Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Marybeloved]

Is it branch theory to say that other Christians are imperfectly united to the Church through baptism? My little "theory" above was not meant to say that every "Church" is a part of the true Church, but rather that every Christian outside the communion with Rome (The people) are imperfectly united with her in differing degrees. I think there's a difference between the two and that it is the first one (The Churches are part of the one Church) that is branch theory (heresy). But if I'm wrong feel free to correct me, the thoughts expressed are just attempts at reconciling the paradoxical truths taught in Christianity. But I don't think they are too far off, IMHO.

[Art321]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

Is it branch theory to say that other Christians are imperfectly united to the Church through baptism? My little "theory" above was not meant to say that every "Church" is a part of the true Church, but rather that every Christian outside the communion with Rome (The people) are imperfectly united with her in differing degrees. I think there's a difference between the two and that it is the first one (The Churches are part of the one Church) that is branch theory (heresy). But if I'm wrong feel free to correct me, the thoughts expressed are just attempts at reconciling the paradoxical truths taught in Christianity. But I don't think they are too far off, IMHO.

Actually, I believe you are right. Rome does teach the Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of Christ and all true particular churches outside its visible confines are called to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church. Still, the Church does teach that all Chirstians outside her confines are linked in some way to the Church.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by Nine_Two

The Orthodox Church, and I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church as well, disagree with point one.

Originally Posted by dzheremi

I'm sorry, DadDave, but what's hogwash is the idea that somehow Catholics and Orthodox are part of the same church without being in communion with each other.

Actually, quite a number of other Catholic posters on Catholic Answers Forums say what DadDave is saying. I can't quote them from memory, but they have a very significant presence on this forum.

[DadDave]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp, and why Catholics or others would say that the Orthodox are part of the same church

Because they were for 1,000 years in communion. But due to the fallen nature of man they are no longer in communion.
But since Orthodox have valid sacraments, and hence they have a real Church, and since there is only one Church -- Catholics and Orthodox are part fo the same church from a Catholic perspective. Although I understand many Orthodox don't see it that way.

Originally Posted by dzheremi

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp, and why Catholics or others would say that the Orthodox are part of the same church, or for that matter why Catholics would take the Anglican branch theory (which is much maligned because it's wrong on its face, by the way) and run with it for any reason. I thought the Anglicans were wrong and you were right? Heck, I thought that everyone else was wrong and you were right. Don't try to be all things to all people. "Big tent" Catholicism is the death of your church (and I say this as an ex-Catholic who still has a lot of love for certain aspects of Catholicism and the people in it). It is better to have some backbone and conviction in declaring your beliefs to the world, as (thanks be to God) your current Pope seems to have in decrying relativism and increasingly anti-religious secular humanism.

That's a pretty big step from my comment about RC and Orthodox to anti-religious secular humanism.

[dzheremi]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Actually, quite a number of other Catholic posters on Catholic Answers Forums say what DadDave is saying. I can't quote them from memory, but they have a very significant presence on this forum.

Yeah, and they're wrong.

Originally Posted by DadDave

Because they were for 1,000 years in communion. But due to the fallen nature of man they are no longer in communion.
But since Orthodox have valid sacraments, and hence they have a real Church, and since there is only one Church -- Catholics and Orthodox are part fo the same church from a Catholic perspective. Although I understand many Orthodox don't see it that way.

So it's a matter of different opinions? I don't think so. It's not my opinion that we worship God in His holy church according to the ways of our fathers and masters the Apostles and those who sat at their feet and the feet of their disciples throughout the first years of Christianity, and that it is this keeping of the apostolic faith that marks the Church, and not some legal category of "validity" that is conferred upon us from outside should we satisfy legal criteria X, Y, and Z in the minds of the rationalist Roman theologians who are divorced from even their own history (which is Orthodox). That's not opinion at all. That's reality as experienced in the Church itself, not as proclaimed on high from afar off (be it in Rome, or in Alexandria, or in Constantinople, or wherever). In other words, we are not part of the same church just because we declare that we are. We are part of the same church because our faith is the same. The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I've been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!

