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

[cretu]

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.

well what if some bishops would hold a council? if they dont agree even after a council would that mean the council is fallible, practicaly false?

the Orthodox had many local councils but none Ecumenical, so those councils were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

 

[brigantine]

well what if some bishops would hold a council? if they dont agree even after a council would that mean the council is fallible, practicaly false?

the Orthodox had many local councils but none Ecumenical, so those councils were not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

All the Great Ecumenical Councils ended in some sort of agreement.

Yes The Holy Spirit can inspire a local council and there have been many. They just have not been declaired infallible. Something you must understand about Orthodox is they do not feel the need to lable everything or have an explaination for it.

Here is a link that gives a very short explaination of the councils:
oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=5

 

[cretu]

All the Great Ecumenical Councils ended in some sort of agreement.

Yes The Holy Spirit can inspire a local council and there have been many. They just have not been declaired infallible. Something you must understand about Orthodox is they do not feel the need to lable everything or have an explaination for it.

Here is a link that gives a very short explaination of the councils:
oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=5

but all the Ecumenical Councils in Orthodoxy were named that way by the Bishop of Rome, if im not mistaken,

but im sure the Orthodox feel the need to know that what they learn and follow is orthodox, and God`s wisdom is endless i dont think there is an explanation for everything there is about it.

 

[brigantine]

but all the Ecumenical Councils in Orthodoxy were named that way by the Bishop of Rome, if im not mistaken,

but im sure the Orthodox feel the need to know that what they learn and follow is orthodox, and God`s wisdom is endless i dont think there is an explanation for everything there is about it.

What is you question Cretu?

 

[cretu]

What is you question Cretu?

How can the Orthodox Church be infallible if they didnt have any Ecumenical Councils after 1054?

if they only need the first 7 Ecumenical Councils it would probably mean that the Orthodox Church needs the Pope in order to be infallible.

 

[Hesychios]

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

Councils of bishops were not new by the time of the First Ecumenical Council. The church had been having local councils of bishops for a long time. It was already a tradition of the Orthodox Christian church to do this.

The Ecumenical Councils were gatherings of bishops of the Roman Empire. As you know, the first one was called by Constantine. He had the empire pay for the transportation and lodging of the bishops.

For the emperor it was an important political concern. He was hoping to have a strong united Christian church for his empire. The Council (not by any means the first called by him, years before he had one gathered at Arles, which only included western bishops from the various regions, like Gaul and North Africa) was intended as a gathering of the sovereign bishops in the interest of strengthening and unifying them in purpose and belief.

By inviting everyone, it was like having many of the local councils meeting simultaneously. Each of the synods participating were in effect dealing with the same issues at the same time as the other synods. It is a powerful image, if the Holy Spirit of God is present at a local council guiding and inspiring the bishops, how much more so if the local councils are sitting together.

There must have been well over one thousand bishops in the empire by this time, and dozens if not hundreds of more outside of the empire. But only a few hundred bishops actually attended, and many Metropolitans and bishops sent representatives to speak for them and report back on the matters discussed.

Many parts of the church were not well represented. For instance, we know that there were already Christians in India and Persia by this time, and Armenia had been Christian before the Roman Empire but not many (if any) were attending the Council at Nicea. Also less bishops from the west.

Those bishops from outside the empire who heard about it, and could make the trip in a timely fashion were of course, welcome.

Afterward, the local synods of the empire were asked to adopt the findings of the Council after it was complete and copies were sent out. All of the Metropolitans were invited to implement (and ratify) the Council findings. The members of the Council did not desire that something important would be decided among them that was not accepted by the remote churches.

I think the one biggest issue of the first Council was the teachings of Arius. The Council decided that his views were not Apostolic.

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

The Council does not reveal anything new, the age of revelation has long been closed. It rejects false teaching.

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

This is not a theological matter, as such. It is a devotional practice that follows upon theology.

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.

The church is infallible in itself. Everyone is interested in preventing portions of the church from diverging, and there is a natural conservatism in the church overall. In other words, Orthodox bishops would prefer “to err on the side of caution” if you can understand my meaning.

