Author Topic: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims  (Read 3204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mercurius1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« on: November 16, 2018, 09:40:32 AM »
There seem to be a lot of claims for papal supremacy, etc., what if I was wrong to leave the RC for Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy feels more "right", but, what if Roman Catholicism is correct and is just going through a rough time post-VII. I would love for someone to help calm my worries

**This should be moved to Convert Issues**
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 09:41:21 AM by Mercurius1 »

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 340
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2018, 11:15:26 AM »
What are your thoughts on the Roman Catholic idea of development of doctrine?

If you don't believe that to be correct, then it is easier to understand why their papal claims are wrong. Just within the last 120 years, you have popes assigning to themselves infallibility (followed then by the promulgation of at least two infallible decrees), the ability to install and depose all the bishops in the world, and the sole authority to approve the liturgy throughout the world.

Even Roman Catholics have to concede that these sorts of things are a development of the papal doctrine since they are certainly unknown until after 1890 or so. It's also worth noting that, before Vatican I, there was a lot of debate about whether infallibility was correct, which again demonstrates that it is a development.

If the development of doctrine idea is wrong, then the papal claims lose support. This is a way to conceive of the issue without having to dig through prooftexts from the Fathers. I hope it helps you.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,000
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2018, 02:20:47 PM »
Here, some simple and easy materials for you to explore.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 02:21:38 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline platypus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2018, 07:46:49 PM »
If you want a very long, but very in-depth study on the subject, His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck is an excellent read. Roman Catholics attempting to prove the Papal claims tend to cherrypick Church Father quotes to support their doctrines, taking them wildly out of context. Fr. Laurent goes through the commonly used quotes supposedly in favor of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, showing them in the context of the saints writings as a whole. It's very detailed and very good.

I am also a former Roman Catholic, and the papal claims were at one point very convincing to me. Reading about Church history changed that. The post-Vatican I monarchial papacy didn't exist in the first few centuries of Christianity, and seeing how the Church actually operated is immensely helpful. I liked The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology by Fr. Leo Donald Davis. He's a Jesuit, and one of his goals in writing the book was to demonstrate the authority of the Bishop of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. But instead, the Church from the 4th to the 8th century that he describes is a federation of self-governing Churches who see themselves as having the authority to determine doctrine doctrine, or excommunicate each other. No different from the Orthodox Church today, but quite different from the very organized Roman Catholic Church.

The first president of the second Ecumenical Council, St. Meletius, wasn't even in communion with Rome. And it was at this council that the phrase "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" was added to the creed. Cardinal Newman wrote that "to learn history is to cease to be Protestant" and after learning the history of the Church I feel the same way about Catholicism.

After their split from Orthodoxy, the Roman Church had to completely revise their code of canon law to give all the power to the pope. Previously they used the conciliar canon law established by the Orthodox Church in the first millennia, because they used to be Orthodox. This was called the Gregorian Reforms, and it's easily verifiable history. Compare the mostly episcopalian church government from the Ecumenical Councils to the current rule of law in the Roman Church and the difference is tremendous. All the authority that was spread out in the Church of the first millennia, like the ability to choose a bishop, or canonize a saint, or determine doctrine, the Roman Church gives to the Pope. It's a system of church government foreign to the Church Fathers.

Even with the Gregorian Reforms, the Papal claims weren't fully accepted even in the Roman Church. In the 14th century, Pope John XXII wrote an enciclycal, Quia Quorundam, where he bashed the idea of papal infallibility and said it's supporters were following "the father of lies."

Papal monarchy didn't fare well either. In the 15th century, three different men were simultaneously Pope, each one the leader of their own Roman Catholic Church. The three churches finally got sick of it and called the Council of Constance. They fixed the schism by firing two of them, making one resign, and electing a new one. They furthermore defined that the general assembly of bishops has power over the entire Church, even the pope. Pope Martin V, the newly elected pope, issued the encyclical Inter Cunctas where he made acceptance of the council a requirement. At this point in history, the official teaching of Roman Catholicism was that the Pope was subordinate to the bishops. Not only was it the offical teaching, it was the teaching that saved them from schism when Papal monarchy couldn't.

When the English government was considering Catholic Emancipation, the RC bishops in England swore up and down to the English government that the pope was not infallible. Their catechism even labeled papal infallibilty as a lie spread by Protestants to undermine the Church. It wasn't until Vatican I that it became the new official Catholic teaching.

The Papal dogmas don't seem to be helping the Roman Catholics one bit, either. They appeal to a logical mindset: you have a seemingly clear way to determine the truth. But ask various different Catholics which papal statements meet the requirements for infallibility and you'll get as many answers as there are Catholics. Not to mention the vast number of blatantly contradictory statements. Sedevacantist websites are great for helping you find this material.

