Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[JRKH]

Is it possible that a branch from the mustard bush has been re-planted somewhere else?

I do not believe so.
Not within the context of what is being discussed on this thread.
That is, the organizational Church structures.

Peace
James

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I’m not too informed on the matter but as far as I know both church’s do have apostolic succession and are able to trace their roots all the way back to the apostles. I also know that the main difference between the two is that we Catholics believe in the papacy while the Orthodox believe in equality among all bishops or something. Still, one church had to break off from the other in 1054. My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

As you have stated, the main difference among other things, is an authority issue. And ive come to the conclusion that, Peter is the key to this. Peter is of so much weight when determining which Church broke from which. Can you imagine Peter in schism? (John 6:66-69)

I see that Our Lord Jesus Christ promised (Matt 16:18) that his Church (founded on Peter) would prevail. And today, in the present day, after so many persecutions, after so many difficulties, I turn to see Rome, and I see Peter. And I see that his promise is there. I see that the gates of hell have not prevailed. I mean sure there have been years in which there was no Pope (Interregnum), but hes there today. And to me this is simply amazing (after nearly 2000 years).

I think Jesus gives us a “clue” if u will, about his Church in Matt 16:18. That clue is Peter.
Peter if you see in that verse, is linked to the Church.

 

[achmafooma]

…I looked into Orthodoxy and liked it, but came to conclude that non-Catholic offerings for how to interpret Matthew 16:18 are really weak. At best. As someone pointed out the Church has changed a lot from the original. But the true Church will still have Peter

This was my thought as I began searching for the true Church. I, like so many others, narrowed it down to Catholic and Orthodox and ultimately found myself choosing between the two. Because of the unity that we have through the Pope, the successor of Peter, I chose the Catholic Church and don’t regret it one bit.

Having said that, either one is light-years ahead of the alternatives because both have all of the Sacraments.

 

[Trebor135]

This was my thought as I began searching for the true Church. I, like so many others, narrowed it down to Catholic and Orthodox and ultimately found myself choosing between the two. Because of the unity that we have through the Pope, the successor of Peter, I chose the Catholic Church and don’t regret it one bit.

Did you look into the historical cases for both churches, though?

The issue can be boiled down to one question: “Was being in communion with the see of Rome in the Early Church seen to be based on (1) its teaching of the orthodox faith, or (2) its divine protection from falling into error?”

Having said that, either one is light-years ahead of the alternatives because both have all of the Sacraments.

But that’s only the Catholic view; the Eastern Orthodox take is that sacraments, except perhaps baptism, administered by other Christians (1) may convey grace, or (2) cannot convey grace. It’s shocking to contemplate that all the billions of non-Eastern Orthodox who have lived in the past five hundred to one thousand years (whenever you date the split) have been consuming what remain bread and wine at communion and remaining unabsolved of sins revealed in confession.

This is one reason the process of deciding between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy demands the grave concern of all honest seekers of the true church.

 

[mardukm]

I’m not too informed on the matter but as far as I know both church’s do have apostolic succession and are able to trace their roots all the way back to the apostles. I also know that the main difference between the two is that we Catholics believe in the papacy while the Orthodox believe in equality among all bishops or something. Still, one church had to break off from the other in 1054. My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

There is another possibility:

The current separation is based on misunderstanding each other. In that case, no one really left the true Church, but we are separated because of purely human foibles.

For example, the misunderstanding between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches has OFFICIALLY and FORMALLY been resolved (not yet between the OO and EO, but it is getting there). Both sides have realized that despite the different theological presuppositions and languages, the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach and possess THE SAME FAITH about the Natures of Christ. It took about 1500 years to heal that particular wound. I have hope all other issues will be resolved in like manner - we need to listen to what the other side is saying, instead of imposing our own respective presuppositions on the other.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Trebor,

The issue can be boiled down to one question: “Was being in communion with the see of Rome in the Early Church seen to be based on (1) its teaching of the orthodox faith, or (2) its divine protection from falling into error?”

