Why are you not orthodox

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Gary, it should also be noted that “prince” is an Anglicanization of the Latin “princeps,” which does mean pre-eminent. The fact that Peter was “Prince of the Apostles” does not mean that the other apostles were peasants or anything like that.

 

[pnewton]

The Roman Catholic insistence that one man speak for all of Christianity is very odd, to say the least.

Odd? Where in the history of God dealing with man did he ever assign a committee?

There was one man, Adam, to whom he gave the fate of Man.

There was one man, Abram, who was called from the land of Ur.

There was one son who followed Abraham and Isaac was only able to bestow a blessing of inheritance on one son.

Then there was the model of equal sons (twelve) and bondage and slavery.

There was one man, Moses, who lead them forth from that bondage, ascended the Mountain of God and received the Law.

Moses had one successor, Joshua.

Upon the death of Joshua, the tribes again governed themselves and the nation of Israel struggled so that God had to raise up judges, again One at a time.

We raised up one King, David, to lead the nation of Israel into peace and prosperity. When division came, so war came again.

In the fullness of time, it was through one man, the seed of David and Son of God, through whom salvation came.

Upon his departure (according to our doctrine) he left the responsibility for the Church in the hands of one person who has handed it down ever since.

You find this last one odd? That is how God rolls, historically speaking.

 

[Aramis]

what are your objections to the eastern orthodox faith

bonus question: what are your arguments for the Roman Catholic church

Simply Put: The Eastern Orthodox have flawed ecclesiology. The EO also have flaws in sacramental theology.

A 6th century assyrian bishop referred to the pope in an analogy - the pope is to patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops. (Given the assyrians view of patriarchs, it’s clearly FAR stronger than the EO have.

The flaws in sacramental ecclesiology are this: The EO universally claim that there is no valid sacrament outside the Church. And yet, they accept the baptisms of others. Can’t have it both ways - either they’re chrismating some who are invalidly baptised in the name of Economia, or some sacraments can be valid outside the Church.

Further, the sacramental theology of the Orthodox allows for termination of valid marriages as an economia. This is a second case where economia goes too far.

If one looks, only the Roman Communion, the Eastern Orthodox Communion, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and the Assyrians can trace their apostolic lineages back to the apostles… all 4 groups share much of sacramental theology, and aside from the EO, much of ecclesiology (for the EO, it’s merely some of ecclesiology).

Further, one other error of the EO arrises - that the sobor with laymen has authority over who is bishop.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m orthodox, but I’m not Orthodox.

Reasons why we have a Pope

Peter and the Papacy
Peter the Rock
Peter’s Primacy
Peter’s Roman Residency
Peter’s Successors
Was Peter in Rome?
Papal Infallibility
The Pope - Catholic Encyclopedia
The Primacy of Peter in Sacred Scripture and in the Early Church
St. Cyprian, an Eastern early Church father and martyr, about the role of Peter
Primacy of Rome - Early Church fathers
The Authority of the Pope: Part I
The Authority of the Pope: Part II
Origins of Peter as Pope

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, it should also be noted that “prince” is an Anglicanization of the Latin “princeps,” which does mean pre-eminent. The fact that Peter was “Prince of the Apostles” does not mean that the other apostles were peasants or anything like that.

Thank You.

 

[dzheremi]

Odd? Where in the history of God dealing with man did he ever assign a committee?

Um…Pentecost? The great commission? My point is not that there have not been times when God has worked through one man or one woman, but that the history of the Church itself shows that there has never been only one man to fulfill God’s will on earth through the Church.

There was one man, Adam, to whom he gave the fate of Man.

There was one man, Abram, who was called from the land of Ur.

There was one son who followed Abraham and Isaac was only able to bestow a blessing of inheritance on one son.

Then there was the model of equal sons (twelve) and bondage and slavery.

There was one man, Moses, who lead them forth from that bondage, ascended the Mountain of God and received the Law.

Moses had one successor, Joshua.

Upon the death of Joshua, the tribes again governed themselves and the nation of Israel struggled so that God had to raise up judges, again One at a time.

We raised up one King, David, to lead the nation of Israel into peace and prosperity. When division came, so war came again.

In the fullness of time, it was through one man, the seed of David and Son of God, through whom salvation came.

And again, these are all examples of God working through one man, which I’m not saying He can’t do. My only point is that the history of the Church supports a different model. Were that not the case, why is Church history – even Roman Catholic Church history – so filled with councils? What was or is their point if it all comes down to one man making his decision to which the entire Church must abide by virtue of his authority over them? Why bother making all the bishops of Asia, Africa, Europe, etc. travel to Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus (and many other places for those of you who recognize later councils)? If the early Church did work as the RCC says it does, it seems that they were woefully ignorant of their role as subservient to the Roman bishop (particularly in Constantinople, where they accepted the infamous third canon that Rome did not, and of course for the Byzantines later at Trullo).