If new teachings infest the church, a Council will be called to deal with it. It just so happens that there has not been a pressing need for that. No big new doctrines being presented by anyone from within the Orthodox communion.

The church has continued to hold local councils to deal with housekeeping issues. This, as I stated above, has been the longstanding tradition from before Nicea I.

There has been discussion off and on for a long time about bringing another Ecumenical Council together, but Orthodoxy is not really divided by any serious doctrinal threats, so it would be mainly a housekeeping kind of thing. Not really a crises management theological gathering.
*
Michael*

 

[brigantine]

How can the Orthodox Church be infallible if they didnt have any Ecumenical Councils after 1054?

if they only need the first 7 Ecumenical Councils it would probably mean that the Orthodox Church needs the Pope in order to be infallible.

I guess I just don’ get how one leads to the other. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Ecumenical Councils so why does it NEED anymore to be infallible? It has not called a new Ecumenical Council because it has not needed to. The Orthodox Church has not made significant changes to itself so why would it need to call an Ecumenical Council. Those firs ones are still pretty good ones!! There may be a need for one now because in the last 100 years or so there has been some questions that may need a Ecumenical Council to resolve.

The Pope has nothing to do with the fact that the Orthodox Church is infallible.

 

[cretu]

Councils of bishops were not new by the time of the First Ecumenical Council. The church had been having local councils of bishops for a long time. It was already a tradition of the Orthodox Christian church to do this.

ok, i was aware of that, i dont understand your point

The Ecumenical Councils were gatherings of bishops of the Roman Empire. As you know, the first one was called by Constantine. He had the empire pay for the transportation and lodging of the bishops.

For the emperor it was an important political concern. He was hoping to have a strong united Christian church for his empire. The Council (not by any means the first called by him, years before he had one gathered at Arles, which only included western bishops from the various regions, like Gaul and North Africa) was intended as a gathering of the sovereign bishops in the interest of strengthening and unifying them in purpose and belief.

By inviting everyone, it was like having many of the local councils meeting simultaneously. Each of the synods participating were in effect dealing with the same issues at the same time as the other synods. It is a powerful image, if the Holy Spirit of God is present at a local council guiding and inspiring the bishops, how much more so if the local councils are sitting together.

uhm … ok … i still dont get you point

There must have been well over one thousand bishops in the empire by this time, and dozens if not hundreds of more outside of the empire. But only a few hundred bishops actually attended, and many Metropolitans and bishops sent representatives to speak for them and report back on the matters discussed.

Many parts of the church were not well represented. For instance, we know that there were already Christians in India and Persia by this time, and Armenia had been Christian before the Roman Empire but not many (if any) were attending the Council at Nicea. Also less bishops from the west.

Those bishops from outside the empire who heard about it, and could make the trip in a timely fashion were of course, welcome.

Afterward, the local synods of the empire were asked to adopt the findings of the Council after it was complete and copies were sent out. All of the Metropolitans were invited to implement (and ratify) the Council findings. The members of the Council did not desire that something important would be decided among them that was not accepted by the remote churches.

i think they made a council because they didnt agree of everything, what use of making a council if its not needed?

I think the one biggest issue of the first Council was the teachings of Arius. The Council decided that his views were not Apostolic. The Council does not reveal anything new, the age of revelation has long been closed. It rejects false teaching.

the council defined doctrine then, it was nothing new but it neede to be defined, or was that a bit of twisting words?

This is not a theological matter, as such. It is a devotional practice that follows upon theology.

ok it was just a simple example, but dont tell me that the Orthodox Churches didnt have any theological issue after the schism.

The church is infallible in itself. Everyone is interested in preventing portions of the church from diverging, and there is a natural conservatism in the church overall.

like saying that the “Orthodox Church is infallible because its the Orthodox Church” is not very convincing, many churches claim to be the True Church but that doesnt mean that every christian church is infallible, care to enlarge a bit?

In other words, Orthodox bishops would prefer “to err on the side of caution” if you can understand my meaning.

wait, wouldnt be more cautious if they would make a council before the heresy spreads too much?

