www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Mr. "Comehome" and Roman Catholic fears

Franz,
Good job. For reinforcing your heresy. Supreme Pontiff is nothing but a repeated pagan adage. Remain in your degenerative church which encompass the best of modernism, secularism, and even water-down Protestantism. When you are ready for help call 1-800-ORTHODOXY.

Dear Robert,
It really doesn't surprise me that you've gone past anger, and to the point of malice.

From your last reply, I could write a response that would make your blood boil. But I won't, because the Catholic Church WANTS unity. And unity cannot be sought with malice. Only with charity.

From the way you have responded, you have not proven anything to the RC's. The only thing you have served to do is leave us with a bad impression of Orthodoxy.

I do not think, at this point, that you really want to debate in the true sense of the word. But, I am willing to continue. Since we are not exactly on the same ground as far as Tradition goes, I'll try Scripture again. It is true, what you said, that all of the apostles at some point or another confessed the divinity of Christ, but none so boldly as St. Peter.

It is also true that He said the words "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" to the entire group of apostles, but this was after He said them specifically to Peter.

As far as thinking St. Peter is exclusive to the RC's, that's ridiculous. As you have heard from the Byzantines, he is prime in the east as well as the west. Perhaps you schismatic churches of orthodoxy have felt he was "exclusive" to the west, because you broke away from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 1,000 years ago. That makes you an older version of the protestants.

And yes, since you seem to like repeating that Christ founded One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church- that's 100% true! But that Church is not based in Russia, Greece, or the Middle East. Much as you may not like it, the primate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church MUST be in Rome, as St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Once and for all, do not expect me to even respond to you if you give me a message like you gave the last RC. You will have burnt yet another bridge. And that goes for me too. I apologize for getting a bit sarcstic in my response to you.

Perhaps the entire message board needs to employ a bit more charity!

MichaelP,
I said the truth when I stated that the Roman Church is degenerative. I have no anger or malice towards anyone. The beliefs of Catholicism are mixed with half truth and half lies. Have you really studied the history of Catholicism?
You cannot have unity if there is no unity in the faith. Orthodoxy stands firm on this. It would be certainly nice to have organizational unity provided there is the unity in the Apostolic faith. Since this is not the case at this time or in the near future, you and I remain. I claim the Orthodox Church is the undivided Church in Christ. I cannot say the same for yours. If you force me to admit, I will say the Roman Church is divided inside as well as outside but you have the Roman Catholic polemicists to cover-up . Does Rome have grace? I really don't know and I don't think so. This is my honest assessment. I too was affiliated with Catholicism. Over time it began to resemble Protestantism. I became disenfranchised with Western Christianity. Today, I thank God that I am in the Orthodox Church. I pray for others to "Come see and taste". Actually, I love many Roman Catholics but I will not remain quiet on the topic if it boils to the surface as to the truth of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
For once put yourself in my position as an Orthodox and see reality from that view. My opinions don't necessarily speak on behalf of Orthodoxy but there is room for them.
I have posted much in these forums for people to observe my foolishness and to cause people to think about the realities. I apologize if I hurt your feelings. If you hang around these forums as I have you will know me in the limited sense. Good night and God bless.

Robert,
When it comes to the primacy of Pter, you seem a little confused. I have noticed that many Protestants are confused by the passages in Matthew because in english we use only one form of the word "you" for both singular and plural. If you have access to a bible that uses "you" and "y'all" (singular and plural yous), ie thou and you or one in a different language, then contrast the usages. Let me know if you do not and I will type in the passages and show where the problems lie. (I don't have a scanner and i don't have much time right now)


You wrote "You cannot have unity if there is no unity in the faith. Orthodoxy stands firm on this. It would be certainly nice to have organizational unity provided there is the unity in the Apostolic faith. Since this is not the case at this time or in the near future, you and I remain. I claim the Orthodox Church is the undivided Church in Christ. I cannot say the same for yours. If you force me to admit, I will say the Roman Church is divided inside as well as outside but you have the Roman Catholic polemicists to cover up."

It is my understanding that by this you mean that the Catholics are not unified in their faith, but I do not understand what you mean by this. I ask for clarification from you because I notice that you have called the misbehaviour of some popes heresy, and I suspect that here you might be talking about the disagreements which exist in the Catholic Church, but which are promulgated by people who are going against Church teaching.

