Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I said here recently that there is no Eastern Rite Catholicism around here for at least 3 hours from my home. And if there were, I'd still be more tempted to Orthodoxy over EC. The Early Church, from my reading and studying for the last few years, held a Eucharistic Ecclesiology like John Meyendorff and Alexander Schmemann describe so well in the book "The Primacy of Peter." The Church was conciliar, not a centralized authority structure. The Church was infallible in the context of its unity and its conciliar holistic experience of episcopal unity, etc. Bishops could not unilaterally change creeds or dictate universal teachings outside the unity of the bishops. We don't see papal infallibility invoked or even understood as a dogma until the 19th Century. While I find the pope a huge asset historically (heck, the pope was usually the biggest warrior against things like iconoclasm that helped save iconography for the East!) and a great asset against heretics, I don't see the modern papal claims as valid in my studies at this point.

My thinking at this point is this:

If the pope is infallible, the heart and soul of authority of the Church in which unity with the Holy Father is 100% imperative to maintain orthodoxy (small O), morality, unity, holiness, and the sacramental life licitly, then why is Orthodoxy so blasted holy, awe-inspiring, unified, full of depth and timeless truths kept unscathed as well as sacramentally powerful?

Look at the Anglicans. They have fallen into Calvinism, chaos, homosexuality, women's ordination, liberalism, modernism and every bizarre bit of thinking possible. Look at the Old Catholics. Same thing. Liberal, gay priests, pro-choice, secular-minded, lost. Look at the Lutherans, so many issues. Calvniists, loaded with issues.

Yet why have the Orthodox kept a more timeless, respectful, unspoiled, untainted, pure and deeply mystical and holy liturgy without the pope? How have they kept such care with regard to the sacramental life? How have they survived communism for over 70 years and the dark, sad shadow of Islam that fell on the East and yet still are unified, pure, and staying true to the councils and the historic deposit of faith? Why don't the Orthodox have gay bishops, liberal agendas, women priests, or a leftist wing of the church creating havoc? How come they never had a Reformation to deal with or a Vatican II type need to change things to adapt? Why haven't they dealt with all the liturgical abuse? Why did they endure millions of Russian martyrs and still maintain this awesome faith? How did they continue to keep their morality and their theology so potent and powerful and their witness so fresh despite no papal authority? Why were they able to keep their unity when the pope walked away from them in 1054? How have they done it?

How about being an eastern rite Catholic? Anyway, I've been reading about EO lately and the main question for me revolves around authority. Both sides recognize the need for the Church to be the final authority in matters of the faith. Both oppose the doctrine of sola scriptura. Both value concilliar decrees-the EO consider the first seven Ecumenical councils to be of utmost importance, of course-and both recognize the collective authority of the bishops to one degree or another.

But how workable is it, in the long run, for the Church to operate without a living centralized authority, a place where the buck stops if need be to settle controversies? Is it really possible to maintain unity without being organized under, and obedient to in some manner, a single headship? For all the unity in faith, there are still divisions between the eastern Churches-and it would be quite difficult anymore, if not impossible, for any one Church or Churches to call an ecumenical council of all the Churches together. These are just some thoughts.

 

[fhansen]

Yet why have the Orthodox kept a more timeless, respectful, unspoiled, untainted, pure and deeply mystical and holy liturgy without the pope? How have they kept such care with regard to the sacramental life? How have they survived communism for over 70 years and the dark, sad shadow of Islam that fell on the East and yet still are unified, pure, and staying true to the councils and the historic deposit of faith? Why don't the Orthodox have gay bishops, liberal agendas, women priests, or a leftist wing of the church creating havoc? How come they never had a Reformation to deal with or a Vatican II type need to change things to adapt? Why haven't they dealt with all the liturgical abuse? Why did they endure millions of Russian martyrs and still maintain this awesome faith? How did they continue to keep their morality and their theology so potent and powerful and their witness so fresh despite no papal authority? Why were they able to keep their unity when the pope walked away from them in 1054? How have they done it?

