Why would a Roman Catholic become Orthodox?

[Isa_Almisry]

Catholics believe the final authority rests with the Pope, the divine office institued by Christ. This is a problem in Orthodoxy. There is no final authority. Are you suggesting the Eastern churches in union with Rome are not subject to the Pope?

We have a final authority: IC XC.

It’s worked for 2000 years.

Who was the final authority in the Great Western Schism, and others like it in the West? And I’m not talking about retroactive answers.

As for being subject to the pope, I think there was a lot of discussion about that on an erstwhile forum, about whether purgatory was mandatory for Eastners under him or not, whether he had ordinary plenitory powers etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

What about tollhouses? The monks of Athos are said to be the keepers of the true faith. They believe the Tollhouse theory don’t they? But others in Orthodoxy see Tollhouses as a heretical innovation. There were heated debates about this on the EC forum.

toll houses don’t even rise to the level of Fatima, an apparition and associated beliefs that officially are optional but unofficially are treated as dogma.

Try telling the average Latin that you do not believe in Fatima.

I don’t know if most of Athonites believe in toll houses or not. I do know most Orthodox heed the warnings of the Fathers and don’t pry into things not revealed to us.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I wonder why Constantinople is fighting with the Russian Orthodox church who is fighting with the Romanian Orthodox church all over jurisdiction. This is one church eh?

and your three patriarchs of Antioch, one church?

But to answer your question: where there are overlapping claims (Moldovia was part of both the Romanian and Russain patriarchates at different times, Estonia was separated and reunited to the ROC, in the interum was under the EP), yes there are difficulties. Mainly because we don’t have overlapping jurisdictions like you do (in the Ukraininan celebration you had thte Ukrainian and Latin hierachies, plural, of the Ukraine), so for us it’s an aboration. The US being the chief example of this.

 

[jam070406]

And that what was described above.

All those Churches confess the ONE Church, commune in the ONE Church.

We just do it without an overlord, unlike the Gentiles.

Seperate churches. Fight over jurisdiction.

Some of the Orthodox equated the EP to an overlord, Some equated the MP as an overlord.

 

[jam070406]

Yes.

And it doesn’t mention Rome at all.

The above Churches are more united than the sui juris Churches (that plural again) under Rome.

Nope, no Rome.

Matter of opinion.

 

[bobzills]

Try telling the average Latin that you do not believe in Fatima.

Catholics don’t have to believe in Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, or Medjugorie. A lot of Catholics do believe, and there are some celebrations related to these, but it is not required to believe in it. This is perhaps another example, of the fact that the strict interpretation of ONE Church is a non-issue.

 

[jam070406]

We have a final authority: IC XC.

It’s worked for 2000 years.

Who was the final authority in the Great Western Schism, and others like it in the West? And I’m not talking about retroactive answers.

As for being subject to the pope, I think there was a lot of discussion about that on an erstwhile forum, about whether purgatory was mandatory for Eastners under him or not, whether he had ordinary plenitory powers etc.

Are you insinuating that Catholics place the Pope above Christ? Please don’t be so disingenious. :tsktsk: You know better.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Such sentimentality is contrary to the following of the Holy Spirit to where He has led us in the present and a denial of the will of God who desires to lead us into all truth; Not to stop in our tracks and hold fast in fear of His direction through the Catholic Church. When Lots wife looked back she became frozen.

We believe that the Holy Spirit leads us to ever deeper appreciation and insight into our Holy Orthodox Faith. However, we equally believe that the many small traditions that govern the practice of our Church are to be zealously guarded. This is not sentimentality. Rather, it is a mark of the ancient Church of the Fathers. Read the words of St. Basil the Great:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us in a mystery by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more - On the Holy Ghost, chapter 27.

As you can see, true development in the Church will be in organic continuity with the past, confine itself to a deeper appreciation of and insight into what exists and will preserve even the small traditions of our heritage. This development continues to exist in Holy Orthodoxy.

God bless,

Adam

 

[jam070406]

toll houses don’t even rise to the level of Fatima, an apparition and associated beliefs that officially are optional but unofficially are treated as dogma.

Try telling the average Latin that you do not believe in Fatima.

I don’t know if most of Athonites believe in toll houses or not. I do know most Orthodox heed the warnings of the Fathers and don’t pry into things not revealed to us.

Fatima is a strawman in this discussion. There was a firestorm on the other board about Tollhouses. Some called it heresy, some did not. Will the real Orthodoxy please stand up.

 

[jam070406]

Catholics don’t have to believe in Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, or Medjugorie. A lot of Catholics do believe, and there are some celebrations related to these, but it is not required to believe in it. This is perhaps another example, of the fact that the strict interpretation of ONE Church is a non-issue.

Marian apparitions are not part of the deposit of faith. As you stated, they don’t even have to be believed. They are irrelevant to the oneness of the church.

 

[jam070406]

You Got it! Since the Pope got rid of the other 4 Patriarchs there was NO ONE to challenge him. He then started to act like a King. And as the years progressed he became More Powerful.
The Pope of the first millenuim did not have the same power os the pope of today nor the middle ages. Even a Catholic Theologian Admitted this to me. So you heard it from the horses mouth.

It’s all subjective, isn’t it?
There are Catholic theologians that state the opposite.

 

[jam070406]

We just do it without an overlord

You may wanna reiterate this point to the MP.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Catholics and Orthodox have two completely different ideas of what ONE is. It is one of (if not the) major differences that seperates the two.

