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

[cretu]

brigantine:

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?

no, i just assumed the papacy is wrong, then how would the Church be infallible? how would the Church work in this case so i asked, i dont expect to understand all especially if we are talking on a forum, but a little bit, i`ll give you an example why i moved the “goal post”

Q&A

Q: Why is the Orthodox Church infallible?
A: Because its the Church
…not a bad answer, but as a greko-catholic it doesnt mean much to me…

Q: So how does the infallibility manifest in the Orthodox Church?
A: The Orthodox Church had 7 ecumenical councils which are infallible
…so far so good, nothing new to me, but it wasnt really what i asked…

Q: What do Orthodox believe an ecumenical council is?
A: All bishops gathered for a synod disscusing theological issues are infallible
…we know the early councils were not like that so let me put another question …

Q: Not all bishops gathered at the first 7 ecumenical synods were present, care to enlarge a bit?
A: Every synod in the first millenium has finished with some kind of agreement, every other remote church that didnt have participants accepted the decision of the synod.
… thinking at the non-Chalcedonian Churches i didnt understand how the above answer is correct, but trying not to insist too much at this point i thought i`ll understand of how Orthodox infallibility works after the schism …

Q: The Orthodox Church had no ecumenical council after the schism, why??
A: Because there was no major threat, there wasnt needed any ecumenical synod , the local synods handled the housekeeping issues
…every issue can be labeled as “housekeeping” even the first 7 ecumenical council, but probably a more detailed answer would illuminate me…

Q: There were local synods that affected the entire Orthodox Church, why werent they called “ecumenical”?
A: Because the issues were just “housekeeping”, it wasnt needed any ecumenical synods, the first 7 were enough
… the “housekeeping” stuff seems to absorb every issue, probably i didnt asked too precisely…

Q: If those synods were named ecumenical, probably there wouldnt be old believers today in Russia, it could have avoided a schism, was there a reason they didnt name it that way?
A: No need to call if they were only “housekeeping” issues, in my personal opinion patriarch Nikon acted a bit autocratic, but the old believers were victims of their own scrupulosity.
…if the Pope behaves autocratic its the end of the world as we know it, but in this case the old believers didnt follow their patriarch…

• so contemplating a bit at these answers, not being very solid arguments for me of how the infallibility works in the Orthodox Church, the only thing left for me to ask is why the catholic dogmas (purgatory etc.) are believed they are wrong by the Orthodox, why the Catholic Church defined such false dogmas, but the Orthodox ones are correct, so i ask *

Q: Why is the Orthodox Church more infallible than the Catholic Church?
A: I dont understand your point.
…ok, probably i wasnt too precise here , but im sure he doesnt believe in purgatory, so i`ll not ask anything else…

So because the Orthodox on this forum start to think that im here to insult them, i wont ask any more questions, if i insulted you im sorry, it wasnt my intention,

But i still learnt something after the disscusion

I think i have a hint why the Orthodox dont have an explanation for everything.

 

[brigantine]

Cretu look at the book I recommended to ASimpleSinner.

Two Paths: Papal Monarchy—Collegial Traditions by Michael Whelton

This book will give you the answers your looking for. You may not agree with the conclusions but at least you will see how the Orthodox came to them.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

If you will begin and end with the presumption that you know my conclusions already, so it is not worth making your case, why post at all?

In pointing me to this tome of your chosing (in fact I am familiar, I reviewed it when it came out as a bit of a response to Jesus, Peter and the Keys) I am only left again to ask what makes this a definative or reliable synopsis of what “The Orthodox” believe? How can you be confident that this will give me “a good understanding of Orthodox thoughts”? Without decisive framework or definative, explicit and concrete limits and also explinations of where Orthodoxy ends and heterodoxy begins, how can we have confidence that this work will give a complete and thorough understanding of the range of acceptable Orthodox thought?

At best, Orthodox ecclesiology seems a highly pious and speculative approach to offering plausible explination to definative thinking from Catholics.

