Well, you cannot know with 100 percent certainty that Catholicism is not true - agreed?
Same with the CC. However, our faith is not the final arbiter; the CC is, just as it was at the various early-church councils e.g. Nicaea, Ephesus etc…
You make a good point. :thumbsup:Early church fathers, on their own, do not define dogma or resolve doctrinal differences. The church does. You mentioned that the Faith is the final arbitrator. How would faith have resolved the various doctrinal differences e.g. the Trinity, that existed in the early church?
Good point. Do the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a catechism or something similar, where I can access defined dogma/doctrines?
Shouldn’t you care? I do. After all, we are all in this together. We both have valid sacraments, which makes me wonder sometimes why it matters, in terms of church affiliation.
Oh…That’s too bad…That’s not the position of both churches though, Joe371. That’s only the RCC position regarding the EO. So I would think it still matters a great deal, since a criterion that is only used by one of the two parties in the first place can’t possibly be sufficient to judge the claims of both. That’d be like me deciding not to be Catholic because you guys don’t pray the Agpeya…that’s not even a thing your church does in the first place, so how silly would that be?
I cannot believe the the Eastern Orthodox Churches don’t view our sacraments as valid…Wow…
Lol…To be logical, only one church, after the schism, continued to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. As a former protestant I chose the only church that believes the following. In the protestant sphere no one church claims to teach inerrantly as the Holy Spirit ineffably guides them i.e. when it comes to doctrinal differences there is no way to resolve them, as the CC did in the 4th century, for example: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)
In my experience that is true. Many will accept Catholic baptisms through economy. But some (in my experience, especially ROCOR), will baptize Catholics again.Oh…That’s too bad…
au contraire! We firmly believe, teach and confess that everything we teach in our confessions is 100% the truth. While we don’t claim a charism of infallibility that would be comparable to, say, the papacy, we still believe our confessions are inerrant.
Well that might be a good thing. As Per Crucem pointed outOh…That’s too bad…
I don’t wish to speak for the EO here, but it is my understanding that they do not view any sacraments in terms of validity/invalidity, so it’s more a matter of a faulty criterion than them saying anything about RC sacraments. When I wrote that that’s just the RCC view of the EO I meant that only the RCC thinks of sacraments in terms of being “valid” or not, not that because you view EO sacraments as valid but they do not view yours similarly, therefore they view RC sacraments as “invalid”. Maybe this seems like a minor point, but it’s kind of important. Sorry for any confusion.Oh…That’s too bad…
I did not know that the Lutheran church claimed to teach infallibly aka inerrantly…
I know…I thought the same as a former non-Catholic, at least until I stopped listening to the very confusing and illogical protestant argument on petra/petros. Matthew 16 is so clear to me:
Inerrantly, yes. Infallibly, no. A minor, but huge difference. But it would be off topic to the thread, I suppose.
Understandable. I’d address it, but I don’t want to hijack the thread! Carry on, ye Catholic and Orthodox combatants. en garde!We have a guarantee from Jesus (the Invisible Rock) that our worst enemy (hell) will never destroy Jesus’ church built on Peter. That means doctrinal truth will never be compromised. Pretty cool…
Hey Mary. That is a good point. For example, let’s assume for the moment that they are right and that the pope’s primacy in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…centuries had only to do with his status as patriarch of the West alone i.e. the pope’s authority does not go beyond the jurisdiction of Rome, and the same goes for the others. Surely this would lead to a scheme of division into two parts: the West and the East. What about those areas, (back then specifically), beyond those particular cities i.e. if this was what God intended then who, in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…centuries, would hold the primacy over the various parts of the world that were unknown at the time of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem? Surely a universal primacy would be not only useful but also absolutely necessary in terms of maintaining unity such as the Petrine office. Hmm…
I don’t think anyone will mind: what’s the difference? Inerrant = truth that cannot be denied e.g. 2+2=4. Infallible = truth that cannot be denied e.g. 2+2=4. The source of that truth is God.
Oh…That’s too bad…
Well idk. I’d be pretty upset to find out Jesus was true but
I agree.
I have been told by some EO friends that the EOC teaches infallibly, and the complete opposite by other EO friends…I wonder if the EOC’s have an official teaching on this particular issue?Idk butto add to the confusion.I agree.
You make an interesting point. :thumbsup:Moreover, I do not see how an infallible decision can be made via a democratic process…Hmm…
Well I just added an edit.
Then there is the question of who has the legitimate right to grant autocephaly in Orthodox faith. For example, the Orthodox Church in America was granted autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church. However, it was not recognised by most patriarchates. The Russian Church claims that its own autocephaly allowed it the right to grant autocephaly to its constituent parts, whereas Constantinople claimed that, “in its capacity as the mother church and first among equals’”, the right to grant autocephaly belongs solely to an ecumenical council. Who can resolve this manner…?
Sin is relative…Wow, that is a different perspective…probably not a view shared by all of the EOC’s…