What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn't?

[Rawb]

You see, you haven’t even bothered contesting the actual quote I posted (with context), and already you’re rejecting it out of hand, and by the way the quote does state that the pope “holds his place”, perhaps you conveniently forgot to read that part which states he is forever Peter’s successor. Moreover, my quote wasn’t meant to justify universal infallibility, but the unique place which Peter and his successor, the Pope (Bishop of Rome) holds in the Church, i.e., he represents the HEAD (of the earthly Church).

What does “contesting a quote” look like to you? Didn’t I respond to the quote? I said you mis-interpret it.

Maybe you’re unaware: Orthodox do not deny that Peter is the head of the Apostles, nor that the Roman Church had a place of primacy. That’s understood. What we disagree with is how that primacy was carried out, what it meant, and how it is to be used. So there’s nothing to disagree with in the quote except what I pointed out as being non-existent within the quote. I’m sorry, I assumed you knew that. If you expect us to deny that a quote existed or something you’ll be disappointed.

No, it is not a knife that cuts BOTH ways because our Church does not claim that the Orthodox are heretical.

So it’s not heresy to say the Pope isn’t infallible, ever, under any conditions? It’s not heresy to say that he is completely unnecessary to the Catholicity of The Church? It’s not heresy to say that the Roman Catholic church teaches heresy?

Oh spare me, this is a debate forum, if you cannot “cast your pearls” than don’t bother entering the discussion, especially if you’re going to offer lame arguments like we’re “cherry picking” without offering an explanation of said quote we’re supposedly “cherry picking”.

This isn’t a debate forum, or at least doesn’t always have to be. I don’t come to debate, I come to educate about misunderstandings about Orthodoxy. That can mean presenting what we believe and leaving it at that. If you want to debate people that doesn’t mean anyone has to take your bait.

Though, again, I did offer a different interpretation of your quote, you were just apparently expecting me to claim counterfeit or that it didn’t apply. I’d suggest a greater education of Orthodox belief is in order if you want to ‘debate’ them.

 

[sharpag]

Leo’s tome was read and hailed as truth at Chalcedon. It was the Robber Council that attempted to reject what was taught. Additionally, the bishops declared with one voice that Peter spoke through Leo at Chalcedon. I know they argued with the Roman delegates about not letting the Alexandrian Patriarch sit, but they eventually acquiesced. Chalcedon actually convinced me more of primacy.

The Robber Council treated the Papal legates poorly, but in the end it was nullified and Leo’s Tome was acclaimed at Chalcedon.

My point was missed. The point was that both councils (which saw themselves as continuing in the Apostolic tradition, regardless of whether or not that is the case) did not feel the need to merely accept Leo’s Tome because it was from the Pope of Rome. Ephesus II, just to clarify, did not reject Leo’s Tome, Dioscorus did not allow it to be read (I’ve heard it argued this was to prevent it from being rejected but that is neither here nor there). Leo’s Tome is rather difficult to reconcile with Cyril’s anathemas (I think it can be done given Cyril’s clarifying statements which only happened after Theodosius briefly accepted both the conciliabulum and Ephesus). However, the reason the Tome was eventually accepted had nothing to do with the Pope’s authority and/or power, it had to do with the fact that his teaching was found to be in agreement with Ephesus. It also took a few days of studying the Tome to reach this conclusion, which would not be needed unless there was a possibility it could be in error. There was no conception of the Pope of Rome as being above theological reproach.

Yes, Peter spoke through Leo but it was not because Leo was the Pope, it was because he was teaching the proper faith. It is an honorific exclamation and nothing more.

 

[josie_L]

St. Basil denied what would fall under the authority of the papacy according to the First and Second Vatican Councils (that is, the authority of the Pope to grant the legitimate and licit exercise of episcopal orders, by virtue of communion with him) as merely the authority of man, when he heard a rumor that the Pope had entered into communion with Paulinus and not Meletios, whose legitimacy as bishop of Antioch, he believed to be God-given.

Forgive me, Cavaradossi, but St. Basil may disagree with the pope if it was truly warranted (such a case is readily available to us in scripture) without it hindering his role as visible head of the Church. Moreover, St. Basil confirms with his own letters the importance of that see and being in communion with it:

". . . . The reason is that in every district the champions of orthodoxy have been exiled from their churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have come to see the visit of your mercifulness as the possible solution of our difficulties.

