Why not Orthodoxy?

[The_Iambic_Pen]

So, I was browsing the Eastern Christianity forum, and I noticed a discussion about Catholic-Orthodox unity and the prospects for it. This article, by Fr. Thomas Hopko, was mentioned. There were a few statements in it which I found interesting:

Because of its unique place among the Christian churches, the church of Rome in the person of its bishop was soon tempted to assume powers, prerogatives and privileges among the churches beyond those belonging to its ministry to preside among them in love.

He goes on to say that there were:

attempts to control this tendency, for example, by such great bishops as St. Cyprian of Carthage in North Africa in the 3rd century, and St. Photios the Great of Constantinople in the 9th, and perhaps most especially by Pope St. Gregory the Great of Rome itself who in the 6th century formulated his celebrated definition of a Christian bishop as “the servant of the servants of God (servus servorum Dei)” in his powerful polemic against the bishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, for adopting the title “ecumenical.”

He also says:

The unique authority of the bishop of Rome over all other churches and their bishops was gradually developed and defended by applying certain interpretations of scriptural passages about Peter’s first place among the apostles to the Pope of Rome’s first place among the bishops. This presumed authority of the bishop of Rome was also bolstered by references to allegedly historical documents that were later proved to be inventions designed for this purpose.

The Orthodox position seems to be that the Bishop of Rome had primacy in the first thousand years of the church, but this was more a primacy of honor than a primacy of authority. They believe that the office of the papacy grew far beyond its purpose in the years after the schism. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Fr. Hopko goes on to list some things the Pope must do in order for reunificiation to happen (basically, become Orthodox…). I don’t really see reunification happening on those terms. Basically, it seems that either the Catholics or the Orthodox will have to admit they have been wrong about the role of the Pope. And, of course, it appears that, regardless of how this debate goes, we Protestants are still wrong.

So, to get back to the thread title, why should a Protestant trying to find the one true Church choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I have read some tracts and articles on this site, and I am almost completely inclined to accept the Catholic view (though perhaps my Western European bias is affecting my judgment), but I wondered it anyone had any more information that might be helpful. Thanks!

God bless!

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

 

[bengeorge]

I’m not even going to begin to attempt to try to think about touching the filoque debate.

I guess my question to you is, are you seriously considering conversion to Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

Sadly, I don’t know WHEN the East and West will reconcile. From what I understand, the Pope desires reunification, but whether the terms or the reunification would be accepted by the Orthodox is doubtful.

It’s too bad. Sigh.

 

[Mickey]

I’ll be extremely brief because what you have proposed here has been simmering for at least 1000 years.
The Iambic Pen:

They believe that the office of the papacy grew far beyond its purpose in the years after the schism. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

They have no choice but to take this stance because they are not in union with Rome.
The Iambic Pen:

Fr. Hopko goes on to list some things the Pope must do in order for reunificiation to happen (basically, become Orthodox…). I don’t really see reunification happening on those terms.?

No. Not on those terms, but I am optimistic that language can be agreed on that can reunite both sides.
The Iambic Pen:

And, of course, it appears that, regardless of how this debate goes, we Protestants are still wrong.

With all due respect, regardless of the disagreements between the Catholics and the Orthodox, both still have Apostolic succession.
The Iambic Pen:

So, to get back to the thread title, why should a Protestant trying to find the one true Church choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I have read some tracts and articles on this site, and I am almost completely inclined to accept the Catholic view (though perhaps my Western European bias is affecting my judgment), but I wondered it anyone had any more information that might be helpful. Thanks!.?

You could become a member of the Eastern Catholic Church where you would celebrate the Divine Liturgy while staying in union with Rome.
The Iambic Pen:

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

My oh my. If you start that one, be prepared for hundreds of posts. I have seen good arguments on both sides.

Peace and blessings,
Mickey

 

[MonkeyTape]

The Iambic Pen:

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

I can’t speak to the details of the deabte, but the jist of Filioque is whether the Holy Spirit procedes from both the Father and the Son, or just the Father. The Catholic Church holds the former, Eastern Orthodoxy holds the later.

More information here. newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

God Bless you on your journey if you are truly considering converting to Catholicism.

 

[DeFide]

The Iambic Pen:

…So, to get back to the thread title, why should a Protestant trying to find the one true Church choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I have read some tracts and articles on this site, and I am almost completely inclined to accept the Catholic view (though perhaps my Western European bias is affecting my judgment), but I wondered it anyone had any more information that might be helpful. Thanks!

