Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church
Catholic Education ^ | November 21, 2005 | GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON

Posted on 11/21/2005 11:58:28 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-202 next last
To: x5452
I am well aware the 'official word' on Catholisim I had my Catholic education in a Catholic school with Catholic education materials.

Then you wrote ...The Orthodox church has Christ as it's head. The Catholics instead have a man (and one who has long since been outside the bloodline of Peter).

I don't know where you "learned" about Catholicism, but that is not what Catholicism teaches. Peter is the VISIBLE head, the sign of unity of the Church, but Christ is the leader of the Church. It is Christ's SPIRIT that guides the Pope and the Bishops and the faithful. Such ignorance does not help matters in the reunion of our churches.

Regards

61 posted on 11/22/2005 7:31:51 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: x5452
Just read an article in another thread where the pope excommunicated a priest (somewhere in england or Australia i think) that seems like top down correction to me.

Perhaps you are not aware that the Bible itself provides for such actions. Consider re-reading 1 Cor 5:5. I guess Paul's Church was top-down, too, by your definition.

I had presumed that heretical priests could be excommunicated by their Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. If this is not the case, I believe you need to look to why the Orthodox Church doesn't follow the Scriptural precedent. Isn't it the job of the Bishops to protect the flock?

To me, top-down means orders are given from above and followed to the letter in all occasions. There is little autonomy. I see the Catholic Church as being subjected to "interference" from Rome, but the Bishops are relatively unimpeded, unless they are WAY off-base.

Regards

62 posted on 11/22/2005 7:37:52 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

The US is the relevant question for one joining the Catholic Church in the US in the midst of this struggle.

That is actually my big point. Doctrine is one thing, practice is another. The Catholic doctrine practiced in the Vatican is not the same doctrine practiced at 'US Diocease X'.

Were it a question of official doctrine alone it would be a lot diferent scenerio however when one joins a faith they also incur going to a specific parish, and associating with person of that faith. It opens one to the influence of their execution of that faith. So it is not a measure of doctrine alone it's a measure of the folks in the parish keeping the faith, the priest correcting those who don't, and the bishop correcting the priest when he doesn't follow it, or fails to address parishioners not following it.

FWIW if he was joining an Eastern Catholic church it would also be a lot different being as those churches operating both in the US and in the East have not suffered the same kind of entrenchment of these problems.

As I've stated on other threads the reason I was never baptised Catholic even though I went to a Catholic school, and largely beleived the Catholic religion classes was that it was plain to me that the doctrine in those materials was not followed by the majority.

So it comes down to a question of do I go with a church that has an official ban on contraception, and abortion, and divorce, but whenever I meet parishioners outside church they openly support these things, or do I go with the one that has the same beleifs on abortion and divorce, and an apparently relaxed policy on contraception, but when I meet parishioners they support the church's stance on these, and remind me to do things like fast during fasting periods, etc.

One must be interested in both following a doctrine that leads to the kingdom and also being in a parish headed that way, that will keep one in line when one treads off the path.

I suspect there are a great many parishs in the Catholic church like that some even in America, but certainly haven't seen them where I live.

[Further I resent the notion that the pope is the head of the church, and sinless, where as the orthodox don't call any men sinless and confess Christ to be the head of the church; that is the main difference.]


63 posted on 11/22/2005 7:42:06 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

I'm hardly saying it wasn't called for, I'm just saying the pope is in fact hands on.

I already mentioned the situation in Boston:
http://www.pokrov.org/controversial/htmon.html

Clearly that was called for.

I think you know well the situation where the Orthodox disagree with the top down application of 'papal supremacy' (changing canon for instance).


64 posted on 11/22/2005 7:49:18 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"Were it a question of official doctrine alone it would be a lot diferent scenerio however when one joins a faith they also incur going to a specific parish, and associating with person of that faith. It opens one to the influence of their execution of that faith."

But indeed, it IS a matter of official doctrine alone. Dissenters are responsible for their dissent; the non-dissenting hold themselves accountable to the officially-taught (and objectively known) doctrines of the Church. I choose to be in the latter camp, and those who choose otherwise KNOW they've chosen otherwise. Therefore, this objection is moot.

"One must be interested in both following a doctrine that leads to the kingdom and also being in a parish headed that way, that will keep one in line when one treads off the path."

Folks, Catholics KNOW what the Church teaches (or at least have recourse to find out from official and reliable publications of the Church), and they know that what they're doing is outside the bounds of orthodox Catholicism. The problem is, I can't figure out the doctrinal position of much of Orthodoxy on rather key issues. And when I bring up exceptions to your rules (you asserted there's no sex abuse problem, and I showed you at least two, and you asserted from the Bible that men are not to cover their heads while praying, and you rejected the Syriac Orthodox who do this practice to be members of a non-mainstream Orthodox Church). To everything, you take recourse in ROCOR, which appears to be more 'conservative' in its rendering of marital and sexual morality, but I've discovered this not to be the case in other Orthodox Churches. So, which way, again, do you want it?


