Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ludwig Ott wrote prior to Vatican II and did accurately convey what was issued at Trent. However, at Vatican II (1964) which summarized the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church in Lumen Gentium, the dogma it is worded differently to cover the Eastern Churches. Lumen Gentium, referring to the Bishops, states the dogma as:“They are the original ministers of confirmation …”
According to “New commentary on the Code of Canon Law” By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 1087, on Canon 882 (Latin Code 1983):Vatican II’s reference to the bishop as the “primary” or “original” minister of the sacrament was a more historically acurate term than “ordinary minister.” “Original minister” respected the tradition of the Eastern churches where the bishop could hardly be called the “ordinary” minister, since presbyters were and are the ordinary ministers of confirmation.

So then the list from Ott of 250 de fides is proven to be wrong in at least one place.

This also shows that this list is Ott’s opinion and is not really binding unless on can so actual cites to Magisterial Documents, and then there can still be issues when it differs from the other traditions within the Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

So then the list from Ott of 250 de fides is proven to be wrong in at least one place.

This also shows that this list is Ott’s opinion and is not really binding unless on can so actual cites to Magisterial Documents, and then there can still be issues when it differs from the other traditions within the Catholic Church.

You can certainly say it was proved to be not current in one place. “Not current” because Ott correctly related the statement of Trent, which acted to counter the heracies of that time, and because Vatican II made a change of wording to expand to all Churches rather than stating for just the Latin Church.

Ott’s list is not authoritative, but shows us where to look. Be aware that each item must be verified. I only use it to get a general idea and then verify. Also, the bulleted items that you see on the web from Ludwig Ott’s book do not show the paragraphs or pages of commentary that go with them, so just a list is of limited value as anything more.

Interesting idea “binding, with issues”. Really, same faith (dogma), same sacraments, same government (Pope and Roman Curia), different theologies, traditions, and liturgical rites.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Of the 16 various Canonically Orthodox Jurisdictions, we actually do have one that has direct Succession from St. Peter, that is the Patriarchate of Antioch.

The other Orthodox Patriarchs and Churches have their roots in the other Apostles.

For example, our Greek Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, has it’s Apostolic Succession from St. Andrew, St. Peter’s brother.

**Bravo…

Sister Monica is completely correct - the first seat of Peter was Antioch - and Antioch never claimed the perogatives of Rome - because Saint Peter never claimed these. The first 1000 years of the Church adhered to this including Rome.

And yes, Saint Andrew “The First Called” by Christ is validly claimed by many Orthodox as a source of Apostolic Succession.

Saint Andrew was Saint Peter’s older brother.**

 

[Ghosty]

Sister Monica is completely correct - the first seat of Peter was Antioch - and Antioch never claimed the perogatives of Rome - because Saint Peter never claimed these. The first 1000 years of the Church adhered to this including Rome.

This is flatly untrue. Rome certainly claimed this prerogative, even if other Churches denied it. We can debate whether or not it was appropriate, or whether it was accepted by others, but we can’t deny that Rome certainly claimed the authority to intervene in the affairs of other Patriarchates.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Abu]

Development of infallible doctrine

After a forced absence of weeks due to PC failure, it’s interesting to see the varied ideas about doctrine and dogma.

It is vital to understand what Christ’s Church teaches:
The term “ex cathedra” refers to a pope’s supreme apostolic authority in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians.

The use of the extraordinary papal Magisterium is rare. The ordinary papal Magisterium is the usual way of teaching doctrine. Thus the first error is in thinking that “infallible” for the Church or the Pope alone equates to ONLY “extraordinary” – the proclamation of dogmas. Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II teach that.

The Vatican I dogma on papal infallibility expressly states that it extends to “doctrine” (doctrina) which covers both dogmas and the secondary related truths. *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I declares the Pope’s power to define infallibly what must be “held” (tenendam) by all the faithful, not only what must be “believed” (credendam).

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Also, in opening Vatican II, Pope John XXIII explicitly referred to “certain and unchangeable doctrine” in allowing for the development of doctrine, which does not mean that the doctrine is changed in its development.

 

[DavidKays]

Hi everyone! Just a comment here. I am a Greek Orthodox new to this forum and I will like to make some points on certain discussions. I attend an Anthoichian parish on the Island and we are taught St.Peter was its first bishop. In fact Ignatius IV is the successor of St.Peter. But I think you are missing some valid points which I will like to bring up. Sure St.Peter started the Church in Anthioch but he did not remain there. It will be different had St.Peter stayed at Anthioch until he died but come on he did not do that. He continued on his Apostolic mission which eventually led him to Rome so as to find his greatest contribution, the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church owes much to its founding apostle St.Peter. The East then does have a connection with St.Peter with the Church at Anthoich and you can also say the Church in Rome and the East do have something in common with St.Peter. But since St.Peter did not stay around in Anthioch which eventualy led him to Rome he became the first Pope. Now the Church in Antioch is small compared to Rome so St.Peter did very well to help the Church to be established in the West. His connection to the East is noted yet his legacy at Rome deserves much more attention. Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church and for the Papacy. But we should also thank God for the East. The 2 are necessary to understand God’s fullfilment and plan to help in the Redemption work of Our Lord Jesus when He established His Church. The East is necessary in fact without Her God’s plan will crumble. I am writing a book that will clarify many misunderstandings and misconceptions that are floating around. I will like to give you a preview of some excerpts of the book that I believe may help you better understand the necessary reason why God developed a Church both East and West. These are my own personal opinions so you take it or leave it. It is not dogma ok. In the Book of Revelation we see in Chapter 11 about the two witnesses. Now the Church thought these references were referring to 2 people like Enoch or Elijah or Moses and Elijah. Now I got thinking that if Our Lord Jesus who is God incarnate could not convert a tiny nation in His 3 year ministry how can 2 men convince the world. It doesn’t make sense. There was a verse in that chapter that helped me. Let me quote " … the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the Earth…". These references indicate to me that the two witnesses are in fact the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. These 2 Churches celebrate the daily Holy Eucharist so as to indicate the two lampstands. For if a mass is celebrated at 9:00 am then an hour later it will be celebrated in another time zone and so on. Within the 24 hour time the Mass is continuedly offered. Now God does not need a blast from the past to help His Church. He needs us the Christians of today. Now if He is going to bring back people from the past why not St.Anthony or St.Francis. Why not bring them all back. Now come on it just does not make sense. Anyway how can He bring anyone back. Most of our Saints are in Heaven and they do not have a body. That is why the Church thought of Enoch and Elijah since they did not die. But that does ring true with me because you have a big planet and what are these men going to do, ride the planes every 10 minutes. Come on. It must be something else. Then it occured to me. It is the Church both Catholic and Orthodox. These are His 2 witnesses. And if there are really people that go out to the world then they are representatives from these 2 churches. So there can be more than 2, get it. God may call whoever He wants from these 2 Churches. And these are your witnesses. The 2 witnesses are the 2 Churches. However the number of people He calls to be sent out can be alot more. Now then that makes sense. Instead of only 2 people you have alot more who knows mayby thousands. God calls them from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I am a Greek Orthodox who loves the Church of Rome. These are my brothers and I will defend them no matter what. They are a part of me. Just like my own blood brothers are to me even more since we are all in Christ. And I will not let the world take my brothers away from me. And if some do leave the Church to go into the world it is my responsibility to help bring them back. Anyway this is only a portion of what I am writing. I do not want to continue but someday hopefully I will finish the book and then you can read the rest. God Bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Hi