What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[ConstantineTG]

Personally I’ve come to believe that a central living authority is necessary as a practical matter for true unity in the Church, the arrogance or humility of any particular pope or popes notwithstanding. Other than that I believe the Orthodox constitutes the “other lung” of the Church, with much to contribute in terms of doctrine, etc, helping to fill out our understanding of the ancient faith.

I’m kind of in the middle of the road here. I think the Pope for the most part has been a good role and those who have occupied the position has mostly been holy men. However, the necessity of a central authority in our faith has already been filled from day 1 by Our Lord and Savior. Faithfulness to his teaching and to the traditions we have been handed down is important, and this can be preserved by any successor to the Apostles who is orthodox (the true meaning of the word, not the Church). This can be achieved with a central authority or not.

 

[Mark_Antony]

How being Catholic affects my nationality?
I totally agree with (name removed by moderator).For example take Mark Vamvakaris (a legend in greek music).He was a Roman Catholic,does that mean he was …less Greek?

Also,(name removed by moderator) you said it completely right in your “religion”:First Catholic,then “nationality” and last “political status”.

Well,you know as well that the Byzantine heritage was solely Orthodox.Hellenism is sealed by Orthodoxy whereas Catholicism has offered almost nothing.

There’s so many passages…for example:

1. Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT more than all other apostles combined while the next most mentioned apostle, John, was mentioned only 30 times.
2. Also, with only 2 exceptions Peter is always mentioned 1st when named with apostles.
3. Matthew 16:13-19 & Isaiah 22:20-25 Isaiah prophecy’s about the old hierchy of the chair of Moses being replaced with the Papacy the chair of Peter & in Matthew that prophecy is fulfilled when Jesus selects Peter as the “Rock” & gives him the “Keys” to open & shut/bind & loose. Then at the crucifixion when the Temple 3 foot thick Jewish Temple veil was ripped by God from top to bottom finalized God’s official removal of the chair of Moses replacing it with the chair of Peter.
4. In the NT book of Acts, Peter infallibly interpreted the OT determining that the “office” left void with the suicide of Judas needed to be filled.
5. In Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem after there had been much disputing Peter spoke & everyone shut up and there was no more disputing after he spoke. Then James, the bishop of the city of Jerusalem did just as Peter determined.
6. Of course, we can’t forget about OT examples of the chief stewardship of the Papacy, like Joseph who was appointed by Pharoah to be 2nd to the Pharoah in control of all of Egypt likewise the Pope was appointed by Jesus to be 2nd to Jesus Christ in all the Universe.
7. John 21:15-19 Jesus reinstates & elevates Peter to not only “feed his lambs” the Christian Faithful with the Living Word (Bible & Eucharist), but to even “tend to his sheep” rule over the apostles who also feed the lambs & to “feed his sheep” the Apostles with the Living Word (Bible & Eucharist).

Many, many, many more Bible passages show the Papacy, but I don’t have time to list all the verses I know & there are more that I don’t know, I’m not pretending to know every Biblical reference that shows the Papacy.

Right, the words Mass & Divine Liturgy refer to the same Holy Service.

I see about Peter being the Head of the Church,but why should he be Pope and not Patriarch?(I’m not an expert on theology,sorry )
Also,how can you be sure that today’s Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I had no idea Marc Anthony was the name of a singer. My username is a pun on my real name, which I do not like to give over the internet…I leave it to all of you to try and figure out what my real name is based off of my username.

Anyway, the traditional Latin Catholic idea of Original Sin sees it as a punishment inflicted on all of humanity due to Adam’s sin…it’s very punitive in nature. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church you can definitely see that the Latin Church is starting to lean East in its understanding of Original Sin.

[If you think this is vague, you’d be right, because I’m only REALLY familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s idea of Original Sin and only know that it differs from the traditional Latin version due to my excellent Apologetics teacher.]

Hmm…I’ll try to find out your name
I strongly believe that Catholic and Orthodox Church could learn from each other and that is good news you said.

I’m converting to it

Good for you.We’ll be happy to welcome you

Hey,hey I’ve got a question.
Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.
Focus on the underlined phrase.This is how Orthodox are baptized.Why Catholics are baptized differently?The baptized is not plunged in the water,like Jesus Christ.Why’s that?