Orthodoxy is the Church. We've kept the same customs, the same conciliar Church government, the same spirituality. Roman Catholicism hasn't.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2018, 09:29:55 PM »
Go to the "articles" section on the home page of this website  and read the article "The Vatican Dogma." In fact I found this forum because of that article because I had been reading a book and someone referenced the article. So then I decided to read the article and realized it was attached to the overall forum website and eventually submitted for membership here. Anyway, you may enjoy the article if you have not read it before.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2018, 09:30:28 PM by noahzarc1 »
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2018, 09:46:38 PM »
If you want a very long, but very in-depth study on the subject, His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck is an excellent read.

I think you recommended this book before and I forgot to write it down. I just ordered it so I wouldn't forget and I look forward to reading it. Thanks for the suggestion.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2018, 10:36:08 PM »
There seem to be a lot of claims for papal supremacy, etc., what if I was wrong to leave the RC for Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy feels more "right", but, what if Roman Catholicism is correct and is just going through a rough time post-VII. I would love for someone to help calm my worries

**This should be moved to Convert Issues**
Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity
of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built,
can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). Irenaeus writes: "Where
the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession
from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who ...are the guardians of our faith...and
securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor
anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple
and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious
martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first
he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of
Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,269
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2018, 10:43:25 PM »
Polemics are no welcome in the Convert Issues forum, sedevacantist.  Please review the RULES section if you're not sure why.  And if you feel you need to start a thread in the Orthodox-Catholic forum, you're free to do so.  --Ainnir
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2018, 10:46:49 PM »
Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jud. 3)... This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words... through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities... For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfilment in her.”

“It is disastrous to suppose that the Church does not know God as He really is;... for if She declined one iota from perfection, such would be a blot on Her unblemished Faith, destroying the beauty of the whole with that single wrinkle. A thing is not small when it leads to something great; and it is no small matter to forsake any detail belonging to the Church’s ancient Tradition which has been upheld by all those who were called before us, whose conduct we should admire and whose faith we should imitate.” – St. John of Damascus 7th century A.D Defense of the Divine Icons.

Development of doctrine is astonishing. It implies that the Holy Fathers knew more than the Apostles, the Scholastics more than the Holy Fathers, and most Catholics today more than the Scholastics. When a new dogma is declared, if someone previously did not believe in x dogma they were a good Catholic, but then they are transformed into a bad Catholic after the declaration of dogma.

Now for infallibility and universality of the Roman diocese:

"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."

The Pope is literally called the Universal Bishop and that's not an honorary term, and Gregory and his predecessors denied even the honorary term.

What he predicts, about how if one Bishop is supreme then no other Bishop is actually a Bishop, is shockingly true in Catholicism today. Bishops are, as I said above, an advisory committee to the Pope. Even the most supreme Bishops, the Cardinals, are advisors and bureaucrats below him.

“Only the Roman Pontiff is rightly called universal; the Pope can be judged by no one; no one can be regarded as a catholic who does not agree with the Roman church; the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time; the Roman Church was founded by Christ alone; the Pope alone can depose and restore bishops; he alone can make new laws, set up new bishoprics, and divide old ones; he alone can translate bishops to another see; he alone can call general councils and authorize canon law; he alone can revise his own judgements; his sentence cannot be repealed by anyone and he alone can review the judgements of all; he alone can use the imperial insignia; he can depose emperors; he can absolve subjects from their allegiance to impious rulers; the Pope is the only man to whom all princes bend the knee; all princes should kiss his feet; his legates, even those in inferior orders, have precedence over all bishops; an appeal to the papal court inhibits judgement by all inferior courts; a duly ordained pope is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.”

How does this square with the statements of Gregory I? What Church Fathers are not against t that statement?

And a common Roman response would be that it wasn't said infallibly. Now for Papal Infallibility.

The dogma is either heresy or fundamentally useless and so miniscule that it doesn't matter at all. Papal Infallibility is reduced by most lay and ordained Romans to mean "The Pope is Infallible when he is right". The other definition many people take is the Pope has to state something very authoritatively : like the ending of Humanae Vitae and this statement from Vatican I by the Pope.

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” “...it came to pass in the secret design of God’s providence that We were chosen to fill this Chair of St. Peter and to take the place of the Person of Christ Himself in the Church...”

This is why this dogma is broken. No person is Jesus Christ on Earth, no person is the actual person of Christ who speaks for him. Pius IX meant that by this dogma. He said that when the Pope speaks, Christ speaks. Like the Pope is Jesus Christ in the flesh. This was said in response to a dissenting Bishop on Infallibility.

Mods, please remove if this is too polemical
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,599
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2018, 12:11:09 AM »
I am also a former Roman Catholic, and the papal claims were at one point very convincing to me. Reading about Church history changed that... Cardinal Newman wrote that "to learn history is to cease to be Protestant" and after learning the history of the Church I feel the same way about Catholicism.
It was also my case, through learning Church history.  However, my eyes were open when reading Rome and the Eastern Churches, by the Catholic scholar of Oxford, the Dominican Fr. Aidan Nichols.  His subject wasn't even the papacy, but history, and it became clear to me that the papal prerogatives had no historical basis for a whole millennium.  From there, it didn't take too long for the Catholic apologetic scales to fall off my eyes to understand the Church Fathers in their own terms, rather than through Catholic lenses.

