What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[Wandile]

The abbot John, scribe of Honorius, and author of the letter to Sergius stated explicitly that he and Honorius spoke of Christ’s humanity solely when saying he has one will.

Debate over Honorius was not a monothelite

 

[Alex_H]

I feel like this thread never answered the title question, which is “What makes Catholicism true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy?”

 

[Alex_H]

So if both churches are true and have valid sacraments, how am I supposed to choose between them?

 

[mattp0625]

So if both churches are true and have valid sacraments, how am I supposed to choose between them?

It’s a good point.
It matters if you believe Christ created one church and did not make allowances for conflicting doctrine in His church

 

[Alex_H]

It’s a good point.
It matters if you believe Christ created one church and did not make allowances for conflicting doctrine in His church

Fair enough. The Orthodox churches agree with each other, however, correct?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

There are plenty of differences. As for the ones that seriously divide us they would be both the matters of papal supremacy and the Filioque clause. A clear decision would have to be made on these to resolve the schism.

These other issues are also serious, but could be left alone and permitted as theological opinions not mandated for all believers:

1.) The Immaculate Conception
2.) Marriage and Divorce
3.) The small present differences between Original Sin and Ancestral Sin

This seems to sum up the big differences.

I feel strongly regarding the Catholic position regarding the Immaculate Conception. All Chrisitians should accept this as part of the deposit of faith. The Orthodox not accepting this is problematic for me.

The Orthodox position on marriage as being acceptable in some circumstances is problematic to me as their position goes against scripture (IMO). The Orthodox position is problematic for me.

I do not understand the Orthodox position on Ancestral sin well enough to have an opinion. The Catholic position on Original sin makes sense to me.

The Catholic position regarding papal authority makes sense to me and is backed by historical context. The Orthodox position seems lacking to me. I don’t even think most Orthodox deny papal authority, but that their position is that Rome has ‘fallen away from the truth’.

I just don’t understand the Filioquy controversy or why this separates the two Churches. I’ve read the arguments on both sides and I just don’t get the angst.

 

[mattp0625]

This seems to sum up the big differences.

I feel strongly regarding the Catholic position regarding the Immaculate Conception. All Chrisitians should accept this as part of the deposit of faith. The Orthodox not accepting this is problematic for me.

The Orthodox position on marriage as being acceptable in some circumstances is problematic to me as their position goes against scripture (IMO). The Orthodox position is problematic for me.

I do not understand the Orthodox position on Ancestral sin well enough to have an opinion. The Catholic position on Original sin makes sense to me.

The Catholic position regarding papal authority makes sense to me and is backed by historical context. The Orthodox position seems lacking to me. I don’t even think most Orthodox deny papal authority, but that their position is that Rome has ‘fallen away from the truth’.

I just don’t understand the Filioquy controversy or why this separates the two Churches. I’ve read the arguments on both sides and I just don’t get the angst.

There are many reasons for the separation. While there were issues is doctrine, it’s also about the bishop of Rome’s primacy (some make arguments against Peter as the rock of the church) as well as the sack of Constantinople during the crusades which they blame on the pope as though he had his own personal army. He excommunicated the soldiers who were from all over Europe

 

[Peter_J]

So if both churches are true and have valid sacraments, how am I supposed to choose between them?

If I might give a question in response to another question, how is it that you’re unable to decide which church you should join, but able to decide which churches have valid sacraments?

 

[mattp0625]

If I might give a question in response to another question, how is it that you’re unable to decide which church you should join, but able to decide which churches have valid sacraments?

Theoretically, any church with valid apostolic succession can issue Eucharist- if they also believe it to be the body and blood, soul and divinity. To me, that does not mean they are all in communion with Christ’s true church (e.g. Due to schism, etc.)

 

[Alex_H]

If I might give a question in response to another question, how is it that you’re unable to decide which church you should join, but able to decide which churches have valid sacraments?

The Orthodox church recognizes the Catholic Church’s sacraments as valid. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox church’s sacraments as valid.

 

[prodromos]

The Orthodox church recognizes the Catholic Church’s sacraments as valid.

I’m pretty sure we are agnostic about Catholic sacraments.

 

[Micosil]

The Orthodox church recognizes the Catholic Church’s sacraments as valid. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox church’s sacraments as valid.

I will not speak for all Orthodox, but many Orthodox I’ve spoken to on the Internet (there’s very few here in Spain) bluntly and specifically state that the Catholic Church lost Apostolic Succession in 1054 and ever since then, no Catholic priest has ever celebrated a single valid sacrament. One even told me that baptism isn’t even valid.

Obviously, I do not accept this argument, not because I’m going to become Catholic of course, but because schism itself isn’t an absolute deal-breaker as far as validity of Sacraments go. Churches like the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, etc.) or the Assyrian Church of the East split off from the Church much before the Schism of 1054, and to this day, they still have valid sacraments.

And I’ve heard talks of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox wanting to be in communion with each other, and they’ve been separated from each other longer than Eastern Orthodox have been from the Catholic Church. Yet many Orthodox bluntly deny our sacraments yet want to establish communion with churches who were historically linked to non-Chalcedonian Christology (which is of course not really the case anymore, as Popes and Patriarchs from those churches have met and have come to the conclusion that it’s not really non-Chalcedonianism that they espouse, but that is not the point). Go figure.

