my life and relationships.

The book I recommended is the most important book I have ever read. It treats Catholicism very fairly- no cheap shots taken, just an honest comparison. I find myself to be right in the middle of Catholicism and the Orthodox Church- neither one can have my full commitment. Both of them taken together with equal authority has opened up whole vistas of thought, spirituality, perspective and depth. "The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church played a significant role in inspiring all of that richness.

One of the points in that book is that just a simple but significant difference in the way the Holy Trinity is **conceived of **very different

flavors of mysticism between the two churches. This has blown my mind and hours and hours of thought have gone into that fact alone… I can see a deep value in both of those flavors and think it would be poverty not to have both of them on the planet.

I am not fan of Sola Scriptura though… for a few reasons, mainly because of unrelated issues however. There just isn’t that rich of a contemplative and mystical tradition in protestant churches beyond what I think of as just the beginning levels of spirituality (being born again)- at least as compared to the monastic traditions from say John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila which show how to be born again, again and again, until union… Without that depth of vision understanding of the scriptures is limited for my purposes at least.

Hello Franklinstower,

Re pp 2. I agree with you actually. What I don’t like is how the catholic church uses the church fathers for teaching. Which is just fine. But sometimes they don’t agree! I was just kidding about the sola scriptura. Sometimes I feel, though, that it might be easier to have just one book to concentrate on instead of also the CCC, papal encyclicals, bulls, saints writings, etc. Sometimes it gets too deep and you lose some spirituality. I don’t have to read as much now of that other stuff, so I’m sticking more to the bible.

Of course I know John of the Cross - he was great. And I liked Teresa’s 7 rooms of the castle. Really good.

I hope to be able to read that book. One of my favorite books is Mere Christianity - it explains christianity in general really well.

You’ve got me really curious! Would really like to know about the Holy Trinity. I’ve taught it to kids and no matter how you teach it, it always seems that you’re presenting 3 Gods.

Yes. Growing in union with God is what really matters and we’re not supposed to understand everything - otherwise we’d be God!

Fran

 

[Genesis315]

Regarding purgatory and original sin:

The Orthodox believe in ancestral sin, not original sin. They also pray for the dead, but the concept is vastly different than the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

Mark of Ephesus wrote extensively on the differences, I believe.

With regard to Purgatory, Mark of Ephesus just argued against there being fire or there being some definite place–neither of which are essential to the Catholic dogma. He even believed it was more painful than any torment. Here’s a brief, well-cited article.

oocities.org/athens/Atrium/8410/get-clean.html

Our conception of original sin is only a new point of divide erroneously tossed as a Latin corruption (because it was defended strongly by St. Augustine) during their so-called exodus from “Western Captivity” in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[Genesis315]

Well, the Orthodox believe that a council doesn’t become ecumenical unless its teachings become the general faith of all churches.

The problem with this is all the Churches did not accept, say, Chalcedon or Ephesus–those Churches still exist till this day. If a Council is only authoritative if all the Churches who agree with it accept it, then it was a meaningless waste of time. This idea is also relatively new, used to disavow the reunion Councils and the “Western Captivity” pan-orthodox councils. The Church didn’t wait for everyone to accept their Councils in the past–they anathematized and excommunicated those who rejected their authority.

 

[twf]

Here For Donuts:
This thread went way off topic. The subject as per your intention is Catholic vs Orthodox bishops. Did you see my response early in this thread to your original question ?

 

[pablope]

Those quotes about Rome are misleading. Some of them are out of context, some are read anachronistically, and some assume that only Rome practiced excommunication. The quote from Firmilian you post is obviously out of context, seeing as it’s from the letter I had posted which clearly scolds Stephen, and Cyprian elsewhere in his letters rebukes Stephen for using Scripture to claim supremacy, saying directly to Stephen that Matthew 16:18, the very verse Stephen claims supremacy with, is supposed to refer to all bishops everywhere as successors of Peter. Cyprian believed Rome had primacy, not supremacy, which is what the Orthodox Church has always said. Cyprian even wrote a treatise on the unity of church, entitled “On the Unity of the Church.” Nowhere does he mention a Roman supremacy. In fact, his ecclesiastical views seem completely Orthodox.

Perhaps…you should also read St. Optatus:

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

St. Optatus’s Against the Donatists is composed of seven books (see the table of contents). After laying out the history of the schism in Book One, he turns in Book Two to the question: “Which is the One True Catholic Church and Where is it to be Found?” In what may be the most important and revealing statement in the whole of his work, he writes:

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father’s father,12 but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian — but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit — a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself.13

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25

The most obvious conclusion is that other bishops simply did not believe Rome’s claims to be a spiritual authority. Near the end of his letter, Firmilian states the Orthodox position perfectly by saying that Rome remains free of heresy so long as it stays in communion with the church. This is the difference between supremacy and primacy.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I see that you are pretty well fixed in your beliefs, and as you indicated in your OP, you have pretty well decided to become Orthodox. I see that further discussion is not necessary, nor welcomed, for you are all set to refute whatever contradicts your beliefs.