everyone! Just a comment here. I am a Greek Orthodox new to this forum and I will like to make some points on certain discussions. I attend an Anthoichian parish on the Island and we are taught St.Peter was its first bishop. In fact Ignatius IV is the successor of St.Peter. But I think you are missing some valid points which I will like to bring up. Sure St.Peter started the Church in Anthioch but he did not remain there. It will be different had St.Peter stayed at Anthioch until he died but come on he did not do that. He continued on his Apostolic mission which eventually led him to Rome so as to find his greatest contribution, the Church of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church owes much to its founding apostle St.Peter. The East then does have a connection with St.Peter with the Church at Anthoich and you can also say the Church in Rome and the East do have something in common with St.Peter. But since St.Peter did not stay around in Anthioch which eventualy led him to Rome he became the first Pope. Now the Church in Antioch is small compared to Rome so St.Peter did very well to help the Church to be established in the West. His connection to the East is noted yet his legacy at Rome deserves much more attention. Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church and for the Papacy. But we should also thank God for the East. The 2 are necessary to understand God’s fullfilment and plan to help in the Redemption work of Our Lord Jesus when He established His Church. The East is necessary in fact without Her God’s plan will crumble. I am writing a book that will clarify many misunderstandings and misconceptions that are floating around. I will like to give you a preview of some excerpts of the book that I believe may help you better understand the necessary reason why God developed a Church both East and West. These are my own personal opinions so you take it or leave it. It is not dogma ok. In the Book of Revelation we see in Chapter 11 about the two witnesses. Now the Church thought these references were referring to 2 people like Enoch or Elijah or Moses and Elijah. Now I got thinking that if Our Lord Jesus who is God incarnate could not convert a tiny nation in His 3 year ministry how can 2 men convince the world. It doesn’t make sense. There was a verse in that chapter that helped me. Let me quote " … the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the Earth…". These references indicate to me that the two witnesses are in fact the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. These 2 Churches celebrate the daily Holy Eucharist so as to indicate the two lampstands. For if a mass is celebrated at 9:00 am then an hour later it will be celebrated in another time zone and so on. Within the 24 hour time the Mass is continuedly offered. Now God does not need a blast from the past to help His Church. He needs us the Christians of today. Now if He is going to bring back people from the past why not St.Anthony or St.Francis. Why not bring them all back. Now come on it just does not make sense. Anyway how can He bring anyone back. Most of our Saints are in Heaven and they do not have a body. That is why the Church thought of Enoch and Elijah since they did not die. But that does ring true with me because you have a big planet and what are these men going to do, ride the planes every 10 minutes. Come on. It must be something else. Then it occured to me. It is the Church both Catholic and Orthodox. These are His 2 witnesses. And if there are really people that go out to the world then they are representatives from these 2 churches. So there can be more than 2, get it. God may call whoever He wants from these 2 Churches. And these are your witnesses. The 2 witnesses are the 2 Churches. However the number of people He calls to be sent out can be alot more. Now then that makes sense. Instead of only 2 people you have alot more who knows mayby thousands. God calls them from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. I am a Greek Orthodox who loves the Church of Rome. These are my brothers and I will defend them no matter what. They are a part of me. Just like my own blood brothers are to me even more since we are all in Christ. And I will not let the world take my brothers away from me. And if some do leave the Church to go into the world it is my responsibility to help bring them back. Anyway this is only a portion of what I am writing. I do not want to continue but someday hopefully I will finish the book and then you can read the rest. God Bless!

