What are the arguments against Catholicism from the Eastern Orthodox that you often encounter?

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I thought that Vatican I was infallible?

I hope we are not confusing the anathema statements with infallibility? Infallibility is a negative doctrine, which protects the Pope who presides in the Chair of Peter teaching on faith and morals.

When I read the documents, it is clear to me, that the Church is declaring herself free from secular powers and secular rulers. Insisting that Christ is the head of the Church, and placing all parties on notice, that the Vicar of Christ on earth presides in the Chair of Peter with full and supreme authority over the sheep and lambs Jesus Christ entrusted Peter and his successors to feed and tend = rule. The Church is not subject to any secular powers.

There is nothing in the document you presented that authorizes any Pope to change an apostolic Liturgy.

Some of the Orthodox arguments against the infallibility doctrine and or objecting to the Chair of Peter as given supreme authority over the Church by Jesus Christ. Neglect the fact that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead and lives. The Pope is not alone. Jesus prayed for Peter’s faith not to fail and bring his brethren back.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The Pope was the first Protestant.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

“An1OrthodoxChristian, post:21, topic:451506, full:true”]

My Reply: This is very nice, but up until 1965ish the “policy” was very different. Just Google St. Alexis Toth and that whole sad affair.

The Alexis Toth affair deals directly with human personality error, although Father Toth’s Eastern cultural practices in the Church were objected by Priest in the West is shameful and sad. There is no historical evidence of a Pope trying to change Father Toth’s traditional liturgy.

My Reply: One does not “convert” to a Liturgy. We have different understandings of the role of the Liturgy and this plays out in our respective praxis.

Maybe you should ask Father Toth about his conversion?

My Reply: I can appreciate your kindness, but this is incorrect, as the sad fate of the Tridentine Liturgy demonstrates

I believe you are misinformed about the Tridentine Liturgy. Your comments are suggesting false conclusions without any substance.

“I have debated Orthodox on the Filioque here. I have yet to find one Orthodox who can accurately define the Latin Rite’s expression of the Filioque when professed in the Nicene Creed. When an Orthodox attempts to define the Filioque, they create a mythical monster.”

My Reply: Perhaps our troubles stemmed from the fact that Rome has changed it’s position since St Photius’ day. We are arguing with a position Rome no longer holds. The fact that you allow your Greek Catholics and others to omit the Filioque show that maybe there is something there to re-evaluate.

What you present here is inconclusive and very debatable. There is much positive to say about the Greek Catholics need not include the filioque in their apostolic liturgy. So long as they do not object to the filioque, or make false claims that it is heretical. Which most presently learned and informed Orthodox Catholics conclude the filioque is not heretical nor does it conflict with the apostolic deposit of faith.

cont;

 

[AlNg]

There is nothing in the document you presented that authorizes any Pope to change an apostolic Liturgy.

I thought that the Pope changed the Tridentine apostolic liturgy?

the Vicar of Christ on earth presides in the Chair of Peter with full and supreme authority over the sheep and lambs

Well, if he has full and supreme authority and jurisdiction, what does that entail?

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

cont;

My Reply: We object to trying to define the Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist. Why not just leave it alone? Your use of metaphysics and Scholastic speak to “explain” has created a stumbling block not just to us. The post modern world rejects metaphysics et al. The entire “intellectual” base from which you posit has been pulled out from under you. You can’t define what is incomprehensible. The fact that you tried was one of our early facepalms in dealing with you.

Now your false claims appear to have no limits. When the Eastern Church was plagued with heretics and heresies. The Church counseled to define an incomprehensible Trinity, Theotokos, which are mysteries. Your argument is baseless.

When your Arian heresy from the East tried to infect the West. The Eastern Arian heresy was defeated with the filioque. When secular powers from the science world attacked the Eucharist, the Church defeated these evil powers and principalities on their own terms with Transubstantiation.

For the record and for your information; Transubstantiation by Church definition only confirms a substantial Change has occurred in the bread and wine. You are incorrect to try and make a false claim that the Church “tried” to define a mystery. I find your Orthodox position has no boundaries when objecting to a subject, you are either misinformed or you have no understanding and respect of the Latin language and expression of our Catholic faith. This rings like Fr. Alexis Toth in reverse.

My Reply: We understand quite well. We reject the idea that Papal Supremacy is biblical or Apostolic.

I can’t help you when, you object or reject, Jesus singularly and personally leaving Peter with the divine keys and the authority to shepherd His flock on earth. Your argument against the Authority Jesus placed upon Peter does not begin until a secular power placed a Patriarch at Constantinople.

My Reply: The very assertion of Papal authority is considered a usurpation.