Philothea,
There is no confussion on the Primacy of St. Peter. The real confussion is the papacy. The Primacy of St. Peter was not established in Rome. Please note that St. Peter was the first to make his confession in Christ but was not the only or the last one. Primus inter pares( first amongst equals) is an honorific title amongst St. Peter's equals. It does not mean ruling over the Apostles. St. Peter did not reward himself with Primacy. It must have come from his peers in communion with one another in the belief that Christ is the Son of God. It is wrong and foolish to believe that St. Peter is the Church at the expense of the other Apostles. Would anyone dare imply that Christ wasted His time by chosing 11 Apostles when all He needed was St. Peter? Pope Pius IX said "I am Tradition". This condescending thought process tears unity apart and has been in the making of Catholicism for centuries. Supremacy and Infallibility are not the grounds for establishing unity in the faith.
In regards to the unity in faith, the Byzantine and Latin are not reconciliable. The unity that exists with the two is but an organizational one. They are certainly not two expressions of the same faith. If that were the case, how does the Immaculate Conception fit in Byzantine theology? It doesn't. This is what I meant by unity in the faith. The dogmas of Infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, insertion of the filioque, Immaculate Conception, the so-called 8-21 Ecumenical Councils, administration of Azymes Alone, etc are the dividing lines that draw away from the unity in faith. If that is not the case for you then there is no reason you should not be in communion with the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Reformers.

Dear Robert,
"Sorry if I hurt your feelings"- this is not about my feelings, nor is it about yours. It would anger a heretic if you called his error to attention, but this is charity.

All I am asking is that we try to keep ourselves calm (both of us), because I've got an Irish temper myself. And, if I simply told you exactly what I thought of Orthodoxy in frank terms, I know it wouldn't get much good done. And now, to the subject matter:

Papacy is not an abuse of primacy. It IS primacy. For some reason, you fail to see the obvious.

"Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." Hmm, sounds alot like the doctrine on infallibilty to me. Christ's words, I remind you. Recorded by the other Apostles. They didn't seem to mad about it.

In regards to your statement on unity, you should never despair of unity between separated brothers. This, in itself, is a theological error.

Also, where is the unity in the East? I know for a fact that the Orthodox are as divided over little bits of doctrine as the thousands of Protestant Churches are!

Another thing- why refer to Byzantine theology as though you were one? You are Orthodox. The Byzantines are not schismatics, and submit to the direction of the Holy Father. I realize that the Byzantines may call themselves orthodox at times, but this distinction needs to be made, especially with this debate.

And I wouldn't act as though we were the ones so close to Protestantism. Most of the Orthodox priests in the U.S., as I'm told, are converted protestant ministers. The reason they joined up with the Eastern schismatics instead of "crossing the Tiber", is, for one thing, because they were drawn to the Catholic fullness of truth, but held back from the Holy Spirit, simply out of fear of accepting the Papacy, a thing which protestants are CONDITIONED to hate. Here Orthodoxy and Protestantism join hands.

You criticize a past pope- who is BLESSED Pius IX, thank you very much. But the thing is- his position IS tradition! Many orthodox Patriarchs recognize the papacy, but simply refuse to submit! They say they do not agree with how the Pope runs his position- and he asked for suggestions! Yet are they pouring in yet?

And, the Catholic Church, to which the Byzantines belong, is THE One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The orthodox are, no matter how much this may anger you, only schismatics. They split away from us a thousand years ago.

When the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated eachother, it began- but the Patriarch didn't even have the authority to do this, the Holy See being a higher authority than the Patriarchate of Constantinople!

You ask me to see it from your perspective. Ok, here goes. Let me pretend for a minute that I'm an Orthodox gentleman.

___________________________________________
I live in a community with an extremely rich liturgy and tradition, with very much reverence. But it is a localized community. The local bishop is as high as it gets. I happen to travel to another bishop's area. There are slight variations in doctrine and liturgy. I travel on to another bishop's area. Still more divisions. Then another- more divisions.

