Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I was raised a Catholic for most of my life. My wife and I, around six years ago, started seriously questioning the Catholic Church's claims in several areas, most notably--infallibility, papal supremacy, indulgences, the "treasury of merit," and the gross liturgical abuses we see in our area that run rampant. We have been looking into the Orthodox Church for the better part of 9 months now. The liturgy is first rate, totally unspoiled by modernity and Protestant influences. Their theology is very much like the what the Fathers taught, and despite the black cloud of communism and Islam, Orthodoxy has been able to stay consistent and true to its values and liturgy and traditions all over the world in vast and varied lands.

If I become Orthodox, and there's a strong probability at this point that I will, I will do so kicking and screaming because I have loved and adored the Catholic Church for most of my life. I have tried to give Catholicism every chance, every opportunity, but I'm just not buying into the teachings and historical claims.

I guess my question is this---why are you Catholic and not Orthodox? For the sake of argument, pretend an Orthodox parish is just down your street and so is a Catholic one. Why do you choose Catholicism over Holy Orthodoxy?

I ask this not as a challenge or to argue or smear the Catholic Church. In fact, I'm truly asking for input as to why I should stay Catholic and not go Orthodox? I'm not trying to debate either. Far from it. I'd just like to know your reasons for the choice. I'd like some food for thought.

Blessings to all.
 

whitetiger1

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2011
1,383
57
in front of my computer
✟1,946.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was raised a Catholic for most of my life. My wife and I, around six years ago, started seriously questioning the Catholic Church's claims in several areas, most notably--infallibility, papal supremacy, indulgences, the "treasury of merit," and the gross liturgical abuses we see in our area that run rampant. We have been looking into the Orthodox Church for the better part of 9 months now. The liturgy is first rate, totally unspoiled by modernity and Protestant influences. Their theology is very much like the what the Fathers taught, and despite the black cloud of communism and Islam, Orthodoxy has been able to stay consistent and true to its values and liturgy and traditions all over the world in vast and varied lands.

If I become Orthodox, and there's a strong probability at this point that I will, I will do so kicking and screaming because I have loved and adored the Catholic Church for most of my life. I have tried to give Catholicism every chance, every opportunity, but I'm just not buying into the teachings and historical claims.

I guess my question is this---why are you Catholic and not Orthodox? For the sake of argument, pretend an Orthodox parish is just down your street and so is a Catholic one. Why do you choose Catholicism over Holy Orthodoxy?

I ask this not as a challenge or to argue or smear the Catholic Church. In fact, I'm truly asking for input as to why I should stay Catholic and not go Orthodox? I'm not trying to debate either. Far from it. I'd just like to know your reasons for the choice. I'd like some food for thought.

Blessings to all.
My answer is because that was the only Church that I knew that was not Protestant. Now if there were an Orthodox Church down the street at that time of my choosing, I don't know that's a hard one but given my Protestant background I might have looked into Orthodoxy more. To be honest I never know what the future will hold or were God will guide me, I leave that in His Hands :)
 
Upvote 0

MikeK

Traditionalist Catholic
Feb 4, 2004
32,104
5,649
Wisconsin
✟90,821.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I am Catholic because I was born Catholic. The Orthodox and the Catholics have strong arguments fir themselves - I haven't seen anything so ironclad as to be a reason for leaving one Church for the other though. I have a deep appreciation for our brothers in the Orthodox Churches.
 
Upvote 0

Gwendolyn

back in black
Jan 28, 2005
12,340
1,647
Canada
✟20,680.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
If I had an Orthodox church down the street, I'd be tempted to attend there every week. I don't like the Catholic liturgies available to me. The Divine Liturgy truly is divine.

I'm tired of pretending - I doubt Catholicism for the same reasons you do, and I am drawn to Orthodoxy, but certain things hold me back. Namely the Magisterium - there is such a wealth of information on any number of issues available to Catholics because the hierarchs in our church are so prolific in writing. I am so deep into Thomistic thought at this point that I don't think I can let it go. My studies in moral theology pretty much secured me in the Catholic line of thinking, and economy is a difficult pill for me to swallow when it comes to certain moral teachings (contraception, abortion). Moral teachings are very, very important to me.

