Roman Catholic bishops vs Orthodox bishops

[Here_For_Donuts]

I think I’ve finally decided that I need to become an Orthodox Christian. I’ve tried for a long time to accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism, but my conscience won’t let me. The RC concepts of hell, purgatory, mortal sin, original sin, and so on just don’t make sense to me. “Doctrinal development” feels wrong to my gut. This will probably be my final post on this website. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read my tedious ramblings.

Anyway, I found this very interesting article on bishops in both Churches.ocanews.org/news/Hopko.Catholicbishops10.14.10.html

One part that I found intriguing was how the author compares bishops of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions.

What is the Catholic opinion on this passage?
… [Roman Catholic] bishops are not elected by the people of their dioceses and confirmed by all the bishops of the regional church to which they belong who, as brother bishops, affirm their election by first examining their faith and behavior, and then, when all is found to be acceptable, by consecrating them through the “laying on of hands.” They are rather appointed directly by the Pope of Rome. While their validity as bishops derives from their sacramental consecration, their legitimacy as bishops derives from their communion with the Pope, and their submission to him.*

Together with the Pope, and under his immediate direction, and in obedience to his unique authority considered to derive directly from God (whatever “politicking” may have produced him by vote of the qualified bishops in the college of cardinals, all Vatican-appointed men with titular pastorates of churches in the diocese of Rome), the bishops as consecrated individuals corporately form a “college” (collegium) that governs the universal catholic Church. And, as just noted, they do so by virtue of their union with the See of Rome and in submission to its bishop who is believed to be the unique “successor of Peter” and “vicar of Christ” and “supreme pontiff of the Church” who possesses direct and immediate episcopal authority and jurisdiction over every member of the universal church, including all the other bishops, and who also possesses the authority to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals when speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri) not from the consensus of the Church (ex consensu ecclesiae) but rather in, by and from himself (ex sese).

When I read this, the Orthodox ecclesiastical structure just rings true to me for some reason. It matches exactly with what I read in the New Testament and church fathers. I don’t mean to offend Catholics by saying this, but when I think about the way their modern popes rule and administer like an emperor in the first millennium church, it seems artificial.

In St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, the fullness of the church is to be found in the person consecrated as bishop, surrounded by his presbyters and the local flock as they celebrate the Eucharist.

I don’t agree with Martin Luther, but he made a valid point: how was it feasible for the Roman Catholic concept of papal supremacy in all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical to be carried out in a practical manner? Until modern times, how could a pope/emperor-bishop rule a worldwide church? If WW3 happened and we lost the ability to travel and communicate as quickly as we currently enjoy, it doesn’t seem like the Orthodox Church would suffer as much as the Catholic Church.

I can’t help but feel that 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople Photius was correct in excommunicating Rome when the pope tried extend his ecclesiastical authority into the east. (It’s also interesting that he’s a saint in the east and a heretic in the west. 5th century Pope Damasus is revered a saint in the west but not the east…and he’s one of the first popes we know of to explicitly declare Roman supremacy. Coincidence?)

There have been Christians in India possibly as early as the first century. When the Portuguese brought papal legates in the 16th century, the Indian bishops had no concept or understanding of a supreme papacy. In 420, when the Assyrian bishops found out about the Council of Nicea, they held their own council to determine if it was correct in its teaching. They determined it was, but only because the canons were in accordance “with the faith they had received from their fathers.” There was no mention of accepting the council “because Rome made it official.”

In the Orthodox Church today, the higher ranking bishops still don’t act without agreement from and accountability to bishops under them. Catholic bishops, especially in recent centuries, seem more like knights of the Pope’s kingdom, rather than his equal.

 

[gmcbroom]

HFD,
I wouldn’t let your decision to join the Orthodox Church prevent you from posting here. This site is invaluable for the subject matter discussed. I wish you well on your journey into faith.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

You can keep posting here if you wish , congrats on becoming my brother in Christ .

