Why I am drawn to Orthodoxy in one word

[Alethiaphile]

I know the East and Wests lists of ecumenical counsels is different. I’m talking about the Ecclesiology by which you would reject Lyons, and Florence after your own bishops had signed off on it. You won’t find the idea of “The People” as the guardians of the Faith in any of the Fathers, the New Testament etc.

Au contraire:

[In the early Church][t]he laity took an active part in the life of the Church as a whole. St. Cyprian puts into words a principle echoed on all sides by tradition. He says: “I have made it a rule, ever since the beginning of my episcopate, to make no decision merely on the strength of my own personal opinion without consulting you (the priests and the deacons), without the approbation of the people.” [Citing Epist. 14:4]… Their [the laity’s] intervention as occasion arose was accpeted all the more willingly since the early Church, whilst possessing a firm canoncial structure, wanted to be ready for any movement inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Yves Congar, Power and Poverty in the Church, pp. 43-44

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

Au contraire:

[In the early Church][t]he laity took an active part in the life of the Church as a whole. St. Cyprian puts into words a principle echoed on all sides by tradition. He says: “I have made it a rule, ever since the beginning of my episcopate, to make no decision merely on the strength of my own personal opinion without consulting you (the priests and the deacons), without the approbation of the people.” [Citing Epist. 14:4]… Their [the laity’s] intervention as occasion arose was accpeted all the more willingly since the early Church, whilst possessing a firm canoncial structure, wanted to be ready for any movement inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Yves Congar, Power and Poverty in the Church, pp. 43-44

Did Congar give any other context. On matters of discipline and practice, no doubt this was the case (in fact, St. Cyprian was indeed referring to a disciplinary matter in the letter). Still, its incredible to take from this your suggestion (if it is not, forgive the assumption) that on matters of doctrine, the bishops have to await the approbation of the laity. In other letters. St. Cyprian charges the laity to be in agreement with their bishop. Obviously, St. Cyprian here understands the “approbation of the people” in the sense of promoting the peace of the Church, not so the laity can have the authority to set the agenda for the doctrinal Faith of the Church.

In case you are not aware, Epistle 14 is a letter to the Church of Rome. In the closing remarks of the letter, he writes:

“I judged it well to stand by your [Rome’s] judgment, lest our proceedings, which ought to be united and to agree in all things, should in any respect be different.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

However, there is a whole thread here on CAF as to why it would be a mortal sin to vote for Obama. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269841
So there is serious disagreement on what is and what is not a mortal sin in Catholicism; for example, you, and many others, say that voting is a matter of conscience. This is a pretty serious matter and it is not inconceivable that such serious disagreements may draw a Catholic to Orthodoxy.

This last presentation from you makes your final sentence an impossibility. It is too silly to imagine that someone will leave the Catholic Church because one feels he or she voted wrongly.

People have a discussion and debate about a small matter not directly affecting doctrinal teaching (as if U.S. Catholics made up a majority of the Catholic Church), and all of a sudden a schism is going to develop.

I can just picture it now. A disenchanted Catholic goes sobbing to an Orthodox priest.

Disenchanted Catholic: "(sob) (sob) I can’t take it anymore Father. I feel I get absolutely no direction from the Catholic Church. (sob)(sob) I feel called to Orthodoxy.
Priest: What is it, my child? You know you need a good reason to want to convert to Orthodoxy. What is troubling you so much?
Disenchanted Catholic: (sob) (sob) Oh Father. I simply don’t know who I should have voted for. :crying: It’s really eating at my soul. :crying: My eternal salvation depends on knowing who to vote for. Please tell me the Orthodox Church can give me the necessary guidance on the matter! :crying:

Goodness! Do you think Orthodox priests are that gullible? Reality check, brother!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

1. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils validated the decisions of the Council of Sardica that recognized the Pope’s appellate jurisdiction in the entire Church.

The Council of Sardica says, “if it seem right to you, let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter the Apostle, that the case be appealed from the judges to Julius the Bishop of Rome, so that through the bishops who are the neighbors of the province in question a new court may be held”. So from this you get that the Pope has appellate jurisdiction over the entire church? This canon does not refer to provinces are not subject to the Pope but only those who are subject to him. Furthermore, the only rule the Pope plays in this case is the appointment of the province that will hear the case that is appealed.