 

[gus]

I couldn’t disagree more.
The decentraziled approach of the East has sadly lead to the replacement of Christianity in much of their historic home.
The Catholic church has used the pope much like the American flag. It has always rallied around him in the face of adversity.The Catholic church has been pronounced dead so many times. I think the Pope has something to this resilience.

 

[fhansen]

I’m kind of in the middle of the road here. I think the Pope for the most part has been a good role and those who have occupied the position has mostly been holy men. However, the necessity of a central authority in our faith has already been filled from day 1 by Our Lord and Savior. Faithfulness to his teaching and to the traditions we have been handed down is important, and this can be preserved by any successor to the Apostles who is orthodox (the true meaning of the word, not the Church). This can be achieved with a central authority or not.

I understand this and to be honest I struggle with both sides of the question. But Protestants as well say that our Lord and Savior fulfills the role of the central authority-and then go on to tell us how He fulfills that role, generally with their own interpretation of scripture. IOW everybody can end up being a pope for all practical purposes. What I appreciate is the idea of a single locale, so to speak, a place we can go where the buck stops when needed for deciding on doctrinal matters of faith and morals.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I couldn’t disagree more.
The decentraziled approach of the East has sadly lead to the replacement of Christianity in much of their historic home.
The Catholic church has used the pope much like the American flag. It has always rallied around him in the face of adversity.The Catholic church has been pronounced dead so many times. I think the Pope has something to this resilience.

How do you explain then the rapid secularization in Western Europe where there is a huge decline in practicing Catholics? Even in North America, the Catholic Church population is held up only by rapid immigration.

Places like Ukraine and Russia has a huge growth after the fall of Communism. The average age of a Roman Catholic priest in North America is in the 60s. The average age in Ukraine for an Ukrainian Catholic priest is 35.

 

[Trebor135]

I couldn’t disagree more.
The decentraziled approach of the East has sadly lead to the replacement of Christianity in much of their historic home.

Where? Bearing in mind its majority of nominal adherents, Eastern Europe–from Russia to Greece–is still mainly Orthodox. Its Muslim majority aside, the Middle East–particularly the Levant–has been strongly Orthodox too, especially before the Latin-Melkite agreement of 1724. The two regions would have a lot more practicing Orthodox if Islam and Communism hadn’t arrived on the scene.

The Catholic church has used the pope much like the American flag. It has always rallied around him in the face of adversity.The Catholic church has been pronounced dead so many times. I think the Pope has something to this resilience.

In what concrete instances did the pope save Western Christianity?

 

[Hesychios]

The decentraziled approach of the East has sadly lead to the replacement of Christianity in much of their historic home.

You are aware that the Roman Catholic church was wiped out of north Africa, aren’t you?

 

[Nine_Two]

You are aware that the Roman Catholic church was wiped out of north Africa, aren’t you?

And Northern Europe.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I see about Peter being the Head of the Church,but why should he be Pope and not Patriarch?(I’m not an expert on theology,sorry )
Also,how can you be sure that today’s Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Hey,hey I’ve got a question.
Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.
Focus on the underlined phrase.This is how Orthodox are baptized.Why Catholics are baptized differently?The baptized is not plunged in the water,like Jesus Christ.Why’s that?

The Pope is Patriarch, the Patriarch of Patriarchs. Pope means “father”. As far as being sure that today’s Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1. The Church tells us he is & 2. The Bible says that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church.

It was the early Church document called the Didache aka the Teachings of the 12 Apostles that first outlined how baptisms were to be done - if running water was available, then that was to be used; if not, then standing water & if that was not possible, pouring would be acceptible. Seeing the method of baptism was not completely set in stone & could be changed, over the years, the Catholic Church opted for the latter. Keep in mind the Church was given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and can change these practices.

 

[Trebor135]

The Pope is Patriarch, the Patriarch of Patriarchs.

And yet he gave up the title Patriarch of the West some years ago.

Pope means “father”.

A term first applied to the patriarch of Alexandria which has been retained in that see up to the present day. The most recent holder of the title was Pope Shenouda III (memory eternal!).

As far as being sure that today’s Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit:

The Catholic Church teaches that the bishop of Rome is infallible–not inspired like the New Testament authors.

1. The Church tells us he is

That’s begging the question: you’ve assumed that the Catholic Church is the true Church without having demonstrated it.

& 2. The Bible says that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church.