If new teachings infest the church, a Council will be called to deal with it. It just so happens that there has not been a pressing need for that. No big new doctrines being presented by anyone from within the Orthodox communion.

who could call a Council, who could name it an Ecumenical Council??

The church has continued to hold local councils to deal with housekeeping issues. This, as I stated above, has been the longstanding tradition from before Nicea I.

agreed

There has been discussion off and on for a long time about bringing another Ecumenical Council together, but Orthodoxy is not really divided by any serious doctrinal threats, so it would be mainly a housekeeping kind of thing. Not really a crises management theological gathering.
*
Michael*

it seems odd that in the first millenium there would be needed 7 councils and after the schism, suddenly everything that was preached by any priest during the second millenium was orthodox.

brigantine:

I guess I just don’ get how one leads to the other. The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Ecumenical Councils so why does it NEED anymore to be infallible? It has not called a new Ecumenical Council because it has not needed to. The Orthodox Church has not made significant changes to itself so why would it need to call an Ecumenical Council. Those firs ones are still pretty good ones!! There may be a need for one now because in the last 100 years or so there has been some questions that may need a Ecumenical Council to resolve.

The Pope has nothing to do with the fact that the Orthodox Church is infallible.

well it needs to be infallible so you dont follow false teachings, neither did the Catholic Church made significant changes, it only defined what it was already known,

so what role did the Succesor of Peter had in the first millenium? it doesnt seem insignificant to me.

 

[Hesychios]

ok, i was aware of that, i dont understand your point
…

uhm … ok … i still dont get you point

The point is councils are not unknown to Holy Orthodoxy, we have been holding them since long before Nicea and into modern times. We know how to call them and run them. There is no question as to the ability of Holy Orthodoxy to call a Council of any type.

Besides which, some things can be handled by conference call. It seems the bishops have learned the possibilities of the cell phone and instant messaging. The work gets done.

i think they made a council because they didnt agree of everything, what use of making a council if its not needed?

I think your opinion is oversimplified.

The councils were not gathered to confirm what should be believed, but what should be rejected. Any firm definitions that did come out of Councils were a secondary effect. The church Fathers applied apophatic reasoning to their work.

the council defined doctrine then, it was nothing new but it neede to be defined, or was that a bit of twisting words?

I do not understand your point.

ok it was just a simple example, but dont tell me that the Orthodox Churches didnt have any theological issue after the schism.

Then you tell us.

What theological threats have arisen within Holy Orthodoxy necessitating a worldwide Council?

like saying that the “Orthodox Church is infallible because its the Orthodox Church”

No, it is like saying “Orthodox Church is infallible because it is the Church”.

wait, wouldnt be more cautious if they would make a council before the heresy spreads too much?

Don’t have any cases of that. Sorry to disappoint you.

The natural conservatism of Orthodox bishops and the guidance of the Holy Spirit have presumably kept these issues to a minimum.

who could call a Council, who could name it an Ecumenical Council??

Primates and their synods. Primacy is operative at all levels of Holy Orthodoxy. (Even around individual altars a form of primacy is observed at each level from bishops down to the acolytes.)

After a council has deliberated, and recommended it’s adoption by other synods, it will follow that a future gathering will acclaim it Ecumenical or not. This was the ancient practice of the church for the Seven actual Councils.

A future Council will be known as Ecumenical after it’s work has been adopted over the whole church. Pan-Orthodox Councils have sat, but the church has not considered it necessary to give them the full designation of Ecumenical. This is mostly because their primary goals were housekeeping issues and subsequent Councils have not considered it necessary to formally number them with the original seven.

it seems odd that in the first millenium there would be needed 7 councils and after the schism, suddenly everything that was preached by any priest during the second millenium was orthodox.

That is just the Orthodox Magisterium at work

To be precise, the last fully acclaimed Ecumenical Council was in 787AD, significantly 267 years before the western schism, and 1,222 years ago.

… neither did the Catholic Church made significant changes, it only defined what it was already known,

This contention of yours has been kicked around ad infinitum here.

