Why are you not orthodox

[1Tim215Mommy]

I was born into a Lutheran family, and steeped in the history of that faith which goes back into the history of the Western Church through the Roman Catholic Church from which we grew. It is easier for me to understand the doctrines and traditions since we have this common history.

The Eastern Church, the Orthodox, is almost alien to me in a way and yet the timelessness and unchanging feel opens a direct window to the ancient faith in a way I haven’t yet encountered. I have just begun Timothy Ware’s book, “The Orthodox Church” in hopes of gaining some knowledge of these brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Orthodox liturgy is so beautiful but makes me painfully aware of my “otherness.” If that makes sense.

I’m excited for you! Your chosen description is perfect. For me, too, I found the Divine Liturgy to be so foreign and so “home” all at once.

When I contemplate leaving Orthodoxy (& I do because other Christian Faiths are just “easier”) but I just can’t do it. It’s the Divine Liturgy, the rich daily spiritual life & the full membership of infants (baptism, confirmation & reception of the Eucharist) draws me back. There has been no other Faith that has ministered to me so fully or has demanded all of me - spirit, soul, mind & body.

 

[Brendan_64]

Only if you can prove that this passage necessarily means that the pope is the unique successor of Peter who can speak for the entire communion of churches as a whole.

The entire communion of churches? Christ formed only one Church, the others have been founded by men. I’ll stick with the Church formed by Christ Himself rather than one of the denominations formed by various disgruntled schismatics.

 

[truthseeker32]

The entire communion of churches? Christ formed only one Church, the others have been founded by men. I’ll stick with the Church formed by Christ Himself rather than one of the denominations formed by various disgruntled schismatics.

Christ surely did found only one church: the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Surely you are aware that the term “church” can be used in a myriad of ways. If someone asked me “how many Roman Catholic churches are there in your city?” I would say “there are four” because there are four church buildings. This does not deny that there are other ways to use the term. I can speak of the church as the building I attend on sunday, as the unified diocese under my bishop, or as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church unified under Christ. The church has always recognized this reality. Even in Roman Catholicism there is the Maronite Church, the Ukranian-Greek Church, the Melkite Church, etc. There are simultaneously many churches composing one universal church.

Way to dodge my argument, BTW.

 

[Adamski]

Monocultural? Palestinians, Romanians, Georgians, etc. are all the same people?

From my experience the two orthodox churches one everyone was born in Russia the second everyone was born in Slavinia

Where my catholic parish there is probably 7 different languages spoken and a huge range from all over the world

 

[Cavaradossi]

The entire communion of churches? Christ formed only one Church, the others have been founded by men. I’ll stick with the Church formed by Christ Himself rather than one of the denominations formed by various disgruntled schismatics.

Even your own church itself uses the plural ‘churches’ in referring to particular churches, which are autonomous (i.e., sui iuris) churches in communion with Roman Pontiff. Indeed it is a common claim made by Eastern Catholic posters here that your Church is a communion of 23 sui iuris Churches. Perhaps though what they claim is false and it is instead truly a monolithic structure under Rome.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Yes there is such a guarantee, Matthew 16:18-19.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This guarantee is from the very mouth of Our Lord and Saviour, words uttered by God Himself.

Hi Brendan,

I want to clarify what you are saying. I believe you are saying that this passage of Scripture is meant to be interpreted that Peter was given a unique gift (that was not shared with the other apostles) and that this gift was past down to his successors in Rome (but not to his successors in Antioch). Is that correct? If so, my question for you is if this gift is found in a single person, the person who is at any given time the current successor in Rome (not Antioch) of St. Peter - today this would mean Pope Francis: Why was there a Council held in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts, if the Apostle Peter alone had this gift to settle any doctrinal/dogma dispute?

If it were possible for Peter or his Roman successor to settle matters on his own, then it would certainly seem a tremendous waste of time, effort & money to bring together all the Bishops for any Council - the Council in Jerusalem, the 7th Ecumenical Council or even the Council of Vatican II, wouldn’t it?

We, Orthodox, believe that the Scriptures & early Church practices confirm that this gift of binding & loosing was given to all of the Apostles to use in Council & that it is past down to each of their successors, our Bishops, and that it is together in Council that this gift is utilized to clarify an issue affecting either the entire Church or part of the Church - whether by local Council or by Ecumenical Council. And even for issues that affect an individual Christian, this gift of binding & loosing (the power to retain sin or forgive sin) is used by the priests during Confession.

Thanks,
Mom inspired by 1 Tim. 2:15

 

[NorthTexan88]

I must say that I am amazed that the reason many of you are giving for choosing Rome over Constantinople as it were is the reason I left RCIA and converted to Orthodoxy.

1. A lot of you are pointing to the unifying nature of the Papacy, but this unity does not equal soundness. Whether you believe the church should be headed by a college of bishops or by the pope you are appealing to faith. Orthodox Christians have faith that the Church will never be led astray by the bishops; Roman Catholicism has faith that the Church will never be led astray by the Pope, but in either case there is no absolute guarantee.
2. How is it that many of you think that it necessarily follows from Matt. 16:18 that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter? Why couldn’t it be the case, as many Orthodox Christians believe, that all bishops are the successor of Peter?

I encourage everyone to seriously scrutinize the Church Fathers and apologetical arguments made both for and against the Papacy. If your experience mirrors mine, you will see that such apologetics are quite fallacious. One of you said you had never seen a good argument for the Orthodox view of the Papacy. Well, I challenge folks here to present a convincing argument that the Pope of Rome is the unique successor of Peter who can legitimately speak ex cathedra on behalf of the entire church.

Howdy Truthseeker. It took me 5 years and a lot of personal sacrifice (angry family/lost friendships) to become Catholic from the church of Christ. That is 5 years of reading through Church history, reading the early Church fathers and A LOT A LOT of prayer. If you believe that what the Bible and the Church has always said regarding the role of Peter, then we are bound to believe it. Constantinople, which did not come of importance until later; if I remember correctly, has St. Andrew as its original founder. If the Bible and the early Church Fathers had said “You are ANDREW and upon this rock I will build My Church…” then you better believe that I would be Orthodox right now, however, that is not the case. Also, conversely, being in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople does not guarantee sound teaching, as each autocephalous Church in the EO/OO communion is self governing. I think this will rear its head in a major way if the Orthodox ever decide to have the Pan -Orthodox council they have been talking about.
I have to admit occasionally I will look at Orthodoxy whenever a bishop/priest/Pope says or does something that doesn’t seem right. And every time I look into Orthodoxy I am reminded on why I became Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

From my experience the two orthodox churches one everyone was born in Russia the second everyone was born in Slavinia

Where my catholic parish there is probably 7 different languages spoken and a huge range from all over the world

Yes, fine, though the post I was replying to just said “Eastern Orthodoxy”, not the specific parishes that you have attended. That’s a pretty big difference. At my parish, almost everyone who shows up on a given day is Egyptian (though we do have frequent visitors from the other OO churches as well as inquirers from other Christian traditions, and still manage to speak at least 4 languages in every liturgy even if no one non-Coptic shows up), but the communion of churches to which I belong is not by its nature Egyptian any more than it is also Syriac, Indian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Armenian, British, French, etc., and through the evangelization of these churches also Bolivian, Zambian, South African, Guatemalan, etc. In other words, it’s just as “catholic” even according to the definition given by Roman Catholics in this thread of what that means as the Roman communion itself claims to be, even if any particular parish is mostly people of one ethnicity.

I mean, if we’re going to go by one person’s experience at a particular parish, I could say that the RCC is made up of nothing but Anglos and Hispanics because those are the only people who attended at my home parish back in California, since that was the makeup of the town at the time (roughly evenly split between Hispanics and Anglos). That doesn’t say anything about the RCC as a communion, though. That just happens to be the demographics of that particular parish.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Where my catholic parish there is probably 7 different languages spoken and a huge range from all over the world

That’s good! I like diversity - I live in a city where 70 different languages are spoken fluently. Meanwhile, here there are many different Catholic ethnic parishes: a Korean Catholic parish, an Assyrian Catholic parish, a Maronite Catholic parish, Vietnamese Catholic parish, Polish Catholic parish & many, many others. Any Catholic can visit, but they are truly ethnic parishes.

What you experienced in the two Orthodox parishes you visited are not isolated to Orthodoxy. I’ve experience the exact opposite - Orthodox parishes with many different ethnicities & Catholic parishes with zero ethnic diversity.