As a former Orthodox catechuman who opted not to leave the Catholic Church in part owing to the division of opinion my confrere and I recieved about “What Orthodoxy Teaches” on our very own baptisms (the priest of the OCA mission was a non-reordained ex-Catholic priest willing to recieve me into his parish via chrismation, the priest of the ROCOR mission my friend was more attracted to insisted on baptizing him!) Well I had strong assurances and re-assurances from either priest for both practices being the Orthodox position… (I would later come to find out, that among the Ukrainian Orthodox of Canada, a bit of a third option was allowed for ethnic Ukie converts from the UGCC to the UOC, to simply make a profession of faith, whereas their RC spouses had to be chrismated!)

Long post short: What makes this tome more helpful in deciding what is definatively to be beleived and is True? Or more to the original post, what council definatively taught how to interpret councils in this definitive way you suggest?

 

[Hesychios]

you`re joking, right?

Not in the least.

 

[ClementRome]

Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox churches accuse the other of false doctrines both base upon tradition:

1. The Catholics reject several of the specific canons of the early ecumenical councils, but the orthodox accept them as inspired.
2. Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter. While the Orthodox church claims council at Nice was inspired, yet is rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.
3. The Catholics teach purgatory, yet the Orthodox reject it.
4. Universal papal jurisdiction was a rather large dogfight in 588-606 AD.
5. Although the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility, the decisions of the orthodox synods are considered infallible.
6. The Immaculate Conception is utterly rejected by the Orthodox.
7. The orthodox baptized by full immersion (thrice), the Catholics sprinkle.
8. Orthodox Church, priests can marry, but Catholics priests cannot.
9. The Roman Catholic church introduced instrumental music no earlier than the 7th century and the Orthodox church has never used instrumental music, but like the apostles, sang without instrument.
   11. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine that says the bread and grape juice of the Lord’s supper actually molecularly change to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Of course this old doctrine was formulated before the advent of molecular microscopes which see no change. For Catholics the “Transubstantiation” occurs when the priest says the words, “this is my body”. For Orthodox the change occurs when the priest offers the prayer of thanks.
10. The “Filioque” scandal: Following the Nicene creed, the Orthodox Church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Then in 1054 AD the Roman church added to the wording of the Nicene creed “And the Son” or the “Filioque.” The Roman church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from BOTH the Father and the Son.
11. Orthodox keeps the original Nicene Creed, accepted by the Universal Church, East and West, during the first millennium without the addition of “And the Son” or the “Filioque.” It accepts, on faith, Christ’s words in the Gospel, that the Father is the Unoriginate Source of the Life of the Trinity, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father Alone. We cannot know how the Begetting of the Son and the Proceeding of the Spirit from the same Father is different, only that it is and this distinguishes the two Persons.

370 AD: Basil’s approach: Forget Tradition Wars: Let Scripture Decide!

A. Basil wrote in 370 AD:

"What then? After all these efforts were they tired? Did they leave off? Not at all. They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth." (Basil, Letter 189, 3)

Orthodox have no unity in their CHurch anymore, while Catholics have unity under one head.

Orthodox reject matthew 16-18, which says the Church will be built on Peter. Thus where Peter is, there is the Church(and for Catholics the head of the Church is the successor of Peter)

Orthodox allow things like contraception and condoms, which is against the early teachings of the Church.

Different demographic areas in the world are ruled by different orthodox bishops where one area of orthodox can be a totally different tradition than in other area of orthodox. Thus the unity of orthodox is damaged greatly. For instance the russian orthodox are a world different from the Greek or Arminian.

There is a bishop and parish in nearly every part of the world for the Catholics. However for the orrthodox they are still very limited in demographics. Christ said that the Gospel would spread to the ends of the earth. The orthodox still have yet to do that.

Nearly all the early Church fathers recognized the primacy of Rome. Tons of disputes were finalized in Rome. Ireneaus says that all Churches must agree with the one in Rome.Cyprian of carthage also recognized this.