Well, wait a minute, Roman Catholicism doesn't have women priests and there are plenty in the east rallying for that right now.The East never had a reformation and yet there were divisions early on-mainly over the nature of Christ-that continue to keep them apart and later the controversy over the Church calendar caused division that hasn't yet been resolved. Aside from that there is no unified body mainly because national borders have generally defined the Churches, no way to call an ecumenical council, no agreed upon catechism. And some eastern catechisms disagree on doctrinal issues. And for the most part they've been isolated from much of the cultural turmoil that's upset the west, at least until relatively recently. It's naive to paint any human institution as pimple free-the EO have had their share of bad eggs, too. And councils have never been without controversy. The RCC will also come through it all fine; the wisdom behind VAT II will become apparent as the dust settles, in spite of human fumbling, in spite of liberals, conservatives and everyone in between. The Church is a living Church. We need consistency in doctrine but not necessarily stasis in how it's taught and lived out. Having said that, I like much about the EO; I know we can benefit from their teachings and traditions and am planning on attending a Byzantine Mass as soon as practical. But I wouldn't let the human side of the Church make a great deal of difference-and I happen to appreciate much of what's happening in the RCC-and what I believe will happen in the future.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you misread my post, fh. And please don't paint me as naive. I'd never do that to you.

I never said Orthodoxy is without pimples. Even Bishop Kallistos Ware has made some controversial statements. For me to believe that Orthodoxy has no sinners would indeed by naive....if I actually said or believed that. And I never said Catholicism has women priests? Not sure why you felt the need to tell me that?

What I said is simple. If the Pope is absolutely paramount, totally a necessity in order to keep cohesion, order, morality, and a pure doctrine, etc. then I'd say the Orthodox Church is Exhibit A to prove that isn't necessarily the case....right? I said they've survived communism, Islam, and so much more, milllions of martyrs in the Twentieth Century, more than any communion really, and yet they're still ticking. Go to a Divine Liturgy and tell me if you see

hand-holding during the Our Father
Protestant hymns
communion in the hand
liturgical dancing
clapping and other informalities
extraordinary ministers trying to "bless" people playing priest
lax discipline, etc.

Rare to see. I'm sure it happens, but dang rare. I've seen it all over the place with Catholicism in my life.

Also, they still maintain a valid priesthood, strong Marian devotion, total devotion to Mary being ever-Virgin, belief in the saints as intercessors, opposed to the gay lifestyle, opposed to abortion/pro life, highly ethical, against women's "ordination" etc. etc. They theoretically should be a mess without the central authority of the papacy yet they're not?

Why have they developed along ethnic lines? Simple. Catholicism did the same thing. There is a Portuguese Church, a Spanish Church, a Mexican Church, an English Church, a Filipino Church, etc. They all are under the auspice of the papacy. The Orthodox developed eastward with a Serbian, a Greek, a Bulgarian, a Russian, etc. etc. They just kept Eucharistic Ecclesiology where all bishops are equal rather than a polity with one bishop in charge of all.

The turmoil in the West was largely started in the Reformation by scholasticism, accusations of corruption with indulgences, withholding the cup from the laity, views on atonement and justification, etc. In Orthodoxy, there was no reformation and still there is none. Arguments about calendars and how many fingers to use when making the sign of the Cross in Russia can hardly be likened to the cataclysm, the all-out tsunami, that was the Reformation where gigantic European nations broke away from Catholicism, horrible wars between Protestants and Catholics ensued, inquisitions took place, drawing and quartering one another, excommunications, and all-out Christian warfare became commonplace. Huge difference. Those divisions and that calamity still lingers. Calendar arguments don't.

I think it's a mistake also to say there is no unity just because there is no pope. Tell an EO Christian that and they'll just scratch their heads or roll their eyes. Here in the Central Valley, the Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and OCA Orthodox all do things together, go to each other's liturgies and festivities, and share communion and events right and left. They refer parishoners to each others churches all the time. The priest at the Serbian parish I'm visiting referred me to his buddy, an OCA priest, online to help with some questions I had. I've been to the Greek parish where my Serbian priest concelebrated a service with the Greek priest. They share sacred icons and all sorts of things. Parishoners can go to a Serbian, Antiochean, Russian, Bulgarian, OCA, any Divine Liturgy they want and they're all respected and welcomed?

No divisions over the nature of Christ keep Orthodox apart. Perhaps you're referring to the non-Chalcedonian churches? Coptics and Armenians, Ethiopians? They broke from ALL Christendom including Catholicism long before the 1054 schism. That isn't a split within Orthodoxy but within the entire United Church before the Pope decided to unilaterally change the creed without consulting his brother bishops.