What he predicts, about how if one Bishop is supreme then no other Bishop is actually a Bishop, is shockingly true in Catholicism today. Bishops are, as I said above, an advisory committee to the Pope. Even the most supreme Bishops, the Cardinals, are advisors and bureaucrats below him.
If Latin Catholics still had chorbishops around, like their brethren Eastern Catholics do, they'd realize that only the pope is a bishop and the other bishops are actually chorbishops, or literally second class "country bishops".

Papal Infallibility is reduced by most lay and ordained Romans to mean "The Pope is Infallible when he is right". The other definition many people take is the Pope has to state something very authoritatively : like the ending of Humanae Vitae and this statement from Vatican I by the Pope.
However, PP JPII used the same formal statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the impossibility of the ordination of women and yet even the Holy Office is wishy-washy about it.  Which begs the question why the Holy Office would have to confirm what popes state if he's a supreme and infallible teacher...
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Mercurius1

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2018, 11:20:37 AM »
If you want a very long, but very in-depth study on the subject, His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck is an excellent read. Roman Catholics attempting to prove the Papal claims tend to cherrypick Church Father quotes to support their doctrines, taking them wildly out of context. Fr. Laurent goes through the commonly used quotes supposedly in favor of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, showing them in the context of the saints writings as a whole. It's very detailed and very good.

I am also a former Roman Catholic, and the papal claims were at one point very convincing to me. Reading about Church history changed that. The post-Vatican I monarchial papacy didn't exist in the first few centuries of Christianity, and seeing how the Church actually operated is immensely helpful. I liked The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology by Fr. Leo Donald Davis. He's a Jesuit, and one of his goals in writing the book was to demonstrate the authority of the Bishop of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. But instead, the Church from the 4th to the 8th century that he describes is a federation of self-governing Churches who see themselves as having the authority to determine doctrine doctrine, or excommunicate each other. No different from the Orthodox Church today, but quite different from the very organized Roman Catholic Church.

The first president of the second Ecumenical Council, St. Meletius, wasn't even in communion with Rome. And it was at this council that the phrase "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" was added to the creed. Cardinal Newman wrote that "to learn history is to cease to be Protestant" and after learning the history of the Church I feel the same way about Catholicism.

After their split from Orthodoxy, the Roman Church had to completely revise their code of canon law to give all the power to the pope. Previously they used the conciliar canon law established by the Orthodox Church in the first millennia, because they used to be Orthodox. This was called the Gregorian Reforms, and it's easily verifiable history. Compare the mostly episcopalian church government from the Ecumenical Councils to the current rule of law in the Roman Church and the difference is tremendous. All the authority that was spread out in the Church of the first millennia, like the ability to choose a bishop, or canonize a saint, or determine doctrine, the Roman Church gives to the Pope. It's a system of church government foreign to the Church Fathers.

Even with the Gregorian Reforms, the Papal claims weren't fully accepted even in the Roman Church. In the 14th century, Pope John XXII wrote an enciclycal, Quia Quorundam, where he bashed the idea of papal infallibility and said it's supporters were following "the father of lies."

Papal monarchy didn't fare well either. In the 15th century, three different men were simultaneously Pope, each one the leader of their own Roman Catholic Church. The three churches finally got sick of it and called the Council of Constance. They fixed the schism by firing two of them, making one resign, and electing a new one. They furthermore defined that the general assembly of bishops has power over the entire Church, even the pope. Pope Martin V, the newly elected pope, issued the encyclical Inter Cunctas where he made acceptance of the council a requirement. At this point in history, the official teaching of Roman Catholicism was that the Pope was subordinate to the bishops. Not only was it the offical teaching, it was the teaching that saved them from schism when Papal monarchy couldn't.

When the English government was considering Catholic Emancipation, the RC bishops in England swore up and down to the English government that the pope was not infallible. Their catechism even labeled papal infallibilty as a lie spread by Protestants to undermine the Church. It wasn't until Vatican I that it became the new official Catholic teaching.

The Papal dogmas don't seem to be helping the Roman Catholics one bit, either. They appeal to a logical mindset: you have a seemingly clear way to determine the truth. But ask various different Catholics which papal statements meet the requirements for infallibility and you'll get as many answers as there are Catholics. Not to mention the vast number of blatantly contradictory statements. Sedevacantist websites are great for helping you find this material.

Orthodoxy is the Church. We've kept the same customs, the same conciliar Church government, the same spirituality. Roman Catholicism hasn't.

Thank  you for providing this. I'm just worried that I might have made the wrong decision, which of course is natural. But, ironically and for better or worse, seeing the current doings of the EP actually helps to strengthen my faith in Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,033
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2018, 02:33:12 PM »
What are your thoughts on the Roman Catholic idea of development of doctrine?

