What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[TrueLight]

Does giving an honest account always equate to bashing? I am sorry if your feelings are hurt by my comments, but I am being honest here. I mean, how many times did traditionalists come to the EC forum to tell Eastern Catholics how to be Catholics (ie, be more Latin than “Eastern”)? I am not trying to be offensive here, just honest.

I’m saying there are a lot of ways we all can be “honest”, but we try our best to be careful of how we phrase our comments in this forum and on the Eastern Catholic forum. Same should apply to traditionalists, is all I’m saying.

As an aside, I know at least three SSPX laity who attend DLs at the Eastern Catholic Church, whenever they can’t attend their mass, because they say the DL is without innovation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m reading a book where an Orthodox theologian says the Liturgical changes in the RCC have driven the RCC even further away from Orthodoxy and union.

Well, it is hard to dialogue when the Papacy really is the major issue. It is hard to say where all the other issues are at. Some say they can easily be resolved, others say they are as bad as the Papacy.

There are extreme Traditionalists in Orthodoxy too. Those that say Catholics are heretics bound for damnation.

This is very much expected. It is quite common everywhere where people try to represent their faith as “all” and everything else is “nothing”.

 

[Hesychios]

This is a regular occurrence and it is normal; otherwise, why would our priests promote the signature of such petitions during Mass? After Mass, I’ve signed one at the request of the priest & certain laity to have the Blessed Pope John Paul II declare as Dogma that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces. Millions signed it, but he never did make the declaration? I was told that BPJPII spoke about his belief in the undeclared Dogma, but that he thought it may hurt more than help the ecumenism in progress with Protestants & that it will be declared later after more non-Catholics come under the Pope. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit is above my understanding because my lowly thoughts make me wonder why our Church would limit our Dogmas by not including the Mediatrix because some outside of our Faith don’t agree?

This is a good illustration of the problem.

If it was a dogma we would have believed it from the beginning as received from Christ through the Apostles…

We didn’t. We can not make Truth out of popular opinion. The fact that the RC has a mechanism in place to facilitate that is extremely disturbing. The fact that so many RC don’t see anything wrong with it is possibly even more disturbing.

 

[dzheremi]

Can’t it be one and not the other? I have read some EO saints (Mark of Ephesus) who say that the Latins are heretics, but none that say that they are therefore bound for hell. And I believe that the Orthodox faith is all, in that it is whole and complete, but that doesn’t mean that others’ are nothing. There are many good things in Roman Catholicism. But it is RC error that keeps us from communing, so that tends to be focused on in the sort of talks that we are having now.

 

[dzheremi]

This is very much expected. It is quite common everywhere where people try to represent their faith as “all” and everything else is “nothing”.

Can’t it be one and not the other? I believe that Orthodoxy is all, in sense that it is complete and without error, but that says nothing about Catholicism. You’ll find a range of opinions on that (since we have no official stance on communions outside of Orthodoxy), but I personally feel that there is a lot of good in Roman Catholicism. The fact that there is also a lot of error can’t be overlooked, but I’d never dream of calling it “nothing”, and I really doubt that I’m the only one who sees things this way.

 

[TrueLight]

This is a good illustration of the problem.

If it was a dogma we would have believed it from the beginning as received from Christ through the Apostles…

Dogmas are often pronounced to fight/guard against heresies.

For example, as time went on, we gained a fuller understanding of the Trinity. At some point it had to be defined. And it was defined in the fourth century, I believe. Just because it was defined then does not mean there was not somewhat an understanding and agreement on it beforer.

We didn’t. We can not make Truth out of popular opinion. The fact that the RC has a mechanism in place to facilitate that is extremely disturbing. The fact that so many RC don’t see anything wrong with it is possibly even more disturbing.

I somewhat agree with you. The possibility of yet another Marian dogma troubles me greatly.

But I also want to add that if we think about it, when councils meet, they eventually discuss things and vote. The Holy Spirit still manages to work even though we are using a human vote. Just as He worked when the disciples drew straw for a replacement for Judas.