“Why am I drawn to Orthodoxy”? In a word “freedom”. I find it hard to see how we can truly love unless we are free to love. “Let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter” vs “let us submit to the authority of the supreme Pontiff in Rome”. Remember St. Paul said that there are three: Faith Hope and Love, and that the greatest of these is Love. Let me also say that Faith Hope and Love are spiritually represented by Peter, James, and John. St. Peter represents the Faith, St. James represents Hope, and St. John represents Love. St. John is greater than St. Peter and St. James; furthermore, who was the chief hierarch in the Church at the time when St. John was the last living apostle and at the same time there were bishops in Rome who are the successors of St. Peter?

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a church that’s primarily about love. I’ll have to concede the seemingly endless quotes that prove that the unity of the Church is based on the Rock of St. Peter; but without the freedom that’s needed to exercise love, that faith is vain. Faith works by love. (When St. Peter left the boat where the apostles stayed to walk on the water did Christ take him by the hand and lead them back to the boat?)

 

[jam070406]

The Council of Sardica says, “if it seem right to you, let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter the Apostle, that the case be appealed from the judges to Julius the Bishop of Rome, so that through the bishops who are the neighbors of the province in question a new court may be held”. So from this you get that the Pope has appellate jurisdiction over the entire church? This canon does not refer to provinces are not subject to the Pope but only those who are subject to him. Furthermore, the only rule the Pope plays in this case is the appointment of the province that will hear the case that is appealed.

“Why am I drawn to Orthodoxy”? In a word “freedom”. I find it hard to see how we can truly love unless we are free to love. “Let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter” vs “let us submit to the authority of the supreme Pontiff in Rome”. Remember St. Paul said that there are three: Faith Hope and Love, and that the greatest of these is Love. Let me also say that Faith Hope and Love are spiritually represented by Peter, James, and John. St. Peter represents the Faith, St. James represents Hope, and St. John represents Love. St. John is greater than St. Peter and St. James; furthermore, who was the chief hierarch in the Church at the time when St. John was the last living apostle and at the same time there were bishops in Rome who are the successors of St. Peter?

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a church that’s primarily about love. I’ll have to concede the seemingly endless quotes that prove that the unity of the Church is based on the Rock of St. Peter; but without the freedom that’s needed to exercise love, that faith is vain. Faith works by love. (When St. Peter left the boat where the apostles stayed to walk on the water did Christ take him by the hand and lead them back to the boat?)

I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ve never been more free then in the Catholic Church. I have no problem with submitting to authority because I know it comes from God. I don’t see the Pope in any other way other then presiding in love. Please explain to me how Pope Benedict XVI stifles my freedom to love.

 

[jam070406]

The Council of Sardica says, “if it seem right to you, let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter the Apostle, that the case be appealed from the judges to Julius the Bishop of Rome, so that through the bishops who are the neighbors of the province in question a new court may be held”. So from this you get that the Pope has appellate jurisdiction over the entire church? This canon does not refer to provinces are not subject to the Pope but only those who are subject to him. Furthermore, the only rule the Pope plays in this case is the appointment of the province that will hear the case that is appealed.

“Why am I drawn to Orthodoxy”? In a word “freedom”. I find it hard to see how we can truly love unless we are free to love. “Let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter” vs “let us submit to the authority of the supreme Pontiff in Rome”. Remember St. Paul said that there are three: Faith Hope and Love, and that the greatest of these is Love. Let me also say that Faith Hope and Love are spiritually represented by Peter, James, and John. St. Peter represents the Faith, St. James represents Hope, and St. John represents Love. St. John is greater than St. Peter and St. James; furthermore, who was the chief hierarch in the Church at the time when St. John was the last living apostle and at the same time there were bishops in Rome who are the successors of St. Peter?

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a church that’s primarily about love. I’ll have to concede the seemingly endless quotes that prove that the unity of the Church is based on the Rock of St. Peter; but without the freedom that’s needed to exercise love, that faith is vain. Faith works by love. (When St. Peter left the boat where the apostles stayed to walk on the water did Christ take him by the hand and lead them back to the boat?)

