T
Triciacat
Guest
Orthodox Christians will continue to pray for “peace in the whole world, for the welfare of the holy churches of God and for the union of all.” (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom)
- Status
M
Marocchino
Guest
This sounds like Protestantism.
Quote where I say that “earnestly seeking the truth is a sin”. You cannot because I never said that. I said “schism is a sin”, which is the truth.
If I had mentioned the existence of hell, which is also the truth, would you accuse me of fear-mongering and control tactics?
I agree. This is getting heated!
. Just keep in mind that I have tremendous respect for the Orthodox faith (see, no quotations Nicholas, I can be amicable too 
). After all, Orthodoxy is the next truest faith to Catholicism 
.St. Ambrose:
Triciacat, I will join you in your prayer for world peace and Christian unity. Although we debate, let us not lose sight of our common faith in Christ.
Peace be with you fellow Christian and fellow Canadian!
T
twf
Guest
If one rejects the papacy, and feels forced to leave the Catholic Communion, what makes the Eastern Orthodox communion the default alternative? Why not the Oriental Orthodox? (Coptics, Armenians, Syriacs, etc). I don’t see why the EO have more of a valid claim to being the “one true Church” than the Oriental Orthodox. Both claim to hold to the faith of the Apostles, and from a Catholic perspective, save a few errors (rejection of the papacy for example), they both do. The Oriental Orthodox rejected the Council of Chalcedon. From a Catholic perspective this separated them from the one Holy Catholic Church. Why is this so from an Eastern Orthodox perspective? I have yet to see a coherent explanation of the Eastern Orthodox understanding of what makes a council ecumenical and binding on the entire Church. Catholics would say that papal ratification is essential. The Eastern Orthodox claim that it must be “accepted by the entire Church”. How then does Chalcedon qualify? Alexandria and Antioch rejected the council! (becoming the Oriental Orthodox of today). There are also small differences in theology and practice between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox, yet both claim to hold the faith of the Apostles. Our fellow poster Mardukm, a former Coptic Orthodox Christian turned Coptic Catholic, would be a great person to talk to in this regard. A good example…in the Oriental churches patriarchs still exercise real primacy, not just a “primacy of honor”. The Pope of Alexandria exercises real jurisdiction over the entire Coptic Church. Eastern Orthodox patriarchs, today anyway, seem to be little more than glorified moderators at synods.
W
w_stewart
Guest
You said:
You define Church unity in the context of the believers’ acceptance of the Pope’s teachings. I cited the Catechism to stress that this definition of unity is not accurate. It sounds, at least to me, very protestant.
Protestant apologists/ministers/preachers often claim that their is unity in the Catholic Church because there are those who do not follow the teachings of the Church. That there are those who use ABC’s despite the strong condemnation of the Church against them. That there are Catholics who refuse to submit the Pope which the Catholic Church recognizes as the unifying figure, without which, there is no real and authentic unity.
T
Triciacat
Guest
And also with you!This sounds like Protestantism. No. It sounds like Christianity.
Quote where I say that “earnestly seeking the truth is a sin”. You cannot because I never said that. I said “schism is a sin”, which is the truth. You didn’t say it, but your implication seemed to be that if a break occurs, it’s all bad. We need to be where Scriptural truth forms the basis for the belief system.
If I had mentioned the existence of hell, which is also the truth, would you accuse me of fear-mongering and control tactics? No, I wouldn’t. Scripture says that Hell is very real.
I agree. This is getting heated!
Triciacat, I will join you in your prayer for world peace and Christian unity. Although we debate, let us not lose sight of our common faith in Christ. Glory To Jesus Christ! May He Be Glorified Always!
Peace be with you fellow Christian and fellow Canadian!
M
Marocchino
Guest
T
Triciacat
Guest
I would prefer to limit my involvement to discussing Christianity through the words of Jesus Christ Himself as found in Scripture, not through an interpretation by Jimmy Akin and/or the LG. In my opinion, for a Christian doctrine to be considered truth, it must be found in Scripture. :bible1: Quoting someone else’s interpretation of it holds little water and perpetuates denominationalism.