So it might be possible for a grass root movement to start and for the Church to pray upon it and look for direction, no? As long as it doesn’t go against the earlier teachings.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

This is a good illustration of the problem.

If it was a dogma we would have believed it from the beginning as received from Christ through the Apostles…

We didn’t. We can not make Truth out of popular opinion. The fact that the RC has a mechanism in place to facilitate that is extremely disturbing. The fact that so many RC don’t see anything wrong with it is possibly even more disturbing.

I guess I disturb you then because I don’t have a problem with it. It’s been that way since I joined the Church. I see it as encouraging the Pope to define as dogma something that has always been believed, but was not quite clear.

How do Orthodox go about defining unclearly spelled out beliefs as dogma? Like the Trinity. Oh wait, I think I know, only through the Ecumenical Councils only, right? Is that the only way or Orthodox and if so, why?

 

[Hesychios]

This is a regular occurrence and it is normal; otherwise, why would our priests promote the signature of such petitions during Mass? After Mass, I’ve signed one at the request of the priest & certain laity to have the Blessed Pope John Paul II declare as Dogma that Mary is the Mediatrix of All Graces. Millions signed it, but he never did make the declaration? I was told that BPJPII spoke about his belief in the undeclared Dogma, but that he thought it may hurt more than help the ecumenism in progress with Protestants & that it will be declared later after more non-Catholics come under the Pope. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit is above my understanding because my lowly thoughts make me wonder why our Church would limit our Dogmas by not including the Mediatrix because some outside of our Faith don’t agree?

This is a good illustration of the problem.

If it was a dogma we would have believed it from the beginning as received from Christ through the Apostles…

We didn’t. We can not make Truth out of popular opinion. The fact that the RC has a mechanism in place to facilitate that is extremely disturbing. The fact that so many RC don’t see anything wrong with it is possibly even more disturbing.

No, I thought that with the Keys of the Kindgom & ability to Bind/Loose in heaven and earth that IF he were to have that in matters of geometry then he would only and always get an A because anything he answered, even if wrong, would immediately become the new right answer on both heaven and earth.

The pope has the power to override so to speak the existing truth and God has promised that anything re: faith and morals the pope has the declared will be the accepted as truth in both heaven and earth.

Like that’s why the “filioque” is now the truth even though it was previous rejected by our Church and by prior popes, because it is now bounded as truth in heaven and earth , God accepts any change made even to Himself. Just another way God has humbled Himself for us undeserving human beings. as if coming to us in the Eucharist weren’t enough humility.

I hope you are just joking.

But if you are not, it is even more alarming that a system that allows popular opinion to form dogmas, then believes the changing dogmas can change God is more shocking than I can even express.

 

[dzheremi]

As someone much smarter than me once put it, the Church does not define doctrine – heretics do. This means that it is the presence and sway of heretics that essentially forces the Church to formally declare those doctrines which have always been believed, since there is now organized opposition to those truths in the form of Arianism, Apollinarianism, the Pnevmatomachians, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, etc. Councils are not called for the purpose of creating doctrine, but safeguarding the faith of the Church from the false doctrines of heretics by making it clear that this is the Apostolic faith, not whatever new thing that some charismatic individual has come up with.

 

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by ComeHome2.

God accepts any change made even to Himself. Just another way God has humbled Himself for us undeserving human beings. as if coming to us in the Eucharist weren’t enough humility.

God cannot change.
We can’t change God.

 

[TrueLight]

As someone much smarter than me once put it, the Church does not define doctrine – heretics do. This means that it is the presence and sway of heretics that essentially forces the Church to formally declare those doctrines which have always been believed, since there is now organized opposition to those truths in the form of Arianism, Apollinarianism, the Pnevmatomachians, Eutychianism, Nestorianism, etc. Councils are not called for the purpose of creating doctrine, but safeguarding the faith of the Church from the false doctrines of heretics by making it clear that this is the Apostolic faith, not whatever new thing that some charismatic individual has come up with.

Agreed.

So which Catholic dogmas can be 100% proven to be new teachings a opposed to clarifications on what has always been believed?

Cannot papal infallibility be seen as expounding on Jesus giving the keys to Peter?

 

[dzheremi]

So which Catholic dogmas can be 100% proven to be new teachings a opposed to clarifications on what has always been believed.

Anything between “none of them” and “all of them”, depending on who you ask.

Cannot papal infallibility be seen as expounding on Jesus giving the keys to Peter?

It not only can, it is…just not by Orthodox Christians.

 

[TrueLight]

It not only can, it is…just not by Orthodox Christians.

I meant in a positive way. I hate to use that term, but a sort of “clarification”. Latins like to define very specifically.

 

[Hesychios]

I guess I disturb you then because I don’t have a problem with it. It’s been that way since I joined the Church. I see it as encouraging the Pope to define as dogma something that has always been believed, but was not quite clear.

Circular logic.

If the Pope agrees it must be so …

This amazingly encourages wild speculations. ‘If the Pope doesn’t stop us it must be right’ (especially troubling with regard to some mystics in Međugorje in recent days), or 'it has not been declared a dogma yet’.

How do Orthodox go about defining unclearly spelled out beliefs as dogma?

If the early church, Christ and the Apostles, all the early saints and martyrs, did not need another definition, what makes you think you are entitled to one?

… I think I know, only through the Ecumenical Councils only, right? Is that the only way or Orthodox and if so, why?

A general rule for distinguishing the truth of the catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the catholic church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the church’s interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of holy scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and catholic interpretation.

Moreover,** in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally**. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Commonitory - cap 2 Saint Vincent of Lérins

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can’t it be one and not the other? I believe that Orthodoxy is all, in sense that it is complete and without error, but that says nothing about Catholicism. You’ll find a range of opinions on that (since we have no official stance on communions outside of Orthodoxy), but I personally feel that there is a lot of good in Roman Catholicism. The fact that there is also a lot of error can’t be overlooked, but I’d never dream of calling it “nothing”, and I really doubt that I’m the only one who sees things this way.

I never said it cannot be. But I guess it is just inherent human nature to think that what we have is everything and that what others have is nothing. And this attitude is more polemical than factual. Indeed our faith teaches us humility. We shouldn’t always think that we’re assured and others are assured of damnation. That is not the Christian way. And what you said is right, we know we have the truth (from each of our perspectives), but we do not know for sure that others are damned. God is merciful.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Putting aside the debate about whether or not the filioque is true, would it not be more accurate to say that it has now been taught explicitly, whereas before it was an implicit teaching within the deposit of faith?

I don’t think that’d be more accurate. And let me tell you why.

In the case of the filioque, there were popes who flat out rejected it and now popes accept it. The popes who rejected it, certainly did not recognize it as an implicit teaching within the deposit of faith otherwise they too would have accepted it. Because the popes rejected it, we can know for certain the filioque wasn’t there in the original deposit of faith; however, it is a part of our faith now and we, Catholics, are bound to believe in it while Catholics of prior centuries were required under their popes to Not accept it.

I agree with you that Truth is Truth. Where we differ is that as Catholics we can know for sure what is truth is because it’s whatever the pope is currently teaching as truth.

I may not select the most perfect words to describe stuff, but I do my best.

I fully believe Jesus is true to his words to St. Peter that ANYTHING he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven and ANYTHING he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The popes have now “bound” that original ANYTHING to just Faith and Morals. To know what truth is, the question of Pilate, we must listen to the current pope, not past popes unless they happen to agree with the current because Jesus can not be made into a liar.

Either Jesus gave the popes the power to bind & loose in heaven & earth or He didn’t. I’m Catholic and I believe He did. There is no limit to what the Pope can do and affect on heaven or on earth when it comes to any matter either Faith & Morals. Belief about Who God is is a matter of Faith and if the Trinity was not including filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only), but now He is (the Holy Spirit now proceeds from both the Father and the Son) than God did change yet He can’t change - a complete mystery. _ a mystery like the Trinity which is a matter of faith to be accepted.

