www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the true church Catholic or Orthodox

Just skimming all this, I ran across the following from Myles:

"For example, the Catholic Church claims for instance that the Pope as the successor of St Peter holds the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and thus whatever he binds and looses is infallible teaching guaranteed by God. The Orthodox Church on the other hand denies this claiming that the Pope though Peter's successor enjoys no such powers but merely a primacy of honour. Now logic dictates that both cannot be right. The Pope cannot have Christ guaranteed infallibility ex cathedra and at the same time not have it. He either does or he doesn't and if you want the truth of the matter it is not enough simply decide which side you feel like throwing your lot in with."

Excuse me? That's not the way I read Pastor Aeternus. And I am not in the least alone.

Incognitus

Everyone,

This a thread that brings many emotions into play, and it is hard sometimes to seperate facts from emotions. A number of documents in the last twenty years have been addressed concerning differences and possible solutions to work them out. Unfortunately, we are clouding the original question with gut emotions. Maybe we should stick to facts if any exist (I will leave this to you the posters to present and document).

Myles,
I believe you should check into the documents issued by both the Vatican and the responses. I do not believe that I have seen anywhere in writing from either side that there are irreconcilable differences. If that is the case, then the current Orthodox-Catholic on the highest levels should not be happening instead of being renewed in vigor.

I remind everyone of the above rules, and that we keep our emotions to a minimum. I have also asked the other moderators to follow this thread closely to ensure that this sensitive topic is handled properly by all.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I just wish reunion between the ancient Sees could be accomplished and then there would be no need for such questions!

If I worded myself incorrectly I apologise. Perhaps my interpretation of the Dogmatic Constitutions issued by the Vatican Councils is imprecise. For sure, I cannot quote the documents 'Pastor Aeternus' and 'Lumen Gentium' word for word when I am expressing myself from memory. However, I do not believe that the substance of what I said is incorrect even if the form is unsuitable. For instance as paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium informs us:

To my understanding what I wrote in my post is not very far removed from this extract from the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church--reproduced pretty much completely from Vatican I. Moreover, to my understanding what the Orthodox Church teaches about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome does differ substantially from the content of 'Lumen Gentium'. Certainly this article on papal primacy [goarch.org] from the Greek Orthodox Archidocese of America's website seems to infer as much.

In which case we have a point of disagreement, do we not? What I originally said about the Papacy, that is, that the Catholic and Orthodox teachings on it cannot both be true I affirm once again is correct. It cannot be true that the Pope is able to issue infallible irreformable teachings on faith and morals and at the same time not be able to do so. That contradicts common sense. Either what Rome says about herself is right or its wrong, nai?

Now, I'm not about to tell anyone what they should believe. I'm quite certain most members of the board know what I believe on the issue and I only intend to justify that belief if I am asked to by someone else. Yet once again, I say to Khalid and everyone else watching this thread, that if they want to find out the truth they should find out where Catholic and Orthodox Christians differ e.g. on the Primacy of the Pope and see which sides argument seems stronger.

I also recommend watching this video from GOARCH called The Orthodox Church in dialogue [realserver.goarch.org] wherein two priests of the Greek Orthodox Church discuss ecumenism and outline where the Greek Orthodox Church stands in its dialogue with Rome and our Protestant brethren. Good viewing

Once again I hope nobody takes offence to me and if you do I sincerely apologise. I am just expressing my view that the truth can be discovered by looking for it and attempting to point to what I believe are the points of divergence, which I think are the best places to begin looking soberly and dispassionately.

God love you all
Myles

Dear Myles,

I understand your enthusiasm for the Church God Himself has surely brought you to embrace and follow for your spiritual growth.

However, let's not forget that the Orthodox and Catholic are, in essence, ONE Church, and that with God's enlightenment and help, all differences will be resolved.

Many people have opened their minds and hearts enough to realize that the differences are more compatable than one might think they are at face value.

So having said that, God bless us all, one and all!

With love for all of you in His Holy Name,
Alice

Myles,

I hate to call you on this, but in your first post, you stated that there are irreconcilable differences, which is contrary to both Churches current positions. If the points are irreconcilable, then a lot of energy and time are being expended in futility.

I do not believe that this is the current position by either the Vatican or the Orthodox Churches that are set to reconvene the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue this fall. In fact it is at the insistance of both the current pontiff and the Orthodox Churches that the dialogue be resumed.

Also in the documents cited, none stated that the situation is futile. They are just listing current stances. In any sort of dialogue, each party must present a stance before trying to meet a common ground. I can not at the moment list the exact statement, but Pope Benedict has made the pronouncement in preparation of the upcoming synod of redefining the papacy to a more historically correct role. Depending on where his intention may be, will depend on whether certain points may become irrelevant regarding the definition of the papacy, or make it less of a problematic definition to deal with.

To say that matters are inreconcilable as stated in your first post, suggests that God has no interest in placing the two parts of the church back together and heal them.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear friends,

Though I mourn with all of you at the separation of our Church, it is not a heavenly or a spiritual separation. The separation is one of earthly, human origins instead. Our current "jurisdiction" is with our respective arm, whether East or West. But there is but one God, one Faith, and one heavenly realm.

