Former Catholic: Eastern Orthodox

[ICXCNIKA]

Greetings in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Before going on with my question it would probably be prudent to tell you all a little bit about my background. I was raised as a cradle catholic, and being born after Vatican II I never had the privilege of going to a Tridentine Mass. While I had respect for the N.O. Mass, I somehow felt as if I was missing out (much less deprived) on something as I fondly remember my grandfather telling me about how they celebrated masses in his day. Over the years, especially after my grandfather died, I became knowledgable about the Tridentine Rite, and somehow I felt I was forced to settle for something less in attending N.O. Masses. To be honest, I felt spiritually robbed of my religious heritage.

When I entered High School, I discovered the Orthodox Church. Immediately the emphasis on liturgical tradition orthodopraxis caught my eye. I was received into the Orthodox Church Holy Saturday of 2004.

I would like to take this time to discuss with fellow Catholics if they have qualms with the Novus Ordo? I sometimes find it amazing how my Catholic colleagues can claim such a string of traditions and theological beauty, which is simply not expressed nor relflected in the Mass anymore. I know that there are provisions such as indults and FSSP, which I believe are fantastic outlets for traditional Catholics - but they are often too difficult to procure. I find it quite disappointing that the church I once loved is now faced with increasing pressure to modernize: tear down those altar rails, omit invocations to the Virgin Mary, and create a liturgy and church architecture inspired by minimalism.

Any thoughts?

In Christ,

Michael

[Monoxide]

Have you ever considered the Eastern Catholic faiths? I am Ukrainian Catholic, who were at one time apparantly Orthodox, but rejoined the Roman Church. We hold the Catholic views, but have the beautiful archaic Divine Liturgy .

[ICXCNIKA]

Yes I have considered. Unfortunately, there are no Eastern Rites in my area. But first, I would first need evidence of Papal Supremacy throughout the ages. But how does one justify leaving one Rite simply because the former is spiritually unsatisfying? In my opinion, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are next to "modernized." They've already Novus-Ordized the Maronite Rite.

In Christ,

Michael

[Monoxide]

I am not familiar with Novus Ordanize, could you elaborate? I do not think you are justified in abandoning the one right for the other, mabye you could try to help nourish your life at home through prayer? Mabye a latin mass? Where abouts to you live? I will try to refer you to a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

[ICXCNIKA]

Well I shall not bother the forum in giving the details of my whereabouts, as I cherish my anonymity on the internet. First:

Novus Ordanize-Soon, the entire Roman Catholic Church will be faced to modernize. It is only a matter of time. And I don't see myself leaving the Church, Mono. Rather, I left an organization which in all respects has a forked tongue: professing tradition while on the other side modernizing because of ecclesiastical critics.

I've already done extensive research in my area. There is not an Eastern Rite in my area. And the indult mass here in my city is so pitiful that they might as well practice the Novus Ordo Missae.

In Christ,

ICXC

[Monoxide]

I guess it depends how far you are willing to travel to pray,

[ICXCNIKA]

Being a college student I neither have the finances nor the mode to travel very far, Monoxide.

Besides, with that respect - I certainly think God hears my prayer in an Orthodox Liturgy. Same Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom...just that we don't pray for our Supreme Pontiff in our ektenias,

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Monoxide]

Neither do we --- [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja][/color]... yeah. Well if you decide to go orthadox take this advice, Orthodox [color=red][Edited by Kilroy the Ninja - be nice][/color] they all know how to use guns and organize crime, so be careful not to insult any of them. Good friday is coming up too, so good luck.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Kilroy the Ninja

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 01:26 AM'] But how does one justify leaving one Rite simply because the former is spiritually unsatisfying? [/quote]
You not only left a rite, but the Church as well when you became orthodox, so why are you asking us that question?

[ICXCNIKA]

I simply wish to know that rationale. Obviously you can't blame people when they leave the desert when they can't find any water. And Monoxide, I'm very active in my parish. So far I haven't encountered any organized crime (well, if you count women who get together and make bad baklava. That in itself should be a crime!)