Based on history the chair of Peter has the most reliable history of its succesors of bishops. Our list of Popes from our one now all the way to Peter is very clear and confimed by historians like Eusebius and Iraeneus.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

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.

This somewhat pragmatic and convienant distinction as to how it is that the schism between Old Believers and (national churches that make up the autocephalous polyarchy of the communion of churches that is) Orthodoxy is qualitatively different from the split with the Catholic Church and the state of the simply (again) leaves me asking how can this distinction and difference be definatively known to be the authoratative and final decision of Orthodoxy?

More simply, I ask “Says who?”

At best, this seems pious speculation. At worst, it seems to less than fully reveal the division that exists in thought in “Orthodox thinking” on the matter.

A friend of mine friend of mine in Serbia is rather adamanant (and with copious references to sources he is confident are definative and authoratative!) that the Macedonian Orthodox Church (which, unlike Old Believers, suffers no division in common praxis from the majority of Eastern Orthodoxy, merely it asserts its autocephalousy and is unrecognized - as yet - by others) is graceless altogether! When I told him I attended the consecration of their new cathedral in the US and recieved a blessing from Abp Stephen, he demured that I should not have bothered as the blessing was without grace…

So here you are espousing a particular and qualified opinion about how the schism with the state churches and Old Believers are distinct and qualitatively different from Catholics and Orthodox… And there he is adamnant that the Macedonian Orthodox - whose main point of contention is demanding their own nation-state church, with no other division of doctrine, dogma, or praxis… and he insists they are utterly graceless.

Now tell me, how are we to know, with confidence, what position is the Orthodox position?

 

[Hesychios]

Now tell me, how are we to know, with confidence, what position is the Orthodox position?

If you can find an Orthodox bishop anywhere that will publicly declare the Macedonian Orthodox church graceless. I would be more than interested.

Please provide a link or reference.

At the most extreme, Orthodox know where God is but cannot know where God is not at work. Your Serbian friend is, I am afraid, attempting to bind the hands of God. He had better weigh his words carefully.

As for myself, I have no doubt that the sacraments of the Macedonian church are real sacraments, would your Pope agree? Does the CCC make a distinction between the Serbian church and the Macedonian church when it says:
***1399 ***The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.” ?

Neither do I, and neither should your friend.

Schisms like this are based upon political concerns. Would any Roman Catholic state unequivocally that the Catholic Patriotic Association in China is utterly Graceless? I should think not.

Do some Roman Catholics declare the PNCC totally Graceless, or the SSPX? Let’s get real here…schism is a problem but it’s just not THAT kind of problem. And the fact that the SSPX stands in striking public disobedience to the Pope of Rome is no reason for us to point at your church and claim that Catholics are divided. Your allusion to division in Orthodoxy is weak, you are trying just too hard to believe it yourself.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Your allusion to division in Orthodoxy is weak, you are trying just too hard to believe it yourself.

Last things first… Please don’t try to ascribe anything more to my intent, or what I am “trying to believe” than what I write.

If you can find an Orthodox bishop anywhere that will publicly declare the Macedonian Orthodox church graceless. I would be more than interested.

Please provide a link or reference.

Better still, please provide a link or refernce to the notions that you earlier write as being authoratative and truly representitive of a singular Orthodox stance. The purpose of my even bringing up my Serbian friend’s thesis, was that in his personal world view (which, God love 'em!) he would espouse with magisterial confidence, this is clearly what he feels is taught, and writes accordingly. Perhaps it should be asked, if you were to set the man straight with the correct and authoratative teaching, how would you do so?

However weak his arguments are, it remains that at the end of the day, he can have his personal thesis, you can have yours, and the rest of us in the hoi polloi are without recourse to a definative and authoratative teaching authority to settle the question…

Which brings us to:

As for myself, I have no doubt that the sacraments of the Macedonian church are real sacraments, would your Pope agree? Does the CCC make a distinction between the Serbian church and the Macedonian church when it says:

The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris

Excellent point, but it serves my own argument far better. The fact that we can flip the pages of the CCC to find an authoratative teacher, rather than latch on to our best speculation, or the theorist we find most credible.