John, let me ask you this.
Why, beginning in the 11th century did the East neglect to honor, out of love, and account of Divine appointment from Jesus Himself, the Pope of Rome? I hear the claim that the Pope had a place of honor, “first among equals”. An honor (in Church Fathers & councils) which the East came to betray.
Do Eastern Orthodox not believe that authority is given from above?

 

[JohnVIII]

John, let me ask you this.
Why, beginning in the 11th century did the East neglect to honor, out of love, and account of Divine appointment from Jesus Himself, the Pope of Rome? I hear the claim that the Pope had a place of honor, “first among equals”. An honor (in Church Fathers & councils) which the East came to betray.
Do Eastern Orthodox not believe that authority is given from above?

Dear jam070406:

I hope you don’t mind me calling you “jam070406”, because I don’t know your actual name. By the way, my actual name is “Adrian”. Pleased to meet you! I think your question is rhetorical, so not really sure you want me to reply. But, here it goes.

I don’t know that I can speak for all the Eastern Orthodox Christians, I can only speak for myself. I believe in being in full communion with the see of St. Peter, which I also believe continued for 104 Popes, up until Pope John VIII, which I believe was the last of the Orthodox Popes. Both St. Cyprian as well a St. Firmilian taught that it is possible even for the Pope himself to remove himself from the Rock of St. Peter. I have an open mind and I am open to hearing a contrary persuasive views, but at this point I believe we lost the genuine Rock of St. Peter at the 105th Pope (Pope Marinus I).

Perhaps you have the wisdom to correct me in regard to this matter.

With regard to your question “Why, beginning in the 11th century did the East neglect to honor … the Pope of Rome”. Once again I can only speak for myself, but with all due respect to all the popes in the 11th century and beyond, in order to honor him as an “first among equals” that pope has to be “among” those equals, because the pope left the unity of the Catholic Faith and set up a rock contrary to that of St. Peter. Please do not be offended at my answer, I’m merely expressing my beliefs.

Merry Christmas and may God bless you.

• Adrian.

[SIGN]Merry Christmas[/SIGN]

 

[bobzills]

It is too silly to imagine that someone will leave the Catholic Church because one feels he or she voted wrongly.

The question concerns the disunity in beleif and confusion among Catholics on what is and what is not a mortal sin.
You might try talking to a few people who have converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

 

[Addai]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

Did Congar give any other context. On matters of discipline and practice, no doubt this was the case (in fact, St. Cyprian was indeed referring to a disciplinary matter in the letter). Still, its incredible to take from this your suggestion (if it is not, forgive the assumption) that on matters of doctrine, the bishops have to await the approbation of the laity. In other letters. St. Cyprian charges the laity to be in agreement with their bishop. Obviously, St. Cyprian here understands the “approbation of the people” in the sense of promoting the peace of the Church, not so the laity can have the authority to set the agenda for the doctrinal Faith of the Church.

In case you are not aware, Epistle 14 is a letter to the Church of Rome. In the closing remarks of the letter, he writes:

“I judged it well to stand by your [Rome’s] judgment, lest our proceedings, which ought to be united and to agree in all things, should in any respect be different.”

Blessings,
Marduk

It always a pleasant education having you around!

 

[Addai]

WILL THE REAL ST. CYPRIAN PLEASE STAND?
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp

"For centuries, Eastern Orthodox theologians have tried to put their brand on Cyprian of Carthage, who was martyred in 258. They have hailed him as chief exponent of the Eastern theory of national churches totally independent of Roman control. From the twelfth century onward, Byzantine writers opposing Catholic ecclesiology “found their strongest argument in the ecclesiology of Cyprian.”

 

[Alethiaphile]

Many Catholics (especially Latins) won’t even mention the word “appellate.” I

n any case, it always has been appellate. There’s nothing in Vatican 1 or 2 to say otherwise, except your mention of the word “unhindered.”