How does one derive from this promise of Christ that the bishop of Rome would be protected from error when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals?

Edit: I’d like to suggest we continue the burgeoning debate over the papacy here in this preexisting thread to avoid taking the present one off-topic.

 

[TEPO]

As for the OP, I have a high degree of respect for the Orthodox Churches and Orthodoxy, in general.

I pray as fervently and as often as I can for a permanent reconciliation and full communion. I really feel that would be beneficial to both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and for Christianity on the whole.

Yup, the Deposit of Faith belongs to God. Jesus extended it to the world universally, which is why it works best when Christians share in it together.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

The “orthodox churches” are not part of the Church of Christ, cut off by schism.

"Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return to Catholic unity, and, united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.”- Saint Pope Pius X in his 1910 encyclical letter Ex Quo on the reunion of the Eastern churches.

 

[TEPO]

I’m kind of in the middle of the road here. I think the Pope for the most part has been a good role and those who have occupied the position has mostly been holy men. However, the necessity of a central authority in our faith has already been filled from day 1 by Our Lord and Savior. Faithfulness to his teaching and to the traditions we have been handed down is important, and this can be preserved by any successor to the Apostles who is orthodox (the true meaning of the word, not the Church). This can be achieved with a central authority or not.

I agree, Tradition can be preserved by any orthodox Christian, but the Living Magesterium cannot. Like Peter, who holds the keys, there must always be an appointed key holder should God decide to offer the Church some new revelation. If you look at the history of the Church, the Traditions didn’t all come at once… And although the Church has the fullness of truth according to what God has selected to offer us, we do not posess the absolute fullness of all truth. Who knows what else God may choose to show us -this is why the Church can never exist without a Pope until Jesus comes again.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The “orthodox churches” are not part of the Church of Christ, cut off by schism.

"Let, then, all those who strive to defend the cause of unity go forth; let them go forth wearing the helmet of faith, holding to the anchor of hope, and inflamed with the fire of charity, to work unceasingly in this most heavenly enterprise; and God, the author and lover of peace, will hasten the day when the nations of the East shall return to Catholic unity, and, united to the Apostolic See, after casting away their errors, shall enter the port of everlasting salvation.”- Saint Pope Pius X in his 1910 encyclical letter Ex Quo on the reunion of the Eastern churches.

What errors was Pius X talking about? It isn’t schism, because they will be united after casting away their “errors”, so he must talk about heresy. What is the heresy of the Orthodox?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I don’t share a simalar enthusiasm for the Religion that has co-opted that term.

Oriental Orthodoxy? “Orthodox” Judaism?

Cookies…double chocolate chip?

I don’t really like chocolate cookies, I prefer good-old fashioned biscuits. I could kill for a Dutch ‘kaakje’

 

[Mark_Antony]

The Pope is Patriarch, the Patriarch of Patriarchs. Pope means “father”. As far as being sure that today’s Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1. The Church tells us he is & 2. The Bible says that the gates of hell will not prevail over the Church.

It was the early Church document called the Didache aka the Teachings of the 12 Apostles that first outlined how baptisms were to be done - if running water was available, then that was to be used; if not, then standing water & if that was not possible, pouring would be acceptible. Seeing the method of baptism was not completely set in stone & could be changed, over the years, the Catholic Church opted for the latter. Keep in mind the Church was given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and can change these practices.

When I said Patriarch I meant the Patriarch of Constantinople.If Pope is the head of the Church,what about the Patriarch of Constantinople?Second leader or something else?

So that means you can be baptized either way?There is no right or wrong way?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The right way in the early Church was triple immersion, sprinkling was allowed by oikonomia.

 

[dvdjs]

The right way in the early Church was triple immersion, sprinkling was allowed by oikonomia.

In living water. But other accommodations were allowed explicitly, rather than by economy.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

In living water. But other accommodations were allowed explicitly, rather than by economy.

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit”

It’s really the last option, and only allowed when it is lacking in the other areas. It doesn’t mean sprinkling is invalid, it just means that it is less desirable than baptising in living water.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The right way in the early Church was triple immersion, sprinkling was allowed by oikonomia.

Its not of issue what the early church did. The Church see’s this as the final act on the Cross of the Christs heart being pierced by the sword, thus the final act and immediate conversion through Baptism of the sprinkled Water/Blood thus the infusion of the Holy Spirit.