I think we also need to get the thread back on topic, which is discussing Orthodoxy! :yup:
I think we also need to get the thread back on topic, which is discussing Orthodoxy! :yup:
M
Marocchino
Guest
The Lumen Gentium is an official Church document and is, therefore, an authoritative interpretation of Scripture and Tradition. Obviously, Jimmy Akin’s commentary on L.G. 15 is not a dogmatic proclamation, but his interpretation of said passage is reasonable.
Your opinion holds even less water than Jimmy Akin’s and consideraby less water than an official Church document like Lumen Gentium. And I’m sure that Orthodox bishops would not agree with your comment, which gives the impression that you prescribe to sola scriptura. The truth of a Christian doctrine rests on Scripture and Tradition.
Actually, the topic of the thread is Alethiaphile’s impression that the Orthodox faith is more sublime than the Catholic faith, which is causing in her (or him) a desire to leave the Catholic Church. She argues that since Orthodox worship gives her a feeling of sublimity, the Orthodox faith is, therefore, the true faith. This is a weak argument, as sublimity is a subjective feeling that cannot serve as an indicator for the truth of any particular faith.
I agree.
As I have said, I love Eastern theology, architecture, and art. The Catholic Church should not attempt to Latinize the Eastern churches, as there is beauty in diversity. There is, however, absolutely no beauty in schism.
F
Formosus
Guest
Despite the fact that protestants may use that arguement, it doesn’t make the arguement itself a “protestant one” being that it is just a basic arguement against Catholicism. I am only citing how this is not the case, at least looking on the outside in, with the Orthodox and many here cite they need a Pope to have a unity of Faith yet they have one without a Pope.
Triciacat
-Scripture is the result of Tradition. One shouldn’t create a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition when they are both God’s Revelation to Man.
C
Catherine_Grant
Guest
This thread was removed from another board out of concern that it provided an excuse for others to proselytize Catholics. I offered to host the thread and future discussions of the same nature in Eastern Catholicism.
This is not an uncommon situation for Eastern Catholics to face and I believe it will be best served by being able to discuss it openly with the support of others who have addressed it in their own lives. Like all conversations on the Catholic Answers’ Forums, non-Catholics are welcome to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and debate within the forum’s guidelines and stated purpose.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly.
May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
This is not an uncommon situation for Eastern Catholics to face and I believe it will be best served by being able to discuss it openly with the support of others who have addressed it in their own lives. Like all conversations on the Catholic Answers’ Forums, non-Catholics are welcome to discuss, dialogue, dissent, and debate within the forum’s guidelines and stated purpose.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me directly.
May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
My dear sibling! :hug:
You have no idea how refreshing and renewing your affirmation of this Truth was to my ears today as I read this brief, but so wonderfully accurate, post.
May all Catholic Christians, East or West, holdfast to this great and sometimes difficult Truth…especially when things like schism become tempting to our hearts.
Thank you so much!
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
Because Faith…so often means that we must Trust…even when we don’t have the answers…and even when we “think” we do.My dear sibling! :hug:
You have no idea how refreshing and renewing your affirmation of this Truth was to my ears today as I read this brief, but so wonderfully accurate, post.
May all Catholic Christians, East or West, holdfast to this great and sometimes difficult Truth…especially when things like schism become tempting to our hearts.
Thank you so much!
Harpazo, I too have struggled with this for about a year now (and its still on going).
Please make contact with James Likoudis and read his books well. Study Steven Ray’s “Upon this Rock” (regardless if you have already read these said books).
I assure you, if you holdfast in your faith, study the Holy Fathers even MORE, and wait on the Lord the Fathers will become what they are to me to this very day:
A solid wall barring me from schism with the One Church where the fullness of Holy Orthodoxy persists.
