What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I trust the official documents of our Church written by the Magesterium of the Church.

For me to have to determine & judge the "orthodox"ness of a priest to decide if I can trust him to give me right direction in a matter he may know nothing about, just doesn’t sit right.

If I can’t trust our official Church documents to guide us correctly, then what can I trust? And what would the point of the Magesterium be if it could not provide trust worthy documents?

I’ve misspelled magesterium, but am too lazy to spell check it.

Honestly, the others on this thread - including me - are pretty nearly unanimous in our conviction that you are misinterpreting those official documents. Yet you simply will not hear that attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. I think you need to openly and prayerfully consider the possibility that you are incorrect, rather than hold to the *extremely *unlikely possibility that everyone else is.

I encourage and exhort you to consult the links provided by 5Loaves:

As TrueLight and Trebor135 have said and others have indicted, “These documents are not always clear”, “aren’t always easy to understand on one’s own”.

The question of whether a Catholic can fulfill his/her “Sunday obligation” in an Orthodox Church has been covered in a number of threads here on CAF. I think this piece by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin covers the basic points. He includes the relevant CIC Can. 1248 §1 and §2 , and Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism paragraph 115

(You may already know, when this Directory, the CIC and other Catholic Church documents say “other Churches and ecclesial Communities” the term “other Churches” means those Orthodox Churches who have valid sacraments, and “ecclesial Communities” means other Christian groups which are not recognized to have valid sacraments.)

 

[JohnVIII]

I always wonder,what Catholics and Protestants think about Orthodoxy?In general,we (Orthodox) are hostile to Catholics (because of the arrogance of the Popes) and a bit to Protestants.
Feel free to share your opinion

PS I’m not hostile to anyone.We are all Christians.

When I was Orthodox I thought of it as the “one true church”. But now I look back at it and see it as only a preservation of a much earlier version of Roman Catholicism.

 

[LionHeart777]

When I was Orthodox I thought of it as the “one true church”. But now I look back at it and see it as only a preservation of a much earlier version of Roman Catholicism.

I can see how one might think that if they reject that the Pope always had universal jurisdiction within the Catholic Church. Of course if your rejection of that is wrong (which I believe it is), then that is not the case. (not to start the topic of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope as that discussion is already going on here.)

 

[ConstantineTG]

When I was Orthodox I thought of it as the “one true church”. But now I look back at it and see it as only a preservation of a much earlier version of Roman Catholicism.

Is a preservation of an earlier version a bad thing? Our only link to the time of the Apostles is the preservation of our traditions. I frankly would be worried if our faith today do not resemble the faith the Christians before us held. In this regard I agree with the RC traditionalists regarding return to tradition. I just don’t agree how they go about it.

 

[Trebor135]

Is a preservation of an earlier version a bad thing? Our only link to the time of the Apostles is the preservation of our traditions. I frankly would be worried if our faith today do not resemble the faith the Christians before us held. In this regard I agree with the RC traditionalists regarding return to tradition. I just don’t agree how they go about it.

If they really want to maintain Tradition, why aren’t they clamouring for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be brought back rather than the Tridentine Latin Mass?

 

[jam070406]

If they really want to maintain Tradition, why aren’t they clamouring for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be brought back rather than the Tridentine Latin Mass?

Good question. Why did the Novus Ordo need to be invented when you could’ve tried the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom?

 

[dzheremi]

Or of St. Basil, or of St. Cyril, or of St. Gregory, or of St. James…

 

[Lucky7]

If they really want to maintain Tradition, why aren’t they clamouring for the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom be brought back rather than the Tridentine Latin Mass?

Or if we really wanted to return to tradition, we should hold a Passover Seder, or speak in Aramaic, or …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Or if we really wanted to return to tradition, we should hold a Passover Seder, or speak in Aramaic, or …

The Passover Seder is truly not the equivalent of the Eucharistic Supper.

Point being of the mention, of course, that the Tridentine Mass may not be the most ancient form of Latin Liturgy, but it may have been the most stable (in form) and most widely used historically, as associated directly with the Latin Church.

That said, I do find it ironic that if one did a side by side comparison of the structure of the Novus Ordo Mass vs. the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom of today, one would readily see many similarities.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is a preservation of an earlier version a bad thing? Our only link to the time of the Apostles is the preservation of our traditions. I frankly would be worried if our faith today do not resemble the faith the Christians before us held. In this regard I agree with the RC traditionalists regarding return to tradition. I just don’t agree how they go about it.

I’m pretty sure what he means is that Orthodoxy is just a basal form of Roman Christianity in general, and that he believes that the Marcionites, an ancient group deemed heretical by the fathers, are more faithful to the original Christianity.

 

[Lucky7]

The Passover Seder is truly not the equivalent of the Eucharistic Supper.

Point being of the mention, of course, that the Tridentine Mass may not be the most ancient form of Latin Liturgy, but it may have been the most stable (in form) and most widely used historically, as associated directly with the Latin Church.

That said, I do find it ironic that if one did a side by side comparison of the structure of the Novus Ordo Mass vs. the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, one would readily see many similarities.

I understand… I was focusing on the idea of tradition. There were a lot of things done early on that developed for various reasons.

For example, the focus on using Latin. If we really want to go back to the beginning we should probably say Mass in Aramaic because that’s the language Jesus and the Apostles spoke. That’s why I think the push to be “traditional” to be a bit amusing sometimes.

 

[dzheremi]

What is amusing is that there are plenty of ‘traditionalists’ who see tradition as an end in itself. But, from an Orthodox perspective, there are plenty of things that are old, or in some sense traditional, and are heterodox or downright heretical. Marcionism, for instance, is quite old, but it is also undoubtedly heretical. And plenty of things that are now considered traditional to Roman Catholic worship and faith are likewise impediments to Rome’s return to Orthodoxy (to tie it into this thread…), yet are championed by traditionalists simply because they are traditional.

What is even more amusing is that there is a very old and venerable tradition of Latin/Western Orthodoxy, yet that is not what the Roman Catholic traditionalists ever seem to want to return to, preferring instead to go back to about 1950, as though Rome was perfeectly Orthodox before the Second Vatican Council. Go figure.

 

[JohnVIII]

I can see how one might think that if they reject that the Pope always had universal jurisdiction within the Catholic Church. Of course if your rejection of that is wrong (which I believe it is), then that is not the case. (not to start the topic of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope as that discussion is already going on here.)

Ok, you’re right! It’s an earlier version of RC excepting only the matter of the Popes primacy. One minor detail.

 

[TrueLight]

What is amusing is that there are plenty of ‘traditionalists’ who see tradition as an end in itself. But, from an Orthodox perspective, there are plenty of things that are old, or in some sense traditional, and are heterodox or downright heretical. Marcionism, for instance, is quite old, but it is also undoubtedly heretical. And plenty of things that are now considered traditional to Roman Catholic worship and faith are likewise impediments to Rome’s return to Orthodoxy (to tie it into this thread…), yet are championed by traditionalists simply because they are traditional.

What is even more amusing is that there is a very old and venerable tradition of Latin/Western Orthodoxy, yet that is not what the Roman Catholic traditionalists ever seem to want to return to, preferring instead to go back to about 1950, as though Rome was perfeectly Orthodox before the Second Vatican Council. Go figure.

I’m glad you all are amused, but this thread isn’t about traditionalists.

So keep laughing when there are more serious issues being discussed right in this thread.

 

[LionHeart777]

Ok, you’re right! It’s an earlier version of RC excepting only the matter of the Popes primacy. One minor detail.

I guess I saw in your post an echo of comments that I’ve heard before that the Eastern Orthodox have maintained ancient Christianity the best. I was pointing out that if ancient Christianity included a Pope with universal jurisdiction (which I believe to be the case), then that would not be so.

I apologize if I offended you and/or if I assumed something that you didn’t mean.

 

[JoeBowen7]

I always wonder,what Catholics and Protestants think about Orthodoxy?

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople. If the Roman See is the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, then how come the other three Patriarchs, or Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria decided to remain in communion with the excommunicated See of Constantinople? And then later on, how come the other sees that were established later, including patriarchs of Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania did not go with the Roman see, but established communion with the see of Constantinople, which was excommunicated from Rome.
Does this mean that historically, all these other Apostolic Sees simply refused to recognise that the Roman See was the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction?

 

[TrueLight]

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople. If the Roman See is the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, then how come the other three Patriarchs, or Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria decided to remain in communion with the excommunicated See of Constantinople? And then later on, how come the other sees that were established later, including patriarchs of Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania did not go with the Roman see, but established communion with the see of Constantinople, which was excommunicated from Rome.
Does this mean that historically, all these other Apostolic Sees simply refused to recognise that the Roman See was the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction?

Back then, as today, there were disobedient bishops. Just from reading a little bit of history, it seemed to me that there were times when the other Sees were obedient and there were times when they weren’t. There were times when the Bishop of Rome sent legates, they complied and there were times they didn’t.

 

[10_26]

This seems like a good place to ask this question. I have been studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic view of Peter’s declaration in Mathew 16. It also happened that looking for a good study Bible I recently purchased The Orthodox Study Bible and reading Isa 22:22-23 in that Bible it says: “I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule, and no one will oppose him. 23 I will establish him as a ruler in a trustworthy place, and he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.” Notice how there is no mention of the keys or the authority to open and close. So, my question is, does anyone know anything about the lxx which the Orthodox bible uses? All other versions of the lxx I know of in English include the keys and the authority to open and close. For clarity here is the same passages taken from the Brenton lxx version: " 22:22 And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him: and I will give him the key of the house of David [upon] his shoulder; and he shall open, and there shall be none to shut; and he shall shut, and there shall be none to open. 23 And I will make him a ruler in a sure place, and he shall be for a glorious throne of his father’s house."

 

[Hesychios]

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople. If the Roman See is the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, then how come the other three Patriarchs, or Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria decided to remain in communion with the excommunicated See of Constantinople? And then later on, how come the other sees that were established later, including patriarchs of Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania did not go with the Roman see, but established communion with the see of Constantinople, which was excommunicated from Rome.
Does this mean that historically, all these other Apostolic Sees simply refused to recognise that the Roman See was the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction?

I think we have all known of one or another person who simply cannot get along for one reason or another. Sometimes people like this have no friends at all.

Should you ask him, he will tell you why in no uncertain terms.

“It’s all their fault.”

 

[LionHeart777]

One question that comes up in my mind is about what happened after the Roman excommunication of Cerularius who was Patriarch of Constantinople. If the Roman See is the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction, then how come the other three Patriarchs, or Apostolic Sees of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria decided to remain in communion with the excommunicated See of Constantinople? And then later on, how come the other sees that were established later, including patriarchs of Serbia, Russia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Romania did not go with the Roman see, but established communion with the see of Constantinople, which was excommunicated from Rome.
Does this mean that historically, all these other Apostolic Sees simply refused to recognise that the Roman See was the One with Supremacy and universal jurisdiction?

I don’t think Alexandria was in communion nor has been in communion with either Rome or Constantinople since the mid 5th century.

Can some on else verify?

Thanks

Also, I believe that the growing rift between the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire had something to do with this.