More cool Catholic and Orthodox stuff!

[Jawa Man]

To be honest, I think that my reasons for considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism were genuine at first, but then when people started giving me credit for my open-mind...edness... I stopped caring a lot, and I only dug deep enough to make others proud, or mind boggled ("YOU'RE EATING JESUS?!").

Well, I'd like to sincerely go about this again, not for others, but for God's approval (though I can't do this perfectly, which has become more obvious to me recently). So here's what I'd like to do, if you guys would be kind enough. I'd like to ask some questions for both Catholics and Orthodox to answer. I would really like if they could have some sort of citation from the ECFs or the Bible to back their claims up. And then (though you don't have to) I would like if you could say why the other Church is wrong on the issue, if you know why, again with citations if possible. If no one does this, I will assume that Assyrian Christianity is right, and move to Iraq.

1) What is your position on the Pope?
2) Do things like the Rosary and doctrines like Purgatory show a change in the apostolic tradition?
3) Did/does the Patriarch of Constantinople have apostolic authority?
4) How can one be absolutely sure that the Catholic/Orthdox Church has no false doctrine?
5) Where did the other Church go wrong?

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST...

6) Does your Church farm microbes?

[spl_cadet]

1) What is your position on the Pope?

"..Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock...shall be loosed in heaven.' ...The first see of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.' But the second see was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist... And the third see of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch..."
Council of Rome, 382 A.D.



2) Do things like the Rosary and doctrines like Purgatory show a change in the apostolic tradition?

The Rosary is a devotion, not a doctrine, and purgatory is apostolic.


3) Did/does the Patriarch of Constantinople have apostolic authority?

No, but we let him think he was special thanks to his having an ego problem.


4) How can one be absolutely sure that the Catholic/Orthdox Church has no false doctrine?

Faith.


5) Where did the other Church go wrong?

Which time? The East managed to get themselves excommunicated on a fairly regular basis after First Nicea.


6) Does your Church farm microbes?

Some monks make and sell beer.

[Jawa Man]

"..Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock...shall be loosed in heaven.' ...The first see of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.' But the second see was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist... And the third see of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch..."
That was helpful.

The Rosary is a devotion, not a doctrine, and purgatory is apostolic.
I worded it so I said things like the rosary and doctrines like purgatory. I know it is a separate thing. Sorry for the confusion. And if purgatory was apostolic, why don't the Orthodox believe it when they hold to the earliest councils and doctrines only?

Faith.
Hypothetical question: What if there was a very apparent and unresolvable contradiction between Catholic doctrine? Would you accept it? (I'm asking this only to know what type of faith you mean, since there are many definitions of it.)

Which time? The East managed to get themselves excommunicated on a fairly regular basis after First Nicea.
I'm sorry for not being specific. I mean the most recent schism.

[Jezz]

To be honest, I think that my reasons for considering Orthodoxy and Catholicism were genuine at first, but then when people started giving me credit for my open-mind...edness... I stopped caring a lot, and I only dug deep enough to make others proud, or mind boggled ("YOU'RE EATING JESUS?!").

Well, I'd like to sincerely go about this again, not for others, but for God's approval (though I can't do this perfectly, which has become more obvious to me recently). So here's what I'd like to do, if you guys would be kind enough. I'd like to ask some questions for both Catholics and Orthodox to answer. I would really like if they could have some sort of citation from the ECFs or the Bible to back their claims up. And then (though you don't have to) I would like if you could say why the other Church is wrong on the issue, if you know why, again with citations if possible. If no one does this, I will assume that Assyrian Christianity is right, and move to Iraq.
Just a few quick responses from the Orthodox POV to give some balance, because my time is limited. (Btw: I do believe that Assyrian Christianity is right, and that the present schism is through a misunderstanding where they were falsely labelled Nestorians due to their preference for the term Christotokos instead of Theotokos. Between the two World Wars, there was actually a reunion between the Assyrians and the Russian Orthodox which was brought to an end by the 2nd World War.)

1) What is your position on the Pope?
This is a complicated topic. My current understanding: See the quote that spl_cadet provided. The Orthodox agree with that statement pretty much. Except that you'll note that the statement says nothing about the Roman See having the authority to set doctrine that is binding on the other sees - and that's where the basic difference between the Orthodox and Catholic lies.

As successor of Peter, the Pope's role among the Patriarchs is the same as Peter's role among the apostles. What was Peter's role among the apostles? Basically, it was as spokesperson for the group, or the eldest brother among brothers. As spokesperson he is accorded the highest honour of all the apostles, because he is their voice, but this does not give him the authority to override all the other apostles. When it comes to deciding matters of faith and doctrine, his vote counts no more than that of any other bishop. Note that at all the Ecumenical councils, each bishop's vote was given equal weight - from the bishop of Rome and the other Patriarchs, right down to the lowest see.