In the past, I have ever been consoled by your extraordinary affection; and for a short time my heart was cheered by the gratifying report that we shall be visited by you. But, as I was disappointed, I have been constrained to beg you by letter to be moved to help us, and to send some of those who are like-minded with us, either to conciliate the dissidents and bring the churches of God back into friendly union, or at all events, to make you see more plainly who are responsible for our unsettled state, that it may be clear to you, for future reference, with whom it befits you to be in communion. In this I am by no means making a novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case.

For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed Bishop Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well for soundness of faith as for all other virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caesarea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity. But now our condition is yet more painful and gloomy and needs more careful treatment. We are lamenting no mere overthrow of earthly buildings, but the capture of churches. What we see before us is no mere bodily slavery, but a carrying away of souls into captivity, perpetrated day by day by the champions of heresy.

If you are not, even now, moved to console us, before long all will have fallen under the dominion of the heresy, and you will find none left to whom you may hold out your hand. NPNF 8: 166-167

I do not believe St. Basil would not deny the fact that to be part of the Church one had to be in communion with the bishop of Rome, moreover, the bishop of Rome does not “GRANT” anything:

The bishops themselves, however, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit, are successors of the Apostles as pastors of souls.(3) Together with the supreme pontiff and under his authority they are sent to continue throughout the ages the work of Christ, the eternal pastor.(4) Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the command and the power to teach all nations, to hallow men in the truth, and to feed them. Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them.(5)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html

Their authority is of divine origin however that authority must be utilized within the confines of the Church, i.e., only those who are in communion with the head are able to exercise their authority legitimately, i.e., this is by divine institution.

Well, not really. The Council of Ephesus itself almost became a robber council, because St. Cyril in his zeal began the proceedings early (a more cynical interpretation being that he tricked the Emperor’s representative into reading the Imperial Sacra early, before the Antiochene party arrived, thus beginning the council) causing an ecclesiastical crisis. There is no indication that the Pope’s authority to ratify the Synod through his legates extended beyond his own personal endorsement and jurisdiction in Suburbicarian Italy to be universally binding. Rather there is every indication that the council gained universal acceptance only after the Formula of Union was worked out two years later, and only under the conditions that some depositions performed by the council (namely, that of John of Antioch) would not be in effect, and that St. Cyril should have to accept dyophysite Christology as a legitimate way to express the union of the two natures.

Was it not stated at a universal council that Pope Celestine, as perpetual successor to St. Peter, is the head of the universal Church/faith??

 

[marywarfield]

Do you really believe that a 2000 year old Church doesn’t have adequate answers to seemingly objectionable quotes from their own saints and Scriptures? Think about it, what you’re suggesting is that when Orthodoxy runs into something that might seem, from an American, Western perspective, to refute some aspect of it, that the Orthodox have basically either said “Oh…I’ve never thought of that. In 2000 years nobody has ever noticed what you said and come up with why we still believe as we do” or “No, I don’t care, I’m so stubborn as to reject what Christ has said and we will do what we want, despite our entire purpose being obedience to Christ.”

It’s the same exact attitude you face when Protestants say that your church is unbiblical or something. It either speaks to enormous hubris on the part of the accuser, or to a lack of seriously considering your opponents argument or belief; deciding beforehand it must be wrong.

Think: do we really not have answers to Roman Catholic objections, or do we just not have answers that satisfy you and your interpretation of translations of ancient quotations? Are we really that naive, ignorant, and/or stubborn? Are we copping out, or are we tired of arguing the same points, often with the same people, who aren’t interested in what we have to say but just wait till it’s time to post their next talking point?

Oh well that argument doesn’t fly because RC and EC both
claim same age and can say the same thing.
It’s kind if like trying to determine protein grams by
arguing which came first- the chicken or the egg?

How in the WORLD do you get to OC being older than
EC or RC?
That’s like saying Christians in Emmaus are more with it
than Constantinople because John could get to
Emmaus first. Or St Paul was less correct than John
cause he was baptized two years later. Really?