Regarding Vatican II, I think it was far from successful or wise. It continues to be instrumental in alienating me bigtime. What it did to the Church, I can't find one positive at all....

Well, wait a minute, Roman Catholicism doesn't have women priests and there are plenty in the east rallying for that right now.The East never had a reformation and yet there were divisions early on-mainly over the nature of Christ-that continue to keep them apart and later the controversy over the Church calendar caused division that hasn't yet been resolved. Aside from that there is no unified body mainly because national borders have generally defined the Churches, no way to call an ecumenical council, no agreed upon catechism. And some eastern catechisms disagree on doctrinal issues. And for the most part they've been isolated from much of the cultural turmoil that's upset the west, at least until relatively recently. It's naive to paint any human institution as pimple free-the EO have had their share of bad eggs, too. And councils have never been without controversy. The RCC will also come through it all fine; the wisdom behind VAT II will become apparent as the dust settles, in spite of human fumbling, in spite of liberals, conservatives and everyone in between. The Church is a living Church. We need consistency in doctrine but not necessarily stasis in how it's taught and lived out. Having said that, I like much about the EO; I know we can benefit from their teachings and traditions and am planning on attending a Byzantine Mass as soon as practical. But I wouldn't let the human side of the Church make a great deal of difference-and I happen to appreciate much of what's happening in the RCC-and what I believe will happen in the future.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Count how many times the Blessed Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary is invoked and adored during the Divine Liturgy compared to the Latin Mass. Sometimes the way the Mexican community in my area uses Mary as a sort of mascot really turns me off. They put her on Mexican flags and they wear t-shirts of her that look almost gang-like. I won't go into details but I think some of it is more ethnically-driven than true devotion at times. My wife is filipino, from the Philippines, born and raised, and she readily tells me that the way they celebrate Our lady of Perpetual Help here in our parish is just a cheesy excuse, in her opinion, to do karaoke, dance crazy, eats eats and more eats, and to party it up. I've watched some fairly wild Fatima festivals around here that seem like an excuse to cut loose.

Really? You're going to talk about how some Mexicans may mingle Mary into their gang life?

Do I need to talk about another certain group: The Organizatsiya?

For crying out loud, the rosary was introduced by the Orthodox. Today, with whom do you associate the rosary with?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I understand what you're saying-and it may be true-or not. We all affirm that God must run the Church and ensure that her teachings are free from error but I'm not entirely sure what, in practical terms, would be the best way to do that. Either way, how He actually does it-and through whom He does it-is still the question.

This is why Christ said to them all - in front of them all - that it was Peter that the Father chose.
The Father put the confession in the mouth of Peter to show the unity of the Father and Christ together as One Will as to whom would lead the Church.

While I find the pope a huge asset historically (heck, the pope was usually the biggest warrior against things like iconoclasm that helped save iconography for the East!) and a great asset against heretics, I don't see the modern papal claims as valid in my studies at this point.

My thinking at this point is this:

If the pope is infallible, the heart and soul of authority of the Church in which unity with the Holy Father is 100% imperative to maintain orthodoxy (small O), morality, unity, holiness, and the sacramental life licitly, then why is Orthodoxy so blasted holy, awe-inspiring, unified, full of depth and timeless truths kept unscathed as well as sacramentally powerful?

Obviously you see the importance because it was always important to have One - separated from the others for the charism to carry all.

Too many cooks, too many chiefs...et al. These expressions are not without truth. If all held the sameness in authority - the Church would have died out at the start.

Christ is God, He knows that humanity has much pride. And varying opinions. This is why HE set up one and why HE promised that that one - solely - would teach the others and keep the Church without heresy.

Too many ppl base the Pope on the ill formed opinions of men who do a disservice to the Church but it is NOT the Pope.

AND case in point - the bitterness ppl have is not the authority of the Pope - but really the men who defy the Pope and WANT and demand HIM MICROMANAGE the Church and at the very same time - not be involved as a supreme headship.

It goes without saying - the Pope does not micro manage - tho the EO claim he does. And on the very other hand - they cry foul if he does not.

Praying for the Church - since it is being pounded at the doors by satan is the answer - not running away like the EO did so long ago.