God bless, then …

I’m just tired of Catholic apologists presenting deceitful quotes taken out of context. One famous example is St. Irenaeus. (You may have seen the quote on Catholic sites.)

It’s illogical to say he was arguing for papal supremacy because he was arguing against heretics. In other words, those whom he was arguing against wouldn’t have accepted “papal supremacy” as an argument anymore than a Protestant today would.

Irenaeus argued that the churches have the true faith because they share the same teachings uniformly all over the world, and because, unlike the heretics of his day, can trace their existence back to the beginning of Christianity. Since he was in France and only had access to Rome’s list, and because Rome’s regarded as most illustrious due to Peter (AND Paul) having died there, he presents the list of Rome for all heretics to see, and that the faith held in Rome is the faith held in all churches all over the world.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these heretics rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon to the Church, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere…

(And a but later, Irenaeus applauds the church at Ephesus for having kept the faith, too…)

There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

 

[rinnie]

Here’s my two cents.

I don’t understand how anyone, such as yourself, could be so concerned with how the heirarchy of the church works. It seems almost insignificant to me - I’m not sure why.

I personally feel that your other issues are more important:
Hell, purgatory, original sin, mortal sin, etc.

Does it surprise you to know that many catholics have a problem with these doctrinal issues?

I’d really be interested to know the difference on the above (hell, purgatory, original sin,mortal sin) in the orthodox church. I thought they were the same and the difference was in prayers, singing and allegiance to the Pople.

Fran

I personally have no problem with them, it really makes no sense to me how they could not exist.

What I don’t understand is how the Orthodox don’t accept Purgatory, but yet pray for the dead??

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here_For_Donuts;13336165]I’m just tired of Catholic apologists presenting deceitful quotes taken out of context. One famous example is St. Irenaeus. (You may have seen the quote on Catholic sites.)

It’s illogical to say he was arguing for papal supremacy because he was arguing against heretics. In other words, those whom he was arguing against wouldn’t have accepted “papal supremacy” as an argument anymore than a Protestant today would.

Irenaeus argued that the churches have the true faith because they share the same teachings uniformly all over the world, and because, unlike the heretics of his day, can trace their existence back to the beginning of Christianity

.

St. Irenaeus does not argue for papal supremacy. He argues for one to have the one True holy Catholic and apostolic faith, his heretics must be in full union with the Chair of Peter as He is.

Since he was in France and only had access to Rome’s list, and because Rome’s regarded as most illustrious due to Peter (AND Paul) having died there, he presents the list of Rome for all heretics to see, and that the faith held in Rome is the faith held in all churches all over the world

.

NO I beg to differ. St. Irenaeus could of written his own apostolic succession to an apostle or he could of listed his contemporary St. Polycarp of Smyrna apostolic succession to John the beloved of Jesus Christ. But St. Irenaeus does not teach the view that all apostolic see’s possess the same authority as the Bishop of Rome “to which all other Church must follow”. You see, Irenaeus teaches his heretics, if your not in full communion with his list of Popes from Peter, then you are not in the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter. He does not underestimate his unity to the list of Popes he presents to his heretics.

(And a but later, Irenaeus applauds the church at Ephesus for having kept the faith, too…)

There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

This is all fine and dandy for his day; But what would he think about when these particular Church’s fell into heresy or their bishop’s became known heretics?

There is only one Petrine office to which our Lord promised that the gates of hell will come against, but will never prevail, and history proves this to be Bishop of Rome who presides in the Chair of Peter in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I personally have no problem with them, it really makes no sense to me how they could not exist.

What I don’t understand is how the Orthodox don’t accept Purgatory, but yet pray for the dead??

Many catholics have problems with different dogmas. For whatever reason.

Regarding praying for the dead when purgatory is not accepted:

Interesting question.

Check out the book of Macabees. They prayed for the dead and the dogma of purgatory was not inspired yet.

I can’t remember why though! I’m sorry, but look it up.

Fran

 

[franklinstower]

Hello Franklinstower,

Re pp 2. I agree with you actually. What I don’t like is how the catholic church uses the church fathers for teaching. Which is just fine. But sometimes they don’t agree! I was just kidding about the sola scriptura. Sometimes I feel, though, that it might be easier to have just one book to concentrate on instead of also the CCC, papal encyclicals, bulls, saints writings, etc. Sometimes it gets too deep and you lose some spirituality. I don’t have to read as much now of that other stuff, so I’m sticking more to the bible.

Of course I know John of the Cross - he was great. And I liked Teresa’s 7 rooms of the castle. Really good.

I hope to be able to read that book. One of my favorite books is Mere Christianity - it explains christianity in general really well.