 

[Rohzek]

The letters of Honorius were burned because they were destructive to the Church and favorable to the heretical contumacy of Sergius, not indeed, in doctrine, but in their approbation of the rule of silence and in too great lenity toward the heresiarch. They are condemned not because they contained the same impiety as the writings of the others, but because “ad unam eademque impietatem tenderent;” they tended (in the Greek concurred) to one and the same impiety." J.H.R.

That’s not what Pope Leo II said. He condemned Honorius as “and one with these [Sergius et al.] the Roman Honorius who…” He places a special emphasis on Honorius for staining the faith.

He did condemn Honorius for permitting the Church to be stained but no where did he claim Honorius taught heresy. I realized this may be the deciding factor. Did he intent to teach infallibly or was it an administrative concession to preserve the peace of the Church?

I’m not addressing infallibility here. Also, this claim makes no sense whatsoever. Pope Leo II denounced Sergius et al in the same way as Honorius. This is why he used “pariterque” for “equally” when denouncing them. Honorius was guilty of heresy in the eyes of Leo II. See my following post for why:

See here

Believe in 2 wills is properly basic. Christ in the Godhead has always existed. Hence his divine will is never in question. But as Man with human nature, does he have a human will or only divine will? Sergius asked if he has both won’t he have contrary wills? Honorious answered, not if Christ assumed the unfallen will which is always in conformity with the divine. Don’t you agree this position is very reasonable? Christ has one single human will which is the unfallen contrasted with Rom 7:23 which alludes to both corrupt(members) and uncorrupt (mind) wills.

Inclination towards sin in no way implies two contrary wills in a person. Furthermore, I wouldn’t even dare to say that Christ’s human will was never in some sort of struggle against what the divine will was. I cannot possibly know the answer to that. A good case example is Adam and Eve before the Fall. Their human nature was perfect, yet they still sinned.

I think he didn’t realise what he wrote can be construed by the heretics to be supporting their cause. If there is no intent, there can’t be guilt. And he clearly said he didn’t want to define anything. And his second letter is orthodox, at least that is the view of many others which may be different from you. The Popes and Maximus think he is not guilty. You think he meant divine vs human wills, others including me think it is fallen vs unfallen human will. There is nothing to suggest Honorius intended to teach monothelitism either. May be an independent language expert can shed some light.

I don’t think Honorius intended to be on the wrong side of the debate either. That doesn’t change the fact that he started from a fundamentally monothelite position, linking will to personhood rather than nature. And it is improper to claim that the popes thought Honorius was innocent. Leo II clearly thought Honorius was guilty.

I think we have both given our arguments for our respective stances. I believe we won’t be able to progress much further. Hence , it think it is timely to call it a day and agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

 

[Kmon23]

I will not speak for all Orthodox, but many Orthodox I’ve spoken to on the Internet (there’s very few here in Spain) bluntly and specifically state that the Catholic Church lost Apostolic Succession in 1054 and ever since then, no Catholic priest has ever celebrated a single valid sacrament. One even told me that baptism isn’t even valid.

Obviously, I do not accept this argument, not because I’m going to become Catholic of course, but because schism itself isn’t an absolute deal-breaker as far as validity of Sacraments go. Churches like the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Armenians, etc.) or the Assyrian Church of the East split off from the Church much before the Schism of 1054, and to this day, they still have valid sacraments.

And I’ve heard talks of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox wanting to be in communion with each other, and they’ve been separated from each other longer than Eastern Orthodox have been from the Catholic Church. Yet many Orthodox bluntly deny our sacraments yet want to establish communion with churches who were historically linked to non-Chalcedonian Christology (which is of course not really the case anymore, as Popes and Patriarchs from those churches have met and have come to the conclusion that it’s not really non-Chalcedonianism that they espouse, but that is not the point). Go figure.

Whether schism is a deal-breaker regarding the validity of sacraments or not is a Catholic argument which has a different sacramental theology hence why it’s still possible for schismatic churches to have valid sacraments. Orthodox theology does not address this hence on any official level, we are pretty agnostic on this issue regarding Catholic arguments. And to say that the Oriental Orthodox still have valid sacraments mean’s one already accepts the Catholic viewpoint of this, which is not the same for everyone (Orthodox viewpoint).

And it makes sense why Eastern Orthodox are more willing to establish communion with OO than with Catholicism because the Christological issues may be due to misunderstanding on both sides. I mean, both of us accept St. Cyril’s terminology and language in expressing Christology at the Council of Ephesus. If anything the Second Council of Constantinople puts to rest of any Nestorian interpretation of Chalcedon, hence in that context OO do not have to worry as much (still need dialogue of course). With Catholicism it’s a whole different issue because there are clearly established dogmas in Catholicism that Orthodox just can’t accept.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read that the pope was under pressure in taking such a position, and later supported him, explaining Honorius’ position.

Problem we are in Schism…we need both and great theologians to mend.