I will attribute that to wishful thinking on your part. A type of self-delusion and pretense common to western polemicists.

so what role did the Succesor of Peter had in the first millenium? it doesnt seem insignificant to me.

Which one? All bishops are successors to Saint Peter.

If you are referring to the primacy associated with the Patriarch at Rome, that has been handled without interruption by the Patriarch of New Rome (Constantinople) up to the present day.

Whatever the Patriarch at Rome was doing for the church, the Patriarch at New Rome continued to do for the church.

So my suggestion is: Study what the Patriarch of Constantinople is currently doing, and you will see the significance of the early medieval Petrine primacy at work.

If that’s the job Pope Benedict wants, he could probably have it without disturbing anyone. If he wants to exercise more power than that, he would be simply grabbing for something that he is not entitled to.

Pax et Bonum

 

[cretu]

The point is councils are not unknown to Holy Orthodoxy, we have been holding them since long before Nicea and into modern times. We know how to call them and run them. There is no question as to the ability of Holy Orthodoxy to call a Council of any type.

yes, but you call yourselves the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils not the Church of the 700 local councils,

Besides which, some things can be handled by conference call. It seems the bishops have learned the possibilities of the cell phone and instant messaging. The work gets done.

wow, a new definition of infallibility of the Orthodox Church that i didnt hear yet (joking)

I think your opinion is oversimplified.

The councils were not gathered to confirm what should be believed, but what should be rejected. Any firm definitions that did come out of Councils were a secondary effect. The church Fathers applied apophatic reasoning to their work.

yes but in order to know what to reject one must know what is correct, those definitions dont sound secondary to me

Then you tell us.

i dont know, anything i would say you could just respond “its not a major issue” and the majority of the Orthodox countries were for a long time under Ottoman ocupation, but local synods in Russia (in 1666 under Patriarch Nikon) made a big havoc, the Russian Orthodox Church of true russians didnt appear from nowhere, so to me it would sound prety important to make an Ecumenical Council about some “housekeeping stuff” to be no doubt about what is orthodox .

No, it is like saying “Orthodox Church is infallible because it is the Church”.

“The Catholic Church is infallible because it is the Church” , is this a good definition about the infallibility for you? i doubt it,

Don’t have any cases of that. Sorry to disappoint you.

The natural conservatism of Orthodox bishops and the guidance of the Holy Spirit have presumably kept these issues to a minimum.

then the Holy Spirit is not very fair, during the first millenium 7 councils needed ,He couldnt keep the issues to a minimum, but suddenly after a Great Schism He said "Ok its enough, no more heresies, im tired "

Primates and their synods. Primacy is operative at all levels of Holy Orthodoxy. (Even around individual altars a form of primacy is observed at each level from bishops down to the acolytes.)

After a council has deliberated, and recommended it’s adoption by other synods, it will follow that a future gathering will acclaim it Ecumenical or not. This was the ancient practice of the church for the Seven actual Councils.

A future Council will be known as Ecumenical after it’s work has been adopted over the whole church. Pan-Orthodox Councils have sat, but the church has not considered it necessary to give them the full designation of Ecumenical. This is mostly because their primary goals were housekeeping issues and subsequent Councils have not considered it necessary to formally number them with the original seven.

yes there must be something that would turn the Church upside down for a council to be made, i think i get the point

That is just the Orthodox Magisterium at work

too bad it was lacking before the schism, then it wouldnt be needed any council at all

I will attribute that to wishful thinking on your part. A type of self-delusion and pretense common to western polemicists.

yes im sure its like that, to me its not the question “Which is the true faith” but more like “Which is the true Church” , faith is something that cannot be seen how could i just suddenly be aware about the true faith, but the Church is the Visible Body of Christ on earth, now things dont sound that impossible for a simple person .

Which one? All bishops are successors to Saint Peter.

If you are referring to the primacy associated with the Patriarch at Rome, that has been handled without interruption by the Patriarch of New Rome (Constantinople) up to the present day.

Whatever the Patriarch at Rome was doing for the church, the Patriarch at New Rome continued to do for the church.

So my suggestion is: Study what the Patriarch of Constantinople is currently doing, and you will see the significance of the early medieval Petrine primacy at work.

