What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[TrueLight]

But papal infallibility is part of the Roman Catholic faith, while it is not part of ours. This is a rather significant difference, is it not?

Yeah. I kinda knew it was more complicated than that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

BTW, in my opinion she has already made that concession.

That is a very interesting observation, TL, one worthy of further discussion and consideration first by Catholics, so as to be properly understood.

 

[TrueLight]

TL - if I may suggest, perhaps more a “healthy respect” than a “love fest” …

Well thank you for being so charitable. I do appreciate it.

As I have come to know you as a traditional Catholic, I would dare speculate that over time you too will develop a greater respect for the main tenets of Orthodoxy and Orthodox life and worship. Like all such endeavors, however, it requires one to be able to see the other perspective, whether one ultimately agrees with it or not.

Peace be with you!

I actually do have a healthy respect for the Orthodox and Orthodoxy. I would say at least one Orthodox who frequents CAF can attest to that.

However, what I do notice as a trend on CAF is the painting of a rosy picture of Orthodoxy at the expense of Catholicism.

I can respect and even agree with some tenets of Orthodoxy, but I am Catholic. Until I’m not.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But papal infallibility is part of the Roman Catholic faith, while it is not part of ours. This is a rather significant difference, is it not?

Yeah. I kinda knew it was more complicated than that.

And seeing this exchange made me wonder - how many Catholics could correctly articulate the Orthodox view on “infallible teachings”? We all have an opinion about the Catholic answer.

Just a thought …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

However, what I do notice as a trend on CAF is the painting of a rosy picture of Orthodoxy at the expense of Catholicism.

Perhaps, but maybe just maybe it is us Catholics just trying to be as open and honest as possible? And perhaps the Orthodox are so as well, just more staunchly at times?

I can respect and even agree with some tenets of Orthodoxy, but I am Catholic. Until I’m not.

Let us pray that day never comes!

 

[TrueLight]

And seeing this exchange made me wonder - how many Catholics could correctly articulate the Orthodox view on “infallible teachings”? We all have an opinion about the Catholic answer.

Just a thought …

Hmm.

Not even Catholics agree on infallible teachings.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hmm.

Not even Catholics agree on infallible teachings.

Exactly, but its really not that hard to understand. The problem is that a fair number seem to think it is “conveniently difficult” to comprehend (the Catholic reality, that is) …

 

[dzheremi]

We just go with the “old, approved formula”: the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (without the Filioque)

Surely the Orthodox would not object

That’s later in the hour (every hour).

 

[TrueLight]

Perhaps, but maybe just maybe it is us Catholics just trying to be as open and honest as possible? And perhaps the Orthodox are so as well, just more staunchly at times?

I expect the Orthodox to stand firmly for what they believe in. I expect Eastern Catholics to have an affinity for Orthodox things.

I admit it does bother me at times to see Latin Rite Catholics celebrating Orthodoxy at the expense of Catholicism especially when it comes to Papal Infallibility.

Let us pray that day never comes!

Ha ha. It won’t.

 

[gus]

And seeing this exchange made me wonder - how many Catholics could correctly articulate the Orthodox view on “infallible teachings”? We all have an opinion about the Catholic answer.

Just a thought …

How many. Orthodox can expound on their version of an infallable teaching?
No need to answer sometimes I can’t resist. Mea Culpa ’

 

[Hesychios]

Although, I don’t wish to turn this into a thread about the papacy, what I emboldened above pretty much describes how Catholics feel about the general Orthodox interpretation of “first among equals” or “protos among the patriarchs”, i.e., it is an honorary position solely. Moreover, I’m not too sure in this instance if primacy means what you think it means, i.e., the diocese of Baltimore was the first Catholic diocese in the U.S., hence it is referred to as the premier see. Also, an Archbishop as defined by the Catholic Church is stated as such:

It is true that in the USA the title of primate is not used. This is probably because it is a relatively young church, and the Roman Catholic communion has been edging away from the concept as the Papacy has been growing in power.

When Roman Catholic apologists cite the Council of Carthage, or Toledo in their arguments they are giving a nod to the early ecclesiology of the church. That is a witness to the way things were, not the way things are. (Toledo and Carthage being primatial Sees, the Metropolitans of their respective synods, much as in the Orthodox church).

I can offer this quote from the [gasp!! ] Wikipedia article which touches on the subject, but don’t worry, as so often happens this material was cobbed almost directly and shamelessly straight from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia without giving proper acknowledgment …

In the Western Church, a Primate is an archbishop—or rarely a suffragan or exempt bishop—of a specific episcopal see (called a primatial see) which confers precedence over the bishops of one or more neighboring ecclesiastical provinces, such as a ‘national’ church in historical, political, and cultural terms. Historically, primates were granted privileges including the authority to call and preside at national synods, the jurisdiction to hear appeals from metropolitan tribunals, the right to crown the sovereign of the nation, and presiding at the investiture (installation) of archbishops in their sees.

