Resources on Papal primacy and Catholic ecclesiology to counter Orthodox claims

Started by Mrs. HK, February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mrs. HK

Recent interactions with Eastern Orthodox have prompted me to investigate the development of the papacy throughout the history of the Church. I am mostly interested in finding any books or resources dealing with the development of the papacy prior to the Great Schism. Right now, I have been reading about the Reform movement of the 11 century.

Orthodox claim Roman Catholic ecclesiology has greatly diverged from the ecclesiology of the ancient Church. They would say, perhaps, the we have moved from a model of Collegiality to a model of Papal Monarchy. Now, I don't dispute that things certainly look very different today than in the first millennium. One won't find the papacy's understanding of itself in the first centuries to be the same was it was during the Middle Ages. The real question is: is it a divergence or a necessary development? The Orthodox, of course, don't subscribe to the idea of the development of doctrine, so making an argument for the papacy beyond the initial structuring of the Church seems futile.

Maybe I'm missing something important here, but it seems to me that we Catholics are working with a very, very different idea of how the Church essentially functions.

[ Going out on a limb, my own idea is that the Orthodox mistrust of the reasoning mind has led it to be suspicious of any attempt to say A+B=C when it comes to developing and growing the Church. A good example, though not directly related to this topic, is their view on the Catholic devotion of Eucharistic Adoration. We say: The Bread and Wine truly become Christ + we worship Christ= We should adore Him in the Sacrament. The Orthodox would say this is a dangerous misapplication of our ability to reason and an unnecessary innovation (though in essence it is not heretical). They would also say that the Eucharistic is only adored in its proper context which is the Liturgy. ]

A recent conversation I had with an Orthodox priest included him saying that the Catholic Church had a "weak ecclesiology" and that bishops "effectively have no power within the Catholic Church because of the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction." I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to this, given what I just mentioned above. This is what prompted me to try and delve into these matters deeply.

I, like many disaffected traditional Catholics, have been tempted several times by the seemingly coherent faith and intact traditions of the Orthodox. These sorts of claims can be quite damaging to someone who is already in despair about the state of the Catholic Church, especially for those who don't have a solid grasp on these issues from the start. I really think the Orthodox pose a legitimate threat of taking many Catholics from the True Church because their claims about early church history as it relates to the development of the papacy are not always easy to refute. In light of the current situation in the Roman church, it is easy to see how one could start to think the development of the papacy is ultimately what will lead to the complete loss of Tradition.

Can anyone comment on or recommend any resources that deal with question of the development of the papacy and particularly why the idea of development is essential to the Church and can be justified?

Miriam_M

Ecclesiology is not one of my areas of specialization, but I'm pleased to see you contributing to the forum.  And so intelligently.  Hopefully others will weigh in.
:)

rbjmartin

I have always found the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons to be quite convincing in this matter. From "Against the Heresies" Book 3, Chapter 3:
Quote2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

LausTibiChriste

I have a lot of interaction with Orthodox people so I'd be happy to hear responses to Mrs. HK's post.

I have never had temptations to go Orthodox, thank God, as much as I admire and adore the Eastern traditions both spiritually and liturgically speaking. It boggles my mind how they can just wholesale ignore the words of Christ. I mean, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, it says right in the Gospels, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" How much more F'ing clear does our Lord have to be for these people to wake up and stop being so damn ignorant and wrong? Christ didn't say, "Thou art Peter and with thy brother Apostles I will build my Church" He said "YOU. ARE. PETER. AND. UPON. THIS. ROCK. I. WILL. BUILD. MY. CHURCH." They are a proud and self-righteous folk - and one day they WILL humbly submit to the Chair of Peter.

Drives me loony, man. Seriously.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son Of God, Have Mercy On Me A Sinner

"Nobody is under any moral obligation of duty or loyalty to a state run by sexual perverts who are trying to destroy public morals."
- MaximGun

"Not trusting your government doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist, it means you're a history buff"

Communism is as American as Apple Pie

Quaremerepulisti

This is a good question, and one which many traditional Catholics won't have a good answer to since many versions of traditional Catholicism are simply de facto Orthodoxy in disguise.  There is after all no essential difference between claiming the Roman Church departed from Tradition 1,000 years after Christ or 2,000 years after Christ.  I very seriously considered Orthodoxy before becoming Catholic.  And frankly IMHO Eastern theology has it all over the West in many areas.