65 posted on 11/22/2005 8:01:18 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"[Further I resent the notion that the pope is the head of the church, and sinless, where as the orthodox don't call any men sinless and confess Christ to be the head of the church; that is the main difference.]"

You've been shown that the Pope is the VISIBLE head of the Church on earth, as a representative of Christ. But for some reason you keep insisting that he's more than that. The Church has ALWAYS held that Christ is the head of the Church!

The Church also rejects the notion that the Pope is sinless. I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea, but it isn't true.


66 posted on 11/22/2005 8:03:40 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Dear x5452,

"[Further I resent the notion that the pope is ... sinlessm...]

That's good!

We Catholics don't think the pope is sinless, either!

One more thing on which Catholics and Orthodox agree. ;-)

Also, as to "top-down" and the excommunication of apostate priests, I assume that Orthodox Patriarchs hold the same authority? To excommunicate apostate priests?

The priest involved was, after all, Roman Catholic, and thus answerable to the Patriarch of the West.


sitetest


67 posted on 11/22/2005 8:11:52 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: djrakowski

It is not Doctrine alone. You do not exist in a vaccum. You rely on the fellowship with other parishioners to keep you in line. You rely on the priest to properly bless the Eucharist. You rely on the priest to not intentionally cause your children harm. You rely on all of the above to keep your family in the true faith when you're gone.

And Frankly most modern Catholics don't have a CLUE what the church teaches.

I said there was no sex abuse EPIDEMIC. 20 cases NATION WIDE. There's Catholic Parishs with that many.

The Orthodox church are not one heirarchy. ROCOR is a separate church. It was the pope who came up with the idea that there is one top man, that didn't exist until 1054. The pope is first amoung EQUALS with the other patriarchs.


68 posted on 11/22/2005 8:11:58 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"It is not Doctrine alone. You do not exist in a vaccum. You rely on the fellowship with other parishioners to keep you in line."

Here's where you're wrong. Indeed, I do not exist in a vacuum - I worship with a group of highly faithful, reverent, orthodox Catholics who are interested in following the objective teachings of the Church. This parish is led by priests who are likewise interested in orthodoxy, and aren't afraid to admonish us when we're on the wrong path.

Though it may be the case for some that they take their lead from those around them, I prefer to learn doctrine from objective sources. I am not accountable for the sins of those in my Church who choose to follow something other than that.

"And Frankly most modern Catholics don't have a CLUE what the church teaches."

You're right. And your point is? Again, am I responsible for the errors of others, or for my own?

"The Orthodox church are not one heirarchy. ROCOR is a separate church. It was the pope who came up with the idea that there is one top man, that didn't exist until 1054. The pope is first amoung EQUALS with the other patriarchs."

I'm not sure of the development on the doctrine of Petrine primacy and supremacy, so someone else with a firmer grasp of history will have to help me out here.


69 posted on 11/22/2005 8:17:29 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

The Vatican I defintion of the pope is way different than the Pre 1054 understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

The Orthodox church regards the Bishop of Rome as heretical for this reason.

As for top down, as I've said I AGREE with the pope using top down. jo kus was saying that almost never happens in the Catholic church, that they are self managed on the local level, That's why I brought it up, I wasn't weighing in against the pope doing so.


70 posted on 11/22/2005 8:36:37 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: djrakowski

If the priest does not properly bless the sacrements you're simply eating a cracker (and a stale tasting one at that). That affects you.

If your son is an alter boy and the priest molest him secretly that affects you.

You do not exist in a vaccum. There are tons of disilushioned Catholics recovering from finding out JUST HOW TRUE THAT IS.


71 posted on 11/22/2005 8:39:26 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Dear x5452,

First, I notice that you glossed over our agreement that the pope isn't sinless.

Second, you seemed to state that the pope excommunicating an apostate priest was an example of the top-down nature of the Catholic Church. Definitions from Vatican I aside, I'm just pointing out that patriarchs generally have the authority to excommunicate apostate priests. Don't Orthodox Patriarchs have the capacity to excommunicate apostate priests?

Thus, the pope's action, in this case, wasn't an excercise of papal authority, as defined at the First Vatican Council, or at any other time, but rather was the action of a patriarch. In that case, it doesn't represent a difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.


sitetest


72 posted on 11/22/2005 8:41:28 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"If the priest does not properly bless the sacrements you're simply eating a cracker (and a stale tasting one at that). That affects you."