In fact, I think that because the RCC doctrine of papal infallibility only applies to the Pope when he speaks "ex cathedra", ie, on behalf of the entire Church, the Orthodox would even agree with that doctrine in principle, because they consider the entire Church to be infallible. But that would be heavily qualified - with the doctrine of papal infallibility in its current embodiment (as with much of RCC doctrine), the Orthodox would see it as putting too much emphasis on the Pope's authority to unilaterally act, rather than to act on behalf of (as spokesperson for) the others.

2) Do things like the Rosary and doctrines like Purgatory show a change in the apostolic tradition?
Purgatory yes, which is why the Orthodox reject it. Rosary - well, I don't know enough about it to comment really, but I'd tentatively say no. Outward expressions of the Tradition might change, but the Tradition itself does not.

3) Did/does the Patriarch of Constantinople have apostolic authority?
Just to ensure that there is no confusion here, I think that we need to clear something up. I think that there is a definition between "apostolic succession" and "apostolic authority".

All bishops (including the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople) have apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is a necessary condition for apostolic authority, but it is not sufficient. In addition, a bishop must also adhere to the true doctrine. Hence, by definition the Orthodox consider the Pope to not have apostolic authority, and the Catholics consider that the Patriarch of Constantinople doesn't have apostolic authority. The question of who is correct boils down to the same as the question of which Church is correct.

4) How can one be absolutely sure that the Catholic/Orthdox Church has no false doctrine?
Examine Church history. When new doctrine appears that contradicts the existing tradition, it generally creates historical ripples. IIRC, purgatory was one of those doctrines.

5) Where did the other Church go wrong?
Adam and Eve's original sin was to try and usurp power that wasn't theirs - driven by pride and greed. This is the same sin that lies at the root of all human sin. And it is the same sin that lies at the heart of the separation between East and West. The Roman See tried to usurp power that wasn't his to usurp. He did not have authority to authorise the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed, and he did not have the authority to insist that other churches insert it.

Of course, the RCC claim exactly the same about the Orthodox. To which I respond: 1. I find it more likely that one see would become corrupt in such a manner than all the others simultaneously; 2 the Roman approach caused the Reformation and the proliferation of "sola scriptura" denominations (and the Reformation itself can ultimately be traced back to the one issue of papal supremacy). The Orthodox have remained more-or-less united since the Great Schism. Judge them by their fruits.

6) Does your Church farm microbes?
Don't know!

[Jawa Man]

Thanks Jezz, that was a very helpful response.

Of course, the RCC claim exactly the same about the Orthodox. To which I respond: 1. I find it more likely that one see would become corrupt in such a manner than all the others simultaneously; 2 the Roman approach caused the Reformation and the proliferation of "sola scriptura" denominations (and the Reformation itself can ultimately be traced back to the one issue of papal supremacy). The Orthodox have remained more-or-less united since the Great Schism. Judge them by their fruits.

The Orthodox may not have had a big schism since then, but they did suffer the Muslim conquest and lost many church members from this. Couldn't this be argued to say "judge the Orthodox by their fruits"?

[Jezz]

Thanks Jezz, that was a very helpful response.
Glad to be of service.

The Orthodox may not have had a big schism since then, but they did suffer the Muslim conquest and lost many church members from this. Couldn't this be argued to say "judge the Orthodox by their fruits"?
There are a few things I would say in response to this:

1. Muslim conquest was not a fruit of the Orthodox. It is not something that happened as a direct result of their doctrine or worship practice. You might argue that it was a judgment, but you can't argue that it was a fruit. Compare this with the Protestant schism(s) - they can be traced almost directly to dogmatic errors stemming from the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2. You can't simply point to hardship and claim that it is God's judgment. That's known as "prosperity Gospel". It might be God's judgment, but also there are times when bad things happen to good people for reasons that only God knows and that we trust to His capable hands. I mean, if suffering was a sign of God's judgment, then the Church of the first three centuries must have been really evil. :smile:

3. Not all Orthodox fell at the hands of the Muslims. In fact, the fall and weakening of Constantinople and the other Mediterranian Patriarchates (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) corresponded with the rise of Orthodoxy in the Slavic states, notably Russia. If God was sending a judgment on Orthodoxy, one would think that He would have done a better job. :smile:

An important reason that I feel that the Orthodox are the ones in the right is because of the impending reunion between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox split from the main Church before the Great Schism (in fact, this schism and the subsequent weakening of the Church in the East is one of the reasons for the ease of the Muslim invasion). Now after 1500 years, they are looking to reunite with the Orthodox, not the Roman Catholics.