You’ve got me really curious! Would really like to know about the Holy Trinity. I’ve taught it to kids and no matter how you teach it, it always seems that you’re presenting 3 Gods.

Yes. Growing in union with God is what really matters and we’re not supposed to understand everything - otherwise we’d be God!

Fran

I knew you were kidding about the sola scriptura – just wanted to add my two cents in there.

Comparing the two conceptions of the Trinity is a VERY involved chapter in that book… Exhausting really I cannot do it justice and you would have to read it but here goes a pretty incomplete description of the basics.

Bottom line- Orthodox begin contemplation of the Trinity with the persons and then consider the one nature, so in their way of thinking the Trinity remains more personal because meditation on it always begins with the persons and moves to the nature. Also they see the Holy Spirit and the Son as being grounded in the unique origin of the Father, ***they do not see the Holy Spirit as being a unifying force (the love between father and son as the Catholics do.

---

When he discusses the Catholic approach, he does not say it is wrong per say but that they tended to begin contemplation of the Trinity by considering the one nature and then move on to the persons. From the authors perspective this tends to create a conception of God that really has four parts, the nature, and then the three persons. The nature being rather ambiguous and leading to a vague mysticism, a God of the Abyss, sort of like with Meister Eckhart.

His take on the difference in mysticism was what interested me so much. There is no darkness, or God of the abyss in the Orthodox Church-- it seems to be a bit more positive and light filled. They have no dark nights of the soul to speak of (actually there is one single case of it), no stigmata etc. He attributed ***some ***of this from not having the ambiguous nature and its subsequent darkness and abyss like qualities in the minds of the mystic. In place of the darkness he states that the Orthodox Church has many, many experiences of transfiguration, miracles of healing and even though there is intense purification it is not of the dark, John of the Cross variety.

I don’t take any of what this book says as definitive. Really what I gained is the knowledge that differences in how theology is formed and expressed can change the entire mood and nature and unfolding of mysticism and spirituality in believers. That for me was the most astounding fact gained from the whole comparison-- the implications are tremendous.

I suppose some people would be tortured by this and have to figure out which one is right-- I prefer a different approach, I see the differences as being evidence of the diversity of ways in which all of us finite beings can participate in an infinite God.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Perhaps…you should also read St. Optatus:

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

.

St. Irenaeus does not argue for papal supremacy. He argues for one to have the one True holy Catholic and apostolic faith, his heretics must be in full union with the Chair of Peter as He is.

.

NO I beg to differ. St. Irenaeus could of written his own apostolic succession to an apostle or he could of listed his contemporary St. Polycarp of Smyrna apostolic succession to John the beloved of Jesus Christ. But St. Irenaeus does not teach the view that all apostolic see’s possess the same authority as the Bishop of Rome “to which all other Church must follow”. You see, Irenaeus teaches his heretics, if your not in full communion with his list of Popes from Peter, then you are not in the Church Jesus Christ built upon Peter. He does not underestimate his unity to the list of Popes he presents to his heretics.

This is all fine and dandy for his day; But what would he think about when these particular Church’s fell into heresy or their bishop’s became known heretics?

There is only one Petrine office to which our Lord promised that the gates of hell will come against, but will never prevail, and history proves this to be Bishop of Rome who presides in the Chair of Peter in the Roman Catholic Church.

What would he think about them falling into heresy?

Probably the same thing Cyprian and Firmilian thought when they believed (pope) Stephen fell into heresy several decades later.

 

[pablope]

I hope you do find the time, I do not think you have come across these articles…otherwise, you may have a more tempered view.

It basically amounts to one Apostolic See (and, in the later centuries of the first millennium, more and more of the western bishops supporting their Patriarch) claiming divine authority, and the rest of Christendom steadfastly denying it.

I think it is

all about numbers in the end. The fact that Christians who didn’t live in the Roman Empire (like the Assyrian and Indian bishops) had absolutely no concept of Roman supremacy proves my point: if it was an office instituted by Christ, then how did so many bishops within the Empire deny it and literally every church outside the Empire have complete ignorance of what should be such a fundamental aspect of the genesis of Christianity?

If it is indeed a numbers game, then Rome would prevail, would it not?

But have you thought of that in the Arian controversy, the Arians outnumbered the non-Arian bishops…yet Arianism did not last and was defeated?

Why would Rome want supremacy? My guess is power. St. Leo misquotes St. Augustine when Augustine mentions Rome. Augustine had written it was an Apostolic See, but Leo quoted him as having written ‘the’ Apostolic See. Pope Damasus’ (only venerated as a saint by Roman Catholics) was one of the first to explicitly claim divine origins for Rome, and he came to power only because his supporters slaughtered the supporters of his rival to the throne.

I suppose it’s a desire for power mixed with a strong sense of importance due to the legendary status Peter and Paul’s martyrdom had given the Roman Church.

To preserve the faith…ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08