All Offshots Of The Catholic Church Are Wrong

[aByzantineCatholic]

I agree with all of the post so far. But, I would like to ask a question: Who is the real Church the Catholics or the Orthodox? Think before you answer me. The answer may not be as easy as you think.

I just want to hear what the forum has to say about the Orthodox.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]Who is the real Church the Catholics or the Orthodox? [/quote]
They both have the Apostolic Faith, valid clergy & Sacraments. The Orthodox are catholic and the Catholics are orthodox. A suppose a Byzantine Catholic would be an Orthodox Catholic.
I think there is a degree of union between all the Churches that have the Apostolic Faith. The Eastern churches that are not in union with Rome are just kind of frozen in time doctrinally since they do not accept all of the ecumenical councils. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to ask who is the real Church. They both are. But Christ established His Church on the Apostles and gave Peter a primacy, and the Orthodox err by not professing union with the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Of course the schism is equally the fault of Rome and Roman clergy in the past have erred in their dealings with the Eastern Churches.
The East and West are the two lungs of the One Church.

[aByzantineCatholic]

Laudate_Dominum,

Good answer...

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 14 2004, 05:35 PM'] They both have the Apostolic Faith, valid clergy & Sacraments. The Orthodox are catholic and the Catholics are orthodox. A suppose a Byzantine Catholic would be an Orthodox Catholic.
I think there is a degree of union between all the Churches that have the Apostolic Faith. The Eastern churches that are not in union with Rome are just kind of frozen in time doctrinally since they do not accept all of the ecumenical councils. Anyway, I don't think it's fair to ask who is the real Church. They both are. But Christ established His Church on the Apostles and gave Peter a primacy, and the Orthodox err by not professing union with the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. Of course the schism is equally the fault of Rome and Roman clergy in the past have erred in their dealings with the Eastern Churches.
The East and West are the two lungs of the One Church. [/quote]
I have to disagree. They are not two lungs of the One Church.

The Byzantine Church is not orthodox. It was once orthodox. Just because it's Patriarch is in the east does not make it orthodox. They did split in the Schism, and came back to union about 350 or so years ago if memory serves me correctly. The Byzantine Church is now Roman Catholic in the sense that it is in union with the Pope. The Church does use the Byzantine Rite (AKA The Rite of Constantinople) which most if not all Orthodox Churches use... but most see Roman vs. Orthodox as "Pope vs. No Pope". In that sense, they are no longer Orthodox.

The Churches which are now orthodox all had Bishops at one time in the past that taught Papal authority and agreed with it. A prime example would be St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The Orthodox Churches are in schism which means that they are not equal with the Catholic Church. They are a splinter group. A better analogy would be that they are one step down from being Catholic. They reject many truths about Christ's Church teachings, such as purgatory.

Just because their sacraments are valid for themselves (unless there is not a Catholic priest around then valid for Catholics), does not make them equal.

Many orthodox patriarchs in the past have taught heresy and then it was 'untaught'. They have not been consistant in their teaching of faith, unlike the Catholic Church which has never erred in teaching of faith and morals.

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,
ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 14 2004, 05:55 PM'] I have to disagree. They are not two lungs of the One Church.
[/quote]
I was borrowing this expression from the Holy Father.

[quote]The Byzantine Church is not orthodox. It was once orthodox. Just because it's Patriarch is in the east does not make it orthodox. They did split in the Schism, and came back to union about 350 or so years ago if memory serves me correctly. The Byzantine Church is now Roman Catholic in the sense that it is in union with the Pope. The Church does use the Byzantine Rite (AKA The Rite of Constantinople) which most if not all Orthodox Churches use... but most see Roman vs. Orthodox as "Pope vs. No Pope". In that sense, they are no longer Orthodox.[/quote]
One of the big stumbling block to East/West reunion is the Eastern Catholic Churches. My understanding is that they are encouraged to embrace their Orthodox roots and many of the Eastern Catholics that I know say they are Orthodox. They are Orthodox and Catholic. The way I look at it is that they are Orthodox in union with Rome. I realize people may disagree and I would not hold this view dogmatically, but I believe it is consistent with the spirit of the Church's ecumenism with the East.

[quote]The Churches which are now orthodox all had Bishops at one time in the past that taught Papal authority and agreed with it. A prime example would be St. Ignatius of Antioch. [/quote]
The East still holds to the primacy of Rome, the lack of full communion between the East and West is more complicated than that. In fact one introduction to Orthodoxy that I read basically presented the Church's teaching on the Papacy as the Orthodox teaching! It then presented a false idea of what Rome teaches about herself, and tried to show how Rome has fallen away from the Orthodox understanding of the Papacy. This was based mostly on misconceptions since the book actually was in line with Church teaching. But the way the Church is currently run, the way the curia is setup and all of that, is difficult for the Orthodox to accept. There is a lot of politics involved and appearantly a fair measure of misconceptions. Anyway, I think it's a complicated affair that Rome and the Eastern Churches are working out.