That's a pretty big step from my comment about RC and Orthodox to anti-religious secular humanism.

What can I say? I stand with your Pope in opposing those things. I do not agree with the church that he is the head bishop of, but that's not going to stop me from giving credit where credit is due.

[DadDave]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

Yeah, and they're wrong.



So it's a matter of different opinions? I don't think so. It's not my opinion that we worship God in His holy church according to the ways of our fathers and masters the Apostles and those who sat at their feet and the feet of their disciples throughout the first years of Christianity, and that it is this keeping of the apostolic faith that marks the Church, and not some legal category of "validity" that is conferred upon us from outside should we satisfy legal criteria X, Y, and Z in the minds of the rationalist Roman theologians who are divorced from even their own history (which is Orthodox). That's not opinion at all. That's reality as experienced in the Church itself, not as proclaimed on high from afar off (be it in Rome, or in Alexandria, or in Constantinople, or wherever). In other words, we are not part of the same church just because we declare that we are. We are part of the same church because our faith is the same. The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I've been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!



What can I say? I stand with your Pope in opposing those things. I do not agree with the church that he is the head bishop of, but that's not going to stop me from giving credit where credit is due.

So you're disagreeing with what I have said?

[dzheremi]

I'm saying that our churches don't operate the same way when it comes to deciding who is or is not in the church, so it kind of doesn't matter if one side or the other thinks that we're part of the same church based on some criteria not agreed upon by both, or even understood by both (as I've never heard any Orthodox person talk about "validity" unless it is to explain that this is not a part of our mindset, since we're not Roman Catholics).

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

The faith of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is not the same (I've been in both; I am speaking from experience). Hence, they are not the same church. Would that they were!

I'm afraid your making your personal experience the standard that determines the sameness of the faith of the two groups pretty much proves it's personal opinion, contrary to your protests to the contrary. There are many with greater experience than yours, some even here at CAF, who say very differently than you.

[dzheremi]

So, in other words, Mary, those who disagree with my stance based on their own personal experience are right, but it is somehow wrong for me to proceed based on what I've actually experienced in both churches? Hmm. Think about that one for a little while. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Besides, I only put that in there because otherwise I fear that my stance might be seen as unreasonably anti-Catholic; mere (e-)Orthodox polemic, if you will. The actual proof of the differences in the faith of the churches is amply found in the writings of their respective bishops, saints, fathers, etc. which inform their theology, their ecclesiology, and the practice of and approach to their faith. While there may be many similarities at some level, the faith of Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, or Mary Faustina Kowalska is transparently not the same as that of the Orthodox saints, and neither is the faith of the Catholic bishops (including Pope Benedict) the same as that of the Orthodox bishops. They're just not the same, and to insist that they are (which you would have to do if you want to commune in an Orthodox church) is deeply misinformed. You don't have to be a theologian to figure that out.

[Wisely]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

I'm afraid your making your personal experience the standard that determines the sameness of the faith of the two groups pretty much proves it's personal opinion, contrary to your protests to the contrary. There are many with greater experience than yours, some even here at CAF, who say very differently than you.

No, he's right... the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith are ontologically different.

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by dzheremi

So, in other words, Mary, those who disagree with my stance based on their own personal experience are right, but it is somehow wrong for me to proceed based on what I've actually experienced in both churches? Hmm. Think about that one for a little while. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nope! Not what I said. What I did was point to the logical inconsistency that is plain when you claim to speak an objective truth based on a subjective experience when there are clearly a good number of people who claim similar/greater experience who conclude very differently than you.

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by Wisely

No, he's right... the Roman Catholic faith and the Orthodox faith are ontologically different.

