Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[Michie]

Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the True Church

Understanding the conflicting claims of Catholicism versus Eastern Orthodoxy
Among the lapsed from the Catholic Church in the turbulent post-conciliar period are those Catholics who became so disenchanted with the liturgical disarray and doctrinal unrest evident in Western Catholicism that they became converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. They found themselves influenced by the Eastern Orthodox claim to preserve the doctrinal, sacramental, and liturgical heritage of the ancient Church, and in fact, to be the historical continuation of the true Church of Jesus Christ. Those defecting from the Catholic Church found comforting Eastern Orthodoxy’s professing the doctrine of the first seven ecumenical Councils, its possession of the seven sacraments, and its sacramental and liturgical system revolving around a splendid and beautiful celebration of the Holy Divine Liturgy. Eastern Orthodoxy’s ancient hierarchical fabric of rule by patriarchs and Bishops, and its principles of the religious and monastic life characterized by ancient asceticism appeared to be further evidence of its identity with the ancient Church of the first Millennium.

It is distressing that some Catholic bishops and priests have expressed little concern that some of their flock have embraced schism, and even heresy, in defecting from Catholic Communion. Objectively speaking, both schism and heresy constitute serious sins against the Unity of the Church (cf. The Catechism of the Catholic Church §817). Moreover, it has not been unusual for some Eastern Orthodox (and even Protestants), seeking to become Catholics, to be told by some Catholic priests to “stay where they are” in order to serve the cause of ecumenism. This is, assuredly, not what the Church means by the “New Evangelization,” and reveals little or no zeal for the salvation of souls. It would appear that such reluctant or hesitant priests think that “a very close communion in matters of faith” between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches, suffices for the salvation of souls. Did they feel that Catholics and Orthodox were already so one in faith that there was no need to expound and defend the fullness of revealed truth confided to the “one and only Church of Jesus Christ,” the Catholic Church? (cf. Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium§8 and 17)

There is need for Catholics, especially priests, to engage in a convincing Apologetics when confronted by Catholics tempted to become Eastern Orthodox, or by members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches claiming to represent the orthodoxy of the Church before the tragic Schism between East and West, developing after 1054 A.D. Certainly, well-informed Catholics are able to present formidable arguments drawn from the Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils in favor of the Roman Pontiff’s universal authority in the Church, the legitimacy of the doctrine of the Filioque, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception, not to mention other doctrines questioned or denied by Eastern Orthodox, who assume they constitute the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” signified in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 A.D., indulglng themselves with the repeated assertion made to Catholics.

Continued- http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/confronting-the-claim-of-eastern-orthodoxy-to-be-the-true-church/

 

[WarriorAngel]

"Et en unun Dominum Iesu Christum
Filio Dei unigenitum et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula."

Word for word, slavishly literal translation:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ
Son of God only-begotten and born of the Father before all worlds/ages."

The Son is begotten eternally of the Father. In other words, He was begotten before creation, at the moment of creation of the cosmos, at the moment of the creation of man, at the moment of the fall, at the moment of the call of Abraham, at the moment of the exile in Egypt, at the moment of the Conquest of Canaan, at the moment David was naughty with Bathsheba, at the moment Israel was taken captive into Babylon, at the moment He was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, at the moment of His birth, at the moment He was found in the Temple...

He is always being begotten at every moment in time and in eternity.

How it works is a HUGE mystery, but it's God. All we can do is:

I think the heresy regarded the flesh of the Lord - as being born meant when he was born and Him not being eternal.

The meaning of only begotten. "Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth. "Only begotten" (monogenes) is used five times by John, three by Luke, and once by the writer of Hebrews. Luke used the word to describe the widow's son, "only son of his mother" (Lk. 7: 12, see 8: 42, 9: 38). The writer of Hebrews said Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17).


So i stressed that Jesus was eternal...prior to His Fleshly birth.
Because the heresies that arose would suggest He was born [begotten] of the flesh and not eternal.


It is difficult to put these things in words that are firm against all heresies past and present.

Although i am not understanding your use of begotten in every instance.


​

 

[Erose]

I think the heresy regarded the flesh of the Lord - as being born meant when he was born and Him not being eternal.