Somewhere along the lines, I travel west. I find a parish which seems much more simple in some ways, and yet, just as beautiful in it's tradition(for example, the extreme detail carved into marble for the better statues). I go into another western bishop's diocese- and I am shocked to find that it is the same as the last diocese! Upon traveling the western world, I cannot find division among those who are in union with the Pope! Suddenly, the world of the orthodox church begins to appear more and more like many little churches, instead of the One, True Church- for where is it's Oneness I always saw before?

The Roman art is lighter, less cluttered. The consecration is not screened off from the congregation- which interestingly reminds me that the temple curtain, which blocked the people off from the Holy of Holies, was torn in two when Christ died. I find much of it is based on the Book of Revelation.

Wondering where these Romans come up with their divisions with the East, especially "filioque", and the Immaculate Conception, I look into their "Doctors of the Church". I am delighted by the brilliance of such men as St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine. Moving to later generations, I find St. Teresa of Avila, whose contemplation is among the most beautiful things I have read. Moving even later, I stumble upon a young French nun from a town called Lisieux. In her autobiography, I find childlike beauty in a way that completely changes the orthodox view of the Church! I am astounded at all these findings!
____________________________________________

How's that? Perhaps it's you who needs to explore the Catholic Church more! And I'm not asking you to become RC. You can keep your beloved Eastern Tradition- but you do not need to belong to a schismatic church in order to do so! And I encourage you to read up on the Catholic Doctors of the Church- they might just clear things up as to why we believe such things as "filioque" and the Immaculate Conception!

You see, Robert, debate does not have to be like grumpy old men fist fighting.

Remember when Christ prayed "that they may be one". We should desire unity, Robert. Debate is not just an argument. And again, this is not about my "feelings"

In Him,
Mike

For Michael,

A parable about infallibility

Travelling from Nome, Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, Chile

I'm travelling from Nome to Tierra del Fuego. It is one heck of a long and tortuous trip and I'm very concerned about my vehicle being able to make the trip. However, my mechanic is "infallible" when making declarations about internal combustion engines and automotive maintenance for all vehicles everywhere. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate that he has ever made a mistake, at least if we go with the criterion as he and his lawyers have defined it. He assures me that if I do everything that he says, I'll make the trip successfully. He also warns me that if I deviate from anything he says, I'll be nearly certain of not making it. In fact, he said that even if I don't believe he is infallible, I won't make it. I don't know what that has to do with vehicles, but, he is the chief mechanic. I really want to trust him, after all, he is infallible when making declarations about internal combustion engines and automotive maintenance for all vehicles everywhere.

However, in the past he has been known to do things like tell someone to fill up a customer's gas tank with water. He was the chief mechanic, so the other mechanics had to listen or get fired. Another time, he told a new guy to use Hershey's syrup to replace the brake fluid which of course the new guy had to obey or be fired. Later, he made some universal statements that you should never use Hershey's syrup to replace brake fluid. It seems to me that he contradicted himself by saying to use Hershey's syrup in one place, and then to never use Hershey's syrup later. My friends, who trust the mechanic, assure me that it is not a contradiction and the problem is with me. They say that the Hershey's syrup *incident" was a local scope and it should not affect my trust in the mechanic. They say in his universal statements, it cannot be proven that he ever contradicted himself, therefore he is infallible when making declarations about internal combustion engines and automotive maintenance for all vehicles everywhere.

My friends say I have to trust the mechanic if I want to make it to Tierra del Fuego. After all, his great great great grandfather was the chief mechanic for Henry Ford. When Henry passed on, he entrusted the great great great grandfather and his descendants to be the chief mechanic. The chief mechanic is a descendant of the original chief mechanic. He can be trusted my friends say, after all, he is infallible when making declarations about internal combustion engines and automotive maintenance for all vehicles everywhere.

I sure hope my Ford Explorer can make it. Well, at least I'm not driving a Pinto...

MichealP writes:

> Let me pretend for a minute that I'm an
>Orthodox gentleman.

