Why can't the Orthodox be considered the One True Church?

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The one true church is not a particular branch, denomation, etc...it is the true believers of Christ

Oh no, another trespasser...

 

[Davidnic]

Oh no, another trespasser...

Missed that one in the clean up earlier.

 

[Anhelyna]

Steven

you stated <<The Orthodox Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic, when they convert to the Orthodox Church, do they?>>

You are correct - they do not re-Baptise Catholics - or other Christians who have received a Trinitarian Baptism .

The Bishop is the one who makes the decision whether a convert to Orthodoxy is received by Baptism or not. This is termed an " Ask your priest" question. Some are Baptised , others are received by Chrismation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Catholic Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic who was Baptized in the Protestant or Orthodox 'churches'. This is because a Baptized Protestant has already been a Catholic since their Baptism; they are simply now coming home to their mother, the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic, when they convert to the Orthodox Church, do they?

I know the Protestants generally do, to promote their "no salvation outside, 'their' one true church!".

Depends on the Orthodox whether they will insist on rebaptism or not. I think most would insist on it. But they don't seem to have a hard and fast rule that all Orthodox follow. It's not like in Catholic theology where we can know that if the baptism was done with natural water and the right words it was valid. It's more gray to them. Ask a few and see what answers you get.

As to Protestants, it entirely depends on the kind of Protestant. Some insist on immersion, some insist on believer baptism, some don't think baptism is necessary, some will accept the baptism done by Catholics. All over the map.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Steven

you stated <<The Orthodox Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic, when they convert to the Orthodox Church, do they?>>

You are correct - they do not re-Baptise Catholics - or other Christians who have received a Trinitarian Baptism .

The Bishop is the one who makes the decision whether a convert to Orthodoxy is received by Baptism or not. This is termed an " Ask your priest" question. Some are Baptised , others are received by Chrismation.

Why do other Orthodox say otherwise? Some are very particular that a baptized Catholic is not really baptized at all.

 

[Anhelyna]

Like I said - it's the Bishop who makes the decision.

Some are received and Baptised - others are not

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Like I said - it's the Bishop who makes the decision.

Some are received and Baptised - others are not

Rebaptism is equal to anabaptism

 

[chevyontheriver]

Like I said - it's the Bishop who makes the decision.

Some are received and Baptised - others are not

So you don't rebaptize Catholics except when you do.

 

[Anhelyna]

I only know how I was Received into Orthodoxy.

My Parish Community has received quite a few new members. each of us are taught as individuals , not as a class and we do not ask where others have come from. We have had some Received by baptism and some Received by Chrismation. What church they came from I do not know

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Catholic Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic who was Baptized in the Protestant or Orthodox 'churches'. This is because a Baptized Protestant has already been a Catholic since their Baptism; they are simply now coming home to their mother, the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church does not 're-Baptize' a Catholic, when they convert to the Orthodox Church, do they?

Catholics DO accept the baptisms of the Orthodox. Catholics ALSO accept the chrismation of the Orthodox. Catholics accept ALL the sacraments of the Orthodox.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Hello Jason,
St. Paul, and Jesus' Apostles, those other than St. Peter, all started Catholic communities, through out the world. Jesus' put St. Peter in unequaled authority over all Christ's followers, no matter where they are on earth, or who converted them.

If a person is baptized in Christ, in any form of Baptism which is acceptable to the Catholic Church, then Jesus has put St. Peter, and his Successors, in authority over them, and they are, in reality, Baptized Catholics. Many, and I mean many, Baptized Catholics reject Jesus' Authority, which Jesus put in the Papacy, and call themselves Protestants, Orthodox, and other names. If a non-practicing Catholic, who considers himself a Protestant or Orthodox, goes to heaven, then it is through their Baptism into the Blood Covenant of Jesus Christ, with His Church, the Catholic Church, that they do so.

Would it be appropriate to say that Peter was the first Pope and the other apostles were like his archbishops? If that is accurate, how does it differ from the EO position?

 

[Gnarwhal]

Would it be appropriate to say that Peter was the first Pope and the other apostles were like his archbishops? If that is accurate, how does it differ from the EO position?

The apostles held episcopal positions in different locations, but the Chair of St. Peter (the bishop of Rome) has primacy over them.

 

[Cis.jd]

Would it be appropriate to say that Peter was the first Pope and the other apostles were like his archbishops? If that is accurate, how does it differ from the EO position?

You worded my question better.

 

[Cis.jd]

The apostles held episcopal positions in different locations, but the Chair of St. Peter (the bishop of Rome) has primacy over them.

Do you (and others here) also feel that the notion of "Papal infallibility" is a bit too strong for most? I guess to some, it may sound to some like he is just given the gift of being free of error.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Do you (and others here) also feel that the notion of "Papal infallibility" is a bit too strong for most? I guess to some, it may sound to some like he is just given the gift of being free of error.