The meaning of only begotten. "Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth. "Only begotten" (monogenes) is used five times by John, three by Luke, and once by the writer of Hebrews. Luke used the word to describe the widow's son, "only son of his mother" (Lk. 7: 12, see 8: 42, 9: 38). The writer of Hebrews said Abraham "offered up his only begotten son" (Heb. 11: 17).​

So i stressed that Jesus was eternal...prior to His Fleshly birth.
Because the heresies that arose would suggest He was born [begotten] of the flesh and not eternal.​

It is difficult to put these things in words that are firm against all heresies past and present.​

Although i am not understanding your use of begotten in every instance.​

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father as God the Son, and conceived in time in the Virgin Mary as the Son of Mary. Jesus' begotteness from the Father is eternal and not temporal.

 

[Lady Bug]

what is the Orthodox view on the interpretation of Scripture? It's not private interpretation like it is in Protestantism, I don't think. I could be wrong.

p.s. yes I know I could google it and maybe I will but I'm just sayin

 

[Ortho_Cat]

what is the Orthodox view on the interpretation of Scripture? It's not private interpretation like it is in Protestantism, I don't think. I could be wrong.

p.s. yes I know I could google it and maybe I will but I'm just sayin

Hi Lady

We consider scripture to be one of the most important elements of Holy Tradition (that which was handed down to us by the apostles). We always understand Scripture within the context of the rest of Holy Tradition in which it was handed down to us from the beginning. We believe that to seperate scripture from the rest of Tradition is to remove it from the very life of the Church that has sustained it throughout history.

I don't think we differ much from Roman Catholic understanding on this, although I have heard that they consider scripture as another pillar alongside Tradition, while we consider it all to be part of Tradition.

 

[ivebeenshown]

...I have heard that [Roman Catholics] consider scripture as another pillar alongside Tradition...

You may hear the common 'three-legged stool' analogy, where the three legs are 'Scripture, Tradition, and Church'.

The Catechism describe the relationship between the three in the best way:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

 

[Lady Bug]

Hi Lady

We consider scripture to be one of the most important elements of Holy Tradition (that which was handed down to us by the apostles). We always understand Scripture within the context of the rest of Holy Tradition in which it was handed down to us from the beginning. We believe that to seperate scripture from the rest of Tradition is to remove it from the very life of the Church that has sustained it throughout history.

I don't think we differ much from Roman Catholic understanding on this, although I have heard that they consider scripture as another pillar alongside Tradition, while we consider it all to be part of Tradition.

what I meant is what authority do they have beyond Scripture?

 

[Joseph Hazen]

In case nobody has yet found the place where Trent spoke of the Holy Spirit's Procession, it's in the Catechism of Trent, Article VIII:

With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

what I meant is what authority do they have beyond Scripture?

The Faith is the ultimate earthly authority. What has been believed and taught by Christians since Pentecost. I suppose "The Faith" could go by many other names; Tradition, Orthodoxy, The Faith, they all mean the same thing. It encompasses Scripture, The Councils, the writings of the Fathers, The Liturgy, the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), Iconography, The Creed, our prayers, hymns, and traditions. All of these have various 'weight' (Scripture is the crown of Tradition) and God guides, directs, reproves, and corrects us through them all.

You're welcome to ask any questions like this in The Ancient Way, which is the subforum here for Orthodoxy. We'd love to have you.

 

[Lady Bug]

The Faith is the ultimate earthly authority. What has been believed and taught by Christians since Pentecost. I suppose "The Faith" could go by many other names; Tradition, Orthodoxy, The Faith, they all mean the same thing. It encompasses Scripture, The Councils, the writings of the Fathers, The Liturgy, the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), Iconography, The Creed, our prayers, hymns, and traditions. All of these have various 'weight' (Scripture is the crown of Tradition) and God guides, directs, reproves, and corrects us through them all.

You're welcome to ask any questions like this in The Ancient Way, which is the subforum here for Orthodoxy. We'd love to have you.

thanks. your list is good. I'm having a problem rejecting the notion of the Papacy per se. I feel like I'm "decapitating" the faith thus far - so I'm trying to understand the differences between the RCC and EO perspectives on this. I may have to end up going to TAW if I cannot feel satisfied with my queries.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You may hear the common 'three-legged stool' analogy, where the three legs are 'Scripture, Tradition, and Church'.