But to be quite honest even pre-Vatican II polemics against Orthodoxy was weak as well, a symptom of a more basic weakness in pre-Vatican II theology as a whole, and the Orthodox have valid responses.  "On this rock?"  The rock was Peter's confession of faith, rather than Peter himself.  There is credible exegetical support for this view.  Lots of Fathers and Saints, etc., supported the Papal primacy?  Well, sure, lots of Western Fathers did.  Obviously they'd be expected to root for the home team.  And there should be a certain bias against claims of power by those claiming it, since of course power is very flattering to fallen human nature.

But the true Church of Christ must have, by its nature, and logically, an organ of unity, since the Church must be One.  Catholicism has that, while Orthodoxy does not.  There is nothing intrinsically impossible about two of the Patriarchies splitting apart over a doctrinal dispute and each anathematizing the other.  How to know which is correct?  (And of course this is exactly what happened when the East split from Rome a millenium ago.  Orthodoxy does not have, by its own logic, a means to determine that Rome was wrong and they were right.)

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 25, 2016, 02:26:04 PM
It boggles my mind how they can just wholesale ignore the words of Christ...

They have very good answers to this one.  Was everyone ignoring the words of Christ before the Papal primacy was formulated as doctrine?  Moreover, credible exegesis can have "this rock" meaning the faith of Peter rather than the person of Peter.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM
Can anyone comment on or recommend any resources that deal with question of the development of the papacy and particularly why the idea of development is essential to the Church and can be justified?

It is impossible to prove the intrinsic necessity or impossibility of development of doctrine.  It can be argued that such is fitting, as trees do not come into existence all at once, but grow from seeds and then saplings.

nmoerbeek

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM
Recent interactions with Eastern Orthodox have prompted me to investigate the development of the papacy throughout the history of the Church. I am mostly interested in finding any books or resources dealing with the development of the papacy prior to the Great Schism. Right now, I have been reading about the Reform movement of the 11 century.

Orthodox claim Roman Catholic ecclesiology has greatly diverged from the ecclesiology of the ancient Church. They would say, perhaps, the we have moved from a model of Collegiality to a model of Papal Monarchy. Now, I don't dispute that things certainly look very different today than in the first millennium. One won't find the papacy's understanding of itself in the first centuries to be the same was it was during the Middle Ages. The real question is: is it a divergence or a necessary development? The Orthodox, of course, don't subscribe to the idea of the development of doctrine, so making an argument for the papacy beyond the initial structuring of the Church seems futile.

Maybe I'm missing something important here, but it seems to me that we Catholics are working with a very, very different idea of how the Church essentially functions.

[ Going out on a limb, my own idea is that the Orthodox mistrust of the reasoning mind has led it to be suspicious of any attempt to say A+B=C when it comes to developing and growing the Church. A good example, though not directly related to this topic, is their view on the Catholic devotion of Eucharistic Adoration. We say: The Bread and Wine truly become Christ + we worship Christ= We should adore Him in the Sacrament. The Orthodox would say this is a dangerous misapplication of our ability to reason and an unnecessary innovation (though in essence it is not heretical). They would also say that the Eucharistic is only adored in its proper context which is the Liturgy. ]

A recent conversation I had with an Orthodox priest included him saying that the Catholic Church had a "weak ecclesiology" and that bishops "effectively have no power within the Catholic Church because of the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction." I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to this, given what I just mentioned above. This is what prompted me to try and delve into these matters deeply.

I, like many disaffected traditional Catholics, have been tempted several times by the seemingly coherent faith and intact traditions of the Orthodox. These sorts of claims can be quite damaging to someone who is already in despair about the state of the Catholic Church, especially for those who don't have a solid grasp on these issues from the start. I really think the Orthodox pose a legitimate threat of taking many Catholics from the True Church because their claims about early church history as it relates to the development of the papacy are not always easy to refute. In light of the current situation in the Roman church, it is easy to see how one could start to think the development of the papacy is ultimately what will lead to the complete loss of Tradition.

Can anyone comment on or recommend any resources that deal with question of the development of the papacy and particularly why the idea of development is essential to the Church and can be justified?

I don't mean to shamelessly plug things that I have on my own website, but I added specifically because this is a common inquiry.

The Pope and the Patriarchs by Father Southwell
The Primacy of the Pope in the Early Church is a rather long essay that shows that the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff finds its origins in the early Church. 
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

I would also recommend the work The Early Primacy by Fortescue
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/EARPA-P/the-early-papacy.aspx  (I also plan on recording this on Audiobook soon, though I do not know when, all my audiobooks are free so it might be a way to save a few dollars if you wait).