I will never agree with how the Bishops EX-communicated the entire Western Church because they - who were never able to excommunicate - felt there was heresy? Indeed, it was never their position to do such a thing. Councils - remember what they hold so dear - is what they should have done...a council.
And if the Pope - who after 500 years of doing things the Western way - was in error - then the entire Church fell a long very long time ago.

The Pope at the time of the schism was not doing anything. It was the Bishop - not even a Patriarch - who began the screams of heresy. A Bishoprick misled the whole East. And we know the entire East have hundreds of times over began heresies and misinformation.

IF it were not for the Pope - the East would still be teaching heresy and i say again, they dont know or can they know if they do today. That weas never their charism.

Yet why have the Orthodox kept a more timeless, respectful, unspoiled, untainted, pure and deeply mystical and holy liturgy without the pope? How have they kept such care with regard to the sacramental life? How have they survived communism for over 70 years and the dark, sad shadow of Islam that fell on the East and yet still are unified, pure, and staying true to the councils and the historic deposit of faith? Why don't the Orthodox have gay bishops, liberal agendas, women priests, or a leftist wing of the church creating havoc? How come they never had a Reformation to deal with or a Vatican II type need to change things to adapt? Why haven't they dealt with all the liturgical abuse? Why did they endure millions of Russian martyrs and still maintain this awesome faith? How did they continue to keep their morality and their theology so potent and powerful and their witness so fresh despite no papal authority? Why were they able to keep their unity when the pope walked away from them in 1054? How have they done it?

All the bells and whistles do not make truth. Liturgy is not tainted in the West. It is intact - even if not done in Latin.

How did the Church maintain in communism...?
WHy was Our Lady sent to the Pope to convey a message to the Pope to help the Russians? How did the communism fall when the Pope consecrated the Church to Our Lady?

Pope John Paul II 8 December Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception

Some disagree he actually did this - but communism [a punishment to Russia] fell shortly after. That was her miracle thru her Son for that consecration.

The EO may have maintained the ancient practices, which they did so thru all their heresies as well. But they pulled themselves away from the Pope. The authority Christ Himself established.

Timeless writings ascribe to this truth. AND no, this truth they deny, ergo, they do not keep the full truth. How can anyone say they do when the mark of disobedience is right there in our faces?

The first thing Christ did for the Church weas establish His headship on earth - then everything else came after. Including the Holy Spirit to guide them.
Including Pentecost.

Without that first mark, how can it be said they keep all things?

 

[Azureknight 773]

Brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, I have seen that there has been quite a hot discussion here. And it seems that there has been some "pointing of fingers" here. Alright before anything goes too far, lemme say that originally, there was just only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam) until the East and West schism (The Great Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church) and the Reform Movement.

Who's at fault? Not the Western Churches nor the Eastern Churches not even those who broke off from the Main Western (Roman Catholic) Church but to one angel...

SATAN! THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT THAT THIS BODY IS DIVIDED NOT JUST IN TWO (RCC AND OC) BUT IN THREE (THE PROTESTANTS)!!!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Satan may be the instigator, but man is not without fault for following.
Or Eve and Adam would have been recused.

The important thing is - God wants unity.

It so happens, and i provide no fault for the men today - but the fact that the emperor was enviable of the position of ROME ergo the Pope and caused the Bishop to follow his urgings - for power and wealth by attracting numbers - does not mean there is no fault in this.

Furthermore; it is no different - both a Bishoprick - as the Anglicans following the King rather than the Pope.

These leaders were not men of God. They had no rights to usurp or envy the Popes position, and yet they did and the Churches who followed by the cunning whispers - took on fault. Grave? I dont know. I pray the Lord have mercy on all of us.

I just think it needs to be stated what went down. AND the proof of truth stands on that day the Father chose Peter - with Christ and Christ made it a point to show this favor on one.

It's a heavy burden - and the Pope is often despised for the role he must take - but he cannot please everyone - especially since disobedience was mankind's first sin thru pride.

It lives on, it plays on, it has a different cast of characters each time.





-------------
AND as an aside - three choirs of angels fell out of 9 - in which the angels of principalities - kings and leaders - fell.
So with leadership is probably ten times the temptation as anyone else - exception of priests and Bishops who know more.

Knowing this - it's prudent to disallow the yearnings of secular authorities to mislead.

 

[fhansen]

I think you misread my post, fh. And please don't paint me as naive. I'd never do that to you.