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You are of course welcome to continue to post here. And though I’d be congratulating you a bit more enthusiastically if you had chosen Catholicism, nevertheless congratulations on taking this step in seeking the truth. (The fact that I’ll be sitting here quietly rooting for you to move to Catholicism later, since I think it’d be the next step, doesn’t make this any less sincere.)

I do have a comment though. It was originally going to be short, but short comments are apparently not my thing. First, regarding legitimacy vs validity - as I understand it, bishops were at one point elected, at least in some areas. However all that is is a legal process, not a doctrinal statement. There is nothing about what it is to be a bishop that includes in its definition “was elected” or “was not elected;” actually being a bishop “only” requires ordination.

But people need to know which ordained bishop actually has authority over them, so there has to be a process for determining legally which ones those are, be it election or appointment, or what have you. These are changeable rules, and have changed to fit the times. The Catholic position would more or less be that the Pope always had the power to do such things as directly appoint bishops or make regional laws, but that at times he may not have chosen to do so because it either wasn’t feasible or didn’t seem like a good idea. (Also, for the record, the actual process that happens now, insofar as I understand it, isn’t the Pope single handedly picking someone and making them a bishop of somewhere - though he could, in principle - but rather involves a locally vetted list being sent to someone who vets it more and makes recommendations that he sends to a group of bishops who study it and then make a recommendation to the Pope, that the Pope then either confirms or not.)

So if World War III broke out and all communications broke down, then I suspect what would happen is that things would be settled on a local level until such communication was restored.

But if it takes a while for communications to come back up (eg, India - 1500 years later it’s not surprising if they don’t think exactly the same way as those in Europe), it wouldn’t be surprising if different areas tried to settle different issues in different ways, including doctrinal ones. So it needs to be possible, once communications are restored, to tell which area is correct, if the Church is to be able to actually do what God told us it was for.

Synods and councils and the like are a normal way to do this, which is why the Catholic Church still has them rather than simply having the Pope declare everything by fiat. But what to do if a whole bunch of bishops from one area decide they don’t like the way the bishops from another appear to be leaning, and so hold their own separate council that they say is the real one? When you have different groups of bishops squabbling with each other, all claiming to be following the faiths of their fathers, how do you tell which group actually represents the Church? This is why we say we need a Rock.

 

[twf]

This is a gross over simplification of the Catholic process. A number of points:

1. When bishops are appointed, the Apostolic Nuncio for the local country consults with the local Churches and produces a terna, or list of three names, from among those the local bishops of the region have deemed fit for the episcopate. Those three names are then submitted to the Congregation for Bishops in Rome which recommends a candidate to the Pope. There are over 2000 dioceses around the world and close to 5000 Catholic bishops. Do you really think the Pope can be personally particularly involved in filling so many spots? The process is actually very local.
2. While the bishops do operate under the direction of the Pope, they also exercise considerable autonomy. I would say they exercise more autonomy than Orthodox bishops in some ways…there is a far broader spectrum of liturgical traditions, spirituality traditions, devotional traditions, and theological traditions within the Catholic communion than found within Eastern Orthodoxy which is strictly Byzantine.
3. The bishops closely cooperate at the regional level through the national conferences and at the universal level through such instruments as the Synod we see in Rome as we speak.
4. Have you explored Eastern Catholicism at all? Within the Catholic communion one can experience the fullness of the Latin, Byzantine, and various Oriental (Syriac, Coptic, etc.) traditions. Among the Eastern Catholic Churches of Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal rank, the bishops are elected by the local Synod as in Orthodoxy.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think I’ve finally decided that I need to become an Orthodox Christian. I’ve tried for a long time to accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism, but my conscience won’t let me. The RC concepts of hell, purgatory, mortal sin, original sin, and so on just don’t make sense to me. “Doctrinal development” feels wrong to my gut. This will probably be my final post on this website. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read my tedious ramblings.

Anyway, I found this very interesting article on bishops in both Churches.ocanews.org/news/Hopko.Catholicbishops10.14.10.html

One part that I found intriguing was how the author compares bishops of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions.