Also, out of curiosity, I just have to mention this. I find it strange that Catholics are already beginning to call John Paul II 'Magnum' (Great). From my understanding, the Cardinals have not even beatified him yet, let alone bestow him with any titles. Weird.

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

First, regarding the Tridentine Mass versus the Pauline Mass; I've attended both, and can tell you that both have their highlights, and both have things I wouldn't mind tweaking. But I enter into the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in both of them (I do so more easily and fruitfully at the Pauline rite, but that is my personal preference). The rites of the Church should not be set against one another. I don't feel like I'm in Heaven at any Liturgy. They're all human Liturgies, and will only benefit insofar as you can transcend them and truly enter into the Eucharistic mystery that is celebrated.

Here are a few articles that defend the Pauline rite of Mass with much documentation.

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html[/url]

[url="http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixa.html"]http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixa.html[/url]

Regarding Papal Primacy, I would point you to St. Maximus the Confessor (not to mention the Fathers themselves), who is honored by Catholics and Orthodox alike:

[quote]For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. (Seventh Century)[/quote]

I would highly recommend you read "The Russian Church and the Papacy", written by the great Eastern thinker Vladimir Soloviev, currently published by Catholic Answers. You might also consider "Upon This Rock" by Steve Ray, which provides copious documentation of papal primacy from Scripture and the Fathers. Here, also, is a website which records the ancient Eastern witness to Papal primacy (it is by no means exhaustive, obviously. For an exhaustive treatment, you would have to see a volume such as "Upon This Rock"):

[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl.../patriarchs.htm[/url]

[quote]Also, out of curiosity, I just have to mention this. I find it strange that Catholics are already beginning to call John Paul II 'Magnum' (Great). From my understanding, the Cardinals have not even beatified him yet, let alone bestow him with any titles. Weird.[/quote]

Sainthood by popular acclamation is an ancient tradition of the Church. It was not weird then, and it is not weird now. Today, however, our acclamation is always submitted to the final judgement of the Church. But the Church always takes into account the "Sensuus Fidei", by which God speaks to his Prelates.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[ICXCNIKA]

How convienent for you to be able to enter into a rite which is a) Avaliable to you and b) One that you can "Get in to". I never had that luxury.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 11:10 AM'] How convienent for you to be able to enter into a rite which is a) Avaliable to you and b) One that you can "Get in to". I never had that luxury. [/quote]
I could get into any rite, whether it was born in Greece, Rome, or Timbuktu. Liturgical rites are simply meant to help facilitate your enterining into the Eucharistic mystery. Undue dependence on them to that end is spiritually dangerous, because ephemeral rites can never satisfy you.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[ICXCNIKA]

Ephemeral? Are you claiming that the Mass is ephemeral? Sometimes I wonder about the modernity of the Catholic Church. Most churches in my area which are of the Catholic persuasion don't even appear to look like Churches, but more or less undefined modernist buildings which look like a Bauhaus nightmare.

You seem to quote Catholic Canon Law and doctrine well, but I would suggest that you read St. Gregory the Great's treatises on the concept of cosmic liturgy. The liturgy is primarily a sacred act before God, which means, in the words of St. Gregory, that at the hour of Sacrifice, in response to the priest’s acclamation, the heavens open up; the choirs of angels am witnessing this Mystery; what is above and what is below unite; heaven and earth are united, matters visible and invisible become united."

But, from my perspective traditional Catholics are referred to as effete and modern because they prefer to worship in a traditional manner. In times past, Masses were celebrated accompanied by orchestral music, in the glow of countless candles and wafting incense, today, following the dictum, "Get rid of all signs of triumphalism!" the celebrant stands before a bare altar, saying his prayers and addressing the faithful through a microphone. We have now simply eliminated an essential part of the liturgy: that of worshipping God. To worship is an obligation of man than can never change.

Shouldn't you offer a fitting Mass bent on praising God? Not to appease some standard of modernity?