But then we come to other issues, like papal supremacy and papal infallibility, Marian doctrines, and the medieval hot button issues such as indulgences (I have studied the actual theology behind them and it is just a mess), the treasury of merit, and things like that. I also have a very serious issue with the order of the sacraments of initiation, and I worry that Catholicism has committed a grave error by allowing individuals to receive communion without being fully Catholic (ie not confirmed). The theology behind this issue is also medieval in origin. (Not looking to debate this right now because I have a headache and I am feeling dumb today, so don't nitpick me.) I also have issues with how Augustinian thought has influenced Catholic theology because as much as I love St. Augustine for his struggles and his conversion, his theology had its issues. Main issue is in the area of original sin.

Basically, the things I have a problem with are linked in one way or another. I'm too tired to go into it now. Doubt breeds doubt until you are sitting in a puddle of it, sad and wet.

Cat's out of the bag. My priest knows what's up but he's too busy to counsel me.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 11, 2011
2,161
100
✟2,974.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Why Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox?

The Catholic Church is the only one with Peter and the Keys which gives us our Catholic unity. If one prefers an eastern liturgy, we have Eastern Catholic churches that are in communion with Rome. So there is nothing they have that we lack. But they lack Peter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The lack of union among the differant Eastern Churches, the lack of accountability, i find it disturbing, like two Bishops will get into a fight and excomunicate each other and it might be decades before it, is sorted out who was part of the Eastern Church and who was the heritic
also their view on Bishops make no sense, they say that all Bishops are equal, but they set up the East/West schism debate as being between the Patriarch of Rome vs. the other Patriarchs but there were dozens (houndreds?) of Bishops in the East and West so why just argue about the Patriarchs if all Bishops are equal?
 
Upvote 0
J

JesusIsTheWay33

Guest
A variety of reasons, really, but let's start at the most basic points.

1. What are the marks of the Church? It is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. Straight away, Orthodoxy fails two of the requirements. First, it is manifestly not one: despite what you may be told, the ethnic tensions do exist, and there seem to be long periods when they are busily excommunicating one another, and seem in general to be divided. Catholicism, for all its faults, for all the people who practice and believe heresy within her bounds, still seems to me to be united by something which Orthodoxy, to me, seems to lack.

Second, Orthodoxy is not catholic - that is, it is not universal. That may be changing, but the very localism of its ethnarchies is opposed to catholicity, I think. The Catholic Church can claim that within it there is no longer Jew nor Greek, bound nor free, male nor female.

Is Orthodoxy holy and apostolic? It certainly appears to be both, to me. But are such things not present in Catholicism? No, though in some parts of the world, both holiness and apostolicity may be difficult to spot.

2. "Whoever wishes to be saved must before all things hold the Catholic Faith." I don't believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but from the Father and the Son. This isn't, I have to admit, central to my reasons for not being Orthodox, and I have only really examined this issue since being part of this forum, but I do, having examined the issue, believe that the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, and that this is attested clearly by Sacred Scripture, and that the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone is (a) against Scripture, (b) clearly not taught by the pre-Schism Latin Fathers, and (c) not necessarily the reading which comes out of the fact that the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople did not originally include the filioque. I find it interesting that this flared up as an issue only centuries after it was added in the West, and that Cerularius, when seeking a quarrel with the West, chose not the filioque but the ridiculous non-issue of the use of azymes as his bone of contention (why would he go for such a weak argument if there was a stronger one to hand?).

3. Augustine. St Augustine was clearly understood to be an authoritative teacher in the pre-schism Church, was remembered in the diptychs of ecumenical councils, and so on. Yet some Orthodox now not only insist that he preached heresy, but demand that he no longer be considered a saint. I don't understand how that shows any respect for tradition or the Fathers, myself.