The Catechism describe the relationship between the three in the best way:

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

'Scripture, Tradition, and Church'

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I read the link you have here. It isn't very compelling. It mostly bashes Orthodox claims by quoting Lumen Gentium and the Catechism. A convincing and compelling approach would be to show throughout history how the papacy was infallible, had a supreme jurisdiction over all bishops, and that all bishops and patriarchs would yield to the Holy Father on any occasion of doctrine. I'd also appreciate a demonstration of the pope acting unilaterally without the other bishops in which all of them accepted his decrees as per Lumen Gentium's claims. There isn't a historical element with precedents in this article. Rather it goes a step further and calls a Catholic who converts to Orthodox a "heretic" and not just schismatic...

Confronting the Claim of Eastern Orthodoxy to be the True Church



Continued- http://www.hprweb.com/2012/01/confronting-the-claim-of-eastern-orthodoxy-to-be-the-true-church/

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Could you explain this please? Are you saying you looked at authority without looking at history?

The authority question replaced questions about history or current practice as a starting place for me. .

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No worries, Eretria. I don't see you attacking me but disagreeing. that's what makes the world go around. I grew up with the Novus Ordo and always felt something seriously missing in it, even as a young kid. As I got older and watched the Latin Mass and attended the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I found it hard to go back to the N.O. In fact, almost impossible. My wife commented that she felt the N.O. was like the historic Mass or the Orthodox D.L. gutted to its basest level...and my wife is definitely not into theology at all.

You tire of the attacks on the N.O. but I tire of the arguments that say stuff like this:

"Don't worry about incense. You don't need that. Don't worry about the priest facing the Lord's altar instead of the people. Don't worry about cheesy music and praise bands and Go Tell It on the Mountain! Don't worry about hand-holding during the Our Father. So what if people clap and act informally during the liturgy. No big woop if Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist try to bless your kids and play priest. So what if the communion is in the hand. Who cares if there are altar girls or lay readers or people dressed like they're going on a picnic. No big deal if the wording isn't that hot. What's your problem? The Eucharist is still there; that's all the matters."

If I had a penny for every time I've heard that argument online for the last seven years, I'd be Trump. The majesty and worship of the King of Kings is paramount to me. Incense has always been used for the holy. We're standing before the King of Kings. He deserves incense to say the least. And what's wrong with facing the Lord in worship rather than the people? To whom are we oriented in our praise? The Catholic Church always taught that altar boys are sharing in the ministry of the priest and hopefully are inspired priests in training. Better with boys only. The music should be powerful, ancient, and oriented toward God in dignity, not with Gather Us In and other such modern ditties. Amazing Grace is regularly sung at our liturgy here in town, complete with its wretch like me Calvinist talk. Extraordinary ministers should be a rarity and they should not be trying to bless my kids playing priest. It goes on and on. The Mass doesn't need to be in Latin but stripping away all the beautiful elements that the Orthodox, thankfully, have retained is unnecessary and sad IMHO.

I'm not just considering Orthodoxy just because I'm fed up with the N.O. Mass. The papal claims, some theological points, and the legal approach to God along with views on certain moral areas as well as horrible pastoral care in my area all bother me.

You describe "Westophobia" but it's also commonplace (not as much in here as it is on other catholic forums) for online Catholics to show a triumphalist stance and judge Protestants as damned and everyone as a schismatic or heretic. The Orthodox may have a Westophobia. I have seen it firsthand. But the Catholics are pretty quick to tell other communions who is "invalid" and "valid..." As an Anglican for several years, I got the "you're eating empty bread and drinking empty wine, bro!" from more than one Catholic on any given day online.

Triumphalism abounds in Catholicism as much as in the East, trust me!

