www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What Separates Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

You are going to get nowhere pursuing this in this way.

In fact, I have yet to meet an Orthodox person who can actually tell me what the Church teaches concerning papal primacy and infallibility without resorting to gross over generalizations, hyperbole and weaving fantastic straw men to burn later.

And in that sweeping statement are included several priests ALL of whom were once Roman Catholic.

Now that tells me two things. One is that there is an inordinate amount of ignorance concerning "papal claims" and two that there's as much internal need for catechesis on the subject as there is external need.

One dare not...well..ok....ought not duck one's blind spots, which is what real ignorance is.

Unless of course, as I have done in my life, one works very hard to adjust the blinders to suit the need. I was a good old arm chair Marxist once and I still have my blinders hanging off the book case on the other side of the office here.

M.

Dear Mary,

Ah, I come from the Marxist school as well.

We really DO have much in common . . .

Forumites of the world, unite!

Alex

I have to agree with AMM. There have been many instances in the history of the Church when it was precisely laity who became the protectors of Orthodoxy.

I disagree. Clericalism is the usurping of the proper role of the laity in the Church, but especially in temporal, opinionable matters. So it is not clericalism for the proper Church authorities to make a decision binding on the laity in the areas of faith, morals and worship. That said, it is proper to the laity in Church matters to inquire and learn what those decisions are, and if they become concerned that some essential matter has been mishandled or abused to raise that concern to the proper authority.

Dear Borislave,

But that was not the norm, but the exception.

O.K., I'll tell my bishop that I disagree with him because I'm defending orthodoxy (since he's so lacklustre about it . . .).

Er, not goin' to happen, Otche Piddiyakone!

Alex

Something is true because its true; not because one bishop, some bishops or all bishops tell everybody else "hey, this is true". We accept things as true (the proclomations of the councils) in a process that has no real definition. They simply over time become recognized as truth. There is no formula, no definition, no mechansim that adequately explains this; just as I would say there is no definition of infallibility that in and of itself is not completely circular in reasoning. The truth is its own criteria, which each of us has responsibility for. The apostles were given the charism to forgive sins, which laity do not have, but they are not the sole guardians of truth. History has shown us they are adequately capable of betraying it in fact.


I would say it is largely as described by Archimandrite Vasileios in this link, which is taken from his book "Hymn of Entry". I don't know whose blog it is, but it does have the quote which I thought would be easier to link to than paste.

http://sacredtraditions.wordpress.c...re-lay-responsibility-and-infallibility/

Alex, I do see your point there have been such instances

The authority of the Church depends on the authority of the Trinity, and the words of Christ. So the Church has a charism of authority which is to be used to witness to the Truth revealed by Jesus Christ. This is why Christ sent the Paraclete to be with the Church, to "guide [you] into the knowledge of all truth." It is not a question of human epistemology, but of faith. "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."


I read your URL but since it is a selection, I could not grasp from context the subject he is talking about. From what I did read, however, I would guess that this is a personal reflection such as one might find in a work of, say, the Trappist, Thomas Merton, not a rigorous theological statement.

Dear AMM,

Yes, and laity, monks and priests also have the ability of betraying the truth too. And . . .?

If truth is something that can be acknowledged by all who can then simply point to it and say, "But of course that's the truth," then we would not ever have had heresies, some of which, like Arianism, took more than two-thirds of the Church with them.

The heretics of old were people of sincere beliefs and were, in most cases, personally very holy. It was the Church in Council that condemned their views and said, "What you believe is not the truth - here is the real truth, and you must accept it."

The notion that the truth is there like chalk writing on a blackboard - that's solid positivism but hardly a solid foundation on which to understand the handing down of Orthodox faith and practice.

Alex

And councils as well.

Dear Andrew,

http://www.theandros.com/infallib.html

I am sending along this article. It is not to support or deny one position or another but to indicate that there are some internal conflicts over this very issue of ecclesiastical infallibility in Orthodoxy. Of course the author inserts a bias immediately into the article by claiming that those who speak of a hierarchical expression of the infallibility promised to the Church by Christ are part of some "scholastic captivity." I am not so sure I agree or that universal Orthodoxy agrees.

I don't often hear that the work of Maximos the Greek was faulty because many of his formative years were spent in a monastery and university in Italy.

It does seem to me that many of the issues that are raised as insoluable between our Churches are issues that are already being contested in Orthodoxy. Makes it tough to come to a consensus.

Mary

I have read that before, and most people I have spoken with do not agree with Archbishop Stylianos.

There is no agreed upon formula as I've said for what makes something infallible, or what makes a council ecumenical. There just isn't in Orthodoxy. I think we discussed this not that long ago.

I'm sure to Catholics this is craziness. To me it is the only thing that actually makes sense.

By your own criteria for determining the truths of revelation, what most people you know at the moment believe is not to be accepted as any kind of proof of anything for the time being.

My point still remains that the issue of infallibility is far from being settled in Orthodoxy.

M.

Dear AMM,

Perhaps, when you have time, you could discuss this perspective on doctrinal formulation in Orthodoxy.

I don't think it is "craziness." However, if what you say is normative for Orthodoxy, I DO thank God I'm Cath'lic!

Alex

Dear Mary,

I couldn't agree with you more. I always wondered why those who willingly remain ignorant of the faith of others, will also shamelessly and blatantly reveal that ignorance to people of different faiths.

God Bless,

Zenovia