If you don't believe that to be correct, then it is easier to understand why their papal claims are wrong. Just within the last 120 years, you have popes assigning to themselves infallibility (followed then by the promulgation of at least two infallible decrees), the ability to install and depose all the bishops in the world, and the sole authority to approve the liturgy throughout the world.

Even Roman Catholics have to concede that these sorts of things are a development of the papal doctrine since they are certainly unknown until after 1890 or so. It's also worth noting that, before Vatican I, there was a lot of debate about whether infallibility was correct, which again demonstrates that it is a development.

If the development of doctrine idea is wrong, then the papal claims lose support. This is a way to conceive of the issue without having to dig through prooftexts from the Fathers. I hope it helps you.

Legalism and Scholasticism Vs Experience

Offline Ignatius II

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2018, 04:31:43 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2018, 09:19:41 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
the person leaving the Catholic Church will burn for eternity...this is according to the true Catholic Church...today  modernists say otherwise

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,412
  • don't even go there!
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2018, 09:30:49 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
the person leaving the Catholic Church will burn for eternity...this is according to the true Catholic Church...today  modernists say otherwise

Was Pope Pius XII, who condemned that very error of the Feenyites, one of those modernists?
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 09:31:05 PM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 701
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2018, 10:44:05 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
the person leaving the Catholic Church will burn for eternity...this is according to the true Catholic Church...today  modernists say otherwise
give me the quote

Was Pope Pius XII, who condemned that very error of the Feenyites, one of those modernists?

Offline platypus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2018, 11:27:58 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.

At one point a Catholic converting to Orthodoxy definitely would have been considered a heretic and schismatic. Now, probably just a schismatic. Someone reverting back to Catholicism from Orthodoxy would probably be received back into communion immediately by confession, just like someone who communed with SSPX or Protestants. Some RC priests will commune Orthodox Christians even when he knows they're not Roman Catholics. The pastor of the RC parish in my town told my RC sister I could receive communion there, even knowing that I was an RC to Orthodox convert.

The part where things get a bit more complicated is RC veneration of Orthodox saints. Under the old RC teaching, Orthodox who departed this life would burn. The Eastern Catholics always venerated Orthodox saints, but an RC traditionalist could write this off as Eastern Catholics not being "real" Catholics, or something like that. But then St. Gregory Narek, who was an Oriental Orthodox, became a Doctor of the Church in Roman Catholicism. That's a pretty explicit acceptance of the possibility of salvation in the Orthodox Church.

Of course, the Roman Church may view the situation of a cradle Orthodox as quite different from that of a convert. Long story short, I don't think there's a straight answer.

Someone who left Orthodoxy for the Papal Communion would be considered a schismatic, although I assume their possible status as a heretic depends on whether or not they rejected any Orthodox teaching.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Ainnir

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,269
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2018, 11:59:43 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
the person leaving the Catholic Church will burn for eternity...this is according to the true Catholic Church...today  modernists say otherwise
sedevacantist, you've been warned for polemical posting not that long ago.  Convert Issues is absolutely not the place for polemics.  I'm issuing a you a 20% warning.  If you'd like to appeal, please do so via PM.  --Ainnir
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2018, 12:13:28 AM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
What is your current status? That might help some answer the question you posed a little better. Are you Roman Catholic, considering leaving for Orthodoxy or are you already Orthodox?

Don't worry about sedevacantist, he is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so his opinion doesn't really count as for what his thoughts are on who will burn.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,033
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2018, 12:30:39 AM »
I've read about Vatican I and II.

Offline Ignatius II

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2018, 12:53:19 AM »
Catholic . Primarily trying To understand the position of the Catholic Church. It would seem that if the Orthodox and Catholic are sister churches, conversion should not be acknowledged as a grave matter. However, responses seem to indicate otherwise. Obviously there are many who leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. There is a well known aged monk In Switzerland who did so at age 70  I was questioning if it is the Catholic Church’s position believe that one’s salvation is lost by such a move. There are aobviously differences between the 2 churches with the 2 main issues being the Issue of the Pope and the alteration of the Creed regarding the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, the Catholic Church does allow the Eastern Catholics to worship as Orthodox with a few exceptions.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,599
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2018, 12:00:52 PM »
The Catholic Church communes the Orthodox and allows her faithful to commune in the Orthodox Church.  Were the Orthodox considered heretics, this wouldn't be the case, methinks.  Yet, there isn't even a Catholic consensus if the Orthodox Church is in schism with Rome, given the mess that 1054 was.

But, as a Maronite Catholic who swam the Bosphorus earlier this year, I'd say to not worry about the status you'd leave behind, but the one you'd be embracing.  Subjectively speaking, I do not feel less Catholic, but more Catholic than I've ever been.  Everything that I've loved in the Catholic Church I've found in the Orthodox Church in a deeper and higher degree.