[quote]The Orthodox Churches are in schism which means that they are not equal with the Catholic Church. They are a splinter group. A better analogy would be that they are one step down from being Catholic. They reject many truths about Christ's Church teachings, such as purgatory.[/quote]
The excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople was lifted and the process of reunion has begun. I think it is more accurate to say that there is a certain degree of union between the Churches but full communion has not yet been achieved.
The attitude that they are a schismatic splinter group is precisely the cliche Roman attitude that has helped keep the Churches seperated for so long. I do not think this is the kind of outlook that the Church condones.
And you are right, there have been dogmatic definitions and doctrinal developments in the past 1,000 years which have not occured in the East (mainly because they don't have the Pope of Rome or the means of holding an ecumenical council (which they admit). But the schism never should have happened and Rome is accountable as well. The Eastern Churches should have been full participants at all of the councils in the history of the Church. But it didn't work out that way so there is a lot of "catching up" to do, and obviously some resistance and even resentment in the East over these doctrinal developments and dogmatic decrees. There will probably be a reunion council someday between all the Bishops, East and West, and they will have to sort everything out.

[quote]Just because their sacraments are valid for themselves (unless there is not a Catholic priest around then valid for Catholics), does not make them equal.[/quote]
Either they are valid or they are not. And they are in fact valid. And this is not contingent upon what Rome says. The Churches of the East are independent of Rome, and would be so even after reunion (though in full communion, which does not mean assimilation). There Sacraments are valid because they always have been. Full communion with Rome is not necessary for valid Sacraments. The Eastern Churches are just as ancient as Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople is the successor to the Apostle Andrew, Peter's older brother, these are sister Churches, not mere splinter groups. And the schism is just as much our problem as it is theirs.

[quote]Many orthodox patriarchs in the past have taught heresy and then it was 'untaught'. They have not been consistant in their teaching of faith, unlike the Catholic Church which has never erred in teaching of faith and morals.[/quote]
It's true that the Churches of the East are "incomplete" without the chair of Peter. The Church should be one, in full communion with one another through Peter. And overall the East has been consistent in it's teaching. There have been localized problems, but the same can be said of the West to some degree. But anyway, I admit that Rome is necessary for the full integrity of the Faith. This is why reunion is so important and why the old attitudes which have alienated the East need to be put in the past. The East and West are in fact two lungs of the Church. And because of sin that Church has suffered, and continues to suffer.
I'd say that the East has plenty of things to teach the West. Reunion would enrich both the East and West and would be more faithful to what the Church actually is.

Maybe you don't share my view of the East. But I do believe that my understanding conforms with what the Church teaches.

God bless.

[annie]

Bro Adam, good to see you here, I popped over from mylifeafter---

Mulls, how do you do, (I am new here) I was born and raised in Rowayton Conn, my dad from Little Italy of Hartford! Always happy to see a Connecticut Yankee!

You know, I am a convert from Evangelical Christianity to Roman Catholicism. I now teach 8th grade apologetics (although for the young whipper-snappers, we don't call it that, but they would suprise you-they grasp more than you would think!)

I always explain Apostolic Succession (which is what is being tossed around here I believe) with the following analogy: (for those of you who are in a higher IQ range than I, please forgive me, smile and nod):

When my husband and I would leave a sitter with our three small kids, I would write a typical neurotic-mother note (small novel actually) detailing every bedtime, every bedtime ritual, every food related need, directions for medication, neighbors' numbers, the restaurant's number etc etc. Ok, I probably spent as long writing it as we spent being gone! Man, a manual for a nuclear weapon wasn't as long. Anyway, back in the days of no cell phones, we would drive off, and that girl was in charge of our kids.
Now, everything in that note was absolutely what I expected to be done. But what about the minute by minute care of my children? That oldest one- she was a pistol. She once tried to tell the sitter "my mom lets us have 4 cookies before bed every night." Hmm, who has authority here? Yes, the note is completely authoritative. But the note is not in charge of my kids--the sitter is. She has the right to interpret the note, and the prescence to minister to my kids.

Now, this is not a perfect analogy (they never are) but Scripture, being Holy, Divinely inspired, is PART of what Jesus provided for us. Just like my kids had a present, breathing sitter, we have a present, breathing Magisterium who serves the Scriptures and serves Tradition.
As an Evangelical (and in a wonderful church, with fabulous faith-filled Christians) I came to the thought, "Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to guide us, but why are we all separated?" I believe He left us the Holy Spirit AND provided the Scriptures (the most Holy record of our ancestors in the faith) AND left us a breathing, living Vicar of Himself to lead us.

[ironmonk]

[quote]I was borrowing this expression from the Holy Father.[/quote]

I think it's a poor analogy. I think most would understand the analogy to imply that they are equal in hierarchy and authority, which they are not. That is why I disagree with the analogy.

