What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Kmon23]

This is new to me. Can you point me to a source where this is the understanding, perhaps the Church Fathers or an authoritative source? I almost want to blurt out that it is ridiculous for Jesus to mean that. A single man is all you need to prevent the gates of hades from prevailing?

Yep. The idea of the pentarchy is more like a theory that have been proposed by some but nevertheless is not regarded more than that. If anything, any knowledgable Orthodox probbably rejects such an idea that the Pentarchy is the standard for upholding true doctrine considering how they have all had some patriarchs who have been heretical. And considering that there have been times when not all five have existed (considering Constantinople as a Patriarchate did not exist until later).

And in terms of the gates of hades not prevailing against the church, we just never define it such a clear cut way as Catholics do like “the Pope will never err.” And as far as I am concerned, as long as the Pope has not erred, the gates of Hades has not prevailed considering the Pope is the source of Catholic unity and doctrinal truth, so even in Catholicism I would say that a single person is necessary for hades not to prevail (and I would also say this when I almost became Catholic).

The Orthodox view of hades not prevailing is more along the lines of that the truth will always be maintained in some form by those in the church, and that it will always prevail in the end (whether it be one person or not, we really don’t define but I assume even a single person is enough). Example, the Arian heresy. At some point, the majority of the church in the East would be Arian. Yet, after much struggle later, the true teaching of the Trinity and the Council of Nicaea triumphs. So hades was not able to prevail over the church. Heresy may infect the people of the church, but it may never triumph over it as the truth will always be maintained by some, and ultimately this truth will prevail over the heresy.

 

[Kmon23]

Yes, I do believe that you are right in regards to the other faiths. The Church of Rome does indeed teach that there are elements of truth throughout the religions of the world, as God inscribes into our hearts and souls His Word. I believe that we are taught that which is true can remain and only that which is heterodox must be thrown away. The fullness of Truth can be found in the Eastern Churches and the Church of Rome unlike any other place in the world.

It truly is interesting in regards as to how we called ourselves in the first millennium! And yes, I do seem to believe that the Eastern Church referred to itself as Orthodox much later after the schism and only to differentiate from Rome. The universal Church was called one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church though it was St. Ignatius of Antioch that called the universal Church as Catholic!

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —*Letter to the Smyrnaeans *

One of my favorite quotes and if reunion does happen, let’s keep the name!
The faith I believe was referred to as the orthodox faith and we were all called simply Christians.

Thank you for the response brother! I have another question. What are some of the most beautiful churches that have been built by our Eastern Brethren? I would love to visit some in the future.

Considering I’m a recent convert, I’m not too knowledgeable yet about Orthodox churches. Although the obvious one is the Hagia Sophia , the Christ the Savior Moscow Cathedral, and Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco. Others I will have to refer to other Orthodox to answer.

 

[Peter_J]

And in terms of the gates of hades not prevailing against the church, we just never define it such a clear cut way as Catholics do like “the Pope will never err.”

Actually though, what St. Robert Bellarmine claimed was that if a Pope erred (more precisely, fell into heresy), then he would instantaneously cease to be Pope.

Now, I realize you may not agree with that claim – heck, I myself, a Catholic, like to think that I’m a lot less ultramontane than Bellarmine was – but my point is that it is a much different picture of a non-erring Pope than simply “the Pope will never err.”

 

[Kmon23]

Actually though, what St. Robert Bellarmine claimed was that if a Pope erred (more precisely, fell into heresy), then he would instantaneously cease to be Pope.

Now, I realize you may not agree with that claim – heck, I myself, a Catholic, like to think that I’m a lot less ultramontane than Bellarmine was – but my point is that it is a much different picture of a non-erring Pope than simply “the Pope will never err.”

I have heard of that response but that seems counter to what I have learned. And it’s somewhat of a useless infallibility because then a Pope can err anytime then, since he isn’t Pope anymore. Then how do we know if he has erred or not? And it seems to contradict the idea of infallibility itself that he is protected from erring when using his office and authority as Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

I have heard of that response but that seems counter to what I have learned.

But learned from whom? The Catholic Church isn’t a website (even if that website has catholic.com or .org or whatever in the address).

And it’s somewhat of a useless infallibility because then a Pope can err anytime then, since he isn’t Pope anymore. Then how do we know if he has erred or not?

I guess it was “useful”, if I might call it that, to Roman Catholics (like Bellarmine) who wanted to be able to say that no Pope has ever been in heresy.

And it seems to contradict the idea of infallibility itself that he is protected from erring when using his office and authority as Pope.

But Papal Infallibility only applies if he makes an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Micosil]

I have heard of that response but that seems counter to what I have learned. And it’s somewhat of a useless infallibility because then a Pope can err anytime then, since he isn’t Pope anymore. Then how do we know if he has erred or not? And it seems to contradict the idea of infallibility itself that he is protected from erring when using his office and authority as Pope.

