Sorry to ask again...

[The Squalid Wanderer]

but I didn't feel like I received a very good answer the last time.

What would you, the Catholic adherents of this forum (please no non-Catholic responses), say to someone interested in or already an adherent of Orthodoxy? Why should such a person consider Catholicism?

Let me reiterate some of my answers from last time:

The Orthodox have had councils after 869

The Orthodox do not have their own version of a Pope

Orthodox bishops are held accountable. It's called collegiality

And finally, no Orthodox I know of think an Emperor is required for a council to be convened and an authorative proclamation promulgated.

Now, anyone interested in telling me why the Orthodox should "come home"?

 

[jukesk9]

You know, I don't think I'd try to convince an Orthodox to become Catholic. I think our efforts would be better spent in prayer asking God to re-unite us and patch up the differences that lead to the schism.

 

[Wolseley]

I will quote from page 61 of Scott Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home, and let it serve as my reply.

"So I started looking into Orthodoxy. I met with Peter Gilquist, an Evangelical convert to Antiochene Orthodoxy, to hear why he chose Orthododxy over Rome. His reasons reinforced my sense that Protestantism was wrong; but I also thought that his defense of Orthodoxy over Catholicism was unsatisfying and superficial. Upon closer examination, I found the various Orthodox churches to be hopelessly divided among themselves, similar to the Protestants, except that the Orthodox were split along the lines of ethnic nationalisms; there were Orthodox bodies that called themselves Greek, Russian, Ruthenian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Serbian, and so on. They have coexisted for centuries, but more like a family of brothers who have lost their father.

Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology. In addition, I became convinced that it was mistaken in doctrine, having rejected certain teachings of Scripture and the Catholic Church, especially the filioque clause ("and the Son") that had been added to the Nicene Creed. In addition, their rejection of the Pope as head of the Church seemed to be based on imperial politics, more than on any serious theological grounds. This helped me to understand why, throughout their history, Orthodox Christians have tended to exalt the Emperor and the State over the Bishop and the Church (otherwise known as "Caesaropapism"). It occured to me that Russia had been reaping the consequenses of this Orthodox outlook throughout the 20th century."

 

[VOW]

To SW:

I like what Jukes said, and I'd add only one other thing: Peter went to Rome.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Wolseley,

Let me try and summarize your post. Mr. Hahn objects to Orthodoxy because:

1. It has multiple jurisdictions
2. It doesn't have a Pope
3. It objects to the filoque
4. They have a tendency of exalting the State over the Church.

Let me know if this is a good summation of Mr. Hahn's position. Also, I would like to ask, do you think that #3 is a legitimate complaint, seeing that Orthodoxy is defending the original Creed against an interpolation?

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Wolseley,

I also wanted to ask you about some possible solutions toward the problems stated by Mr. Hahn.

For #1, would you be satisfied if the Orthodox had devices for the maintenance of unity across jurisdictions? #2 is more difficult, because the main question is whether or not what Mr. Hahn says is a problem is actually a problem. I think the question is intimately connected with #1.

#3 is also difficult because, again, there is the question as to whether or not what Mr. Hahn objects to is actually problematic. I would love to have a discussion concerning the filoque however.

And finally, concerning #4, would you be satisfied if instead of exalting the State over the Church, that Orthodoxy instead balanced the two, so that neither the State nor the Church reigned supreme over the other? The State would be supreme in matters of secular government functions (i.e., taxation, defense, monetary policy), while the Church was supreme in matters of Spirituality? On those occasions where the two would conflict, the Church would be supreme. This would be similar to the federalist system of government set up the the US constitution, where the states and the federal government operate side by side, but where state law conflicts with federal law, federal law is given supremacy.

I eagerly await your reply.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Squalid-

All I have to say is that I'd like to be as close to Jesus as possible.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear VOW and Souljah,

Does your remarks indicate you believe Orthodoxy to be distant from the Apostles or Christ?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I dont think distant is the right word. Since RCC is the original, any derivative of it will be slightly removed, and so forth...

 

[isshinwhat]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

Council of Chalcedon, Session 3 (451 A.D.)

I feel the Orthodox have not fully held onto the catholic portion of the Creed they profess. The Catholic Church has been able to do so because of its Eastern members, but sadly, they are so few in number that it has taken a grass roots revival of sorts, and the support of the Pope through using some of their theology to get the Church as a whole to begin to appreciate that side of herself. The Council of Chalcedon refers to the Bishop of Rome as "the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith." Why leave that behind after professing it in an Ecumenical Council?

I have a page bookmarked on another computer that has a few interesting thoughts by several Orthodox theologians concerning the Papacy and the lack of any official rejection of it by the Orthodox. I don't have all the details, but it left open the possibility of further dialouge and unification between the two sister Churches, with the Catholics not having to deny any of their pronouncements.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[jukesk9]

Originally posted by The Squalid Wanderer
# I would love to have a discussion concerning the filoque however. 