If you look at my posting History, you will find that there are things I find wrong in the modern expressions and claims of E.Orthodoxy some of which live on in Eastern Catholicism. I don't wish to argue that everything we believe is the same, and you will never catch me insisting that we have one belief where there are clearly differences- especially as expressed by the Orthodox in discussion. (Though I'm pretty certain from my reading and participation of many debates that most of what is claimed by "differences" by E.O Polemicists usually involves an imposition of false understandings of catholic Doctrine on Catholics- They love to tell us what we believe, assuming they understand Catholic Doctrine better than the Church herself! Which is why I call these particular ones Polemicists rather than Apologists for E.O). But you can't claim to express an objective fact and then reference personal experience in support, especially when there are those whose personal experience in the same situation has lead to a different conclusion.

[dzheremi]

Did you not read my subsequent post, Mary? That was an afterthought thrown in as a courtesy to your church and the fact that many do believe that they and the Orthodox share the same faith. That's not what matters. My personal experiences or your personal experiences or anyone's personal experiences are not what determine the Orthodoxy or lack thereof of any other church outside of Orthodoxy. What they believe and how they practice what they believe does. Or, in short, as I have been saying since the beginning: Whether they share the same faith is what is paramount. If Rome truly did share the Orthodox faith again, I'm sure the Orthodox would recognize it and, with the necessary precautionary measures satisfied (i.e., Rome repudiating its errors and not returning to them), welcome Rome and all in her who are similarly disposed back to communion with great joy and rejoicing. BUT that's never going to happen if you think you're already essentially there. You're not. This is not a controversial position, and it's certainly not a matter of personal opinion. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read what the various bishops and other learned men of the Orthodox church have to say in their own words. Here is one of my favorites to get you started, a transcription of an address given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew delivered at Georgetown University. While I am not Eastern Orthodox, I agree with his essential point that we are ontologically different.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Marybeloved

...

You wrote so many interesting thoughts, but right now I want to reply in particular to this:

"Yes, there are certainly degrees even within heaven itself (none of us can ever have the place of Our Blessed Lady), and I remember reading that Judaism taught/teaches about several degrees of hell (which really amount to purgatory or limbo or the other states you mentioned, as they are all transitional apart from the last one, a permanent one which to Christians would be THE hell of damnation)."

Heaven has a specific meaning as the ultimate destination of the just. The non-heavenly state may include a state of natural happiness without the Beatific Vision for those that were not baptized and that did no works. It is certainly the dogmatic teaching of Trent that only the baptized are capable of Heaven.

Council of Trent, Canon 2 on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism:If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema.

Here is the logic for infants and all. In order to have the Beatific Vision, it is required to die in a state of grace, for which reason we are baptized and receive the other Holy Mysteries. God has promised we will be in that state if we die in grace. The degree of glory in heaven varies with the kind of life we lived. For infants that are not baptized we can say that they are not guaranteed to have the Beatific Vision, we can only hope for them.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3

Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

[hazcompat]

Address Of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew — Phos Hilaron (Joyful Light)


Delivered at Georgetown University, Washington, DC on 21 October 1997

...

"This change, which is bestowed on us from the right hand of the Most High, remains hidden, secret and mystical to many. And thus, a life which is directed toward Him is called mystical. That which leads to divine grace are called mysteries. The entire change of both language and intellect is beyond comprehension and when directed by God leads to unspeakable mysteries. However, the change of man’s essence, theosis by grace, is a fact that is tangible for all the Orthodox faithful. Grace is not only obtained through the transformed relics of the saints, which is totally inexplicable without acceptance of the divine. Grace also radiates from living Saints who are truly in the likeness of the Lord [Luke 8:46]. This change is also obtained through Holy Baptism which through grace transforms the neophyte. The transformation may only be grasped and discerned by the senses of those, who have been baptized, and who are receptive to it without external persuasion. According to the trustworthy testimony of devout Christians, divine grace even infuses the inanimate. This too, is discerned by those who are sensitive and pure of heart. Grace can also be obtained by the presence of the Saints who have influenced and sanctified, and to a degree transformed, natural objects and places."

This happens to all to whom the Most High, the Holy Mighty One, the Immortal One and Lover of mankind chooses. When you see The Spirit in Rome and Agio Oros, then what?

peace