Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicisma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Koineman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
The eastern orthodox churches (not in communion with the CC) are quite wonderful and they have a valid Eucharist as well. However, they do not recognize the Petrine role and that was a problem for me. The Petrine office is overwhelmingly scriptural.

And I tell you that you are Peter, (cephas) and on this rock (cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Unity has a direct correlation with the Petrine office.
Click to expand...
joe you make a very good point and thats why I stay with the church even though the liberalisms in the new mass drives me nuts. :mad:
 
Vico said:
Because there is the fullness of the faith in the Catholic Church:***

****** LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH***
ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the episcopal College are proper elements of the universal Church that are “not derived from the particularity of the Churches”(57), but are nevertheless interior to each particular Church. Consequently "we must see the ministry of the Successor of Peter, not only as a ‘global’ service, reaching each particular Church from ‘outside’, as it were, but as belonging already to the essence of each particular Church from ‘within’"(58). Indeed, the ministry of the Primacy involves, in essence, a truly episcopal power, which is not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over everybody, whether Pastors or other faithful(59). The ministry of the Successor of Peter as something interior to each particular Church is a necessary expression of that fundamental mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church(60).

(57) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: as quoted, p. 5.
(58) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16-IX-1987, n. 4: as quoted, p. 556.
(59) Cf. Const. Pastor aeternus, chap. 3: Denz.-Sch`n 3064; Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22/b.
(60) Cf. supra, n. 9.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
Click to expand...
In other words the Catholic Communion has the fulness of the faith because the Roman Church says so.
 
Koineman said:
So what’s the difference between Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, and sui juris?
Click to expand...
Eastern Catholics are bound to believe the dogmas proclaimed by Rome after the schism between East and West. Orthodox reject some of those teachings, the main ones being universal papal jurisidiction and supremacy, papal infallibility, the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the both the Father and the Son, Indulgences and the Immaculate Conception.
 
Nine_Two said:
In other words the Catholic Communion has the fulness of the faith because the Roman Church says so.
Click to expand...
I think one has to read the sources given for the scripture and tradition upon which the statements are based. Certainly, a synod of bishops of all the Church has never defined that the Catholic Church is not Orthodox. The Church has been wounded since at least the time of Photius.
 
Vico said:
I think one has to read the sources given for the scripture and tradition upon which the statements are based. Certainly, a synod of bishops of all the Church has never defined that the Catholic Church is not Orthodox. The Church has been wounded since at least the time of Photius.
Click to expand...
The references given for that little snippet are all Papal pronouncements.

If all the bishops were in alignment on the Orthodoxy of the Catholic Church we would not have the issue of the Great Schism. The horrifying thought should not be that they have never all defined it as anything, but rather that for half the Churches history the Bishops of the Church (defining it here as you did) have been in disagreement about its Orthodoxy.
 
Read the patristics, read orthodox writings and answer that for yourself. See the orthodox liturgy and compare it to the relative chaotic nature of catholic liturgies.
 
Nine_Two said:
In other words the Catholic Communion has the fulness of the faith because the Roman Church says so.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s part of it.

The same could be said the other way: if someone said that only Orthodox, and not Catholics (or Anglicans, Lutherans, etc), are in the church because the Orthodox say so, you might reply “that’s part of it.”
 
joe370 said:
The eastern orthodox churches (not in communion with the CC) are quite wonderful and they have a valid Eucharist as well. However, they do not recognize the Petrine role and that was a problem for me. The Petrine office is overwhelmingly scriptural.

And I tell you that you are Peter, (cephas) and on this rock (cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. Unity has a direct correlation with the Petrine office.
Click to expand...
Basically what it comes down to.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Read the patristics, read orthodox writings and answer that for yourself. See the orthodox liturgy and compare it to the relative chaotic nature of catholic liturgies.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can elaborate? What patristics in “particular” and what is chaotic in the Liturgy of the Word and Consecration of the Eucharist. I would venture to say you can read a 1953 version of the St Joseph Catholic Missal and its “identical”. Granted you will find Latin/English translation, yet Catholics are more than welcome to attend the Tridentine Mass.
 
Nine_Two said:
In other words the Catholic Communion has the fulness of the faith because the Roman Church says so.
Click to expand...
No because “Orthodoxy” states so in the Patristics of the united Church. Fulness becomes a word which needs definition. Fulness exists in the EO, what does not exist is not that this Church is not acknowledged, but exactly what Joe mentioned above. All are called to Communion with the Mystical Body of Christ, when you are outside that body you are an organism though a true church, yet existing outside the body.

That said the EO maintains the fulness of Orthodoxy otherwise.
 
Schism_hater said:
Eastern Catholics are bound to believe the dogmas proclaimed by Rome after the schism between East and West. Orthodox reject some of those teachings, the main ones being universal papal jurisidiction and supremacy, papal infallibility, the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the both the Father and the Son, Indulgences and the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
The issue’s reside more in this realm though the reality is some are not as much of an issue as others. Dogmatic is an issue which I’m sympathetic to the East with. Universal papal jurisidiction and supremacy, papal infallibility remains an issue. To be defined by the Pope.

The Marion Dogmas while I do believe they are valid I see no reason they needed to be Dogma.

The Nicene Creed comes down to a complete lack of communication and I think the EO has a valid point here.

Indulgence is a non issue when correctly understood is an issue which centers around original sin and purgatory. Tell me how does one receive time off from purgatory when the spiritual world is not subject to time? You see the church never has, nor can define this. What a indulgence does correctly understood is bring one deeper into the Church and Faith. For “before” one can partake in any indulgence you must obstain from ALL sin. Which means you must be attending Church as required and receiving the Sacraments. If your doing this than the indulgence can do nothing but bring you deeper into the Faith. For in truth you are a darn good Christian to reach this point alone.
 
Vico said:
I think one has to read the sources given for the scripture and tradition upon which the statements are based. Certainly, a synod of bishops of all the Church has never defined that the Catholic Church is not Orthodox. The Church has been wounded since at least the time of Photius.
Click to expand...
Since Photius? That is perhaps a bit of an unfair assessment, considering the schism with the non-Chalcedonians, which was far more damaging in the East.
 
Well you see this is how the thread proceeds when the focus becomes us and not the OP.

Truth is as TL stated above the OP shouldn’t be actively attending other Church’s be it their Apostolic, in particular when one has received Confirmation in either the East or West. The Spiritual Director is the first stop from that point.

To examine is another process which I would hope would be a focus on a particular aspect. My we have Photius, the Primacy, the Mother of God, the Eucharist and Nicene Creed, along with Indulgence. In other words the History of Christianity.😉
 
If you believe that the Catholic Church has the truth, why be afraid of the Orthodox? If one is interested in Truth, one will find it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top