To me this is like saying that one believes, after prayful reflection, that contraception, or divorce, or masturbation, are moral.
It’s funny to me that the one is “like” the other, to you, considering what we’re actually talking about, here.
The fact is that these are not matters to be decided by any one man. Matters of faith and morals are decided and defined by the Church, by the authority given Her by Christ. I
At what point did I say the actual relative rightness of these matters are “decided by one man”? It’s not like I’m “going solo” in this. And I completely agree with what you’re saying, the difference is about whom you are saying it.
Your own saints do not speak of the Church as you do; how can you justify doing so?
My “own” Saints certainly do not affirm the sort of Papal Supremacy current today. There’s this entire vast divergence of the very character of the Saints of the two Communions following the last half of the Eleventh Century.
And the claim that there is a single Orthodox Church is s myth. There are several orthodox churches, Chalcedonian, non-Chalcedonian, Assyria, and so on.
The Orthodox Church is a body of right-believing Bishops, their priests and deacons, monastics, and the Laity following them. We’ve been “excommunicating” one another, for one thing or another, for close to two-thousand years. The Church are those who believe as Christ taught the Apostles to believe. A community of Faith, of fellow believers = the Body of Christ. As such, the True Church is in a sorry state, these days. Which makes sense, because we’re clearly nearing the end of the world.
I don’t claim that every church that tacks “Orthodox” on the name is actually the Body of Christ.
You, by contrast, put your faith in the Roman Magisterium. Apparently, the one thing needed, is to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. At some point, you had to decide that. You were an atheist, IIRC, and came to Faith as an adult. The Roman Magisterium did not, and could not, force you to believe what they teach. You heard/read what they were selling, and you bought it. That’s absolutely a choice you had to make. And I had to make a choice like that, too. My choice was quite similar, but I found that the (Eastern) Orthodox Church makes more sense, and is more consistent with the activity of Jesus Christ in my life prior; in the prompting of the Holy Spirit leading me there. But at some point I had to choose that.
So clearly, we can’t both be right. I hope the Lord has mercy on both of us, regardless.
Magisterially, these issues. Peter is required for this.
Saint Peter is part of our Church. He was the Bishop of Antioch before he was ever Bishop of Rome. The Roman claim as to having some “closer” relationship to St. Peter, than we have, is absurd to us. You guys don’t even remember his Fast, apparently.
Our attachment to St. Peter, with him being a living and active part of our day-to-day lives, satisfies the whole “The Keys” argument. St. Peter, here, serves as a type for all the Church. By giving the keys to St. Peter, Christ gave the power to bind-and-loose to The Church. The idea that Rome somehow interprets this to mean that the Pope has this power, is absurd to us.
He did not sit around and say nothing to the sinnets (sic), which is the characterization best matching your "guest-like" Orthodox churches.
I agree that most of what calls itself “Orthodox” are a bunch of pussies. But that’s not who I’m referring to as The Church. The Church is all right-believing men and women, attached to a right-believing Bishop with Apostolic Succession. This Holy Community is actually much smaller than the Roman Communion.
To serve, which is what the Church does by telling sinners to repent and believe the Gospel.
So, because I know full well my Communion tells sinners to repent and believe the Gospel, we’ve satisfied at least that requirement.
My “own” Saints certainly do not affirm the sort of Papal Supremacy current today.
The truth of the primacy of Peter is equally true today as it was at the beginning. Doctrines do not change, you know this. They are, however, clarified over time. The teachings of Vatican I are an example of this, but in no way was the essence of Peter's primacy spoken of by the early saints changed by any doctrinal statements made before or after the Great Schism.
There’s this entire vast divergence of the very character of the Saints of the two Communions following the last half of the Eleventh Century.
I will interpret this charitably and assume you are not trying to diminish the sanctity of the Western saints following AD 1054, because I will point out that St. Thomas Aquinas lived his entire life after the Schism, as did St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Robert Bellarmine. The holiness of these saints is without question, and their character is defined principally by just that: holiness.
I don’t claim that every church that tacks “Orthodox” on the name is actually the Body of Christ.
So which one is, and by what authority do you determine which churches are and which churches are not Orthodox? You're getting to the rub of the whole point. In terms of fundamentals, we all agree with what the Apostles believed. But when contemporary moral issues require the application of tradition, we find that the Eastern churches are dead, while the Roman Church is living. The East has discussed possibilities for calling a council, but they never pan out, or accomplish anything productive, because the East lacks precisely what gave the Seven Councils their charism - that is, Peter.
You, by contrast, put your faith in the Roman Magisterium. Apparently, the one thing needed, is to be in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. At some point, you had to decide that.
