FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quote:When it comes to your attitude towards the Orthodox, the old proverb "treat others as you would be treated" comes to mind.  They are not irrational beasts, they are Christian men,  Treat them accordingly.

I agree, and I apologize if I have treated them or anyone else badly.
(05-14-2012, 04:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 04:15 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 03:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.

As do the Arians concerning the divinity of Christ.

Are there any Arians around? Arianism flatly contradicts Scripture and the most basic and fundamental Christian belief.

The non-Catholic Christians still exist in very significant numbers and interpret those scriptural passages used in support of the Petrine primacy differently than Roman Catholicism does. Some Fathers also did so, there's certainly precedence in scriptural exegesis. It's not a clear and cut thing that non-Catholics don't accept out of mere pride or obstinacy. It's a bit disingenuous to constantly portray them as dishonest or stupid. Even an honest Catholic apologist has to admit that Petrine primacy, not to mention supremacy, was not very conspicious during the first millennia of Christendom. It's one of those dogmas that became "explicit" and "defined" more than one thousand years after the fact.

Vetus, as an ex-protestant, I will say that you are 100% right about this...but this is a matter that must be faith-based and not just "evidence" based.  I believe you've quoted "faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God" before...well I've had faith in catholic doctrine ever since I read the word in context with Catholic claims.

Is there evidence that Jesus was speaking to Peter personally assigning him the keys?  Yes.  Will it ever be "conclusive" for schismatics and heretics?  No.  I choose to believe when I can't see. 

It's "a faith thing".
(05-14-2012, 07:15 PM)Norbert Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 04:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 04:15 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 03:58 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 03:54 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]Well, denial of immediate Roman primacy is heretical.

According to Roman Catholicism.

The Orthodox, Copts and Protestants have their own reasoning on the matter.

As do the Arians concerning the divinity of Christ.

Are there any Arians around? Arianism flatly contradicts Scripture and the most basic and fundamental Christian belief.

The non-Catholic Christians still exist in very significant numbers and interpret those scriptural passages used in support of the Petrine primacy differently than Roman Catholicism does. Some Fathers also did so, there's certainly precedence in scriptural exegesis. It's not a clear and cut thing that non-Catholics don't accept out of mere pride or obstinacy. It's a bit disingenuous to constantly portray them as dishonest or stupid. Even an honest Catholic apologist has to admit that Petrine primacy, not to mention supremacy, was not very conspicious during the first millennia of Christendom. It's one of those dogmas that became "explicit" and "defined" more than one thousand years after the fact.

Vetus, as an ex-protestant, I will say that you are 100% right about this...but this is a matter that must be faith-based and not just "evidence" based.  I believe you've quoted "faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God" before...well I've had faith in catholic doctrine ever since I read the word in context with Catholic claims.

Is there evidence that Jesus was speaking to Peter personally assigning him the keys?  Yes.  Will it ever be "conclusive" for schismatics and heretics?  No.  I choose to believe when I can't see. 

It's "a faith thing".

We all know that, in the end, it's all a matter of choice and personal conscience. I don't dispute that.

In any case, we can't pretend that the scriptures present a clear case for those doctrines that are exclusively Catholic that only the blissfully ignorant or those of hardened hearts can't see. It simply doesn't. The reasons that sustain the division with the Orthodox and the Protestants don't lie exclusively in bad motives, lack of scholarship or mere polemics on their part.
(05-14-2012, 03:02 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]They are heretics in re. the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, very obviously so. They also have a heretical misunderstanding or rejection of the apostolic Petrine office and dignity, and also reject the dogma of papal infallibility. So, they are heretics and schismatics.

Wait, what?  The Orthodox don't deny the assumption, where are you getting that from?  Also, you are calling them heretics for rejecting that which wasn't defined until after the schism.  Why would they accept the current Roman definition of Petrine supremacy when such was not practiced in its current form at any time prior to the schism?
If the orthodox do not deny the Assumption, I stand corrected.

Quote:Why would they accept the current Roman definition of Petrine supremacy when such was not practiced in its current form at any time prior to the schism?