 

[Rohzek]

I read that the pope was under pressure in taking such a position, and later supported him, explaining Honorius’ position.

Problem we are in Schism…we need both and great theologians to mend.

This is highly unlikely. Could you provide the source or elaborate a little, so that I might get further context? The Byzantine hold on Italy by 680 was fragile and precarious. Considering that the Papal State began to form soon thereafter, it is difficult to imagine any imperial official pressuring the papacy.

 

[Vico]

Hello so I have had this question for awhile now, and recently debating an Eastern Orthodox made me requestion this. Obviously the Catholic Church is true compared to Protestantism, and we both agreed upon this. How do we know it is true compared to Eastern Orthodoxy? Both were almost indistinguishable and many still see no difference. How do we know the Roman Catholic Church is true?

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, 2007

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Wandile]

Rohzek Leo never condemned Honorius as a monothelite but for negligence. He says as much in various letters where he even overturns the council rulings and stated he was guilty of negligence

Further Honorius was not a monothelite. The pope was speaking about the contrary wills of the flesh and spirit in fallen human nature, something which st Paul even speaks about, and Honorius even references. He stated Christ has one human will rather than contrary wills of flesh and spirit as fallen human nature has.

Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply

• “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.”*
  This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius and who actually penned the notorious letter together with Pope Honorius said:
• “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely*.”
  St. Maximus “the Hammer” of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics:
• “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.”*

Further Honorius states in his letter to Sergius, numerous statements that fundamentally destroy monothelite doctrine. This claim of Honorius being a heretic is old and tired. He was not one and yes the council got it wrong. As we know ecumenical councils judgements of persons are not infallible, as history has shown the councils contradicting each other when it comes to judgements on persons. One only needs to look at Chalcedon and the Constantinopolitan council for blatant overturns of previous conciliar decisions.

 

[Peter_J]

I will not speak for all Orthodox, but many Orthodox I’ve spoken to on the Internet (there’s very few here in Spain) bluntly and specifically state that the Catholic Church lost Apostolic Succession in 1054 and ever since then, no Catholic priest has ever celebrated a single valid sacrament.

There are people on both sides who place enormous importance on 1054. (Indeed, it was on that basis that 16th-century Catholics added eight, yes 8, post-1054 councils en masse to their list of ecumenical councils.) However, more objective (hopefully) recent examination by scholars, historians, etc indicates that 1054 was really not very significant.

 

[Rohzek]

Rohzek Leo never condemned Honorius as a monothelite but for negligence. He says as much in various letters where he even overturns the council rulings and stated he was guilty of negligence

I keep hearing references to these other letters of Leo. Please show them to me. I’ve read quite a number of letters by Leo II, and I don’t know what you are talking about. I happen to be using the same exact letter that people usually use to defend Honorius. The problem is that people place undue emphasis on the passive voice rather than on the adverb “equally,” the verb “consentio” (which is much stronger than its English cognate), and the important phrase “and one with these the Roman Honorius…” Unless you can show me or at least give me the reference for the other letter of Leo II that you speak of, I don’t think Leo ever overturned his decision to confirm Honorius as a heretic.

Further Honorius states in his letter to Sergius, numerous statements that fundamentally destroy monothelite doctrine. This claim of Honorius being a heretic is old and tired. He was not one and yes the council got it wrong. As we know ecumenical councils judgements of persons are not infallible, as history has shown the councils contradicting each other when it comes to judgements on persons. One only needs to look at Chalcedon and the Constantinopolitan council for blatant overturns of previous conciliar decisions.

Setting aside your other points, which have already been hashed out extensively in this thread, I made it abundantly clear that Honorius never said anything that dismantles Monothelitism. Again, Honorius consistently referred to the hypostatic union in the letter that people claim to be clearly orthodox. The hypostatic union was never up for debate in the turmoil of Monothelitism. Monothelitism is not Monophysitism. In fact, the Monothelites declared that there had to be one will in Christ solely because of the hypostatic union. Likewise, the dithelites based their reasoning on the hypostatic union as well. I am assuming that these are the statements that you are referring to, but I really do think them to be ancillary to Monothelitism.

St. Maximus “the Hammer” of the Church and Martyr also insisted that Honorius maintained only one human will in Christ not one will in toto. He wrote that heretics:

• “lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming that Honorius to be one with their cause.”*

I guess I will address this point again. Maximus was obviously wrong if the papal legate himself at the Council of Cyprus in 633/634 joined the monothelites in condemning Maximus as a heretic based upon Pope Honorius’ letter.

Pope John IV (642), confirmed Honorius’ intention, stating that Honorius’ purpose was to simply

• “deny contrary [human] wills of mind and flesh.”*
  This was later confirmed by the Abbot John, who was a scribe and the secretary to Honorius and who actually penned the notorious letter together with Pope Honorius said:
• “We said that there is one will in the Lord, not of his divinity or humanity, but of his humanity solely*.”

Again this doesn’t matter so much. Part of the Monothelite reasoning was that because Christ didn’t have this stain of Original Sin, there was thus no clear distinction between human and divine wills. Since there was no distinction, the Monothelites believed there to be only one will.