I visited a small town in PA (can’t recall the name, too many years ago now) where I was visiting the Catholic priests of that town - they were missionaries from Africa. They took me around & showed me the parishes that they ministered to: the Italian Church, the Polish Church - they had like 5 different ethnic Churches (no non-ethnic Catholic Church in that town) & they from Africa ministered to them all, but the priests explained to me how the parishioners would never attend the other parishes that they were not that ethnicity - they were allowed to, but for whatever reason the people refused to integrate. The priests found it funny that the people had no problem receiving communion from a priest from Africa, but didn’t want to sit in a pew next to a non-Italian, etc.

 

[andrewstx]

Yes, that is a good question. Depending on how a person answers it will determine which they will make their Church-home.

I do have a couple of questions. I’ve been hearing more & more about something called “Western” Orthodoxy. From what I’ve come to gather is that they do Not share Orthodox Liturgies: St. James, St. Basil & St. John Chrysostom, but their Liturgy is from the Orthodox West (pre-schism).

Is the “Western” Orthodox actually the same Liturgy/Faith as ours but just in different tones?

Do the Bishops, under whom it is celebrated, have the unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession in the West or did they come from the East?

The Western Orthodox mostly use one of two liturgies. One based on the Episcopal Mass, and the other much like the Tridentine Mass, but in English.

 

[tomarin]

Well it’s not like Orthodox reject the Holy Father. I won’t try and speak for others but for me it’s the part about ‘immediate personal jurisdiction’ that causes me to have pause.

But I love the Holy Father and defend him against Protestant decriers.

Thank you for your ecumenical spirit.

 

[manualman]

Condensed for brevity:

1…Peter was given a unique gift (that was not shared with the other apostles) and that this gift was past down to his successors in Rome (but not to his successors in Antioch). Is that correct?

1. …Why was there a Council held in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts, if the Apostle Peter alone had this gift to settle any doctrinal/dogma dispute?
2. If it were possible for Peter or his Roman successor to settle matters on his own, then it would certainly seem a tremendous waste of time, effort & money to bring together all the Bishops for any Council - the Council in Jerusalem, the 7th Ecumenical Council or even the Council of Vatican II, wouldn’t it?
3. We, Orthodox, believe that the Scriptures & early Church practices confirm that this gift of binding & loosing was given to all of the Apostles to use in Council & that it is past down to each of their successors, our Bishops, and that it is together in Council that this gift is utilized to clarify an issue affecting either the entire Church or part of the Church - whether by local Council or by Ecumenical Council.

1. Peter didn’t die in Antioch. The Petrine office didn’t become vacant there. One can hardly argue that the office needed a successor when he moved on to another city!
2. The question suggests that catholics see the pope as some sort of magic 8 ball: Shake hard and turn over for the answer. Nothing like that exists in catholic Tradition. The pope enjoys a negative protection. He’s not guaranteed to get it right on command. Rather, he’s protected from teaching error. If he doesn’t know the answer, he must remain silent until it becomes clearly apparent. Like all other humans, he must live in community and learn from life and others. That includes the need for Councils to make heavy decisions.
3. More magic 8 ball thinking.
4. Yes, it IS given as one of the charisms of Holy Orders. But it is most fully manifest in the Petrine office. You make reference and seem to clearly understand why ecumenical councils are necessary from time to time, but seem strangely uncurious why there hasn’t been one (from your point of view) for over a thousand years. Would you really say that nothing has arisen in that period of time that urgently requires one? Isn’t it curious that it seems that the EO patriarchs implicitly agree that something is lacking by virtue of the fact that they haven’t held an ecumenical council since the schism?

 

[Adamski]

Here is conversation I had with a baptist

Baptist
“well I would be catholic but I don’t like the pope or purgatory”

Me to the baptist
“What is holding you back you need to be Eastern Orthodox so you have all the sacraments”

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Here is conversation I had with a baptist

Baptist
“well I would be catholic but I don’t like the pope or purgatory”

Me to the Baptist
“What is holding you back you need to be Eastern Orthodox so you have all the sacraments”

…and then what did the Baptist say?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. Peter didn’t die in Antioch. The Petrine office didn’t become vacant there. One can hardly argue that the office needed a successor when he moved on to another city!

