Orthodoxy

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Dear All, In my journey to follow Christ, I have been drawn to cathlociity (if that is a word) but in my heart-felt struggle to see how God wants me to serve him I found the Catholic church to reveal an understanding of the teachings I had not seen before. At the same time I also encountered the orthodox faiths of the eastern churches that (as I have read) were once in communion with the Roman Patriarch until (again as I have read) the Pope and the Roman patriarch usurped a great deal of power to itself which it once held together as first among equals among the five great patriarchs which are all still in communion. The arguments that made a rift were the popes usurpation and an argument over the Filioque. Ultimately, I am asking this because I have begun reading some of the writings of the eastern church fathers and the PHilokalia and have greatly grown and seen God's power in their writings while at the same time pulled in to what seems an even greater mystical side then the western church. In briefly studying church history, it seems that Peter's rock was never meant to supercede the other churches that make up a substantial portion of the world. Overall, I had just gone to a orthodox church which seemed to preserve the teachings of the fathers and the simplicity of the original divine liturgy which seems to have been lost in the Catholic Church. I could go on with distinctions but I just want to know how catholics on this forum percieve these churches which were not schisms from the roman church like the protestants but were schismed from when the roman church allowed it.

-- J Brabant (jdbrabant123@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005

Answers

I'm afraid the "history" you have been reading is biased and inaccurate. There was never a time when anyone on earth held authority equal to that of the Vicar of Christ. From the moment Jesus Christ entrusted Simon Peter, and no other, with the keys to the Kingdom, Peter alone and his direct successors individually held supreme authority. That is what the "keys" signify. The keys to a household were held by the Chief Steward alone, who in the absence of the Master of the house, was solely responsible for the running of the household, and who personally exercised the authority of the Master in all relevant matters, not by a committee of stewards; which is why Christ used that powerful symbolism in appointing Peter as chief steward of the Church. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Christ endowed any other individual with the same authority He entrusted to blessed Peter. How could He? There cannot be more than one "supreme" authority. The other Patriarchs of the local churches were not merely "in communion with" Rome but were also fully in submission to Rome. They were fully Catholic from the beginning, as there was no other way to be a follower of Christ at that time. The Church Christ founded on Peter the Rock, the Holy Catholic Church, was the only Christian Church on the planet, and Christ clearly stated His divine will that it should remain so until the end of time.

Of course it is true that the writings of the eastern Church Fathers emphasize mystical aspects that are not as strongly emphasized in the western Church; and it remains so today in the Eastern Rites of the Holy Catholic Church, whose history traces back to those very Eastern Fathers, yet who remain fully in submission to the Vicar of Christ. What is important to recognize is that no Church Fathers were members of any "Orthodox Church", since no such thing existed at the time. They were absolutely Catholic, regardless of whether the Orthodox churches now lay claim to them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2005.


Well, I thank you for your interesting but equally unsupported answer, since your statement is as conjectural as mine in substance. For you to say the writings I have read are biased may be true, but you present no authority for you statments except Matthew 18:16 ( I think) which is good authority; but to cite it and nothing else does not present me with any reason to understand your point of view that I did not already know. Ultimatly, I wish that there was some historical evidence outside of that one scripture that indicates the papal superiory pre 900 AD. For I have had a few college Midaeval classes that have also purported something similar to the proposotion that Rome demanded a certain degree of authority that it was not vested with orgianally, thus causing the great schism. Perhaps, you could point me in the direction of a few church fathers of the east that convey a submission to supreme papal authority. Again thank you.

-- j brabant (jdbrabant123@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

Like the later split of the Protestants, the causes of the Eastern Orthodox split from Rome were not primarily theological, but political and cultural. After the Western Roman Empire fell in 476AD, Constantinople remained as the centre of the Eastern Roman Empire, and the Church there became increasingly identified with the State. The language of the Eastern Empire had always been Greek, and this was further accentuated in later centuries, with the deterioration of the Imperial road and messenger system, so the people grew culturally further apart. After the Muslems conquered most of the Eastern Empire in the 8th century the Easterners felt increasingly defensive. Some of the Popes and westerners of the middle ages didn’t help matters by asserting political, as well as spiritual, supremacy over the East. If they had stuck to asserting the Pope’s spiritual supremacy, there may have been no split.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 10, 2005.

Like the later split of the Protestants, the causes of the Eastern Orthodox split from Rome were not primarily theological, but political and cultural.

This is 100% incorrect.

The causes of both "splits" WERE "primarily theological."

In the case of the Eastern schismatics, the bottom-line "theological" issues were PRIDE and DISOBEDIENCE.

In the case of the Western heretics (Protestants), the bottom- line "theological" issues were PRIDE and LACK OF FAITH (rejection of ancient doctrines and invention of false ones).

The mentioned "political and cultural" stuff was collateral garbage, merely used as an excuse to justify or explain away the key matters -- the theologically-based, non-Catholic SINS that caused the divisions.

-- (oyez@oyez.oyez), March 10, 2005.


Hey J.