You want to suggest and offer that there is a definative and qualitative difference between old believer schisms and Catholicism that is understood and readily agreed upon in Orthodoxy in darn near the same fashion that the Catholic position (via the CCC quote you took the time to offer!) can be comprehended and understood and clarification sought.

I ask, where is one to go for this to have confidence that such an understanding is definative and not just speculative?

Honestly, Michael, if you feel that I am simply trying too hard to illustrate divisions that either don’t really exist or don’t really matter… Well I have to confess that too many of my objections in this and other fora get “under rug swept” and apologists of good will and indifferent polemicists alike seem to be without direct and substanative reply to my question: ***“How can we take this your answer or thinking on a matter ‘to the bank’ so to speak and know that it is what Orthodoxy is unified in beleiving?” *** Your thoughts on the differences in these schisms versus the Orthodox churches and the Catholic Church. Where is that spelled out?

 

[Mickey]

Where is that spelled out?

Whatever do you mean? The Holy Orthodox Church has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils.

The Latin Church points to: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils

plus

Church magisterium, extra “councils”, and a few “infallible” statements ex-cathedra from the bishop of Rome.

So what do you mean by “spelled out”?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Whatever do you mean? The Holy Orthodox Church has Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils.

The Latin Church points to: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils

plus

Church magisterium, extra “councils”, and a few “infallible” statements ex-cathedra from the bishop of Rome.

So what do you mean by “spelled out”?

Mickey,

see: spelled out.

You really don’t understand that I am asking how one can know with certitude what the definative understandings of a matter are in light of these sources? Can you point to which of the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils, makes clear the modern Orthodox understanding of Roman orders, birth control, or, in the case of out most recent discussion, how we can know which of these sources gives clear and decisive support to Michael’s contention about the distinctive differences between intra-Eastern schisms and the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy?

 

[redrosetea]

I am sorry I did not identify the photos!!

I got them off of Wikipedia though. I think the photos are beautiful!

They are very beautiful

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, You really don’t understand that I am asking how one can know with certitude what the definative understandings of a matter are in light of these sources?

I just gave you the answer. You do not understand it.

Can you point to which of the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, writings of the holy fathers, seven great Ecumenical Councils, makes clear the modern Orthodox understanding of Roman orders, birth control, or, in the case of out most recent discussion, how we can know which of these sources gives clear and decisive support to Michael’s contention about the distinctive differences between intra-Eastern schisms and the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy?

Roman orders? Do you mean Latin Catholic Holy Orders? Why would the Holy Orthodox Church have a teaching manual on this?

Birth control–the allowance of non-abortive methods are rare and between the couple and their spiritual father (but you already knew that).

I do not know the meaning an intra-Eastern schism–in sounds like polemics.

Otherwise, a thorough study of the the sources I gave to you will provide the answers that you are looking for. The Latin Catholic Church has the same sources–plus a few more–but they have compiled much of it into the CCC (thanks to JP2).

I suppose I am still not understanding your questions. It seems that you are trying to pick a fight.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I suppose I am still not understanding your questions. It seems that you are trying to pick a fight.

No, I think you are not understanding them… I also don’t think you understand who (if anyone) is picking the fight here.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I just gave you the answer. You do not understand it.

No, you did not understand the question. All of the sources you listed, are used by well-meaning and sincere scholars who come to different conclusions. This is not at all unlike (only more nuanced) Protestants who demure that they have “the very Word of God, what more would you need?”

Roman orders? Do you mean Latin Catholic Holy Orders? Why would the Holy Orthodox Church have a teaching manual on this?

As you are aware, Catholic priests have become Orthodox. Catholics have become Orthodox. For consistency, continuity, and their pastoral care, having some understanding of the validity, invalidity, grace, gracelessness, whichever rather seems essential.

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch.

