Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Trebor135]

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.

I wasn’t being entirely serious, hence the emoticon. I’ve actually noticed that almost no Catholic participants on these forums seem able to keep up with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts…

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.

The approaches of the three groups were based on what they knew. If the positions of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches can be better understood, and it is determined that they aren’t really as far apart as their ancestors believed, we don’t really have to “deal with” what has previously happened as something which is in need of reconciling.

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.

Some Protestants are “rather suspicious” of Catholics–and probably Orthodox–as “crypto-Pelagians” too, but to assert something and to prove it are two different things.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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 are both original Catholic Church due to valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders and valid sacraments.

There are three aspects to this subject that are of interests;

1. Theological; The Roman Catholic Church has continued to mature in doctrine and understanding of the revelations of Jesus Christ “matured in eating the meat of the Gospel if you will”, since the early Church councils defined the Trinity and made it doctrine. This growth or defining of doctrine becomes visible when the revelations of Jesus Christ come under attack.

The Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes appear to remain on the milk, because history reveals these being suppressed by their secular powers and find no need to define apostolic doctrines thus “Orthodox”. The problem is Jesus teachings came under attack as the world grows up as the Church was met with new languages, knowledge, scientific discoveries, communism idelogies etc… all attacked the revelations of Jesus and His teachings. The Popes and the magisterium protected and defended the apostolic teachings by defining the doctrines in languages and scientific understandings for the world to begin a life of faith in Jesus Christ.

To date these revealed defended doctrines Orthodoxy rejects become very minimal to almost disappearing among true ecumenical efforts to define and understand them theologically in both camps.

2. Spirituality; Orthodoxy and Catholicism maintain a liturgy, valid sacraments, valid holy orders to administer the great commission to baptize in the ministry of reconciliation. Historical Orthodoxy because if its secular powers ruling over them minimized their evangelization to got out into all the world. Whereby the Roman Catholic Church never ceased to evangelize the new world, new peoples, new languages in every tribe and nation.

It is here in the topic of spirituality that the schism enters profound circumstances. For instance, It is the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes, not the Popes refusing communion with the Orthodox. Spiritually this refusing of communion reveals who left who. I sense an abuse taking place here, when one refuses communion with Peter.

Orthodoxy before the schism of 1054 was always in communion and unity with chair of Peter in the Popes, until the secular powers crept in politically then Church history begins to take a turn on both sides. Orthodoxy being influenced and ruled over by her secular rulers and the Pope crowning new rulers in the west, which led to the demise if the unity of the Church. Later Orthodox would use theological understanding and definition of doctrine to be the excuse to develope a schism, when behind the scenes Eastern political power struggles with the Western political powers under the Popes became instrumental in dividing not only the Eastern and Western political powers but this secular intervention made a casm between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome.

1. From this phase in history now enters the main reason that the schism exists today.
   **“Authority”. **Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes want to remain autocephalous, independent in authority being ruled over by secular powers. While the Pope will not have any secular power over ruling the Catholic Church. This authority issue can be resolved when the Authority of the Church built by Jesus is never recognized as a secular power. Combining secular powers with the keys of the kingdom of heaven appears to be the misunderstanding.

Remove the false pretense that the Popes authority in Peter’s chair becomes a secular power escpecially when it comes to infallibility and give to God what belongs to God and give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar can apply here in the spiritiual authoritative sense not secular and political. This authority issue deals with pride of men, not the Catholic church which includes both Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[Bookcat]

Search for the article by Jimmy Akin “Why I am not Eastern Orthodox” or something to that effect…where he goes into why he became a Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox.

You can search his old site www.Jimmyakin.com or the Catholic.com site (main site here).

 

[Cavaradossi]

I wasn’t being entirely serious, hence the emoticon. I’ve actually noticed that almost no Catholic participants on these forums seem able to keep up with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts…

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Jokes are hard to understand over the internet at times, hehe.