Sorry, it was a general statement about the fact that it's sometimes quite human to miss the forest for the trees. Maybe that doesn't apply here.

What I said is simple. If the Pope is absolutely paramount, totally a necessity in order to keep cohesion, order, morality, and a pure doctrine, etc. then I'd say the Orthodox Church is Exhibit A to prove that isn't necessarily the case....right? I said they've survived communism, Islam, and so much more, milllions of martyrs in the Twentieth Century, more than any communion really, and yet they're still ticking.

Truly impressive, yes. The hand of God is active in the apostolic Churches. In the early Church, the west received the brunt of the persecutions.

Go to a Divine Liturgy and tell me if you see

hand-holding during the Our Father
Protestant hymns
communion in the hand
liturgical dancing
clapping and other informalities
extraordinary ministers trying to "bless" people playing priest
lax discipline, etc.

You’re pointing to pimples erupting during a small specific particle of time. And my comment about turmoil in the west has to do with those recent times, during which some major cultural shifts have occurred. IMO, at the level of the Magisterium, such influences have been resisted. Councils can take centuries to digest and bring to bear God’s intended influence, as opposed to man’s sometimes misguided intentions and knee-jerk reactions. Authority from the higher levels of the Church is beginning to be exercised and will eventually resolve these matters. OTOH, if one were to insist on Latin for the western rite, they may be disappointed in the long run. While the vernacular isn’t used in all EO Masses it is used in nearly all from my understanding. Perhaps that's not an issue with you but it certainly has been a big objection for many dissatisfied with VII.

Why have they developed along ethnic lines? Simple. Catholicism did the same thing. There is a Portuguese Church, a Spanish Church, a Mexican Church, an English Church, a Filipino Church, etc. They all are under the auspice of the papacy. The Orthodox developed eastward with a Serbian, a Greek, a Bulgarian, a Russian, etc. etc. They just kept Eucharistic Ecclesiology where all bishops are equal rather than a polity with one bishop in charge of all.

I'm not sure what their equality means, when, as opposed to the bishops of the Portuguese, Spanish, Mexican, English, and Filipino Church, etc, they have no formal or practical union-they can and have been just as easily constrained from union, in fact.

I think it's a mistake also to say there is no unity just because there is no pope. Tell an EO Christian that and they'll just scratch their heads or roll their eyes. Here in the Central Valley, the Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and OCA Orthodox all do things together, go to each other's liturgies and festivities, and share communion and events right and left. They refer parishoners to each others churches all the time. The priest at the Serbian parish I'm visiting referred me to his buddy, an OCA priest, online to help with some questions I had. I've been to the Greek parish where my Serbian priest concelebrated a service with the Greek priest. They share sacred icons and all sorts of things. Parishoners can go to a Serbian, Antiochean, Russian, Bulgarian, OCA, any Divine Liturgy they want and they're all respected and welcomed?

Well, that’s nice. And anything that brings Christian unity is truly great in fact. Maybe someone will start a precedent with the First Ecumenical Council of the Eastern Churches of the San Joaquin Valley.

 

[Adam Warlock]

What I said is simple. If the Pope is absolutely paramount, totally a necessity in order to keep cohesion, order, morality, and a pure doctrine, etc. then I'd say the Orthodox Church is Exhibit A to prove that isn't necessarily the case....right?

No offense, but saying "we clearly don't need the Pope because we're still here, right?" is kind of a Protestant mindset. It takes some major mental gymnastics to either A) admit that the Pope mattered for 1000 years but no longer does, or B) say that the Pope never mattered, with one's claim of orthodoxy as the only offered proof.

So the issue being presented seems to be this: Catholics, having the Pope, have liberal dissidents, the Reformation, and some badly done liturgies against them. Orthodox, without the Pope, have the ultimate in liturgy, teaching, unity, and everything else. I would ask, though, if they are really as unified and perfect as they seem? Did the 11 Bulgarian bishops introduce any innovations or false teachings (I don't know, simply curious)? What about the American situation, where petty squabbles prevent a unified Orthodox Church here? What about the calendar disputes (which ARE a big deal to them), or the anti-Western attitudes and mocking which are often promoted, or the bizarre Toll-House speculation? What about the semi-Pelagian to Pelagian mindset that is so commonly found there? And what about their strange and historically inaccurate understanding of the Papacy?

