Roman Catholic looking into Orthodoxy

[Matt25]

I converted to Catholicism from atheism about a dozen years ago. I was strongly attracted to the spirituality of the Eastern Orthodox Church at the time. Indeed I still find it attractive, the Philokalia, The Way of a Pilgrim and a little book called The Parables by the Orthodox Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South form cherished and much read parts of my library.

I opted for Catholicism for a variety of reasons. One is practical and mundane, there are just more Catholic churches about the place. I cannot drive so having somewhere to worship within walking distance makes sharing in the liturgical life of the Christian world possible.

More profoundly and less prosaically, at the time I made my decision I understood that Rome recognised the validity, under certain circumstances, of Orthodox Eucharistic celebrations. There were high hopes indeed of some form of Catholic/Orthodox unity. I opted for Catholicism in the hope that I was merely delaying my union with Orthodoxy as well by a little while.

It remains today not only my devout hope and prayer that our traditions will unite as beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, it is my firm belief also that this shall indeed come to pass.

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose (you made my day )

This pleroma that you speak about (which you say Catholicism lags behind Orthodoxy in not developing) is what we call the sensus fidelium, the “sense of the faithful.” The sensus fidelium plays an important part in the role of the Church, for it is the spontaneous movement of the People of God toward the divine, in worship, prayer and moral life.

However, the sensus fidelium is guided by the Church’s hierarchy (or Magisterium, if you will), just as the pleroma of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is guided by the hierarchy of their Churches. Are you saying that their hierarchies do not guide the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Are you saying that there are no teachers in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Or are you saying there is no hierarchies in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? If that is so, why do you have Eastern Orthodox people walking around calling themselves priests?

No, this is not so. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do have organs of authority grounded in their Patriarchs. If the pleroma or sensus fidelium were sufficient in and of it self, then Our Blessed Lord would not have appointed Apostles, and our Churches would not have hierarchies. And you know this full well, so I don’t understand how you would object to the Catholic hierarchy (or Magisterium, if you will), when your own Church has the exact same authority structure.

The question I have is how do you answer Pacian? He [Jesus] spoke to one [Peter], that from one [Peter] he [Jesus] might found unity.

 

[Theodred]

nucatholic:

Greetings, Fellow Catholics please do not answer Father Ambrose in his manner of attacking Catholicism and his apparent disdain for the truth. That is not charity, we are called to do everything in charity even online discussion of opposing theology. It does no good to attack a seperated brother. From the posts I have read it seems that they could use more love in their life from people who care about their spiritual well being. The more a person argues instead of discussing theology, the more he tries to get repress his own disbelief. In Christ - Me

Thank you for the warning.

There is nothing wrong with argument, if it is done with charity. Making arguments is the method by which we communicate our ideas. However, the kind of argument that comes from anger communicates neither ideas or charity. At any rate, theology is a science very much like philosophy that in many ways requires the dialogue that argument provides.

Secondly, I do not percieve a “disdain for the truth” on the part of Fr Ambrose, though at times I do perceive a disdain for Catholic teachings, and sometimes for Catholics in general. Some comments are barbed, at least they seem to be to me, but then again others have interpreted my comments on forums as barbed as well (and sometimes they are right, too!). His criticisms of the Catholic Church, like my criticisms of Eastern Orthodoxy, whether or not we agree with these criticisms, are important for discussion, and they should be discussed if for no other reason than to learn about our own faith and provide an opportunity for grace.

Thirdly, I don’t think I’m “attacking” Fr Ambrose, though I’m definitely debating his posts. I’m hoping that I can communicate some truth about the Catholic Church to Fr Ambrose, and he already has taught me much just in this one thread. I’ve learned A LOT from participating in this one thread alone, and for that I thank especially Fr Ambrose, KFK, and Greg. Thank you!

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father

David has given you a great exposition. It’s funny, though. My particular view leads to the same conclusion as David, but I’m coming at it from the opposite direction. Whereas his point is that the Orthodox are actually closer to Catholics than you (Father) might think, my point is that Catholics are closer Orthodox than you (Father) might think.

Though you wrote well, Father, I must disagree with your perception that the ecclesia docta only became prominent at Vatican II. The following are pre-Vatican II realities. You will of course recall that the proclamation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950 were not done without first inquiring into the faith of the ecclesia docta. The priesthood of the believers is enshrined and respected in the ancient teaching of the Catholic Church that it is the couple who are the true ministers of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and by the fact that the congregation participates, by prayer, in the offering of the Mass/Divine Liturgy (excepting the consecration reserved to the priest alone). Every member of the laity has always been obligated to defend and teach the doctrines of the Faith, and have for a very long time been a standard feature in the instruction of catechumens. The role of the laity in preserving the Orthodox faith is no more nor less prominent and essential than the role of Catholic laity in preserving their faith (or course, PRESERVING the faith is not the same as RESOLVING QUESTIONS OF DOCTRINE, the latter reserved primarily to the clergy, secondarily to theologians, lay or clerical). And laity have always been a prominent feature in the administration of the local church. Further, the laity have always had the right of complaint against pastors to their superiors, and against bishops to their superiors, which could lead to possible deposition (though such complaint must follow the biblical and canonical, juridical process, which begins with the person against whom one has a complaint). The laity, therefore, have always had a real, though mediate, participation in the selection of clergy.

I think polemics against the Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation, with a general disregard and devaluation of authority, have sadly masked the true history of the value and extent of lay participation in the Church. I also believe that the Orthodox perception about such an utter dichotomy between the clergy and the laity in Catholicism have been influenced by: 1) Protestant and secular anti-Catholic polemics; 2) the stark contrast observed in history between lay Catholic deference to authority, on the one hand, and the involvement of lay Orthodox in fomenting religious/political rebellion, on the other. In other words, it is not so much that the lay Orthodox actually enjoyed more rights and privileges than lay Catholics in their Churches; it is simply that lay Catholics were generally more content with their religious and social situation than their Orthodox counterparts. Being more quiet and content was interpreted as being religiously subjugated.

God bless,

Greg

 

[nucatholic]

Father Ambrose, you are right in saying that I did make some immature and personal attacks in the thread you spoke of. I hope you forgive me for that but I am realizing that it only does harm so I am learning. Some of my apologetics tactics from my Protestant years have seeped into my now Catholic years and its hard to continue to convert my heart and mind to the ancient faith of the apostles. Hope you all have a great weekend! God bless! -Chris

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

Fr Ambrose (you made my day )

This pleroma that you speak about (which you say Catholicism lags behind Orthodoxy in not developing) is what we call the sensus fidelium, the “sense of the faithful.” The sensus fidelium plays an important part in the role of the Church, for it is the spontaneous movement of the People of God toward the divine, in worship, prayer and moral life.

The RC *sensus fidelium * and the Orthodox concept of *pleroma * are not the same. The RC sensus fidelium is a passive thing, something which the Pope and the Magisterium may or may not consult as they choose, and it certainly has no authority to overturn either papal or magisteral decisions. Do your faithful, to take the most obvious example, have the right to reject the teachings of a Council convened by the Pope/Magisterium? One place where this occurred is the Union Councils with Rome, accepted by the Orthodox at the Councils, rejected by the faithful.

However, the sensus fidelium is guided by the Church’s hierarchy (or Magisterium, if you will), just as the pleroma of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is guided by the hierarchy of their Churches.

Yes and no. The bishops and the laity are all of us guided by the sacred tradition and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The priesthood of the laity has its role here. The bishop’s humility about this is emphasised at every pontifical Liturgy when the priests wave over the head of the celebrating bishop during the singing of the Creed a cloth which used to contain a copy of the Creed. This is to call to mind to the bishop that he has the divinely given task to preach and maintain intact the tradition which he and all of us have received.

Are you saying that their hierarchies do not guide the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Are you saying that there are no teachers in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Or are you saying there is no hierarchies in the Eastern Orthodox Churches? If that is so, why do you have Eastern Orthodox people walking around calling themselves priests?

These are rhetorical questions and rhetorical questions always contain their own answers

No, this is not so. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do have organs of authority grounded in their Patriarchs.

Major error! A Patriarch has no more authority than any other bishop apart from a few adiminstrative ones such as being responsible for calling the annual or bi-annual Synod of bishops. At meetings he has one vote, just as every bishop there has one vote. He cannot create bishops on his own, nor can he depose them. Authority is vested in the whole body of bishops.

so I don’t understand how you would object to the Catholic hierarchy (or Magisterium, if you will), when your own Church has the exact same authority structure.