If that’s the job Pope Benedict wants, he could probably have it without disturbing anyone. If he wants to exercise more power than that, he would be simply grabbing for something that he is not entitled to.

Pax et Bonum

so what can the Patriarch of Constantinopole do to help the Church of Estonia, or the situation in America can he really do something?

and wait, since when there is a primacy in EO, shouldnt all bishops be equal??

 

[Hesychios]

yes, but you call yourselves the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils not the Church of the 700 local councils,

We are Holy Orthodoxy.

There happen to be seven Ecumenical Councils, these are what Orthodox affirm.

…yes but in order to know what to reject one must know what is correct, those definitions dont sound secondary to me

What we believe is in the prayer of the church, in the liturgical cycle. We have always “prayed to Jesus as to God” and so Arianism is just plain wrong. Those prayers were in the liturgies Arius was taught as a young priest, so he’s wrong. That’s all we need to know.

The Creed is based on ancient baptismal formulae and restated for emphasis, nothing new there If what is being taught by someone was not included in the ancient prayers it is new.

Let’s try to find “Mediatrix of All Graces” in the ancient liturgies. It should be there somewhere if Catholics want it proclaimed dogma. The method used by Roman Catholics would be:

• Petition Rome, especially by failing parishes and shrinking religious orders who desire to build shrines and sell Masses.
• Find a few sympathetic Cardinals who can lobby for it
• Cherry pick Patristic quotes for things that sound like they might support the vagueries of the new dogma
• If it is popular enough at some unique point in history, and the Curia calculates the damage will be minimal, it will get a pass.

i dont know, anything i would say you could just respond “its not a major issue” and the majority of the Orthodox countries were for a long time under Ottoman ocupation, but local synods in Russia (in 1666 under Patriarch Nikon) made a big havoc, the Russian Orthodox Church of true russians didnt appear from nowhere, so to me it would sound prety important to make an Ecumenical Council about some “housekeeping stuff” to be no doubt about what is orthodox .

Patriarch Nikon wanted to bring liturgical practices into line with the more ancient (and presumably more correct) Greek church disciplines. It was a local matter for the church in Russia and did not involve theology. The Old Believers believe the same theology as the Nikonians.

Personally I feel that the Patriarch behaved in a rather insensitive autocratic manner which was unnecessary and damaging, and I feel that the “Old Believers” were victims of their own scrupulosity.

“The Catholic Church is infallible because it is the Church” , is this a good definition about the infallibility for you? i doubt it,

Oh it’s fine, considering Catholic Christianity has subsided in Holy Orthodoxy since the Pentecost event.

…then the Holy Spirit is not very fair, during the first millenium 7 councils needed ,He couldnt keep the issues to a minimum, but suddenly after a Great Schism He said "Ok its enough, no more heresies, im tired "

I would be very careful in judging the Holy Spirit, it can seem to be blasphemy. Anyway, the Faith does require our cooperation, you know. That is why Orthodox are naturally conservative in all matter religious.

Heresies did not end, they are rampant outside of Holy Orthodoxy. In the Sixteenth century there was a virtual “Cambrian Explosion” of theological errors. However, this was a western, not an Orthodox episode.

so what can the Patriarch of Constantinopole do to help the Church of Estonia, or the situation in America can he really do something?

For one thing he can stop meddling.

It is well known that the EP is the biggest obstacle to sorting out canonical problems in America.

The Papacy has the exact same mess in America, but pretends it is unimportant because they are all under the Pope!

Then the Papacy introduces new forms of ecclesiology (like Personal Prelatures) which complicate the situation even more greatly. Overlapping jurisdictions in the Roman Catholic communion abound and yet Roman Catholic polemicists have the temerity to criticize Holy Orthodoxy.

…and wait, since when there is a primacy in EO, shouldnt all bishops be equal??

They are.

 

[AnthonyJ]

What is a personal prelature? I keep hearing this may be given to the SSPX. Thanks.