Look up the "Catholic But Not Roman Catholic" series by Jason Engwer, just use your search engine to find it. He does a good job of showing that the inflated roman claims were based partly on their confusing the council of sardis with the council of nicea. Also, popes claimed lots of power based on the false forgeries known as the pseudo-isidorian Decretals. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome for most of his episcopate and wasn't worried about it. Augustine of Hippo trusted his synods of bishops in north Africa more than Rome. Vincent of Lerins in his "Vincentian Canon" for finding orthodox teaching, says to look for whatever has been taught "by all, at all times, in all places"--and mentions nothing about Rome. The Celts in Wales, Scotland and Ireland didn't accept roman primacy until the 8th century when it was forced on them by kings. The north African bishops did not accept roman primacy. The eastern bishops only accepted it when the emperor forced them to. Papal tyranny was fought every step of the way. When pope victor tried to force the Churches of Asia Minor to celebrate Easter on the same date as Rome, Irenaeus and the other bishops sternly rebuked victor. The Church is not built just on Rome. It is built on the foundation of apostles (all twelve of them) and prophets, with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. The new Jerusalem in Revelations is built on twelve foundations of all the apostles, not just one. Peter is special, but he did not lord it over the other apostles and command them. And Rome was not the only place of Peter. Ignatius of Antioch was also successor of Peter, according to Eusebius. And Gregory the great said that Rome and Alexandria were one see of Peter. Read also "The Pope and the Council" by Janus, an old book, and "Vicars of Christ" by Peter de Rosa. The church is way bigger than just Rome, J.

-- Patrick (seraph@christian.org), March 12, 2005.



Why should the Church be smaller than Rome? Rome is where the Holy See of Peter is and always was. Yes, the Church is vastly ''bigger'' than just the Holy See, but the living successor to Peter has authority over the whole Church on earth, not only Rome. As a matter of fact; the entire WORLD doen't confine the Catholic Church; she is bigger than THAT. She is comprised of all souls saved in Christ from antiquity, even souls going back to Genesis. Added to all saints and martyrs, and in heaven she is the Church Triumphant. In Purgatory, those who are saved in Christ but have yet to be called up to God's divine presence, she is the Church Suffering. On earth and in EVERY land open to the Gospel she is the Church Militant. This would total such a countless throng of Chritians our minds boggle at the thought. What a UNIVERSAL CHURCH!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

Oyez, I think you misunderstood me. Of course the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants (especially) have fallen into theological errors. What I was saying was that the primary original reasons why influentual people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and later in Germanic lands, WANTED to split from the Pope’s authority were cultural differences and the political ambitions of their secular leaders.

Patrick, you are confusing “accept Roman primacy” with “use Roman liturgy”. The Celts and North Africans used different liturgies from those used in Rome, but they certainly did not reject the spritual primacy of the Pope. St Augustine himself spent much time in Italy and used the Roman liturgy when he was in Rome.

Of course the bishops of Antioch are successors of St Peter, AS bishop of Antioch only, not as Pope. At least 15 years before his death, St Peter moved his episcopal seat (i.e. the papacy) from Antioch to Rome. (He had previously been bishop of Jerusalem too before moving to Antioch, leaving St James to succeed him as bishop of Jerusalem.) The bishops of the Avignon area could also claim to be successors of Popes, but that does not make THEM Popes. It’s not a matter of St Peter “lording it over” the other apostles, but the fact that Christ COMMANDED St Peter to lead the other Apostles and all of His Church

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.


“I had just gone to a orthodox church which seemed to preserve the teachings of the fathers and the simplicity of the original divine liturgy which seems to have been lost in the Catholic Church.”

Are you sure it was an Orthodox church you went to, J? Even the pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass is simpler than an Orthodox Mass. And just which of the “teachings of the Fathers” do you imagine that the Catholic Church failed to preserve?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.


Oyez, I think you misunderstood me. ... What I was saying was that the primary original reasons why influentual people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and later in Germanic lands, WANTED to split from the Pope’s authority were cultural differences and the political ambitions of their secular leaders.

Steve, I didn't misunderstand you. I knew what you were saying the "primary original reasons" were. I simply believe that you are wrong about this. I listed what I believe to be the "original reasons."

-- (oyez@oyez.oyez), March 13, 2005.


Steve, When I said the orthodox church I went to "seemed to preserve the teachings of the fathers and the simplicity of the original divine liturgy", I was simply drawing on a limited expreience of when I prayed with the priest kneeling toward Christ with the rest of the praying supplicants as was once fully done in Western Churches according to Pope Pius V mandate concerning the 'perpetual' tridintine mass. Moreover, It seems they strive to maintain the structure of the original church which is evidenced in their adherence to the original church calendar. Concerning the teachings of the church fathers, the emphasis for recent converts to form a sincere and meaningful relationship with the presbyter/preist and to submit to him as a spiritual father, confessing sins and walking on a spiritual pilgramage with his guidance, seems to be something lost in the Roman fold (and many others) from my limited point of view; the practice of openly confessing before the body of Christ and the pure desire to remain within the confines of the traditions passed down, not looking to relatively modern dogmas to justify their doctrine. Although I know very little about Catholicism, going to mass and studying it with interest for only a few years, I even know less of Orthodoxy; So, I dare not argue for one side or the other with any certainty but only ask what others know.

-- j brabant (jdbrabnt123@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