thank you for the reply. I have an open question to all. How does the eo or oo or really who guards the deposit of faith? Is there such a thing in eo or oo, a deposit of faith? In rc i know its the pope.
I dont want to be sacrilegious to the current supreme pontiff but he does say some chilling stuff such as salvation for non believers.
The rcia priest made the exact same comment that non believers who are good can be saved. (This one in particular has ravaged the Traditionalist rc webforums. My question is, is there a similar discussion in eo or oo world?)
Back to the pope issue, even though he has made these comments he has not changed anything by decree or by whatsoever thing.
My question is, anything dogmatic or doctrinal can only be changed in a ecumenical council amongst the eo and oo? If so when was the last council? The last rc one was 50 years ago.
Is there such a thing as dogma and doctrine in the eo or oo? Is it the same thing as in rc?
Too many questions I'm afraid,
I am not sure what this parish priest at the Catholic priest meant. Even in Orthodox this can be a true statement, just like in Roman Catholicism, if said in the proper spirit. Maybe someone else here can explain that better.
I am new to Orthodoxy and looking into it as a convert to Catholicism and one who was involved with the SSPX. I am looking into Orthodoxy because it seems to make sense. I have issues with the claims the papacy makes of its authority, but also with the doctrines of the Latins like Purgatory, which disagrees with our former Judaic tradition of death, and the Scriptural understanding of the dead. Scripture makes clear we should pray for the dead but Purgatory is problematic. Here is a good article on why in my opinionhttp://orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx
One thing many Catholics or those with the Western mind coming from Protestantism who naturally look to Catholicism for a more authentic early Christian understanding have with Orthodoxy perhaps is that they do not, like the Roman Catholics, have such a set out dogmatic tradition. There have been no ecumenical councils since 787--ecumenical councils are councils of the whole church rather than local councils of parts of the Church. The most famous is Nicaea where we get the Creed of that name. They define or make clear doctrinal issues that were before disputed. The define them and condemn those who disagree by authority of the Holy Spirit. For the Latins this has after Nicaea II in 787 become more based on the authority of the Bishop of Rome or Pope. This is where Orthodox disagree. The Latins had many what they consider ecumenical councils after that, the most recent being Vatican II. But Vatican I is one to consider because it finalized the papal doctrine. Before, even in the West, there were some who wanted the power of the Pope limited, even if they took the Latin view of his universal supremecy of authority over all the churches, East and West. The Catholics being united under the Pope have a very clear, concise dogmatic system and this is its greatest strength. Eastern Orthodox have not had a council of all the Orthodox Churches in the proper ecumenical form since Nicaea II and this is the strongest argument of the Laitns against the Greeks. A traditional Catholic friend said the problem with the Orthodox is that their churches are so often national that that creates a problem. What he was really saying is that you need the authority of one leader, the Pope, to unite the various individual churches like the Greek, Russian, etc. Thus the Latins say the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, is the guard of the deposit of faith.
Vatican II has made this difficult for them as you see. The friend who said the problem with Eastern Orthodoxy is their national churches is a Sedevacantists, so in essence he believes in papal authority more than the SSPX or other trad groups. All the trad camps are at a loss for what to do about the huge heresy in Rome and the Latin Church where even the Pope speaks heresy. They have various arguments, particularly the argument that the current popes are anti-Popes (Sedevacantist) or among those who believe the Pope is legitimate that though he may privately speak heresy he has never done so ex-cathedra and that therefore the authority of the Pope still rests in his papal office, not in his personal nature. The arguments are often very good and clever because the Latins are good at that, having the genius Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism to help them. Their sophistry in arguing for Purgatory was pointed out by the Greeks at the Council of Florence. They do have a much more clear and seemingly united dogma though Vatican II has created problems for them as you see.
My advice: Read the first seven ecumenical councils founded at New Advent and some of the early fathers, both east and west. Pray and attend Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. Maybe attend a Latin Mass is you can to be fair to the Catholics if you want. I lean towards Orthodoxy now because I think the Roman Catholic arguments are weak but often very clever sophistry that is very hard to deal with. It's one reason I have a love-hate relationship with Thomism and Scholasticism.