Quote:
Then the Papacy introduces new forms of ecclesiology (like Personal Prelatures) which complicate the situation even more greatly. Overlapping jurisdictions in the Roman Catholic communion abound and yet Roman Catholic polemicists have the temerity to criticize Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

What is a personal prelature? I keep hearing this may be given to the SSPX. Thanks.

It is a “special” new structure, much like a diocese with no boundaries. It is not organized by city or geographical zone, as was the early church, but organized according to special obedience to a bishop.

It was first suggested as an idea in Vatican II as a concept for organizing priests for work under special circumstances. Apparently this was only a suggestion, because it did not become part of church law until Pope Paul VI approved it in 1965. It was written into the Code of Canons later.

See…

Present norms of incardination and excardination should be so revised that, while this ancient institution still remains intact, they will better correspond to today’s pastoral needs. Where a real apostolic spirit requires it, not only should a better distribution of priests be brought about but there should also be favored such particular pastoral works as are necessary in any region or nation anywhere on earth. To accomplish this purpose there should be set up international seminaries, special personal dioceses or prelatures (vicariates), and so forth, by means of which, according to their particular statutes and always saving the right of bishops, priests may be trained and incardinated for the good of the whole Church.
PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS 1965

What this seems to be suggesting is roving bishops with a following of priests that can be assigned where needed. It is a form of church. This organization would overlap with the ordinary structure of the church.

It is new to Roman Catholicism and unknown to Orthodoxy but this is not really a new form of church structure. Whenever heretics struck out on their own (men such as Marcion) they had a boundaryless church of their own under their personal leadership.

The closest thing I can think of that parallels this type of diocese is the military chaplaincy. Each country having it’s own network of chaplains, typically under a bishop, to serve it’s people on military duties. The difference here being that it is not technically without boundary because the chaplaincies reach ends with the reach of the government.

Opus Dei took a strong interest in the concept (some say that it was Opus Dei’s own idea, when introduced at the Council) of Personal Prelature and lobbied for recognition as such an organization. It was granted this form in 1982 (it being something else, perhaps a religious order before that) by Pope John Paul II.

 

[cretu]

We are Holy Orthodoxy.

There happen to be seven Ecumenical Councils, these are what Orthodox affirm.

ok

Patriarch Nikon wanted to bring liturgical practices into line with the more ancient (and presumably more correct) Greek church disciplines. It was a local matter for the church in Russia and did not involve theology. The Old Believers believe the same theology as the Nikonians.

Personally I feel that the Patriarch behaved in a rather insensitive autocratic manner which was unnecessary and damaging, and I feel that the “Old Believers” were victims of their own scrupulosity.

nonetheless the “old believers” as you say are just as Orthodox as the russian “new believers”, but still the Russian Orthodox Church say they live in schism.

Oh it’s fine, considering Catholic Christianity has subsided in Holy Orthodoxy since the Pentecost event.

so then why is the Orthodox Church more infallible than the Catholic Church , if you`re telling me because its the Church dont botter writing

That is why Orthodox are naturally conservative in all matter religious.

conservative in superstitions also

Heresies did not end, they are rampant outside of Holy Orthodoxy. In the Sixteenth century there was a virtual “Cambrian Explosion” of theological errors. However, this was a western, not an Orthodox episode.

but the hersies were rampant within the first millenium Church

For one thing he can stop meddling.

It is well known that the EP is the biggest obstacle to sorting out canonical problems in America.

The Papacy has the exact same mess in America, but pretends it is unimportant because they are all under the Pope!

Then the Papacy introduces new forms of ecclesiology (like Personal Prelatures) which complicate the situation even more greatly. Overlapping jurisdictions in the Roman Catholic communion abound and yet Roman Catholic polemicists have the temerity to criticize Holy Orthodoxy.

i dont know much about whats in America, only what i heard from time to time, to me its just pointing out that autocephality is failing, if the EP would recognize OCA what would be the responses of the other Orthodox Churches about the EP`s deeds? not very happy i presume

well the Papacy has some sort of authority in the Catholic Church you know, they wont just sit and watch what will happen hoping the problems will fade in time,

They are.

but practically the bishop is the voice of the Church, or at least in some way of saying it, if all the bishops are equal doesnt this gives some sort of half-infallibility to every bishop?? i mean if 2 bishops say almost the same thing , but there is a tiny difference, but in some way pretty important to you, which one you trust? its only an example but what would you generaly do?

