What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark_Antony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComeHome2Rome said:
I, a Roman Catholic, via adult conversion (RCIA) years & years ago, prefer the Eastern Christian Spiritual Life most.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you found a good home in Catholicism, and you have managed to find that which appeals to your needs for spiritual nourishment in both the Latin and Eastern Catholic Church traditions. That’s great!

This goes to the point of my question. Now that you have found your spiritual home, so to speak, does your spiritual life seem like a stronger, more integral part of your very being?

At the risk of giving away my hypothesis, I do feel that well grounded Catholic and Orthodox faithful alike tend to veiw their spiritual life (including their Church affiliation) as a very essential part of the core of their being. That’s one reason why ecumenism is so very challenging.

We see the same dynamic in party politics, for example. In America, most of us may claim to be Democrat or Republican (or at least assoicate more closely with one or the other), yet it becmes very difficult to reach consensus on anything without remembering that we are, above all, Americans.

I do believe, praise God, that there always will be such a thing as a Catholic identity and an Orthodox identity, much as we know them today. What we have to figure out is how, in re-establishing a more perfect communion, we can together stand as Christians of the True Faith first and foremost.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
This goes to the point of my question. Now that you have found your spiritual home, so to speak, does your spiritual life seem like a stronger, more integral part of your very being?
Click to expand...
Yes, because Jesus is planted in my heart via the Jesus Prayer and God resides in us Christians through our chrismation, we have put on Christ and it’s Him Who dwells within us. I am fallen and there is much to perfect, but I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens and God will complete the work He has begun in me.
 
If I had more faith in modern ecumenism (or politics), I would be offended by ByzCathCantor’s comparison…

As it is, my reaction is tempered a bit by remembering that for the Orthodox, the purpose of these talks is to introduce the non-Orthodox to Orthodoxy and affirm it, not come up with compromises, because that is neither desirable nor possible. So the comparison is maybe a bit off, as I don’t know anyone who says “Your ancestors voted yes on prop 218 a thousand years ago…” in an effort to convince his neighbor to also vote for it. 😃
 
My opinion of Orthodoxy (Orthodox Church) is that it is the, “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith”, which is why I’m in the process of converting.
 
TrueLight said:
Sure! I never turn down an an opportunity to learn. What’s the title and author?
Click to expand...
The Primacy of Peter written by John Meyendorff.
TrueLight said:
I just want to say I am very much enjoying hanging out with all of you who are participating in this thread and learning from you. 🙂
Click to expand...
Ah well, the cool-kids-club always leaves overwhelming impressions on people :cool:

🙂
 
My opinion is that Eastern Orthodoxy is a good religion but it is not a perfect religion. After all, they reject the papacy, papal infallibility, and I think they also have a different belief on original sin.
 
“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. (Schmemann, page 163-164)”

Oh wow, I’ve been thinking this for months now. Being independent allows you to see through the polemics and prooftexting of both sides and coming to see the merits of both sides of the argument. As someone from the Orthodox side here said that the Pope of Rome is only a normal bishop, I don’t agree to that, but find it hard to agree to an infallible Pope either.

I don’t really see a solution.

😦
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
I, a Roman Catholic, via adult conversion (RCIA) years & years ago, prefer the Eastern Christian Spiritual Life most. The Jesus prayer, the 7 Hours of daily prayer, prostrations, the frequent fasting, the many & long & beautiful set Prayers before Communion, I like visiting the monasteries, headcovering during prayer, reading the Prologue of Ohrid daily and reading the Bible every day slowly and prayerfully. I like how a prayer rule is used to measure my progress or lack there of reminding me how fallen and in need of a Savior I am.

In the Western Spirituality, I also love the availability of daily Mass and reception of Jesus in the Eucharist & Eucharistic Adoration. I enjoy meditation of the mysteries of the Rosary, but the Jesus Prayer speaks to my heart more. It’s in the CCC, so I know it’s okay.
Click to expand...
Whats imperative isn’t for example what an individual may desire, but that these option’s are available for those who truly do desire to attend a Mass of whatever the specific situation may be, Adoration etc. This is East or West.

Honestly this is where my concern resides. The other is as we have been talking about.

I have family who graduated from Jesuit College’s all Catholic schooling and they [well a couple] scoff at the idea of Papal Infallibility. So its NOT just the members of the various Orthodox Church’s here, I assure you. We talk often yet whats confused is “authority” in the temporal realm of the church as it advanced in time in its structure, with the principalities and powers of good and evil from the start. And much of this is hindged on Unity.

No-one is carrying on as intended without the unity of the Apostolic Church’s. If effect as Rome states for example the EO is a organism outside the body? Well from what I see there is no complete body without communion, there resides the Supernatural Blessing.

We all can read the available history, proper perspective of the early Church seems to be where the confusion usually resides.
 
Holly3278 said:
My opinion is that Eastern Orthodoxy is a good religion but it is not a perfect religion. After all, they reject the papacy, papal infallibility, and I think they also have a different belief on original sin.
Click to expand...
When defending Papal Infallibility you become reduced to Fr Hardins arguement, which is a sound/solid basis. Yet the conclusion is “There is no reason to believe the Magesterium didn’t exist exactly as it does today” This agruement starts with Irenaues and then next to Augustine etc in History.

We have to understand “authority” from a spiritual perspective. Just as Jesus washed the feet and spoke on this, here we gain perspective. Not from a social, temporal, political perspective.

The views of sin hindge on St. Augustine and St. Athanasius then Biblical in particular St Pauls work which predeeded to all known Scripture though many are in the approx, time period.
 
dzheremi said:
If I had more faith in modern ecumenism (or politics), I would be offended by ByzCathCantor’s comparison…
Click to expand...
Of course, no offense was intended. I do hope you appreciate what I was trying to say.
 
GaryTaylor said:
When defending Papal Infallibility you become reduced to Fr Hardins arguement, which is a sound/solid basis. Yet the conclusion is “There is no reason to believe the Magesterium didn’t exist exactly as it does today” This agruement starts with Irenaues and then next to Augustine etc in History.

We have to understand “authority” from a spiritual perspective. Just as Jesus washed the feet and spoke on this, here we gain perspective. Not from a social, temporal, political perspective.

The views of sin hindge on St. Augustine and St. Athanasius then Biblical in particular St Pauls work which predeeded to all known Scripture though many are in the approx, time period.
Click to expand...
Wording such as “subject to” or “rules over” and any other such language, doesn’t bode well for a parallel comparison of Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles.
 
jam070406 said:
Wording such as “subject to” or “rules over” and any other such language, doesn’t bode well for a parallel comparison of Jesus washing the feet of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Right this became the language with excelled in time and through time. Lots of temporal influence in the Church’s from Constantine foward. Today there is a window of opportunity where this really isn’t the case, course there could be much more behind the scenes which I don’t see.

You would think these Bishops would be able to sit down and work this out to a general consensus. Wouldn’t that be the supernatural blessing on unity thus communion?

Lock them is as they did from start at the conclaves and feed them bread and water till they agree. Watch how quick resolve arrives. :eek:
 
Holly3278 said:
My opinion is that Eastern Orthodoxy is a good religion but it is not a perfect religion. After all, they reject the papacy, papal infallibility, and I think they also have a different belief on original sin.
Click to expand...
There is no perfect religion.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. (Schmemann, page 163-164)”

Oh wow, I’ve been thinking this for months now. Being independent allows you to see through the polemics and prooftexting of both sides and coming to see the merits of both sides of the argument. As someone from the Orthodox side here said that the Pope of Rome is only a normal bishop, I don’t agree to that, but find it hard to agree to an infallible Pope either.

I don’t really see a solution.

😦
Click to expand...
It depends on what these people mean by ‘normal bishop’. The same people would probably call the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Moscow ‘normal bishops’ even though they have ‘abnormal’ (perhaps extraordinary is the better word) prerogatives which are greater than those of a regular bishop. The point those folks are trying to make (but perhaps phrase somewhat poorly) is that no matter what prerogatives the bishop of Rome may or may not have had, he was still a bishop and not some separate rank of ordained minister all-together. In other words, when we are told that being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is a definitive sign of being outside of the Church, we scratch our heads, because it seems as if he has become (to Catholics) a bishop of bishops, as if being ordained pope were its own class of ordination above episcopal ordination or something.
 
Cavaradossi said:
It depends on what these people mean by ‘normal bishop’. The same people would probably call the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Moscow ‘normal bishops’ even though they have ‘abnormal’ (perhaps extraordinary is the better word) prerogatives which are greater than those of a regular bishop. The point those folks are trying to make (but perhaps phrase somewhat poorly) is that no matter what prerogatives the bishop of Rome may or may not have had, he was still a bishop and not some separate rank of ordained minister all-together. In other words, when we are told that being out of communion with the bishop of Rome is a definitive sign of being outside of the Church, we scratch our heads, because it seems as if he has become (to Catholics) a bishop of bishops, as if being ordained pope were its own class of ordination above episcopal ordination or something.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and more than a few of those same folks fail to properly acknowledge that the Catholic Church itself teaches that the Pope and the Magisterium are inseparable, and cannot stand apart. Although not perfectly Orthodox, it is certainly seems a bit closer to an Orthodox understanding of the episcopacy than what some suggest on occasion. By logical extension, in a unified Apostolic Church, Catholics could not assert that Pope could stand apart from his brother bishops. That is the dilemma of Papal infallibility.
 
Exactly. The Coptic Church also has a Pope, who is certainly more than a “normal bishop” (in the sense that he does not oversee a particular diocese, but instead the whole Church), yet at the same time not more than a bishop (in the sense that he does not have the kinds of power that the Roman Pope claims; unlike his Roman counterpart, he can be deposed by force via a council of bishops, he is not considered infallible in any way, etc.)

To put it another way: What separates him from other bishops is his unique responsibilities within the Church, not unique powers. It is a position of servitude, not extraordinary powers. What power he does have is by virtue of his strong Orthodoxy and the trust placed in him (by his brother bishops, the monks, the priests, and the laity) to be a leader of the church, as we believe (just as the Romans do about the Roman Pope) that his election is guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
dzheremi said:
Exactly. The Coptic Church also has a Pope, who is certainly more than a “normal bishop” (in the sense that he does not oversee a particular diocese, but instead the whole Church), yet at the same time not more than a bishop (in the sense that he does not have the kinds of power that the Roman Pope claims; unlike his Roman counterpart, he can be deposed by force via a council of bishops, he is not considered infallible in any way, etc.)

To put it another way: What separates him from other bishops is his unique responsibilities within the Church, not unique powers. It is a position of servitude, not extraordinary powers. What power he does have is by virtue of his strong Orthodoxy and the trust placed in him (by his brother bishops, the monks, the priests, and the laity) to be a leader of the church, as we believe (just as the Romans do about the Roman Pope) that his election is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Exactly and I think we should consider viewing Rome in this regard.
 
So are you saying that you do not believe the Roman Pope should have the kinds of extraordinary powers that he may assert within the RCC understanding of ecclesiology, Gary? That’s…interesting. :ehh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top