4. Peter and Petrine authority. I can't summarise my thinking on the basics better than here. Further, I just don't believe the Orthodox narrative of how things worked in the pre-Schism church. To me, the most best explanation is found in this part of the Catholic Encyclopaedia:
The position, sometimes now advanced by anti-papal controversialists, and that all bishops are equal in jurisdiction, was utterly unknown in the early Church. From the very beginning we find a graduated hierarchy of metropolitans, exarchs, and primates. We find, too, from the beginning the idea that a bishop inherits the dignity of the founder of his see, that, therefore, the successor of an Apostle has special rights and privileges. This graduated hierarchy is important as explaining the pope's position. He was not the one immediate superior of each bishop; he was the chief of an elaborate organization, as it were the apex of a carefully graduated pyramid. The consciousness of the early Christian probably would have been that the heads of Christendom were the patriarchs; then further he knew quite well that the chief patriarch sat at Rome. However, the immediate head of each part of the Church was its patriarch. After Chalcedon (451) we must count five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
( CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eastern Schism )

5. The development of doctrine. This is a point consistently misrepresented by Orthodox apologists as some introduction of novelty. Rather, it is simply the process by which, once a doctrine is attacked, it is then defined, but not before. And nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the Ecumenical Councils.

There are probably other things, but these are the ones I can think of right now.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The East admit to the Pope's primacy. [and in the past before schism, his supremacy - see quotes below]

Infallibility means as the leader - teacher - of the entire Church he cannot teach error because it would contradict Christ. Obviously it would not be keeping with scriptures - nor with Christ's promise to Peter that the Church He was building upon him - would not teach heresy.
'the gates of hell shall not prevail...'

Also let us not forget when Christ said to Peter 'When you are stronger - confirm thy brethren.'
IE - be their teacher - for confirm means to teach. So there is one among them who teaches the others. It was Peter.

Succession from the beginning to Peter was traced in Rome. Three different fathers outlined that succession. St Ireneaus went so far as to state the others had succession but because of Peter - he would make note of his. Since it was most important - as teacher.

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].

St Chrysostom said that Peter was the teacher of the whole world.
St. Chrysostom: He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.

St Ignatius says to Rome in his letter:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

The third ecumenical council, held in 431.

The exordium of the speech of Philip is celebrated:
It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine. . .


These are Eastern fathers - and i have many more. St Maximus is another Saint who stood for and died for the Pope and his position in the Church, also Eastern.

and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also.

Indulgences existed in Maccabees, when Maccabees said 'let us offer silver to the Temple on behalf of the dead.' Giving payment to the house of God - in payment for the dead could also even go back to Christ when He said 'til every farthing is paid...' Though we know He meant atonement via Mass.... [future Church] but still - He was teaching what was known. Indulgences did not cease.

NOW the abuses - that does not mean the teachings - which we look to - are ever error...sinners have always existed. DO we measure Christ worthy via His choice of Judas? No.

Teachings - not sinners - are always the truth of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
One point needs to be made before I launch into my larger explanation. One, we have to judge the principles, not based on the failure of persons to live up to them, i.e. liturgical abuse. I actually went to an Orthodox wedding a few months back that was just as bad as any bad Catholic Mass (and it was at the local Greek Orthodox Cathedral): it opened with a cheesy 70s style processional hymn, there was a pantsuited woman and two casually dressed men right up in front of the iconostasis that did the signing throughout the liturgy, there was no iconostasis doors, and the priest constantly broke with the flow of the liturgy to tell jokes or add his own stuff. I was actually excited to see this great liturgy and was thoroughly disappointed. But, it would be wrong for me to pass a judgment on the truth of their claims based on laxity amongst its members.

Next, as to yours and other posters claims about certain alledged corruptions that the Orthodox don't seem to practice or hold, this has only been true since their phase of exuberant anti-Latinism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

For example, a modern EO apologist will claim that we err with our understanding of original sin, when it was not an issue pre-schism and when they themselves taught the same understanding at the pan-Orthodox (ie their version of an ecumenical council without Rome) Council of Jerusalem in 1672 (along with definitively numbering the sacraments at 7, using the word "transubstantiation," teaching the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment after death, mortal sins, the Catholic canon of Scripture, etc.). This pronouncement was used as a binding profession of faith for those who wished to be in communion with the Orthodox Church as late as 1721.

Similarly, they now call indulgences heretical when they issued them and even confirming their validity at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1727. Furthermore, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1838 condemned their use for enrichment--but not the practice, which continued until as late as the 1950s in the Greek Church. See here:
Indulgences in the history of the Greek Church / Ïðàâîñëàâèå.Ru (this article is translated by Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco and the West).

So either their Church was in error for centuries (and if so who knows what they're in error about now and have to get rid of later) or their Church dumped authentic Christian doctrines. Neither possibility is a good one.