Be not afraid to come into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2018, 12:25:22 PM »
Yet, there isn't even a Catholic consensus if the Orthodox Church is in schism with Rome, given the mess that 1054 was.

If you go strictly by the "paper doctrine", RC Church defines schism as refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, so it would definitely seem to be schism.  Yet there have been individual theologians that have suggested that the Orthodox East might really be in a state of partial or quasi-schism since all those teachings about the papacy were defined after the split.

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,033
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2018, 07:50:19 PM »
Not wanting to derail a thread here, but I was just curious about the ramifications of conversions.

 In other words if a Catholic converted to Orthodoxy, would that individual be regarded a heretic or a schematic?  How would the Catholic Church view their likely possibility regarding salvation, since they left the Catholic Church? The same questions would apply to those converting from Orthodoxy to Catholicism.
the person leaving the Catholic Church will burn for eternity...this is according to the true Catholic Church...today  modernists say otherwise

Was Pope Pius XII, who condemned that very error of the Feenyites, one of those modernists?

I don't know . . . I know about Pope Pius XII but not the Feenyites.

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,033
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2018, 07:52:08 PM »
There seem to be a lot of claims for papal supremacy, etc., what if I was wrong to leave the RC for Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy feels more "right", but, what if Roman Catholicism is correct and is just going through a rough time post-VII. I would love for someone to help calm my worries

**This should be moved to Convert Issues**

North America

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,033
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2018, 07:59:55 PM »
Catholics developed a very specific Virgin Mary.

Offline Ignatius II

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2018, 09:41:45 PM »
The Catholic Church communes the Orthodox and allows her faithful to commune in the Orthodox Church.  Were the Orthodox considered heretics, this wouldn't be the case, methinks.  Yet, there isn't even a Catholic consensus if the Orthodox Church is in schism with Rome, given the mess that 1054 was.

But, as a Maronite Catholic who swam the Bosphorus earlier this year, I'd say to not worry about the status you'd leave behind, but the one you'd be embracing.  Subjectively speaking, I do not feel less Catholic, but more Catholic than I've ever been.  Everything that I've loved in the Catholic Church I've found in the Orthodox Church in a deeper and higher degree.

Be not afraid to come into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church.

I appreciate your comment regarding hat you actually  felt more Catholic  rather than less.

Offline Ignatius II

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2018, 09:50:05 PM »
The Catholic Church communes the Orthodox and allows her faithful to commune in the Orthodox Church.  Were the Orthodox considered heretics, this wouldn't be the case, methinks.  Yet, there isn't even a Catholic consensus if the Orthodox Church is in schism with Rome, given the mess that 1054 was.

But, as a Maronite Catholic who swam the Bosphorus earlier this year, I'd say to not worry about the status you'd leave behind, but the one you'd be embracing.  Subjectively speaking, I do not feel less Catholic, but more Catholic than I've ever been.  Everything that I've loved in the Catholic Church I've found in the Orthodox Church in a deeper and higher degree.

Be not afraid to come into the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church.

I appreciate your comment that you actually feel "more" Catholic.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2018, 11:00:41 PM »
Catholic . Primarily trying To understand the position of the Catholic Church. It would seem that if the Orthodox and Catholic are sister churches, conversion should not be acknowledged as a grave matter. However, responses seem to indicate otherwise. Obviously there are many who leave the Catholic Church for Orthodoxy. There is a well known aged monk In Switzerland who did so at age 70  I was questioning if it is the Catholic Church’s position believe that one’s salvation is lost by such a move. There are aobviously differences between the 2 churches with the 2 main issues being the Issue of the Pope and the alteration of the Creed regarding the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, the Catholic Church does allow the Eastern Catholics to worship as Orthodox with a few exceptions.
You are correct, but most Catholics are completely ignorant of the Eastern Rites. Many traditionalist catholics struggle with the Eastern Rites having a Patriarch, which they see as a rival Pope. However, seeing the Eastern Rites preserved as they are shows that their rites have been preserved. In fact, when the Roman Rite changed the rite of ordination for priests after Vatican II, it was to bring their rite of ordination more in line with the Eastern Churches. It seems Rome's apologists are not quite sure what to do with those other churches with apostolic succession.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Ignatius II

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #29 on: January 12, 2019, 10:14:14 AM »
Does a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodox  have to publicly renounce Rome. I have seen conflicting opinions on this? I don't mean they continue being RC as well as Orthodox but is there some sort of refutation of Rome?

Offline Briven

  • Pray for me, please! Baseball loving Old Believer.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 747
  • Господи Ісусе Христе Сыне Божїй помилѹй мѧ!
    • Pustozersk
  • Faith: Old Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2019, 10:59:49 AM »
Does a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodox  have to publicly renounce Rome. I have seen conflicting opinions on this? I don't mean they continue being RC as well as Orthodox but is there some sort of refutation of Rome?

