Considering Orthodoxy

[holdencaulfield]

I would like to hear some Orthodox points of view on issues like the:

• The Papacy
• The Filioque
• The Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory

Thanks.

[GabrieltheCelt]

HC,

1st off, welcome to the forum!  I hope your time here is enjoyable as well as educational.  To answer your query(sp?), try typing those topics into the forum's search engine.  Also, you might wish to read The Orthodox Church by His Grace Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware.  In fact, I highly recommend it.

In Christ,

Gabriel

[lubeltri]

See the search bar at the top? Type each of these terms in and come up with a wealth of info on other threads.

God bless.

[holdencaulfield]

HC,

1st off, welcome to the forum!  I hope your time here is enjoyable as well as educational.  To answer your query(sp?), try typing those topics into the forum's search engine.  Also, you might wish to read The Orthodox Church by His Grace Bishop Kallistos (Timothy) Ware.  In fact, I highly recommend it.

In Christ,

Gabriel

I have already started reading it. I am on around page 96, however I still seem to be able to find proof for the Papacy and the Filioque.

[prodromas]

I have already started reading it. I am on around page 96, however I still seem to be able to find proof for the Papacy and the Filioque.

What may I humbly ask are these proofs?

[Fr. George]

I would like to hear some Orthodox points of view on issues like the:

• The Papacy
• The Filioque
• The Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory

Thanks.

If you'd like to see what we've been discussing on each of those points, I would suggest you use the forum's search engine - each of those topics has been discussed ad nauseam multiple times here.  I'm sure you'll find the banter to be stimulating!

[holdencaulfield]

The Filioque

I have been told by many Orthodox that the Filioque is wrong because the Holy Ghost temporally Proceeds from the Son, however always from the Father. I have been told that the wording for the Filioque is indeed incorrect, because the Fathers and the Council of Constantinople would have added the "and the Son" if the phrase was necessary. I have been told that when the Fathers refer to the Son as the source of the Holy Ghost, they mean it in a temporary sense. They have also used John 15:26 as support against the Filioque. But does the Son not have everything that the Father has, without being the Father? Here is a Church Father that seems to take my stance.

St. Maximus the Confessor - 254 AD

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten" (Questions to Thalassium 63)

[holdencaulfield]

Papal Doctrines

St. Irenaeus - 189 AD

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2)

[Sophie]

Papal Doctrines
Quote
St. Irenaeus - 189 AD

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2)

Now, one has to read and understand this in connection to the context in which it was written:

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article9560.asp

"...Early Christian teachers like St. Irenaeus (+202AD), the martyred bishop of the city of Lugdunum in what was then the Roman province of Gaul but is today Lyons in France, wrote a series of books called Against Heresies, refuting the teachings of various Gnostic teachers...."

At least this is what I came across.

[recent convert]

The Filioque

I have been told by many Orthodox that the Filioque is wrong because the Holy Ghost temporally Proceeds from the Son, however always from the Father. I have been told that the wording for the Filioque is indeed incorrect, because the Fathers and the Council of Constantinople would have added the "and the Son" if the phrase was necessary. I have been told that when the Fathers refer to the Son as the source of the Holy Ghost, they mean it in a temporary sense. They have also used John 15:26 as support against the Filioque. But does the Son not have everything that the Father has, without being the Father? Here is a Church Father that seems to take my stance.

St Maximos actually affirms the procession here minus the filioque and also when he states, "For the Lord Jesus is mediator between God and men, as the divine apostle says (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5), since He makes the unknown Father manifest to men through the flesh, and gives those who have been reconciled to Him access to the Father through the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18)." On the Lord's Prayer, Philokalia vol. 2. God bless.

[holdencaulfield]

Well from what I can see, the Filioque is iffy at best, but the quote from St. Irenaus seems to allude to the Papacy.

[ozgeorge]

My previous 4 posts to this one were answers to questions about Patristic quotes concerning the Papacy in another thread, and the last one was posted less than an hour ago!
Please use the search and tag facilities before starting new threads.

Here are the tagged threads marked "Filioque":
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=347

Here are the tagged threads marked "Pope":
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=56

Here are the tagged threads marked "Immaculate Conception":
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=1286

Here are the tagged threads marked "Purgatory":
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=1642

[holdencaulfield]

Hello,

I believe that the Pope was the leader of Christianity, and that the Pope had Universal Jurisdiction, however Papal Infallibility seems a bit iffy to me. Am I closer to Catholic or Orthodox. I feel like I am somewhere in between.