[tizzidale]

Well, considering that I'm not officially Orthodox, I can't speak as one. I did, however, stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and that alone gives me authority. (I don't even know if that's the right hotel chain from the commercials. . . LOL)

Anyway, aside from Spl_cadet's flippant answers, I would say that it was the consensus of the church that the See of Rome was first among equals. What this means, of course, comes into question. But we have to remember that in the first 1000 years of Christian history, doctrinal and administrative decisions were made collegially. There were surely times of dispute that the see of Rome was asked to resolve between two parties - I think that most Orthodoxy wouldn't mind having this situation again. Bishop Ware, in his book The Orthodox Church, has a good section devoted to just this question, and how Rome and the East could approach each other for reunion.

However, it must be stated, that the Orthodox Church maintains that the faith held by the entire church since the beginning is the true faith. Such doctrines as Papal infallibility, the filoque, some Marian doctrines, purgatory, understandings of salvific history, etc. all are in conflict with Orthodoxy. Many of these conflicts may be resolved just by better understanding of language and terminology, but many differences are deep.

So, I hope I answered your questions, only not in order.

Rusty

[Jawa Man]

This has been a pretty helpful thread. More comments would be given thumbs up, btw!

Jezz-
#1 has a fair point
#2+#3 make very good points

When you say the Oriental Orthodox, do you mean the Assyrians, the Armenians...? And interestingly, I've heard that the Orthodox were trying to have some reunion discussions with the Anglicans too, until the whole gay bishop thing started, which put it to a halt.

tizzidale - All interesting stuff. Why do you think the Church allowed the Pope to gain more authority than he had previously? And do you know the Catholic response to this?

[Jawa Man]

btw, I just want to let you guys know I am considering becoming "Cathlidox" right now (it took a good minute to figure out that name). In other words, I'm not sure which of the two is right, but because I trust the Church's tradition (and ancient societies specialized in transmitting oral traditions accurately) I trust the churches that follow it. Which one of those is right, though, is the only obstacle now... :teeth:

[Jezz]

This has been a pretty helpful thread. More comments would be given thumbs up, btw!

Jezz-
#1 has a fair point
#2+#3 make very good points
Cool, glad you think so. :smile: I think the force of #1 lies in the fact that it was the issue of excessive papal authority claims that caused both the East-West and the Protestant schisms. If the lack of papal authority had caused schisms in the Orthodox communion instead of the Catholic communion, then I would think that they would be the ones in error.

When you say the Oriental Orthodox, do you mean the Assyrians, the Armenians...?
I mean Armenians, Copts, Syrians, Thomists (in India) and possibly others. Basically, the Churches who rejected the decisions at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. As such, they remained in communion with each other but broke communion with the rest of the Church. For more information on the Orientals and their discussions with the Eastern Orthodox, check out this site (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/).

The Assyrians were not part of this group, though - they nominally separated after the Council of Ephesus (431), which condemned Nestorianism. I say "nominally" because it's a bit hard to say exactly when or how that schism occurred (there were other geo-political factors involved that overshadow the theological issues - namely, that the Assyrians were part of the Persian empire, which was at war with the Greco-Roman empire). The Assyrians were actually reunited with the EO for a brief period between the two world wars, after the Assyrians approached the Russian Patriarch and asked to be accepted. Unfortunately, with the turmoil surrounding the advent of WWII and extensive persecution of the Assyrians broke this reunion. Interestingly, though, to my knowledge this break was never formally established by a theological disagreement (rather just through circumstances) - so perhaps technically the Assyrians are still in communion with the EO...?

And interestingly, I've heard that the Orthodox were trying to have some reunion discussions with the Anglicans too, until the whole gay bishop thing started, which put it to a halt.
Yeah, that's kinda right. Although Orthodox-Anglican relations predate the whole gay bishop thing. The reason they didn't proceed is basically because the Orthodox decided that the Anglicans needed to get their own house in order first - before seeking unity with other communions, they needed to improve the unity within their own communion. Ordination of gay bishops is but one example of such disunity - the deeper issue is the liberalism that has crept into large portions of the Anglican communion. If ever the Anglican communion was to split into traditionalist and liberal factions, then I think the hopes for reunion between the traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox would be high. After all, the original reason the Anglicans split was because they felt that England had the authority to appoint their own archbishop (ie, a patriarch) and didn't need permission from Rome - just as the the Eastern patriarchates did. If this realisation had happened before the East-West schism, then the Anglicans could well have been Orthodox all along.