I often wonder what it would be like for St. Gregory the Great to step into a Catholic Church today. I doubt he would probably even recognize what he is seeing, thinking that perhaps he has just stepped foot in some anathematic Church. He will think that he must have come to the wrong address and that he has accidentally ended up in some other Christian religious community.

The accustomed sacred art in the church has disappeared. Instead of a cross hanging over the altar there now is some often indefinable work of art; the altar itself being a bare slab of rock, akin to a barrow. In vain will he look for the tabernacle on the altar; nor will he find the communion rail. He will miss the smell of incense that he remembers to have always lingered after Mass.

In short the Roman Catholic 'reformers' of the liturgy have failed to consider adequately and address the issue of how the traditional forms of liturgy inspired among the faithful a sense of belonging, of feeling at home. They also failed to consider and deal with the Issue of the extent to which simply abolishing these forms of liturgy would also result in a loss of faith among the people.

Again as I said, don't blame someone when he gets thirsty and goes off to seek water when there is none in the desert. This modernity frightens me, and I do not wish to be apart of it, or sully myself with it until Rome begins to consider the needs of those who feel attached to the old rites. And no, indults are not enough. A priest should have every right to celebrate a fully licit Mass.

In Christ,

ICXCNIKA

[Guest JeffCR07]

ICXCNIKA,

Maranatha, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be with you!

It seems to me that some of my Catholic brothers and sisters have gone about this discussion in the wrong way. If you will allow me, I would like to discuss the points that you have raised and perhaps shed some insight into your question.

I also, like you, have been raised catholic and have never been to a Tridentine Mass, which I greatly regret. Within the past two years, I have really started to care about the Faith, and I have been reading the Fathers of the Church and the great theologians ever since. Moreover, the Liturgy is one of my chief loves, and it is one of the things which I care the most about. Like you, I have been appalled by liturgical abuse, and I have a burning desire to restore othropraxis to the faithful. Finally, my home parish is notably unorthodox, and I can certainly sympathize with your feeling that something is lacking.

But my brother, I do not think that a move to Eastern Orthodoxy is the wisest move. I look at it in the following way:

The faith and the practice, should, ideally, come hand in hand. However, at all times, the faith is more important than the practice. This does not degrade the practice, but in reality, lifts it up. For the practices of our faith are the service of our faith to the Almighty. The Divine Liturgy has never been, nor ever will be, ephemeral. Take the following example:

There is a man with a deep devotion to the Blessed Theotokos. He has been stranded on an island, and is without an icon of our Mother to pray before. Surely his faith is still upright before the Lord, but, at the same time, this man has surely been deprived of something wonderful.

But what if that man were to sacrifice some of his faith in order to gain for himself an icon of the God-bearer? I tell you, for that man it would be to no avail for him to do so - for the Mother of Christ loves the Faith, and interceeds for those who keep and bear it, but for those who leave even a part of it behind, she will only plead that they return to it.

Now imagine that this man has arrived on an island without an icon of the Theotokos, but that he is not alone. Instead, imagine that he is surrounded by other faithful, but none of whom bear with them an icon.

Again I tell you that such a man does not leave the people because they do not possess an icon, but rather he sees that they are as deprived as he is, and he endeavors to join with them in community and faith and to make such an icon for all to pray before.

I use this example to illustrate how I look at the problem. Certainly I am deprived, even now, of the glory of what the Litgury could - and should - be. But if I am deprived of it, then so too are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and my first concern is for [i]them[/i] even above my concern for myself. Thus, I see God calling me to instill in my catholic brothers and sisters a love of orthopraxis, a love of deep, rich, and reverent liturgy.

But always I remember what the purpose of such reverent and deep liturgy is: the Faith. Orthopraxis teaches us that we should be gladly willing to die before renouncing even an ounce of our faith.


For this reason, I would like to turn our discussion to what I think is a deeper question: in joining the Orthodox Church, you have renounced your faith that Peter was the head of the Church, and that his Successor retains that divine authority and role. Why are you willing to let go of that aspect of the faith?