Of course, they blow off these supposedly erroneous teachings of their own Church by saying that these Councils must be judged by all the faithful and they are only legitimate if they are accepted by the whole Church over an undefined period of time--which brings me to their main problem.

The main problem I see is the Orthodox do not have an externally veriafiable authority as part of their principles (although, historically they generally act contrary to their principles in this regard)--ultimately everyone must be individually led by the Holy Spirit--but how to discern the spirit of Truth from that of error?

Let's say there's some doctrinal dispute and I am confused as to the orthodox answer. So I await the judgment of the Church as to which side of the dispute is professing the true doctrine. A Council gets together and gives a definitive answer, anathemitizing all who disagree.

So, is this the authoritative answer? Not yet according to Orthodox doctrine, it must first be accepted by the whole Church. Who is the whole Church according to Orthodox doctrine? All orthodox believers. But who are the orthodox believers? The one's that believe the true doctrine. But what is the true doctrine?

With that last question we're back at square one. The Council was called to definitively settle the debate as to what the true doctrine is--but it must first be accepted by all those that already believe the true doctrine. But since I don't know the true doctrine, I can't tell if the people doing the accepting are the group I should look to. What about those that don't accept it? How do I know they aren't the ones who are right?

It seems historically this principle of requiring universal acceptance was not adhered to. A lot of people didn't accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Was their lack of acceptance taken into account? Nope, they were excommunicated forthwith. Obviously there will be universal acceptance when you kick out anyone who doesn't accept it!

It seems this theory was only practiced to reject the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence (where the Orthodox accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.) and certain things taught in the pan-Orthodox Councils I mentioned above.

The point is that there is no way to determine whose judgment is right--those that accept the Council or those that don't?--other than for each individual to figure out every issue on his own. But that defeats the whole purpose of the decision of the Council which was convened to judge the issue for all of us and threatened us with anathema if we didn't receive its decision.

There must be a fixed and externally verifiable authority for this system to make coherent sense. That fixed (like a rock) authority has always been the Apostolic See of Rome.

Again, all of the problems in the Catholic Church are from people not living up to our principles. The Orthodox problem is in their principles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
indulgences (I have studied the actual theology behind them and it is just a mess), the treasury of merit, and things like that.

I read a book on Indulgences once by Alexis Cardinal Lépicier, which traced the development of the doctrine of indulgences. Seeing it step-by-step showed me that it came from logically necessary conclusions drawn from revealed premises.

First, it bears pointing out that there are three parts to repentance--contrition, confession, and bringing forth fruits worthy of repentance (this last part is often called "satisfaction.") It is the third part that is related to indulgences. Here are some biblical references to this last part (note: the DRV which I am citing uses the phrase "do penance" or the word "penance" in the place many translations use "repent" and "repentance" but the meaning is the same):
Acts 26:20 But to them first that are at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance.
(see also Matt. 3:8, Luke 3:8 )

The East never had a problem with this last element. As I mentioned before, it is affirmed by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, for example.

Now, there are various ways by which one brings forth fruit worthy of repentance or, in other words, makes satisfaction for sins. This is done through prayer, acts of charity, and self-denial, etc but also suffering through the chastisments that God may send Himself.

Heb. 12:[5] And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. [6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? [10] And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification. [11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.
The Church from the very beginning also prescribed such acts of satisfaction. One common one, early on, was cutting the sinner off from the sacraments for a period of time (this is still common in the East and for certain more serious sins in the West). St. Paul prescribes such satisfaction for the incestuous man in Corinth here:

1 Cor. 5:[3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Later, the Church adopted other forms of satisfaction in different times and places many taking months or even years to complete. For example, someone who committed a very grievous sin might have to live a strict disciplined life in a monastery for a period of time (this is why prisons are often called penitentiaries, from the root "penitent.")