Upon his departure (according to our doctrine) he left the responsibility for the Church in the hands of one person who has handed it down ever since.

You find this last one odd? That is how God rolls, historically speaking.

I find your entire way of looking at Church history odd. He was not with only one apostle at His transfiguration, for instance. His last supper was held around all His apostles, even the one who would betray Him (actually, two, if you count St. Peter’s three-time denial which was foretold). Not only one disciple evangelized Antioch (that was St. Peter and Paul), nor Mesopotamia (Mar Addai and Mari), nor Ethiopia (Frumentius and Edesius, and the others of the ), etc. Again, there’s more than one way to look at Church history, and neither of our churches stop at the examples/archetypes of the Jewish patriarchs as though these are evidence for how the Church is to be run in perpetuity throughout the universe. Were that the case, we’d wonder what that whole “Pentecost” thing was all about, and why it included people of every nation, rather than raising up one man, as was common in previous eras.

 

[pnewton]

Um…Pentecost? The great commission? .

That is a work crew, not a committee.

My point is not that there have not been times when God has worked through one man or one woman, but that the history of the Church itself shows that there has never been only one man to fulfill God’s will on earth through the Church

Peter and Cornelius (at Caesarea, by the way)

11 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: … "Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

I find your entire way of looking at Church history odd.

Odd? Catholicism is historical Christianity. There are over a billion Catholics. Maybe “odd” means something to the Orthodox that that which is unusual. I became Catholic as an adult. My training and background was at a Southern Baptist university then seminary. It was there I first studied Church history and I assure you there is nothing odd about it.

So, how often was Jesus alone with Peter? You do not know. I am sure he was, I he was alone from time to time with many of the apostles. It would not do for Jesus to address to Peter in private, though, that which was need to be heard by all, as in John 21. We only have two apostles who wrote a Gospel, though there is no doubt others contributed to them. The both mention Peter more than all the other apostles combined.

Again, this is why I am not and will never be Orthodox. I do not believe their claim of episcopal equality in a way that denies Petrine primacy.

Isn’t this what one would expect on a Catholic forum? I have no idea what it would be like an Orthodox forum. I do not think it proper to proselytize there and I do not know how I could respond to such things without it.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course it is what is expected in a Catholic forum. As to proselytizing, don’t look at me. I’m not the OP, and I am not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would not have bothered to ask the questions the OP has asked, though since this thread has moved somewhat beyond that, it is certainly reasonable that others may participate.

The rest of what you wrote…ehhh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. For what it’s worth, however, no Orthodox deny Petrine primacy. What we do deny is the uniquely Roman conception that it means that the Pope of Rome is St. Peter’s only successor, that it imbues him with powers not present in other bishops (e.g., universal jurisdiction, infallibility, etc. all the hits I’m sure you’ve heard a million times before, so there’s no point in going over them again here, as none will be moved either way), and all the other stances that developed as a result of Rome’s unique ecclesiology.

 

[Tax_Collector14]

@Trebor135

*I would be delighted if such a thing could be arranged, but alas it will only become possible when the two sides are theologically reconciled.

How would you view a High-Church Anglican receiving communion at a Catholic Mass?*

Two words: Anglicanorum Coetibus

Taking your analogy, I’m not saying a High-Church Anglican could go now or even before AC…

Granted, not apples to apples (because it was Benedict who threw them a lifeline, not the other way around), but a sketch and potential blueprint for unity in the sense of an openess perhaps? One can always hope…

 

[adawgj]

To begin with. I really like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, you have great wisdom and traditions. We both have a true devotion to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. I hope that I can one day help out the Orthodox in my area and make good friends, because good friends make good relations.

However I do not want to be Orthodox because

First- I enjoy being Catholic, it would be too difficult for me to give up my faith.

Second-Leadership, I like the system of their being a Vicar for Christ. Somebody should be a visible head of the flock.

Third-Even if I did want to be Orthodox their is always the Eastern Catholic Churches that are in union with Rome.

Fourth-I don’t like the fact that there is a “schism” between our Churches, and I would much rather side with Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=pnewton;11773301]Odd? Where in the history of God dealing with man did he ever assign a committee?

LOL, my side is aching… You caught me off guard that I did not expect that post. My priest preached about a joyful Lent, man you took the cake.

p.s I love your signature, your a delight on these boards

 

[Whitworth]

I am not Eastern Orthodox because the Roman Catholic Church is the One, True Church.

Wow…

I hope you learn somewhere in your formation you learn that the “Roman Catholic Church” correctly defines only the Western Half of the Catholic Church. Over 20 Eastern Catholic churches in perfect communion with the Pope of Rome.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, this is why I am not and will never be Orthodox. I do not believe their claim of episcopal equality in a way that denies Petrine primacy.

I don’t believe it either, if fact I believe its the biggest issue in the Church today which promotes division under false pretense.