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Are you claiming that the Mass is ephemeral?[/quote]The word "Mass" comes from the Latin "Missa", meaning the missal the priest uses to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. The [i]sacrifice[/i] of the Mass is eternal. The ritual ceremonies we use to offer that sacrifice, however, are not eternal. They are human attempts to echoe the Heavenly Liturgy which we participate in by faith. Human ceremonies can never satisfy man, because man made them, and they bear the seeds of his own finite nature. The Liturgical rites of the Church help us ascend to God. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Liturgical rites lead us to God. But Liturgical rites are not ends in themselves. If we rely on ritual ceremonies to the point where we cannot enter into the divine life of God without them, then we have fallen into a very dangerous spiritual error. We have exchanged the beauty of the creator for the beauty of the creature. Sometimes going to mass is very much an aesthetic pleasure. At other times, though the same aesthetic elements are present, they do not move a person as they once did. Why? Because they are ephemeral rites. We must be able to enter into the Eucharistic mystery no matter what, smells and bells or not.

[quote]In times past, Masses were celebrated accompanied by orchestral music, in the glow of countless candles and wafting incense, today, following the dictum, "Get rid of all signs of triumphalism!" the celebrant stands before a bare altar, saying his prayers and addressing the faithful through a microphone. We have now simply eliminated an essential part of the liturgy: that of worshipping God. To worship is an obligation of man than can never change.[/quote]

This is a very romanticized view of Liturgical history. The Roman rite, in particular, has always been very low key. The old Catholic Encyclopedia, written in 1913 (long before the Second Vatican Council), notes:

[quote]"So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical."[/quote]Note that "the original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical". This is a far cry from your romanticized version. Catholic Liturgical scholar Dom Cabral writes in 1934:

[quote]"At the time we are now considering (SEVENTH CENTURY) there were neither crosses nor candles, neither tabernacle or retable; nor were there any of these things till the ninth, or even the eleventh, century. But the "ciborium," a kind of dome, or dais, usually supported by four columns, was in use from the fourth century onwards, and sometimes at Rome it was made of precious metal. The marbles, mosaics, chandeliers, and candelabras, the lamps hanging from the vaulted roof and other ornaments in use from the time of Constantine, show us that the Church has come out of the catacombs, and that to primitive austerity has succeeded the desire to surround Divine worship with splendour, upheld by the generosity of Christians."[/quote]

The more grandeur elements that originally developed in the Roman Rite were Gallican transports.

St. Justin Martyr indicates the order of Mass during his time:

[quote]On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.[/quote]That sounds like the modern Roman Rite, almost to a tee.

The fact is, the Pauline rite of Mass is very much a blend of early Roman simplicity with later Roman grandeur. It does not rid of the substance of the ceremonial elements of the Tridentine rite, but it also strikes the balance of practicality evident in the original Roman rite. Catholics who attend the Mass of Paul VI are just as "traditional" as Catholics who attend the Mass of Pius V.

It is indeed unfortunate that many of the Church's ministers on the local level have profaned the Sacred Liturgy, and spurned the directives of the Church. But this is an entirely separate question than the nature of the Pauline rite itself.

[quote]A priest should have every right to celebrate a fully licit Mass.[/quote]

A licit mass is one said with ecclesiastical authority. You may have in mind a valid Mass. No, a priest does not have a right to use any valid Liturgical form he wishes. He doesn't have a right to use the Missal of Pius V anymore than he has a right to use the Missals of the early Church. If he wishes to use an older form of the Roman rite, then he will beseech the proper authorities, and respect their wishes.

[ICXCNIKA]

But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to. And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.

And as to Jeff's statement, First I do not see myself as 'giving up the faith'. I kept my faith, and found something which fulfills me spiritually. Second, I know if I go back to the Roman Church I will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent). I cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles. I would suggest that you go and read the Acts of the Apostles where Peter demonstrated one of his undeniably virtuous characteristics - that of admitting that he was wrong on occassion. Thankfully, it was St. Paul who won the debates with St. Peter concerning the baptism and chrismation of Gentiles. If the entire Apostolic Church fell in line with St. Peter, I and many others would probably not be having this discussion in this forum.