A convert is either chrismated and publically denounces heresies in some places, or rebaptized entirely
“God,”
The words rumbled:
“There is much suffering,
But the church is alive. "

 “How long, Archpriest, are we to suffer thus?” I answered: “Until our very death, Markovna!” And she replied, with a sigh: “So be it, Petrovich, let us plod on.” - Life of Avvakum by Himself

Nastasya, Nastasya, be
patient and do not cry:
Not every happiness
Comes in the clothing of fortune.

St. Avvakum, pray for us!

St. Ambrose, pray for us!

My blog: http://pustozersk.blogspot.com

Offline platypus

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 270
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2019, 01:53:04 PM »
Does a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodox  have to publicly renounce Rome. I have seen conflicting opinions on this? I don't mean they continue being RC as well as Orthodox but is there some sort of refutation of Rome?

A convert is either chrismated and publically denounces heresies in some places, or rebaptized entirely

Yeah, it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I was received into the OCA by chrismation, and didn’t get to do a renunciation of heresy or have to get baptized by an Orthodox priest. But I’m pretty sure ROCOR makes ex-RCs do both. Not sure about any of the other Churches.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #32 on: January 14, 2019, 02:55:57 PM »
I am also a former Roman Catholic, and the papal claims were at one point very convincing to me. Reading about Church history changed that. The post-Vatican I monarchial papacy didn't exist in the first few centuries of Christianity, and seeing how the Church actually operated is immensely helpful. I liked The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology by Fr. Leo Donald Davis. He's a Jesuit, and one of his goals in writing the book was to demonstrate the authority of the Bishop of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. But instead, the Church from the 4th to the 8th century that he describes is a federation of self-governing Churches who see themselves as having the authority to determine doctrine doctrine, or excommunicate each other. No different from the Orthodox Church today, but quite different from the very organized Roman Catholic Church.

After their split from Orthodoxy, the Roman Church had to completely revise their code of canon law to give all the power to the pope. Previously they used the conciliar canon law established by the Orthodox Church in the first millennia, because they used to be Orthodox. This was called the Gregorian Reforms, and it's easily verifiable history. Compare the mostly episcopalian church government from the Ecumenical Councils to the current rule of law in the Roman Church and the difference is tremendous. All the authority that was spread out in the Church of the first millennia, like the ability to choose a bishop, or canonize a saint, or determine doctrine, the Roman Church gives to the Pope. It's a system of church government foreign to the Church Fathers.

I'm not asking this as an argument against the Orthodox position, but if the self-governing churches have the authority to define dogma for themselves, and the self-governing Church of Rome decided to define the papal dogmas for itself, how can the Orthodox argue against it?  At least, how can the Orthodox argue against it as binding on the Roman church?

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 581
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #33 on: January 14, 2019, 04:02:44 PM »
I am also a former Roman Catholic, and the papal claims were at one point very convincing to me. Reading about Church history changed that. The post-Vatican I monarchial papacy didn't exist in the first few centuries of Christianity, and seeing how the Church actually operated is immensely helpful. I liked The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology by Fr. Leo Donald Davis. He's a Jesuit, and one of his goals in writing the book was to demonstrate the authority of the Bishop of Rome during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. But instead, the Church from the 4th to the 8th century that he describes is a federation of self-governing Churches who see themselves as having the authority to determine doctrine doctrine, or excommunicate each other. No different from the Orthodox Church today, but quite different from the very organized Roman Catholic Church.

After their split from Orthodoxy, the Roman Church had to completely revise their code of canon law to give all the power to the pope. Previously they used the conciliar canon law established by the Orthodox Church in the first millennia, because they used to be Orthodox. This was called the Gregorian Reforms, and it's easily verifiable history. Compare the mostly episcopalian church government from the Ecumenical Councils to the current rule of law in the Roman Church and the difference is tremendous. All the authority that was spread out in the Church of the first millennia, like the ability to choose a bishop, or canonize a saint, or determine doctrine, the Roman Church gives to the Pope. It's a system of church government foreign to the Church Fathers.

I'm not asking this as an argument against the Orthodox position, but if the self-governing churches have the authority to define dogma for themselves, and the self-governing Church of Rome decided to define the papal dogmas for itself, how can the Orthodox argue against it?  At least, how can the Orthodox argue against it as binding on the Roman church?
+1
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2019, 04:22:01 PM »

I'm not asking this as an argument against the Orthodox position, but if the self-governing churches have the authority to define dogma for themselves, and the self-governing Church of Rome decided to define the papal dogmas for itself, how can the Orthodox argue against it?  At least, how can the Orthodox argue against it as binding on the Roman church?
I think your argument is quite the opposite of what Platypus was saying. If I understand you, your question is that if Rome wants to define this for her bishop (the Pope) then what's the big deal? However, looking closely at Platypus' argument, it is the Vatican I and post-Vatican I structure, that was foreign to the fathers. This is the entire point of the universal and ordinary jurisdiction Rome says the Pope has and the church worldwide is subject to; i.e. his jurisdiction. This is exactly why Rome has always considered the east, "schismatics" and it always turns on what they call the east's rejection of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.  So I am not quite sure I follow your argument if I missed something there. Do you admit there are self-governing churches outside of Rome?