Sure, we have challenges. Our own issues are well-documented. I merely think that it is wrong to put these guys on too high a pedestal. Not trying to tear them down, but it is unfair to compare the worst of the West with the best of Orthodoxy, pretending that we have no good and that they have no problems whatsoever. They have issues to address, and it would be wrong to sweep these issues under the rug simply because the Novus Ordo isn't as inspiring as the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.

 

[Rhamiel]

One problem I see is, how do we know who are the Orthodox? We have Old Calenderists and differant break off groups from the EO, nothing as wide spread and as big as Protestantism, but it is still a problem
as Catholics we can say "well the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Catholic Church"
but with no real symbol of unity among the EO it is dependant on saying that they are the real church and others are not

 

[MKJ]

No offense, but saying "we clearly don't need the Pope because we're still here, right?" is kind of a Protestant mindset. It takes some major mental gymnastics to either A) admit that the Pope mattered for 1000 years but no longer does, or B) say that the Pope never mattered, with one's claim of orthodoxy as the only offered proof.

So the issue being presented seems to be this: Catholics, having the Pope, have liberal dissidents, the Reformation, and some badly done liturgies against them. Orthodox, without the Pope, have the ultimate in liturgy, teaching, unity, and everything else. I would ask, though, if they are really as unified and perfect as they seem? Did the 11 Bulgarian bishops introduce any innovations or false teachings (I don't know, simply curious)? What about the American situation, where petty squabbles prevent a unified Orthodox Church here? What about the calendar disputes (which ARE a big deal to them), or the anti-Western attitudes and mocking which are often promoted, or the bizarre Toll-House speculation? What about the semi-Pelagian to Pelagian mindset that is so commonly found there? And what about their strange and historically inaccurate understanding of the Papacy?

Sure, we have challenges. Our own issues are well-documented. I merely think that it is wrong to put these guys on too high a pedestal. Not trying to tear them down, but it is unfair to compare the worst of the West with the best of Orthodoxy, pretending that we have no good and that they have no problems whatsoever. They have issues to address, and it would be wrong to sweep these issues under the rug simply because the Novus Ordo isn't as inspiring as the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom.

There is no group of Christians I am aware of without petty squabbles. I don't think that was Scott's point.

It seems to me his point was that a common argument against Orthodoxy from Catholics is that they have no central authority to create unity.

But a quick glance shows p that to be an odd statement, they have no more issues with unity than Catholicism does. They are slightly different, but not more serious.

How pointing that out is a Protestant attitude I don't know - it seems a factual attitude to me. I think, for what it's worth, the Protestant approach to leadership is in many ways more similar to the Catholic model that the eastern model - but that is really a different topic.

 

[WarriorAngel]

No offense, but saying "we clearly don't need the Pope because we're still here, right?" is kind of a Protestant mindset.

This is what Adam was saying.
If the Protestants thought they needed the vicar of Christ - clearly they would not be Protestant.

 

[Adam Warlock]

There is no group of Christians I am aware of without petty squabbles. I don't think that was Scott's point.

It seems to me his point was that a common argument against Orthodoxy from Catholics is that they have no central authority to create unity.

But a quick glance shows p that to be an odd statement, they have no more issues with unity than Catholicism does. They are slightly different, but not more serious.

How pointing that out is a Protestant attitude I don't know - it seems a factual attitude to me. I think, for what it's worth, the Protestant approach to leadership is in many ways more similar to the Catholic model that the eastern model - but that is really a different topic.

Well, I was addressing quality of liturgy as a test of unity and orthodoxy. Liturgical abuses are presented as a reason to dismiss the papacy. The apparent Orthodox lack of liturgical abuse and liberalism is offered as an example of papal irrelevance, because they avoided these things without a Pope. What I'm saying is this: that same mindset can be found among Protestant apologists. A claim of Orthodox perfection in these areas - especially as a reason for dismissing the Pope - might not stand up to intense scrutiny.

EDIT: I should add something to this. I am entirely sympathetic to the plight of anyone whose experiences in Catholic parishes are really bad. My own experiences have been very good, so I can't say that I've been in that situation myself. But from a worship standpoint, obviously the Orthodox liturgy dwarfs hippie folk songs. I get that, I really do. I don't like holding hands or 7-11 songs either. I guess what I'm saying, though, is that personal experience or dissatisfaction is not sufficient reason to reject the leadership & unity found in the Pope. More theology is needed. And the perception of Orthodox unity might not entirely match the reality. So, if the issue of unity and maintaining orthodoxy is being debated, one needs more than personal experience and perception before one can arrive at a good theological conclusion.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have been to a few 'questionable' parishes. And i have been to some awesome parishes.
I would never judge an entire set of teaching to a bad apple.