 

[dzheremi]

At the risk of being dragged into an argument that I absolutely don’t want to have and needn’t really concern me anyway (as I’m neither Roman nor Byzantine, so I can just sit back and laugh at both of you, if I want to…sadly, today is not a laughing sort of day ), it should be pointed out that just as RCs see themselves as the unbroken apostolic church which is founded and led by Christ and hence all others being the result of some schism at any number of particular points in time, so too the Eastern Orthodox see themselves in that role. So the idea that saying that the Eastern Orthodox Church is older than the Catholic Church involves counting literal years, months, or miles that might separate one apostle’s journey to a particular place from another’s to another place is quite silly. No one denies that St. Peter and St. Paul eventually went to Rome, for instance (though there may be some debate as to exactly when, just as there is debate regarding when exactly St. Mark first arrived in Alexandria, or St. Thomas in India, etc. among people who do not accept the conventional dates), but the point is: What faith did they establish there? Is it the faith that the Eastern Orthodox claim is the apostolic faith once and for all delivered unto the saints, or is it the faith that the Roman Catholic Church claims is hers and can also be described as such? If you (either of you, EO or RC) are not in fact holding to that faith, then the actual year of an apostle’s arrival in a particular place is completely immaterial. It is the faith that matters. Many heresies were contemporaneous with Orthodoxy in the early church, but we do not accord them any sort of pride of place for being really, really old, since at the same time they were also really, really wrong.

 

[MichaelinMD]

Oh well that argument doesn’t fly because RC and EC both
claim same age and can say the same thing.
It’s kind if like trying to determine protein grams by
arguing which came first- the chicken or the egg?

How in the WORLD do you get to OC being older than
EC or RC?
That’s like saying Christians in Emmaus are more with it
than Constantinople because John could get to
Emmaus first. Or St Paul was less correct than John
cause he was baptized two years later. Really?

You schismed from us.

Oh, no we didn’t, YOU schismed from us.

Nope, you schismed from US.

And so on, ad nauseum…

And this is where so very many of these “discussions” ends up.

 

[josie_L]

What does “contesting a quote” look like to you? Didn’t I respond to the quote? I said you mis-interpret it.

No, you did nothing of the sort.

Maybe you’re unaware: Orthodox do not deny that Peter is the head of the Apostles, nor that the Roman Church had a place of primacy. That’s understood. What we disagree with is how that primacy was carried out, what it meant, and how it is to be used. So there’s nothing to disagree with in the quote except what I pointed out as being non-existent within the quote. I’m sorry, I assumed you knew that. If you expect us to deny that a quote existed or something you’ll be disappointed.

First, the quote mentions that Rome is the true successor to Saint Peter, not Constantinople, not Alexandria, not Antioch, but Rome. Secondly, Rome holds the primacy not because Rome was once an imperial/capital city of the empire, but because its bishops were successors to St. Peter (do you see what I’m getting at). Thirdly, the bishops of Rome are his successors in perpetuity eek, and fourthly, Pope St. Celestine like St. Peter was/is head of the faith/Church, i.e., to be head of something must mean you have more than a primacy of “honour”, it must entail a certain hierarchy.

So it’s not heresy to say the Pope isn’t infallible, ever, under any conditions? It’s not heresy to say that he is completely unnecessary to the Catholicity of The Church? It’s not heresy to say that the Roman Catholic church teaches heresy?

Perhaps if you were to explain yourself better I could understand what you were trying to say.

This isn’t a debate forum, or at least doesn’t always have to be. I don’t come to debate, I come to educate about misunderstandings about Orthodoxy. That can mean presenting what we believe and leaving it at that. If you want to debate people that doesn’t mean anyone has to take your bait.

But if you are going to partake in a discussion and give a flimsy argument than you’re going to get people to debate you, thus, offer a proper explanation as to why we are cherry-picking when we quote a Father of the Church, i.e., it is not enough to SAY we are “cherry-picking”.

 

[marywarfield]

You schismed from us.

Oh, no we didn’t, YOU schismed from us.

Nope, you schismed from US.

And so on, ad nauseum…

And this is where so very many of these “discussions” ends up.

Nonsense. In my house eggs always come before
chickens and get popped straight into the incubator.
They will either come to fruition or explode and stink
up the place!

No wait! Had to edit cause I get the eggs from the
chickens but then those chickens came from the eggs…
Man it stinks around here!

 

[MichaelinMD]

Nonsense. In my house eggs always come before
chickens and get popped straight into the incubator.
They will either come to fruition or explode and stink
up the place!

No wait! Had to edit cause I get the eggs from the
chickens but then those chickens came from the eggs…
Man it stinks around here!

LOL!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Actually, no, they did not acquiesce. The Senate refused to exclude Dioscoros from being seated until specific charges were brought against him, meaning that Poe Leo simply saying that Dioscoros should not be seated among the council did not itself warrant excluding him.

