Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[fhansen]

Okay, there are many debates over the authority of the papacy. Can someone give me a crash course?

Both parties agree that authority over deciding matters of faith rests in the Church; Protestants generally believe Scripture to be the final authority, while Orthodox and Roman Catholics recognize that the interpreter-of both Scripture and Tradition- is the authority, guided by the HS, of course. The question involves just how this authority is meant to be worked out.

Is authority given to appropriate councils through which men's decisions are guided by the HS? But then who decides which councils should be considered valid? Is authority given to a single living entity somewhere so definitive decisions can be made when necessary, regardless of who may or may not approve at the time? Or is that authority given to a group of living entities, i.e. bishops? These are questions that surround this matter. Some of the Protestant objections to papal infallibility are the same as those of the Orthodox. There are lots of resources supporting both sides of the issue and perhaps others can guide you to some good ones. You can start with the Catholic Encyclopdia, which generally gives a pretty fair assessment, IMO:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[WarriorAngel]

If you ask this question of Romans they say "It's cultural, linguistic, and political issues. It's pretty much the papacy and that's it."

If you ask the Orthodox they say "It's dogmatic and theological differences. It's the papacy, the treasury of merit, the distinction between mortal and venial sin. It's indulgences, it's the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Yes, it's even the Filioque."

The Romans respond with "You're just an anti-Catholic polemicist who's harping on issues that have been settled and who just doesn't want to re-unite!"

The Orthodox respond with "No, these are very serious issues, and there are others, you just don't understand why they're issues so you say they're not."

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

If you want both views of the story ask here and in The Ancient Way, but it's not a big deal. The Romans aren't going to change their perspective and the Orthodox aren't going to change ours. You probably can find old threads on the issues if you search for them.

I always find it so ironic that the Roman Popes have deferred to Eastern fathers writings for the position when dogmatically speaking.

It was the East as well as the West fathers who taught these things in the past - the Popes use their reference points.
And in context it makes sense.

Sure the EO wont accept it because they left the Church but the chair of Peter must continue when the questions arise... he is the consummate teacher - and will be til the end of time.

CONFIRM thy brethren - means to teach.
The brethren = the other Apostles - disciples - etc etc [prelates], Just as men sat on the chair of Moses - men still sit on Peter's chair.

Christ told the ppl - OBEY the Chair of Moses.

Do you NOT think He wants the same for Peter's chair - the ONE who holds the keys??

 

[ebia]

And so will my Eastern Christian Brethren fight for their right to defend their point of view

And so it continues

"You started it"

"No - we didn't . You started it "

This as usual is not going to go anywhere . It's just going to get more and more acrimonious .

POINTING FINGERS DOES NOT ACHIEVE ANYTHING

Except to make both traditions look bad.

 

[Anhelyna]

Except to make both traditions look bad.

Precisely

 

[Lady Bug]

Read some article on DRBO (forgot the name) that God wanted to reveal his message. His message was infallible and he wanted the message to be revealed through an infallible means. The infallible means must have been messengers who would deliver that message infallibly - without error, as not to lead astray. The Catholic argument is that it's Peter, and maybe it is. I'm struggling with a couple of things right now though but it's not that I'm leaning toward Orthodox either

 

[MKJ]

If you ask this question of Romans they say "It's cultural, linguistic, and political issues. It's pretty much the papacy and that's it."

If you ask the Orthodox they say "It's dogmatic and theological differences. It's the papacy, the treasury of merit, the distinction between mortal and venial sin. It's indulgences, it's the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Yes, it's even the Filioque."

The Romans respond with "You're just an anti-Catholic polemicist who's harping on issues that have been settled and who just doesn't want to re-unite!"

The Orthodox respond with "No, these are very serious issues, and there are others, you just don't understand why they're issues so you say they're not."

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

If you want both views of the story ask here and in The Ancient Way, but it's not a big deal. The Romans aren't going to change their perspective and the Orthodox aren't going to change ours. You probably can find old threads on the issues if you search for them.

Ultimately all those theological issues though are problems because of authority issues. There have been lots of theological issues in the history of the Church, the issue is how to work them out.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Ultimately all those theological issues though are problems because of authority issues. There have been lots of theological issues in the history of the Church, the issue is how to work them out.

This is an amazingly deep & profound statement on a number of levels.