 

[Adam Warlock]

I have been to a few 'questionable' parishes. And i have been to some awesome parishes.
I would never judge an entire set of teaching to a bad apple.

Exactly

 

[fhansen]

I think, for what it's worth, the Protestant approach to leadership is in many ways more similar to the Catholic model that the eastern model - but that is really a different topic.

In some Protestant Churches authority can center around an individual-even if it's only a 20 member church out in the backwoods somewhere. But, for the most part, their authority is scripture alone, unlike both the EOC and the RCC whose authority is the Church alone, based on Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Erose]

Honorius sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus in 634 AD with the Monothelite position to be fought for. Emperor Heracleus went along with the heresy. Maximos the Confessor was on the other side of aisle fighting against it vigorously. We are told in the "Early Life of Maximos the Confessor" by George of Reshaina that When the two sides were presented to the emperor, the emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius.

Many would consider sending a delegate to a synod in favor of a heresy to be teaching the heresy.

I don't know where you are getting your history from but what you have stated is false. The whole episode of Honorius was over a letter dialogue with the Patriarch of Constantiople. It was not something that occurred within the framework of a synod.

 

[Erose]

I guess the three main issues I am Catholic are:

1) God led me here after I asked Him to bring me into the fullness of His Faith.
2) The more I learned what the Catholic Church actually taught, I realized that the Bible is a Catholic book.
3) When I understood the necessity of the position of Peter.

Don't get me wrong I love my Orthodox brothers and have a very deep respect for these Churches especially because we have so much in common. But what I see and others may have already pointed these things out is that even though they claim that the still preach and worship exactly how they been doing it for 2000 years, they have changed. The easy examples of this is birthcontrol and divorce. But there are other examples as well, such as inconsistencies in Biblical canon, all grace is uncreated, their eventual rejection of the primacy of Peter, and the varied Protestant influences that have penetrated their theology.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I was addressing quality of liturgy as a test of unity and orthodoxy. Liturgical abuses are presented as a reason to dismiss the papacy. The apparent Orthodox lack of liturgical abuse and liberalism is offered as an example of papal irrelevance, because they avoided these things without a Pope. What I'm saying is this: that same mindset can be found among Protestant apologists. A claim of Orthodox perfection in these areas - especially as a reason for dismissing the Pope - might not stand up to intense scrutiny.

EDIT: I should add something to this. I am entirely sympathetic to the plight of anyone whose experiences in Catholic parishes are really bad. My own experiences have been very good, so I can't say that I've been in that situation myself. But from a worship standpoint, obviously the Orthodox liturgy dwarfs hippie folk songs. I get that, I really do. I don't like holding hands or 7-11 songs either. I guess what I'm saying, though, is that personal experience or dissatisfaction is not sufficient reason to reject the leadership & unity found in the Pope. More theology is needed. And the perception of Orthodox unity might not entirely match the reality. So, if the issue of unity and maintaining orthodoxy is being debated, one needs more than personal experience and perception before one can arrive at a good theological conclusion.

I took him to be mentioning those within the context of the comment about the unity of Catholicism - "how can the orthodox have unity with their model of governance". In that context, the fact that the Orthodox have largely avoided these serious liturgical and doctrinal issues, and Catholicism has serious issues in these areas, seems to make that argument a little.. unconvincing.

 

[MKJ]

In some Protestant Churches authority can center around an individual-even if it's only a 20 member church out in the backwoods somewhere. But, for the most part, their authority is scripture alone, unlike both the EOC and the RCC whose authority is the Church alone, based on Scripture and Tradition.

I think this would be a really interesting subject for discussion, but I don't know that it ould work in OBOB due to debate rules. But just as a short answer I would say i am not so sure what you are saying is true - I would once have agreed but I am increasingly thinking that is not the case - that Catholic and Protestant authority is based on points of authority, whereas the Eastern Church has a kind of distributed authority.

Though probably both ways of looking at it are too simplistic.