(2) SOME roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment…

(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of “Old Calendar” Orthodox - some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.

Birth control–the allowance of non-abortive methods are rare and between the couple and their spiritual father (but you already knew that).

Again, Mickey, it was not that I was asking about your personal ad hoc understanding on this, I have heard as much from others before… Some decry any artificial birth control, others well otherwise…

I do not know the meaning an intra-Eastern schism–in sounds like polemics.

Mickey, have you been reading this thread for the past several posts? The original matter of Hesychios’ opinion as to how the Old Ritualist, Old Calendarist and nationalist schisms are fundamentally different from the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic divide. I asked simply then, and I ask simply now, where is this distinction of his understanding made clear as the Orthodox view?

No, it is not just polemic. It is a real and sincere question regarding real groups. I am not the one who even brought them up.

Otherwise, a thorough study of the the sources I gave to you will provide the answers that you are looking for. The Latin Catholic Church has the same sources–plus a few more–but they have compiled much of it into the CCC (thanks to JP2).

It is the “plus a few more” that seems to make all the difference. The CCC is a one-stop shop for knowing what is taught on so many things. Issues can and are routinely decided and ruled on with some finality that it seems modern Orthodox national churches just can’t do similarly.

So as clearly as I can possibly ask, I want to know, when it comes to matters on which equally sincere and equally well educated parties differ on what constitutes the Orthodox thinking on a matter or matters, how can the hoy palloi clearly know what the definative answer is?

 

[Patrick1982]

No, you did not understand the question. All of the sources you listed, are used by well-meaning and sincere scholars who come to different conclusions. This is not at all unlike (only more nuanced) Protestants who demure that they have “the very Word of God, what more would you need?”

As you are aware, Catholic priests have become Orthodox. Catholics have become Orthodox. For consistency, continuity, and their pastoral care, having some understanding of the validity, invalidity, grace, gracelessness, whichever rather seems essential.

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch.

(2) SOME roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment…

(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of “Old Calendar” Orthodox - some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.

Again, Mickey, it was not that I was asking about your personal ad hoc understanding on this, I have heard as much from others before… Some decry any artificial birth control, others well otherwise…

Mickey, have you been reading this thread for the past several posts? The original matter of Hesychios’ opinion as to how the Old Ritualist, Old Calendarist and nationalist schisms are fundamentally different from the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic divide. I asked simply then, and I ask simply now, where is this distinction of his understanding made clear as the Orthodox view?

No, it is not just polemic. It is a real and sincere question regarding real groups. I am not the one who even brought them up.

It is the “plus a few more” that seems to make all the difference. The CCC is a one-stop shop for knowing what is taught on so many things. Issues can and are routinely decided and ruled on with some finality that it seems modern Orthodox national churches just can’t do similarly.

So as clearly as I can possibly ask, I want to know, when it comes to matters on which equally sincere and equally well educated parties differ on what constitutes the Orthodox thinking on a matter or matters, how can the hoy palloi clearly know what the definative answer is?

There’s really no problem here: all the instances you mention come down to pastoral decisions in economy as to the reception of heretics. There is no concept of “valid” and “invalid” Sacraments in the Orthodox Church. Quite simply put: there are no Sacraments outside the Church.

If a Roman Catholic priest is recieved without ordination it is an exercise of economy. If a Roman Catholic priest who married after their ordaination is recieved as a layman it is also a pastoral matter; and there are perfectly good reasons why a “priest” who married after his ordaination might not be considered to exercise the ministry of the priesthood upon reception into the Church. For those who were accepted: the reception of a married layman is no impediment to ordaination, however he be recieved.

No Catholic priest is ever “re-ordained”, they are only ordained, and it is not only the old calendarists who recieve heretic clergy thus. All these instances take into account personal situations. Thge Holy Spirit fills what is lacking in said heterodox “sacraments” Every single last person in your examples could rightly be expected to be baptized with the “one baptism for the remission of sins” and so forth, and every instance deviating from this most strict practice is an application of the canons and pastoral consideration in special circumstances.