I'm not saying that individual choices and judgments don't have to be made. What I'm saying is that the only end point that does not itself require some personal judgment is Roman Catholicism. Under Protestantism we have each believer making these judgements about the faith based on what they read in Scripture, or based on what their layperson "pastor" has to say; in the Orthodox churches, the personal judgment has tradition to lean on, but because of the chaos that has resulted from abandoning the See of Peter, the faithful are ultimately left to make these judgments for themselves anyway - go with what this church says, or what this church says; whatever your heart tells you.
Yes, I have to discern that the Roman Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ - but with this discernment, I no longer must tempt my pride into judging what is moral, what is of the faith, what the nature of the sacraments are, etc. - I recognize that it is for the Church alone to decide these things, and at no point is my choosing between one take or another necessary or even licit. That is the difference. And I have not made up this narrative; I merely echo what an ex-Orthodox, Catholic man named Timothy Flanders has to say. I linked to one of his articles already; is a video form of the same if you prefer. I would appreciate a response to his points if you really disagree with my premise here.
St. Peter, here, serves as a type for all the Church. By giving the keys to St. Peter, Christ gave the power to bind-and-loose to The Church. The idea that Rome somehow interprets this to mean that the Pope has this power, is absurd to us.
So Christ built His Church on the rock, which itself is just a type of the Church? That seems like a conflation of analogies to me; it doesn't mesh. What you call "absurd" is also what the saints, East and West, believed. I submit in humility to their teachings; this is my point about the Roman Catholic Church saving the faithful form the temptation to pride and depending on their own opinions.
But that’s not who I’m referring to as The Church. The Church is all right-believing men and women, attached to a right-believing Bishop with Apostolic Succession.
"Right-believing" - you don't seem to appreciate how much of a problem this language is given that the Church is (supposedly!) still alive. You can't just rely on reference to the Nicene Creed and the teachings of the Seven Councils to determine what the fullness of the faith comprises. The reason the Church has to be alive, not dead, is because the faithful flock that the Church is tasked with feeding is alive, and lives within time. The Nicene Creed says nothing to say about contraception, the Seven Councils say nothing about in vitro fertilization, nor (unsurprisingly) do any of the early century saints have anything to say about intercommunion with Protestants!
"Oh, well the truth on these matters can easily be gleaned from what was already taught in the Seven Councils", says the Orthodox. Oh can they? Then why do all the several Orthodox churches say so many different things on these issues? What constitutes "right-believing" in this sense, and how do you know?
This is the level of decision-making that, ultimately, falls back on the individual pride of the person. "Right-belief" is suddenly what sounds best to you - what other option do you have? Whereas in my case, I submit to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, which is still alive and teaching to this day, long after the close of the last of the Seven Councils.
Forgive me if I sound heated. I know I sounded heated responding to earlier today. But this is such a subtle, but important issue, that I just can't leave the two of you, whom I care about, to face the consequences of this error. Do you, KOWA, really want to go to face your judgment trusting in yourself to have determined what "right-belief" constitutes? My point is that, if the Church exists at all, it must be living, and maintain the same teaching power it had during the time of the Seven Councils. Only the Roman Catholic Church offers this, because only the Roman Catholic Church has the Pope. I do not intend to go to my judgment having depended on my pride, or ego, or intuition, to "guess" which Church teaches "right-belief" on all matters relevant to my salvation - and avoidance of mortal sin happens to be relevant to that end. I am able to trust in the Magisterium of my living Church, and I pray that you will come to do the same.
The truth of the primacy of Peter is equally true today as it was at the beginning. Doctrines do not change, you know this. They are, however, clarified over time. The teachings of Vatican I are an example of this, but in no way was the essence of Peter's primacy spoken of by the early saints changed by any doctrinal statements made before or after the Great Schism.
I’m not debating the Primacy of St. Peter; I affirm it. What I’m arguing against is papism - that is, that the Papal Church as it exists today is what Lord Jesus Christ has in mind. You’re conflating these two.
I will interpret this charitably and assume you are not trying to diminish the sanctity of the Western saints following AD 1054, because I will point out that St. Thomas Aquinas lived his entire life after the Schism, as did St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. Robert Bellarmine. The holiness of these saints is without question, and their character is defined principally by just that: holiness.
I’m not saying anything about any of them. What I’m saying is that there has been a divergence of Saints since the Schism, which is very noticeable to me - not merely because they are members of a different Communion, but because their Lives are different, and there’s a certain “character” which I perceive in the Orthodox Saints, and a different “character” in the Papal ones.
There’s more I want to say point-by-point, but time is limited so I’ll cut to the big one:
So Christ built His Church on the rock, which itself is just a type of the Church?
The Rock that Christ built His Church on is St. Peter’s Confession. For this reason, the Orthodox believe that the Communion of Faith is what determines the bounds of the Church. It is of critical importance to enter in Communion with a Bishop who Confesses the Faith of the Fathers. Whether that Bishop is in Communion with Rome is irrelevant, if Rome is not Confessing the Faith of the Fathers.
EDIT; besides, we are in Communion with Rome, for the first thousand years.
(post is archived)