What is the Catholic opinion on this passage?
… [Roman Catholic] bishops are not elected by the people of their dioceses and confirmed by all the bishops of the regional church to which they belong who, as brother bishops, affirm their election by first examining their faith and behavior, and then, when all is found to be acceptable, by consecrating them through the “laying on of hands.” They are rather appointed directly by the Pope of Rome. While their validity as bishops derives from their sacramental consecration, their legitimacy as bishops derives from their communion with the Pope, and their submission to him.*

Together with the Pope, and under his immediate direction, and in obedience to his unique authority considered to derive directly from God (whatever “politicking” may have produced him by vote of the qualified bishops in the college of cardinals, all Vatican-appointed men with titular pastorates of churches in the diocese of Rome), the bishops as consecrated individuals corporately form a “college” (collegium) that governs the universal catholic Church. And, as just noted, they do so by virtue of their union with the See of Rome and in submission to its bishop who is believed to be the unique “successor of Peter” and “vicar of Christ” and “supreme pontiff of the Church” who possesses direct and immediate episcopal authority and jurisdiction over every member of the universal church, including all the other bishops, and who also possesses the authority to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals when speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri) not from the consensus of the Church (ex consensu ecclesiae) but rather in, by and from himself (ex sese).

When I read this, the Orthodox ecclesiastical structure just rings true to me for some reason. It matches exactly with what I read in the New Testament and church fathers. I don’t mean to offend Catholics by saying this, but when I think about the way their modern popes rule and administer like an emperor in the first millennium church, it seems artificial.

In St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, the fullness of the church is to be found in the person consecrated as bishop, surrounded by his presbyters and the local flock as they celebrate the Eucharist.

I don’t agree with Martin Luther, but he made a valid point: how was it feasible for the Roman Catholic concept of papal supremacy in all matters spiritual and ecclesiastical to be carried out in a practical manner? Until modern times, how could a pope/emperor-bishop rule a worldwide church? If WW3 happened and we lost the ability to travel and communicate as quickly as we currently enjoy, it doesn’t seem like the Orthodox Church would suffer as much as the Catholic Church.

I can’t help but feel that 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople Photius was correct in excommunicating Rome when the pope tried extend his ecclesiastical authority into the east. (It’s also interesting that he’s a saint in the east and a heretic in the west. 5th century Pope Damasus is revered a saint in the west but not the east…and he’s one of the first popes we know of to explicitly declare Roman supremacy. Coincidence?)

There have been Christians in India possibly as early as the first century. When the Portuguese brought papal legates in the 16th century, the Indian bishops had no concept or understanding of a supreme papacy. In 420, when the Assyrian bishops found out about the Council of Nicea, they held their own council to determine if it was correct in its teaching. They determined it was, but only because the canons were in accordance “with the faith they had received from their fathers.” There was no mention of accepting the council “because Rome made it official.”

In the Orthodox Church today, the higher ranking bishops still don’t act without agreement from and accountability to bishops under them. Catholic bishops, especially in recent centuries, seem more like knights of the Pope’s kingdom, rather than his equal.

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

 

[franklinstower]

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

On the teaching of hell the Orthodox church, as with many other doctrines, just avoids making absolute statements about an issue that is not all that clear in scripture and for which we can find conflicting opinions in the early church fathers. Some believed in universal salvation, some believed in hell but as a temporary state, and others saw hell as an eternal reality. I have noticed that in every area where there is a disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox that I naturally feel inclined towards the Orthodox position.

There is a great book that compares and contrasts the two churches in question called “The mystical theology of the Orthodox Church” and it is a must read in my opinion.

 

[frangiuliano115]

On the teaching of hell the Orthodox church, as with many other doctrines, just avoids making absolute statements about an issue that is not all that clear in scripture and for which we can find conflicting opinions in the early church fathers. Some believed in universal salvation, some believed in hell but as a temporary state, and others saw hell as an eternal reality. I have noticed that in every area where there is a disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox that I naturally feel inclined towards the Orthodox position.