In my opinion, the separation of the Church is a human one at most. It does not apply in heaven. So we are, spiritually, one already.

I long for the same heavenly home that my Orthodox brethren long for. We will not care about the differences then.

While on earth, let us be obedient to our proper authorities, and pray for unity.

Peace to all in Christ,

Tammy

Absolutely and between the East and West I dont think there is that much difference which is why I recommended that video from GOARCH because I think the two Orthodox priests give a fair presentation both of the ecumenically situation and their position.

Believe me I'm not trying to use this to proselytise anyone hence I'm encouraging other people to do their own research rather than trying to hammer them with quotes and arguments. I personally am an avowed lover of the East and would very much like us to share the same communion table witin my life time.

My loyalty is not to Church of Rome as such, my loyalty is to the truth, its just I happen to believe certain things about the truth that tie me to Rome. As one whose culture is imbuded with the British Empiricism of the enlightenment, particularly the skepticism of Hume, I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that how I interpret the evidence is possibly incorrect.

Hume's critique of inductivity as aquired knowledge is one that I, as a Thomist, have had to ponder and I do think the old scottish athiest had a point to be frank. Although Hume himself concedes in the end that inductivity is the only way to know anything after illustrating how probability cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty, that observation leaves space for skepticism (no matter how slim).

Hence, I do not encourage triumphalism. My conclusions are directly influenced by the evidence I have at hand. But then again so are the conclusions of many arrests and its not as if the police have never jailed the wrong person (even in cases where no corruption was present). Thus, where I note points of divergence I simply counsel study and do not attempt to 'school' anyone.

This is because I believe closer examination of the evidence at hand can only aid ecumenism, because the more evidence we uncover the closer to the truth we become. As St Thomas Aquinas taught the purpose of argument is to arrive at truth therefore who wins and looses is irrelevant since all benefit in the end since they have truth revealed to them more exactly by the process of debate.

In the end it is the truth that will set us free...

PS) What I meant Fr Anthony by 'irreconcilable' is that as the teaching of Catholicism and Orthodoxy stands presently on some issues they cannot be both held to be true in opposition. Now its possible that certain teachings will undergo a doctrinal development and be reclarified so as to make them equate. Or that both perspectives will be factored into a unified perspective. But that would call for a change on both sides which would mean that their current stance wasn't compatible. For instance in his book 'The Principles of Catholic Theology' Joseph Ratzinger advocates giving the East the freedom it enjoyed in the 1st millenium. However he adds that in return the East should stop opposing all Western doctrinal developments thereafter as heretical. In the case of the Papacy, for example, which seems the main sticking point. One could thus imagine a blending of the Orthodox perspective that the Pope's juristiction would not extent to the local churches of other Patriarchates themsleves. But include the Latin perspective of infallibility meaning that although the Pope wouldnt go beyond himself and try to force others to adopt his teaching, that teaching when definitively pronounced would be binding on all in communion with him and it would be expected of the other Patriarch's to enforce that teaching in their own jurdistiction according to the mindset of their faithful. This would be an alteration of both perspectives. The Orthodox would have to admit the Pope is infallible and the West would have to admit the particular churches of the East are not his to govern only to confirm in faith which would show that their prior stances were not reconcilable though both true and had to be blended to create something more complete.

Myles,
I am sorry, but at your location you might have a better resource point then I have at the moment. What is currently of interest, and was the buzz and specualtion when I was in Belgium a few weeks back, the number of specialists being brought in, and the re-examination of the papacy, and looking to redifine ex-cathedra infallablity and its application. The Orthodox may be able to accept a redifinition, but until presented and then the theologians, canonists, and historian give feedback it will be difficult to see.

No one is trying to sell a bad deal here, but there is a hunger in this post christian society that implies the status quo will lead to the destruction of both churches.

You may be one who states prove it, and that is fine according to your training, but no matter what your implication is that God has little to do in this. By implying this, you imply that the Holy Spirit has little to do with accomplishing what may be the will of God.

No one is a "Pollyanna" here, but a spectrum of pragmatists (such as myself) to optimists. It is by God's will alone that matters change and men's hearts are softened. Remember we no longer have the Ottomans to worry about, and the Vatican no longer has the secular repsonsibilities that robbed her of her spiritual priority. Maybe now shed of the worldy matters, Issues in truth and reconciliation through comprimise may be able to work. We need to pray for those that are working in this regard that the Holy Spirit may enlighten not only their minds but souls.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

It really is important in such a discussion to ascertain, with great care, what precisely Rome is teaching. That passage offered from Lumen Gentium is simply an attempt to make it clear that Vatican II was not repudiating Pastor Aeternus. That sends us back to Pastor Aeternus.