I would also reccomend these recent works which are translations of St. Robert Bellermaine
http://www.amazon.com/On-Roman-Pontiff-Controversiis-Volume/dp/0692453644/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=5136UE3cMmL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR112%2C160_&refRID=1P37AK8XMZA9JRQ4MT2X

There is a very good excerpt from here as well to give you a flavor for the work
http://athanasiuscm.org/2015/05/07/a-preview-of-de-romano-pontifice-peter-alone-was-made-a-bishop-by-christ/


"Let me, however, beg of Your Beatitude...
not to think so much of what I have written, as of my good and kind intentions. Please look for the truths of which I speak rather than for beauty of expression. Where I do not come up to your expectations, pardon me, and put my shortcomings down, please, to lack of time and stress of business." St. Bonaventure, From the Preface of Holiness of Life.

Apostolate:
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Contributor:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Lay Association:
http://www.militiatempli.net/

nmoerbeek

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM


[ Going out on a limb, my own idea is that the Orthodox mistrust of the reasoning mind has led it to be suspicious of any attempt to say A+B=C when it comes to developing and growing the Church. A good example, though not directly related to this topic, is their view on the Catholic devotion of Eucharistic Adoration. We say: The Bread and Wine truly become Christ + we worship Christ= We should adore Him in the Sacrament. The Orthodox would say this is a dangerous misapplication of our ability to reason and an unnecessary innovation (though in essence it is not heretical). They would also say that the Eucharistic is only adored in its proper context which is the Liturgy. ]



One of the things you find in the Orthodox world is a lack of unity on matters as this, and many people running around saying things like the above.  Some Orthodox might say that (the Eucharist should only be adored during Mass), but the reality is I just visited in Los Angeles an Orthodox Church with a 24 hour Chapel with the Blessed Sacrament in Reserve,  I believe it is setup for people to come and pray when the Cathedral is closed.  Of course the blessed Sacrament is not exposed in a Monstrance, but it is there never the less for people to come and pray in front of it.  http://www.stsophia.org/

Just like today if you want to embarrass orthodox bring up their selling of absolution certificates (like Medieval indulgences), their use of Statues in Russian Churchs during the medieval period, different writings of Medieval Orthodox authors who allude to the Primacy of the Pope (if he was not a heretic for embracing the Filoque) etc.  You can find Orthodox authors that poo poo statues, attack purgatory, and act like the Pope never even had a position of preeminence except when the Emperor was in Rome.  None of them can really speak on behalf of all of Orthodoxy.

I normally like to describe Orthodox theology as being like a tomato seed, you try to pin it down on your plate and it moves just a little. 
"Let me, however, beg of Your Beatitude...
not to think so much of what I have written, as of my good and kind intentions. Please look for the truths of which I speak rather than for beauty of expression. Where I do not come up to your expectations, pardon me, and put my shortcomings down, please, to lack of time and stress of business." St. Bonaventure, From the Preface of Holiness of Life.

Apostolate:
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Contributor:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Lay Association:
http://www.militiatempli.net/

PiusX1914

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM
I, like many disaffected traditional Catholics, have been tempted several times by the seemingly coherent faith and intact traditions of the Orthodox. These sorts of claims can be quite damaging to someone who is already in despair about the state of the Catholic Church, especially for those who don't have a solid grasp on these issues from the start. I really think the Orthodox pose a legitimate threat of taking many Catholics from the True Church because their claims about early church history as it relates to the development of the papacy are not always easy to refute. In light of the current situation in the Roman church, it is easy to see how one could start to think the development of the papacy is ultimately what will lead to the complete loss of Tradition.

You are not alone, Mrs. HK.  I have wrestled with these same thoughts on and off since I left the NO 20 years ago in 1996.  Quaremerepulisti  makes some good points.  The Orthodox claim about the "rock" in Matt 16:18 being Peter's faith is not that easy for me to just dismiss.  The Orthodox can come up with some pretty compelling lines of argument from the Donation of Constantine to the Isidorian Decretals which attempt to suggest that the development of the papacy is based on forged documents.  It can be disturbing.

I keep reminding myself that is impossible for me to figure out what happened 1000+ years ago.  Each side tell's its own story with its own polemics.  Both sides can sound convincing to me.  There are two sides to every story as the saying goes.