 

[Hesychios]

nonetheless the “old believers” as you say are just as Orthodox as the russian “new believers”, but still the Russian Orthodox Church say they live in schism.

This schism, as you call it, is not nearly so serious as the east west “schism”.

The Old believers are One with the rest of Orthodoxy in that they share a theology. Neither party is teaching error. We are left with no grave concern over the salvation of these people. The Old Believers are spiritually well cared for.

Of course, we would like to see the problem completely healed. with more Old Believer bishops in the Holy Synod. There has been some progress in that regard.

so then why is the Orthodox Church more infallible than the Catholic Church , if you`re telling me because its the Church dont botter writing

I do not understand your point.

conservative in superstitions also

That comment (rather, insult) cuts both ways. I needn’t get into the superstitions of the Roman Catholic church in this forum. This dialogue between us becoming something of a “tit-for-tat” and is not healthy.

Consider for now that in my opinion this problem is exceeded by far in the western church.

but the hersies were rampant within the first millenium Church

No doubt.

i dont know much about whats in America, only what i heard from time to time, to me its just pointing out that autocephality is failing, if the EP would recognize OCA what would be the responses of the other Orthodox Churches about the EP`s deeds? not very happy i presume

Respectfully, I suggest that you presume nothing.

Read up on it a little more so as to be more familiar before you start criticizing.

Autocephaly for local churches was the norm in east and west in the early centuries. This is the structure left to us after the Apostolic age. Now there is but one autocephalic church in the west, but the older form of organization still stands in the east, adjusted for border changes and such.

Cyprus was given it’s autocephaly in an early Ecumenical Council, and has retained it, except for an unfortunate period when western crusaders occupied the place and suppressed the church. This was a violation of an Ecumenical Council decree by the papacy which happily accepted the crusader church’s submission.

Today, with crusaders from the west long gone, the church of Cyprus is autocephalic, as it was in the first millennium.

well the Papacy has some sort of authority in the Catholic Church you know, they wont just sit and watch what will happen hoping the problems will fade in time,

I believe that the last few Popes have realized what a bind they have gotten themselves into, and are wiggling around for a way out of it.

Thus, one reads comments like this:
“So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.”
Cardinal Walter Kaspar

This is a hint for Roman Catholics, in other words: ‘Be prepared for a major shift in our position’. The old position does not work, it is a dead-end.

 

[brigantine]

I believe the Old Believers are now in communion with all of Orthodoxy. They were reunited with ROCOR and when ROCOR entered communion with the ROC the Old Believers were back in communion with all of Orthodoxy. Did something happen that they left again?

This dialogue between us becoming something of a “tit-for-tat” and is not healthy…

I felt that was where it was heading also. Its seems once questions are answered then the “goal post” is moved so to speak. To sum it all up Cretu believes that the Pope is infallible and the Orthodox Church is wrong in its view of the Papacy. So my question is why is he bothering with the pretence of a discussion?

 

[Mickey]

I believe that the last few Popes have realized what a bind they have gotten themselves into, and are wiggling around for a way out of it.

Thus, one reads comments like this:
“So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.”
Cardinal Walter Kaspar

This is a hint for Roman Catholics, in other words: ‘Be prepared for a major shift in our position’. The old position does not work, it is a dead-end.