From what I’ve read (both Coptic and Catholic sources), what went on is somewhere between your claim and PeaceinChrist’s claim. What actually went on was that there was a compromise. The Papal legates wanted to exclude Pope St. Dioscorus from the Council altogether, with no vote or seat. The Council did not expel the Pope, but neither did they allow him to vote (he did not have the usual seat of a Patriarch, but was made to sit among the other bishops). So it is not as if the Council was altogether unwilling to follow the Pope’s exhortations. I like how an EO once put it - the Pope had great authority, but it was by virtue of auctoritas, not necessarily the potestas that we know of today. Vatican 1 did not present a new ecclesiology. It merely encoded as potestas the authority that the Pope of Rome has always had by virtue of auctoritas. Of course, this potestas is extremely exaggerated by certain Catholics (in pretended support of the papacy) and by certain non-Catholics (a reductio ad absurdum argument in opposition to the papacy)

This approaches the matter of a first millennium council from the anachronistic lense of a late second millennium ecclesiology. The legates and the pope alone were not understood as having the authority to nullify what was considered valid, which is why the council for two years was official religious policy in the Eastern half of the Empire. Rather, they -]only/-] had the ability to object that what was regarded as valid by some was in fact not valid. It was, therefore, not by the Pope’s authority alone that the Second Council of Ephesus was found to be null by the Council of Chalcedon…

With the corrections above, I would agree 100% with this portion of your post.

Blessings

 

[Per_Crucem]

You schismed from us.

Oh, no we didn’t, YOU schismed from us.

Nope, you schismed from US.

And so on, ad nauseum…

And this is where so very many of these “discussions” ends up.

It’s a good thing the RCC and the EO have infallible authorities so that those sorts of disputes can clearly be resolved for the faithful

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist)

 

[mardukm]

St. Basil denied what would fall under the authority of the papacy according to the First and Second Vatican Councils (that is, the authority of the Pope to grant the legitimate and licit exercise of episcopal orders, by virtue of communion with him) as merely the authority of man, when he heard a rumor that the Pope had entered into communion with Paulinus and not Meletios, whose legitimacy as bishop of Antioch, he believed to be God-given.

Not really. The issue was not ordination of a bishop (“legitimate and licit exercise of episcopal orders,” as you put it), but the recognition of patriarchy. Two different things. Pope St. Damasus never doubted or questioned that St. Meletius was a bishop. What happened was that the Roman Pope summoned both claimants to Rome to settle the matter, but St. Meletius was in exile at the time, and Paulinus was the only one that showed up. In the absence in Antioch of any other claimant, the Pope granted Paulinus the charge. But the letter of the Pope made absolutely no deprecatory remark about St. Meletius in his letter accepting Paulinus (despite Paulinus’ attempts to demean St. Meletius character to the Pope). St. Meletius and Pope St. Demasus were never out of communion, proven by the fact that a local Synod held under St. Meletius appealed to Pope St. Damasus on the issue of the Holy Spirit, the Pope’s very response being a basis for the Secondf Ecum’s eventual teaching on the Holy Spirit. The ONLY “proof” often offered for the CLAIM that Rome and Antioch were out of communion was the Pope’s acceptance of Paulinus. But, as noted, the Pope only accepted Paulinus because he was the only one, at the time that the Pope considered the matter, that could be present in Antioch to lead that Church, since St. Meletius was in exile. He did not accept Paulinus in explicit rejection of St. Meletius.

Well, not really. The Council of Ephesus… There is no indication that the Pope’s authority to ratify the Synod through his legates extended beyond his own personal endorsement and jurisdiction in Suburbicarian Italy to be universally binding…

Not true. The Council of Ephesus’ letter to Pope St. Celestine asking for his confirmation explicitly affirmed, “The zeal of your holiness for piety, and your own care for the right faith…are worthy of all admiration. For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own care.”

I don’t see any mention here of “suburbicarian Italy.” With all due respect, perhaps you are imposing a bit of the “anachronistic late second millenium ecclesiology” of the EO on the matter?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Precisely my point!

And I’ve been around the block enough times and in enough churches, East and West, and spoken with enough people, both in the CC and the OC to know quite well that both “sides” are equally guilty of “cherry picking”. But, when my Church, through the Magisterium, teaches me something, as a member and as a believer, I must trust her. Otherwise, what point would there be of being a believing member?

That is of course fine that you believe the teachings of your church. In fact I would find it sad if it were otherwise.