<snipe>
=============================================
Ok let me pretend for a minute I'm a Western Rite Roman Catholic gentleman. I want to go to Mass so I enter the nearest RCC. And low and behold! I'm witness to a clown mass in progress. I'm not into clowns so I decide to go the another RCC a mile down the road which just happens to be in a Polish neighborhood. And low and Behold I walk in on a polka mass. Since I'm not a Slav I leave for still another RCC. This one is in a spainish neighborhood. And low and behold I'm witness to a guitar & mirachi band mass. So what is this poor white Anglo Saxon American orientated Roman Catholic to do? Am I to search until I find a square dance mass?
Oh well, I'll just skip mass and concentrate on the Roman Catholic discussion boards. Well, what do we have here? Roamn Catholics arguing with Byzantine Catholics over the authority of the Pope, his infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Indulgences, Supremacy, Fillioque, etc. Byzantine Catholics arguing with each other over what they are required to believe if they are in union with Rome, etc.
GET MY POINT!
In case not, it's clean up your own mess before you start judging ours. There isn't one thing you said about us that can't be found within your own church to a greater or lessor degree.

A proud Orthodox semi lurker,
Bob

MichaelP,
I hate to say this but you are an uneducated person. If you knew the issues that divide us your written post would be unnecessary. I know we can get a little excited about our beliefs. As to the Orthodox understanding of Primacy it certainly is not papacy or else we would be in communion with Rome. Thank God that the Church does not rest in one bishop's hand as it is the case for you.
Orthodoxy is not divided. I do maintain that this is the language of the heretical West which you proudly serve. The thousands of Protestant Churches are the byproduct of Catholicism. They have their popes and councils. As to those Protestants who returned to Orthodoxy they discovered the true Church. If they thought it was Rome they would have returned to Rome. Why didn't they? Not because of malice and hatred but because of their love for the truth. They as former Protestants see an inherent heresy in Catholicism and the papacy. I certainly do not blame them. Perhaps if Rome were to clean up her act through repentance and restoration she may be honored and respected.
In regards to Byzantine theology it really is Orthodox theology. The Byzantine Catholics inherited it from Orthodoxy after they separated. The Byzantine Catholics know they must return to to the fullness of the Orthodox Church and not into submission to a pope not in communion with Orthodoxy.
I have experienced and seen the demise of Catholicism and Protestantism that I would never even consider them. They need help. They need the mind & Body of Christ which is essentially the Orthodox Church.
The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church in Christ. As for those who call themselves a Church they are but runaway ancient heresies. It's kind of ironic to see history repeat herself in truth and lies.
I can only suggest to you is that you do your homework before you post unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims as you posted. It won't do you any good if we become embroiled in a namecalling contest about who is the schismatic. If your idea of submitting to the Pope saves me according to your Western limited perspective then I chose "heresy". I think my "heresy" is the anidote that can save your papacy which crys out in the middle of the night for a lung transplant.

While the analogy he uses is not perfect, Robert Tallick does make excellent points. MichalP's post appears to be written from a triumphalist, older Roman Catholic approach rather than the more conciliatory approach taken by Rome since Vatican II.

Passing by MichaelP's post for the moment, I would submit two points for consideration on the issues raised by Robert Takkick:

1) There has never been a time in the history of the Church when there has not been at least one controversy being debated within the Church. Many Orthodox (most often the converts) like to think that Orthodoxy has been kept freed from the controversial issues that the West has been addressing over the last few centuries. They don't realize that the reason Orthodoxy has not had to face these issues (like modernism, etc.) is simply because Orthodoxy has undergone almost constant persecution since the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453. When one is persecuted, survival becomes the only issue. Only now that some of the Orthodox Churches are more free (especially the Slavic Churches) will these issues rise to the surface and demand attention. It was either Fr. Meyendorff or Fr. Schmemann who talked about only beginning to understand the essentials of what it meant to be Orthodox after leaving the persecution of the communists and having to set up an Orthodox chapel in a garage. Schmemann also understands that Orthodoxy will need to address many of the same issues the West has been addressing. But this won't happen until there is a great deal of healing and spiritual growth within Orthodoxy as it continues to move from the survival phase to the growth phase. And since there is no vehicle within Orthodox to address these issues across the various partriarchates, facing them will be even more difficult than it has been in the West.

2) There clearly is an in-house debate between Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics. This is quite natural given the triumphalist attitude within Roman Catholicism over the last thousand years that is only now waning. Both Roman Catholics and Byzantine Catholics need to learn to present our respective ways of doing theology in manners that acknowledges that they are both Catholic, and show how one completes the other but without insisting on using either as the measuring stick of Catholic theology. It doesn't always seem like it, but great progress has already been made on this front in the last few generations. It will take several more generations before this progress is measurable.