Not if Jesus has anything to do with Peter possessing the divine keys and authority to feed and tend the flock of Jesus Christ on earth. All other objections or rejections against the Chair of Peter comes from secular and carnal misunderstandings of Peter’s Supreme authority placed by God and in God.

NO MAN can separate what God has joined together.

Peace be with you

 

[AlNg]

I believe you are misinformed about the Tridentine Liturgy.

In what way? After Vatican II, the Tridentine liturgy was suppressed in favor of the New Mass (OF).

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

In what way? After Vatican II, the Tridentine liturgy was suppressed in favor of the New Mass (OF).

The Tridentine Liturgy is still celebrated around the world. It was the vernacular languages which had to change or as Cardinal Ratzinger’s goal was to bring all the vernacular languages especially the U.S English words back to the original apostolic Tridentine expression. Much of the Latin languages suffered minimal changes. But the goal was to get the vernacular languages expressing the same faith from the Tridentine faith expression so that all the world expresses One faith, One Lord in One baptism.

 

[AlNg]

The Tridentine Liturgy is still celebrated around the world.

I read somewhere that in the 70’s many priests who celebrated the Tridentine Liturgy were suspended and denied faculties? I believe that the Tridentine liturgy was suppressed. It was not eliminated completely. Orthodox may fear that their liturgy could be suppressed by the Vatican since the Pope has universal supreme authority and jurisdiction over the whole Church, east and west.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I thought that the Pope changed the Tridentine apostolic liturgy?

No. The Tridentine Mass became unpopular as the world became literate in their own languages. It was not suppressed. The Vernacular languages were given approval by the Pope to conduct Mass in each one’s respected Vernacular languages. The Tridentine Mass is making a come back.

Well, if he has full and supreme authority and jurisdiction, what does that entail?

Peter possessing Supreme authority and Jurisdiction over all the Church, protects all the bishop’s in the world. Peter’s supreme authority puts all secular powers in all ages in check, so as not to infect the Church or her bishops where ever they may be. Peter’s supreme authority protects the flock from local wolves.

Peter’s supreme authority does not dictate, secular policy, to the local bishop or autocephalus church’s, who have to maintain a peace with their local governments and secular powers. Peter’s supreme authority cannot and does not have authority to change any apostolic substance liturgical practices. Culture traditions and languages are subject to change but they cannot move from the apostolic faith practice and expression. When they do, the Supreme authority can place them back to Orthodoxy.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I read somewhere that in the 70’s many priests who celebrated the Tridentine Liturgy were suspended and denied faculties? I believe that the Tridentine liturgy was suppressed. It was not eliminated completely. Orthodox may fear that their liturgy could be suppressed by the Vatican since the Pope has universal supreme authority and jurisdiction over the whole Church, east and west.

I have not heard of this, but I don’t doubt that it may have taken place in the America’s. Especially in the U.S, where prejudices on race, language, creed, sex was slow to change. But the Tridentine Mass was never removed or changed in many of the Latin speaking countries.

Vatican II cleared up all the smoke about the tensions between Orthodox and Latin Catholics, when she declared there will be no trying to change the Orthodox to Latin Catholics in any way, but protect each ones’ apostolic liturgy and Traditions without change.

 

[AlNg]

But the Tridentine Mass was never removed or changed in many of the Latin speaking countries.

That is simply not true that the Tridentine Mass was never changed. The Tridentine Mass was unchanged from 1570 to 1955. The Roman Missal issued by Pope John XXIII in 1962 made several changes in the Tridentine Mass.

It incorporated the change made by John XXIII in 1962, inserting into the canon of the Mass the name of Saint Joseph, the first change for centuries in the canon of the Mass.
It incorporated major changes that Pope Pius XII made in 1955 in the liturgy of Palm Sunday and the Eastertime. And as well, it dropped the confiteor from the part just before the laity received communion.
Further, the OF of the Mass is now the New Mass. Before 1960, the OF was the Tridentine Latin Mass.
The Eastern Orthodox may have a fear that a future pope, using his universal supremacy and jurisdiction, may introduce changes in their apostolic liturgy.

I know of no document that declares a Pope to change an apostolic liturgy.

How then, did the Pope introduced changes into the Mass?

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“The Alexis Toth affair deals directly with human personality error, although Father Toth’s Eastern cultural practices in the Church were objected by Priest in the West is shameful and sad. There is no historical evidence of a Pope trying to change Father Toth’s traditional liturgy.”

My Reply: TECHNICALLY that is true on paper. However, the reality on the ground is that your “Eastern” Rites have for years now tried to undo and reverse centuries of Latinizations that were introduced. Your Eastern Rites only really started getting any modicum of real respect from Rome in the last century. It doesn’t require a Papal Bull.

“Maybe you should ask Father Toth about his conversion?”