There is a great book that compares and contrasts the two churches in question called “The mystical theology of the Orthodox Church” and it is a must read in my opinion.

I had a nice argument with an almost deacon in my church who believes that we are all saved. I really do mean “nice”, pleasant.

The bible does speak of hell, the N.T. Jesus spoke of people being lost. How about Luke 16:19? This would make an interesting thread, I guess, although I don’t have the time or the inclination to start one.

I’m not a big fan of the early churhc fathers for the exact reason that you stated, each had his own opinion. The CCC is often times not clear. I’m becoming a fan of sola scriptura!
Augustine even changed his mind on a couple of matters which I can’t even remember right now; one was the origin of evil. He ended up saying you can’t know the origin. Which is right, of course. How does anyone pretend to explain things we’re not privy to?

Anyway, thanks for the book recommendation. I don’t live in the states but will try to get it somehow. Maybe I could sit here one day and find out the differences but that takes a lot of time.

Before I go - we say protestantism has different ideas and different churches - hundreds maybe. So what’s the difference? Look at all the different ideas catholics have. We don’t seem to agree on too much. The only difference is that we all disagree under one big umbrella.

Thank God Jesus is going to save us and not our doctrines!

Fran

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

On the teaching of hell the Orthodox church, as with many other doctrines, just avoids making absolute statements about an issue that is not all that clear in scripture and for which we can find conflicting opinions in the early church fathers. Some believed in universal salvation, some believed in hell but as a temporary state, and others saw hell as an eternal reality. I have noticed that in every area where there is a disagreement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox that I naturally feel inclined towards the Orthodox position.

There is a great book that compares and contrasts the two churches in question called “The mystical theology of the Orthodox Church” and it is a must read in my opinion.

The Orthodox feel that the majority of church fathers outweigh the minority.

Most church fathers felt that hell is the fiery presence of God. In other words, both the damned and the saved will spend eternity in the presence of God (because God is omnipresent), but the fire that gives pleasure to the saved causes pain to the damned. This was one of the huge problems that Patriarch Mark of Ephesus had with the Council of Florence – trying to explain that the RC concept of hell as a realm of torture separate from God is wrong.

 

[golfcrickah]

HFD,
I wouldn’t let your decision to join the Orthodox Church prevent you from posting here. This site is invaluable for the subject matter discussed. I wish you well on your journey into faith.

BRAVO . . ONE WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY WITH YOUR COMMENT . . ( AND YOUR SIGNATURE IS MOST COMPELLING.

Take care OP. …( Persistence, Persistence …

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I am of the belief that Rome claimed divine supremacy for itself from an early time, and that this belief about itself was contested and not believed throughout the rest of Christendom.

One of the most obvious proofs of this is Firmilian’s letter to Cyprian supporting him against (pope) Stephen of Rome. (Bishops of Rome weren’t called popes yet.)

I hate to present random out-of-context quotes, so here’s the letter in its entirety:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxxiv.html

If you have the time, I would recommend reading the whole thing. Firmilian clearly disagrees with Stephen’s claims of authority and even scolds him at times. But if you don’t have the time to read the whole thing, then I would strongly recommend reading the following sections: 6, 17, 24, and 25.

This letter proves that the Roman church saw itself as a divinely-instituted authority, and that this view was not universal among churches. Firmilian presents his beliefs as being congruent with the Orthodox Church today.

If you don’t have time to read sections 6, 17, 24, and 25, I’ll suppose I’ll break my rule and leave a few quotes from the letter that caught my eye.

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles. [In those days, Roman bishops claimed authority from Peter AND Paul; Peter gave “pastoral authority,” and Paul gave doctrinal authority. Firmilian, along with Cyprian and the other 80 bishops, clearly deny Stephen’s arrogant claim.] Any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

And:

For what strifes and dissensions have you [Even though this letter is to Cyprian, Firmilian is addressing Stephen here] stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

 

[Sirach2]

Hi H_F_D,

IF, and this is a strong “if,” the early Fathers did not agree among themselves 100%, that is not a cause for disbelief here and now. Here is evidence of their agreement.

Furthermore, as Jesus told us, the Holy Spirit would bring to mind all that he taught. IOW, dogma (except for Divine Revelation which is ended) does develop, when the Spirit leads the Church . You can study it here, but it was also a formal declaration in Vatican II, Dei Verbum, Ch. II, 8.

That being true, we have the assurance from Vatican I with regard to the papacy, where the entire College of Bishops agreed in Council to the formulation of this proclamation, which you can read for your own enlightenment. This paragraph is especially pertinent.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

 

[Casilda]

I think I’ve finally decided that I need to become an Orthodox Christian. I’ve tried for a long time to accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism, but my conscience won’t let me.

I wish you well. Just know that there are true faithful in both camps. Some have been at the same crossroads as you. Some made the decision to which ‘side’ to be, to be able to participate in the sacraments fully. Some gave up in despair and remain wandering, sometimes forever, but mercifully for me, God opens a third door.

 

[Rohzek]

This will probably be my final post on this website. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read my tedious ramblings.

If you find yourself still in the business of posting on religious forums, I would encourage you to keep posting here. I post on two religious forums currently, this one and an Orthodox one. They both have their perks, but I must say that I am far more comfortable here. There are a lot more gruff people on Orthodox forums I find.

 

[exnihilo]

I appreciate your struggle. Prior to my conversion from Protestantism I of course considered Orthodoxy. I thought both sides made good points. I was eventually persuaded that the papacy as conceived by the Catholic Church was right and true. It also helped that I had no problem with the doctrines you do. And I realized I was a Latin. It was in my blood. It was the Church out of which my Protestant church came. If I was going to be reconciled to an ancient church the Latin church was where I belonged and best fit.

As to the power of the Bishop of Rome I think it is overestimated. The reality is there is a lot of variety in the Catholic Church, and not just in the Eastern Rites. The bishop of the diocese is in charge of his local church. It is true Rome can step in, but a survey of what really goes on in local churches should be enough to convince you that this doesn’t typically happen. This is true even within a diocese at the parish level. The bishop isn’t micromanaging everything. It might be that in times past the Bishop of Rome exercised his power more. But it would be good to consider this in context. It might be that more direct intervention was needed. For instance, when Protestantism broke out and cleaved the Church maybe more direct action was called for.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Hi H_F_D,

IF, and this is a strong “if,” the early Fathers did not agree among themselves 100%, that is not a cause for disbelief here and now. Here is evidence of their agreement.

Furthermore, as Jesus told us, the Holy Spirit would bring to mind all that he taught. IOW, dogma (except for Divine Revelation which is ended) does develop, when the Spirit leads the Church . You can study it here, but it was also a formal declaration in Vatican II, Dei Verbum, Ch. II, 8.

That being true, we have the assurance from Vatican I with regard to the papacy, where the entire College of Bishops agreed in Council to the formulation of this proclamation, which you can read for your own enlightenment. This paragraph is especially pertinent.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

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.

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.

Regarding “doctrinal development,” one early Saint described church doctrine as a seed: it contains all truth in the beginning, but as time goes on, it grows but in accordance to the plan it had from the beginning. A man’s limbs are larger than when he was a boy, but he doesn’t have more limbs than when he was a boy.

Cyprian’s actions speak louder than his words. He convened a council of 80 bishops, which decided against Stephen. 80 bishops who believe in Roman supremacy would never do such a thing.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I wish you well. Just know that there are true faithful in both camps. Some have been at the same crossroads as you. Some made the decision to which ‘side’ to be, to be able to participate in the sacraments fully. Some gave up in despair and remain wandering, sometimes forever, but mercifully for me, God opens a third door.

I don’t believe that. The church fathers unanimously agree that, even if someone sheds their blood for Christ, they have no salvation unless visibly united to the communion of the Church. It seems like an unpopular position to say this today because nobody wants to hurt anybody’s feelings.

St Augustine said that even if a community has apostolic succession and the sacraments, if they have not unity with the true church, they’re without hope.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I don’t believe that. The church fathers unanimously agree that, even if someone sheds their blood for Christ, they have no salvation unless visibly united to the communion of the Church. It seems like an unpopular position to say this today because nobody wants to hurt anybody’s feelings.

St Augustine said that even if a community has apostolic succession and the sacraments, if they have not unity with the true church, they’re without hope.

Hey , donuts , you may want to change your tag to Orthodox Christian .

 

[franklinstower]

I had a nice argument with an almost deacon in my church who believes that we are all saved. I really do mean “nice”, pleasant.

The bible does speak of hell, the N.T. Jesus spoke of people being lost. How about Luke 16:19? This would make an interesting thread, I guess, although I don’t have the time or the inclination to start one.

I’m not a big fan of the early churhc fathers for the exact reason that you stated, each had his own opinion. The CCC is often times not clear. I’m becoming a fan of sola scriptura!
Augustine even changed his mind on a couple of matters which I can’t even remember right now; one was the origin of evil. He ended up saying you can’t know the origin. Which is right, of course. How does anyone pretend to explain things we’re not privy to?

Anyway, thanks for the book recommendation. I don’t live in the states but will try to get it somehow. Maybe I could sit here one day and find out the differences but that takes a lot of time.

Before I go - we say protestantism has different ideas and different churches - hundreds maybe. So what’s the difference? Look at all the different ideas catholics have. We don’t seem to agree on too much. The only difference is that we all disagree under one big umbrella.

Thank God Jesus is going to save us and not our doctrines!

Fran

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.

 

[Genesis315]

I think I’ve finally decided that I need to become an Orthodox Christian. I’ve tried for a long time to accept the teachings of Roman Catholicism, but my conscience won’t let me. The RC concepts of hell, purgatory, mortal sin, original sin, and so on just don’t make sense to me.

The EO used to believe in these things too (perhaps even more harshly). Does that make a difference in your assessment of them? I know their doctrines can be a bit of a shell game since there is no universally authoritative catechism or anything like that, but a synod representing all the EO Churches and patriarchates has to count for at least evidence of the state of their beliefs at the time. From their Council of Jerusalem in 1672:

Purgatory and Mortal sin:

And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented — by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — [their souls] depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.

Original sin leading to eternal punishment as well as mortal sin:

Decree 16

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord says, “Whoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no way enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens.” {John 3:5} And, therefore, baptism is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whoever is not born [again],” which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Savior would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And since infants are men, and as such need salvation, needing salvation they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved. So that even infants should, of necessity, be baptized. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew; {Matthew 19:12} but he that is not baptized is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptized. And in the Acts {Acts 8:12; 16:33} it is said that the whole houses were baptized, and consequently the infants. To this the ancient Fathers also witness explicitly, and among them Dionysius in his Treatise concerning the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; and Justin in his fifty-sixth Question, who says expressly, “And they are guaranteed the benefits of Baptism by the faith of those that bring them to Baptism.” And Augustine says that it is an Apostolic tradition, that children are saved through Baptism; and in another place, “The Church gives to babes the feet of others, that they may come; and the hearts of others, that they may believe; and the tongues of others, that they may promise;” and in another place, “Our mother, the Church, furnishes them with a particular heart.”

Now the matter of Baptism is pure water, and no other liquid. And it is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he is Orthodox, and has the proper intention to Divine Baptism. And the effects of Baptism are, to speak concisely, firstly, the remission of the hereditary transgression, and of any sins of any kind that the baptized may have committed. Secondly, it delivers him from the eternal punishment, to which he was liable, as well for original sin and for mortal sins he may have individually committed.

crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html