[holdencaulfield]

Here are things that I see that are good and bad about Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Catholicism +

- It seems to me that the Bishop of Rome always had Universal Jurisdiction. I have been unable to find proof otherwise.
- Many of the Early Church Fathers stressed the necessity of staying with the Church of Rome, and to not schism from it (Both East and Western Fathers)
- Many Early Church Fathers agreed that St. Peter was the "Rock"
- Most Church Fathers agreed with the Western Understanding of the Original Sin
- The Church has a Visible Leader
- The Church has had a wealth of saints post-1054 and also many apparitions for Christ and the Theotokos.

Catholicism -

- Papal Infallibility seems to contradict the Holy Tradition, and seems wrong that one person can speak for the entire Church
- The Second Vatican Council seems to have destroyed the Traditional Catholic Faith
- Modernism and Liberalism have worked there way into the Church, slowly destroying it from the inside
- The Novus Ordo seems like a cruel joke of what was
- Many bishops and priests are heretics, who ignore the teachings of the Church
- The Catholic Church does not look like the true Church after it excommunicates the Eastern Church for something that it didn't do
- The Filioque seems like it does not agree with Tradition

Orthodoxy +

- Doctrine seems to be unchanged and little has been added after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, as I believe is necessary
- Doctrine seems more traditional
- The Divine Liturgy remains mostly unchanged

Orthodoxy -

- The Church is very Ethnocentric
- The Church has no visible head
- The Church had given in to heterodox teachings on Divorce, Remarriage, and Contraception
- Smaller following than the Catholic Church, seems to be mostly concentrated in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
- Less diversity of people
- Theology is not very defined, some things people can say heterodox things about doctrine, as there is no official written doctrine

 

[username!]

If you would read the post directly before your post from our OzGeorge, you can see that OzGeorge has taken the time to give you links to the tagged threads on the four topics you are questioning.   

[ozgeorge]

If you would read the post directly before your post from our OzGeorge, you can see that OzGeorge has taken the time to give you links to the tagged threads on the four topics you are questioning.   

Clearly, this is going to be a monologue, not a dialogue.....

[Αριστοκλής]

Clearly, this is going to be a monologue, not a dialogue.....

Unfortunately, it does appear so.

holdencaulfield, hey buddy, read the linked topics, please.

[Αριστοκλής]

Define "universal jurisdiction". I believe some popes thought they did, but that's about it.
How about some examples - not flowery quotes, but hard historical events to back that UJ up?

[Mickey]

but the quote from St. Irenaus seems to allude to the Papacy.

His Holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, writes in praise of the Church of Rome: "That the whole Church, namely, the faithful from everywhere, must come together in that Church, because of its Primacy, in which Church the tradition, given by the Apostles, has in all respects been observed by the faithful everywhere." Although this saint says by no means what the followers of the Vatican would make out, yet even granting their interpretation, we reply: Who denies that the ancient Roman Church was Apostolic and Orthodox? None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked, respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we praise:—"For, as everywhere," saith Sozomen, "the Church throughout the West, being guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, was delivered from contention and deception concerning these things." Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of the hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods! But at present we do not find preserved in her the dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea and afterwards in Constantinople, which the other five Ecumenical Councils confessed and confirmed with such anathemas on those who adulterated it in the smallest particular, as if they had thereby destroyed it. Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West. We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority. What then is to be thought of his unwritten traditions, if the written have undergone such a change and alteration for the worse ? Who is so bold and confident in the dignity of the Apostolic Throne, as to dare to say that if our holy Father, Sr. Irenaeus, were alive again, seeing it was fallen from the ancient and primitive teaching in so many most essential and catholic articles of Christianity, he would not be himself the first to oppose the novelties and self-sufficient constitutions of that Church which was lauded by him as guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers? For instance, when he saw the Roman Church not only rejecting from her Liturgical Canon, according to the suggestion of the Schoolmen, the very ancient and Apostolic invocation of the Consecrating Spirit, and miserably mutilating the Sacrifice in its most essential part, but also urgently hastening to cut it out from the Liturgies of other Christian Communions also,—his Holiness slanderously asserting, in a manner so unworthy of the Apostolic Throne on which he boasts himself, that it "crept in after t.he division between the East and West" (p. xi. 1.11)—what would not the holy Father say respecting this novelty ? Irenaeus assures us (lib. iv. c. 34) "that bread, from the ground, receiving the evocation of God, is no longer common bread," etc., meaning by "evocation" invocation: for that Irenaeus believed the Mystery of the Sacrifice to be consecrated by means of this invocation is especially remarked even by Franciscus Feu-Ardentius, of the order of popish monks called Minorites, who in 1639 edited the writings of that saint with comments, who says (lib. i. c. 18, p. 114,) that Irenaeus teaches "that the bread and mixed cup become the true Body and Blood of Christ by the words of invocation." Or, hearing of the vicarial and appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, what would not the Saint say, who, for a small and almost indifferent question concerning the celebration of Easter (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 26), so boldly and victoriously opposed and defeated the violence of Pope Victor in the free Church of Christ? Thus he who is cited by his Holiness as a witness of the primacy of the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City. Thus, also, the fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation of the gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon 8 ),—following the second (Canon 3), as that again followed the first (Canon 6), which called the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope over the West a Custom,—thus uttered its determination: "On account of that City being the Imperial City, the Fathers have with reason given it prerogatives" (Canon 28). Here is nothing said of the Pope's special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter, still less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not "Feed my sheep," not "On this rock will I build my Church," but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. The paradox will be the greater, since, as we shall see, he greatly honors the said fourth Ecumenical Synod as one to be found a witness for his Throne; and St. Gregory, the eloquent, called the Great (lib. i. Ep. 25), was wont to speak of the four (Ecumenical Councils [not the Roman See] as the four Gospels, and the four-sided stone on which the Catholic Church is built.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx



EDIT:  Fixed the result of a technical glitch.  If you type '8' and ')' together, the text parser automatically reads the text as a smiley ( ), so occasionally the characters need to be separated.   -PtA

[holdencaulfield]

Define "universal jurisdiction". I believe some popes thought they did, but that's about it.
How about some examples - not flowery quotes, but hard historical events to back that UJ up?

What about when Pope St. Gregory I excommunicated John the Faster who was the Patriarch of Constantinople. Wasn't the Patriarchate of Constantinople out of the Patriarchate of Rome's Jurisdiction. I am really trying to understand I am.

[holdencaulfield]

@Mickey:

Thank You, that helps a lot.

-----------------------------------------------

Everyone else, sorry I just really don't want to have to read through 30 pages of other peoples conversations. If you don't want to talk to me than don't, however I appreciate the people who do. I would like to ask about certain quotes like by Pope St. Innocent I that seem to view the Roman Church as the Rock, and that it is not the orthodox Confession of Faith, that we must stay in union with, but the Church of Rome. He seems to leave no room for it following into heresy. Perhaps when he spoke of the Roman Church he meant the entire Church, not just the Roman one.

Pope St. Innocent I - 408 AD


"In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . ." (Letters 29:1)

Pope St. Leo I - 445 AD

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3)

[wynd]

Everyone else, sorry I just really don't want to have to read through 30 pages of other peoples conversations. If you don't want to talk to me than don't, however I appreciate the people who do.

Just so you know, no one is trying to brush you off or anything like that. It's just that these exact topics have been discussed to death on this forum by the same people over and over, and after answering the same RC quote mines with the same arguments every month or two, some (especially if they have been here a while) get tired of it.

[holdencaulfield]

However, I still believe that the Fathers said to stay with the Church of Rome, did they ever say to schism if it was heterodox. If you check my profile, you can see that I am interested in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

[buzuxi]

I have a feeling this poster is Euthymios. Once again, patriarchates exist because ecumenical councils created them, namely Canon 6 of Nicea, Canon 3 of Constantinople, Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and the resolution at the council of Ephesus in 431 to elevate Jerusalem to the 5th place. A future ecumenical council can add patriarchates, change the rankings or even abolish them altogether.

[Peter J]

I have a feeling this poster is Euthymios.

I seriously doubt that. In fact I don't even see much resemblance between them.

[Peter J]

Mickey,

I'm willing to admit a possibility that, had Rome never been the imperial city, it also might not have been accorded the primacy. But even then, I believe that there still would have been a see somewhere (Antioch, perhaps, as the first see that Peter established? or maybe Constantinople as imperial city?) holding the primacy.

-Peter.

[buzuxi]

Go to the thread Papal Infallibility vs Ecumenical Councils, same line of questions and reasoning as his other posts in last few weeks.

[Papist]

This poster is genuine. He is also posting at Catholic Answers asking similar question. He is genuinely trying to determine whether the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church is established by Jesus.

[ozgeorge]

This poster is genuine.

Only God can know who is and isn't "genuine". The medium of the Internet does not allow anyone to discern who is "genuine" - which is why so many "phishing" sites are successful.

[holdencaulfield]

This poster is genuine. He is also posting at Catholic Answers asking similar question. He is genuinely trying to determine whether the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church is established by Jesus.

Thank You. This is quite true.

[holdencaulfield]

I'm willing to admit a possibility that, had Rome never been the imperial city, it also might not have been accorded the primacy. But even then, I believe that there still would have been a see somewhere (Antioch, perhaps, as the first see that Peter established? or maybe Constantinople as imperial city?) holding the primacy.

