Again, hierarchy can misspeak, as well. There are bishops and cardinals out there who likely agree with terrible things. And can collectively agree on terrible things. But should they agree together of human will and assign to it divine approval, history and God will find them out.except these aren't just single men of Rome, these are Roman synods that claim to maintain true teaching that contradict each other.
Again, hierarchy can misspeak, as well. There are bishops and cardinals out there who likely agree with terrible things. And can collectively agree on terrible things. But should they agree together of human will and assign to it divine approval, history and God will find them out.
A power and divine grace within the office. Again, the man within the office can be risen up against, even by fellow bishops. But what matters is what is the significance of that office, of that chair, and herein lies a massive gap between Catholic and Orthodox thinking. We see the significance of that office differently for different reasons.again, what power if he can be excommunicated and overridden by his brother bishops?
Good question. Sometimes we must look at history in perspective to see who was correct. Not every thing that is said with authority is correct. Pope John Paul II did much to examine this, and clarify points, and extend his hand to the East, though his words and hopes could be understood and regarded differently by those on each side.so which Popes were correct? the ones who said the Filioque is heresy, the ones who say the Filioque's exclusion is heresy, or the ones who say it's the same teaching?
A power and divine grace within the office. Again, the man within the office can be risen up against, even by fellow bishops. But what matters is what is the significance of that office, of that chair, and herein lies a massive gap between Catholic and Orthodox thinking. We see the significance of that office differently for different reasons.
But what does it mean to be in Union with Rome? To acknowledge and understand the Pope to be Head of the Church. What does that mean? That a Pope can not be opposed or risen up against, or declared a heretic? Or that there is a line of succession that matters? To say that this line does not matter is similar to thoughts voiced by a Protestants as to why they have no desire or interest in belonging to a Church with Apostolic succession. And surely there are awesome and holy Protestants who know more about following Christ than plenty of cradle Orthodox and Catholic Christians.
But again, does the See of Peter matter? Is Peter the Rock on which Christ built His Church? Does Peterine succession matter? These things we would not see eye to eye on. But they are valid questions.
Good question. Sometimes we must look at history in perspective to see who was correct. Not every thing that is said with authority is correct. Pope John Paul II did much to examine this, and clarify points, and extend his hand to the East, though his words and hopes could be understood and regarded differently by those on each side.
That is your opinion, Sir.how does the chair matter if every man who has sat on it for centuries has been a heretic?
and yes, these matter, but you brought up history and it isn't on your side. you have simply shown that you have a different sense understanding, but not a correct one.
The ones who finally look back on the issue with grace, and give a correct judgement.so which Popes are correct?
Oriental vs. Eastern Orthodoxy also seem to have different views on marriage. I understand that they are *not* the same thing, but unless I'm mistaken, Coptic Orthodoxy forbids divorce. Eastern Orthodoxy permits second and third marriages. Yet both are Apostolic. Multiple equally acceptable answers to a single question can be signs for some that everything being said can not be equally right.
That is your opinion, Sir.
The Chair matters if Peter is that Rock.
The ones who finally look back on the issue with grace, and give a correct judgement.
Who made the final judgment?Yes and no. From an Orthodox point of view, this downplays the role of Peter. Yet from a Catholic point of view, this was simply the first Church council, whose head was Peter. Indeed, everyone had a voice, but a Catholic would respond that as it was Peter on whom the Church was built, Peter still had the seat of authority. Again, our perspectives on this would differ.
But what does it mean to be in Union with Rome? To acknowledge and understand the Pope to be Head of the Church.
Question to consider: when reading the passages from the Church Father in context, do they consider the rock to be Peter himself or his confession of faith? Remember the in context part. Does the Petrine head mean that he is more important or significant? I agree that we will not see eye to eye on this, and that it is a big obstacle to reunion.But again, does the See of Peter matter? Is Peter the Rock on which Christ built His Church? Does Peterine succession matter? These things we would not see eye to eye on. But they are valid questions.
I’d give a qualified yes to the second (many are due to that, but not all), and no to the first. There are some pretty fundamental differences between the two...some of which I mentioned earlier. (Of course, if you are comparing non-denominational evangelical to Orthodoxy...that likely has more differences than the RCC and Orthodox). I also find that the RCC see less differences (or don’t consider many to be important differences) than those who are Orthodox see.As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.
The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.
No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?
As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
Catholicism loses this argument big time when you look at the marriage sacrament in the Eastern rites and the Latin rite. They are completely different animals, and annulments in the Latin rite demonstrate a form of the heresy of Donatism.It may be historically understandable, but having two different answers on one matter is not the same thing as giving one answer.
I had written a lot in answer, but afterwards thought it not beneficial to provide a lengthy and complicated explanation. So I'll just state that Orthodoxy Theology is based in Theosis, while Roman theology is based in scholasticism. Theosis changes persons, by grace, into the God Who is pointed to with Theological definitions. Scholasticism is more of a philosophical science about God, and about God's dealings with the world. If one accepts this characterization to be true, then the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that it is more the grace of God (Holy Spirit) directing Orthodox theological reasoning than human rationalization, and that the inverse is true about Roman theological reasoning. For an Orthodox Christian this is obvious and true. For staunch Roman Catholics, it is either denied or rejected on the grounds that it's an over simplification or an inaccurate generalization, or both.As some of you know, I've been working a while trying to understand the differences between Catholicism & Orthodoxy. What I'm seeing so far (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), is that the differences are 1) not much, and 2) they come from a fundamentally different understanding of development of doctrine: whether Jesus, the Apostles & Church Fathers developed the doctrine of Jewish law, and we should stay with their interpretation, or whether doctrine is something that continually develops, until Christ comes back to tell us otherwise.
More simplified: Orthodox believe in strictly following the doctine & tradition of the Early Church, Catholics believe in following the doctrine & tradition of the Early Church, with developments as deemed necessary.
Does this sound about right, for how the differences between these similar churches came into being?
Every local Church, headed by its Bishop is the fullness of the Church. That is the view of the early Church and that is the Orthodox view.In some ways diverse, but in Her responses to inquiries on Truth, She should be singular. Are there heretical Catholic leaders? Definitely. Have there been terrible Popes? Yes. But as Christ was the visible Head while on a Earth, a visible head after His Ascension makes sense, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?