No, Brother Mardukm, you really need to to come to terms with what Vatican I and II say. They give the Pope full, immediate juridiction over the whole Church. That means any pope can intervene at the grass-roots level at any parish in the world. That is much more than appellate jurisdiction, and thus it is much more than any authority which was reconized in the first millenium. I’m sorry, but you simply need to deal with it.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

The Council of Sardica says, “if it seem right to you, let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter the Apostle, that the case be appealed from the judges to Julius the Bishop of Rome, so that through the bishops who are the neighbors of the province in question a new court may be held”. So from this you get that the Pope has appellate jurisdiction over the entire church? This canon does not refer to provinces are not subject to the Pope but only those who are subject to him. Furthermore, the only rule the Pope plays in this case is the appointment of the province that will hear the case that is appealed.

I don’t know where you are getting your information. Is it some truncated version of the canons for use by the Eastern Orthodox?

Here’s the full text of Canon 3 which you partially quoted:

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop on any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters.”

Canon 5 also basically says the same thing, with more specific language that ANY bishop can appeal to the bishop of Rome. I’d be interested to see what truncated version of Canon 5 your source gives you, brother JohnVIII - or perhaps your source has Canon 5 missing altogether?

“Why am I drawn to Orthodoxy”? In a word “freedom”. I find it hard to see how we can truly love unless we are free to love. “Let us honor the memory to the love of St. Peter” vs “let us submit to the authority of the supreme Pontiff in Rome”.

Judging by the many EO who have come onto this board making similar statements, would it be right to conclude that the virtue of Christian obedience is wholly missing from the EOC, or at least in its catechetical programs. If not, why is being “obedient” automatically viewed as mere “submission” in Eastern Orthodoxy?

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is a church that’s primarily about love. I’ll have to concede the seemingly endless quotes that prove that the unity of the Church is based on the Rock of St. Peter; but without the freedom that’s needed to exercise love, that faith is vain. Faith works by love. (When St. Peter left the boat where the apostles stayed to walk on the water did Christ take him by the hand and lead them back to the boat?)

Yes we love our bishops AND we love our head bishops. I see you have a problem with that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, Brother Mardukm, you really need to to come to terms with what Vatican I and II say.

Yes, I have. That’s the reason I willingly came into Catholic communion.

They give the Pope full, immediate juridiction over the whole Church. That means any pope can intervene at the grass-roots level at any parish in the world.

True, all true. But you also forgot to quote Vatican I asserting that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold and defend the authority of his brother bishops, an obligation that is also enshrined in our canon laws.:tsktsk:
Why do EO like to take only little snippets of Catholic teaching for the purposes of criticizing it? Is it because taking into account the FULL breadth of Catholic doctrines will only expose the weakness of the EO arguments?

The Pope intervenes, and always and ONLY intervenes, in an appellate capacity. But this is premised on the fact that the Pope ALREADY POSSESSES the authority to intervene. So the conciliar decrees indeed state that the Pope has the authority to intervene everywhere in the Church. HOWEVER, what it does NOT say is that the Pope can intervene at any time and in any circumstances he so chooses. The latter statement is your own exaggerated idea of the Catholic teaching, not what the Catholic teaching actually intends.

That is much more than appellate jurisdiction, and thus it is much more than any authority which was reconized in the first millenium.

According to your trumped up, exaggerated misunderstanding of the papacy - Yes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

WILL THE REAL ST. CYPRIAN PLEASE STAND?
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp

"For centuries, Eastern Orthodox theologians have tried to put their brand on Cyprian of Carthage, who was martyred in 258. They have hailed him as chief exponent of the Eastern theory of national churches totally independent of Roman control. From the twelfth century onward, Byzantine writers opposing Catholic ecclesiology “found their strongest argument in the ecclesiology of Cyprian.”

I assume that you think I believe St. Cyprian didn’t teach about Rome being the Chair of St. Peter and that Catholic unity does not flow from Rome. Yes, of course he taught that Catholic unity proceeds from Rome! But, at the same time he apposed Pope Steven in regards to the issue of the baptism of heretic, even unto the day of his death. The synod of Carthage under Cyprian unanimously made a canon expressing the viewpoint that there cannot be true baptism outside the Catholic Church. Pope Steven condemned St. Cyprian for holding this veiw. St. Cyprian as well as St. Firmilian said that the pope was setting up “other rocks” in opposition to the Rock of St. Peter by the accepting of the baptism of heretics. Futhermore, since this canon made by Cyrian and the synod of Carthage was accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council I think I can say that St. Cyprian was right and Pope Steven was wrong!