Very simple:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21!

Such a scenario falls to pieces in an Eastern Orthodox view.

Two people, belonging to two “equal” churches would be placed in an impossible conundrum when the decision of the church is to be had.

Jesus established a church (singular), not multiple competing systems of truth.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Wow! Quick posts. Thanks everybody.

bengeorge:

I guess my question to you is, are you seriously considering conversion to Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

Catholicism, most certainly. However, with a decision of this magnitude, I feel compelled to give an honest look at both Orthodoxy and Protestantism. So far, I haven’t seen any strong arguments against Catholicism, but I have seen some that at least intrigued me.

Mickey:

Originally Posted by The Iambic Pen
Fr. Hopko goes on to list some things the Pope must do in order for reunificiation to happen (basically, become Orthodox…). I don’t really see reunification happening on those terms.?

No. Not on those terms, but I am optimistic that language can be agreed on that can reunite both sides.

Hopefully. I think Catholic-Orthodox reunification would be a huge step toward bringing the Protestants back as well.

Originally Posted by The Iambic Pen
And, of course, it appears that, regardless of how this debate goes, we Protestants are still wrong.

With all due respect, regardless of the disagreements between the Catholics and the Orthodox, both still have Apostolic succession.

True enough.

MonkeyTape:

I can’t speak to the details of the deabte, but the jist of Filioque is whether the Holy Spirit procedes from both the Father and the Son, or just the Father. The Catholic Church holds the former, Eastern Orthodoxy holds the later.

Hmmhhh…it seems that since the Son and the Father are one (as Jesus himself said), this is kind of a silly point to argue about.

God Bless you on your journey if you are truly considering converting to Catholicism.

Thanks!

DeFide:

Very simple:

‘If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector’ (Mt 18:15-17).

And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21!

Such a scenario falls to pieces in an Eastern Orthodox view.

Two people, belonging to two “equal” churches would be placed in an impossible conundrum when the decision of the church is to be had.

Jesus established a church (singular), not multiple competing systems of truth.

True enough, and one can see a bit of chaos, as it seems the Orthodox have not managed to have an ecumenical council since the schism. As far as competing systems of truth, though, do the various national churches really disagree on matters of doctrine?

God bless!

 

[DeFide]

The Iambic Pen:

DeFide:
True enough, and one can see a bit of chaos, as it seems the Orthodox have not managed to have an ecumenical council since the schism. As far as competing systems of truth, though, do the various national churches really disagree on matters of doctrine?

God bless!

They know the devastating havoc it’d create if they tried to address points of contention, which is precisely why there has been an otherwise inexplicable drought of ecumenical councils.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

True enough, and one can see a bit of chaos, as it seems the Orthodox have not managed to have an ecumenical council since the schism. As far as competing systems of truth, though, do the various national churches really disagree on matters of doctrine?

They would answer “no”. They would tell you that the differences are matters of regional discipline.

 

[Aaron_I]

Why not Orthodoxy?

Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock. And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

Peter is the Rock. The Orthodox kept the same “house”, but removed its foundation. Without the foundation, they have allowed for divorce and contraception in their Church.

Also, Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail.”

Satan seeks to destroy all of the apostles, but notice that Christ will only pray for Peter.

For me, those two verses are enough.

 

[AJV]

The Iambic Pen:

So, I was browsing the Eastern Christianity forum, and I noticed a discussion about Catholic-Orthodox unity and the prospects for it. This article, by Fr. Thomas Hopko, was mentioned. There were a few statements in it which I found interesting:

He goes on to say that there were:
He also says:
The Orthodox position seems to be that the Bishop of Rome had primacy in the first thousand years of the church, but this was more a primacy of honor than a primacy of authority. They believe that the office of the papacy grew far beyond its purpose in the years after the schism. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Fr. Hopko goes on to list some things the Pope must do in order for reunificiation to happen (basically, become Orthodox…). I don’t really see reunification happening on those terms. Basically, it seems that either the Catholics or the Orthodox will have to admit they have been wrong about the role of the Pope. And, of course, it appears that, regardless of how this debate goes, we Protestants are still wrong.

So, to get back to the thread title, why should a Protestant trying to find the one true Church choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I have read some tracts and articles on this site, and I am almost completely inclined to accept the Catholic view (though perhaps my Western European bias is affecting my judgment), but I wondered it anyone had any more information that might be helpful. Thanks!