Right. So I've found a priest (actually, a whole parish full of 'em) who are quite diligent about doing it correctly.

"If your son is an alter boy and the priest molest him secretly that affects you. "

Come now, I'm sure you know that not all priests are molesters! As much as we're in disagreement, I still can't believe you've chosen to be this nasty!

Secondly, you're speaking of a situation that doesn't affect me, as none of my children will be altar servers for various reasons that have nothing to do with priestly sex abuse.

"You do not exist in a vaccum. There are tons of disilushioned Catholics recovering from finding out JUST HOW TRUE THAT IS."

Please, please, please tell me why you keep insisting on comparing those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church to those who are not, and holding the faithful accountable to the sins of those who are not! I may not exist in a vacuum, but, my friend, I am only accountable for what is taught and held true in my household.

I'm going to say this one last time, and then I'm completely done with this thread: those who choose to flagrantly disobey Church teaching will receive in themselves the due course of their disobedience - if not here, then in the afterlife. We, as Catholics, have an objective basis of determining what is acceptable and non-acceptable with respect to doctrine, and we are held accountable to THAT and that alone! Let the dissenters have their way - those who are interested in following the faith will continue to flock to our parish as some of the others in our city continue to die, because so many Catholics are insisting on right doctrine.


73 posted on 11/22/2005 8:50:45 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: x5452

I have to disagree. The Catholic Church does NOT have confusion in its doctrine. WHat it HAS, and has had for a while now, is a tendency to not demand adherence to that doctrine by people lower down on the ladder. This is atarting to change, as Pope Benedict appears serious in his determination to right the ship.

Orthodoxy does have, on the surface, an appearance of greater fidelity to its own traditions today. At least in the West. But a good deal of this stems from its insular, national-church nature. Orthodoxy rarely even tries to engage the secularizers in the West; it cheerfully leaves that to the Catholics, with the results I've already alluded to (That's okay with me. I wish we let *you* guys handle all that so we could have been able to circle our own wagons!). ;-) But Orthodoxy, in these circumstances, maintains fidelity by a laxity in outreach. It is fidelity by default.

Let's face it. The Orthodox have never made any attempt to evangelize the New World or any parts of the Old World outside of eastern Siberia. They are too insular for that. This insularity makes them highly susceptible to xenophobic tendencies. A particularly irksome example: to this day, they refuse to recognize the Gregorian calendar for liturgical use (and some Orthodox coutries only recognized it for civil use in the 20th Century!), even though it is now thirteen days off relative to the equinoxes. This borders on simple childishness. It's benefits are denied because a *pope* made the adjustments.

They are highly nationalistic, and, until VERY recently, had memberships, even in the US and similar places, based *heavily* on ethnicity. They jostle each other regularly for pride of place and prominence within their circle, ceding a barely elevated pride of place to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the method employed here usually results in frozen positions on new issues for lack of consensus. Since they can't agree on anything much that's new to the discussion, they simply ignore it all, and live in the past.

Another factor in Orthodoxy's outward display of fidelity to the essentials is that the overwhelming majority of Orthodox live in parts of the world where secularized notions are not in great circulation. They don't need to fight them. To be fair, in many parts of the world where Orthodoxy is the prevalent Christian faith, they're too busy just staying afloat against the Moslems, or only recently freed from the yoke of communism. But all this means is that they have had to maintain a very conservative stance for survival against non-Christians; they have never had to engage in survival against heretical Christians and the inevitable secularism those Christians tend to dissolve into over time.

It is therefore only natural that the Orthodox maintain a high level of consistency in the essentials. They simply don't engage anyone in the larger world where heterodoxy tends to take root. They don't really evangelize, so they don't have to compete in the maelstrom of Christian ideas in the West. They have no one who can speak for them universally, so they live in the past, or, better, time is frozen for them at the the end of Nicaea II in 787. If no controversies exist for them from 787 that call for an ecumenical council to resolve, what do we glean from that? Either they think the Church is in a state of relative perfection, and no council has been required for 1200 years (after 7 were needed in 450 years), or they have lived in a state of insulation and denial. I suspect the latter, comingled with the hunch that no council *can* be convened, because there is a tacit admission there that the Church is headless - there is no Peter - and cannot convene one. There's "one" departure from the Faith, but I'll content myself to just gloss it for now. It's easy to keep the faith when you can pretend nothing happens in the rest of the Christian world outside of your sphere.

In spite of the foregoing, I have much respect for the Orthodox, and regard them as my brothers and sisters in almost all of the essentials of the Faith. I admire their tenacity in the face of hostile, anti-Christian forces that have surrounded them to this day in most of their homelands. I even have grea respect for them just for maintaining the entire core of the Faith (save primacy issues) even in the isolationist circumstances and instances of internal bickering I have cited. Isolated or not, they have still largely succeeded in handing down that which was received from the apostles, and I commend them for it.