So the real St. Cyprian just stood up!

 

[JohnVIII]

Judging by the many EO who have come onto this board making similar statements, would it be right to conclude that the virtue of Christian obedience is wholly missing from the EOC, or at least in its catechetical programs. If not, why is being “obedient” automatically viewed as mere “submission” in Eastern Orthodoxy?

I have seen that even within the context of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholics feel a greater freedom to love the pope as they are only required to be “in communion with Rome” rather than being “in obedience to Rome”. I read a posting by [user]Ghosty[/user] where he basically said it was easier for him to love the Pope because of the freedom that he feels that he has within the context of the Roman Catholic Church because he is an Eastern Catholic. (And yet some see Eastern Catholics as somehow not fully Catholic!) Likewise, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian I feel that I have a greater freedom to love the Church. Early writings of the Church that I’ve read have indicated that it is the lack of love for the Church to that brings about schism!

When the apostle Paul said “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1) would it be fair to conclude that for the apostle Paul “the virtue of Christian obedience is wholly missing”? Of course not! Not everything is so black-and-white as that. In the book “The Ladder of Divine Ascent” disobedience to your spiritual father is referred to as “the fornication of disobedience”. Surely you understand that there is a place for freedom and that there is a place for obedience. Within the context of this discussion, and because you previously thought I didn’t quote enough of one of the canons, here is the entire canon support of this viewpoint:

Canon 8 - 3rd Ecumenical

Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and that Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that that Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentleman who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient customs, and whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most Reverend Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formally and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful processor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of very province, formally and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore, each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees that have been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.

God Bless! - Adrian

 

[mardukm]

I assume that you think I believe St. Cyprian didn’t teach about Rome being the Chair of St. Peter and that Catholic unity does not flow from Rome. Yes, of course he taught that Catholic unity proceeds from Rome! But, at the same time he apposed Pope Steven in regards to the issue of the baptism of heretic, even unto the day of his death. The synod of Carthage under Cyprian unanimously made a canon expressing the viewpoint that there cannot be true baptism outside the Catholic Church. Pope Steven condemned St. Cyprian for holding this veiw. St. Cyprian as well as St. Firmilian said that the pope was setting up “other rocks” in opposition to the Rock of St. Peter by the accepting of the baptism of heretics. Futhermore, since this canon made by Cyrian and the synod of Carthage was accepted by the 6th Ecumenical Council I think I can say that St. Cyprian was right and Pope Steven was wrong!

So the real St. Cyprian just stood up!

Commentators and historians more able than you or me (e.g., Zonaras, Baronius, Asseman, etc.) have adjudged that if these canons were interpreted according to the manner the modern EOC have done in order to justify its unpatristic “Cyprianic” ecclesiology, then it would cause the Sixth Ecumenical to contradict the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The correct understanding is the one the Catholic Church gives (in perfect agreement with the First and Second Ecumenical Councils who validated Pope St. Stephen’s teaching, NOT St. Cyprian’s) that there are SOME who are considered heretics whose baptisms are valid, while there are others whose baptisms cannot be accepted and must be rebaptized.

I don’t know how the EO can claim to faithfully preserve Sacred Tradition when they cause Sacred Tradition to contradict itself! :tsktsk:

In any case, not all the canons from Trullo were ever accepted by the Western Churches. If this canon of St. Cyprian is one of the ones not accepted, then please be more exact with your statements and don’t attempt to claim that this canon had ecumenical status.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[jam070406]

Dear jam070406:

I hope you don’t mind me calling you “jam070406”, because I don’t know your actual name. By the way, my actual name is “Adrian”. Pleased to meet you! I think your question is rhetorical, so not really sure you want me to reply. But, here it goes.