An issue I’ve noticed with these forums is that many Roman Catholics (rarely Eastern Catholics) extend the idea that if the Church says it, or interprets it in that manner, it should be good enough for everyone.

I’ve noticed the odd Orthodox member get into these cherry picked quote wars with Catholics - in fact I’m sure I have once or twice before I learned better - but I don’t see Orthodox members starting them.

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry, but in many of the quotes that I had provided (in the past) context was given, i.e., context was/is also provided for Matthew 16:18 (Isaiah 22:22 . . . ), it’s a cop out to say that we are cherry-picking, you simply don’t have an argument against the quotes we give, and therein lies the problem.

I’m making a general statement. I don’t specifically remember the cases you’ve brought it up the quotes, there have been some legitimately good discussions on what the Church Fathers have said, but I do know that when there is discussion on any of these quotes, and the full context is brought up, there is still always room for interpretation and it is never a cut and dried “This had to have been what was meant, therefore your entire religion is wrong”.

 

[Peter_J]

I’ve noticed the odd Orthodox member get into these cherry picked quote wars with Catholics - in fact I’m sure I have once or twice before I learned better -

There’s something I’ve been meaning to say (Edit: not about you ): I suspect that most of us (whether Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or whatnot) have a bit of (if you will) an “addiction”. The Internet would contain much, much less garbage if those who recognize it as garbage would “vote with their feet” … and yet I’m always seeing just the opposite: the more obvious it is that a certain blog or post is garbage, the more eager people are to respond to it.

 

[Nine_Two]

There’s something I’ve been meaning to say (Edit: not about you ): I suspect that most of us (whether Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or whatnot) have a bit of (if you will) an “addiction”. The Internet would contain much, much less garbage if those who recognize it as garbage would “vote with their feet” … and yet I’m always seeing just the opposite: the more obvious it is that a certain blog or post is garbage, the more eager people are to respond to it.

You can say it isn’t about me but it fits me to a T.

 

[Rawb]

Oh well that argument doesn’t fly because RC and EC both
claim same age and can say the same thing.
It’s kind if like trying to determine protein grams by
arguing which came first- the chicken or the egg?

You might misunderstand me. I never said Roman Catholicism doesn’t have adequate responses for why she teaches as she does. Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, almost completely logical. It’s just not true. Logic doesn’t always equal truth, in the Real world. So when one suggests “you have no answer to that quote!” they’re, quite frankly, being ridiculous, because of course there’s an answer to the quote. Romans have an answer for every question posed to them - whether the answer is true or not is the difference. If we have no way of determining whether or not their answer is true, we have to decide if we find it convincing.

Roman Catholic answers are perfectly justifiable, I just don’t find them convincing. You have an answer for every objection - I don’t believe your answers are true. I’m simply saying one should afford other groups that same consideration. To claim “it’s a cop out” because you don’t understand or don’t find the answer satisfactory says more about you than it does about the organization which provides the answer - after all, that organization’s answer is satisfactory to millions of people around the globe.

(I’m not responding to the argument i didn’t make)

No, you did nothing of the sort.

I, in fact, did. If you don’t find the answer satisfactory that is not my problem.

First, the quote mentions that Rome is the true successor to Saint Peter, not Constantinople, not Alexandria, not Antioch, but Rome. Secondly, Rome holds the primacy not because Rome was once an imperial/capital city of the empire, but because its bishops were successors to St. Peter (do you see what I’m getting at). Thirdly, the bishops of Rome are his successors in perpetuity, and fourthly, Pope St. Celestine like St. Peter was/is head of the faith/Church, i.e., to be head of something must mean you have more than a primacy of “honour”, it must entail a certain hierarchy.

The italicized is things I didn’t argue. You would debate (as you seem to like to do) better if you stuck to the subject. Introducing other topics is sloppy work. Keep your argument tight.

The bolded is your interpretation of certain passages that are up for debate, if someone wanted to play with you. I don’t.

Perhaps if you were to explain yourself better I could understand what you were trying to say

.

I said it plainly, and don’t care to defend what I said.

But if you are going to partake in a discussion and give a flimsy argument than you’re going to get people to debate you, thus, offer a proper explanation as to why we are cherry-picking when we quote a Father of the Church, i.e., it is not enough to SAY we are “cherry-picking”.