Sounds good.  Check this link out first (it's pretty short):

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/traditions/trad004.html

Pope John Paul II clarified that the Father and the Son aren't the sources for the Holy Spirit but rather the Father is the source alone:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"...the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character," (ibid).

Thus, the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son PROVIDED that we understand that the Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is most accurate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.

It is my understanding that Eastern Rite Catholics profess the Creed minus the filioque.&nbsp; I also have read that when the Pope celebrates Mass with Eastern bishops (I'm assuming the article meant Eastern Catholic bishops--it was vague) that he does so omitting the filioque from the Creed.&nbsp;

If that is the case, then I don't see the filioque being a stumbling block to re-union.&nbsp; The&nbsp;big problem I see is with re-union is the Orthodox coming to&nbsp;recognize papal supremacy.&nbsp; That's a big hurdle.&nbsp; I don't think Rome would have a problem letting the Orthodox continue their disciplines (married priests, etc).&nbsp; In Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men may be ordained as priests.&nbsp; But, if a single man becomes a priest, he may not marry.&nbsp;

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Souljah,

I'm curious as to what your basis is for saying that the RCC is the original and that Orthodoxy is a derivative? It is easy to point toward when Protestantism was started, October 31, 1517 is generally accepted, but when were the Orthodox sees' founded?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

The Great Schism, circa 1000 AD or so...

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Souljah,

Do you mean 1054, when the Roman Cardinal excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople and all who were in communion with him for preserving the creed in it's original form, sans the filoque?

Did you know that most historians actually prefer the date 1204, when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople?

 

[Wolseley]

Not exactly. The actual split was over liturgical traditions and jurisdictions; the filioque was merely a catalyst. I went into this in some detail in the thread below, Post #8:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=227808&highlight=Eastern+Schism#post227808

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear isshinwhat,

I should bring to your attention that the Orthodox have western rite Churches as well.

Concerning your quote from Chalcedon, I have no objections to it, but did want to bring to your attention that the words quoted were spoken by the Roman legates themselves. Also proceeding from Chalcedon was this canon:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. (Canon 28 of Chalcedon)

Finally, I don't think that the Orthodox would object to the Papacy as understood by 2nd and 3rd canons of the First Council of Constantinople in addition to the canon mentioned above.

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Wolseley,

Do you mean to say that any of the following is not true of the bull of excommunication Humbert laid in Hagia Sophia on July 16th, 1054:

In the bull he accused the Greeks of permitting priests to marry; he accused them of simony; he accused them of rebaptizing Latins; he accused them of baptizing women in labor; he accused them of refusing Communion to men who shave; and of throwing out the Mosaic Law. And finally, he accused the Greeks of leaving out a phrase in the Creed, i.e., the filoque.

Please note also that it is not I who was asserting the events of 1054 as the cause of the split.&nbsp; I readily acknowledge a multiplicity of factors leading up to it.&nbsp; However, the absence of the filoque in the Creed is one of the reasons for the excommunication Humbert placed in Hagia Sophia against the Bishop of Constantinople.

One last bit of information.&nbsp; I read your description which stated that the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope in turn.&nbsp; This is actually not true.&nbsp; The excommunication handed down by Cerularius was against the Papal legates and not the Papacy itself.&nbsp; Please note this excerpt from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The consummation of the schism is generally dated from the year 1054, when this unfortunate sequence of events took place. This conclusion, however, is not correct, because in the bull composed by Humbert, only Patriarch Cerularius was excommunicated. On the other side, the Byzantine synod excommunicated only the legates and abstained from any attack on the pope or the Latin Church."

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Jukes,

I wanted to make sure you knew that I was not ignoring you. I will read the link provided and respond shortly

 

[The Squalid Wanderer]

Dear Jukes,

I read the article you linked. I find it very agreeable. My only question is that since the Greeks understand the word proceed as the manner in which the Holy Spirit eternally originates from the Father, wouldn't this still make it problematic to retain the filoque in the creed?

As stated by the Pope, I do not object to the filoque as a matter of theology, but would still like it removed from the creed.

Thank you though for the excellent article.

 

[Wolseley]

One last bit of information. I read your description which stated that the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated the Pope in turn. This is actually not true. The excommunication handed down by Cerularius was against the Papal legates and not the Papacy itself.

This is correct. The information I posted back then in this particular regard was erroneous. Mea maxima culpa.

I still remain curious, however, as to what you're trying to get at here, Squalid. Are you trying to point out the evils of Catholicism, which adds things to creeds and therefore is in error? Are you trying to defend the collegiate structure of Orthodoxy as opposed to the pontifical structure of Catholicism? Or are you just stirring the pot to see what rises to the top? What are you trying to find out, exactly? Whither the purpose of this thread?

There has been a large amount of hue and cry on this particular topic, and I'm somewhat confused as to what you're trying to accomplish here.....