If someone were to die before bringing forth worthy fruits, that process was and is understood to be finished in the afterlife as the Council of Florence explained:

Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains;
The hero of Eastern Orthodoxy's resistance to reunion with the Catholic Church, Mark of Ephesus, taught the exact same thing (only quibbling with the idea of fire or the idea of a place; he taught that the cleansing was “much more tormenting and punishing than anything else.”):

But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place
An indulgence is a remittance of this need to make satisfaction either partially or fully (a "plenary indulgence). St. Paul granted such a pardon to the same incestuous man in Corinth:

2 Cor. 2 :[6] To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many: [7] So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. [8] Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your charity towards him. [9] For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things. [10] And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.
as you know, for a long time partial indulgences were delineated by periods of time like days or years to correspond to prevailing penitential disciplines, but today they are generally called "partial" only and their value is relative to the act on which the granting of the indulgence is conditioned.

Such dispensations in regards to the need to make satisfaction were also granted in the East.

Anyway, since the need to make satisfaction extends into the afterlife, it followed logically that the indulgence would also.

Matt. 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
(see also Matt. 16:18)

Otherwise, if one were loosed on earth, but it did not effect the afterlife, the indulgence would be a cruelty deceiving the penitent into thinking he had brought forth sufficient fruits when he had not. No one in the East ever taught that when someone was loosed from the obligation towards satisfaction by the Church, the person would still be subject to the cleansing pains due to someone who had not made the sufficient satisfaction. In other words, they understood the power of the indulgence as extending to the afterlife.

Nowadays in the West, since prescribed penances are meant more to simply turn the penitent back to God through prayer rather than equal the total fruits worthy of repentance, the focus of indulgences is more on their effects in the afterlife.

So how is this related to the treasury of merit, and therefore the communion of Saints? It is from the communion Saints that indulgences have their efficacy. Since we are all one Body, the satisfaction made by some members can be applied to other members for whom it is wanting. St. Paul rejoices in this fact:
Col. 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:
Those Saints (canonized and unknown) along with Christ Himself who have brought forth fruits far exceeding their own needs for repentance are applied to the person receiving the indulgence--it is why an indulgence can be granted without derogating from God's justice. Again, in Eastern Orthodoxy they may no longer coherently synthesize all these doctrines, but the underlying principles are generally still present and they were definitely present before the schism.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would love to rebutt and discuss some of the points I've read but it is not my place to debate as this is a Catholic subforum. I want to respect that.

I thank everyone for chiming in; I hope more people do.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Honorius didnt teach - so if anyone says he was a heretic, that was in principle - that he did not teach but SEEMED to agree with the heresy.
He did not associate himself to any teaching. He lacked it totally - which is why Leo chastised his error in not teaching from the chair of Peter.
Honorius died so the letter sent to him to explain - was of course left unanswered.

SO if Honorius might have going to be teaching heresy - and we wont know - the good Lord took him instead.
And such is the way of it in all of the History of the unorthodox who took the chair who did so without regard to being a teacher.
They never proclaimed teaching.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2008
19,375
7,272
Central California
✟274,069.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Honorius sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 AD with the Monothelite position to be fought for. Emperor Heracleus went along with the heresy. Maximos the Confessor was on the other side of aisle fighting against it vigorously. We are told in the "Early Life of Maximos the Confessor" by George of Reshaina that When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius.

Many would consider sending a delegate to a synod in favor of a heresy to be teaching the heresy.

Honorius didnt teach - so if anyone says he was a heretic, that was in principle - that he did not teach but SEEMED to agree with the heresy.
He did not associate himself to any teaching. He lacked it totally - which is why Leo chastised his error in not teaching from the chair of Peter.
Honorius died so the letter sent to him to explain - was of course left unanswered.

SO if Honorius might have going to be teaching heresy - and we wont know - the good Lord took him instead.
And such is the way of it in all of the History of the unorthodox who took the chair who did so without regard to being a teacher.
They never proclaimed teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Angeldove97

I trust in You
Supporter
Jan 6, 2004
31,688
2,181
Indiana
✟121,020.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I grew up in the Russian Orthodox Church and I saw that the priests were more concerned with how much money and booze you were giving them and could care less about your spiritual lives. One priest almost had my own Dad killed in his church-- long story. A RO priest begged this old lady I know to allow her abusive son back into the house-- she had to listen because the priest told her to do it. And its customary to slip a bottle of vodka to a RO priest after they've said a funeral for a family member. Each RO priest I or my family came in contact with-- and we live in a large Russian area with 5 Russian Orthodox churches within a few miles apart-- each priest (except for one) showed that they were more sinful than spiritual.