I think it's something that's often misunderstood by non-Catholics, but it makes perfect sense when it's properly taught. Essentially the Pope can only be infallible when making an ex cathedra declaration on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Erik Nelson]

When you read the epistles you see that the basis of the Church is not just correct belief, it is also based in unity, I believe you said in another thread that you came from a Protestant background, so institutional unity among all Christians was never really a something you experienced, really in a pluralistic society none of us has experienced that.
But in the epistles it is understood, John, Jude, and Peter were able to address the entire Church in their epistles, breaks in unity hurt the ability for the Church proclaim the Good News to those outside of it and confuses the faithful within it

In the days of the judges "everyone did what was right in their own eyes because there was no King over Israel." That happens to sound to me exactly like Protestantism.

The schism between RCC & EO. Appears to have been foreshadowed in the schism between. Judah and Israel after David and Solomon.

Perhaps some of the same issues are at play. Perhaps rereading the Biblical account of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, the first. Could be enlightening?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Peter is not the Messiah. Of course. No Catholic would claim Peter was the Messiah. Nor that any successor to Peter could be Messiah either.

But you miss the very context on Peter's name that you want to explain to us. Your claim is that Jesus renamed Simon a pebble. Not really. It's just that in John 1:42 Jesus called Simon by the name of 'Cephas', an Aramaic word that means 'stone'.

The Aramaic word 'Cephas' is the determinant. And the name 'Cephas' was not a gendered name. Koine Greek was a crude dialect of Greek, but it did have genders and you had to have a male name for a male. Simon, being male, could not have been called 'Petra', but had to be called 'Peter' because the gender of his name had to agree with the gender of his person. Gender was a much more rigid thing than it has become today. The gender agreement is more relevant than the meaning of pebble vs a large rock.

Point is that making Simon Peter out to be a pebble rather than some other size of rock is a linguistic mistake. Jesus called him Cephas, that is rock. Jesus may have also called him Petros, and if He did, it was to get the gender to match rather than to distinguish any size of rock. Or to distinguish Peter from the foundation of the Church. For the Church really was built upon Peter, which is what Jesus did say and mean. The other options are either double meanings (which are fine) or are attempts to minimize what Jesus said to agree with post-Reformation theologies.

How many other apostles did Jesus tell 3 times to feed his sheep? Doesn't that put Peter in charge of the flock?

 

[Erik Nelson]

The reason the Orthodox rejected papal authority has more to do with the politics of the late Roman Empire than anything else. Constantinople had become the 'New Rome' and the old Rome had become a bit of a backwater town. We see the same thing today where Istanbul is a bit of a backwater and Moscow has become much more prominent.

We can wonder if Victor was prudent or not, and wonder if the Roman side pushed the folks in Constantinople more than they should have. But 'New Rome' was politically ascendant and I think that was a huge driver of the split.

It seems obvious to me that there is also an issue of ethnicity. Greeks versus Italians, so to speak.

The Pagan Roman Empire dominated the Mediterranean. And it appears they antagonized. All of their neighbors in so doing. The Greek East utilized Christianity to assert long sought independence from Rome. The Gauls Attempted the same numerous times, even into the Middle Ages for example, the Avignon papacy. German nationalism was also transparently obviously behind Lutheranism.

Supposedly. Christian Rome has received new hearts. They have been spiritually renewed. And they are not spiritually identifiable with the Pagans who Dominated the Mediterranean. And Christians should be willing to forgive. Even as the RCC has requested.

You cannot resolve an issue without getting to the bottom of it first. Ethnic identity and nationalism. Appears to be transparently, obviously behind. Major church schisms. From classical times. Through. The Reformation until today.

Apparently, nobody is reading Saint Paul and taking him to heart that in Christ. There is no Italian or Greek no Jew or Gentile. No German or Gaul, But all Christians are ultimately one in Christ.

I can't imagine how you can resolve any issue. Without. Getting to the bottom of it first. Stating. The plane fax. And stating them in such a way. That at least nobody rejects them. Maybe you don't have to rub the other guys face in it, and make them admit it. But the truth needs to be stated. In such a way that it remains on the table unaccosted.

Ethnic nationalist identities. Appear to have transparently obviously been behind. Many major church schisms and conflicts. Which would NOT qualify as there being no Jew or gentile? Italian or Greek in Christ.

 

[Cis.jd]

How many other apostles did Jesus tell 3 times to feed his sheep? Doesn't that put Peter in charge of the flock?

i never thought of this point.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It seems obvious to me that there is also an issue of ethnicity. Greeks versus Italians, so to speak.

Ethnic nationalist identities. Appear to have transparently obviously been behind. Many major church schisms and conflicts. Which would NOT qualify as there being no Jew or gentile? Italian or Greek in Christ.

You are right. There were ethnic differences that caused problems. Linguistic differences too.

And the desire of Constantinople to be 'New Rome'. That was real. The newly created patriarchy of Constantinople thought it should be the center of Christianity, replacing backwater Rome.

And then there is the magnitude of the collapse of civilization in the western Roman Empire. Travel and communication became exceptionally difficult. Rome and the other patriarchs were practically almost cut off from each other. The communication separation allowed them to grow apart.

Sorry if I made it sound like the only problem was the desires of Constantinople to replace Rome not only in Empire politics but in ecclesiastical politics too.

This SHOULD be able to be overcome. But the Orthodox need to want to overcome it. They would need to overcome their xenophobia to do so. That will require a miracle.