I believe that Rome holding the Primacy was based on it being the Capital and the place of St. Peter and St. Paul's Martyrdom. However I believe it was more politically oriented as, you can see the Church wanted to move the Primacy to Constantinople however they did not because of Tradition.

[Peter J]

however Papal Infallibility seems a bit iffy to me. 

I would be curious to know, then, which stance you take:

1. that the pope might make an ex cathedra statement but it wouldn't be infallible

or

2. that it would be impossible for the pope to make an ex cathedra statement -- that is to say, it would be impossible for a pope to exercise the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, and define a doctrine of faith or morals for the acceptance of the universal Church

Although I don't actually accept either #1 or #2, #2 seems much more reasonable to me than #1.

[holdencaulfield]

#1. Although traditionally the Roman Patriarchate was very orthodox, there have been some heretical Popes, and lately seems the same.

[ozgeorge]

However I believe it was more politically oriented as, you can see the Church wanted to move the Primacy to Constantinople however they did not because of Tradition.

But the Church is the sole arbiter of Tradition. How can something "the Church wanted to do" not be Tradition?

[holdencaulfield]

But the Church is the sole arbiter of Tradition. How can something "the Church wanted to do" not be Tradition?

I don't know. I just mean I think that the Primacy in the Pentarchy was based purely on political reasons.

[ozgeorge]

I don't know. I just mean I think that the Primacy in the Pentarchy was based purely on political reasons.

Well, yes, of course it was.
"The Imperial City" means simply "The Main City of the Empire."

[buzuxi]

Yes Rome held the primacy of Honor (presveia tis timeis as the canons refer to it)  because it was the capital of the Empire.  That Peter and Paul were martyred there and thus recieved top rank is actually an innovation of Pope Damasus. It has been made popular recently amongs some ill-informed ecumenist orthodox churchmen. In fact if this held any sway, Antioch and Jerusalem would not hold the 4th and 5th place in the ranking.  

As St Ireneous said in one of the previous posts that quote him: (im going to give the correct translation, where the latin word 'convenire' is accurately translated, not as 'must agree- and that the 'primacy' refered to is not the roman church but the capital city of rome; ):

"The concourse of believers from all countries, drawn to Rome by neccesity, because that city is the first and most powerful, contributed to preserve there the Apostolic Tradition, because those believers carried there the faith of the churches to which they belonged".

Who were these believers who deposited the aspostolic traditions of their respective churches in Rome? Try, Peter and Paul and Justin Martyr and Polycarp and Ignatius and Hegesipus and the list goes on.

But to demonstrate that this is the truth and leave no stone unturned, and further give evidence  that Rome recieved the first ranking simply because of its civil importance, lets once again review Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch in 341 a.d. for insight into what the Fathers including St. Ireneaos had in mind:

" It behoves the bishop in every province  to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the Metropolis, and who has to take thought of the whole province, BECAUSE ALL MEN OF BUSINESS 'COME TOGETHER' FROM EVERY QUARTER TO THE METROPOLIS. Therefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the times of our Fathers....."

[Αριστοκλής]

I have a feeling this poster is Euthymios....

No, he is not. Holden was specifically sent here from  another, new Orthodox forum with the recommendation to start with two specific threads by name. Sorry he doesn't want to read them, but that is his choice. Some people need active conversations to learn through; others can and do just read our past work made over the last 5+ years first, maybe joining, maybe not.
Too bad relying on CAF for honest info is a total waste now. It would be the equivalent of my going to the local mosque here and asking about Christianity.
I do hope his time here will be fruitful no matter what decision he makes, if any. He comes to the table late it appears, having spent most of his time heretofore in RCC-land where he adopted, apparently unknowingly, a RC vantage.
I wasn't 'blowing him off', I just knew how he got here.

[Heracleides]

.
Holdencaulfield - You quote two Popes of Rome, Innocent I & Leo I, both of whom write in support of the(ir) Papacy.... do you see the irony of this - using Popes to support the Papacy?  Sort of like quoting US Presidents writing in support of, brace yourself, the Presidency.
.

[Peter J]

Too bad relying on CAF for honest info is a total waste now. It would be the equivalent of my going to the local mosque here and asking about Christianity.

Now now.

[Αριστοκλής]

Now now.

What, CAF? "The waste is terrible thing to mind..."

[Mickey]

"Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium."
Joseph Ratzinger

[Papist]

Mickey, I must respectfully point out that when Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that, he was not the Pope and I disagree with him on this matter.

[Papist]

Mickey, first, I respectfully disagree with the good Cardinal on this matter. Second, I think he may have mean more than you do when he mentions that which was required of the East during the first hundred years.

[Αριστοκλής]

Make that 1000 years^

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Considering Orthodoxy