When I joined the Catholic Church, God blessed me with such wonderful priests-- Father Ted at my college, Father Tom at home, and now Father Tony at my new parish after I moved. The hymns, the Saints, the feasts, the Rosary, the Eucharist all call me to the Catholic Church.

Don't get me wrong-- I still love walking into Russian Orthodox churches and hearing the chanting and the incense and all the beeswax candles and I love how all the walls are covered in paintings of Saints. But I don't see the leadership there being real Christ-like leaders.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anhelyna

Handmaid of God
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Nov 29, 2005
58,173
16,478
Glasgow , Scotland
✟1,288,370.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Angeldove

there are good and bad apples in every barrel .

I've met similar sort of people in the RC Church too :( . Maybe I'm lucky - I've met a large number of orthodox people , quite a few priests as well and I'm blessed to have known them.
 
Upvote 0

Azureknight 773

IXA the Knight Kamen Rider
Apr 26, 2009
10,999
599
Canmanico, Valencia, Bohol
✟44,295.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I was born under a devout Catholic family, so there! I am a Catholic. And I didn't know the presence of the Orthodox Church by that time. If they are Catholic, then I'll stick to it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

QuantaCura

Rejoice always.
Aug 17, 2005
9,164
958
42
✟21,762.00
Faith
Catholic
The Catholic position is not that a Pope can't mistake or even entertain or push for erroneous doctrinal positions, but rather when as Pope, exercising the full authority of the Church and "laying down the law of faith" so to speak, then he is infallible. This is why the Honorius example fails.

Here's a really great explanation of papal infallibility by St. Francis de Sales which explains this well:

Just scroll the the chapter entitled:

CHAPTER XIV.
HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THIS AUTHORITY.

The Authority of the Pope – parts XII-XIV | Beati mundo corde

Here's a pertinent exerpt:
And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form. Thus we say that we must appeal to him not as to a learned man, for in this he is ordinarily surpassed by some others, but as to the general head and pastor of the Church and as such we must honour, follow, and firmly embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast the Urim and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra , that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith.
St. Maximos the Confessor was of the same mind about the infallibility and primacy of the Apostolic See:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (St. Maximus, in JB Mansi ed Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, volume 10)
And also
"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (St. Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne PG 90)
And also
"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God....Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (St. Maximus, Letter to Peter in Mansi 10:692)
Again, infallibility is a charism for the good of the whole Church, it doesn't preclude the Pope from being wrong himself. One of the great defenders of papal infallibility, St. Robert Bellarmine, was harassed by a Pope for his argument against the Pope having universal civil jurisdiction, for example.

A great biblical example is the high priest who had a similar charism. Notice, he maintained it even while personally disbelieving as he conspired to kill Jesus:

John 11:[49] But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. [50] Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. [51] And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
Notice he speaks "not of himself." Just like St. Peter in the famous Matt. 16:18 verse, where flesh and blood does not reveal it to him, but the Father in Heaven. When the Pope speaks "not of himself," but with the full authority of the Church from God, then he is infallible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
72,739
9,305
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟428,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Honorius sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 AD with the Monothelite position to be fought for. Emperor Heracleus went along with the heresy. Maximos the Confessor was on the other side of aisle fighting against it vigorously. We are told in the "Early Life of Maximos the Confessor" by George of Reshaina that When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius.

Many would consider sending a delegate to a synod in favor of a heresy to be teaching the heresy.

And yet i quoted Maximus. See my former post.
He stood behind the Pope - so if the Pope was doing so erringly - Maximus would not have been martyred for standing behind the Pope - if the Pope was teaching error.

He died a horrible death, Maximus did. But he didnt recant his staunch position defending the Pope and being against heresy.

We can ascertain then, the Pope was not heretical.
Then again, was it another Honorius..?
Who died before speaking...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apr 11, 2011
2,161
100
✟2,974.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Honorius sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 AD with the Monothelite position to be fought for. Emperor Heracleus went along with the heresy. Maximos the Confessor was on the other side of aisle fighting against it vigorously. We are told in the "Early Life of Maximos the Confessor" by George of Reshaina that When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius.

Many would consider sending a delegate to a synod in favor of a heresy to be teaching the heresy.
"According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, 'To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.'"

Source
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.