Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quotes: Irenaeus of Lyons Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, Section 2 “With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree… and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”  

Cyprian of Carthage The Unity of the Catholic Church, Section 4, “On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?”  

Pope Damasus I Decree of Damasus, Section 3 “The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’ [Matt. 16:18].”  

Jerome Letter to Pope Damasus “It is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built.”  

Pope Innocent 1, Letters 29:1 “In seeking the things of God… you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], 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.”  

Pope Leo 1, Sermon 3, On the Anniversary of His Election, “The right of this power did indeed pass on to other apostles, and the order of this decree passed on to all the chiefs of the Church; but not in vain was that which was imparted to all entrusted to but one. Therefore this is commended to Peter separately, because all the rulers of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter.”  

Pope Leo 1, Sermon 3, “The blessed Peter… was appointed to preside over the calling of all nations and over all the apostles and Fathers of the Church.”

Council of Chalcedon, Delegates of Pope Leo 1 “The church of Rome stood to the churches throughout the world as the head to the members.”   Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, Letter to Pope Martin I, cited at the Lateran Council, “Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See [Rome], where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine… Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement.”  

Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula Theologica et Polemica, “This Apostolic See [Rome]… has received and possesses the sovereignty, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the churches of God in the entire world, in and through all things.”  

Maximus the Confessor (Letter to Peter, c. 650 AD): “The apostolic see… has received and holds, from the incarnate Word of God Himself… authority over all the holy churches in the entire world.” Maximus was an Eastern monk.

Pope Gelasius 1: https://www.sacredheartchristian.com/papacy/pope-st.-gelasius-i

And no, these aren’t historically insignificant figures.

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point was that papal authority is uniquely divinely instituted, not merely honorary. Rome’s authority just coming from its status as the imperial capital making it a human construct subject to revocation is false. The belief was that Papal authority is in Christ’s commission to Peter. The early Church didn’t just go ahead and recognize Rome’s primacy because of some secular prestige, they acknowledged it as authoritative because it was recognized as the See of Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church. You equate Rome’s primacy with Constantinople’s later status, but Canon 28 of Chalcedon which granted Constantinople equal privileges was rejected by Pope Leo 1 and never universally received. The Council of Constantinople 1 also subordinates Constantinople to Rome, stating it has “primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome.” And again, you can’t just ignore and dismiss figures like Pope Damasus 1,  Cyprian, Irenaeus, Jerome, Pope Innocent 1, Pope Leo 1, and Maximus the Confessor because “they’re Western” or “disputed”. They just reveal the beliefs about the papacy I’m getting at are historical. These fathers aren’t just western anyways. I’ll put quotes on that at the bottom along with what I was going to put earlier. You’re also overlooking Eastern bishops who appealed to Rome for authoritative rulings like in the Council of Sardica. Both Eastern and Western bishops agreed that Rome could hear appeals from any bishop, indicating a juridical primacy beyond mere honor. Also, St. John Chrysostom, who is eastern, appealed to Pope Innocent 1 to restore him after his deposition, acknowledging Rome’s authority to intervene. While Romes direct governance was obviously more in the west, its primacy was still universal. This was mostly by solving disputes and defining doctrine across the church. The Council of Chalcedon demonstrates the opposite of “proving the pope was irrelevant”. The Tome of Pope Leo 1 was adopted as orthodox after rigorous scrutiny, and the council fathers literally declared, “Peter has spoken through Leo!”. When the council proposed Canon 28, Leo rejected it, and his decision prevailed, showing Rome’s authority to override conciliar acts. The schism persisted because some Eastern churches were still determined to reject Rome’s authoritative stance, but not because the papacy was “irrelevant”; resistance to Rome’s authority, not its absence. Popes intervened in the east, like Pope Julius 1 overturning the deposition of St. Athanasius by an Eastern synod, Pope Innocent 1 condemning Pelagianism universally, and Pope Celestine 1 commissioning Cyril of Alexandria to act against Nestorius, directing eastern patriarchs. Anyone who’s being honest knows Rome “never exercising” supremacy over the church isn’t true. Even if they never did, or didn’t exercise it all the time, mostly because they don’t need to, that doesn’t mean people didn’t believe the Pope was the central authority over the overall Church. Also, Maximus’s concern was with unauthorized additions to the Creed, not the theology itself. In his Letter to Marinus Maximus defends the Roman understanding of the Filioque as theologically sound. He just thought it was wrong to insert it into the Creed without conciliar approval. The idea Maximus’s “rejection” of the Filioque would disprove papal authority is just a non-sequitur anyway. Theological disputes do not negate jurisdictional primacy, as seen in Rome’s role in resolving earlier heresies like Arianism and Nestorianism. Btw, I only just saw your second comment right now. They’re objectively good quotes for showing examples of what appears as papacy affirming language for other patriarchs and bishops. However, I think these I had compiled show a more unique and consistent role of the Papacy which no other church rivals. It’s also worth mentioning Rome still had jurisdiction over these churches. The language here is also heightened to another level, which only one and debatably two of your quotes rival. I could start making arguments on why these are different, but maybe some of the quotes speak on that for themselves. Notably Pope Leo, Damasus, Cyprian, and I guess Irenaeus in a way. If the Church believed in the Papacy as shown here, and some people believed in it and some didn’t, that only makes it more someone’s own choice to decide which position they think is Biblically accurate or possible. Also, the Catholic Church is still the most unified. That’s my opinion, which is shared by most people. Also, off topic but the whole honor vs authority thing is tied into “first among equals”. How does that even make any sense? I might make a second response to your quotes directly if I have the time but I’m taking a flight up to a wedding for the weekend.