 

[Adam Warlock]

But tying this to the original question: has anyone joined one Church or the other due to the events of the Schism (or other historical events)? In other words, do you join because the other side was wrong at some point(s) in history? I used to tackle the question of "which Church was right?" through this sort of historical approach and it didn't get me anywhere. The authority question replaced questions about history or current practice as a starting place for me. Just curious about others' experiences.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have found that the less historically savvy a person is - the more keen they are on reunification.
Those whom i know of told me [EO] when they saw what Catholics do [Liturgy] and saw their Churches - they were amazed at the similarity and found out by their Bishops about the possibility of reunification - they came to it as purely innocent and wanting very much for a reunification.

Both a Russian and Greek told me this. Both elderly. Neither knew a thing about the schism - but like children - felt it was the right thing to do.

And there is the answer.

Reunite - without prejudice. But if anyone is going to mock, denigrate, or insult the Pope - well i guess that's when i become Warrior.

 

[Chany]

But why isn't there a major movement within the two sides?

Let's discuss our theological differences like theological issues with an giant official council, not like children. Let's apologize for any historical offenses and shatter any myths and misunderstandings about each other.

We must push for unity, as Christ says in Mark 3:25, "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

 

[Azureknight 773]

Oh boy, this thread has become a Tradition Wars instead of knowing the reason "why"? Don't get me wrong here, I love the General (Eastern and Oriental) Orthodox Church as much as I love the Roman Catholic Church, my mother church and as far as this goes on, St. Paul would be disappointed to see us fighting each other if he were alive by this time that we have right now. Like how he was worried about Christians sueing each other by his time.

 

[fhansen]

But why isn't there a major movement within the two sides?

Let's discuss our theological differences like theological issues with an giant official council, not like children. Let's apologize for any historical offenses and shatter any myths and misunderstandings about each other.

We must push for unity, as Christ says in Mark 3:25, "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

There've been overtures made in that direction and there will continue to be. Grace will be play a large part. It's difficult to overcome centuries of separation-with much animosity and suspicion sprinkled throughout those times. But I believe we're arriving at some new shores where the reasons for separation are seeming less relevant and the impetus for unification more powerful. Neither side will budge until they're sure about it, however, as it should be.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

subscribing

 

[Eretria90]

I think this thread should be closed. While it may have started as the OP's concerns about Catholicism, it seems he was far more interested in having it degrade into "all the things that are wrong with Catholicism and X is better and perfect." In other words, just another thread to pit us against each other and trash-talk Catholicism. I thought the rest of CF was good enough for that because clearly, that's allowed here.

 

[Anhelyna]

I'm in agreement with Eretria.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

*can't figure out how to delete posts*

 

[ebia]

*can't figure out how to delete posts*

You can't. All you can do is edit out the content.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'm glad you put, "it seems" because that implies it's your perception that I felt that way; you're quite wrong. That was not my intent at all.

My intent was really to try to convince me why I should stay Catholic? 35 years of my life I was Catholic and part of me wants to be able to stay but my intellect and faith are moving toward the East for sure.

I had a good long-time friend of mine say some things to me that were not so kind, implying a lot about me in the open forum, and I had to defend myself. I still have those "concerns about Catholicism" as you put it.

My question remains: why stay Catholic and not Orthodox? If you want to chime in, I'm all ears. But I won't lie that I'm still more convinced by the East.

I think this thread should be closed. While it may have started as the OP's concerns about Catholicism, it seems he was far more interested in having it degrade into "all the things that are wrong with Catholicism and X is better and perfect." In other words, just another thread to pit us against each other and trash-talk Catholicism. I thought the rest of CF was good enough for that because clearly, that's allowed here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First of all, LOVE your avatar! I'm a Strat man myself (and Tele man)...been playing for 25 years! Fender all the way

I think any real discussions between East and West break down when the East would be expected to see the papacy as infallible and having a universal jurisdiction over all the Church. I think the East would expect the Pope to return to the coryphaeus primacy of honor that he enjoyed pre-schism, drop the filioque, and return to the polity and theological approach the East sees as paramount. The Pope would expect the East to adopt the view of church polity that was introduced in the 19th Century. I can't see the East doing that. They just loathe that "two lungs" imagery as well.

But why isn't there a major movement within the two sides?

Let's discuss our theological differences like theological issues with an giant official council, not like children. Let's apologize for any historical offenses and shatter any myths and misunderstandings about each other.

We must push for unity, as Christ says in Mark 3:25, "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

 

[Adam Warlock]

.