Melkite, what about the Roman definition at Florence?
(05-14-2012, 04:35 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:When it comes to your attitude towards the Orthodox, the old proverb "treat others as you would be treated" comes to mind.  They are not irrational beasts, they are Christian men,  Treat them accordingly.

I agree, and I apologize if I have treated them or anyone else badly.

It's okay, I don't think you have treated them too poorly, but perhaps a bit dismissively.  You seem to fall back on looking down on "Photian schismatics" as a rhetorical device, and I think the deserve more than that.  They have valid sacraments and what's more, jurisdiction.  The East is serious, and to be taken seriously.  Indeed, much Western error (Protestantism, by and large) can be corrected by looking to the Eastern witness of the Faith.
What's more, it seems to me that if a good deal of current Trad resistance to the current hierarchy is to be justified, the Orthodox are owed at least the benefit of assuming that their wills (by and large) are good,
(05-14-2012, 03:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]And they claim to not accept the Immaculate Conception, but listen to a hymn about the Theotokos sometime.  Or ask a Russian priest if Mary was guilty of sin, and see if you get punched in the face.  They are implicitly orthodox on these points.

In this regard, its the original sin aspect of that dogma. They began rejecting our understanding of original sin in the 19th century or so, during their period of intense purging of what they believed were Latin corruptions (since the doctrine on original sin was developed in the West in response to Pelagianism, out it went).  But it was not always so. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they teach original sin as we do (even citing St. Augustine).

As an aside, there's a similar phenomenon with indulgences, which they now deny.  At the pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople in 1727 and 1838 indulgences were affirmed. But now, they'll deny it. Same with Purgatory--it was affirmed in the strongest language by folks like their anti-Roman hero Mark of Ephesus (he only denied their being physical fire, but not the pain, etc.) and early explanations of toll-booths are consistent with our idea of purgatory (toll-booths merely being a symbol for the exacting of satisfaction; later explanations have generally gone too far, however making demons into judges instead of Our Lord).  

Even the primacy has been affirmed on and off--usually in a sedeprivationist way (ie, the Pope fell away from the Church by professing the Filioque, but if he returns to "orthodoxy" he will have the primacy again).  For example, Orthodox saint, Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th century monk) said:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).
(05-14-2012, 08:25 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2012, 03:10 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]And they claim to not accept the Immaculate Conception, but listen to a hymn about the Theotokos sometime.  Or ask a Russian priest if Mary was guilty of sin, and see if you get punched in the face.  They are implicitly orthodox on these points.

In this regard, its the original sin aspect of that dogma. They began rejecting our understanding of original sin in the 19th century or so, during their period of intense purging of what they believed were Latin corruptions (since the doctrine on original sin was developed in the West in response to Pelagianism, out it went).  But it was not always so. For example, at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem in 1672, they teach original sin as we do (even citing St. Augustine).

As an aside, there's a similar phenomenon with indulgences, which they now deny.  At the pan-Orthodox Councils of Constantinople in 1727 and 1838 indulgences were affirmed. But now, they'll deny it. Same with Purgatory--it was affirmed in the strongest language by folks like their anti-Roman hero Mark of Ephesus (he only denied their being physical fire, but not the pain, etc.) and early explanations of toll-booths are consistent with our idea of purgatory (toll-booths merely being a symbol for the exacting of satisfaction; later explanations have generally gone too far, however making demons into judges instead of Our Lord).  

Even the primacy has been affirmed on and off--usually in a sedeprivationist way (ie, the Pope fell away from the Church by professing the Filioque, but if he returns to "orthodoxy" he will have the primacy again).  For example, Orthodox saint, Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th century monk) said:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).

Do you have any references to these council's? I'm curious.
(05-14-2012, 08:01 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]If the orthodox do not deny the Assumption, I stand corrected.

Quote:Why would they accept the current Roman definition of Petrine supremacy when such was not practiced in its current form at any time prior to the schism?

Melkite, what about the Roman definition at Florence?

The Orthodox only deny that she was taken to heaven without dying first.

The Orthodox didn't accept Florence.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9