The way you end your post reflects what I'm saying. You say that I want the liturgy to adapt to me. Nonsense, pure and simple. I want the liturgy to be what it always was and not subject to the whims and fads of modernity. As Pope Benedict XVI is improving the language and trying to reform the Mass and at one point was even issuing Moto Proprios in favor of the Latin Mass, are you saying that he is trying to impede the "progress" of the N.O. and "reforms" of Vatican II? Is he making it about himself or trying to be true to the majesty that the Mass once was and should be? Two ways of looking at this. It's not about me or you, it's about giving 100% of the majesty and awe and worship to the King of Kings. It's not about us feeling comfy or warm or fuzzy. It's about the splendor that is due the Son of Man.

That is certainly what this thread has degraded into: an East vs. West issue. Also, it appears you have an agenda against the Novus Ordo. While I am sorry that you feel liturgical abuse has occurred, trashing the NO mass certainly isn't going to help you any more. I am quite tired of having seen such NO hatred on OBOB throughout its history: it's no wonder I do not post here. Whether it's from fellow Catholics or people who come in claiming they know everything about the Catholic Church, I have seen too much of it whether it's on OBOB, CAF, or Fisheaters.

Please do not take my post as an attack against you; rather, I am thinking outloud because this is a repeated process I keep seeing no matter where I go on the internet. I answered your question I believe in pg. 4 of the thread. I can't really give you a good answer because I reconverted "out of the blue" so to speak. God told me to start going back to Church, with the help of a Catholic saint. There was no "thinking" involved as to whether which Church is "correct" or not. There was an "I will obey God no matter what He tells me." That's a good enough reason for me to believe why I should be Catholic and not Orthodox.

If God calls you to be Orthodox, so be it. But don't become Orthodox just because you're fed up with the NO mass. Why become a stringent anti-Catholic and a westophobic when these are the exact same people you may have been trying to get away from? If you think the Orthodox Church doesn't have its own problems, you're living in fantasyland. Problems exist in every church, every denomination. The Baptist church that my grandparents went to had a pastor that stole all the money the congregants had donated and ran off with it without a trace. Am I going to assume all Baptists are this way? That same mindset you seem to be applying because you had some bad experiences at certain parishes.

I have no problem with Orthodox Christianity itself; I love Orthodox Churches, Saints, Icons, etc. but I do not like the certain attitudes that I see recurring among internet Orthodox Christians. What I have seen is "westophobia" and a "high and mighty" attitude that just can't cut it in Christianity. And yes, I get the same vibe from Traditionalist Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as well.

I'm sorry folks, but it's time to move on from this 1,000 year grudge. I'm quite tired of hearing the East blaming the West and vice-versa. Get over it, please. We can point fingers all we want, but the truth is, we were both One, True, Holy Apostolic Church at one point in our history and it's both our faults such a split occurred. We should stop blaming people for something that occurred hundreds of years ago in which people of today had absolutely no control over. That includes our leaders and our Popes. Atheists see this as a good way to constantly attack Christianity and do we really want to sink down to the low level of ignorant atheists I have debated on internet forums? I think not.

So, my post will end with this thought for you: It is not about us forcing the Church to adapt to our own wants and needs, it's about us adapting to the needs of the Church. This isn't "pick and choose" like Protestantism, where we create our own "liturgy," beliefs, our own Bible, etc. You want the liturgy to adapt to you. It's not going to happen.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I read the link you have here. It isn't very compelling. It mostly bashes Orthodox claims by quoting Lumen Gentium and the Catechism. A convincing and compelling approach would be to show throughout history how the papacy was infallible, had a supreme jurisdiction over all bishops, and that all bishops and patriarchs would yield to the Holy Father on any occasion of doctrine. I'd also appreciate a demonstration of the pope acting unilaterally without the other bishops in which all of them accepted his decrees as per Lumen Gentium's claims. There isn't a historical element with precedents in this article. Rather it goes a step further and calls a Catholic who converts to Orthodox a "heretic" and not just schismatic...

Let us start with Peter.
Did Jesus ask him to converse and decide to eat the animals of every kind?
Or did Jesus command him - to get up and eat - 3 times.

Now here is how it goes - Peter - not the others - was still being given revealed revelation - aside from St John who saw the future. Not the same as the charism of Peter who was to teach them all.

Peter then taught them and the Church that we can eat anything we want.

That and all the times Peter was sought by people, and including Paul. Its not said they sought them all - or the nearest - but Peter. Because he led them all.