It depends on what precisely the Pope is doing when making a statement. You’d agree that when writing First and Second Peter, Peter was infallible while doing that specific action, yes? So is the case during specific actions and circumstances of Popes.

 

[Kmon23]

But learned from whom? The Catholic Church isn’t a website (even if that website has catholic.com or .org or whatever in the address).

Time in RCIA and from a college course on Catholicism.

But Papal Infallibility only applies if he makes an ex cathedra statement.

That’s what I meant when regarding using his authority and office as Pope since the charism of infallibility is not tied inherently to the person per say but through the office (I was a bit ambiguous, my bad). I usually refer to the wording of Richard Gaillardetz in “By What Authority” that for the extraordinary magisterium (ex cathedra) is when “the pope could only teach infallibly, ex cathedra… as the universal pastor of the church” (pg 83). Hence my wording. My mistake.

And regarding whether it’s counter to what I’ve been taught, I guess I’m a little confused regarding Bellarmine. So it’s somewhat tangent but if you could clarify something for me regarding Bellarmine’s teaching: regarding Papal infallibility only applying to extraordinary magisterium/ex cathedra, yes that is true in Catholic teaching (although (that’s what I meant in my previous statement about “Pope can never err”), but I would assume that is the context Bellarmine is speaking of as Pope John XXIII taught that the beatific vision was not seen until the final judgement, which was condemened by Pope Benedict XVI in Benedictus Deus. If falling into heresy was not applied to ex cathedral statements since a pope cannot err in such a circumstance and is then referring to a Pope falling into heresy in normal circumstances, then clearly Pope John XXII seems to have fallen into heresy, and as such should have been immediately removed from his office as Pope? And then there’s the fact that a pope cannot be deposed as he is the highest authority, and as such how do we know if a Pope has fallen into heresy, hence we know he can be deposed since he has ceased to be Pope (and otherwise can’t if he still remains to be Pope). Unless I’m missing something with the finer details of what is means by “falling” into heresy, whether its about formal heresy, or yet to be defined dogma? I’m not an expert on Bellarmine’s work regarding the papacy, hence maybe I’m misunderstanding this position.

But referring to another post I’ve read, that Bellarmine actually asserts that a Pope cannot fall into heresy?

Confiteor Deo;13330350:

The Pope, if he falls into heresy, would cease to be the Pope according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church”.

That assertion is a counter-factual hypothetical. If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain. The Pope cannot cease to be a member of the Church, since he is its Head and the Rock on which it is founded.

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, believed that no Pope could fall into heresy, nor teach heresy at all. See this book by Cardinal Manning:
tinyurl.com/ouedzov
Bellarmine condemned the idea that the Pope could ever be a heretic or teach heresy. He also believed it probable that the Pope “cannot in any way be heretical, or publicly teach heresy”.

 

[Peter_J]

Time in RCIA and from a college course on Catholicism.

OIC. (I’ve been accustomed to people citing catholic.com etc as “proof” that Catholics believe this or that. I guess I’d forgotten that there are people who don’t do that. )

But referring to another post I’ve read, that Bellarmine actually asserts that a Pope cannot fall into heresy?

Well again, IF a pope was in heresy then according to Bellarmine he wouldn’t really be Pope. But, frankly, I’m not here to argue on behalf of ultramontanist Catholics, even if they asked me to. (Though I seriously doubt they would: they’re very keen on arguing on their own behalf, as can easily be seen by looking at CAF.) The only official teaching on the Pope being without error is when (or if) he makes an ex cathedra teaching (assuming, of course, that he is still pope when he does so).

 

[Peter_J]

If falling into heresy was not applied to ex cathedral statements since a pope cannot err in such a circumstance and is then referring to a Pope falling into heresy in normal circumstances, then clearly Pope John XXII seems to have fallen into heresy, and as such should have been immediately removed from his office as Pope?

To be honest, I would be interested in hearing what a “sede vacantist Catholic” would say to that – they generally base themselves on Bellarmine’s notion. But at the same time, what they’d say doesn’t really affect me one way or another.

 

[Micosil]

To be honest, I would be interested in hearing what a “sede vacantist Catholic” would say to that – they generally base themselves on Bellarmine’s notion. But at the same time, what they’d say doesn’t really affect me one way or another.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[Alex_H]

Don’t Orthodox believe in the infallibility of their patriarchs?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Don’t Orthodox believe in the infallibility of their patriarchs?

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held before Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome. They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or nonexistent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome.

This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”

Having said that, Council of Chalcedon is where the proverbial you know what hit the fan.

 

[Alex_H]

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held before Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome. They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or nonexistent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome.

That makes sense.

This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema.”

Wow, that is a pretty clear refutation on the current Orthodox position.

 

[benjamindt]

That makes sense.

Wow, that is a pretty clear refutation on the current Orthodox position.

Seems to me (in my silly opinion) more a political problem with EO patriarchs and the primacy of Peter. Maybe a little jealousy and greed back in the day. What better way to prop up one’s own position in the Church than to deny the primacy of Peter and his successors and then to break away and cause yourself to be the final authority on earth.

I’m not trying to be rude, that’s just how it seems to me. I don’t know that it’s true, only God knows what was in the hearts of the patriarchs of the EO churches 1000 years ago.

 

[KathleenGee]

The most perfect communion we will see will be with the papacy and all bishops of the world as one.

I believe this will be the greatest converter to the world, our universal communion – respective of each other’s traditions.

The pope is the sign of universal unity. But such a council works with each other. When no decision can be made…then it lands on the pope. But it is not set in stone, until a better proposition comes along.

In the past, when the universal church did have its conflicts, such final decisions were sent to Rome. There were times the pope would defer to the Eastern bishops and other times back to the Pope. Alot of mistranslations came about at the time of the Great Schism and the higher ups on both sides know it.

So it is important that all of us seek communion, and the true perspective past events.

 

[Vaseljen]

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held before Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome. They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or nonexistent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with Rome.

This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, who said "Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].The matter is closed. Let him who will not listen to Leo be anathema."

Having said that, Council of Chalcedon is where the proverbial you know what hit the fan.

Taken out of context.

Plus, this bothers me too, Eastern Schism? What happened with the west? There was only west and east, that is half, actually, there were many self-governing Churches back then, and they all sided with Constantinople against Rome. Truth is all those Churches were Eastern, because Rome did not allow any self-governing Church in the west, then Rome wanted to spread it’s jurisdiction on the East, and that is when Rome as the only Church then in the west cut it self from the Eastern Churches.

And Orthodox Church does not believe that it cant hold Ecumenical Council without Rome, right about now, there is an debate among Orthodox bishop, should they accept the Council held in Constantinople in 1351 as Ecumenical. That is after the schism.

 

[Rohzek]

Don’t Orthodox believe in the infallibility of their patriarchs?

Nope. As to what is necessary for infallibility, there are a number of theories in Orthodoxy. Despite the plethora of theories we somehow manage to agree on all major issues whatever school of thought we belong to. I suppose that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

That makes sense.

Wow, that is a pretty clear refutation on the current Orthodox position.

Actually, Orthodox have an easy answer to this one. If you look at the full acta of the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo the Great suggested a number of items. A number of them the council flat out rejected and did quite the opposite. The best example of this is the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria. The reason the bishops had spoken so well of Leo in this one instance regarding the matter of the hypostatic union was solely because he spoke correct dogma unapologetically. Therefore, if anyone rejected Leo’s statement, who was a successor of Peter, then naturally they rejected correct dogma in favor of orthodox dogma. One obeyed Leo not because he was Leo, but because he spoke correct dogma. That’s how the Orthodox Church understands this. So I would at least caution you in understanding this matter as a done deal and case closed. If the question of papal supremacy could be solved and answered so easily, then there would never have been a schism in the first place.

 

[Peter_J]

(Emphasis mine.)

Thank you. I often get a bit lost in these threads, because of all the references to Catholics (usually on the Internet) whose opinions I’m not familiar with, and don’t really feel I need to know anyhow.

 

[Alex_H]

Nope. As to what is necessary for infallibility, there are a number of theories in Orthodoxy. Despite the plethora of theories we somehow manage to agree on all major issues whatever school of thought we belong to. I suppose that is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Actually, Orthodox have an easy answer to this one. If you look at the full acta of the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo the Great suggested a number of items. A number of them the council flat out rejected and did quite the opposite. The best example of this is the elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria. The reason the bishops had spoken so well of Leo in this one instance regarding the matter of the hypostatic union was solely because he spoke correct dogma unapologetically. Therefore, if anyone rejected Leo’s statement, who was a successor of Peter, then naturally they rejected correct dogma in favor of orthodox dogma. One obeyed Leo not because he was Leo, but because he spoke correct dogma. That’s how the Orthodox Church understands this. So I would at least caution you in understanding this matter as a done deal and case closed. If the question of papal supremacy could be solved and answered so easily, then there would never have been a schism in the first place.

Fair enough.

 

[kotim]

Politics from within the pre schism Church and external to the Church interfered with the development of the Universal Faith.

There is no doubt that the Bishop of Rome had more than a mere honour of being first, for it is nothng but pure vanity to grant rights and priveliges that mean nothing. Now the Bishop of Rome has never in modern times made ex cathedra statements that did not take into consideration the views of other Bishop or indeed the Historical teachings of the Church.

Can anyone please point out to me where the Bishop of Rome has made an ex-cathedra statement that is completely new to the Church, imagining like he just got up one morning and decided to make some new teachings

Can anyone provide an example. Make sure you do your research properly if you think you can provide them.