God bless!

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

I just wanted to point out one thing- that while Pope St. Gregory the Great did speak out against the Patriarch of Constantinople styling himself ecumenical, many also regard him as being among the first to speak forceforcefully for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[AJV]

The Iambic Pen:

True enough, and one can see a bit of chaos, as it seems the Orthodox have not managed to have an ecumenical council since the schism. As far as competing systems of truth, though, do the various national churches really disagree on matters of doctrine?

God bless!

I seriously doubt it and feel that this is one of the most popular misconceptions of Catholics about the Orthodox.

 

[AJV]

The Iambic Pen:

Hmmhhh…it seems that since the Son and the Father are one (as Jesus himself said), this is kind of a silly point to argue about.
Thanks!

Not so! I dont know much theology, but the Father is considered the ‘source’ of the Trinity. So the Orthodox argue as to whether the statement dimishes that role.

Speaking of which, I thought that both Catholics and Orthodox agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

 

[JimG]

If you read the works of Frank Sheed, such as Theology for Beginners, and Theology and Sanity, about the nature of God, then the Filioque makes sense.

Philosophically, one can say that the Son proceeds from the Father’s knowledge of himself. His intellect, knowing Himself, speaks the Word. The Holy Spirit then proceeds from the mutual love between the Father and the Son.

But the Eastern Churches do not particularly think in the philosophical terms of Aristotle or of Thomism. Nor do they consider it necessary to think in those terms. Thus, seeing the Father as the Eternal Source, they think it detracts from the Father to say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son.”

(As a side note, speaking of the Father as the source causes Muslims to think that we think the Father created the Son. This is not so, since an eternal generation of the Son has no beginning and no end, and does not constitute a creation, but rather an operation of the Divine Intelligence.)

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I guess I’ll have to be honest and admit that while I have always believed in the Trinity, I’ve never been able to explain it very well…

 

[JimG]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess I’ll have to be honest and admit that while I have always believed in the Trinity, I’ve never been able to explain it very well…

You see, the Eastern Church would agree with you; and say that there is no need to try for philosophical explanations. And there’s really nothing wrong with that viewpoint.

But the West has always taken the position that, since God is not self-contradictory, this applies to even the Trinity. And so there is nothing wrong with applying philosophy and metaphysics to try to understand what we can, while admittedly not encompassing the infinity of God.

 

[Palamite]

De_Fide,

Such a scenario falls to pieces in an Eastern Orthodox view.

No it doesn’t. How does not having, in effect, one bishop (with the rest of the episcopate essentially being reduced to presbyter-vicars of the Pope) make excommunication, deposition, or other forms of censure impossible?

Two people, belonging to two “equal” churches would be placed in an impossible conundrum when the decision of the church is to be had.

I think you need to read a little more about how issues like this were actually sorted out in the first millenia. Hint; it didn’t involve the Pope throwing thunder-bolts down from Vatican Hill, with everyone simply standing in awe that he singularly saved the day.

Jesus established a church (singular), not multiple competing systems of truth.

By your logic, the existance of multiple men with the fullness of the Priesthood (episcopate), and the existance of many celebrations of the Eucharist, would amount to a slight against the unity of the Church, and the unity of the Christian faith. In the first millenia, there never was an administratively singular “Church Universal” as Catholicism came to practice in Western Europe (and only relatively late in time, I might add.)

The bonds of the singular Church of Christ are unity of faith, and unity in the Holy Mysteries (aka. “being in communion” - celebration of the same sacraments, and concelebration of them). Administration of ecclessiastical affairs above the level of the Bishop and his flock are developments of history (Papacy included) not particulars that are of the “essence” of the Church (what some would call Her “dogmatic constitution”.) IOW. the Church doesn’t evaporate simply because “Patriarch X” defects from the faith, his ability to rule/exist is destroyed by political circumstances, etc.

They know the devastating havoc it’d create if they tried to address points of contention, which is precisely why there has been an otherwise inexplicable drought of ecumenical councils.

Could it be that the Seven Councils were Imperial Councils. By your logic, the true Church didn’t exist before the Council of Nicea either - which (not so coincidentally) coincided with the favouring of Christianity by the Roman Emperor and his desire to put himself in the service of Christ and be a protector and helper of the Church. Even the very language of “canons” is borrowed from Roman Law - for the canons of the Imperial Councils were regarded not simply as Church affairs, but matters of Roman (secular) Law (hence why some of the punishments for heresy or public offences against the faith involve things like exile or fines.)