Were it rightly insisted that every Catholic be recieved by baptism, you would be offended. When we recieve Catholics by other means you attempt to use it to contrive ‘inconsistencies’ in practice, applying foreign terms like “validity” and “invalidity” of Sacraments. Every last convert Catholic could be recieved by Baptism- that is the reality… does that consistency comfort you?The end is reception into the True Faith and the True Church, whether by Baptism, Chrismation, Vesting etc… there is no inconsistency.

 

[Hesychios]

Were it rightly insisted that every Catholic be recieved by baptism, you would be offended. When we recieve Catholics by other means you attempt to use it to contrive ‘inconsistencies’ in practice, applying foreign terms like “validity” and “invalidity” of Sacraments. Every last convert Catholic could be recieved by Baptism- that is the reality… does that consistency comfort you?The end is reception into the True Faith and the True Church, whether by Baptism, Chrismation, Vesting etc… there is no inconsistency.

I think you and I would both agree that when one is converting it does not matter any more! The people who are offended by the practice of reception have no desire to convert in the first place and really have nothing to say about it either way, it does not involve them.

When I was received into Holy Orthodoxy my bishop actually was willing to accept me through renunciation of errors, confession and communion!

To be perfectly frank about it, I was quite willing to be baptized if my bishop required it, I was so happy to be coming home I did not care one wit. Whatever it takes…

As it was, I told my pastor that I wished to be received by Chrismation along with the other candidates if he would agree, and so that’s how it was.

I have never regretted it.

 

[Mickey]

It is the “plus a few more” that seems to make all the difference.

I agree.

The CCC is a one-stop shop for knowing what is taught on so many things.

I agree with much of the CCC because it draws from the deep well of Sacred Tradition. I do not agree with most of the “plus a few mores”.

According to Rome, is the CCC considered to be an infallible book?

Issues can and are routinely decided and ruled on with some finality that it seems modern Orthodox national churches just can’t do similarly.

More polemics.

So as clearly as I can possibly ask, I want to know, when it comes to matters on which equally sincere and equally well educated parties differ on what constitutes the Orthodox thinking on a matter or matters, how can the hoy palloi clearly know what the definative[sic] answer is?

Hoy palloi?

Holy Orthodoxy speaks with a unified voice on matters that pertain to our salvation. On speculative matters, there can be healthy disagreement, but spiritual direction is provided by a person’s Spiritual Father (as the Tradition has been passed down generaton after generation for 2000 years).

 

[Mickey]

Quite simply put: there are no Sacraments outside the Church.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I agree with much of the CCC because it draws from the deep well of Sacred Tradition. I do not agree with most of the “plus a few mores”.

Where, when and how do you draw the line to self-determine what of the Sacred Tradition is reasonable, allowable, and accurate, Mickey?

According to Rome, is the CCC considered to be an infallible book?

My comment and question was not polemic. This most certainly is.

Originally Posted by ASimpleSinner
Issues can and are routinely decided and ruled on with some finality that it seems modern Orthodox national churches just can’t do similarly.

Than refute it. It is not polemics, just because you want to dismiss it as such.

Hoy palloi?

See here.

Holy Orthodoxy speaks with a unified voice on matters that pertain to our salvation. On speculative matters, there can be healthy disagreement, but spiritual direction is provided by a person’s Spiritual Father (as the Tradition has been passed down generaton after generation for 2000 years).

Mickey, I know I only invite my own aggravation to simply ask (like so many times before) wherein does your own particular confidence lie in what falls under “speculative matters” or definative teaching? You give an enthusiastic emoticon, for example, to the magisterial like pronouncements of:

Originally Posted by Patrick1982
Quite simply put: there are no Sacraments outside the Church.

Originally Posted by Patrick1982
There’s really no problem here: all the instances you mention come down to pastoral decisions in economy as to the reception of heretics. There is no concept of “valid” and “invalid” Sacraments in the Orthodox Church. Quite simply put: there are no Sacraments outside the Church.