Will your book feature paragraphs?

 

[DavidKays]

Sorry Madaglan about my posts. I really don’t know my way around the computer or how to use the many tools this website supplies. I’m new to the computer so you can imagine me on this website. I feel like a kid just starting out. Give me time and hopefully I will iron things out. To answer your question, yes there will be paragraphs in my book. I do have a supervisor to help me. Thanks for asking. God Bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Sorry Madaglan about my posts. I really don’t know my way around the computer or how to use the many tools this website supplies. I’m new to the computer so you can imagine me on this website. I feel like a kid just starting out. Give me time and hopefully I will iron things out. To answer your question, yes there will be paragraphs in my book. I do have a supervisor to help me. Thanks for asking. God Bless!

Hi DavidKays,

Adding space between paragraphs can be accomplished by pressing the Enter key twice.

To indent at the beginning of a paragraph (not usually done online here though), you just need to press the Tab key.

Hope that helps.

 

[DavidKays]

Thank you Madaglan. I learn more from people like you than from me trying to figure it out. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Diak]

This also shows that this list is Ott’s opinion and is not really binding unless on can so actual cites to Magisterial Documents, and then there can still be issues when it differs from the other traditions within the Catholic Church.

Exactly, and why I learned early in my academic endeavors to avoid his work entirely.

 

[Madaglan]

Thank you Madaglan. I learn more from people like you than from me trying to figure it out. Thanks for the tip.

DavidKays,

If you go to the list of forums, and go down to the fourth or fifth last one titled “Sandbox,” you can test things out.

 

[gretahope]

Wow – this does get confusing

As a new Catholic something that I’ve heard SO much angst about is the fact that the RC won’t allow divorced Catholics to receive Holy Communion. Orthodox?

As my friend said: but we’re the ones that need it! Especially if there’s a situation where one of the spouses was abandoned or abused or…???

 

[shawnbm]

I believe that is incorrect. The Church does not permit REMARRIED Catholics who have not had the first marriage declared annulled by the Church to receive communion until that has been cleared up. Then again, I am sure there are millions of Catholics who receive without informing the Church of this or by virtue of the pastor allowing it based on some set of circumstances. One can get hyper-technical about this, but I don’t know if this is a doctrine or part of canon law–the issue of whether one who is divorced AND remarried without an annulment can receive communion. Someone here will have a link.

 

[CatholicCrystal]

This is in answer to the catholic answers post that linked Father Scott Hahn’s article for us to read. I am very interested in this and have printed it out for my reading in my liesure. Father Scott is our Priest in our Parish St. Philip the Apostle Church.

He is fantastic and the parish has really grown in the past few years.

KRC

This was especially helpful, and thanks for the link.

 

[CatholicCrystal]

This is in answer to the catholic answers post that linked Father Scott Hahn’s article for us to read. I am very interested in this and have printed it out for my reading in my liesure. Father Scott is our Priest in our Parish St. Philip the Apostle Church.

He is fantastic and the parish has really grown in the past few years.

KRC

This was especially helpful, and thanks for the link.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Honestly, after we in the West recover from our own Iconoclasm after Vatican II I think we’ll need the East to reconstitute our Church.

I agree with you. The Western Church will only recapture the true meaning of the Sacred Liturgy by learning from Holy Orthodoxy, where the liturgies and traditions of the ancient Church have been preserved inviolate. By admitting that your Church will have to look to the East for help in restoring her traditions (something quite acceptable), you place the similar help that Rome gave the East in the first millennium into perspective. This help from Rome (how much and when is a matter of debate) in the first millennium was merely the help that one Orthodox Church provides another and not a symbol of intrinsic superiority of Rome over the East.

 

[Madaglan]

I agree with you. The Western Church will only recapture the true meaning of the Sacred Liturgy by learning from Holy Orthodoxy, where the liturgies and traditions of the ancient Church have been preserved inviolate. By admitting that your Church will have to look to the East for help in restoring her traditions (something quite acceptable), you place the similar help that Rome gave the East in the first millennium into perspective. This help from Rome (how much and when is a matter of debate) in the first millennium was merely the help that one Orthodox Church provides another and not a symbol of intrinsic superiority of Rome over the East.

The Western Church definitely can learn from Orthodoxy.

Yet, I think that the Western Church needs to look to her own early history to recover her traditions rather than transfuse particular Byzantine, Coptic or other Eastern traditions.

 

[Madaglan]

This is in answer to the catholic answers post that linked Father Scott Hahn’s article for us to read. I am very interested in this and have printed it out for my reading in my liesure. Father Scott is our Priest in our Parish St. Philip the Apostle Church.

He is fantastic and the parish has really grown in the past few years.

KRC

Fr. Scott Hahn? I am aware of a Dr. Scott Hahn, but I did not know he had a priest of his namesake.

 

[5Loaves]

Fr. Scott Hahn? I am aware of a Dr. Scott Hahn, but I did not know he had a priest of his namesake.

Well, he is definitely a father, many times over, and a grandfather.