My Reply: I could ask St. Alexis in prayer but his answer would probably be not to worry about such things.

“I believe you are misinformed about the Tridentine Liturgy. Your comments are suggesting false conclusions without any substance.”

My Reply: A cursory reading of this forum demonstrates I am not. Why was Summorum Pontificum necessary? Why did the SSPX go to the extremes they went to? Again, you hide behind technicalities. TECHNICALLY the Old Rite was never suppressed (on paper). The REALITY on the ground was much different.

“What you present here is inconclusive and very debatable. There is much positive to say about the Greek Catholics need not include the filioque in their apostolic liturgy. So long as they do not object to the filioque, or make false claims that it is heretical. Which most presently learned and informed Orthodox Catholics conclude the filioque is not heretical nor does it conflict with the apostolic deposit of faith.”

My Reply: Anything is debatable if you know what rhetorical flourishes to use.

So they don’t have to say it they just have to believe it anyway? How generous.

 

[An1OrthodoxChristian]

“Now your false claims appear to have no limits. When the Eastern Church was plagued with heretics and heresies. The Church counseled to define an incomprehensible Trinity, Theotokos, which are mysteries. Your argument is baseless.

My Reply: Saying my claims are false doesn’t magically make it true. I also thought we were one Church in those days? Perhaps not in your estimation.

“When your Arian heresy from the East tried to infect the West. The Eastern Arian heresy was defeated with the filioque. When secular powers from the science world attacked the Eucharist, the Church defeated these evil powers and principalities on their own terms with Transubstantiation.”

My Reply: Your reading of history is abit, shall we say, oversimplified. I encourage you to read more deeply on the subject. Apologetic tracts don’t quite do it.

“For the record and for your information; Transubstantiation by Church definition only confirms a substantial Change has occurred in the bread and wine. You are incorrect to try and make a false claim that the Church “tried” to define a mystery. I find your Orthodox position has no boundaries when objecting to a subject, you are either misinformed or you have no understanding and respect of the Latin language and expression of our Catholic faith. This rings like Fr. Alexis Toth in reverse.”

My Reply: So we will say and do anything to win an argument? Nice.

“I can’t help you when, you object or reject, Jesus singularly and personally leaving Peter with the divine keys and the authority to shepherd His flock on earth. Your argument against the Authority Jesus placed upon Peter does not begin until a secular power placed a Patriarch at Constantinople.”

My Reply: Perhaps if you wanted to discuss the debate in more depth it would be helpful, nasty remark about the Ecumenical Patriarchate aside

“Not if Jesus has anything to do with Peter possessing the divine keys and authority to feed and tend the flock of Jesus Christ on earth. All other objections or rejections against the Chair of Peter comes from secular and carnal misunderstandings of Peter’s Supreme authority placed by God and in God.”

My Reply: Again, merely asserting this doesn’t make it true.

“NO MAN can separate what God has joined together.”

My Reply: Doesn’t the Church have the power to bind and loose?

“Peace be with you”

My Reply: You cannot give what you don’t possess

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

“AlNg, post:36, topic:451506”]
That is simply not true that the Tridentine Mass was never changed. The Tridentine Mass was unchanged from 1570 to 1955. The Roman Missal issued by Pope John XXIII in 1962 made several changes in the Tridentine Mass.

What you relate to change is subject to change. For example; those things which are Ecclesial, disciplinary outside of the substance of the Mass such as the Liturgy of the Word or the Liturgy of the Eucharist instituted by Christ Himself is not subject to change.

I repeat the Tridentine Mass has not changed. I believe Pope Benedict XVI sums up my position here; Pope Benedict XVI declared it inappropriate to speak of the versions of the Roman Missal of before and after 1970 as if they were two rites. Rather, he said, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.[18]

Traditional Catholics teach; "Pope Pius V’s edition of the Roman Missal, of which he said that the experts to whom he had entrusted the work collated the existing text with ancient manuscripts and writings, restored it to “the original form and rite of the holy Fathers” and further emended it.[19] To distinguish this form of Mass from the Mass of Paul VI, traditionalist Catholics sometimes call it the “Mass of the Ages”,and say that it comes down to us “from the Church of the Apostles, and ultimately, indeed, from Him Who is its principal Priest and its spotless Victim”.

In short the Tridentine mass is the ordinary mass in the Roman rite
What you speak of as changes which are ecclessial and disciplinary in the Latin rite is called extraordinary. Both the Ordinary Mass (Tridentine) is not changed, when the extraordinary renditions to the Ordinary Mass, welcomes the faithful to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in their languages and understanding that places the new ages on the same page as our ForeFathers and Apostles.