Ah, I see, you’re just upset at the designation of cherry-picking. Well in Orthodoxy everything is interconnected and holistic. The Faith is the final arbitrator. Thus, to say “this Father said otherwise!” is going to be automatically seen as cherry-picking, because it doesn’t matter if St. _________ said X, if X isn’t in accord with the teaching of The Church, then to go and find this or that saint that agreed with you is going to be seen as cherry-picking.

This might be difficult for Roman Catholics who understand certain people to have so much more influence that The Faith. The Faith is subject to how the Bishop of Rome interprets it. We don’t have that, so to try to find this or that quote which one can say “Ah-ha!” with isn’t going to work. You’d have to show how The Church at large taught X and how we then changed. You must first learn what Orthodoxy believes now, which is difficult for Roman Catholics because the paradigms in which we work is so different. Ditch Scholasticism and embrace Spiritual Revelation if you want to try the experiment.

Of course, I imagine most of what you’re thinking is “that whole answer is a cop-out.” We’ve been told that before. We don’t care if you don’t understand. If you’re supposed to, the Holy Spirit will enlighten you.

But now I’m done. I’ve never been a fan of merry-go-rounds (love the analogy). You can ride as long as you like, but I think I’ll disembark.

 

[marywarfield]

It’s a good thing the RCC and the EO have infallible authorities so that those sorts of disputes can clearly be resolved for the faithful

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist)

Yes it is, isn’t it?

 

[marywarfield]

You might misunderstand me. I never said Roman Catholicism doesn’t have adequate responses for why she teaches as she does. Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, almost completely logical. It’s just not true. Logic doesn’t always equal truth, in the Real world. So when one suggests “you have no answer to that quote!” they’re, quite frankly, being ridiculous, because of course there’s an answer to the quote. Romans have an answer for every question posed to them - whether the answer is true or not is the difference. If we have no way of determining whether or not their answer is true, we have to decide if we find it convincing.

Roman Catholic answers are perfectly justifiable, I just don’t find them convincing. You have an answer for every objection - I don’t believe your answers are true. I’m simply saying one should afford other groups that same consideration. WHYo claim “it’s a cop out” because you don’t understand or don’t find the answer satisfactory says more about you than it does about the organization which provides the answer - after all, that organization’s answer is satisfactory to millions of people around the globe.

(I’m not responding to the argument i didn’t make)

I, in fact, did. If you don’t find the answer satisfactory that is not my problem.

The italicized is things I didn’t argue. You would debate (as you seem to like to do) better if you stuck to the subject. Introducing other topics is sloppy work. Keep your argument tight.

The bolded is your interpretation of certain passages that are up for debate, if someone wanted to play with you. I don’t.

.

I said it plainly, and don’t care to defend what I said.

Ah, I see, you’re just upset at the designation of cherry-picking. Well in Orthodoxy everything is interconnected and holistic. The Faith is the final arbitrator. Thus, to say “this Father said otherwise!” is going to be automatically seen as cherry-picking, because it doesn’t matter if St. _________ said X, if X isn’t in accord with the teaching of The Church, then to go and find this or that saint that agreed with you is going to be seen as cherry-picking.

This might be difficult for Roman Catholics who understand certain people to have so much more influence that The Faith. The Faith is subject to how the Bishop of Rome interprets it. We don’t have that, so to try to find this or that quote which one can say “Ah-ha!” with isn’t going to work. You’d have to show how The Church at large taught X and how we then changed. You must first learn what Orthodoxy believes now, which is difficult for Roman Catholics because the paradigms in which we work is so different. Ditch Scholasticism and embrace Spiritual Revelation WHOSEif you want to try the experiment.

Of course, I imagine most of what you’re thinking is “that whole answer is a cop-out.” We’ve been told that before. We don’t care if you don’t understand. ** then why are you here???Slow day?** If you’re supposed to, the Holy Spirit will enlighten you.

But now I’m done. I’ve never been a fan of merry-go-rounds (love the analogy). You can ride as long as you like, but I think I’ll disembark.

 

[joe371]

If we’re going to cherry-pick Saints’ writings, a huge number of early Saints also said that eating more food than is required by the body is also sinful. If we’re saying contraception is sinful because the Fathers said so, why are we not also discussing people who indulge more dessert than they should?

I am just saying that I believe a double-standard exists. It seems we are selectively saying “Look! This thing is sinful or good because the Fathers said so” on only a choice number of topics - particularly, the big ones which divide our faiths.

What I find interesting is the fact that both the EOC and the CC have valid sacraments from which life-giving grace flows from God. If that is the case then does it really matter which church one selects?