I don’t know that I can speak for all the Eastern Orthodox Christians, I can only speak for myself. I believe in being in full communion with the see of St. Peter, which I also believe continued for 104 Popes, up until Pope John VIII, which I believe was the last of the Orthodox Popes. Both St. Cyprian as well a St. Firmilian taught that it is possible even for the Pope himself to remove himself from the Rock of St. Peter. I have an open mind and I am open to hearing a contrary persuasive views, but at this point I believe we lost the genuine Rock of St. Peter at the 105th Pope (Pope Marinus I).

Perhaps you have the wisdom to correct me in regard to this matter.

With regard to your question “Why, beginning in the 11th century did the East neglect to honor … the Pope of Rome”. Once again I can only speak for myself, but with all due respect to all the popes in the 11th century and beyond, in order to honor him as an “first among equals” that pope has to be “among” those equals, because the pope left the unity of the Catholic Faith and set up a rock contrary to that of St. Peter. Please do not be offended at my answer, I’m merely expressing my beliefs.

Merry Christmas and may God bless you.

• Adrian.

[SIGN]Merry Christmas[/SIGN]

Adrian,
I’m not offended by your answer.
I’m not sure what you mean by the Pope setting up a rock contrary to that of St. Peter. Peter and his profession of Faith are not seperate.

The Pope is still the successor of Peter. The Pope still professes “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God” This is still the profession of Faith the Church lives and preaches by.
This still deserves the honor due to him. An honor given by Christ Himself. (not the EO)

The Catholic Church has attempted to reconcile with the EO on different occasions. The Catholics Church is always reaching out a hand to it’s Eastern brothers. The East continues to refuse. IMHO, this tells me the spirit of Schism always has and still remains with the EO.

I also, hope you are not offended and this is only my opinion.

 

[mardukm]

The question concerns the disunity in beleif and confusion among Catholics on what is and what is not a mortal sin.
You might try talking to a few people who have converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.

In my journey across the Tiber, indeed I have spoken to many. I’ve never met one yet who converted because the Catholic Church was wishy-washy on what or what is not a mortal sin. In fact, most of the ones I have spoken to converted BECAUSE the Catholic Church is TOO adamant about defining what is or is not sin. They realized the Orthodox Church was more lax in the definitions, and preferred the latter.

That is why I find your scenario silly.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JohnVIII,

Surely you understand that there is a place for freedom and that there is a place for obedience.

Christian freedom and Christian obedience are two sides of the same quote, correct? I don’t understand you comment that there is “a place for freedom and a place for obedience.” For the Christian, freedom and obedience belong, and ALWAYS belong in the same place (should it not?).

Within the context of this discussion, and because you previously thought I didn’t quote enough of one of the canons, here is the entire canon support of this viewpoint:

It is great you mention that. The fact that such statements go side by side with the same Synod’s attribution of universal appellate authority to the Pope runs counter to the general EO polemic that having universal jurisdiction is contrary to the idea of a bond of love between the Churches. If we take the complete teaching of Sardica, it’s apparent (to me anyway) that it is polemical EO’s who are lacking in love.

Speaking of Canon 3, why do you say that I “thought” you didn’t quote enough of it? You in fact did not, and left out certain portions that ran directly contrary to your viewpoint that the Pope did not have any business in or could not affect the business of any other province but his own (in so many words).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

In my journey across the Tiber, indeed I have spoken to many. I’ve never met one yet who converted because the Catholic Church was wishy-washy on what or what is not a mortal sin. In fact, most of the ones I have spoken to converted BECAUSE the Catholic Church is TOO adamant about defining what is or is not sin. They realized the Orthodox Church was more lax in the definitions, and preferred the latter.

That is why I find your scenario silly.

Blessings,
Marduk

The question is not what is wishy washy. The question concerns teaching what is contradictory. For example, there is a Catholic priest (laicised at present) who is a theology professor at a Catholic college and he is teaching in his theology class that his marriage to his homosexual partner is in accord with Catholic teaching. So it is not just one issue of disunity. There are many issues that have come up and the result is to create confusion in the minds of many Catholics. There was a Catholic priest in our area who gave a small talk as to why he had converted to Eastern Orthodoxy a while back. BTW, he has since converted back to Catholicism. One of the reasons he gave for converting to E. Orthodoxy concerned the disunity and dissidence he found in Catholic teachings that he was hearing being preached.