Meditate on these, don’t just read them, but truly meditate on them…and then wait IN FAITH on the Lord your God:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” ***Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180). ***
“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” ***Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256). ***
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” ***Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252). ***
“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” ***Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367). ***
“For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” ***Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367). ***
“…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” ***Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375). ***
“But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?” ***Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378). ***
“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” ***Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381). ***
TO BE CONTINUED…
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” ***Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397). ***
“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments…For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken” ***Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418). ***
“For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See.” ***Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422). ***
“The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms.” ***Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429). ***
“And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error.” ***Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437). ***
“Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world.” ***Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461). ***
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. ***(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90) ***
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. ***(Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692). ***
Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. ***(Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]). ***
I tell you my brother…if you wish to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian, in the same way the Holy Eastern Fathers were, then remain in the Byzantine Catholic Church…maintain communion and “right-faith” with the Pope of Rome.
Then you will be a Christian of the Holy Fathers.
I will pray intensly for you…rest assured and please, trust me on this one.
Truth is worth waiting on the Lord for, Truth is worth fighting for…
Truth is worth trusting in.
M
Matariel
Guest
Remember though, as bad as it gets, the Lord promised us that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. It’s just the times we live it. Fortunately, it seems to slowly be turning back around.
BTW, Milliardo, I love Neon Genesis Evangelion too!
Good quote! I see you have Rei as your signature.
W
wmlillie
Guest
I often feel this way as well for many reasons. I choose to remain in communion with Rome because I believe that is what God wills, and as someone has already posted there is ample patristic evidence for this. I try to fight to make my Church as Eastern (Orthodox) and as “Sublime”, as it is meant to be. After all this is what the Vatican II council and other teachings from the Holy Fathers has asked of us. Though, it is difficult at times!
Here is another Eastern Catholic’s thought on the topic:
east2west.org/ecumenism.htm#orthodoxy
A
Antonius_Lupus
Guest
M
Marocchino
Guest
Brother in Christ, your love is returned. Thank you for your gracious compliment.
When I have a free day or two I will read your posts
May you and your family have a blessed Christmas!
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Sorry, just getting back to this thread now; I started it weeks ago in a different forum, and thought it was dead, then to my surprise I find it here.Anyway-
In my original post I specified not only sublimity of liturgy, which is also present in the Eastern Catholic churches (I’ve been to a few), but also sublimity of doctrine. For example, Theosis, the participation of Christians in God’s divine life. That is central in Orthodoxy. Now, it is true that it is being rediscovered in western Catholicism, but it is hardly central; usually it is only hinted at- the emphasis in most western Catholic churches seems to be on avoiding mortal sin, or confessing it as soon as possible (not that that is a bad thing, but I think there is something more). Maybe in some Eastern Catholic churches it is as central as in Orthodox churches, but in the one EC I have attended, it simply isn’t emphasized.
Another example: it was in an Orthodox church that I first heard the quotation of St. Seraphim of Sarov, that the sole purpose of the Christian life is “to acquire the Holy Spirit”. There is something about that that cuts right to the heart of things. I never heard that in a Catholic Church, eastern or western. That is another thing, the emphasis on the Holy Spirit. I have gone months in western Catholic churches without hearing a mention in a sermon about the Holy Spirit. It is in the Creed, of course, and the Novus Ordo has now restored the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit in the eucharistic prayer, which was missing in the western liturgy for centuries (and is still missing in the TLM, which is why I’m not that enamored of it). But the Spirit is certainly not emphasized in the practical teaching in the west.
To try to summarize it, it seems to me that Eastern theology has not gotten bogged down in a lot extraneous stuff like indulgences, and extra-liturgical devotions to be repeated x amount of times, etc. And, like it or not, the Eastern Catholic churches are tied to the post-schism western dogmas, at least officially.
Instead, in Orthodox doctrine there is a positivity, and a concentration on essentials. The Orthodox don’t get bogged down in whether Mary was immaculately conceived or not, they simply affirm that she was without sin, and, through being united with the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ. That seems to me to be enough; anything further just obscures the central truth for me.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
If the ECFs writings have meant anything, they have already affirmed it.
- Status