The Orthodox do not argue against Rome defining dogmas for herself. The Orthodox argue against Rome saying the entire church worldwide is subject to the Roman Pontiff and those that refuse this authority/jurisdiction are separated from the Church. The Orthodox have never argued about the Pope's authority (and dogmas) as binding on the church of Rome. The Orthodox have argued against the Pope's authority (and dogmas) as binding on every self-governing church worldwide, which I surmise you believe actually exist.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 04:24:48 PM by noahzarc1 »
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,378
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2019, 04:31:21 PM »
I'm coming around on the claim that the Papacy is a divinely instituted office with special prerogatives. That being said I'm still very typically Orthodox in that I believe that there are limitations on that primacy that have been exceeded. I'm basically somewhere in the middle and comfortable with that.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 04:33:48 PM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2019, 04:35:25 PM »
I think your argument is quite the opposite of what Platypus was saying. If I understand you, your question is that if Rome wants to define this for her bishop (the Pope) then what's the big deal? However, looking closely at Platypus' argument, it is the Vatican I and post-Vatican I structure, that was foreign to the fathers. This is the entire point of the universal and ordinary jurisdiction Rome says the Pope has and the church worldwide is subject to; i.e. his jurisdiction. This is exactly why Rome has always considered the east, "schismatics" and it always turns on what they call the east's rejection of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.  So I am not quite sure I follow your argument if I missed something there. Do you admit there are self-governing churches outside of Rome?

The Orthodox do not argue against Rome defining dogmas for herself. The Orthodox argue against Rome saying the entire church worldwide is subject to the Roman Pontiff and those that refuse this authority/jurisdiction are separated from the Church. The Orthodox have never argued about the Pope's authority (and dogmas) as binding on the church of Rome. The Orthodox have argued against the Pope's authority (and dogmas) as binding on every self-governing church worldwide, which I surmise you believe actually exist.

Well, I'm more thinking about it from the aspect of if the claim is wrong over the whole church, then it must be wrong over the entire Roman church as well.  It can't be right for one and wrong for the other.  My thoughts are a little murkier on whether Rome actually has the authority over the other churches it claims or maybe a partial amount of that authority.  Even in the Orthodox church, metropolitans have a degree of authority over regular bishops, even if it's not absolute authority.  Patriarchs have authority over metropolitans, even if not absolute.  It seems natural that there would be one bishop who would have some degree of authority over the whole Church, even if it's not to the extent that Rome claims it, as a preservation of unity.  The twigs are united to the tree via the branches, the branches via the boughs, and the boughs via the trunk.  It's easy enough to say that Christ is the trunk, but since he isn't physically present on earth, something must stand in his stead (the bishop of Rome) or else you have a complete tree of independent boughs all floating around a non-existent trunk.

The Church of Cyprus was granted autocephaly long before the schism, so I think any Catholic would have to acknowledge that there are churches that are independent to some degree of Rome.  But that's not controversial for us - we couldn't have the Eastern Catholic churches if that was a controversial concept.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2019, 04:36:17 PM »
I'm coming around on the claim that the Papacy is a divinely instituted office with special prerogatives. That being said I'm still very typically Orthodox in that I believe that there are limitations on that primacy that have been exceeded. I'm basically somewhere in the middle and comfortable with that.

I believe like you on this.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2019, 05:51:33 PM »
   Constantine transferred the authority of the bishop of rome to the patriarch of Constantinople. The west tried taking it back with the revival of the holy Roman empire.  Creating two competing centers of authority.  We Orthodox considered ourselves the true continuation of the roman sea.

Offline melkite

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2019, 06:05:44 PM »
   Constantine transferred the authority of the bishop of rome to the patriarch of Constantinople. The west tried taking it back with the revival of the holy Roman empire.  Creating two competing centers of authority.  We Orthodox considered ourselves the true continuation of the roman sea.

Is that something an emperor actually could do?  If he did, why do the Orthodox accept that if Rome were to return to Orthodoxy, it would resume being the first among equals?

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2019, 06:12:25 PM »
   Constantine transferred the authority of the bishop of rome to the patriarch of Constantinople. The west tried taking it back with the revival of the holy Roman empire.  Creating two competing centers of authority.  We Orthodox considered ourselves the true continuation of the roman sea.

Is that something an emperor actually could do?  If he did, why do the Orthodox accept that if Rome were to return to Orthodoxy, it would resume being the first among equals?
Because the Roman empire has devolved with the fall of Constantinople.  Don't rule out a resurgence one day though.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2019, 06:48:26 PM »
   Constantine transferred the authority of the bishop of rome to the patriarch of Constantinople. The west tried taking it back with the revival of the holy Roman empire.  Creating two competing centers of authority.  We Orthodox considered ourselves the true continuation of the roman sea.

