Orthodox Issues with the Roman Catholic Church

[Fr. Appletree]

we reject papal infallibility, papal ecclesiology, the Filioque, created grace, the Immaculate Conception, indulgences, purgatory, in persona Christi, the beatific Vision, pure simplicity, Mary as the Mediatrix of all graces, Mary being assumed into heaven before her death as optional, the Augustinian view of original sin, to name a few.

I was wondering if anyone would like to engage in a dialog about these issues? (And perhaps more?)

I don't understand why you have an issue with most of these and would like to understand better.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was wondering if anyone would like to engage in a dialog about these issues? (And perhaps more?)

I don't understand why you have an issue with most of these and would like to understand better.

we can, but the reason is they are ahistorical which Rome often rejected in her own history

 

[BobRyan]

Isn't it the case that almost all non-Roman Catholic groups (Protestants for example) would have that same list included in their differences?

 

[HTacianas]

I was wondering if anyone would like to engage in a dialog about these issues? (And perhaps more?)

I don't understand why you have an issue with most of these and would like to understand better.

Let's hope this discussion can be positive.

Generally, all those things are not part of original Christianity. They were implemented by the Roman Church without consent of the Eastern Bishops. Any one of them, or all of them, could become part of Christianity but only by vote of an Ecumenical Council. But at this point I don't know if there could ever be an Ecumenical Council. Hopefully one day there will be one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn't it the case that almost all non-Roman Catholic groups (Protestants for example) would have that same list included in their differences?

some of them, yes.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Let's hope this discussion can be positive.

Generally, all those things are not part of original Christianity. They were implemented by the Roman Church without consent of the Eastern Bishops. Any one of them, or all of them, could become part of Christianity but only by vote of an Ecumenical Council. But at this point I don't know if there could ever be an Ecumenical Council. Hopefully one day there will be one.

technically no. they would only be a part of the Church if true, which means the theology would have been there from the beginning, whether or not bishops voted on it in a Council.

 

[HTacianas]

technically no. they would only be a part of the Church if true, which means the theology would have been there from the beginning, whether or not bishops voted on it in a Council.

And that leads to a vote of the Bishops. It is up to a Council to determine it. That does not mean that a Council would agree with it, only that it cannot be unless they do.

I read once an oath taken by the Bishops of a Council after resolving some matter or another. They recited "this is the faith held by the apostles", or something similar. The meaning was that the matter was resolved, and that a belief had existed from the beginning. I don't see a Council ever reciting that oath over any of those things.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And that leads to a vote of the Bishops. It is up to a Council to determine it. That does not mean that a Council would agree with it, only that it cannot be unless they do.

I read once an oath taken by the Bishops of a Council after resolving some matter or another. They recited "this is the faith held by the apostles", or something similar. The meaning was that the matter was resolved, and that a belief had existed from the beginning. I don't see a Council ever reciting that oath over any of those things.

well, but we have had Councils that bishops agreed to that were rejected by the people. the Holy Spirit works through the consensus of the Church. it's not merely a vote of the bishops. even if the bishops today voted for something like the Filioque, it's still false.

 

[prodromos]

I was wondering if anyone would like to engage in a dialog about these issues? (And perhaps more?)

I don't understand why you have an issue with most of these and would like to understand better.

Doctrine does not develop as claimed by the Catholic Church, it is only defended.

To put forward an example, the feast day of the Dormition of Mary was introduced in Rome from the East in around the 5th century. The feast day celebrates both her death and her bodily assumption into heaven. Over time, Rome changed the feast to focus purely on her assumption, and as a result of the Roman doctrine of the Imacculate Conception it became common belief in Rome that Mary was bodily assumed without having first died, since "the wages of sin is death" and they believe Mary was completely free from sin. So in Catholicism you have what was once clearly taught (Mary died) is now a confused position where it is permissable to believe that she did not actually die. So instead of clarifying the teaching of the Church, development of doctrine has introduced contradictory views in what was once clear doctrine.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Doctrine does not develop as claimed by the Catholic Church, it is only defended.

To put forward an example, the feast day of the Dormition of Mary was introduced in Rome from the East in around the 5th century. The feast day celebrates both her death and her bodily assumption into heaven. Over time, Rome changed the feast to focus purely on her assumption, and as a result of the Roman doctrine of the Imacculate Conception it became common belief in Rome that Mary was bodily assumed without having first died, since "the wages of sin is death" and they believe Mary was completely free from sin. So in Catholicism you have what was once clearly taught (Mary died) is now a confused position where it is permissable to believe that she did not actually die. So instead of clarifying the teaching of the Church, development of doctrine has introduced contradictory views in what was once clear doctrine.

Although I've heard it taught that Mary did have the choice to die or be bodily assumed, I've never heard that she chose to be bodily assumed. - only that she chose to die. And then after dying was assumed. I'm not sure it is actually permissible to believe only in the bodily assumption - although with the current state of affairs catachecism is often poor and the Church lax.

As for development of doctrine, doctrine doesn't develop that isn't from the logical conclusions of what was known previously. For example, the Canon developed, but all the books had existed since the the apostles wrote/authorized them and were in common use around the world. It was only due to Marcion creating his own heretical canon that the Church began to realize the need for defining the Canon and after much discussion and time it came to be as it is now.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

Pope Benedict has written that the Orthodox view of Papal primacy is accurate to the first millennium of Christianity. That does not mean that what resulted in the west was false, but was just the logical extension. The Vatican 1 position may seem overstated due to the fact the council ended early and was not resumed until Vatican 2. The point of the councils were to define the ecclesiology of the Church in response to the sectarianism of the reformation.

Isn't it true that the bishops fulfill the prophetic role in the Church? Why then wouldn't it be said that when a bishop speaks for the church, that by the Holy Spirit the prophetic words given would be true?
Now, it is true that bishops don't always speak for the Church and so aren't in infallible in themselves. The same is true of the Pope who being the visible head, being the first bishop, has a unique position to be able to speak for the Church - but again does not usually speak in that capacity.

 

[Fr. Appletree]

we can, but the reason is they are ahistorical which Rome often rejected in her own history

Thank you,, I would need some more precise examples of that to really be able to reply.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you,, I would need some more precise examples of that to really be able to reply.

look at the Filioque clause.

you don't see it anywhere, then it's inserted by Gothic Spain, Rome rejects the insertion and excommunicates it's use, then it's reinserted and the East is accused of removing it, then it's condemned by the whole Church to include Rome, then it's added again causing the Schism, then we are condemned by Rome for not using it, and nowadays it's just seen as more accurate but saying the same as us who don't use it.

 

[East of Eden]

As CS Lewis said, I could never become a Catholic, there are too many new doctrines.