Says whom? According to a given reading of patristics, this may be an easy conclusion to draw… But on the matter of reception of those into the national churches that comprise Orthodoxy… Well if “economy” (again, point to clear EC canons that spell out what is allowable under this so-often invoked practice!) offers latitude such that it is the local ruling hierarch’s own imperative to give a “yea or nay” to whichever guidelines he presumes to use in (among many things) recieving priests from the Catholic Church (to [re]ordain or not to [re]ordain?), receiving converts with or without [re]baptism or with or without chrismation, to (in the instance of the Antiochians in America) approve whole rites (the Western Rite Vicarate) and promulgate them as “Orthodox”…

Well, I have to say, that “Economy” - still only vaguely clear on how, when, wherer it can be defined or understood clearly - gives more autonomy and magisterial latitude to each and every single ruling hierarch than any Orthodox every dreamed the Pope had, even in their wildest polemics about the papacy.

Were it rightly(*) insisted that every Catholic be recieved by baptism, you would be offended.

No, Patrick, I would not. Perhaps you would be offended in my dismissal of this odd practice as being like unto the manifold other misinformed indignities Catholics who sadly cleave themselves from The Church suffer for themselves. I am no more offended by the idea that seperated churches of the East would error in such fashion than I am that Baptists would (and more often do!) insist on the same! So no, don’t worry about that I should be offended. I am not.

When we recieve Catholics by other means you attempt to use it to contrive ‘inconsistencies’ in practice, applying foreign terms like “validity” and “invalidity” of Sacraments.

Short of being able to point to a definitive and well enumerated theology on how to even approach the matter (preferably, I would suppose, from an Ecumenical Council that modern Easterners would maintain is the only source of definitive teaching) I don’t see how this can be concisdered an effort to “contrive ‘inconsistencies’”. On the face of it, these manners of reception ARE very different, inconsistent, and worthy of examination. Given how hard-fought the debates on Christological definitions were in the early councils, demanding and exactitude that lead to schism (a reality accepted in the face of how sternly so many of the Fathers were on how terrible a reality schism is!)… Well if you will indulge me a bit, it is indeed difficult to reconcile that wide divergence in praxis on some of these matters I have brought up over and against how important exact and precise definitions and theologies were in the face of some issues of controversy which seem every bit as important.

And in thinking this way, I don’t think I am alone on this matter. Curiously, it would seem that my view of concern over what on the face of it is rather inconsistent is in fact shared by certain parties in Orthodoxy that express their own misgivings about how converts have been received. What comes to mind is the situation of some convert priests who on visiting Mt. Athos, were subjected to demands that they (the convert priests) be baptized anew before concelebrating litrugy on the vernarable mountain.

So at the heart of my objections and questioning is the - once again - very same question that struck me after reading:

Every last convert Catholic could be recieved by Baptism- that is the reality… does that consistency comfort you?

and

The end is reception into the True Faith and the True Church, whether by Baptism, Chrismation, Vesting etc… there is no inconsistency.

…namely, what is your authority and definitive place to find understanding when you make these assertions?

 

[Mickey]

Where, when and how do you draw the line to self-determine what of the Sacred Tradition is reasonable, allowable, and accurate, Mickey?

Hmmm. That is what the protestants always say.

My comment and question was not polemic.

If you say so.

Than refute it.

I suppose you could start naming issues that you feel Holy orthodoxy are not able to “decide or rule on”. You may want to start separate threads on each issue.

Mickey, I know I only invite my own aggravation to simply ask (like so many times before) wherein does your own particular confidence lie in what falls under “speculative matters” or definative teaching?

An example of speculative matters for the RCC would include issues such as the fire and punishment of purgatory–or the now defunct teaching of limbo.

I have already answered you regarding sources for definitive matters but you do not understand. I am sorry that you aggravate yourself.

P.S–definitive is spelled with an “i”. Forgive me, but you use this word often so I thought that I should correct you.