BUT WHAT I CAN DO NOW is look around at the current state of things and try to apply some logic which I'm trusting God endowed me/us with.

Some would argue that a great strength of Orthodoxy is that it is decentralized.  Those familiar with systems like the Internet will recognize that if you want to "take it down" it's impossible to take down a decentralized system because traffic will just be rerouted and business will continue as usual.  Yes, it would be very hard/impossible to make changes in Orthodoxy.  For example, it would be impossible to impose a new Liturgy throughout Orthodoxy.  The Orthodox make the claim to be "One" in the sense of sharing the same faith.  But I often ask myself if that is actually true.  Orthodoxy is fragmented in a lot of ways such as "Old Believers", "Old Calendarists", "New Calendarists", some believe Catholic sacraments have grace and some think they do not have grace.  Some have joined the ecumenical movement and some have not.  Often when asked about current day moral issues such as contraception you often hear answers like "some say you can some say you can't".  I also often wonder should they have a council (such as is supposed to happen in 2016) would everybody accept the outcome?.  A similar thing happened at the council of Florence when most (all?) of the eastern bishops agreed to certain things but when they took the decisions back home everybody rejected them.  Also, we can argue about the meaning of Matt 16:18, but how does one argue around what Christ said about divorce?  As you probably know, a person can be remarried in Orthodoxy after a divorce.  The Orthodox use a concept called Oikonomia to justify it. I don't know, I'm not trying to bash the Orthodox and shine light on what I perceive to be their problems - God knows we have enough of our own.  Like I said I definitely have an affinity for the East.

On the Catholic side, from my perspective, the papacy is definitely a vulnerability but it is also the mechanism of unity as Quaremerepulisti said.  People (i.e. communists, masons, etc.) have been gunning for the papacy for years as Bella Dodd's testimony in the 50's illustrates.  They are gunning for it precisely because of its implications of unity.  In fact, I can't help wondering if the reason modernist hierarchy are so worried about "being in communion with Rome" - even though a lot of them are questionably Catholic - is precisely for control (by God knows what if it is ursurped) -  not the preservation of Faith and the salvation of souls.  Why does unity seem to trump Faith these days?  The other thing which recently occurred to me in favor of Catholicism was Matt 26:31-35.  Rather than type it out I'll let you look it up.  In a nutshell this scripture occurs right before Jesus is to go to the Agony in the Garden and he tells the apostles that they will be scandalized and the it has been written that "I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE FLOCK SHALL BE DISPERSED" - the reference is to a singular shepherd and the conversation then turns to PETER (i.e. not all the apostles) as Peter says he will never deny Christ - and Christ comes back at him saying he will deny him 3 times before the cock crows.  I can't help wonder if that is what we have been witnessing since VII.  "The shepherd has been struck" as Peter has been denying Christ - but in the end, unlike Judas, he is still counted among the apostles. 

Ultimately, I've decided that it is impossible for me to reconstruct 1000+ years of history and try to arrive at a conclusion based on documents which could have been altered.  I've decided I can't wade through church politics at its finest.  But what I can do is look around and try to discern where evil is focusing its efforts - and from what I can discern, it has been going after the papacy specifically because it is a mechanism of unity and I believe it is also why "union with Rome" seems to be a bigger deal than the Catholic faith, which has been compromised by ecumenism which is just a means of casting a wider net to get people "in union" regardless of what "faith" they profess.  If one desired to created "one world religion" is there any other means of unity better suited to such a "thing"?  I can't think of one.

I don't see a hardcore press to go after Orthodoxy.

The whole thing can drive you crazy.  One of the most helpful things I have read lately is Fr. Michael Rodriguez's lecture to the Catholic Identity conference called a "A Blueprint for Returning to and Restoring Tradition".  The text can be found on the Remnant.  John Venari has the audio CD at OLTYN Library Services.

Sorry for the long ramble.  As you can tell, I've spent some time thinking about all this.  I thank those who have commented and look forward to reading contributions by others.

   

misericonfit

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM...A recent conversation I had with an Orthodox priest included him saying that the Catholic Church had a "weak ecclesiology" and that bishops "effectively have no power within the Catholic Church because of the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction." I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to this, given what I just mentioned above. This is what prompted me to try and delve into these matters deeply.
A few ideas:

Universal Papal jurisdiction is not instead of the jurisdiction of bishops lower in the hierarchy than he - it is a guarantee and support of their jurisdiction.

Rather than the higher and more universal squeezing out the lower and more limited, that which is higher and more universal enables and supports what is lower. In the Incarnation a Divine Person takes a human nature. Is the human nature swamped  or obliterated by the Divine Nature ? No ! Instead, the human nature is elevated beyond what nature left to itself can do, it is sanctified, Divinised, perfected, fulfilled - not obliterated, destroyed, weakened, violated, or ignored. Grace perfects nature - it does not destroy or reject it.

This perfecting of the lower by the higher happens throughout the Faith. The idea that universal Papal jurisdiction swamps or obliterates that of bishops with more limited authority, is as mistaken as the idea would be that because Christ has a truly universal jurisdiction over all creatures, therefore, the Pope cannot have universal jurisdiction in the Church on earth. The universal authority of Jesus Christ the Messianic King does not obliterate or exclude that of Peter - it is the foundation & source of Peter's authority. Or there is Divine Providence: God rules all creatures down to the last and least detail. This guarantees their being and their freedom - it does not obliterate creatures, or their being, or their freedom, but energises all three.

So not only is universal Papal jurisdiction not wrong - it is not an anomaly, either. It is part of a pattern, which runs through God's dealing with men. It fits into the Catholic vision of reality, without warping or falsifying any other dogmas and doctrines.

Besides, how can Peter feed the flock Christ has committed to him, if he does not have universal jurisdiction in order to do so ? The commission received from Christ, Who as Messiah rules a universal kingdom, necessarily entails as wide a jurisdiction as Peter needs in order to fulfil that commission. Peter has Christ's authority over the universal Church on earth, because Christ does.

How can Peter be chief steward in the household of Christ, if Peter has an authority to "bind and loose" that does not extend to all the baptised ? To have a Church in which many can have recourse to Peter, but many cannot, is in effect to have two classes of Christian. So to have jurisdiction over some, and not all, makes bad sense.

What is a "weak ecclesiology" anyway ? It does not sound as though the priest you mention knows Catholic ecclesiology very well.

There is a lot in your post to look at.  As for this:
QuoteI, like many disaffected traditional Catholics, have been tempted several times by the seemingly coherent faith and intact traditions of the Orthodox. These sorts of claims can be quite damaging to someone who is already in despair about the state of the Catholic Church, especially for those who don't have a solid grasp on these issues from the start.
Maybe God has spared them evils He has permitted to afflict His Church for good reasons He knows, even if we do not. If we love God, to trust Him, no matter what, should be more natural to us breathing. That the Church is afflicted by countless troubles, while other groups are not, is a very poor guide to whether the Church is the Church or not. The Apostles were greatly afflicted - unlike their persecutors. Are we to think that St Paul's faith was false, and the religion of Nero was true ?

If the CC is the Church of Christ, it is the Church of Christ for the whole of its life - during the bad times (as they may seem to us), no less than the good. God is always Faithful to her, and unlike us He never gives up on her. Do we believe this, or not ? If His Church is His Church, then there is nothing to fear, but God Alone. What is so strong as to make Christ false to His promise always to be with His Church "to the end of the age" ? Men can be false to their promises - but God cannot, and will not, be false to His. If the CC is not the Church of Christ now, she was never the Church of Christ at any other time. There is never ever reason to despair - "we walk by faith, not by sight" is very much to the point.

The Mercy of God to those outside the CC is not a reason to reject the CC. It is a reason to remember that the Mercy of God is "upon all His works"; His Faithfulness to the Church is not lack of Mercy to the rest of men. "The Lord is Good to all" - not to us alone. His Goodness to non-Catholics is not a threat to the Church, for the God Who has granted us membership in His Church, and is also Good to non-Catholics, is the same God. And perhaps the graces He grants them, are intended to draw them to the Catholic Church. Maybe that is why the Orthodox are in some respects healthier than we (at present) are.
Receive, O Lord, all my liberty. Take my memory, my understanding, and my entire will. Whatsoever I have or possess Thou hast bestowed upon me; to Thee I give it all back and surrender it wholly to be governed by Thy Will. Give me love for Thee alone, with Thy grace, and I am rich enough and ask for nothing more.

- St Ignatius Loyola.

Maximilian

Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM

A recent conversation I had with an Orthodox priest included him saying that the Catholic Church had a "weak ecclesiology" and that bishops "effectively have no power within the Catholic Church because of the Pope's claim to universal jurisdiction."