Here are two more:

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse.
*[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 198]

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.
[Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco*, CA: Ignatius Press]******

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

Can you cite where these definative “Orthodox Teachings” are offered? I hate to be the fella that gets accused of being a one-hit wonder or a one-trick poney in my singular (sounding) objection to pronouncements so often offered by members of Eastern churches that begin or end with “Orthodoxy teaches”…

But where is the counciliar pronouncement that it is this conciliar approach alone that is acceptable? While we are at it, where is the council that “all the bishops together” participated in? Given that only small percentages of the episcopate participated in the councils accepted as ecumenical, we then are forced to either accept “receptionism” or an alternative theory of what makes a council ecumenical…

 

[brigantine]

Can you cite where these definative “Orthodox Teachings” are offered? I hate to be the fella that gets accused of being a one-hit wonder or a one-trick poney in my singular (sounding) objection to pronouncements so often offered by members of Eastern churches that begin or end with “Orthodoxy teaches”…

But where is the counciliar pronouncement that it is this conciliar approach alone that is acceptable? While we are at it, where is the council that “all the bishops together” participated in? Given that only small percentages of the episcopate participated in the councils accepted as ecumenical, we then are forced to either accept “receptionism” or an alternative theory of what makes a council ecumenical…

I don’t really see the point. You know the canons I’m going to quote and then you will just give your argument agaist them. So I’ll just except you think the Pope is infallible and I don’t!

Edit: If your actually looking for a good understanding of Orthodox thoughts on this author Michael Whelton wrote a good book called Two Paths: Papal Monarchy—Collegial Traditions.

 

[cretu]

This schism, as you call it, is not nearly so serious as the east west “schism”.

The Old believers are One with the rest of Orthodoxy in that they share a theology. Neither party is teaching error. We are left with no grave concern over the salvation of these people. The Old Believers are spiritually well cared for.

the Orthodox are saying that they live in schism, im sure they have the same with minor differences, but according to the Orthodox they live in schism.

I do not understand your point.

nevermind

That comment (rather, insult) cuts both ways. I needn’t get into the superstitions of the Roman Catholic church in this forum. This dialogue between us becoming something of a “tit-for-tat” and is not healthy.

Consider for now that in my opinion this problem is exceeded by far in the western church.

i was to an Orthodox funeral a few years ago, may God forgive that soul, some customs were very unusual to me, not the christian ones specific to Orthodox but something different, some ways of how some people arrange house objects, or a few things that one should do when someone dies (surely not christian but conserved in their tradition strong enough) , and when my grandfather (roman catholic) died last year, may God forgive him, there was no sign of such superstitions,

you said that the Orthodox are more conservative about their tradition, but they also conserve in a less manner the superstitions

besides, is this your example of healthy disscusion?

The method used by Roman Catholics would be:

* Petition Rome, especially by failing parishes and shrinking religious orders who desire to build shrines and sell Masses.
* Find a few sympathetic Cardinals who can lobby for it
* Cherry pick Patristic quotes for things that sound like they might support the vagueries of the new dogma
* If it is popular enough at some unique point in history, and the Curia calculates the damage will be minimal, it will get a pass.

or would you like me to invent a novelty of how things work in the Orthodox Church? i dont think you would like that

No doubt.

im glad that the unseen Orthodox Magisterium does such a good job that no heresy threatend the Church, but its sad that this Magisterium didnt exist when the Church was undivided.

Respectfully, I suggest that you presume nothing.

the Russian Orthodox bishops dont seem to be very happy that Estonia will have an autocephalic Church soon, how would the 20 Orthodox Churches, or how many they are in America, feel when they would need to submit to a bishop?

Autocephaly for local churches was the norm in east and west in the early centuries. This is the structure left to us after the Apostolic age. Now there is but one autocephalic church in the west, but the older form of organization still stands in the east, adjusted for border changes and such.

and in America it reached a new level, 20 jurisidictions , 20 Orthodox Churches that came from Orthodox countries, if OCA would be fully recognize, probably those 19 churches would want to declare their independence from their previous national churches,

i would add something but because you seem to be sensitive you would take it as an insult , so nevermind,

I believe that the last few Popes have realized what a bind they have gotten themselves into, and are wiggling around for a way out of it.

Thus, one reads comments like this:
“So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.”
Cardinal Walter Kaspar

probably because the Orthodox Churches are not latin churches, but usually i read that the Orthodox patriarchs should respect the Pope as the early fathers did, as the early patriarchs did, as the early chrisitians did, why is that text so special to you?

This is a hint for Roman Catholics, in other words: ‘Be prepared for a major shift in our position’. The old position does not work, it is a dead-end.

you`re joking, right?