 

[WarriorAngel]

That in itself is how we know every successor to Peter will always be revealed what the Lord wants at the time when He wants us to know.

The East held councils on their own, for their region but it was not binding on the entire Church without the Pope giving a yay or nay to the council and he then gave the teachings.

St Leo is a good one to read.
He called it teaching from Peter's chair and no one argued - because it was a known fact.
No one ever argued against the chair of Peter. Until near the schism regardless of Tradition and the writings of all the ecf's - East as well as West.

There are many things said about the Chair of Peter.

Anyway - the Church cannot be infallible if the teacher is NOT infallibly teaching - which would make Christ's promise moot if the teacher could teach heresy... but how would Peter [successors et al] be able to prevail over the gates of hell if he [successors] could teach error??

Faith.
If you believe in Christ and all His promises and you believe in the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit - it really is not a question.
You have to start at the point of faith in the Triune God - Who all chose, give honor and guide the chair of Peter.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Could you explain this please? Are you saying you looked at authority without looking at history?

I addressed it in the sentences that immediately precede the part that you quoted. Of course I didn't ignore history, as you well know. I said that solely examining history, while ignoring the authority issue, merely led to confusion and constant changes of mind about which Church was "right" and the right one for me.

 

[Lady Bug]

That in itself is how we know every successor to Peter will always be revealed what the Lord wants at the time when He wants us to know.

The East held councils on their own, for their region but it was not binding on the entire Church without the Pope giving a yay or nay to the council and he then gave the teachings.

St Leo is a good one to read.
He called it teaching from Peter's chair and no one argued - because it was a known fact.
No one ever argued against the chair of Peter. Until near the schism regardless of Tradition and the writings of all the ecf's - East as well as West.

There are many things said about the Chair of Peter.

Anyway - the Church cannot be infallible if the teacher is NOT infallibly teaching - which would make Christ's promise moot if the teacher could teach heresy... but how would Peter [successors et al] be able to prevail over the gates of hell if he [successors] could teach error??

Faith.
If you believe in Christ and all His promises and you believe in the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit - it really is not a question.
You have to start at the point of faith in the Triune God - Who all chose, give honor and guide the chair of Peter.

the issue of Peter is what prevents me from going Orthodox. I am kind of having issues with a few things in Catholicism - the issues being the allegation that some doctrines that exist today were formed with time and were not around in the apostolic times. I mean I'm struggling with feeling that all this Canon Law was not around in the Biblical times And if it was around, not to the extent of the regulations that exist now. I don't know what to even say right now

 

[Adam Warlock]

You tire of the attacks on the N.O. but I tire of the arguments that say stuff like this:

"Don't worry about incense. You don't need that. Don't worry about the priest facing the Lord's altar instead of the people. Don't worry about cheesy music and praise bands and Go Tell It on the Mountain! Don't worry about hand-holding during the Our Father. So what if people clap and act informally during the liturgy. No big woop if Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist try to bless your kids and play priest. So what if the communion is in the hand. Who cares if there are altar girls or lay readers or people dressed like they're going on a picnic. No big deal if the wording isn't that hot. What's your problem? The Eucharist is still there; that's all the matters."

If I had a penny for every time I've heard that argument online for the last seven years, I'd be Trump....

So you don't like that stuff. That's clear. Why even consider sticking around, then? Is there any real compelling reason? I'm seriously asking. If so much is distasteful, and if this thread hasn't offered any real reason for you to be Catholic, shouldn't you go ahead and be Chrismated?

The Orthodox may have a Westophobia. I have seen it firsthand.

But if I say that I've seen it, you get mad!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But was not the Patriarch of Antioch also a direct consecration by St. Peter himself? The See of Antioch was Petrine.

Let us start with Peter.
Did Jesus ask him to converse and decide to eat the animals of every kind?
Or did Jesus command him - to get up and eat - 3 times.

Now here is how it goes - Peter - not the others - was still being given revealed revelation - aside from St John who saw the future. Not the same as the charism of Peter who was to teach them all.

Peter then taught them and the Church that we can eat anything we want.

That and all the times Peter was sought by people, and including Paul. Its not said they sought them all - or the nearest - but Peter. Because he led them all.