Yes, this is true. It was already the case a few hundred years ago, and it has gotten worse and worse over the course of time.

Under Francis it has become the worst ever. He has simply dismissed bishops he didn't like, as though they were employees who can be "fired at will without cause."

This helps to demonstrate the way in which Francis represents more of a continuity and development of historical trends over the past few decades and centuries, rather than a rupture.

Personally, I don't find this to be an argument in favor of Orthodoxy, any more than it's an argument in favor of Judaism or Buddhism. It's simply a fact regarding the historical development of our own Church.

Clare

Quote from: nmoerbeek on February 25, 2016, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: Mrs. HK on February 25, 2016, 11:52:05 AM
[ Going out on a limb, my own idea is that the Orthodox mistrust of the reasoning mind has led it to be suspicious of any attempt to say A+B=C when it comes to developing and growing the Church. A good example, though not directly related to this topic, is their view on the Catholic devotion of Eucharistic Adoration. We say: The Bread and Wine truly become Christ + we worship Christ= We should adore Him in the Sacrament. The Orthodox would say this is a dangerous misapplication of our ability to reason and an unnecessary innovation (though in essence it is not heretical). They would also say that the Eucharistic is only adored in its proper context which is the Liturgy. ]
One of the things you find in the Orthodox world is a lack of unity on matters as this, and many people running around saying things like the above.  Some Orthodox might say that (the Eucharist should only be adored during Mass), but the reality is I just visited in Los Angeles an Orthodox Church with a 24 hour Chapel with the Blessed Sacrament in Reserve,  I believe it is setup for people to come and pray when the Cathedral is closed.  Of course the blessed Sacrament is not exposed in a Monstrance, but it is there never the less for people to come and pray in front of it.  http://www.stsophia.org/
I think I once read somewhere that (pre-V2) Catholics were instructed to avoid streets where Orthodox Eucharistic processions were taking place. On the other hand, when my dad (RIP+) was in Cyprus (1950s) apparently Catholics and Orthodox used to strew flowers at each other's processions. Anyway, the point is, it seems they have (or had) Eucharistic processions. Anyone else know anything about that?
Motes 'n' Beams blog

Feel free to play the Trivia Quiz!

O Mary, Immaculate Mother of Jesus, offer, we beseech thee, to the Eternal Father, the Precious Blood of thy Divine Son to prevent at least one mortal sin from being committed somewhere in the world this day.

"It is a much less work to have won the battle of Waterloo, or to have invented the steam-engine, than to have freed one soul from Purgatory." - Fr Faber

"When faced by our limitations, we must have recourse to the practice of offering to God the good works of others." - St Therese of Lisieux

abc123

Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 25, 2016, 02:26:04 PM
I have a lot of interaction with Orthodox people so I'd be happy to hear responses to Mrs. HK's post.

I have never had temptations to go Orthodox, thank God, as much as I admire and adore the Eastern traditions both spiritually and liturgically speaking. It boggles my mind how they can just wholesale ignore the words of Christ. I mean, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, it says right in the Gospels, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church" How much more F'ing clear does our Lord have to be for these people to wake up and stop being so damn ignorant and wrong? Christ didn't say, "Thou art Peter and with thy brother Apostles I will build my Church" He said "YOU. ARE. PETER. AND. UPON. THIS. ROCK. I. WILL. BUILD. MY. CHURCH." They are a proud and self-righteous folk - and one day they WILL humbly submit to the Chair of Peter.

Drives me loony, man. Seriously.

If it was this simple I doubt there would be that much controversy concerning this passage. There are many Fathers who interpret the "Rock" either as St. Peter himself or his confession of Faith. The Patristic consensus is far from unanimous. Further, even if the "Rock" referred to is St. Peter, how does this automatically transfer directly and exclusively to the Bishop of Rome? St. Peter founded the Church of Antioch as well.

Perhaps you should try to understand the arguments before labeling 350 million people as nothing more than prideful and stiff necked rebels.

dellery

The schismatic, Erastian, heretics that call themselves Orthodox have been quite busy on the internet the last few months. It's like they're trying to present their state-submitting whore-of-a-religion as being a viable alternative for Conservative Catholics that feel disenfranchised by Pope Francis.

Had anybody else noticed an uptick in "Orthodox" apologetics?
Blessed are those who plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.

The closer you get to life the better death will be; the closer you get to death the better life will be.

Nous Defions
St. Phillip Neri, pray for us.