This is a misstatement which is too broad to address right now. If you like to follow it up, grab a library book on the Orthodox Church. In general there is much less emphasis on *authority * and structure among the Orthodox. The paramount emphasis is the celebration of divine worship and the transmission of the sacred tradition.

The question I have is how do you answer Pacian? He [Jesus] spoke to one [Peter], that from one [Peter] he [Jesus] might found unity.

I confess that I am not familiar with Saint Pacian nor his writings. Questions come to mind. Is Pacian saying that all Popes are Peter or is he talking only about Peter himself? Is he saying that Peter’s role in creating unity is restricted to the Pope of Rome or is he saying, as does Saint Irenaeus and all the holy orthodox Fathers, that every bishop is Peter and is a centre of the Church’s unity? As the statement stands it is very Orthodox when examined in the context of the consensus of the Fathers.

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

The Roman Catholic Church accuses the Orthodox Church of heresy.

No we don’t. At best, you are in schism. We firmly believe in the principle of invincible ignorance. We don’t hold anyone morally culpable of not accepting the dogmas pronounced in the 19th century and afterwards – except Catholics themselves. They are truth – eternal truths

You forget that the 11th century excommunication of the Orthodox cited the Orthodox omission of the filoque as cause for excommunication. Do you not consider this a doctrinal issue? Does not the 11th century refusal of the Orthodox to accept the filioque amount to heresy?

Of course from your point of view I can see that it wouldn’t. The Orthodox were excommunicated by Rome not on a doctrinal issue but on one of grammar!!! They refused to introduce the grammatical filioque into their Creed. How very weird that Rome caused the greatest and most tragic schism in Christendom on a point of grammar!!

you keep using these excuses such as the anathemas of those dogmas with absolutely no consideration of the principle of invincible ignorance as justification to be able to call us heretics

But why should we take this principle of invincible ignorance into consideration? It is a Roman Catholic notion and not a part of the holy Orthodox faith.

Sorry, Father, doesn’t cut it. Your use of the word “heresy” to describe the Catholic Church is indeed sarcastic and insulting.

Stating the truth can never be sarcastic and insulting. The Orthodox contend that the Roman Catholic Church is in heresy: 1) the filioque which embodies the heretical teaching that the Spirit has his eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle; 2) the heretical teaching that the bishop of Rome is infallible when he speaks to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals.

99.9% of us here are gracious enough to let it go

We should all be as gracious as possible. But that doesn’t change the fact that Catholics believe the Orthodox are in schism (if not also in heresy) and the Orthodox believe the Catholics are in heresy.

 

[Mickey]

Fr Ambrose:

I am hoping that you will clarify for us the reasons why you were unhappy or dissatisfied with your own religious and cultural heritage in the Roman Catholic Church. Why did you leave your own Church, the Roman Catholic Church? In what ways did it not provide the spiritual nourishment you need? What made you adopt the ways of a Church whose ethnicity is foreign to you?

Dear Father Ambrose,

I receive nourishment from the Roman Catholic Church and The Byzantine Catholic Church. None of it is foreign to me. In fact, God’s love is not foreign. I feel so blessed to be able to experience the beauty of east and west in union. I pray every day for true healing between Catholics and Orthodox. So that we can all be in union once again. God Bless you.

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

The RC *sensus fidelium *and the Orthodox concept of *pleroma *are not the same. The RC sensus fidelium is a passive thing, something which the Pope and the Magisterium may or may not consult as they choose, and it certainly has no authority to overturn either papal or magisteral decisions.

This is an inaccurate assesment. The sensus fidelium is, in and of itself, part of Tradition, and can not, under any circumstances, be ignored by the teaching office of the bishops. You need to study your Catholicism a bit more.
Fr Ambrose:

One place where this occurred is the Union Councils with Rome, accepted by the Orthodox at the Councils, rejected by the faithful.

This is not an example of pleroma, but an example of a breakdown in Church discipline. There was more going on here than you are willing to admit.
Fr Ambrose:

Yes and no. The bishops and the laity are all of us guided by the sacred tradition and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The priesthood of the laity has its role here.

Exactly the same in Catholicism.
Fr Ambrose:

Major error! A Patriarch has no more authority than any other bishop apart from a few adiminstrative ones such as being responsible for calling the annual or bi-annual Synod of bishops.

Major irrelevance! Patriarch bishop… mea culpa. You admit that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have an organ of teaching authority:
Fr Ambrose:

Authority is vested in the whole body of bishops.