Where there have been doctrinal issues since that time (though they’ve been relatively minor - for us the age of martyrdom has never ended in one way for another, and this has a tendency of helping such things…heresy usually being the child of decadence and decay, not fervour) they have been dealt with in a concilliar manner, and interestingly while not called Ecumenical Councils, such documents (like the anathemas of the Palamite Synods, for example) have been received unanimously throughout the Orthodox world. IOW. they are de facto on the same level as the “big seven” Councils, as they are genuinely ecumenical statements of faith. The great Imperial Councils, called by the Emperors (none were called or organized by the Popes of Rome), have been one means of the Church dealing with matters. Yet they are not the only means, as their abscence during the pre-Nicean period gives evidence to (yet it’s quite obvious that heresy did not begin just before Nicea!)

 

[marysson]

The Iambic Pen:

So, I was browsing the Eastern Christianity forum, and I noticed a discussion about Catholic-Orthodox unity and the prospects for it. This article, by Fr. Thomas Hopko, was mentioned. There were a few statements in it which I found interesting:

He goes on to say that there were:
He also says:
The Orthodox position seems to be that the Bishop of Rome had primacy in the first thousand years of the church, but this was more a primacy of honor than a primacy of authority. They believe that the office of the papacy grew far beyond its purpose in the years after the schism. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Fr. Hopko goes on to list some things the Pope must do in order for reunificiation to happen (basically, become Orthodox…). I don’t really see reunification happening on those terms. Basically, it seems that either the Catholics or the Orthodox will have to admit they have been wrong about the role of the Pope. And, of course, it appears that, regardless of how this debate goes, we Protestants are still wrong.

So, to get back to the thread title, why should a Protestant trying to find the one true Church choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy? I have read some tracts and articles on this site, and I am almost completely inclined to accept the Catholic view (though perhaps my Western European bias is affecting my judgment), but I wondered it anyone had any more information that might be helpful. Thanks!

God bless!

Oh yeah, and what’s with the whole filioque debate?

Why not Eastern Orthodox?

It was the Pope in the West that defended against the Arian controversy when 99.9% of the East became Arian heretics.

That’s why.

 

[Palamite]

The Iambic Pen,

If you’re interested in the Orthodox P.O.V. on a lot of these issues, you’ll probably be best served by posting some questions in the Eastern Christianity forum. There are two Hieromonks (Priest-Monks) who post there regularly, as well as others who would be happy to give you their two cents.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I’m not Orthodox because it’s a schism. Now, of course they’d say the same thing about us Catholics too. So, I guess it’s because even the Eastern Fathers (prior to the break) pointed to Rome as having primacy. As for the filioque, I didn’t think that that was a big deal anymore. At least that’s the impression that I get from here:

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Also, if you’d like to here Jimmy Akin’s reasons for not being Eastern Orthodox, you can find that here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

Finally, I would suggest reading Steve Ray’s “Crossing the Tiber.” I know that he addresses it shortly in that since he was originally thinking of becoming Orthodox. Also, I’d check out his other book “Upon this Rock” as well as “Jesus, Peter, & the Keys” by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess since Petrine authority is the main thing that divides us. If you really feel drawn East, you might want to consider the Eastern Catholic Rites.

 

[BillyT92679]

To me, we Latins are only half filled, since so few of us have nursed at the font of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Chrysostum, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The East is a world of mystical contemplation that we need to embrace.

But the reason I could never be Orthodox is simple. Peter, Peter, Peter. If the Ecumenical Patriarch was in Antioch, then maybe, just maybe, I’d be more influenced. But, from a Scriptural, theological standpoint, the mentioning of the Prince of the Apostles, both firstly as head of the Apostles, and, more importantly, as having charisms distinct from the other apostles, are far too overwhelming to ignore. St. Matthew 16 is important in light of Isaiah’s prophecy about the “prime minister” of the Chose People having keys. The Keys, which none of the other apostles have, though they all can bind and loose, separates St. Peter and his successors from every other episcopal see.
Equally as important is that St. Peter alone “confirms the brethren.” (St. John’s Gospel). St. Mark, St. James the Less, St. Andrew, none of them were given that special charism, and confirming brethren requires an authority that goes beyond mere honorific primacy.