One additional comment on Robert Tallick's analogy. Many of the current issues plaguing Roman Catholic liturgical life in North America today are not unknown to Orthodoxy. I know folks who are Ukrainian Orthodox who will not go to an OCA parish because they have 'caved' and now use English rather than Slavonic or Ukrainian. Or people from the OCA who won't go to a Greek parish because they don't know Greek. The solution for both Churches is to witness the excellent liturgical tradition already present within those Traditions. For the Orthodox it means using English. For the Roman Catholics, it means rejecting the newer, flaky stuff and returning to their own rich musical tradition (and be clear that I am not saying should return to the Tridentine Mass).

Moose:

Regarding your most recent post. As far as #1 I would have to agree with approximately 98%. As far as #2 couldn't disagree more. Trying to reconcile eastern christian theology & western christian theology on certain issues is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole of the same size.

Regarding your additional comment. You are comparing apples with oranges. The difference is that no matter what church or Orthodox jurisdiction we attend the Liturgy in, or what lanquage it's being served in, we will be able to recognize it and more importantly follow it. Because it will be the exact same Liturgy. Even though the music may sound foreign and the language may sound foreign.

Mr. Tallick: Does the same liturgical uniformity also apply to the Western-rite Orthodox parishes? And if Jacobites or Armenians were reconciled to the Orthodox Church, would they be permitted to retain their ancient rites or would they be forced to adopt the Byzantine liturgical rites?

Robert T.,

We will have to agree to disagree on item #2. Traditionally, Orthodoxy has taken issue with specific Roman Catholic expressions of theology, with the current modality of the papacy being the biggest difference. Orthodoxy, however, has never concluded that the entire Latin way of doing theology itself is faulty. I've studied patristics and as well as most of the more modern Orthodox Church Fathers (Lossky, Ouspensky, Meyendorff, Schmemann and etc.). In apologizing the Orthodox view against the Roman Catholic view, none of these fathers engage in a wholesale condemnation of all of Roman Catholicism, but rather focus on specific aspects of disagreement. Even St. Mark of Ephesus attacked what he saw as specific points of heresy, and not the entire Latin way of living the Gospel. The differences the Eastern and Western ways of doing theology are much more profound today then in apostolic times, but the roots of these different approaches do indeed extend from the first days of the Church. They were not insurmountable in the first millennium and should be reconcilable today. Since all of the canonical Orthodox Churches participate (to various extents) in the ecumenical talks with Rome, one can only conclude that they do not consider the obstacles to be unresolvable.

Regarding the additional comment, I would humbly submit that the liturgical abuse in some of the Roman Catholic parishes is still a very small percentage. I travel frequently on business and when I do encounter the Roman Catholic Mass it is usually fairly well done. The oftentimes blandness I see is the result of laziness by those who are celebrating and not that of a poor liturgical / theological tradition. I don't discount Greek Orthodoxy because of the poor organ playing I have encountered in Greek Orthodox parishes. Finally, the differences in a Polish Polka Mass and a Hispanic Mirachi Band Mass are cultural and not sufficient enough for the average layperson not to be able to figure out that the central action is both cases is the Roman Catholic Mass.

I do wholeheartedly agree that both of us have much work to do in our own local Churches.

Moose writes:

[I do wholeheartedly agree that both of us have much work to do in our own local Churches.]

So do I Moose. So do I. That was the point I was trying to make to MichealP.

So we have a common agreement to build on. Ain't bad for a start.

Bob

[Mr. Tallick: Does the same liturgical uniformity also apply to the Western-rite Orthodox parishes? And if Jacobites or Armenians were reconciled to the Orthodox Church, would they be permitted to retain their ancient rites or would they be forced to adopt the Byzantine liturgical rites?]

Yes, as long as they conformed to Orthodox Theology and were approved by the local Bishop or synod of Bishops.

The one thing it wouldn't be is 'lets make it up as we go along Liturgy' or 'lets sit down and write this Sundays Liturgy and make it appeal to the teenage crowd', etc. That was the point I was trying to make.