… Thus, you fail to demonstrate that pleroma is in any way significantly different than the sensus fidelium.
Fr Ambrose:

This is a misstatement which is too broad to address right now. If you like to follow it up, grab a library book on the Orthodox Church. In general there is much less emphasis on *authority *and structure among the Orthodox. The paramount emphasis is the celebration of divine worship and the transmission of the sacred tradition.

Your condescending remarks did not make a good substitute for a reasoned argument.
Fr Ambrose:

Is Pacian saying that all Popes are Peter or is he talking only about Peter himself?

This is a red herring, and you know it. The authority of the Eastern Orthodox bishops rests on their succession from the Apostles. There is no ontological difference between the authority of the Apostles and the authority of their successors. If there was, then what would be the basis for your bishops’ authority?
Fr Ambrose:

As the statement stands it is very Orthodox when examined in the context of the consensus of the Fathers.

Don’t you mean “when read in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy’s prejudices”?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

This is an inaccurate assesment. The sensus fidelium is, in and of itself, part of Tradition, and can not, under any circumstances, be ignored by the teaching office of the bishops. You need to study your Catholicism a bit more.

If that were true, you’d find that you had quite different teachings from the Magisterium on some important aspects of religious life -such as divorce, contraception, and other topics which I won’t mention in mixed company

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

This is an inaccurate assesment. The sensus fidelium is, in and of itself, part of Tradition, and can not, under any circumstances, be ignored by the teaching office of the bishops. You need to study your Catholicism a bit more.

If that were true why did Pius IX ignore such things as the declaration of the entire Irish Church in 1926 against the doctrine of papal infallibility?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

Major irrelevance! Patriarch bishop… mea culpa. You admit that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have an organ of teaching authority:

… Thus, you fail to demonstrate that pleroma is in any way significantly different than the sensus fidelium.

During the ceremony of holy ordination the people must give their assent to the candidate. The candidate is presented to the people in the church and they are asked: "Is he worthy (axios) or is he unworthy (anaxios)? The ordination cannot proceed if the people shout ‘anaxios.’ I presume from what you say that the Roman Catholic faithful have a similar involvement in the ordination of their clergy and that the consensus fidelium is respected if they wish to reject a candidate?

 

[Maccabees]

Nice monologue Fr Ambrose.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
As the statement stands it is very Orthodox when examined in the context of the consensus of the Fathers.

Théodred:

Don’t you mean “when read in the context of Eastern Orthodoxy’s prejudices”?

No, I do not mean that. One thing which I know the West does not appreciate is that the Orthodox are par excellence the Church of the Church Fathers. You see, because we have no Vatican and no centralised papal system and no Magisterium to tell us what we must believe we depend for our faith on a deep understanding of the tradition which includes the written Gospels AND the patristic writings. The Church Fathers have always been read and studied intensively in the East. They are as important in some ways as the New Testament. By way of contrast, in the West among the Roman Catholics they were not so important. They pretty much fell into desuetude except when it was needed to ransack them to provide proof quotes to support papal doctrines, etc. Roman Catholic doctrine depends on the Pope and the Magisterium and it finds its consolidation and conclusion in the Western Middle Ages - the age when the Patristic period was well finished (Bernard of Clairvaux is considered to be the last Western theologian to have a patristic mindset.) After the patristic period (in which Orthodoxy still lives and breathes) Rome developed philosophical systems such as scholasticism and the schoolmen of Paris, systems which rely too much on human reason and its ability to develop doctrine and which were not in contact with the patristic period. Some of this has been changing since Vatican II and there has been a rediscovery of the Fathers and their writings. They are being read again, and in toto, and not simply as a means to bolster later medieval doctrinal developments. For this we must be grateful to the Lord.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Maccabees:

Nice monologue Fr Ambrose.

Thank you!

I was trying to reply in an irenic way to the remarks of Theodred which he obviously penned in an upset state.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
This is a misstatement which is too broad to address right now. If you like to follow it up, grab a library book on the Orthodox Church. In general there is much less emphasis on authority and structure among the Orthodox. The paramount emphasis is the celebration of divine worship and the transmission of the sacred tradition.

Théodred:

Your condescending remarks did not make a good substitute for a reasoned argument.

Theodred, you judge me a little too hastily. I wrote what I did because I have participated in probably 8 to 10 threads on this Forum which deal with the Orthodox understanding on authority in the Church. Each of them runs into several hundred messages, and in all of them, the Catholic participants find it impossible to comprehend the Orthodox mindset on this matter.

So when you asked your question, all this past correspondence came flooding into my mind and I was kind of overwhelmed by the immensity of the task.

If you like to find these threads, use the search engine and type in authority orthodox in the Non-Catholic Religions section.

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness.
~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Who exactly decided that the Catholic position on the filioque and papal infallibility were heresy? What ecumenical Council decided this? I have asked you twice already for proof of Photius’ heterodox position that the Son has absolutely no role in the Procession of the Spirit, but you have not given it. Isn’t that rather strange that you cannot give any proof for Photius’ position before the innovator himself? And you certainly have no evidence for your claim that papal infallibility is a heresy except for a mere argument from silence.

And you ask why you should take the Catholic principle of invincible ignorance into consideration? Have you not had your coffee today? Show me where I expected the Orthodox to apply that principle to Orthodox doctrinal beliefs. You can’t because you have not had your coffee. Regardless of the state of your mind at the moment however, it is incumbent upon you morally to accept the fact that based on the principle of invincible ignorance, the Catholic Church (let me repeat that) – the CATHOLIC Church, NOT the Orthodox Church – does not regard the Orthodox as heretics. I don’t give a whit what you think about us – my only interest is in showing you the Truth of the CATHOLIC (let me repeat that) – CATHOLIC – position. Any other claim about the Catholic position from you is simply a false witness, I’m afraid.

Now regarding the excommunications. Yes, rejecting the filioque is a heresy, and it may well be that the first, and even second generation of the schism are in Purgatory still or even hell right now. But since you seem to have missed my point from the last post, I will repeat it again – the habitual ignorance (a form/cause of invincible ignorance) that has enveloped the Orthodox world as a result of centuries of being separated from the Catholic Church would ideally absolve you Orthodox of culpability in heresy. Capiche?

And quit it with the sophistry regarding grammar. The Catholic Church has never used grammar as a basis for anything in the unfortunate state of affairs between our Churches – it was you (the Orthodox) who have used grammar to perpetuate the schism.

And while I’m here, I might as well make some comments about your post to David:

1. You certainly display a black sense of humor by presuming that sensus fidelium refers to contemporary trends in moral belief. I don’t know why you would impose such a definition (unless you were joking around). Maybe you feel the need to justify the Orthodox capitulation to contemporary trends in moral belief at the expense of eternal moral Truth?
2. Would you expect, after something had been defined by an ecumenical council, that council to capitulate to a local Church if that local Church at a later date decides to oppose the decisions of that council? If you say “no,” then your point about the Irish Church is lost on everyone (mayhap even yourself!).
3. The laity is involved in the installation of a new priest, but it is not an acceptance ceremony. We will not reject a priest without proof. Therefore, all priests that come to a parish are approved by the laity. Their removal is possible only if at a later time priest proves himself to be unfit. In such a case, it is not the congregation that removes him, but the bishop after an appeal from the congregation.
4. Your speech on Orthodoxy and patristics is not supported by the reality of the lack of patristic evidence for the Orthodox view on the theology of the filioque.
5. Many of us don’t have a problem understanding the Orthodox mindset on authority; it is simply that we do not understand the consistent caricature of Catholicism that you keep attacking on the issue of authority. So please understand and forgive any frustration which may be expressed.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

filioque

THE FILIOQUE
John S. Romanides

romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm

**THE FILIOQUE IN THE DUBLIN AGREED STATEMENT 1984 **

romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

And you certainly have no evidence for your claim that papal infallibility is a heresy except for a mere argument from silence

This made me laugh! Proponents of papal infallibility, unable to find positive arguments in the teaching of the early Church, engage in an argument from silence that there is an implicit belief of papal infallibility.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

The laity is involved in the installation of a new priest, but it is not an acceptance ceremony. We will not reject a priest without proof. Therefore, all priests that come to a parish are approved by the laity. Their removal is possible only if at a later time priest proves himself to be unfit. In such a case, it is not the congregation that removes him, but the bishop after an appeal from the congregation

I was speaking not of the installation into a parish but of the ordination of a priest. If the laity during the ordination shout: “anaxios, unworthy” the bishop may not proceed.

I wonder if this is observed in the Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite?