The Catholic Vs. The Orthodox Church: Which is the True Church?

[Mickey]

But, my friend, did you actually undertand the message?

Loud and clear. :tiphat:

 

[Mickey]

Haven’t certain Protestant sects threatened the ROC enough for the ROC to utilize the State to curb the religious freedoms of these groups? I think Russia has always been, and still is, on the radar of Human rights violations group (vis-a-vis religious freedoms).

Oh be serious Mark! America is on the verge of socialism and protestantism is the dominant religion. Should there be a Roman Catholic Ecumenical council to deal with this. Sheesh!

 

[Mickey]

The issue, however, was whether or not CA was deceitful by failing to predict his future in the article, or failing to revise his affiliations after his conversion.

Indeed.

If, instead you only wish to make an ad hominem pot shot against Soloviev as though it were somehow relevant to the issue of CA’s alleged deception, then good luck with that.

I only asked the poster if he was sure he wanted to drag Soloviev into this. There were no ad hominems. Please try to settle yourself down.

 

[Hesychios]

…a bigger impedence to reunion is the lack of will from Orthodox hierarchy to talk about reunion…

Now we would have to discuss what union means. It is what each party understands as the meaning of unity which forms their concept of re-unity.

To Orthodox unity means a common Orthodox Faith and shared communion. What exactly does it mean to Roman Catholics?

The bigger impedance would seem to be be lack of intent from the Papacy to embrace it’s own earlier Orthodox Faith. If it did so, Christian unity would be almost automatic. Possibly a brief period of discernment and catechesis for individual Latin Catholics would be all that was needed before communion between our mutually autocephalic churches became possible.

I pray for the day, I pray for unity of the Apostolic churches.

 

[excaliber]

I don’t think it is this serious.
We both agree on almost EVERYTHING.

We both agree that there is a first
of the bishops.
We have not defined exactly what his jurisdiction is together, is that so bad?

We both know Christ was born without sin, we have not gotten together to define exactly how.

The creed is not an issue because
It can be said without the filique, and The Holy Trinity is not limited by a creed. The creed simply states what we know of it.

Why must every tiny little detail be
the same in everyones mind?
Why can’t we allow a little freedom for a Christian to say
we know the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. Why do we have to agree on EXACTLY HOW?
Why is EXACTLY HOW important?

We should first agree to stop arguing. Then our churches should agree to eather define details of the faith TOGETHER or leave them as a mystery. Its better then Apostolic christians arguing.

I truly feel united spiritualy to eastern and oriental Orthodox.
So they don’t understand how one bishop can lead the hole church…
mabey we are both correct, all bishops should consult together.

I feel there should be a council called to correct misunderstanding
in the apostolic churches. And the council should not stop until we can stop this arguing.

 

[cretu]

Now we would have to discuss what union means. It is what each party understands as the meaning of unity which forms their concept of re-unity.

To Orthodox unity means a common Orthodox Faith and shared communion. What exactly does it mean to Roman Catholics?

The bigger impedance would seem to be be lack of intent from the Papacy to embrace it’s own earlier Orthodox Faith. If it did so, Christian unity would be almost automatic. Possibly a brief period of discernment and catechesis for individual Latin Catholics would be all that was needed before communion between our mutually autocephalic churches became possible.

I pray for the day, I pray for unity of the Apostolic churches.

yes, we could discuss this a bit, atleast while Mickey doesnt have acces to internet , so he cant teach us Orthodoxy

you say that the Papacy needs to embrace the early Orthodox Faith, this is the general answer that i hear when its about reunion from the Orthodox side; by embracing the early Faith i understand that the Catholic Church should not follow the dogmas that were revealed in the Ecumenical Councils after 1054,

we both know which are the points that separate the 2 churches, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church were disscused in Ecumenical Councils while the OC didnt have any Council after the schism, why would the Orthodox beliefs be more correct than those of the catholics, because of the name (“Orthodox
Church”)??

so the only reason the Orthodox Faith would be considered more orthodox than the Catholic Faith IMO is because one is from Rome, and the other one is from Constantinopole, someone from Rome is not very loved in eastern Europe these days

for example why cant the Orthodox believe that the Pope could be a universal Bishop? the OChurches already have a patriarch which has a higher autorithy than any bishop, what about a Patriarch over all churches? the patriarch holds the unity of the Orthodox in that nation ,

and i dont know about you, but i dont think that the Catholic Church would disolve into national autocephalic Churches , the Mexican Catholic Church would sound prety odd to me.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello cretu,

you say that the Papacy needs to embrace the early Orthodox Faith, this is the general answer that i hear when its about reunion from the Orthodox side; by embracing the early Faith i understand that the Catholic Church should not follow the dogmas that were revealed in the Ecumenical Councils after 1054,

Yes, I would say that is correct.

I am glad to read that there is some consistency in Orthodox opinion on this subject.

we both know which are the points that separate the 2 churches, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church were disscused in Ecumenical Councils while the OC didnt have any Council after the schism, why would the Orthodox beliefs be more correct than those of the catholics, because of the name (“Orthodox Church”)??