But your comments on "Catholic" positions brought me to this post. I do not wish to be overly argumentative, and I pray daily for our reconciliation as the two lungs of the Church, but I will not engage in false ecumenism. Catholicism has problems, too; I'd be the first to admit them. But it is NOT true that Catholicism is undergoing a splintering in the doctrines of the Faith. Nothing has been abolished or altered in any official document. Individuals, usually lower down in the hierarchy, have spoken in the spirit of the age and the tenor of those who surround them in the West. At least the spirit of the age is confronted by them, if only ultimately in acceptance of it. But they are WRONG, and they are, when contradicting the Ecumenical Councils and the Magisterium when it deals in faith and morals, at least material heretics.

The main fault of Catholicism has been a terrible reluctance on the part of recent popes to properly control this heretical dissent. When, as I strongly suspect, THIS pope starts a long overdue crackdown on the heretical leeches parasitically attempting to suck the lifeblood from the Church in the West, can BOTH of us, East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, PLEASE heal the scandal of division that makes a mockery of the clear desire of Christ in John 17:20-21? "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."


74 posted on 11/22/2005 8:58:29 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: djrakowski

You should read up on the great schism:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism

It explains the contentions between the Orthodox and the Catholics. The 'doctrine issues' you site are a straw man. There have been eccumenical relations for years and neither divorce nor contraception have ever come up as a point of disagreement.

Further the Vatican and Russian Moscow Patriarchiate (The Russian Orthodox Church IN Russia) are jointly promoting "Catholic Values" in Europe:
http://en.rian.ru/society/20050622/40744453.html
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=567

Something the Vatican would hardly agree to if they felt the Russian church's view on abortion, contraception, and marriage differed from theirs.

The only point of contention between the Orthodox and the Catholics regards the primacy of the Roman Church and the Pope, proselytism in the East and Uniatism:
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=48502


75 posted on 11/22/2005 9:09:22 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

The bishop enforces Doctrine or doesn't that is the state of the Catholic church.

Orthodoxy does not water down the religion to evangelize. Yet it is growing and many protestants and protestant clergy are converting as well.

Further the Orthodox church came to America through the purchase of Alaska. ROCOR is the old missionary Russian church. The notion that the Orthodox church did not evangelize is silly. It simply didn't go the Atlantic route.

The old Calendar lines up for instance Easter with when the jews celebrate passover. Not the convenince of human sales seasons. There are also Catholics who use the old Calendar. Ridiculing it's use is childish.

Nationalistic but multi-ethnic. The Orthodox church is integrated into several nations traditions. So is the Catholic church for that matter. Italy. Ireland. Brazil.

The Russian orthodox Church, the largest Orthodox church operates on the territory of government enforced athiest, the Orthodox church has fought FAR HARDER against secular society. While the pope rested in the Vatican bishops were being executed for their faith in Russia. Having been to Russia and seen the church there you're comments that the Orthodox church has had it easy and not needed to change are ridiculous.


76 posted on 11/22/2005 9:18:32 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: djrakowski

So what happens in your perfect parish when the priest retires and your new priest is sent from the miami seminary?


77 posted on 11/22/2005 9:19:50 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

I said it was an example of top down exercising of authority because another poster was denying that the modern Catholic church ever does that. Again I am all for patriarchs exercising their authority. Though strictly speaking they should be doing so in their canonical churchs.

As for the sinless not sinless silliness its not the true debate. The true debate is whether the powers of the pope as outlined in Vatican I are heretical to those in the 3rd and 4th councils; and whether the pope began expanding his power unilaterally by changing the creed in 1054.


78 posted on 11/22/2005 9:23:11 AM PST by x5452
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: x5452

Do you really expect me to believe that every single Orthodox parish everywhere in the world, and that every Orthodox seminary everywhere in the world, is entirely populated by good, solid, faithful and obedient priests? This is amazingly difficult to believe.

If indeed we were ever to get a priest like those coming out of the Miami seminary, I imagine that there would be a mass (pardon the unintentional pun) exodus.

'magisterium' mentioned the evangelism angle. I should've mentioned, way back in my original post, that I've never had an Orthodox Christian share his or her faith with me. Indeed, I'm not sure if I've ever met an Orthodox Christian, other than on Internet forums such as this one.


79 posted on 11/22/2005 9:31:56 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: x5452

"As for the sinless not sinless silliness its not the true debate"

Except that you chose to make it a part of this debate!


80 posted on 11/22/2005 9:32:55 AM PST by djrakowski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson