Why would a Roman Catholic become Orthodox?

[ForeverAdam]

But the entire east was in communion with the Latin church for centuries. Isn’t is a major change to no longer be so?

Yes it is a major change. And the one who ended this communion was the West by their choice of innovation over zealous preservation of the Faith given to the saints once for all. People have free will and are allowed to make their own choices. We are only expected to be faithful to the Lord and pray for their return.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Is the historical record sufficiently vast and comprehensive to allow us to reconstruct the form of the ancient Church apart from a Catholic or Orthodox bias?

I believe it is possible. Through a knowledge of history we are able to find example after example of the West rejecting her ancient heritage as opposed to building upon it in an organic fashion. We find just the opposite in the Orthodox Church. The obvious conclusion is that the Orthodox Church has maintained the form of the ancient Church, whereas the West has buried it in a sea of endless inorganic change. Besides this, we can read the writings of the Holy Fathers, the liturgies of the ancient Church, the lives of the early eastern and western saints, the iconographic traditions of times past, the forms of prayer and devotion of early Christians and from these things we can discover the form of the ancient Church. After learning about these things and observing the present life of the Orthodox Church, one can easily see the continuation.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

To convert to the EO on the other hand is a matter of leaving obedience to authority and for this there should be no reason. Though dispair may be one reason there is no good theological or scholastic reason to do so.

We didn’t leave obedience to any authority. Rather, the canonical authority of the Pope left Orthodoxy. You may contend that there is no good theological or scholastic reason for this to happen. However, this is not a correct reflection of the strongly held opinions even of your own Church. Popes, theologians and canonists have long held open the possibility that the Pope can indeed fall into heresy and be removed from his office by God himself. Furthermore, the faithful can recognize this fact and preserve their Faith from such a fallen Pope and wait for the true successor of the Orthodox Popes. This is, of course, the position of Orthodoxy regarding the Roman See and the status of the Popes since the Great Schism and it is provided for by an accepted opinion in Catholicism.

~

St. Francis de Sales says:

"Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church."

A commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law - the Wernz-Vidal’s Canon Law states in volume 2, page 483:

"Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church…A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church."

In Udalricus Beste’s commentary on canon law, the Introductio in Codicem, canon 221, we find:

*"Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See * is judged by no one. The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history."

The commentary on the new (1983) Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church also attest to this opinion of canonists:

"Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope, in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy, or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicised manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c.194 §1,2o). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election" - The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, canon 333.

Pope Pius IX warns that it is possible for a future Pope to “teach…contrary to the Catholic Faith”, and he instructed, “do not follow him.” ***“If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” ***

• Letter to Bishop Brizen

Pope Innocent III (who nobody could accuse of being soft on papal authority) says:

***“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because “he who does not believe is already judged.” (St. John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.” ***– Sermon 4.

There are many more quotes like this that show the possibility of the Pope falling into heresy, and thus falling from the Church, causing the faithful to go on without him. Therefore, to condemn us for withholding obedience to the Pope and recognizing that there needs to be a true Pope who will restore the Orthodox Roman See in the earthly Church is to subsequently condemn the many in your Church of every age who held open the same possibility.

God bless,

Adam**

 

[ForeverAdam]

So, then where is the respect for the biggest Church in the world?

We respect you as people and fellow believers in Christ and defend your right to freely choose your belief. However, we cannot respect your errors no more than we can respect the errors of the Protestants or anyone else, regardless of how great a following the deviations may have.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Yet they still exist as part and parcel of the unity that is Catholicism! The “special fidelity to her ancient traditions” that you claim had been abandoned by the West is, indeed, alive and well within today’s Catholic Church, coexisting along side many other traditions - some ancient, some new; all *Catholic! *

You have, in effect, stated that even though at the present time you have your traditions intact that you accept the new, radical innovations of your Western brethren as truly Catholic. How can this belief not leave you just as liable to any problems that these innovations have in hindering Rome’s claim to be the true Church? You’ve chosen to bear and nurse the problems of Papal Rome’s lack of fidelity to Tradition, thus you are liable to any implications this lack of fidelity carries with it.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

The power granted to Peter to loose and bind is what were holding to. You will find it no where else carrying the promise of protection from error by Christ himself. Even if you disagree with a Pope you must know that what he binds here is bound in heaven, like it or not.