Our Holy Father also kissed the Quran - which I also believe this was a mistake. I understand why he did it, but I can only think that he did not know that it blaphemies Christ.

Sacraments - I was not saying that they did not have invalid sacraments, I was saying that they were not equal because they had valid sacraments.

I know that the Churches which are joining back into the Catholic Church are encouraged to hold onto their roots, but the Orthodox are more than the Rite of Constantinople. There are 8 patriarchs.

A few good resources for Orthodox:

[url="http://www.goarch.org/"]http://www.goarch.org/[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ23.HTM[/url]
[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/orthodox.html"]http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ani...s/orthodox.html[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06772a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06772a.htm[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Mar 15 2004, 12:39 AM'] I know that the Churches which are joining back into the Catholic Church are encouraged to hold onto their roots, but the Orthodox are more than the Rite of Constantinople. There are 8 patriarchs.
[/quote]
I wasn't trying to use the word Orthodox in the sense of being under one of the Orthodox Patriarchates. Applied to an Eastern Catholic I think it has more to do with having an Orthodox identity. In the past the Eastern Churches have been latinized and treated like second class churches in a lot of ways. This is precisely the kind of nonsense that the Church is trying to overcome. And anyway, I think calling an Eastern Catholic an Orthodox Christian might be more a matter of preference. Some Eastern Catholics probably would rather be called Eastern Catholics. But I know some who prefer to be called Orthodox. And I think this is valid since their traditions and spirituality are Orthodox. But around Roman Catholics it would probably be good to say Orthodox in union with Rome.
I would like to hear what an Eastern Catholic on here has to say about it. aByzantineCatholic? Are you around?

peace.

[aByzantineCatholic]

I am around; I just don't have time to respond right now.

thanks

[Laudate_Dominum]

I look forward to your response.

[Jericho923]

me too!
because i call my self orthodox being a Roman Catholic, as in faithful to Tradition and Reverence...but i have an Byzentine Catholic friend who makes a huge deal about the use of that word.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jericho923' date='Mar 18 2004, 10:51 PM'] me too!
because i call my self orthodox being a Roman Catholic, as in faithful to Tradition and Reverence...but i have an Byzentine Catholic friend who makes a huge deal about the use of that word. [/quote]
Ha! That's funny. I think its fine to say that you're orthodox in the sense of correct doctrine. Catholics are in fact orthodox Christians. The Mass of the Roman Rite for untold ages had a prayer very similar to a prayer in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which prays for "all orthodox Christians". The East and West both have that word in their traditions so its not out of bounds to use it.

[Jericho923]

awesome! because i like it! now i have more true reasons to bare it!
Thank you

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Our Holy Father also kissed the Quran - which I also believe this was a mistake. I understand why he did it, but I can only think that he did not know that it blaphemies Christ.[/quote]

Don't forget that is a statement made against the Vicar of Christ. This Pope is very close to our Lady. I thought you were Catholic? What ever Pa Pa says, it goes period. J.P II is Holy, I love him, he knows what he's doing. To make a statement like is pretty shakey ironmonk. Think about what your saying!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless You
Peace

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jason' date='Mar 18 2004, 11:32 PM']
Don't forget that is a statement made against the Vicar of Christ. This Pope is very close to our Lady. I thought you were Catholic? What ever Pa Pa says, it goes period. J.P II is Holy, I love him, he knows what he's doing. To make a statement like is pretty shakey ironmonk. Think about what your saying!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless You
Peace [/quote]
I actually second that!

And I don't know all the details, but usually I see that Koran kissing stuff on websites that have a bunch of pictures with little notes bashing the Pope. Like, "here is the Pope being annointed into the hindu cult of shiva" with a picture of the Pope in India. I've looked into some of those generic, anti-JP2 pictures and found them to be flat out lies. For example I've gone to different anti-Catholic sites and seen the same pictures with different text under them saying what is happening, which suggests it's a lie. Also the picture of the Buddha statue on the altar is fake because someone put it there after Mass and took a picture and they try to pass it off as if the Pope did it.

My point is, how do you actually know for sure that the Pope kissed the Koran? I mean maybe he did. But I've never seen any proof. The picture could be anything. And actually the book he kisses doesn't look thick enough to be the Koran, what if its actually the Gospels and all this time people have been bashing the Pope? Can you prove that the Pope actually did this? And if so why bring it up like that? It was just a slanderous jab intended to discredit the Pope. It had no relevance to the discussion.

I might kiss the Koran too!! If someone gave me something that was the most sacred thing to them I might show some reverence and respect. Not for the content of the book (although much of the Koran is true, good and beautiful), but because of the person or people who gave it to me and what it represents. Obviously the Pope doesn't endorse Islam, he's the Pope for crying out loud!

And the Pope's personal decision to do that has absolutely nothing to do with the Church's official teachings regarding the Eastern Churches. If the Pope made a teaching that we should all read and kiss Korans I would have issues. But thats obviously never going to happen.