The approaches of the three groups were based on what they knew. If the positions of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches can be better understood, and it is determined that they aren’t really as far apart as their ancestors believed, we don’t really have to “deal with” what has previously happened as something which is in need of reconciling.

That is feasable, but I think the issue goes a bit deeper, especially for the Orientals and the Easterners who place a rather heavy weight on what the fathers believed.

Some Protestants are “rather suspicious” of Catholics–and probably Orthodox–as “crypto-Pelagians” too, but to assert something and to prove it are two different things.

Right, but this is just talking about how the Orientals historically have perceived and continue to perceive Chalcedonian Christianity. They usually hold the view that both the EO and the Roman Catholics are crypto-Nestorians, and if I’m not mistaken, the Tome of Leo, which was approved by the council of Chalcedon has been anathematized in the past by the Orientals. I’m just presenting what the major obstacle to union is (Chalcedon).

 

[Cavaradossi]

They are both original Catholic Church due to valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders and valid sacraments.

There are three aspects to this subject that are of interests;

1. Theological; The Roman Catholic Church has continued to mature in doctrine and understanding of the revelations of Jesus Christ “matured in eating the meat of the Gospel if you will”, since the early Church councils defined the Trinity and made it doctrine. This growth or defining of doctrine becomes visible when the revelations of Jesus Christ come under attack.

The Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes appear to remain on the milk, because history reveals these being suppressed by their secular powers and find no need to define apostolic doctrines thus “Orthodox”. The problem is Jesus teachings came under attack as the world grows up as the Church was met with new languages, knowledge, scientific discoveries, communism idelogies etc… all attacked the revelations of Jesus and His teachings. The Popes and the magisterium protected and defended the apostolic teachings by defining the doctrines in languages and scientific understandings for the world to begin a life of faith in Jesus Christ.

To date these revealed defended doctrines Orthodoxy rejects become very minimal to almost disappearing among true ecumenical efforts to define and understand them theologically in both camps.

If the faith of the seven Ecumenical Councils is milk, then I will gladly remain on milk. Perhaps you have forgotten, but the doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, dyophysitism, dyothelitism, and icons were all defined in the East. Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, and purgatory are nowhere nearly as revolutionary as the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Why adulterate pure honey with such additions?

2. Spirituality; Orthodoxy and Catholicism maintain a liturgy, valid sacraments, valid holy orders to administer the great commission to baptize in the ministry of reconciliation. Historical Orthodoxy because if its secular powers ruling over them minimized their evangelization to got out into all the world. Whereby the Roman Catholic Church never ceased to evangelize the new world, new peoples, new languages in every tribe and nation.

It is here in the topic of spirituality that the schism enters profound circumstances. For instance, It is the Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes, not the Popes refusing communion with the Orthodox. Spiritually this refusing of communion reveals who left who. I sense an abuse taking place here, when one refuses communion with Peter.

So when Cardinal Humbert laid down a bull of excommunication in the Hagia Sophia during the year 1054, which excommunicated Patriarch Michael Caerularius, this was the Eastern side refusing communion with the West? We didn’t refuse communion with anybody. One of ‘Peter’s’ representatives was simply arrogant enough to think that he had the authority to excommunicate somebody who held to the true faith.

Orthodoxy before the schism of 1054 was always in communion and unity with chair of Peter in the Popes, until the secular powers crept in politically then Church history begins to take a turn on both sides. Orthodoxy being influenced and ruled over by her secular rulers and the Pope crowning new rulers in the west, which led to the demise if the unity of the Church. Later Orthodox would use theological understanding and definition of doctrine to be the excuse to develope a schism, when behind the scenes Eastern political power struggles with the Western political powers under the Popes became instrumental in dividing not only the Eastern and Western political powers but this secular intervention made a casm between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome.

The controversy over the filioque was not some sort of excuse to develop a schism. The Orthodox believed it to be wrong, hence, it generated a controversy. However, until the sack of Constantinople, the debate over the filioque was generally quite tame (as a matter of fact, the schism wasn’t really final until this point in time, it’s not clear that the East and West in 1054 realized that the schism was going to be anything permanent; it was only after the sack of Constantinople that it becomes apparent). It was only after 1204 that the filioque became a major polemical point.

1. From this phase in history now enters the main reason that the schism exists today.
   **“Authority”. **Orthodox who refuse communion with the Popes want to remain autocephalous, independent in authority being ruled over by secular powers. While the Pope will not have any secular power over ruling the Catholic Church. This authority issue can be resolved when the Authority of the Church built by Jesus is never recognized as a secular power. Combining secular powers with the keys of the kingdom of heaven appears to be the misunderstanding.

And just what secular power rules over Orthodoxy today? Actually, what secular power ever ruled over Orthodoxy? We defeated the heretic emperors back in the first millennium, and we will continue to defeat those who attempt either by force or deception to pollute the purity of our faith.

Remove the false pretense that the Popes authority in Peter’s chair becomes a secular power escpecially when it comes to infallibility and give to God what belongs to God and give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar can apply here in the spiritiual authoritative sense not secular and political. This authority issue deals with pride of men, not the Catholic church which includes both Orthodox and Catholics.

Yes, it does deal with pride, but how you can say this so confidently after rattling off a list of things that makes the Orthodox wrong and the Catholics right baffles me.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

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?

When Jesus the King returns: Do you want to be found faithful in obedience to Jesus’ Chief Steward, the Pope, or do you want to be caught in rebellion to the authority Jesus’ Himself established? The choice is each of ours to make.

Jesus maintained the norms for His Kingdom as had been laid out by the kings spoken of in the Old Testament when He established His Kingdom, His Church.

Just as every Kings’ Mother was the Queen, Mary, His Mother, is the Queen of Jesus’ Kingdom (Rev. 12).

Every King talked about in the OT had many, many stewards, but only one a Chief Steward.

Just one of many examples: the Pharaoh had Joseph as his Chief Steward & Joseph had previously been in jail along with 2 of Pharaoh’s many other stewards. If you remember, one was a steward of Pharaoh’s cup. Once Joseph had been made Pharaoh’s Chief Steward, all the other stewards remained stewards of Pharaoh, but were now under the authority of Joseph, the Chief Steward.

Jesus appointed his Chief Steward to be the Apostle Peter and his successors (Matt. 16:18). The other Apostles and their successors remain stewards of Jesus, but they are all under the authority of the Chief Steward: Peter and his successors.

Jesus made it clear to the Apostles, His Stewards, by using the language of Isaiah 22:22 when Jesus said in Matt. 16:19 that He will give Peter the Keys of His Kingdom, that Peter is the Chief Steward of Jesus’ Kingdom, the Church.

**I recommend reading “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy” by John Salza **

 

[MartyrForJesus]

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.

As long as we avoid indifferentism.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

No offense, but that site is pretty biased and clearly favors Evangelicals and Protestants in general, despite its appearance as neutral.

 

[Trebor135]

Swiss_Guy:
From the “Roman Catholic Scholars” section of the opening statement of an Eastern Orthodox in a debate with a Catholic on the papacy (emphasis added):

No wonder the Roman Church has become ecumenical in recent times, since the old style Roman position no longer stands up in the light of historical scrutiny. I can do no better than to quote a Roman Catholic Cardinal:

“The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West…In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century.”

Cardinal Yves Congar, “Diversity and Communion” Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982, pp. 26-27.

“Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion. We are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene.”

Cardinal Yves Congar, “After Nine Hundred Years” New York: Fordham University, 1959, pp. 61-62.

“It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.”

Cardinal Yves Congar, “Tradition and Traditions” New York: Macmillan, 1966, p. 398. Father Raniero Cantalamessa was the Papal Household Preacher several years ago. He said:

The notion of an orthodoxy that emerged victorious by eliminating its competitors under the powerful guidance of Rome is a pure legend. Orthodoxy was not established in its origins by way of a movement from the centre to the periphery, but on the contrary, by movement from the periphery towards the centre. The struggles against ebionite beliefs, docetism, and encratism did not move outwards from Rome, but all arrived in Rome from Antioch in Syria, from Asia Minor, from Alexandria in Egypt, from Carthage and from Lyon in France. Rome in the first two centuries and a half of Christian history was more the arbiter between the parties than a leading force in the struggles against heresy. Even in the Council of Nicea, the influence of Rome and of the West in general was minimal. Attributing to Rome the triumph of orthodoxy is, to a large extent, the consequence of a backward projection of later situations, if not of the present state of affairs!

Father Raniero Cantalamessa, from One Christianity or Many?.

Has anyone read these works in question? The above passages do seem fairly damning where the papacy as it exists today is concerned. Are the quotes reflective of the authors’ true stances, or have they been taken out of context?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8551778]If the faith of the seven Ecumenical Councils is milk, then I will gladly remain on milk

.

No you misunderstood my point; The Early Church was moving growing and eating the meat of the Gospels so as to defeat all heresies. After 1054 Orthodoxy pretends that the fight of the faith ended and remained on the milk under her oppressers. While the Popes and the magisterium continued the good fight, while the Orthodox holding to Orthodoxy maintained under secular powers. In other words Orthodoxy never continued the path of the Early Councils as the world grows up, while the Roman Catholic Church did and still does today.

What “developed in doctrine” from the Early Church councils to defeat her enemies such as Mary “God bearer” = Theotokos, defining the new developed doctrine in the Trinity, continued in the west with the Immaculate conception, Transubstantiation. These are terms developed by the Church to defeat heretics and heresies. Orthodoxy remained on the milk after 1054 a.d. but it should be mentioned she fought for her life to maintain her Orthodoxy while on the milk of the Gospels.

Perhaps you have forgotten, but the doctrines of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, dyophysitism, dyothelitism, and icons were all defined in the East. Doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, the Filioque, and purgatory are nowhere nearly as revolutionary as the doctrines defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Why adulterate pure honey with such additions?

You speak as if there never was a Pope in existance during these trying times. The reason you counciled was because of your Emperor who ruled over the Orthodox to make peace with the heretics or excommunicate their teachings. Remember your Emperor decided on the councils rulings to be excercised in his kingdom at the approval of the Popes. When the Orthodox members began to be influenced heavily on the secular powers the Saints went to the Popes for approval and acceptance. But somehow you forget this part of history?

So when Cardinal Humbert laid down a bull of excommunication in the Hagia Sophia during the year 1054, which excommunicated Patriarch Michael Caerularius, this was the Eastern side refusing communion with the West? We didn’t refuse communion with anybody. One of ‘Peter’s’ representatives was simply arrogant enough to think that he had the authority to excommunicate somebody who held to the true faith.

Cardinal Humbert laid down a bull of excommunication after his pope was already dead. Humbert along with his personal convictions regarding the Orthodox negativities towards the Western Church was simply tired of the bickering and lack of communication and understanding broke down that Humbert acted alone. You should know this history has long been laid down to rest and forgiven because the Excommunications were personal and never by the Church’s themselves.

Today this cannot be said of Orthodoxy refusing Communion with their Brethren presiding in the Chair of Peter in the Popes.

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont’;

The controversy over the filioque was not some sort of excuse to develop a schism. The Orthodox believed it to be wrong, hence, it generated a controversy. However, until the sack of Constantinople, the debate over the filioque was generally quite tame (as a matter of fact, the schism wasn’t really final until this point in time, it’s not clear that the East and West in 1054 realized that the schism was going to be anything permanent; it was only after the sack of Constantinople that it becomes apparent). It was only after 1204 that the filioque became a major polemical point.

You are mixing two histories here. The complaint from the Patriarch of Constantinople about the Filioque, unleavened bread, fast days, celibate priests never bothered most of the Other Church Fathers, and still don’t today to those who remained in communion with the Popes since the early councils.

These complaints from the Patriarch of Constantinople were excuses and began to gain support from both religious and political powers from the East to ursurp powers from the Popes in Rome as the Patriarch of Constantinople did to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexander along with the Patriarchs Emperor at his side with the money bag and military influence.

In short the Popes only recourse before succumbing to any political powers especially pagan, appointed his own Catholic Emperor to rule the lands, while the Pope tended the flock of Jesus Christ without the influence of pagan Emperors. Thus begins the road to schism and excuses being introduced to create conflict between the East and Western Empires.

And just what secular power rules over Orthodoxy today? Actually, what secular power ever ruled over Orthodoxy? We defeated the heretic emperors back in the first millennium, and we will continue to defeat those who attempt either by force or deception to pollute the purity of our faith.

There were many apostates and heretics from Orthodoxy that had secular powers supporting them, later Islam conquers then Communism, to begin with. Constantine and all his successors both Christian and Pagan Emperors ruled over the Eastern Church this became abundantly clear when The Emperor Constantine moved his captial to Constantinople and placed his own Patriarch there to rule over, thus the Patriarch began to usurp Apostolic Sees to himself. While the Patriarch’s of Constantinople is never an apostolic see. A Patriarch of Constantinople is an ecclessial office it is never apostolic.

Yes, it does deal with pride, but how you can say this so confidently after rattling off a list of things that makes the Orthodox wrong and the Catholics right baffles me

.

I never said the Orthodox were wrong, I revealed that the Orthodox ruled over by secular powers influenced the schism between East and West at the discretion of the Patriarch of Constantinople for monetary gain and political power to weaken the Popes and the Western Emperors. When the Eastern Emperors realized they could not defeat the Western Emperors, your Eastern Emperors made sure to keep you “Orthodox” separated from the Popes, because had unity continue with in the magisterium and Popes from both East and West the Eastern Political powers were surely to fall. This simple arithematic stll holds true today.

If the Eastern, Orthodox Church’s come into full communion with the Popes, your Eastern anti-Christ political powers that supress your evangelization in the East are sure to crumble.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

From the “Roman Catholic Scholars” section of the opening statement of an Eastern Orthodox in a debate with a Catholic on the papacy (emphasis added):

Has anyone read these works in question? The above passages do seem fairly damning where the papacy as it exists today is concerned. Are the quotes reflective of the authors’ true stances, or have they been taken out of context?

I have never read them, but it appears to be taken out of context from the get go; This language of never being introduced highlighted below has the sounds of an Orthodox writer not a Roman Catholic Cardinal. And if it is a Catholic Cardinal then this is definitely taken out of context because a Cardinal would of applied dates here not the word “Never”, making the content here very questionable from the get go to all the following.

If anything the context raises questions because I “never” read a Catholic Cardinal to write using the arguments of an Orthodox with words of support such as “jealously”,“never”, " Eastern bishops submitting to the judgement of Western bishops"? is never the language from a Catholic Cardinal. If this Cardinal did right this it is taken out of context and or should be reported to his superior. Not for supporting the Orthodox position, but for lying publicly.

"The East **never **accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life.

 

[Trebor135]

I have never read them, but it appears to be taken out of context from the get go; This language of never being introduced highlighted below has the sounds of an Orthodox writer not a Roman Catholic Cardinal. And if it is a Catholic Cardinal then this is definitely taken out of context because a Cardinal would of applied dates here not the word “Never”, making the content here very questionable from the get go to all the following.

If anything the context raises questions because I “never” read a Catholic Cardinal to write using the arguments of an Orthodox with words of support such as “jealously”,“never”, " Eastern bishops submitting to the judgement of Western bishops"? is never the language from a Catholic Cardinal. If this Cardinal did right this it is taken out of context and or should be reported to his superior. Not for supporting the Orthodox position, but for lying publicly.

The language in the Yves Congar citations above, especially the one you allude to, is indeed not what one would expect from a Catholic cardinal in the least. CAF searches didn’t turn up threads which address these passages. If the modern papacy is to be defended as the result of development rather than innovation, these quotes have to be explained in one of three ways:

• Yves Congar led the career of a liberal heretic wont to taking a modernistic approach, which would mean that he would also have disputed Eastern Orthodox claims; or
• Yves Congar’s words have been taken out of context, and elsewhere he argues the historical basis for the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the bishop of Rome; or
• Yves Congar found himself compelled by the indisputable facts of history to acknowledge truths unfavourable to the faith he oddly continued to hold anyway.

What’s going on here?

 

[Trebor135]

Also…

If the Eastern, Orthodox Church’s come into full communion with the Popes, your Eastern anti-Christ political powers that supress your evangelization in the East are sure to crumble.

Which are these “anti-Christ political powers” today that “supress [Eastern Orthodox] evangelization in the East”? Communism went out with a whimper in most countries subject to this lousy ideology twenty years ago, thanks be to God.

 

[Formosus]

The language in the Yves Congar citations above, especially the one you allude to, is indeed not what one would expect from a Catholic cardinal in the least. CAF searches didn’t turn up threads which address these passages. If the modern papacy is to be defended as the result of development rather than innovation, these quotes have to be explained in one of three ways:
…
- Yves Congar found himself compelled by the indisputable facts of history to acknowledge truths unfavourable to the faith he oddly continued to hold anyway.

What’s going on here?

We have a winner.

If anyone wants to discern between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I think the only fair way to do it is to live the life. Talk with the priests and the people, and read spiritual and not polemical or apologetic works from both side. Then seek God’s will as to where you should go.

 

[Formosus]

…
If the Eastern, Orthodox Church’s come into full communion with the Popes, your Eastern anti-Christ political powers **that supress your evangelization in the East **are sure to crumble.

…

No, instead it would be the Roman Curia bureaucracy just like it is with Eastern Catholics.

 

[Trebor135]

We have a winner.

If anyone wants to discern between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I think the only fair way to do it is to live the life. Talk with the priests and the people, and read spiritual and not polemical or apologetic works from both side. Then seek God’s will as to where you should go.

But the intellectual component of the journey is so vital for me. I’ll never feel any kind of confidence in the faith affiliation I claim if I don’t know the what’s and why’s as well as the what not’s and why not’s of being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I can’t just make up my mind on the basis of the friendlier parishioners at a Melkite Catholic Church, the more appetizing potluks at a Maronite Catholic church, the more inspiring and instructive homilies at an American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox church, or the greater availability of the serving clergy for spiritual direction at a Ukrainian Orthodox church…

 

[Marybeloved]

But the intellectual component of the journey is so vital for me. I’ll never feel any kind of confidence in the faith affiliation I claim if I don’t know the what’s and why’s as well as the what not’s and why not’s of being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I can’t just make up my mind on the basis of the friendlier parishioners at a Melkite Catholic Church, the more appetizing potluks at a Maronite Catholic church, the more inspiring and instructive homilies at an American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox church, or the greater availability of the serving clergy for spiritual direction at a Ukrainian Orthodox church…

You and your kin (those stuck between Judah and Israel) should storm heaven with prayers for union- Tell the Theotokos that you can’t bear to be away from the church- or to be forced to decide who is right (in order to choose) when the two giants seem unable to resolve the issues themselves! Tell her to perform a miracle so outstanding that it’ll confound the prideful men in the hierarchies and force them to do the right thing in-spite of themselves. If union ever happens, my friend, it’ll be by divine intervention or heavenly mirace.

Though I should say, my friend- you need the sacraments- so at some point you’ll have to make a decision, even if a best guess one. You can never come to 100% resolution on one side, it’ll have to be 60, 70, 80% kinda thing.

Peace!

 

[Formosus]

But the intellectual component of the journey is so vital for me. I’ll never feel any kind of confidence in the faith affiliation I claim if I don’t know the what’s and why’s as well as the what not’s and why not’s of being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. I can’t just make up my mind on the basis of the friendlier parishioners at a Melkite Catholic Church, the more appetizing potluks at a Maronite Catholic church, the more inspiring and instructive homilies at an American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox church, or the greater availability of the serving clergy for spiritual direction at a Ukrainian Orthodox church…

I am not saying to ignore the intellectual component. I am saying that you can not rely on it entirely here. The historical debate and polemic between both sides can be very convincing depending on what source or what person you talk to (though admittedly I think the Orthodox conception of history on the issue is more correct but that is my personal bias). This sort of life decision has to be made on the basis of Grace and discernment, not polemical arguments or even on the basis of the delicious potlucks (which would be an even harder way of deciding then the historical arguments ). You have to read, pray, visit, and discern. Trust in God, avoid approaching it from an uncharitable or legalistic manner, and I am certain you will find where God wants you to go.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.

No you misunderstood my point; The Early Church was moving growing and eating the meat of the Gospels so as to defeat all heresies. After 1054 Orthodoxy pretends that the fight of the faith ended and remained on the milk under her oppressers. While the Popes and the magisterium continued the good fight, while the Orthodox holding to Orthodoxy maintained under secular powers. In other words Orthodoxy never continued the path of the Early Councils as the world grows up, while the Roman Catholic Church did and still does today.

Ridiculous and blasphemous. Contrary to your opinion, theological development in the East did not stop after 1054 (the incorrect date that you keep attributing to the schism, even though you have admitted that Cardinal Humbert essentially acted outside of his authority).

What “developed in doctrine” from the Early Church councils to defeat her enemies such as Mary “God bearer” = Theotokos, defining the new developed doctrine in the Trinity, continued in the west with the Immaculate conception, Transubstantiation. These are terms developed by the Church to defeat heretics and heresies. Orthodoxy remained on the milk after 1054 a.d. but it should be mentioned she fought for her life to maintain her Orthodoxy while on the milk of the Gospels.

I am sorry that you find that the faith of our Fathers is milk. I guess all of this stuff about the Eastern and Western lungs of the Church being equal in dignity is a sham then. What a shame.

You speak as if there never was a Pope in existance during these trying times. The reason you counciled was because of your Emperor who ruled over the Orthodox to make peace with the heretics or excommunicate their teachings. Remember your Emperor decided on the councils rulings to be excercised in his kingdom at the approval of the Popes. When the Orthodox members began to be influenced heavily on the secular powers the Saints went to the Popes for approval and acceptance. But somehow you forget this part of history?

What are you talking about? The Ecumenical Councils were called in order to defeat heresy when a doctrinal dispute broke out. What Ecumenical Council was called in order to make peace with heretics? The only one you might be able to argue for coming close would be Constantinople II, but even then, the conclusions of Constantinople II (the condemnation of the writings of Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the Letter of Ibas) were true.

Cardinal Humbert laid down a bull of excommunication after his pope was already dead. Humbert along with his personal convictions regarding the Orthodox negativities towards the Western Church was simply tired of the bickering and lack of communication and understanding broke down that Humbert acted alone. You should know this history has long been laid down to rest and forgiven because the Excommunications were personal and never by the Church’s themselves.

Today this cannot be said of Orthodoxy refusing Communion with their Brethren presiding in the Chair of Peter in the Popes.

You make it out as if it were so simple. Unless we are one in faith, there will be no communion. The Orthodox believe Vatican I to be a severe departure from the faith of our Fathers, and until this issue can be resolved, there will be no communion.