As I mentioned somewhere else around here, the name of the church has nothing to do with it. The church must teach correctly.

so the only reason the Orthodox Faith would be considered more orthodox than the Catholic Faith IMO is because one is from Rome, and the other one is from Constantinopole, someone from Rome is not very loved in eastern Europe these days

I understand that this is your perspective. You see prejudice, as do I, and think that this is what the problem is. Well, the old political world that made enemies of east and west need not be a problem any longer.

Most of the Orthodox posting here will readily explain that they have no hostility toward the Latin church, nor prejudice. They have many friends and relatives in the Roman Catholic church. We need to talk about the real theological issues and not the old hurts of the past.

for example why cant the Orthodox believe that the Pope could be a universal Bishop?

The issue is not about a “universal” bishop. It is really over what that actually is supposed to mean. It seems a lot of people bring pre-conceived notions about what being a “universal” bishop entails.

the O[rhtodox] Churches already have a patriarch which has a higher autorithy than any bishop, what about a Patriarch over all churches? the patriarch holds the unity of the Orthodox in that nation ,

I think I answered this in another thread just a little while ago. see here…

…and i dont know about you, but i dont think that the Catholic Church would disolve into national autocephalic Churches , the Mexican Catholic Church would sound prety odd to me.

We already have an example from history of how this can work, because the historically the church was organized as local churches. It is why the RC has National Bishops Conferences (ACBC, CCCB or CECC, CCEW, USCCB, CNBB, CEM, CER) these are an acknowledgment of the earlier ecclesiology of the church. All that would be necessary is to allow these bodies to choose, elevate and discipline their own members as it was in the early church. In other words, properly strengthen them so that they can do their jobs. To a limited degree this is already in place in the other Sui Juris churches.

I might remind you that Cardinal Ratzinger (before his own elevation to the See at Rome) had already proposed the introduction of regional patriarchs for the Latin church. This is not a new idea, and it is a variation on the principle of local synods carrying the primary responsibility for their own churches.

 

[Mickey]

yes, we could discuss this a bit, atleast while Mickey doesnt have acces to internet , so he cant teach us Orthodoxy

You are correct. Continue your discussions with Michael (Hesychios). He can teach you much more than I ever could.

 

[Hesychios]

…He can teach you much more than I ever could.

My brother, we both know this has never been true. Thanks for the chuckle.

May God bless you and keep you.

*Michael, that sinner
*

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dvdjs
If, instead you only wish to make an ad hominem pot shot against Soloviev as though it were somehow relevant to the issue of CA’s alleged deception, then good luck with that.

I only asked the poster if he was sure he wanted to drag Soloviev into this.

MIckey this comment is just not true. In addition to raising that “simple” question, which presumably had some meaning, you further wrote when queried about the remark:

Are you familiar with his sophiology? Be careful who you use to attempt to defend your positions.

So there more involved than “only” asking if I were sure about dragging in Soloviev.

There were no ad hominems.

Maybe, maybe not, hence the “if” in my earlier response. I in fact entertained two possibilities: you were interested in pursuing a discussion of sophiology, in which case a new thread would be in order; you were interested in raising the issue of unorthodox philosophies to somehow cast doubt on some* other* aspect of Soloviev’s ideas or life. I think the latter interpretation is readily inferred from your words quoted above.

If that interpretation is correct, then the comment is a classic ad hominem argument (the meaning oif which you should perhaps look up). The truth of Soloviev’s thinking Sophiology is logically unconnected to the truth of his views on the papacy. It, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with his identification as a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism in the Feb 1996 issue of “this Rock”. Nothing at all.

Please try to settle yourself down.

That would be the fallacy of begging the question.

 

[dvdjs]

Originally Posted by dvdjs
The issue, however, was whether or not CA was deceitful by failing to predict his future in the article, or by failing to revise his affiliations after his conversion.

Indeed.

Mickey, Just what does this response mean?

Surely you cannot mean that you expect CA to re-edit articles in back issues of magazines. That would be absurd, and, no doubt, a case of special pleading. You are on a roll today.

 

[Mickey]

May God bless you and keep you.

*Michael, *that sinner

Thank you Michael. Abundant blessings to you and your family.

 

[Mickey]

So there more involved than “only” asking if I were sure about dragging in Soloviev.

Yes my friend, I included a brief expalnation as to why you may not want to use him as an example. Your idea about a separate thread is a good one. Go for it.

I in fact entertained two possibilities: you were interested in pursuing a discussion of sophiology, in which case a new thread would be in order; you were interested in raising the issue of unorthodox philosophies to somehow cast doubt on some* other* aspect of Soloviev’s ideas or life. I think the latter interpretation is readily inferred from your words quoted above.

I am fascinated by Soloviev’s journey and the sophiology that seemed to penetrate his theology. Please stop trying to infer things. It is not healthy.

** If that interpretation is correct**, then the comment is a classic ad hominem argument (the meaning oif which you should perhaps look up).

Yes. I know the meaning. Do you know the meaning of the word “IF”?

The truth of Soloviev’s thinking Sophiology is logically unconnected to the truth of his views on the papacy. It, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with his identification as a convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism in the Feb 1996 issue of “this Rock”. Nothing at all.