Any bishop and patriarch’s (including the Pope’s) authority to bind and loose is conditional on fidelity to Holy Tradition in both its doctrinal and expressional forms. Read the words of the late Medieval theologian, Juan Cardinal De Torquemada:

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over." - Summa de Ecclesia.

I find it interesting that as time goes by the Orthodox are the often left with not only upholding the teachings and practices of the first millennium, but even of being some of the last ones still advocating the continuing Orthodox beliefs of the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Joab_Anias]

Any bishop and patriarch’s (including the Pope’s) authority to bind and loose is conditional on fidelity to Holy Tradition in both its doctrinal and expressional forms. Read the words of the late Medieval theologian, Juan Cardinal De Torquemada:

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not, it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: ‘One ought to obey God rather than man’; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over." - Summa de Ecclesia.

I find it interesting that as time goes by the Orthodox are the often left with not only upholding the teachings and practices of the first millennium, but even of being some of the last ones still advocating the continuing Orthodox beliefs of the medieval Roman Catholic Church.

God bless,

Adam

Where did I ever deny it wasn’t conditional to his fidelity? Although now that you mention it, even Peter himself wasn’t completely faithful now was he. Yet he was still chosen by Jesus. Go figure! Now tell me Jesus made a mistake. Thats what we have a Magisterium for. 99.9% of everything a Pontiff declares is a result of the cooperation of said Magisterium.

The Pope is not a carte blanc dictator. But in case of grave matter of urgency he does hold the keys and seat of excathedra wether you like it or not. Even then he is not beyond reproach if he errs.

The Church is completely orthodox in the approach and it continues unchanged. Animosity of the authority doesn’t lessen it for those who are obedient and faithful in the least. Your whole polemic encourages schism from pride that one could possibly be wiser in their own interpretation than centuries of scholarly tradition in union with Peter.

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

We respect you as people and fellow believers in Christ and defend your right to freely choose your belief. However, we cannot respect your errors no more than we can respect the errors of the Protestants or anyone else, regardless of how great a following the deviations may have.

God bless,

Adam

Well maybe you need to lighten up on the law and follow the Spirit.

 

[Joab_Anias]

We didn’t leave obedience to any authority. Rather, the canonical authority of the Pope left Orthodoxy. You may contend that there is no good theological or scholastic reason for this to happen. However, this is not a correct reflection of the strongly held opinions even of your own Church.

Even though some may excessively place the Ponitff on a pedastal they shouldn’t the Pontiff remains humble. Its a win-win situation.

Popes, theologians and canonists have long held open the possibility that the Pope can indeed fall into heresy and be removed from his office by God himself. Furthermore, the faithful can recognize this fact and preserve their Faith from such a fallen Pope and wait for the true successor of the Orthodox Popes. This is, of course, the position of Orthodoxy regarding the Roman See and the status of the Popes since the Great Schism and it is provided for by an accepted opinion in Catholicism.

So there hasn’t been a true Pope since the schism because dissenters said so huh? Thats a stretch my friend and why you are in a new non-catholic religion.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I used to see grandiosity and pomp too years ago. Then the Holy Spirit led me to the knowlege of just how humbe the Holy Father really is and that the pomp of Rome, at least in my lifetime isn’t due to anything the Church does as it no longer patrons the arts but more-so by the generosity of the faithful.

It is not only a tradition that there is a primary bishop. There is a theological necessity and scriptural basis for it as well.

Not all hangs on this one primary bishop at all and he seldom acts for all. He does however act as a figurehead with the whole of the Church behind him. Most things he presents are the teaching of the respective offices of the Magisterium. He doesn’t have the power of veto as much as he has the power of settling dispute. Though while he is a manager of sorts his intention is to do so through the guidance of Christ.