Some of these disciplinary changes are reformed back to the Gregorian Latin Mass which predates your 1570 latin mass that experienced some disciplinary changes.

cont;

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

cont;

It incorporated the change made by John XXIII in 1962, inserting into the canon of the Mass the name of Saint Joseph, the first change for centuries in the canon of the Mass.

Remember all things Ecclessial and disciplinary are subject to change.
The intercessary prayer, what is considered outside the Mass, again a disciplinary matter changed St. Joseph Patron Saint of the Universal Church and inserted St. Joseph the Worker. These extraordinary renditions of the Mass do not infect the substance of the Liturgy. Secondly, these renditions suffered abuse and neglect. One of the main reasons the Church moved to adjust her liturgy to a changing world, societies cultural changes, languages etc. so that all new ages are not removed from the apostolic unchanging liturgy instituted by Christ and handed down to us by Peter and Paul.

St.Paul the apostle teaches for the church to pray for all those in authority. Why did the Orthodox remove (changed) the name of the bishop of Rome for your prayers at Mass?

It incorporated major changes that Pope Pius XII made in 1955 in the liturgy of Palm Sunday and the Eastertime. And as well, it dropped the confiteor from the part just before the laity received communion.

These disciplinary and Ecclessial changes did not change the Liturgy, but placed them to be celebrated in a common sense time frame. For example; the Vigil Mass is done in the evening or night for the blessing of fire instead of the morning. The confiteor was not dropped, because I still recite it at Mass as well as the Penitential Rite. I remember reciting the Confiteor in Latin with my parents as a child. Maybe the confiteor was relocated in the English rendition of the Mass? to this particular subject I admit, I have no knowledge of the Confiteor was dropped?

The Eastern Orthodox may have a fear that a future pope, using his universal supremacy and jurisdiction, may introduce changes in their apostolic liturgy.

Your fear is well founded. Although the Catholic Church is Rock that does not change. When the world populace languages, culture, thinking and understanding which is subject to change. The Church in her wisdom has adjusted to these changes. For example; the apostles reveal that they changed by appointing presbyters to assist them at the Lord’s table. The infant church changed by taking the blessed Sacrament to the sick and dying. Do the apostles themselves change their liturgy, by adding these renditions to their apostolic practice? When their members were growing leaps and bounds.

How then, did the Pope introduced changes into the Mass?

It wasn’t from the document you provided. The extra ordinary changes began in 1570 down to 1970. When the Popes assigned experts to investigate languages and understandings of their time for the Parishioners to maintain an Apostolic faith. Especially at times when the Catholic faith came under attack…

Peace be with you

 

[Crocus]

Many bishops (including Cardinal Newman) opposed promulgation of the doctrine formally.

From what I have read, Cardinal Newman absolutely accepted the doctrine of infallibility. Perhaps your information is from his young years?

 

[Constantin]

Other things, not mentioned so far, which are not so much theological in nature, but rather matters of discipline/ liturgical practice. However, as lex orandi, lex credendi, those in the end concern
faith after all:

• female altar servers
• laymen homilies
• decline of importance of confession, especially as a requirement for receiving
• decline of fasting in general: Many Orthodox take this much more serious, fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays and (among others) before Easter and Christmas

Now, those are points that are probably not decisive for a theological discussion, but are much more important when it comes to “average” Orthodox who know a thing or two about Catholicism.
Especially with the last two items, I am inclined to agree with them.

 

[AlNg]

Your fear is well founded.

Well, then, that could be another reason why any reunion between Catholics and Orthodox may be very difficult to achieve.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Well, then, that could be another reason why any reunion between Catholics and Orthodox may be very difficult to achieve

What I mean by your fear is “well founded” relates to holding to your Orthodoxy. Which according to Vatican II, you have nothing to fear from the Pope.

The lack of communion, in my opinion, between the Orthodox and the bishop of Rome, deals with pride of men and pronouncements on each side that places one or the other in a box.

As far as the reunion between the Orthodox and the bishop of Rome. Sacramentally there is no schism between the Church and Christ, which is supreme. The lack of communion on earth between Orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome has never had a bridge to link one to the other in communion. In this lack of a bridge that can serve both communions does not exist.

Therefore, a stale mate has occurred within the schism. Until a bridge can be made between the Orthodox bishop’s and the bishop of Rome, the church militant will remain in schism. Ecumenical efforts should be made on both sides to build such a bridge for both communions instead of holding to the tensions that feeds the schism between the Orthodox and the bishop of Rome.

Peace be with you

 

[AlNg]

Until a bridge can be made between the Orthodox bishop’s and the bishop of Rome, the church militant will remain in schism. Ecumenical efforts should be made on both sides to build such a bridge for both communions instead of holding to the tensions that feeds the schism between the Orthodox and the bishop of Rome.

I doubt that the Orthodox will accept the universal jurisdiction and supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.