Catholics or Orthodox: How do we know which church is "better"? (No protestants, please)

[truefiction1]

Yet infallibility lies not in a man's error, sins, or personality but in the Church, overseen by one office. And headed by Christ.

Yet according to Rome's definition of papal supremacy, the Pope is given authority "over" the whole Church, which is an authority that stands "above", or "outside" of the Church. The pope is said to be superior to Ecumenical Councils, even. There is, however, only one authority that is "over" the Church, and that is God. All other authority is authority "within" the Church, not "over" it. Therefor, Romes formal definition of papal authority is a false concept. When that "one office" is headed by Satan, because a pope has given himself over to apostasy (and this has indeed occurred at various times), then that office is not headed by Christ, but by the very enemy of the Church. We have One True Father -- God, and one True Master, His Christ, Who is the Head over His whole Body -- the Church. All bishops have a place of authority "within" His Body and are parts of His Body, but Christ is the only Head. All other bishops, including the patriarch of Rome, are subject to the whole Church headed by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, Christ is highly visible. That is why the Church needs no single visible bishop to serve as a focal point for unity. The Church did not need this for the first millennium, and obviously didn't need it for the second millennium: We're still here, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and having Life in us because of this.

 

[truefiction1]

good, you?

Good, thanks. Busy as heck though: the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few (Luke 10:2).

 

[anna ~ grace]

Yet according to Rome's definition of papal supremacy, the Pope is given authority "over" the whole Church, which is an authority that stands "above", or "outside" of the Church. The pope is said to be superior to Ecumenical Councils, even. There is, however, only one authority that is "over" the Church, and that is God. All other authority is authority "within" the Church, not "over" it. Therefor, Romes formal definition of papal authority is a false concept. When that "one office" is headed by Satan, because a pope has given himself over to apostasy (and this has indeed occurred at various times), then that office is not headed by Christ, but by the very enemy of the Church. We have One True Father -- God, and one True Master, His Christ, Who is the Head over His whole Body -- the Church. All bishops have a place of authority "within" His Body and are parts of His Body, but Christ is the only Head. All other bishops, including the patriarch of Rome, are subject to the whole Church headed by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, Christ is highly visible. That is why the Church needs no single visible bishop to serve as a focal point for unity. The Church did not need this for the first millennium, and obviously didn't need it for the second millennium: We're still here, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and having Life in us because of this.

This idea is actually not wholly alien to the Catholic Church.

Technically, if a Pope should also be a heretic, he separates himself from the very Church he should be leading. Again, because the man's sins and error is not infallible.

I agree that you Orthodox Christians are also eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. And that your people are Holy. But to be in union with Rome is a unique thing, and also desirable. Because again, history matters.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This idea is actually not wholly alien to the Catholic Church.

Technically, if a Pope should also be a heretic, he separates himself from the very Church he should be leading. Again, because the man's sins and error is not infallible.

I agree that you Orthodox Christians are also eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. And that your people are Holy. But to be in union with Rome is a unique thing, and also desirable. Because again, history matters.

but why is union with Rome desirable if Rome has been unrepentantly heretical for 1000 years?

and if history matters, how do you explain Pope Vigilius?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Again, Protestants also do not desire union with Rome. I will be burning in Purgatory while many Protestants will be in Heaven. But still, this matters to me. Truth matters. And if I know the Truth and walk away from it, or do not look into it, that's my problem.

 

[klutedavid]

I've got a book I'm about halfway through on Catholicism, and another book a friendly Orthodox brother sent me on Orthodoxy. Until I get through both of these, I won't be able to talk intelligently about how one church is "better" than the other.
So, until I get my reading done, I want to open this up to anyone who's already knowlegeable about both relgions, who can share their insight as to which one is actually the mystical "One True Church".

If they claim they are the one true church, then they definitely are not, the one true church never makes such a boast.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, Protestants also do not desire union with Rome. I will be burning in Purgatory while many Protestants will be in Heaven. But still, this matters to me. Truth matters. And if I know the Truth and walk away from it, or do not look into it, that's my problem.

so, if Truth matters how do you account for Roman contradictions on things like their own history of the Filioque?

 

[ArmyMatt]

If they claim they are the one true church, then they definitely are not, the one true church never makes such a boast.

per the OP, this thread is for Orthodox and Rome

 

[anna ~ grace]

but why is union with Rome desirable if Rome has been unrepentantly heretical for 1000 years?

and if history matters, how do you explain Pope Vigilius?

Because it hasn't been.

Pope Vigilius had a predecessor and a successor. God often works through human choices, too. And He gave Peter a successor through a human choice.

 

[anna ~ grace]

so, if Truth matters how do you account for Roman contradictions on things like their own history of the Filioque?

Because it is true that the Spirit proceeeds from the Father, just as from the Father and the Son.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because it hasn't been.

Pope Vigilius had a predecessor and a successor. God often works through human choices, too. And He gave Peter a successor through a human choice.

but at any given point Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West, so it doesn't seem that being in communion with Rome is necessary.

 

[anna ~ grace]

but at any given point Pope Vigilius was excommunicated by both East and West, so it doesn't seem that being in communion with Rome is necessary.

Popes have been proven to be in error theologically after the fact. He was still the historical Pope.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Because it is true that the Spirit proceeeds from the Father, just as from the Father and the Son.

but Rome has said from Father and Son is anathema, and from Father alone is anathema, and now that both are true.

that's a pretty glaring contradiction

 

[ArmyMatt]

Popes have been proven to be in error theologically after the fact. He was still the historical Pope.

no one disputes that, the point was that the early Church didn't see a need to be under Rome by default because she is Rome.

 

[anna ~ grace]

no one disputes that, the point was that the early Church didn't see a need to be under Rome by default because she is Rome.

Not neccesarily. A Pope may indeed have been in error. But the umbrella of the authority still stood, and held power.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not neccesarily. A Pope may indeed have been in error. But the umbrella of the authority still stood, and held power.

what power if he can be excommunicated and overridden by other bishops?

 

[anna ~ grace]

but Rome has said from Father and Son is anathema, and from Father alone is anathema, and now that both are true.

that's a pretty glaring contradiction

The men of Rome can mispeak. It is possible that something like this is happening right now. Should Francis tomorrow declare that a denial of Holy Communion to the remarried is anathema, this may be enforced, but if something spoken with authority is spoken out of synch with Truth for political or emotional reasons, in eternity it is still untrue.

 

[anna ~ grace]

what power if he can be excommunicated and overridden by other bishops?

A power within an office. Christ is still Head of the Church, and the authority given to Popes is also a massive responsibility that men can live out poorly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The men of Rome can mispeak. It is possible that something like this is happening right now. Should Francis tomorrow declare that a denial of Holy Communion to the remarried is anathema, this may be enforced, but if something spoken with authority is spoken out of synch with Truth for political or emotional reasons, in eternity it is still untrue.

except these aren't just single men of Rome, these are Roman synods that claim to maintain true teaching that contradict each other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A power within an office. Christ is still Head of the Church, and the authority given to Popes is also a massive responsibility that men can live out poorly.

again, what power if he can be excommunicated and overridden by his brother bishops?