Do you have a source for this info?  I've read quite a bit of Orthodox apologetics, but I've never heard this claim.   

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,386
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2019, 07:36:00 PM »
3 The Byzantine commentator Balsamon (twelfth c.) writes as follows concerning the privileges of the see of Constantinople: "The great throne of Constantinople ... subject to the Perinthians (Heraclea), functioned under a bishop. For the great city was not yet called Constantinople, but was a small town named Byzantium. However, when divine mysterious providence caused the sceptres of the Empire to b[3]e transferred thither from Old Rome as from a wild olive to a cultivated olive, Saint Metrophanes who was at that time in charge of the church of this throne was named archbishop instead of bishop. For this reason the first holy Ecumenical Council commemorated in the sixth and seventh canons the four patriarchs, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but did not mention the bishop of Constantinople." G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα των θείων και ιερό/ν κανόνων (Athens, 1854), 4,542-43, quoted in Máximos, p. 74, note 1.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2019, 09:03:05 PM »
3 The Byzantine commentator Balsamon (twelfth c.) writes as follows concerning the privileges of the see of Constantinople: "The great throne of Constantinople ... subject to the Perinthians (Heraclea), functioned under a bishop. For the great city was not yet called Constantinople, but was a small town named Byzantium. However, when divine mysterious providence caused the sceptres of the Empire to b[3]e transferred thither from Old Rome as from a wild olive to a cultivated olive, Saint Metrophanes who was at that time in charge of the church of this throne was named archbishop instead of bishop. For this reason the first holy Ecumenical Council commemorated in the sixth and seventh canons the four patriarchs, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but did not mention the bishop of Constantinople." G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα των θείων και ιερό/ν κανόνων (Athens, 1854), 4,542-43, quoted in Máximos, p. 74, note 1.

I think this is referring to Constantinople being raised to a patriarchate.  The transfer of power mentioned seems to be referring to the Emporer's throne (sceptre), not the primacy.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of North America
Re: Convert to Orthodoxy from RC - Struggling with papal claims
« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2019, 09:42:02 PM »
Well, I'm more thinking about it from the aspect of if the claim is wrong over the whole church, then it must be wrong over the entire Roman church as well.  It can't be right for one and wrong for the other.
I'm not sure if the logic holds quite the way your describing it, i.e. if its wrong for it to be over all then its wrong at a local or jurisdictional level. I think what is happening then, is your argument is that if it is right for Rome to do it for her jurisdiction, then it would be right for her to have it over all. I don't think anyone at anytime in the church denied the Bishop of Rome his rightful authority over his jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome can still have his rightful jurisdiction without it extending over the entire world.

My thoughts are a little murkier on whether Rome actually has the authority over the other churches it claims or maybe a partial amount of that authority.
Are you in communion with Rome? You don't actually get to be murky on the subject. Rome has claimed its universal jurisdiction is absolute and all those in communion with her must accept that claim. It is an absolute claim and you must accept it absolutely. Rome has never tolerated anyone in communion with her to be murky on the subject. So you, like Rome claims all else have to do, must decide yes or no. There is no middle ground my dear brother.

Even in the Orthodox church, metropolitans have a degree of authority over regular bishops, even if it's not absolute authority.  Patriarchs have authority over metropolitans, even if not absolute.  It seems natural that there would be one bishop who would have some degree of authority over the whole Church, even if it's not to the extent that Rome claims it, as a preservation of unity.
That is not the Roman position. Their position is the extent Rome claims. Vatican I is flat out clear and there is no wiggle room. You must accept that.   

The twigs are united to the tree via the branches, the branches via the boughs, and the boughs via the trunk.  It's easy enough to say that Christ is the trunk, but since he isn't physically present on earth, something must stand in his stead (the bishop of Rome) or else you have a complete tree of independent boughs all floating around a non-existent trunk.
This is why the Pope says he's infallible. In Paster Aeternus, Pius IX stated, "But since we hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty ..." The way Rome understands "stead" is to be God Almighty.

The Church of Cyprus was granted autocephaly long before the schism, so I think any Catholic would have to acknowledge that there are churches that are independent to some degree of Rome.  But that's not controversial for us - we couldn't have the Eastern Catholic churches if that was a controversial concept.
I guess I'm curious from your perspective to what degree you think Eastern Catholic Churches are independent of Rome? When the Union of Brest came about in the 16th century, the Ruthenians and the Roman Pontiff certainly had different ideas of what it meant to be a part of the church. The Ruthenians certainly saw themselves as part of the church and were coming as equals to discuss communion with Rome. The Papal nuncio advised them ahead of time to not expect such a concession from the Roman Pontiff and in the end, it was made clear (and they accepted) they had been separated from the true Church. Do you envision the Melkites govern and discern dogma and doctrine for themselves absent notice, input or consent of Rome? That I think would be a tragic misunderstanding and reading of history, particularly of the 23 Sui Iurus churches in "communion" with Rome.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)