We have a perfectly coherent, biblical and patristic belief of what constitutes the oneness of the Church. Allow me to explain. We know that the oneness of the Church is the fulfillment of Christ’s desire for his people to be one flock under one shepherd. All Orthodox Christians are one flock, as they share one Faith, Worship and are in Eucharistic communion with each other. We are clearly one flock in principle. However, are we under one shepherd? We are all under valid bishops and these bishops are true shepherds. However, do these bishops make one shepherd? They make one Shepherd, as all bishops insofar as they are true bishops must be icons of Christ, and since Christ is undivided and not multiplied, the leadership of these bishops is undivided and not multiplied. These bishops are truly one icon of Christ and their flocks are thus under one shepherd (Christ through his icon, the bishop), making one flock under one shepherd, and fulfilling the requirement of the true Church to be “one.” I hope this has helped you understand how the Orthodox Church is one Church.

God bless,

Adam

 

[jam070406]

It’s worked for 2000 years.

Actually it didn’t. There were plenty of heretical patriarchs and eastern schisms by the other major sees in the early centuries.

 

[jam070406]

We have a perfectly coherent, biblical and patristic belief of what constitutes the oneness of the Church. Allow me to explain. We know that any notion of the oneness of the Church is a fulfillment of Christ’s desire for his people to be one flock under one shepherd. All Orthodox Christians are one flock, as they share one Faith, Worship and are in Eucharistic communion with each other. We are clearly one flock in principle. However, are we under one shepherd? We are all under valid bishops and these bishops are true shepherds. However, do these bishops make one shepherd? They make one Shepherd, as all bishops insofar as they are true bishops must be icons of Christ, and since Christ is undivided and not multiplied, the leadership of these bishops is undivided and not multiplied. These bishops are truly one icon of Christ and their flocks are thus under one shepherd, making one flock under one shepherd, and fulfilling the requirement of the true Church to be truly “one.” I hope this has helped you understand how the Orthodox Church is one Church.

God bless,

Adam

Thank you for this charitable explanation. sincerely.

 

[ForeverAdam]

OK, thanks bogoljub. I think you are right here. Of course the Orthodox Church is a great Church. I just remarked that it is a small overstatement to say that never has anything ever changed in the Orthodox Church. Of course, the changes are pretty small but they are there.

Certainly, organic development has occurred in Orthodoxy. This is best explained by the analogy of someone changing the frame of a beautiful picture. Our traditions have been preserved since ancient times and we consider them essential for a worthy proclamation of the Gospel. However, they have been refined and developed to even more beauty through the centuries.

When considering how many traditions are maintained in the Church today, we must remember that 95% of Orthodoxy lives in the traditional Orthodox countries of Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia and the various other countries of Eastern Europe. All other Orthodox only comprises around 5% of the Church. And Orthodox Christians in America make up only about 1% of Orthodoxy. So, even if things tend to be a little more lax in the West, this is hardly a reflection of the position and state of the Orthodox Church. In the majority of the Orthodox Church the traditions are still generally applied in a strict fashion.

Regarding the laxity, we must remember that in the Orthodox Church all our ancient traditions are still maintained strictly in the Church’s canonical tradition. If a parish doesn’t keep the canons perfectly, this doesn’t mean that the traditions cease to exist. Furthermore, laxity in keeping the traditions isn’t automatically a reflection of a modernist spirit. It is simply the common practice of Orthodoxy. We are a strict Church and highly value our traditions. However, we try to avoid legalism. To preserve the traditions for the sake of law is to quickly become a loveless Pharisee. The traditions must always be applied in relation to the salvation of our souls. Therefore, it may be best that a parish be given permission to relax some of the stricter traditions for the greater good of the congregation. It is interesting to note that when one visits an Orthodox monastery, these traditions are almost always expressed in their complete strictness (due, no doubt, to the fact that monastics are to be the models of the Church in her fullness).

As you see, the ancient traditions of Orthodoxy are still maintained as the ideal and norm of Church life. Their lax application in certain parts of the Church is not a reflection of a rejection of these traditions, and in the majority of the Orthodox Church these traditions are still applied strictly.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You may wanna reiterate this point to the MP.

Don’t need to. I’m connected with Alexandria, Antioch and OCA, and they/we all get along without any problem with the MP.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Actually it didn’t. There were plenty of heretical patriarchs and eastern schisms by the other major sees in the early centuries.

And where are they now? Did your side do better in the Reformation?

As I said, it has worked for 2000 years.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We have a perfectly coherent, biblical and patristic belief of what constitutes the oneness of the Church. Allow me to explain. We know that the oneness of the Church is the fulfillment of Christ’s desire for his people to be one flock under one shepherd. All Orthodox Christians are one flock, as they share one Faith, Worship and are in Eucharistic communion with each other. We are clearly one flock in principle. However, are we under one shepherd? We are all under valid bishops and these bishops are true shepherds. However, do these bishops make one shepherd? They make one Shepherd, as all bishops insofar as they are true bishops must be icons of Christ, and since Christ is undivided and not multiplied, the leadership of these bishops is undivided and not multiplied. These bishops are truly one icon of Christ and their flocks are thus under one shepherd (Christ through his icon, the bishop), making one flock under one shepherd, and fulfilling the requirement of the true Church to be “one.” I hope this has helped you understand how the Orthodox Church is one Church.

God bless,

Adam

I’ll just add one point to your excellent summary: the Church is one because the episcopacy is an ontological whole, a unity in which the particular bishops partake in, not possess.

 

[Joab_Anias]

So if the OTHER 11 apostles disagree with Peter. Peter still over rides them?

Only when they can’t agree among themselves and it comes down to one apostle to settle it.

Otherwise they are always humbly asking themselves what Jesus wants.

Peace.