Pastor Aeternus is carefully written in a most particular idiom, and therefore requires careful reading, familiarity with the specific background of the document, and familiarity with the idiom in which the document is expressed.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus the Inquisitive Inquisitor,

Is there any way we can link the document so that we have it available for all to read? This probably would be extremely helpful in the discussion.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony

Dear Khalid,

Your question is "Is the true Church Catholic or Orthodox?"

I don't know the answer, because I have been wrestling with the same question for the last two years.

In one sense, I think it is both. The true Church is both universal (catholic) and correct faith (orthodox).

However, I doubt if you meant only that. There are two churches being considered, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and the question is: which of these two churches best embodies the Truth?

Again, I don't know the answer because I am struggling with the very same question.

However, I am fairly certain of what is not the answer.

It is not solely holiness or righteousness. There are holy or righteous people among the Protestants, the Catholics and the Orthodox. There are also holy or righteous people who are not Christians in name but who recognize Christ in themselves and in the neighbor by the loving kindness and morality of their lives.

It is not solely intellectual. Yes, much of truth is objective; and, yes, objective truth can be analyzed by human reason. Yet, as you observed, both Catholicism and Orthodoxy make convincing and compelling arguments. Hence, as you observed, some truth --Truth with a capital "T"-- includes but also transcends human reason. For, as Christ our God taught us, He is the Truth.

Yet, the answer is not solely prayer to Jesus. In other words, the answer is not solely asking Jesus to lead us to where He wants us to be. I presume that most people who wrestle with this question (including myself) pray a lot about which way to go. Some receive definite answers. Yet, their answers can be either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Others (like me) do not receive definite answers, at least not yet, perhaps never.

Hence, I am beginning to conclude that the answer is all of these factors but that it is also chosen. Some people never have to make this choice. They are born into their religion, and they can find their way to God through it. Others convert due to marriage or other circumstances, and they can also find their way to God through that. But some people, like me and perhaps like you, must actually choose what we shall be. Why? I don't know. But, that does seem to be the issue: at least for me and, perhaps, for you. Some people must ultimately make a choice about which religion we shall practice, and the choice is between religions that are different but that are equally compelling and endearing.

How to make that choice? I don't know. I'm still in the middle of figuring it out.

There are the obvious answers: keeping the commandments, participating in the sacramental life of the Church, prayer, fasting, almsgivings, practicing the virtues, consulting one�s spiritual director, and so on. Yet, even after doing all that (and, yes, we can always do it better . . . ), I and perhaps you have discovered that living a good Christian life is not enough to make this choice.

Hence, I have come to realize that there are two basic questions to be answered:

-- Where do I feel personally led by Jesus Christ?

-- Given my circumstances, where could I best put my talents and sense of vocation for the salvation and sanctification of not only my own soul but also the souls of others?

That, ultimately, is the goal. We are to become holy for our own sakes and to help others to become holy too. Given our situations, our talents, our personalities, our vocations, and so on, the question boils down to this. Which Church is the best vehicle for becoming holy and helping others to become holy too? The answer to that question is together objective, prayerful and individual.

May Christ lead you to your answer by the intercession of the Theotokos.

-- John

Dear John,

Your answer to Khalid was one of the most beautiful posts I have read on the topic--ever!

Dear Brethren,

I have come to a point in my own spiritual path where I shut my ears to comments, whether made by lay or clergy of either the Western OR Eastern persuasion, about where Truth is and where it is not in relation to Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Personally, I just feel that such conversations and such arguments, whether here, or in churches are nothing but sinful vanity and egotism. Christ is our Truth, and there is fullness of sacraments in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. What we have is a situation of estrangement of the family of Patriarchs. Each estranged side of the family had to do what they needed to do to continue building up the salvation of the faithful and the Body of Christ..albeit a divorced one.

As I get older, I realize that it is simply a matter of finding one's comfort zone in that spiritual path that will lead to God. For some it is in the traditions and historical East and for others it is in the West.

Personally, I see TOO much neo-paganism around the world in supposed Christian countries, both Orthodox and Catholic, and a big spiritual struggle here in the U.S. Time is short and the young generations are confused and engaged in relative (im)morality. Pornography is readily viewed on regular television in parts of Europe, and is on the internet everywhere. Middle aged people say that they don't think about religion much and commitments to age old institutions like marriage are short lived. The highest abortion rate in the world is in one of the smallest Orthodox countries of Europe despite the dispensation of allowing birth control. The era of material gain and self reigns. The evil one is having his big day on the throne of these evil times.

It is time for unity, and a return to the importance of religion for the sake of the world.

Lord God, save thy people and bless thine inheritance!

In Christ,
Alice

The true Church is both Catholic and Orthodox.

Let me offer another way to look at this question. Truth is found in Jesus who is the self-revelation of the Father. In so much as a Church (any Church) reflects that revelation there is Truth there.

The "fullness of Truth" resides only in Jesus, not in a Church which, at best, is a reflection of that fullness seen through a glass darkly. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church present that fullness, each with a different understanding of ecclesial structure, but with the teachings of Jesus and the first seven ecumenical councils intact.

As others have noted, this is not an either/or question -- the question is how to reconcile the answer which is both/and!

Fr. Deacon Edward