Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicisma?

[Nine_Two]

Where? All he did was provide a document of the CDF. You are the one who presumed that he was pointing to the CDF’s authority instead of the points they raised in that document.

Did you read the document in question?

Are you now saying you’ll dismiss something just because it was said by an authority of the Catholic Church? How is that any less irrational than what you’re accusing Vico of?

No, I’m saying I’ll dismiss an argument that is based on the authority of the Catholic Church, because I don’t accept that authority.

Or are you saying you’ll accept a claim solely because it is given on the basis of the Orthodox Church? Because if you won’t, why do you think I would hold what your church says in higher regards?

 

[Marybeloved]

Did you read the document in question?

No, I’m saying I’ll dismiss an argument that is based on the authority of the Catholic Church, because I don’t accept that authority.

Or are you saying you’ll accept a claim solely because it is given on the basis of the Orthodox Church? Because if you won’t, why do you think I would hold what your church says in higher regards?

I’m not the one claiming that anytime someone cites the Church they are making an argument solely based on authority- So why would I have a problem considering anything the Orthodox Church says on an issue? They can’t be any less substantial than those of individual theologians or internet posters, can they?

 

[LionHeart777]

I suggest some people here would benefit from googling “The Fourth Crusade” and spending a good few hours researching it.

Yes, the sack of Constantinople (which I assume you refer to) was an atrocity committed by Catholics against the Eastern Orthodox, but it was not sanctioned by the Church and the Pope was livid when he found out. Why is that pertinent to this discussion?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, the sack of Constantinople (which I assume you refer to) was an atrocity committed by Catholics against the Eastern Orthodox, but it was not sanctioned by the Church and the Pope was livid when he found out. Why is that pertinent to this discussion?

Yes, he was indeed livid. So livid that he placed a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[dzheremi]

There is no reason why you shouldn’t explore the Orthodox Church. I don’t know why some people here are acting like visiting an Orthodox Church or reading about it is tantamount to rejecting Catholicism. We have two Catholics from Jordan who regularly attend our liturgies and even some of our non-liturgical celebrations (e.g., thanksgiving holiday meal). They say that culturally and spiritually they feel more comfortable attending a Coptic liturgy than the local Catholic options (I don’t know if they’re Melkites or what). They don’t receive, of course, but neither are they shunned or pressured to convert. We love them and respect them and they feel the same way about us, and that’s just that. It’s good. We also have good relations with the local Greek Orthodox, too.

I agree with Constantine that if Catholic people are confident that their communion has the true faith, then there is nothing to worry about. I mean, the OP is talking about looking into a different Christian tradition, not something completely outside of Christianity like Hinduism or Buddhism or something. It’s fine.

 

[Vico]

I suggest some people here would benefit from googling “The Fourth Crusade” and spending a good few hours researching it.

There was great hatred, greed, and deceit, and disloyalty to the Church.

1081-1185 Rule of the Komnenian Dynasty of Byzantium. First two crusades occur during this period.
1182 Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople (60,000 wiped our or fled, at least 4000 sold as slaves). The Venetians had dominated trade there since the late 11th century.
1187 Third Crusade begins.
1162 Pisans and Genoans expelled for damages caused. Venetians remain.
1171 Venetians mass arrest and confiscation of property for damages caused.
1179 Treaty.
1198 Pope Innocent III becomes Pope and tries to arrange aid for Constantinople. He can’t get help, till the Venetians agree in 1201 to go the next year after supplies can be gotten together. The Pope banned attacks on Christian states.
1202 Fourth crusade begins.
1204 Constantinople sacked for three days by 70 Crusaders and Venetians, breaking their oaths. Innocent III rebuked them for it. (Instructions from the Pope had not been read to the Crusaders or Venetians because the leaders supression.)
1261 Nicaean Greeks take Constantinople from the Latins.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;9706143]There is no reason why you shouldn’t explore the Orthodox Church…

I agree. I know that the catholic church recognizes a valid Eucharist (called the Divine Liturgy) in the eastern orthodox church. Does the eastern orthodox church also recognize a valid Eucharist in the catholic church?

 

[dzheremi]

What the Eastern Orthodox call “Divine Liturgy”, the Latins call “Mass”. “Eucharist” is the same word in both communions.

Orthodoxy does not have an opinion on the sacraments of other churches. It’s not really a matter of validity or non-validity (as these are not concepts we use), it’s a matter of in communion versus not in communion. As communion in the Orthodox Church is an affirmation that the people and, at a higher level, their autocephalous Churches (say, the Greek and the Romanian, or the Armenian and the Syriac), share the same faith, our communions restrict reception of the sacraments to those who confess the faith as we do. So we don’t commune in Catholic or otherwise non-Orthodox Churches, as they do not share the same faith as we do.

 

[Marybeloved]

What the Eastern Orthodox call “Divine Liturgy”, the Latins call “Mass”. “Eucharist” is the same word in both communions.

Orthodoxy does not have an opinion on the sacraments of other churches. It’s not really a matter of validity or non-validity (as these are not concepts we use), it’s a matter of in communion versus not in communion. As communion in the Orthodox Church is an affirmation that the people and, at a higher level, their autocephalous Churches (say, the Greek and the Romanian, or the Armenian and the Syriac), share the same faith, our communions restrict reception of the sacraments to those who confess the faith as we do. So we don’t commune in Catholic or otherwise non-Orthodox Churches, as they do not share the same faith as we do.

It’s interesting how you put this, one might think you’re speaking of a single faith with this “Orthdoxy” word here- even better “the Orthodox Church” as you put it. If I didn’t know any better I might even believe that the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic church were merely autocephalous churches of one communion.

 

[dzheremi]

Not at all. In the examples I put in parenthesis, I put Eastern/Chalcedonian examples together, and Oriental/non-Chalcedonian together. Just like they are in real life.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. I know that the catholic church recognizes a valid Eucharist (called the Divine Liturgy) in the eastern orthodox church. Does the eastern orthodox church also recognize a valid Eucharist in the catholic church?

Nowadays, it’s pretty much a universal policy in Orthodoxy that Orthodox aren’t to receive communion in any non-Orthodox churches, including Catholic and Anglican churches. Thus there’s pretty much no need for them to make any statements for or against the “validity” of our sacraments.

Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in a road block has some discussion of the time when Orthodox did in fact entertain such questions. (That’s well before the 1970s, of course, when the Anglican Communion started on its present course.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

Nowadays, it’s pretty much a universal policy in Orthodoxy that Orthodox aren’t to receive communion in any non-Orthodox churches, including Catholic and Anglican churches. Thus there’s pretty much no need for them to make any statements for or against the “validity” of our sacraments.

Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in a road block has some discussion of the time when Orthodox did in fact entertain such questions. (That’s well before the 1970s, of course, when the Anglican Communion started on its present course.)

It is interesting that Fr. Matthew Kirby, in his attempt to defend the indefensible position that the ‘recognition’ of several Orthodox patriarchs of Anglican Holy Orders was something of any particular importance, linked to this fine essay written by Patriarch Sergii: holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/succession-1.html. It actually refutes the argument being made, because the argument relies on the importance of some patriarchs at some point in time recognizing the Anglican’s Holy Orders, while Patriarch Sergii’s thought can be summed up by the argument (which he is making against the Nicomedean theory) that the Church out of the economy of salvation, considers the heterodox not to be foreign to her, forestalling her power to put them to the sword and cut them off entirely.

As he writes: “As the sole earthly possessor of the power to bind and loose and the sole treasury of saving grace, Christ’s Church has the opportunity and the right to declare all ordinations outside the Church to be invalid. However, guided by the argument of Church economy, the desire to bring about the salvation of a greater number of people, the Church does not implement its power in all places and at all times. The ordinations in heterodox organizations which retained both the Apostolic teaching and the form of ordination, the Church retains this in force, it in some way recognizes these as valid, because from this it makes proper conclusions: for example it does not repeat baptism or chrismation performed by those clerics. In all this the non-implementation by the Church of its basic right with respect to a particular group of heterodox organizations by no means indicates a refusal of the Church to do so forever. When conditions of Church life change and the leniency towards a given heterodox group no longer provides for the salvation of a greater number of people and even more so results in a direct hinderance to this, the Church returns to its basic right and rescinds the dispensation and again binds what was loosened. This explains the apparent non-systematic and changing relations of the Church towards heterodox organizations.” This admission, of course, severely undermines the argument that the former Orthodox acceptance of Anglican Holy Orders (which only occurred in some churches, although this fact is not by any means important to the discussion at hand) holds any importance, because his argument that the Church may exercise her power in time for the salvation of many would mean that the Church was correct in her wisdom to have treated the Anglicans with ‘validity’ for a while, only to cut them off, once it became apparent that such a recognition was not expedient for the salvation of the many.