The monarchy which you have created yourself does not equip the Pontiff with that luxury; afterall such a statement could render the whole 'guidance of the Holy Spirit without error' void. The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy.

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to.[/quote]

Correct, because you have a right to the Mass, not a right to a specific rite of the Mass (pun intended ). The Missal of Paul VI is the lawful form of the Roman Rite currently in use. Those Latin Catholics who wish to worship according to an older form of the Roman Rite are seeking an exception to law. The Bishops are free to grant or deny their appeal, based on their own Apostolic discretion.

[quote]And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.[/quote]

The Mass of Paul VI is not at all "improvised". Like all the other liturgical rites of the Church, it has specific Liturgical directives. There are elements of it which have multiple options (such as the four Eucharistic Canons), but these elements are not "improvised". The early Liturgies of the Church, on the other hand, were completely improvised. Again, I cite the old 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote]In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts", and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected.[/quote]

[quote] will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent).[/quote]

You know nothing of disorder in the Church. St. Ambrose describes the times of St. Athanasius, noting that "the world woke up to find itself Arian". We have it pretty good these days, to say the least.

[quote]cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles.[/quote]

Since you refer to the Acts of the Apostles, I will cite St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the election of Judas's successor:

[quote]"Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him [Peter], and no longer dispute with each other....[Peter says, 'Men and bretheren...' in Acts 1:15-16]. Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient'. So far was [Peter] beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. [i]And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively[/i]. But well might these things be done in this fasion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed."[/quote]

Note well that Peter "had the same power to ordain [the successor of Judas] as they all collectively". He had the power in himself, that the Apostles had together. But, St. Chrysostom notes that Peter did not choose to act alone, but to act in unison with his fellow Apostles. This is Catholic doctrine in action. The Pope has supreme authority in the Church, as did St. Peter, but he chooses to act in unison with his brother Bishops, because the Lord established the college with authority as a whole as well.

Pope Leo the Great, as well, asserts his supreme authority in the fifth century:

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler"[/quote]

[quote]The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy.[/quote]

The Lord established a college of Bishops for a reason. Each Bishop is responsible for his own See. The authority of the Roman Pontiff does not rule out the authority, and duty, of the individual Bishops to sheperd the flock given to them. The Roman Pontiff cannot micromanage every See. That is why they have Bishops.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 12:58 PM'] But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to. And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.

And as to Jeff's statement, First I do not see myself as 'giving up the faith'. I kept my faith, and found something which fulfills me spiritually. Second, I know if I go back to the Roman Church I will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent). I cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles. I would suggest that you go and read the Acts of the Apostles where Peter demonstrated one of his undeniably virtuous characteristics - that of admitting that he was wrong on occassion. Thankfully, it was St. Paul who won the debates with St. Peter concerning the baptism and chrismation of Gentiles. If the entire Apostolic Church fell in line with St. Peter, I and many others would probably not be having this discussion in this forum.

The monarchy which you have created yourself does not equip the Pontiff with that luxury; afterall such a statement could render the whole 'guidance of the Holy Spirit without error' void. The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy. [/quote]
ICXCNIKA, it seems to me that you have not read the early Church Fathers, or, if you have, you have chosen to ignore that which does not fit your personal theology. I noticed that you have not responded to the above quote by St. Maximus the Confessor.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 12 2005, 01:26 PM'] ICXCNIKA, it seems to me that you have not read the early Church Fathers, or, if you have, you have chosen to ignore that which does not fit your personal theology. I noticed that you have not responded to the above quote by St. Maximus the Confessor. [/quote]
The fact is I have read the Fathers of the Church and specifically the pre-schismatic Popes. None of them held the power which Pontiffs do today. These were all innovations placed forth after the Great Schism when Rome broke off from the Church. I would also like a reference to the quote coming from St. Maximus. I cannot seem to find it in any of my saying of St. Maximus the Confessor published by Regina Press.

As far as an Orthodox opinion on Roman Ecclesiology:

his idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.

Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

-From Fr. Michael Azkoul's "Difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism."

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA