Which one: Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Marybeloved]

How it does so is a mystery, just like salvation and the sacraments are great mysteries.

I prefer to speak of him as “he”, but I digress.

You’ve heard of the concept of consensus patrem, have you not? It’s similar; there becomes a clear consensus over time (like what happened with the trinitarians, even though Arians and semi-Arians outnumbered them at first).

The authoritative teaching of the Church is the reason the Trinity was embraced in opposition to Arianism

Again, this is a great mystery of the Holy Spirit how the body of Christ is guided into consensus.

Looks to me like the democracy thing after all, except that you call it a mystery of the Holy Spirit. Mystery is God speaking through the mouths (and pens) of sinful fallible men, infallibly.

Then the Catholic system is nothing but magisterial and papal sola scriptura.

Ridiculous. Sola scriptura is the rejection of a final teaching authority outside of oneself- Catholicism is anything but sola scriptura. You should know, you accuse us all the time of placing too much authority in the Bishop of Rome!

Authority rests not in man but in the one Godhead which guides the Church through the actions of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think a televangelist could have put it any better. But it really amounts to nothing in the end. Of course authority resides in God! That’s what makes church teaching infallible.

Perhaps that answer is unsatisfactory to you, but then there is no such thing as certainty in faith.

Exactly, which is why we trust that whatever the church teaches through its teaching organs cannot contain error- Faith!

 

[Trebor135]

I wonder who you mean when you speak of “the Orthodox” in this regard.

Whenever this issue comes up, Eastern Orthodox will, in my experience, always say of Catholic sacraments, “We do not know if they convey grace,” or “They definitely do not convey grace.” Their conception of the “Church” differs radically from that held by Catholics.

You’ll certainly find many Trad Caths who would happily stick to this exact opinion of the Orthodox (and some must, still) but for the clarity in Catholicism on who exactly speaks for the Church.

Interesting point. Did the Catholic Church, say in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, regard Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid? Sedevacantism came about following Vatican II in 1962-65. If the Church’s teachings were pure and reliable at any points in time, this would have been the case in 1650 and 1800. The answer will determine the consistency of the “Trad Caths” in adhering to the tradition, or perhaps Tradition, on this point.

This view on catholic sacraments is not something you can properly attribute to the orthodox as a whole.

Indeed. A council hasn’t made a binding decision on the matter, so variation in opinion is still allowed.

As an aside, my friend, if all the many giants of sanctity in the churches are not clear proof of an abundant grace present in and The Holy Spirit busy at work in the Church, then nothing is. .

True. I was going to suggest that, by this logic, I could justifiably consider joining one of the Protestant denominations given that their devout adherents, in the queue to enter heaven, are likely miles ahead of large numbers of lukewarm self-professed Catholics. But I have to note that those denominations aren’t famous for producing individuals along the lines of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saints. The doctrine of sola fide doesn’t, when understood correctly, encourage antinomianism–quite the opposite, in fact–but saints don’t really fit in with this theology either.

 

[Marybeloved]

Interesting point. Did the Catholic Church, say in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, describe Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid? Sedevacantism came about following Vatican II in 1962-65. If the Church was pure and reliable at any points in time, it would have been in 1700 and 1800. The answer will determine their consistency in adhering to the traditional, or Traditional, teaching on the matter.

You’ve answered yourself in the next comment my friend

They haven’t defined the matter, so variation in opinion is still allowed.

My point was simple, it wasn’t as you assume, about “proving” Catholic superiority to Orthodoxy. It was showing only that the lack of recognition of orthodoxy’s sacraments is also present in catholicism. But it’s clear ultimately when Catholicism can be properly said to “recognize” any other communion, regardless of any diversity of opinions on the issue, and believe me, there are. I said this because you spoke of E.O position on catholic sacraments as invalid, which cannot be said to be E.O teaching based on Cavaradossi’s explanations in the previous posts.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I prefer to speak of him as “he”, but I digress.The authoritative teaching of the Church is the reason the Trinity was embraced in opposition to Arianism Looks to me like the democracy thing after all, except that you call it a mystery of the Holy Spirit. Mystery is God speaking through the mouths (and pens) of sinful fallible men, infallibly.

The real reason for the defeat of Arianism in the East was that an emperor came into power who did not hold personal Arian convictions.

Ridiculous. Sola scriptura is the rejection of a final teaching authority outside of oneself- Catholicism is anything but sola scriptura. You should know, you accuse us all the time of placing too much authority in the Bishop of Rome!

And when did I do that? I am under the authority of my bishop, and if I am corrected on sone matter and shown to be wrong, I would certainly submit to his judgment. There is no sola anything in Orthodoxy, everything involves the Church as a holistic body made up of individuals.

I don’t think a televangelist could have put it any better. But it really amounts to nothing in the end. Of course authority resides in God! That’s what makes church teaching infallible. Exactly, which is why we trust that whatever the church teaches through its teaching organs cannot contain error- Faith!

Yes, and in Orthodoxy the teaching organ is the entire body of the Church. Athanasius was a deacon at the time of Nicaea; by your own definition, he would have had no clout since the magisterium and the papacy is limited to bishops (of course, he could not vote at Nicaea, but his teaching was still highly influential). Your view of authority just didn’t agree with history.

 

[ConstantineTG]

English lesson time…

He built a Church.

For any possible lurkers: If you are struggling between EO and the CC, I’d remember which one has authoritative councils after the first 7 Eastern Councils (i.e continues to teach and continues to learn (end of Matthew 28, John 16:13)) and which one is united with Peter’s successor the bishop of Rome. Or, look at the ECF and see if they support the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Imho it’s the Catholic Church hands down. I’m sure some Orthodox will disagree, but

Even the Eastern Catholic Churches do not see the Councils beyond the 7th as a true Ecumenical Council. I don’t even know what the situation is with the non-Chalcedonians, if the Catholic counterparts even accept the latter Councils or is the recent declaration of Christology enough.

 

[Marybeloved]

Even the Eastern Catholic Churches do not see the Councils beyond the 7th as a true Ecumenical Council. I don’t even know what the situation is with the non-Chalcedonians, if the Catholic counterparts even accept the latter Councils or is the recent declaration of Christology enough.

They may not call them ecumenical (even many Latin Catholics don’t) but binding and authoritative, they sure are, the EC cannot reject the doctrines taught therein,

 

[Marybeloved]

The real reason for the defeat of Arianism in the East was that an emperor came into power who did not hold personal Arian convictions.

That may be the reason a schism did not develop, it was not the reason the Trinity was the authoritative Christian teaching.

And when did I do that? I am under the authority of my bishop, and if I am corrected on sone matter and shown to be wrong, I would certainly submit to his judgment. There is no sola anything in Orthodoxy, everything involves the Church as a holistic body made up of individuals.

You’re the one that called Catholic ecclessiology sola scriptura.

Yes, and in Orthodoxy the teaching organ is the entire body of the Church. Athanasius was a deacon at the time of Nicaea; by your own definition, he would have had no clout since the magisterium and the papacy is limited to bishops (of course, he could not vote at Nicaea, but his teaching was still highly influential). Your view of authority just didn’t agree with history.

There are many influential lay men. Certainly many great saints in the West are not Bishops, there are even women doctors of the church. However, influence is not authority, and the laity cannot determine what has not been given them to determine.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Even the Eastern Catholic Churches do not see the Councils beyond the 7th as a true Ecumenical Council. I don’t even know what the situation is with the non-Chalcedonians, if the Catholic counterparts even accept the latter Councils or is the recent declaration of Christology enough.

How can you not accept the latter councils and be Catholic? They are authoritative, regardless of whether or not you consider them Ecumenical. But I feel like I’m missing something…

 

[ConstantineTG]

They may not call them ecumenical (even many Latin Catholics don’t) but binding and authoritative, they sure are, the EC cannot reject the doctrines taught therein,

It seems for your perspective people only have two choices with a Church Council, accept it or reject it. Those are not the only two options. The later Western councils had nothing to do with the Eastern praxis. A lot of what has been defined is already part of the Eastern faith for hundreds of years. We do not need to accept something we already believe, especially if its defined in a praxis different from ours. We also do not reject it claiming its false.

 

[ConstantineTG]

How can you not accept the latter councils and be Catholic? They are authoritative, regardless of whether or not you consider them Ecumenical. But I feel like I’m missing something…

It addressed issues in the West and came out with definitions that is for the Western praxis.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the dogma taught by councils in the second millennium are matters of the faith that are new and never existed before the council defined it?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It addressed issues in the West and came out with definitions that is for the Western praxis.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that the dogma taught by councils in the second millennium are matters of the faith that are new and never existed before the council defined it?

No. Do you?

 

[Cavaradossi]

There are many influential lay men. Certainly many great saints in the West are not Bishops, there are even women doctors of the church. However, influence is not authority, and the laity cannot determine what has not been given them to determine.

I cannot understand how one would think that the Holy Spirit offers its (or his, it depends on the language, as in Greek it’s neuter, and in Latin it’s masculine) guidance to the pope, and possibly the magisterium (but in a way that the magisterium cannot act separately from the pope) but not to the entire body of the Church as a holistic entity. This is a rather troublesome and seemingly insurmountable difference between the Catholic and Orthodox mindset. This is not meant to undermine the authority of bishops as icons of Christ and successors of the apostles, nor their exclusive privilege to cast a vote in synods, but large groups of bishops can and have been wrong in the past (Ephesus II and Constantinople IV (869) are prime examples).

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. Do you?

No. The dogmatic definitions are just that, definitions. And its a Western definition. The East has always believed what was defined, but in an Eastern way. So why do we need to accept the Western definition? Like I said, we do not reject it nor accept it because it adds nothing to what we have already.

 

[Marybeloved]

I cannot understand how one would think that the Holy Spirit offers its (or his, it depends on the language, as in Greek it’s neuter, and in Latin it’s masculine) guidance to the pope, and possibly the magisterium (but in a way that the magisterium cannot act separately from the pope) but not to the entire body of the Church as a holistic entity. This is a rather troublesome and seemingly insurmountable difference between the Catholic and Orthodox mindset. This is not meant to undermine the authority of bishops as icons of Christ and successors of the apostles, nor their exclusive privilege to cast a vote in synods, but large groups of bishops can and have been wrong in the past (Ephesus II and Constantinople IV (869) are prime examples).

The Bishops do more than cast a vote- they are not members of parliament/congress passing a new bill or a piece of legislation. They teach the church authoritatively, and the laity does not get to usurp their authority by picking and choosing what they accept and what they don’t from what the college of Bishops has taught.

 

[Marybeloved]

No. The dogmatic definitions are just that, definitions. And its a Western definition. The East has always believed what was defined, but in an Eastern way. So why do we need to accept the Western definition? Like I said, we do not reject it nor accept it because it adds nothing to what we have already.

Of course the East always believed it, the West did too or it would not be part of the faith. But there’s no choice about holding to the faith taught by the councils whichever the cause for their proclamations, East or West. They have been proclaimed nonetheless, whichever language you use, and no catholic is free to to not accept the teachings as you imply, whichever language they may use to express it, whatever formulas- They are matters of faith. For example, Eastern Catholics don’t recite the creed with the filioque, but they must hold to the faith expressed by the filioque nonetheless- that latter part is not optional.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Bishops do more than cast a vote- they are not members of parliament/congress passing a new bill or a piece of legislation. They teach the church authoritatively, and the laity does not get to usurp their authority by picking and choosing what they accept and what they don’t from what the college of Bishops has taught.

I’m tired of you putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that bishops are basically parliamentarians. Did you miss the part where I called them icons of Christ and successors of the apostles, or are you just being dishonest? If you want to believe that the bishops are the only thing that makes up the mystical body of the Church which will not be overcome by the gates of hell then you are free to do so. I however prefer to think of the Church and her relation with the Truth as mystery, just as the Church is mystically the bride of Christ.

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m tired of you putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that bishops are basically parliamentarians. Did you miss the part where I called them icons of Christ and successors of the apostles, or are you just being dishonest? If you want to believe that the bishops are the only thing that makes up the mystical body of the Church which will not be overcome by the gates of hell then you are free to do so. I however prefer to think of the Church and her relation with the Truth as mystery, just as the Church is mystically the bride of Christ.

Enjoy your day, my friend.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Enjoy your day, my friend.

Enjoy your day too! I think we’ve exhausted this topic .

 

[Geaux_LSU]

"I cannot understand how one would think that the Holy Spirit offers its (or his, it depends on the language, as in Greek it’s neuter, and in Latin it’s masculine) guidance to the pope, and possibly the magisterium (but in a way that the magisterium cannot act separately from the pope) but not to the entire body of the Church as a holistic entity."

Cavaradossi, this just make my day.

As a Roman Catholic, I used to have the attitude that the clergy were “The Church” and the laity were just there to tag along. But after reading about the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ, I can clearly see that all members are indeed “The Church” of whom God works and speaks through as a holistic entity.

I feel inevitably drawn to the spirituality of the Eastern Orthodox, and I cannot help but feel that the EO have a better attitude towards spirituality than us RC’s at times. This just makes me pray more fervently for the East and West to be reunited soon!