 

[joe370]

Nowadays, it’s pretty much a universal policy in Orthodoxy that Orthodox aren’t to receive communion in any non-Orthodox churches, including Catholic and Anglican churches. Thus there’s pretty much no need for them to make any statements for or against the “validity” of our sacraments.

Orthodoxy and Anglicanism in a road block has some discussion of the time when Orthodox did in fact entertain such questions. (That’s well before the 1970s, of course, when the Anglican Communion started on its present course.)

Got it.

 

[Koineman]

This is sure to raise some hackles, but I thought I’d give an update.

Due to paragraphs 1260 and 847 of the Catholic Catechism, and their contradiction with Unam Sanctam as well as their contradiction of the NT teaching that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation, my enthusiasm for the Catholic Church has cooled down considerably, as these issues cause serious problems for the idea of papal infallibility. Consequently, I plan to intensify my search into Orthodox churches, particularly the OCA. I attended a liturgy this past Sunday and have sent a message via that church’s website to speak to the priest.

What is appealing to me about the OC is the fact that it avoids creating novelties to add to the faith but instead seems intent on only preserving apostolic teaching and not adding to it. I could have misunderstood them, but that is the impression I’ve gotten so far from the reading I’ve been doing online.

I am still attending RCIA at a local Catholic parish, as I hold on to the hope that I might, in time, come across some explanation about the above issues that resolves them for me. I also plan to continue attending mass on Sundays since I do like the worship (though I will not receive communion since I am now in strong disagreement with the CC on the issues indicated above).

 

[Vico]

This is sure to raise some hackles, but I thought I’d give an update.

Due to paragraphs 1260 and 847 of the Catholic Catechism, and their contradiction with Unam Sanctam as well as their contradiction of the NT teaching that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation, my enthusiasm for the Catholic Church has cooled down considerably, as these issues cause serious problems for the idea of papal infallibility. Consequently, I plan to intensify my search into Orthodox churches, particularly the OCA. I attended a liturgy this past Sunday and have sent a message via that church’s website to speak to the priest.

What is appealing to me about the OC is the fact that it avoids creating novelties to add to the faith but instead seems intent on only preserving apostolic teaching and not adding to it. I could have misunderstood them, but that is the impression I’ve gotten so far from the reading I’ve been doing online.

I am still attending RCIA at a local Catholic parish, as I hold on to the hope that I might, in time, come across some explanation about the above issues that resolves them for me. I also plan to continue attending mass on Sundays since I do like the worship (though I will not receive communion since I am now in strong disagreement with the CC on the issues indicated above).

I recommend reading this from Blessed Pope John II, which actually refers to Unum Sanctum, All Salvation Comes through Christ, General Audience, May 31, 1995:Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

 

[Koineman]

I recommend reading this from Blessed Pope John II, which actually refers to Unum Sanctum, All Salvation Comes through Christ, General Audience, May 31, 1995:Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Thanks for that, but Unam Sanctam says that all people must be **subject to the Roman Pontiff **to be saved. You can’t be subject to the Roman Pontiff if you are outside the Catholic Church, whether through ignorance or deliberate rejection.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for that, but Unam Sanctam says that all people must be **subject to the Roman Pontiff **to be saved. You can’t be subject to the Roman Pontiff if you are outside the Catholic Church, whether through ignorance or deliberate rejection.

Even Eastern Catholic Churches would contend that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff. How do we get around that?

 

[Koineman]

Even Eastern Catholic Churches would contend that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff. How do we get around that?

Why do you have to get around it? Not sure what you mean.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why do you have to get around it? Not sure what you mean.

What does being subject to the Pope really mean? Because being in communion and being subject to are two different things.

 

[Koineman]

What does being subject to the Pope really mean? Because being in communion and being subject to are two different things.

Being subject to means owing obedience and allegiance to someone.