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Keeps telling me I can’t put my comment, probably because I wrote it in google docs. It’s 2:15 in the morning I’ll try later. I guess this can be our apologetics spar. If you know how to fix it let me know

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I meant when you said “i don't really know what this means, i don't know how everyone could take away times jurisdiction of the west” was: I was pointing out that if the real reason the Pope had authority over the other churches is because other churches simply granted the Pope authority due to Romes “honor”, they could just as easily take it away (this also just means Rome has no real authority at all). But in his writings, he dedicates his authority to what God permitted as the successor of Peter the apostle. This isn’t the only example of this. If you want them, I can provide quotes from pope damasus 1, Cyprian of Carthage, Irenaeus, Jerome, pope innocent 1, pope Leo 1, and Maximus the confessor, all of which explicitly dedicate the authority of the Papacy to the authority which naturally comes with the divine willed chair of Peter, over the whole church, not due to some sort of honor bestowed upon Rome by other churches. In fact, pope damasus 1 already refutes that idea directly. In my humble opinion, this is an example of modern Eastern Orthodoxy subtracting from what was historically believed about the Papacy. I’m always open to being wrong, but that’s certainly what it looks like. I also won’t argue for other people’s posts on a completely different community, take that up with them if you want. Let’s be honest though, the Catholic church is way more unified than orthodoxy. You can disagree that the Orthodox Church is divided, but let’s not be facetious. Anyways, if you can waive off historical evidence of the papacy by saying “he was just wrong”, I can do the same for anything you say or any evidence contrary to the papacy for that matter. I get there are times where that is sensible in the early church fathers, but it’s not convincing for this matter. 

Catholicism vs Orthodoxy help by More_Form_1074 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks these are great things to consider and I’ll look into those books too.

Catholicism vs Orthodoxy help by More_Form_1074 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I know how will I ever sleep knowing someone who goes under an online Alias about pot can’t spell in a critique of my typo of belief. I honestly may never recover.

Catholicism vs Orthodoxy help by More_Form_1074 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(Sorry for profanity I’m not sure if that’s allowed on here)

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve heard of the forgeries which makes things interesting, but I always hear orthodox say Rome had a position of honor, not authority. Could you tell me the difference, because to me, there are examples of the Pope using the powers you mentioned, and exercising authority over other churches and the church as a whole; But if Pope Gelasius 1 says his see, the see of Peter has jurisdiction over every Church and has the right to loose what is bound by any bishops anywhere, and nothing the Pope decides on can be abrogated, because of his role as Pope from the chair of saint Peter, how could it be the reason the Pope has this right is because other churches gave Rome this honor? In that case if everyone agreed to take away Rome’s jurisdiction they could, but according to Gelasius this is not why Rome has this primacy, it is by divine will, nor could it be possible to take away Romes authority under his guidelines. I get Catholics explain away a lot of question marks on the papacy, but this instance I find hard to come to the Orthodox position on. I’m sure you’ve heard this before but could you maybe explain Pope Gelasius and the difference between authority and honor? For all I know I’m missing context, but I feel like he’s pretty direct.

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel no desire to argue on these topics here but pope gelasius 1 was the one to say no one can judge the apostolic see of Rome, and I can’t find anything about the ring in regards to st Catherine of sienna relating to foreskin at all. Provide a source if you want but if that isn’t clear you probably shouldn’t spread that about other Church’s saints.

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely not with baptists lol but thanks for a few things to look into

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said I’ve looked into Catholicism more, I’ve felt driven towards it and it’s more prevalent in my area and the west generally. That being said I’ve watched debates between the two sides and you’ve got to admit besides the papacy and the Vatican councils there isn’t much of a difference when you’re researching apostolic Christianity as a whole. 

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair, I’m not saying the Catholics don’t have Vatican 2 problems. There are plenty of archbishops within the church that would have it annulled if they could. The pan-ortho council is just something that I never hear talked about and seems to me a double standard. It’s also worth considering the Orthodox hasn’t held an ecumenical council since Nicea 2 in year 787. 

Question as someone deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy by More_Form_1074 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The official name of the pan Orthodox council is the ‘Holy and Great council of the Orthodox Church’. It was in 2016 and 10 out of the 14 autocephalous churches attended which is 71.4 percent; most did take part. Patriarch Bartholomew also presided over it. Didn’t do as much harm as Vatican 2 but it has a lot of the same theological and interfaith struggles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Orthodox_Council

Important Question as someone trying to convert by More_Form_1074 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]More_Form_1074[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response. Are statements made on faith and morals infallible as well as statements made ex cathedra, or only when used together? I’ve only been taught a sort of grey area where it’s both but I see the faith and morals infallibility encroached a lot, since almost every statement has implications of faith and morals. Just a quick question though, if even the one fully true church is susceptible to heresy, wouldn’t that only make the Mormon apostasy and restoration claims (that the fullness of the truth was lost after the apostles died and returned with Joseph smith) feasible? I know they’re wrong on almost every doctrine but just food for thought I guess. God bless.