Perhaps you should start a thread and we could delve into the subject further.

That would be the fallacy of begging the question.

There is no need to be so anxious.

 

[Mickey]

Just what does this response mean?

Figure it out.

You are on a roll today.

Thank you.

 

[cretu]

Hello Hesychios

Hello cretu, Yes, I would say that is correct.

I understand that this is your perspective. You see prejudice, as do I, and think that this is what the problem is. Well, the old political world that made enemies of east and west need not be a problem any longer.

yes, but those rivalries made scars, why would the dogmas of the Catholic Church that were proclaimed in Ecumenical Councils be incorrect while the Orthodox didnt have any ecumenical council?? what would make their dogmas infailible?

Most of the Orthodox posting here will readily explain that they have no hostility toward the Latin church, nor prejudice. They have many friends and relatives in the Roman Catholic church. We need to talk about the real theological issues and not the old hurts of the past.

well the priests should talk more about those theological issues, and for the record i live in an Orthodox country, so almost all my friends are Orthodox,

but my question was : Why would the catholic doctrines after 1054 be false??

lets imagine that the Catholic Church would be just an autocephalic Church, or better yet, lets imagine that the Schism never happened, why would those doctrines that have been revealed in Rome be false? (like purgatory,filioque, immaculate conception)

The issue is not about a “universal” bishop. It is really over what that actually is supposed to mean. It seems a lot of people bring pre-conceived notions about what being a “universal” bishop entails.

but did there exist a bishop in the first millenium that had a higher autority above other bishops, a primacy that no other bishop had??

I think I answered this in another thread just a little while ago. see here…
We already have an example from history of how this can work, because the historically the church was organized as local churches. It is why the RC has National Bishops Conferences (ACBC, CCCB or CECC, CCEW, USCCB, CNBB, CEM, CER) these are an acknowledgment of the earlier ecclesiology of the church. All that would be necessary is to allow these bodies to choose, elevate and discipline their own members as it was in the early church. In other words, properly strengthen them so that they can do their jobs. To a limited degree this is already in place in the other Sui Juris churches.

so those confferences prove that there is no need to disolve the Church into national autocephalic Churches to do their jobs, right?

and btw Patriarch Bartholomew cant do anything about the problems of the Orthodox Church in Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus , and even more he cant resolve the situation in America.

I might remind you that Cardinal Ratzinger (before his own elevation to the See at Rome) had already proposed the introduction of regional patriarchs for the Latin church. This is not a new idea, and it is a variation on the principle of local synods carrying the primary responsibility for their own churches.

yes, never heard about it if you have a link about that tell me, but im sure he didnt propose that every bishop is equal and the bishop of Rome has only a primacy of honor , not autorithy.

and can you explain me please what do Orthodox understand about their Church being infallible?? i cant find much of an answer.

 

[brigantine]

and can you explain me please what do Orthodox understand about their Church being infallible?? i cant find much of an answer.

All the Bishops together in a great council are infallible according to Orthodox Teachings and not a single Bishop acting alone! This is why local councils of say Antioch are not necessarily excepted by the Russian Church.

 

[cretu]

All the Bishops together in a great council are infallible according to Orthodox Teachings and not a single Bishop acting alone! This is why local councils of say Antioch are not necessarily excepted by the Russian Church.

but all the Orthodox bishops never gathered together for a council(not even in the first millenium), i mean what should i understand, that no decision of the Orthodox Church about a dogma is infallible?

or how does this infallibility manifests in the Orthodox Church?

 

[brigantine]

but all the Orthodox bishops never gathered together for a council(not even in the first millenium), i mean what should i understand, that no decision of the Orthodox Church about a dogma is infallible?

or how does this infallibility manifests in the Orthodox Church?

While all the Bishops were not physically there they all excepted what came out of these councils. That is infallibility. The Orthodox except these Ecumenical Councils as infallible!

 

[cretu]

While all the Bishops were not physically there they all excepted what came out of these councils. That is infallibility. The Orthodox except these Ecumenical Councils as infallible!

but if they already accept everything that came from those councils, why would they make a council in the first place?

i mean they allready believe in what that council would reveal, what would be the point in holding the council?

they all agree on the sign of cross, but they didnt make a council for that,

or are my questions silly?

though this seems prety important for me, i hardly could believe that after 1054 the Church didnt need any Ecumenical Council in order to asure that its teachings are infallible.

 

[brigantine]

I’m not really sure what your question is so I will try and answer what I think your asking. If I’m wrong let me know.

They did not all agree before the councils or after the councils. The agreement after the councils was seen to be Holy Spirit inspired and Orthodox. Those Bishops agreeing with this teaching were considered Orthodox and those not agreeing heretics. Most of the councils condemned or confirmed condemnation of heresy.

I’m not going to pretend I know all the inner workings of the councils but it is my understanding how I just explained was how it was/is. If I’m wrong then I’m sorry for misleading you!

Also I believe that the Orthodox do have many issues that a Great Council is needed to reslove. I believe there has been talk between Orthodox Hiarchs about having an Ecumenical Council in the next few years.