Roman Catholic bishops vs Orthodox bishops

[Here_For_Donuts]

@ pablope:

Yes, I read that church father. I don’t quite remember interpreting as modern Roman Catholics do, however.

Why do you only post links from Catholic apologist sites? I try to avoid religious sites because of the bias. Or, for that matter, have you ever searched counter claims by Orthodox apologists?

 

[franklinstower]

@ pablope:

Yes, I read that church father. I don’t quite remember interpreting as modern Roman Catholics do, however.

Why do you only post links from Catholic apologist sites? I try to avoid religious sites because of the bias. Or, for that matter, have you ever searched counter claims by Orthodox apologists?

I have noticed what you have noticed also. It does not matter the system though. Each apologist explains his or her position in the best possible light and the other churches position in the worst- or when wanting to appear unbiased only a slightly negative light, or incomplete light.

The has always felt to me like “bearing false witness.”

 

[pablope]

@ pablope:

Yes, I read that church father. I don’t quite remember interpreting as modern Roman Catholics do, however.

Why do you only post links from Catholic apologist sites? I try to avoid religious sites because of the bias. Or, for that matter, have you ever searched counter claims by Orthodox apologists?

I have read counterclaims. The website is CTC…or Called to Communion…it does encourage dialogue…so I post from there. I find their explanations full of depth.

But all religious sites have bias…including Orthodox sites. Do you think OC sites are without bias?

Anyway, what I have done mostly is read the stories of protestant converts who studied both sides…and their conclusions.

Anyway…I hope you like this article too…ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.HTM

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I have read counterclaims. The website is CTC…or Called to Communion…it does encourage dialogue…so I post from there. I find their explanations full of depth.

But all religious sites have bias…including Orthodox sites. Do you think OC sites are without bias?

Anyway, what I have done mostly is read the stories of protestant converts who studied both sides…and their conclusions.

Anyway…I hope you like this article too…ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/1ORTHO.HTM

Have you read the stories of priests and bishops who’ve converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy and vice versa? I have and it seems that the ones who become Orthodox do so for intellectual reasons, whereas the ones who become Catholic do so for emotional reasons.

I’m not saying one is better over the other. I just find it peculiar.

 

[franklinstower]

Have you read the stories of priests and bishops who’ve converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy and vice versa? I have and it seems that the ones who become Orthodox do so for intellectual reasons, whereas the ones who become Catholic do so for emotional reasons.

I’m not saying one is better over the other. I just find it peculiar.

Just jumping in here but I am right in the middle between the two churches. Catholicism gets my heart and Orthodox gets my mind. Orthodox seems brighter spiritually and Catholicism seems deeper spiritually. For me they have equal value.

 

[Rohzek]

I do not intend to get too involved in this thread. Let me first say that Pope Stephen I was not a heretic. Cyprian was flat out wrong to insist that heretics be rebaptised. Optatus, Augustine, and to some extent even Tychonius were all correct on this point.

As for Optatus’ endorsement of the view that Peter alone received the keys, don’t read into it too much. Peter alone did receive the keys, but those keys were later also given to the other apostles later on. Augustine understands this very well:

Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord’s breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead."On the Gospel of John. Tractate CXXIV.7

Ut enim constitueretur in Ecclesia, ne quisquam post alicujus criminis poenitentiam clericatum accipiat, vel ad clericatum redeat, vel in clericatu manea, non desperatione indulgentiae, sed rigore factum est disciplinae: alioquin contra claves datas Ecclesiae disputabitur, de quibus dictum est, Quae solveritis in terra, soluta erunt et in coelo (Matth. XVI, 19).

So that in fact, it is was constituted in the Church, that no one of criminal repute shall receive clerical power, and it must return to the clerical office, and [that it does not reside] in the hopelessness of indulgence, but rather made in the rigor of discipline:** in another way it will be weighed against the keys given to the Church, of which it is said**: And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19).

A Treatise Concerning the Correction of the Donatists. Chapter 10.45

 

[brittrossiter]

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

Take care OP. …( Persistence, Persistence …

As a fellow Orthodox Christian, still posting here at CAF, I would heartily concur. Keep on posting. This group is a friendly lot.

 

[Peter_J]

I have noticed what you have noticed also. It does not matter the system though. Each apologist explains his or her position in the best possible light and the other churches position in the worst- or when wanting to appear unbiased only a slightly negative light, or incomplete light.

The has always felt to me like “bearing false witness.”

I try to avoid religious sites because of the bias.

Hi to you both.

I was planning to post something like “Do you think that an Internet discussion forum is more likely to resolve the issues between Orthodox and Catholics (or whomever) than the official dialogue commission is?” Except that, after reading the above posts, I think I’d be preaching to the choir.

But anyhow, I hope you’ll continue to post here, Donuts, even if you’re joining the wicke–oops, I mean Orthodox, Church.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

I was reading a dubious article from an anonymous source claiming to have met an Orthodox Church leader in 2008. He claims that Pope Benedict was willing to alter any Catholic doctrine to get the Orthodox to accept the papacy. I personally think it was a silly article, but it’s sort of interesting to wonder.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You’re right. That is silly. If it were true, Benedict would have renounced papal primacy, grown a beard, and replaced the Roman Rite with the Byzantine rite.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rohzek;13336426]I do not intend to get too involved in this thread. Let me first say that Pope Stephen I was not a heretic. Cyprian was flat out wrong to insist that heretics be rebaptised. Optatus, Augustine, and to some extent even Tychonius were all correct on this point.

Nice save for the OP Rohzek respectfully. I was puzzled about the OP’s response to my post, who supposed Cyprian confirming Pope Stephen I a heretic.

I don’t blame you for not intending to get too involved on this thread. I am perplexed and confused to what a subject of "Roman Catholic bishops vs. Orthodox bishops has to do with anything?

Although St. Constantine was baptized by a known Arian (priest) heretic on his death bed. St. Constantine’s baptism is still recognized as a valid baptism and does not need to be re-baptized.

I think that sums up my discussion between Cyprian and Pope Stephen I.

Thank you for your wisdom here

Peace be with you.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

Hello Franklinstower,

Tried amazon.it under “books in other languages” but they don’t have Theology of the Orthodox Church. They do offer a book titled “The Orthodox Theology of Today”. I’ll order that one - it should be okay.

Not like I could switch even if I wanted to! I’m up in the hills here. Catholic is all there is.

Thanks also for the post re the Trinity. I find it very interesting to know what “other religions” believe. It was nice of you to take the time; I appreciate it.

I’m not sure as to what you mean by the implications. Maybe I will after reading the book.
Also, I couldn’t agree with you more on your last sentence. How many times have I said the same thing!

Thanks again.

Fran

 

[Novocastrian]

pablope;13336114:

There’s a lot of stuff to read there. I’m on my phone now so I’ll check them out later. I’m fairly sure I’ve read it, though, but I could be mistaken.

I don’t deny that Rome believed itself to be a divine authority since the early centuries of the church. I just deny that this is was universal belief among all churches.

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?

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.

I’m curious about your Augustine and Leo anecdote, as Latin doesn’t have a definite article which functions like that.

 

[Sirach2]

**Cyprian was flat out wrong to insist that heretics be rebaptised. **

Not so. He was perfectly correct in listening to the Holy Spirit regarding this. Today, our Canon Law substantiates this very fact.

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

IOW, was there full proper form when the heretical baptism was bestowed? One can certainly be doubtful that it was properly administered.

 

[Rohzek]

No, Cyprian was wrong. What you are talking about involves whether or not one was baptized in the name of Trinity. Optatus talks about this and agrees that it is a necessity. However, that’s not the circumstance that I am talking about. I’m talking about baptism found in various denominations that are virtually the same whether being part of a schism or heresy. These people should never be rebaptized.

Optatus on this matter:

IV. Deum esse qui lavat in baptismate, non autem ministrum. —In hoc sacramento baptismatis celebrando, tres esse species constat, quas et vos, nec augere, nec minuere, nec praetermittere poteritis. Prima species est in Trinitate; secunda, in credente; tertia, in operante: sed non pari libramine ponderandae sunt singulae: duas enim video necessarias, et unam quasi necessariam: principalem locum Trinitas possidet, sine qua res ipsa non potest geri: hanc sequitur fides credentis: jam persona operantis vicina est, quae simili auctoritate esse non potest. [Col.1052A] Duae priores permanent semper immutabiles et immotae: Trinitas enim semper ipsa est: fides in singulis una est: vim suam semper retinent ambae. Persona vero operantis, intelligitur duabus prioribus speciebus par esse non posse, eo quod sola esse videatur mutabilis.

It is God who washes [us] in baptism, not the minister. In this celebrated sacrament of baptism, three aspects are in agreement, which you are not able to augment, diminish, nor let pass. The first element is in the Trinity. The second in belief. And the third in the baptizer [/minister]. However, they are not all of equal weight. In fact, I see two as necessary, and one as quasi-necessary. The Trinity occupies the principle place, without which all things themselves are not born. Then follows the believing faithful. Now the baptizer is almost similar, but is not able to be of similar authority. The first two are due to them always remaining immutable and unchanged. For the Trinity is always itself. The faith in everyone is one. They both retain their power always. Truly it is understood by the baptizer that the first two elements are not able to be changed, while in the one it is seen that it changes.

Against the Donatists, Patrologia Latina 11: 1051B - 1052A

And then we have Augustine on the matter:

If Peter, I say, could compel the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church afterwards held, why might not Cyprian, in opposition to the rule of faith which the whole Church afterwards held, compel heretics and schismatics to be baptized afresh?

On Baptism Against the Donatists Book II, Chapter 1.2

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Here_For_Donuts;13336218:

I’m curious about your Augustine and Leo anecdote, as Latin doesn’t have a definite article which functions like that.

I was only reading Leo and Augustine in English. I can’t even remember the passage, but when Leo quoted Augustine I looked it up in Augustine and saw that the article was different. I guess the inconsistency was in translation, then.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Rohzek;13338098]No, Cyprian was wrong. What you are talking about involves whether or not one was baptized in the name of Trinity. Optatus talks about this and agrees that it is a necessity. However, that’s not the circumstance that I am talking about. I’m talking about baptism found in various denominations that are virtually the same whether being part of a schism or heresy. These people should never be rebaptized

.

I agree with this statement;

What is interesting about this subject, If Cyprian supposedly has his own councils and members? Why in the world is Cyprian, who is in Carthage, communicating with the Pope in Rome about such subjects dear to the apostolic faith?

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

.

I agree with this statement;

What is interesting about this subject, If Cyprian supposedly has his own councils and members? Why in the world is Cyprian, who is in Carthage, communicating with the Pope in Rome about such subjects dear to the apostolic faith?

My understanding is that Stephen wrote to Cyprian first in an attempt to assert authority. Cyprian felt that each bishop ought to re-baptize as he saw fit regarding heretics (a position the Orthodox continue to hold), but Stephen would have none of it and sought to make Cyprian conform to Rome’s tradition–which, according to Cyprian’s friend Firmilian, was an incorrect tradition.

Firmilian was angry with Stephen for attempting to excommunicate so many bishops from communion with himself. He said that, even though Stepen thinks he is cutting them off from communion, it is he who cuts himself from the rest of the church.

See section 24 of his letter: newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm

 

[franklinstower]

Hello Franklinstower,

Tried amazon.it under “books in other languages” but they don’t have Theology of the Orthodox Church. They do offer a book titled “The Orthodox Theology of Today”. I’ll order that one - it should be okay.

Not like I could switch even if I wanted to! I’m up in the hills here. Catholic is all there is.

Thanks also for the post re the Trinity. I find it very interesting to know what “other religions” believe. It was nice of you to take the time; I appreciate it.

I’m not sure as to what you mean by the implications. Maybe I will after reading the book.
Also, I couldn’t agree with you more on your last sentence. How many times have I said the same thing!

Thanks again.

Fran

I may have misquoted the title-- Amazon does have this book in English. I pulled this off of Amazons web site just now.

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
by Vladimir Lossky (Author)

As for the implications-- If different theologies from various theological emphasis produce such vastly different mysticism in believers then that could mean a lot of things. It could mean that whatever God is trying to get done in humanity is being wrongly influenced by theology. It could mean that the means God is accomplishing to transform and save humanity are different in different systems. It could mean that God is shining different “Uncreated Energies” on different churches and in different intensities. It could also mean that God is shining the same light on everyone but we all just pick up on the part we happen to be receptive too-- some of that influenced by theology, but could also be culture, and religious culture and even personality types who happen to become influential for others. There’s more but you get the idea…

In Christian Mysticism, I think from the desert fathers there is a principle. It suggests ***always listening for the presence of God and never trying to make it any different than it is or any more intense than it is.

---

Knowing the level of influence beliefs and theology can and do have on this has made me much more careful about what I am noticing about Gods presence. Am I just getting what John of the Cross said I would get because I am looking for what he points out? Is that true also of other influential authors and churches? In light of all of this I have attempted to the best of my ability putting down ALL of what those authors propose and be much more present to Gods presence itself. As far as possible I want to hear what God it trying to say to me and if it is different than the spiritual influences that have been such a part of my life-- I want to be aware enough to notice it.

I am not closed off to help from the outside-- I desperately need it but I am now taking a much more careful approach.

Uncreated energies are a term from the Orthodox Church. They are energies that shine off of God, they are not God, but they communicate Gods presence and qualities to us. God did not make the energies-- they exist eternally and naturally and not on account of creatures. Before I had ever been exposed to the concept I was noticing these energies but it did me an immense amount of good to read about them in this book for more important reasons than I just mentioned-- you will just have to read it.

 

[twf]

Earlier in this thread it was stated that the Assyrian Bishops beyond the borders of the Empire were ignorant of “Roman claims”. Does anyone know the story of the conversion of Bishop Mar Bawai Soro? He was an Assyrian bishop who some years ago entered into full communion with Rome (via the Chaldean Catholic Church) after much research and reflection. He cited an ancient Assyrian canon which states that the Bishop of Rome is to patriarchs are patriarchs are to local bishops. Does this equate the modern understanding of papal supremacy? Not necessarily, but it demonstrates that a concept of Roman primacy was known even in distant Persia.