**History shows that Antioch has actually had continuous line of St. Peter’s Successors since St. Peter established the Church in Antioch since 53 AD.

Eudoius was the first Successor of St. Peter & John X is the current Successor of St. Peter in Antioch. **

1. The question suggests that Catholics see the pope as some sort of magic 8 ball: Shake hard and turn over for the answer. Nothing like that exists in Catholic Tradition. The pope enjoys a negative protection. He’s not guaranteed to get it right on command. Rather, he’s protected from teaching error. If he doesn’t know the answer, he must remain silent until it becomes clearly apparent. Like all other humans, he must live in community and learn from life and others. That includes the need for Councils to make heavy decisions.

To clarify, I was asking about the Catholic understanding of the power to “Bind & Loose” and how that relates to the necessity of those Church Councils starting with the one in 1st Century Jerusalem as recorded in the Bible & includes all 7 Ecumenical Councils each held prior to the close of the 1,000 years of the Church. I was not asking about Papal Infallibility, which you’re right, has a negative protection. Papal Infallibility wasn’t defined until after 1,800 yrs after Christ’s death & Resurrection.

1. More magic 8 ball thinking.

1. Yes, it IS given as one of the charisms of Holy Orders. But it is most fully manifest in the Petrine office. You make reference and seem to clearly understand why ecumenical councils are necessary from time to time, but seem strangely uncurious why there hasn’t been one (from your point of view) for over a thousand years. Would you really say that nothing has arisen in that period of time that urgently requires one? Isn’t it curious that it seems that the EO patriarchs implicitly agree that something is lacking by virtue of the fact that they haven’t held an ecumenical council since the schism?

**When the Church was legalized and was the official religion of the Roman Empire, what happened in the Church - heresies/schisms - impacted the stability of the entire empire. This is why the various Roman Emperors called each the Ecumenical Councils so that the Church could settle once & for all whatever matter happened to be affecting the entire Church & therefore, the entire Roman Empire.

Now that the Church has spread far beyond any one empire’s boarders, no Emperor has attempted to call together another Ecumenical Council, that I am aware of. I am also, at this time, unaware of any heresy that has plagued the entire** Church from the last Ecumenical Council to now.

If there ever becomes a need in the future, I’m sure an Ecumenical Council will be called together even though there is no longer a Roman Emperor to call it together. Pre-schism, every Ecumenical Council was called together by a Roman Emperor, but Post-schism it has been a Pope who’s called together the Catholic Councils of Trent, Vatican I & Vatican II.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

**History shows that Antioch has actually had continuous line of St. Peter’s Successors since St. Peter established the Church in Antioch since 53 AD.

Eudoius was the first Successor of St. Peter & John X is the current Successor of St. Peter in Antioch. **

Yes, Evodius was named Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter.

But St. Peter last vacated See was in Rome. The successor of St. Peter’s last See is currently Pope Francis.

See for example President George W. Bush. He was governor of Texas and President of the U.S. He has 2 successors but one of them holds a higher office.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, Evodius was named Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter.

But St. Peter last vacated See was in Rome. The successor of St. Peter’s last See is currently Pope Francis.

By what sign do we observe one’s ascension to this office? Is there a “Petrine sacrament?”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

By what sign do we observe one’s ascension to this office? Is there a “Petrine sacrament?”

The West agrees with the West, the East agrees with the East.

The See of Rome throughout history has been held to be a higher office than the others. Even the Councils agree, when Constantinople is named the “new” Rome, 2nd in honor.

You know far too much history to make a comment like this…

 

[Cavaradossi]

The West agrees with the West, the East agrees with the East.

The See of Rome throughout history has been held to be a higher office than the others. Even the Councils agree, when Constantinople is named the “new” Rome, 2nd in honor.

You know far too much history to make a comment like this…

But you are claiming that what makes this office higher is that it comes from a unique line of succession from St. Peter himself, whereas I do not agree with that premise. That is why I am asking by what method this special succession from St. Peter was handed down.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But you are claiming that what makes this office higher is that it comes from a unique line of succession from St. Peter himself, whereas I do not agree with that premise. That is why I am asking by what method this special succession from St. Peter was handed down.

Where did I claim this?