Similarly the Orthodox and Lutheran World Federation are having discussions at the moment, but are likely to eventually reach the same stalemate. This is because some members of LWF are pretty liberal (notably the European churches). But individual Lutheran communions (eg, Missouri Synod) might be more likely to accept it.

tizzidale - All interesting stuff. Why do you think the Church allowed the Pope to gain more authority than he had previously? And do you know the Catholic response to this?
I know that you addressed this at tizzidale, but I thought I'd offer my 2 cents. I don't think the Church exactly allowed the Pope to gain more authority. The Pope gained a good deal of authority because the Roman see was the seat of the ancient capital, and because it was the only major see in the West (whereas the East had Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and later Constantinople). This power was legitimate, however it tempted certain popes to claim more. For the most part, the East simply tolerated such exaggerated claims to authority - preferring unity as long as these claims did not interfere with the day-to-day running of their local Patriarchates. It was only when the Pope's claims started to impact on the East (eg, when Cardinal Humbert excommunicated them, claiming that they had removed the "filioque" from the creed, when in fact it was the other way around!) that they started to do anything about it.

[tizzidale]

Good answer, Jezz. Jawa, I would recommend, The Orthodox Church, by Timothy (Kalistos) Ware. You probably could find it at your local library, or I'd give my local Orthodox church a call (if you're lucky enough to live near one) and ask if they sell it. Wouldn't hurt to talk to the priest if he's around. This book is an excellent beginning in learning about the history of the church. Also, Fr. Thomas Hopko (a great teacher) has a series of books that many churches use for their catechumen classes called The Rainbow Series. It's in four volumes and all four volumes are offered here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm) on the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) website. Not only does he cover doctrine and worship, he talks about the history of the Church as well. It is not as in-depth as other sources, but it may be a good start.

Here's a direct link (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/Eleventh-Century.htm)to Fr. Hopko's description of the Great Schism. He's very even-handed about the matter, but of course it's an Orthodox position.

God bless you on your journey to the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Rusty

[Jude3b]

Are EX-Roman Catholics allowed to contribute to this thread?

[Jezz]

Good answer, Jezz.
Thanks, tizz!

Jawa, I would recommend, The Orthodox Church, by Timothy (Kalistos) Ware. You probably could find it at your local library, or I'd give my local Orthodox church a call (if you're lucky enough to live near one) and ask if they sell it. Wouldn't hurt to talk to the priest if he's around. This book is an excellent beginning in learning about the history of the church.
Yes, this is a good book. To help you out, there are actually parts of this book available online. You can find it here (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm). His discussion of the schism is considerably more in-depth than Father Hopko's, and it is also very non-polemical and doesn't try to do too much finger-pointing.

Also, Fr. Thomas Hopko (a great teacher) has a series of books that many churches use for their catechumen classes called The Rainbow Series. It's in four volumes and all four volumes are offered here (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/index.htm) on the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) website. Not only does he cover doctrine and worship, he talks about the history of the Church as well. It is not as in-depth as other sources, but it may be a good start.

Here's a direct link (http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Bible-and-Church-History/Eleventh-Century.htm)to Fr. Hopko's description of the Great Schism. He's very even-handed about the matter, but of course it's an Orthodox position.
Yes, I'm a big fan of that series by Father Hopko. He explains things very well. This series is one of the reasons I found Orthodoxy so attractive - as a Lutheran there are a few little things in our confessions that I sorta lived with in tension that I didn't really agree with. When I read the Rainbow Series, I realised it differed from our Lutheran confessions a little, and I remember thinking "But that's what I always thought!" I was very encouraged to learn that not only were my ideas not considered heretical by most Christians, but they were actually considered orthodox by the Orthodox! This was one reason of many that made me feel as though I was on the right track with Orthodoxy.

Another interesting thing that struck me about reading Church history from an Orthodox perspective is the form of narrative it takes. I read a book on Church history written by a Protestant, and the actions of the early Christians are always narrated from a third-person point of view - like it really was someone else's Church. For example, they will tend to say "the early Christians formulated the Creed at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople". However, Orthodox histories (especially informal ones like the above two) always tend to narrate in first person - eg, "we formulated the Creed at the councils of Nicea and Constantinople". Of course, the Roman Catholics will narrate in the same way. But this is a very subtle indicator of the fact that one of these is correct - it is as if the Protestants, on the other hand, subconsciously realise that they are not really part of the true Church.

[Jawa Man]

Jude - it depends on what you're going to talk about. If you are going to answer those questions from your perspective, then go ahead.