This is so much the ecclesiology of the Fathers that it pre-existed the Fathers and is evident in the Apostles themselves. One only needs to accept the primacy of Peter as established by Jesus and then recognize (as he said) he was making this primacy permanent upon him. We do not recognize the man per se’ (because we know men can be faulty) but the office he fills which carries the special protection and promise of Christ to ultimately not be led into error.

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatever you bind on earth shall occur, having been bound in Heaven. And whatever you may loose on the earth shall be, having been loosed in Heaven.

Joh 14:26 but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and shall remind you of all things that I said to you.

1Ti 3:15 But if I delay, that you may know how to behave in the house of God, which is the assembly of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

2Ti 2:19 However, the foundation of God stands firm, having this seal, "The Lord knew the ones being His;

1Ti 4:1 But the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, cleaving to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons,

1Co 15:2 by which you also are being kept safe, if you hold fast the Word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

The power granted to Peter to loose and bind is what were holding to. You will find it no where else carrying the promise of protection from error by Christ himself. Even if you disagree with a Pope you must know that what he binds here is bound in heaven, like it or not.

For starters, this assumes, as Latin ecclesiology does, that no matter what an office holder does, he still retains the office. For the Orthodox, following the Fathers, one who compromises the Faith (e.g. goes into schism, embraces heresy, etc.) ipso facto ceaes to have the faculty, to use the Latin terminology, to exercise the office.

Yes, I know that infallibility is supposed to prevent that, but history doesn’t back it up, besides the point that infallibility didn’t become dogma until 1870 and up into that very year Latin works with nihil obstat and imprematur denied it, even calling it a “Protestant lie.” Pope John VIII excommunicated the future Pope Formosus for “performing the divine office” while under interdict, deserting his see and conspiring agains the Holy See to both aspire to it and failing that destroy it. He lifted the excommunication in 878 only on the condition that Formosus exercise no priestly function and never return to Rome. According to the sources, either Formosus swore the oath to remain a layman for the rest of his life, or Pope John confirmed his laitization. Pope Marinus, his successor (and, btw, legate to Constantinople: in 879 John recognozied St. Photius as EP), and whose election violated canons, restored Formosus to his see. Pope Boniface, who had been deprived of holy orders, succeeded. Pope Stephen V succeeded him, having been ordained bishop by Pope Formosus. Stephen, however, dug up Formosus’ corpse, put him on trial, found him guilty of functioning as a bishop while a layman and voided his papacy and all ordinations by him (which would include his own). Pope Theodore II, ordained by Stephen, reversed and recognized the validity of Formosus’ ordinations, nullified Stephen’s and forbade the trial of the dead. Pope Sergius III reversed, nullified Theodore’s actions, dug Formosus up again and tried him and nullified his papacy and his ordinations (on the other hand he validated the fourth marriage of Leo VI when the EP wouldn’t). Pope Anastasius III succeeded and again reversed…

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Now you might claim that none of the above suffling involves dogma, but the problem you have is that your dogma revolves around that occupant, who whatever he binds here is bound in Heaven, and the above example (which can be multiplied) shows a lot of knots.

Yes, I believe the present occupant (and his predecessor) IS humble, but there have been many not so humble, and the office is not.

Yes, everything hangs on him. Lumen Gentium, amongst other things, emphasizes that he make act on his own, answerable to himself alone, whereas no action of any other member of the church, individually or collectively, can have any validity without him. He does possess the power of veto, and as your canons assert, there is no appeal from his judgment, and as you assert whatever he binds here is bound in heaven, that would mean no appeal there as well (and several popes I recall made that claim).

So the assumption is that the successor of Peter has a power to bind no matter how he uses it.

You assume that St. Peter’s successor at Rome is more than his successor at his original see of Antioch, who still exercises his office there.

Your idea of Peter is not found in his rebuking in Galatians, and the resulting Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem, where St. James, not Peter, presided, and issued the definition of the Council.

The rebuke of Pope Victor I, the defiance to the decrees of Pope Stephen I, the Council acting in the willful absences of Pope Vigilius, the anathematizing of Pope Honorius, etc. no, the Fathers’ ecclesiology involved no carte blanche to Rome.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where did I ever deny it wasn’t conditional to his fidelity?

You do again below.

Although now that you mention it, even Peter himself wasn’t completely faithful now was he. Yet he was still chosen by Jesus. Go figure! Now tell me Jesus made a mistake.

He didn’t even make a mistake in choosing Judas.

Thats what we have a Magisterium for. 99.9% of everything a Pontiff declares is a result of the cooperation of said Magisterium.

I’ve heard it said from the pulpit that in the seminary the priest was taught that the pope has 51% of the church’s infallibility.

The Pope is not a carte blanc dictator. But in case of grave matter of urgency he does hold the keys and seat of excathedra wether you like it or not. Even then he is not beyond reproach if he errs.

There is no appeal from his judgments according to your canons, and there is no restriction on him exercising his power according to Lumen Gentium, the canons, etc.

The Church is completely orthodox in the approach and it continues unchanged. Animosity of the authority doesn’t lessen it for those who are obedient and faithful in the least. Your whole polemic encourages schism from pride that one could possibly be wiser in their own interpretation than centuries of scholarly tradition in union with Peter

The only problem is the list is endless of pope contradicting pope: our favorite example being Leo III forbiddng the filioque, and posting the Creed without it in Greek and Latin on St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s “out of love and protection of the Orthodox Faith,” and Leo IX who insisted on its insertion and whose legates accused us of omitting it. Given the choice between the authority of the pope, and the authority of the Ecumenicl Councils (and no, history does not support the claim that they are Ecumenical because the Pope says so), between the authority of a bishop and the authority of the Fathers, between the authority of a man and the authority of God’s church-and it became such a choice in 1054 (and before and after), we have made our choices.

The Pope only has authority in union with the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Even though some may excessively place the Ponitff on a pedastal they shouldn’t the Pontiff remains humble. Its a win-win situation.

Again, you like to portray that all his predecessors have been like him. History shows otherwise.

So there hasn’t been a true Pope since the schism because dissenters said so huh? Thats a stretch my friend and why you are in a new non-catholic religion.

No, because the popes since then have dissented from the Faith of the Fathers, including the Popes of the first millenium.

And I haven’t even touched on the issue of anti-popes, retroactively voided papacies, the Great Western Schism, etc.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Again, you like to portray that all his predecessors have been like him. History shows otherwise.

Doesn’t matter. Peter denied Christ 3 times and still was made the foundation by Jesus.

Peace.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Doesn’t matter. Peter denied Christ 3 times and still was made the foundation by Jesus.

Peace.

You seem to skip that repentence of Peter and restoration by Christ part.

This understanding of the episcopacy is almost magical.

 

[Joab_Anias]

You seem to skip that repentence of Peter and restoration by Christ part.

This understanding of the episcopacy is almost magical.

Still doesn’t matter. Peter still made more mistakes after that. The point is he was HUMAN. I guess you expect the Pope to be divine before he can be the true Pope. How utterly rediculous. I thought you were more with it than that.

Peace.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Still doesn’t matter. Peter still made more mistakes after that. The point is he was HUMAN. I guess you expect the Pope to be divine before he can be the true Pope. How utterly rediculous. I thought you were more with it than that.

Peace.

No, doesn’t need to be divine. But then again, I’m not attributing divine attributes to him.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Some Western quotes on limitations to absolute authority.

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

 

[Joab_Anias]

No, doesn’t need to be divine. But then again, I’m not attributing divine attributes to him.

(Though I do believe in miracles), Neither am I; just Gods gift of the office and honoring Gods promises in his word to personally protect it from any error that matters. So far so good. Perhaps the errors you see don’t really matter as much as you think.

Thats what makes me Catholic.

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Some Western quotes on limitations to absolute authority.

traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

Only Gods authority is unlimited. Thats the orthodox Catholic understanding. Though you may find dissent where you may, those stumbliing blocks are only accusations to confuse you. Faith, Hope and Love is all you need and will make it all simple. Come to where there is unity, you are invited you know.

Peace.