The ‘granting’ of these privileges, as we shall see, did not come from any Pope.

The office is generally found in the older Catholic countries, and is now purely honorific, enjoying no effective powers under canon law except for Esztergom (Gran) in Hungary …

Why would this be? Only in the older churches? :ehh:

This organization formerly useful, as it favoured and maintained unity in national churches, has lost its importance and disappeared; first, because national Churches as such no longer exist, and secondly* on account of the gradual disciplinary centralization of the Western Churches around the Roman See*.
Primate - Old Catholic Encyclopedia

Exactly what I have been saying. This is a reflection of the older ecclesiology of the church, which has gradually been abandoned in the west.

So what exactly is a primate?

Apostolic Canon 34 says this: **The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit **

The first among them is the primate, in other words the Metropolitan.

Canon 37 says: **Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year, and let them examine amongst themselves the decrees concerning religion and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred. One meeting to be held in the fourth week of Pentecost , and the other on the 12th day of the month Hyperberetaeus .

Canon 74 says … If any bishop has been accused of anything by men worthy of credit, he must be summoned by the bishops; and if he appears, and confesses, or is convicted, a suitable punishment must be inflicted upon him. But if when he is summoned he does not attend, let him be summoned a second time, two bishops being sent to him, for that purpose. Some mss. add: If even then he will not attend, let him be summoned a third time, two bishops being again sent to him.] But if even then he shall disregard the summons and not come, let the synod pronounce such sentence against him as appears right, that he may not seem to profit by avoiding judgment.

The point here is that the housekeeping of the church was done by the local synod, which we have seen is convened regularly by the local Metropolitan, the Primate.

We know that these are ancient Canons, and they can not be dated accurately. Nicaea (325AD) has this to say:

Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Canon 5
Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Pretty powerful stuff here, from the First Ecumenical Council, showing that the church was to be organized into regional synods, each with a Metropolitan to lead it as primate. Each primate is the leader of his brothers gathered in synod, and in mutual respect they work together, that’s surely not nothing if it is allowed to be what it is supposed to be.

In the early days of the church all parts of the church were organized in this fashion, The pre-Chalcedonians as well as the Greek Orthodox and the older Latin churches in the west as well.**

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I admit it does bother me at times to see Latin Rite Catholics celebrating Orthodoxy at the expense of Catholicism especially when it comes to Papal Infallibility.

And indeed that kind of position should bother a faithful Catholic, Latin or Eastern.

Personally, I find the notion among some Catholics that anything that isn’t expressly declared infallibly can be ignored to be a more serious matter than the seemingly sympathetic view that Pastor Aeternus may have been “ambitious” (apologies, as I could not think of a more apropos choice of words).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

How many. Orthodox can expound on their version of an infallable teaching?
No need to answer sometimes I can’t resist. Mea Culpa ’

Well, the same could be said of Catholics, as one sometimes sees comments indicating that it is poorly understood on our side, as well.

 

[dzheremi]

True Light,

I fear one fact that may be in danger of getting lost if we continue our conversation is that I, as a believer in the Orthodox faith and as a Westerner, do not have a sort of “shopping list of ingredients to make the Romans/Latins Orthodox again”. If I could’ve done it, I would have. So this talk about the concessions that you feel have been made or questions about what more you’d have to do seem a little odd, at least from my perspective. While I can say with confidence that there are some things currently believed in and preached by the RCC that definitely won’t fly with me or any other Orthodox person I know, I also can’t tell you “Well, first you get rid of this, then this, then this…then, voila! You are Orthodox!” It just doesn’t work that way. The Western Church must rediscover its own Orthodox faith. It is definitely there, and every bit as rich as the faith of the Egyptians, or the Syrians, or the Ethiopians, or the Russians, or whoever. It’s not the exact same as any of them in its externals, but especially for me as an Oriental convert, that is absolutely not a problem. This would be, if you can believe it, what might even be called “the fun part” of the whole process of reunification. That’s not to say it isn’t work, of course, but in my few years of contact with some priests and believers within the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate (these nice folks), I have marveled at some of what has been rediscovered and brought back to life, even on a tenuous, ongoing basis. We’re talking about the rediscovery of British and Celtic monastic history, iconography, and hymnology. And every place in the West where Christianity spread prior to the Schism has its own similar history to embrace. So rather than thinking about it in terms of concessions to be made for the sake of others, why not think of it in terms of true renewal (not just periodic retranslation of a particular form of the Mass) for the sake of your own now often forgotten Orthodox faith, which is one with ours?

Ancient British Orthodox Hymn “Come Thou Redeemer” (This hymn comes from the British monastic tradition and is apparently now being used in the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate)

 

[gus]

Well, the same could be said of Catholics, as one sometimes sees comments indicating that it is poorly understood on our side, as well.

Wasn’t that the original challege?
My reply was sarcastic
For witch I apoligized
I HATE PORTABLE DEVICESE ESPEECIALLY WITH AUTOCORRECT

 

[ConstantineTG]

I can respect and even agree with some tenets of Orthodoxy, but I am Catholic. Until I’m not.

Don’t tell me you’re going all 'dox on me

I did notice, especially at the beginning of the thread, quite a love fest for Orthodoxy.

What’s not to love?

I wonder if I were to start a thread called “Orthodox, what is your opinion of the Catholic Church” , if we’d get the same love fest.

It depends what you mean by lovefest. My priest-friend from the OCA was brutally honest with me and sometimes he almost brings me to tears. But he is just being honest. That is how he loves me, by being what he is and what he believes as a priest of the Orthodox. No trying to paint a brighter picture or trying to liberally use euphemisms for the sake of avoiding hurting my feelings.

Remember that it doesn’t matter what they think of us. What we think of them and of other people as well is not dependent on the reciprocity of their feelings.

I’m only bringing this up to say that we need to remember that there are differences and everything is not rosy.

Maybe it is the difference that makes it more rosy Just sayin’

 

[Trebor135]

Catherine of Siena never spoke

I didn’t say she “spoke” full stop. That whole paragraph went,

St. Catherine of Siena never spoke in favour of solo scriptura–otherwise, she would most likely have been condemned as a heretic and never made it a millimetre toward canonization. I’d like to ask you to explain how your statement, “Its not of issue what the early church did,” is related to the life of that Italian lady of the fourteenth century?

In fact what she states in Dialogues mimicks the CCC today in this regard.

Great. Solo scriptura is a self-refuting doctrine–we don’t want saints of any communion holding to something quite as illogical.

I guess I assumed you would have known that.

You would have assumed rightly.

What the early church did is taken into consideration in the CCC with this Sacrament, so its not of issue.

What sacrament?

Perhaps it is for you?

No, I believe in (at least) seven sacraments. Are you sure that’s the word you meant to use?

As far as Fundamentalist megachurch pastors. no idea I’m not on that station. I guess you know though from the above statement.

I don’t follow their televised sermons or anything–it’s simply common knowledge among informed Christians that Evangelical Protestants believe in sola or solo scriptura.

I’m starting to wonder now what issue we’re supposed to be tackling in this exchange…?

 

[Trebor135]

What’s not to love?

Seconded

It depends what you mean by lovefest. My priest-friend from the OCA was brutally honest with me and sometimes he almost brings me to tears. But he is just being honest. That is how he loves me, by being what he is and what he believes as a priest of the Orthodox. No trying to paint a brighter picture or trying to liberally use euphemisms for the sake of avoiding hurting my feelings.

What sort of things has the priest you’ve made friends with said that cut so deep?

Remember that it doesn’t matter what they think of us. What we think of them and of other people as well is not dependent on the reciprocity of their feelings.

Indeed. I don’t see Catholics paying much attention to those Calvinists who proclaim that so-called “Romanists” are all doomed to hell for denying faith alone/imputed righteousness and for venerating statues.

 

[josie_L]

It is true that in the USA the title of primate is not used. This is probably because it is a relatively young church, and the Roman Catholic communion has been edging away from the concept as the Papacy has been growing in power.

I was reading that an archbishop is the equivalent of a metropolitan (not primate), and according to the definition I gave of archbishops in the Catholic Church, there are privileges with that position, privileges of which the Catholic Church has never taught were granted by the pope.

The ‘granting’ of these privileges, as we shall see, did not come from any Pope.

I never said they did.

So what exactly is a primate?

According to New Advent with regard to the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Archbishops are as a rule only titular, without any suffragans, but with their own diocese, the same as most of the Catholic metropolitans in the East. But in the autocephalous, or independent, national churches of Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Roumania, Bosnia, and Herzegovina the so-called archbishops or metropolitans exercise, in union with the autocephalous synod, the highest ecclesiastical authority over the Church of such country. Their office, therefore, resembles that of a patriarch.

newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm

p.s. You’ll have to excuse me Hesychios, as I am getting tired, I will try to correspond with you tomorrow. God bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Seconded

What sort of things has the priest you’ve made friends with said that cut so deep?

About the positions that Eastern Catholics are taking that are not consistent with Roman Catholic teaching. He also told me that Eastern Catholics can never be Orthodox in communion with Rome. I was offended and hurt at first, but after much contemplation I discovered that he is right about that matter.

Indeed. I don’t see Catholics paying much attention to those Calvinists who proclaim that so-called “Romanists” are all doomed to hell for denying faith alone/imputed righteousness and for venerating statues.

Or Anglicans who claim to be “Reformed Catholics” or to any degree of Catholic.