I think you have hit the nail on the head. But I would ask - how do you distinguish the two?

We have solid records of Eastern/Oriental bishops appealing to the bishop of Rome on matters of Faith. I ask you - on what basis would they bother to appeal to the bishop of Rome? What was going on in their minds that made them think that he could resolve their issue? Why did the Council of Sardica enshrine in its canons the prerogative of the bishop of Rome to be the court of final appeal? Why did the last universally recognized Ecumenical Councils (the 6th and 7th) reconfirm the canons of the Council of Sardica?

But that’s only the Catholic view;

Not exactly, brother. Most Oriental Orthodox also share the same view as the Catholic Church (the issue with the Coptic Orthodox Church, in particular, is complicated, to say the least).

This is one reason the process of deciding between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy demands the grave concern of all honest seekers of the true church.

Well said, but in the process of discerning, we also need to be careful about making mountains out of molehills on doctrinal matters. For example, are the Churches really separated on the issues of the Atonement, the Justice of God, the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, papacy, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Can we look beyond the theological language to the Faith that unites us?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Trebor135]

grabs a seat in the front row

I’m watching this thread because the same question has been on my mind for some months now.

Right…because the OP’s questions will obviously be answered differently depending on who replies.

This comment was unwarranted.

I made the initial post to ensure that e-mails from CAF would be sent notifying me of new posts which might enlighten me concerning this topic.

 

[Trebor135]

First, get this book if you haven’t already!

The Fathers Know Best
amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=the+fathers+know+best&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=9486661049&ref=pd_sl_2eo6kyjfn0_b

Surely, $16.47 is something you can afford to make such an important decision! The book has a whole section on the Church and the Pope, with around 50 pages dedicated to it, filled with quotes from the early church.

Thanks for the recommendation–I actually wanted to purchase this book earlier this year, but that slipped through the cracks. I’m planning to read James Likoudis’s works “Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism” and “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy” in the near future, however. Likoudis is the only major present-day convert to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy of whom I’m aware. Have you read either of these works?

One sample quote, for instance is this -

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at** Rome** by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies - Book 3 Chapter 3
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

This quote–prooftext, really–is so overused, such a cliché, in defense of the papacy, that in my mind it’s now akin to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for sola scriptura and Ephesians 2:8-9 for sola fide. I’ve actually been reading H. I. D. Ryder’s “Catholic Controversy: A Reply to ‘Plain Reasons’”, and it sheds some new light on the passage from “Against Heresies”.

 

[Trebor135]

There is another possibility:

The current separation is based on misunderstanding each other. In that case, no one really left the true Church, but we are separated because of purely human foibles.

This is a good point. Eastern Orthodox polemicists who make their boisterous presence known on these forums would surely dismiss it as not even being remotely possible, but it seems less remotely possible that their opinions can be safely ignored.

For example, the misunderstanding between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches has OFFICIALLY and FORMALLY been resolved (not yet between the OO and EO, but it is getting there). Both sides have realized that despite the different theological presuppositions and languages, the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach and possess THE SAME FAITH about the Natures of Christ. It took about 1500 years to heal that particular wound. I have hope all other issues will be resolved in like manner - we need to listen to what the other side is saying, instead of imposing our own respective presuppositions on the other.

What issues prevent the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches from reuniting straight away, then: papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, and/or other matters?

 

[Trebor135]

Four posts in a row–I hope this isn’t breaking any forum rules.

Dear brother Trebor,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. But I would ask - how do you distinguish the two?

We have solid records of Eastern/Oriental bishops appealing to the bishop of Rome on matters of Faith. I ask you - on what basis would they bother to appeal to the bishop of Rome? What was going on in their minds that made them think that he could resolve their issue? Why did the Council of Sardica enshrine in its canons the prerogative of the bishop of Rome to be the court of final appeal? Why did the last universally recognized Ecumenical Councils (the 6th and 7th) reconfirm the canons of the Council of Sardica?

Interesting. I can’t say how you would distinguish the two–we’d have to ask an Eastern Orthodox what sufficient evidence would look like to convince them of the apostolicity and historicity of the Catholic papacy.

Can you recommend any books or debates in which a Catholic lays out this “solid evidence” clearly and succinctly? I’ve seen the argument for the papacy that the see of Rome constituted a court of final appeal in the earliest centuries of Christianity. But cases in which Alexandria and Antioch were asked to help settle disputes must also exist. For the Catholic view of the papacy to carry the day, Rome must have been consulted on matters of both faith and practice (e.g., “Was Mary a perpetual virgin?” or “Are 3 and 4 Maccabees inspired Scripture?”), but all other sees only on matters of practice (e.g., “Should the congregation kneel in church on Sunday?” or “Which bishop should have jurisdiction over this town?”).

Not exactly, brother. Most Oriental Orthodox also share the same view as the Catholic Church

Interesting. I was under the impression that only the Armenian and Syrian Orthodox Churches had signed agreements with the Catholic Church by which faithful of all three communions could partake in Oriental Orthodox or Catholic sacraments in cases of dire necessity.

Have the Oriental Orthodox Churches generally subscribed to Cyprianic or Augustinian ecclesiology?

(the issue with the Coptic Orthodox Church, in particular, is complicated, to say the least).

What’s preventing the Coptic Orthodox Church from following in the footsteps of its Armenian and Syrian brethren?

Well said, but in the process of discerning, we also need to be careful about making mountains out of molehills on doctrinal matters. For example, are the Churches really separated on the issues of the Atonement, the Justice of God, the Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, papacy, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Can we look beyond the theological language to the Faith that unites us?

This is true. But how can you reconcile “Mary was freed of both original and actual sin” with “Mary was not freed of original sin but only of actual sin”, especially when the immaculate conception has been defined in such narrow, specific terms?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreads the seamless garment of the Lord, ‘woven from the top throughout,’ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover ‘the sealed fountain’ and ‘the garden enclosed,’ I think it is my duty to consult the Chair of Peter, and to turn to the church whose faith has been praised by Paul. …My words are spoken to the successor of the Fisherman, to the disciple of the of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with no one but Your Blessedness, that is with the Chair of Peter. For this I know is the Rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can rightly be eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (Jerome, Letter 15 --addressed to Pope Damasus I, c. 375 A.D.)

“With false bishops appointed for themselves, they (Novatian heretics) dare even set sail and carry their letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter* and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity (priestly unity) has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle, to whom heretical faith cannot have access.” (Cyp. ad. Cornelius).

“If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

This is a Byzantine forefather –a SAINT of the Orthodox Church

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Hope those help.

 

[Arizona_Samson]

My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

Original what, exactly?

 

[birdrock]

I recently saw a neat-o diagram illustrating the church traditions. The position was that the Orthodox Church is a less developed tradition, and the western church in general, including the Roman Catholic, has a better grasp on orthodoxy.

Ok I think I need to post a reference or else this post will be just a troll.

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/

Maybe this sort of soft post is old hat to y’all, but I read it two days ago and think its the bee’s knees.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is a good point. Eastern Orthodox polemicists who make their boisterous presence known on these forums would surely dismiss it as not even being remotely possible, but it seems less remotely possible that their opinions can be safely ignored.

And just who would these ‘boisterous’ Eastern Orthodox polemicists be? There are maybe three EO posters who post even somewhat regularly here in the non-Catholic section, and quite frankly, we don’t usually get too polemical until people start firing the polemics at us. I have plenty of ‘dirt’ that I could fire off, but I choose to refrain from using as taking pot shots is not a very charitable way to have a discussion.

What Marduk says about nobody leaving the true Church is not without merit, but I think all Christians have historically taken a rather hard-line stance that those who fall into error remove themselves from the true Church. How we are to deal with the fact that such opinions have been held historically by all three groups involved if we are to adopt this more union-friendly paradigm is unclear.

What issues prevent the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches from reuniting straight away, then: papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, and/or other matters?

While they might have come to a mutual understanding of Christology, the OO tend to be rather suspicious of the Roman Catholics, whom they see as being crypto-Nestorian. I don’t mean to discredit or offend Marduk here with my disagreement, but I think he might be a bit more optimistic in his assessment than most of the Oriental Christians whom I have interacted with. The events of the Council of Chalcedon and the approval Tome of Leo in particular (which many Orientals believe to be heretical) are most definitely the biggest impediment to any sort of union. The papal claims and papal infallibility would probably be number two.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not too informed on the matter but as far as I know both church’s do have apostolic succession and are able to trace their roots all the way back to the apostles. I also know that the main difference between the two is that we Catholics believe in the papacy while the Orthodox believe in equality among all bishops or something. Still, one church had to break off from the other in 1054. My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

They broke off. There was a schism…There was a split. If something that was whole splits into two then the question is do those that split retain the identity of the whole from which they split?

The dialogue today is that we are talking about Sister Churches, Orthodox/Catholic…Since the Church is not Orthodox or Catholic in the sense of naming them…the Church is actually Christ’s Church…what the bodies have done does not dimish the deposit of Faith…the family is just not acting in accord with the founder and needs to grow up…there is but One Church East/West…Christ is the original found in both in the Eucharist, no one will dispute that.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I’m not too informed on the matter but as far as I know both church’s do have apostolic succession and are able to trace their roots all the way back to the apostles. I also know that the main difference between the two is that we Catholics believe in the papacy while the Orthodox believe in equality among all bishops or something. Still, one church had to break off from the other in 1054. My question is, how do we know which Church is the original?

(I think there is a false dichotomy trying to make one Church original and the other unoriginal.)
But to answer your question the “original” Church was Mary, the Aposltes, and the disciples and those men and women who followed Jesus Christ and witness His Death and Resurrection; and both the HRC and EO churches are indebted to them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I recently saw a neat-o diagram illustrating the church traditions. The position was that the Orthodox Church is a less developed tradition, and the western church in general, including the Roman Catholic, has a better grasp on orthodoxy.

Ok I think I need to post a reference or else this post will be just a troll.

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/an-emerging-understanding-of-orthodox-2/

Maybe this sort of soft post is old hat to y’all, but I read it two days ago and think its the bee’s knees.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this writer’s point, but it looks to me as if he argues that the Roman Catholic Church has a better grasp on orthodoxy because it developed more doctrines that he believes to be orthodox from his Evangelical Protestant point of view (similarly, to him the reformers are even more orthodox than the Catholics). He also makes some pretty bizarre claims like the claim that the Eastern Orthodox have an undeveloped understanding of salvation and a distorted view of the atonement. The second is laughable, because he probably doesn’t realize that the Orthodox Church does in fact teach the ransom theory of atonement, but in a metaphoric way. It is the literal teaching of the ransom theory which is a distortion. Likewise, the first claim is completely untrue. The Orthodox view of soteriology is no less developed than the Western view, both involve Christ saving humanity from corruption through the incarnation and the hypostatic union.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

Obviously Catholicism. The Orthodox are in schism.

 

[CopticChristian]

Obviously Catholicism. The Orthodox are in schism.

There is always bias in a point of view. If this question were posted on an Orthodox site the bias would be the opposite. The Orthodox consider the OHCAC to be in schism. The OHCAC considers the Orthodox to be in schism.

The posting is divisive. The answers should look to the reality that the OHCAC and the Orthodox are hopefully uniting.

It would be like two parents that have lived apart and plan on uniting for the family…Do we like dad more or mom more…poor analogy however the sentiment is the same…

The unity of the family is far more important than what either any of us think or believe as to what is the “original formula”…the formula is Christ.