The pope is infallible, but I am not. If I’m wrong, show me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, I thought that with the Keys of the Kindgom & ability to Bind/Loose in heaven and earth that IF he were to have that in matters of geometry then he would only and always get an A because anything he answered, even if wrong, would immediately become the new right answer on both heaven and earth.

The pope has the power to override so to speak the existing truth and God has promised that anything re: faith and morals the pope has the declared will be the accepted as truth in both heaven and earth.

Like that’s why the “filioque” is now the truth even though it was previous rejected by our Church and by prior popes, because it is now bounded as truth in heaven and earth , God accepts any change made even to Himself. Just another way God has humbled Himself for us undeserving human beings. as if coming to us in the Eucharist weren’t enough humility.

If the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can override existing truth, consider me an apostate. Jesus handed the keys to Peter, not the crown. Let’s have a modern metaphor. I hand over the keys of my car to you, which means you can drive it. But I did not hand over the title to you which means it is still my car. You can drive it, but you cannot modify anything in the car or even sell it. It is not your car, it is mine.

Jesus, as king, handed the keys to Peter to take charge while he is away. He did not hand over His crown to Peter. It means Peter’s job is to keep (or maintain) the kingdom, not rule it.

 

[Nine_Two]

There are extreme Traditionalists in Orthodoxy too. Those that say Catholics are heretics bound for damnation.

There are. They annoy me.

 

[Hesychios]

If the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can override existing truth, consider me an apostate.

I found it interesting that the other poster pointed out a genuine contradiction in the history of the papacy: earlier Popes reject something and later Popes accept the same thing.

Obviously, the Catholic bishops and people did not obey their Popes, and continued to teach the doctrine over his objections! It spread ever more widely until even future Popes were convinced of it.

We are somehow to accept that the later Popes have more authority than the earlier Popes. It is a paradox, but one from straight out of history. This poster resolved it to his satisfaction, in true Latin Catholic fashion, by using human reason and logic.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

If the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope can override existing truth, consider me an apostate. Jesus handed the keys to Peter, not the crown. Let’s have a modern metaphor. I hand over the keys of my car to you, which means you can drive it. But I did not hand over the title to you which means it is still my car. You can drive it, but you cannot modify anything in the car or even sell it. It is not your car, it is mine.

Jesus, as king, handed the keys to Peter to take charge while he is away. He did not hand over His crown to Peter. It means Peter’s job is to keep (or maintain) the kingdom, not rule it.

The pope has always traditionally worn a crown, the papal crown, which signifies he does rule our Church. In past times the pope ruled both secularly & spiritually and but now his secular authority only remains in the Vatican City and still the rest of the universe spiritually. The pope is not Jesus, but rules in His place as Jesus appointed the pope to. Just as the Pharaoh had appoint Joseph to rule over Egypt.

Using your metaphor, the pope has totally modified Jesus’ car - it’s pimped out now with crome spinning wheels, a new hydrolic system installed, there’s even dice on the rearview mirror now. Remember, Jesus commended the dude who multipled the talents and He expected Peter to modify His car.

If the pope didn’t have the authority to override existing truth, then how is the replacement of NO FILIOQUE with FILIOQUE explained? How do the very distinct differences about our own God jive, if we don’t accept that the popes have the authority to override the truth with the new and distinct truth which is then the new & current truth? Both were taught by popes but in different centuries. We are bound the follow the current pope, right?

God doesn’t change & yet we have seen that He does change through the dogma of the Incarnation & also with the Filioque. It’s a mystery! The Trinity is a mystery too, something our finite minds can not fully grasp.

We Catholics must adhere to the current Church teaching. If we believe as the ealier Catholics believed, that is to say that if we chose to reject one or more of the newly defined dogmas, then we have placed ourselves outside of our own Church.