Are Catholics afraid of Eastern Orthodox?

[dzheremi]

However, as with the false accusation of Nestorianism agains the oriental churches

Why do people always think they can make this comparison? It’s bizarre, given the fact that Nestorianism (which the Nestorians affirm) and Monophysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox are accused of, but very much deny, historically and contemporarily) are opposite claims. Nestorianism argues for what is essentially TWO PEOPLE in Christ, and is heretical. St. Cyril of Alexandria (a saint in your church, by the way), whose Christology we follow in the Oriental Orthodox Churches (what is most correctly called mia-, not mono-, physite), declared “one nature of God the incarnate Logos”, without division, mixture, confusion, etc. This is Orthodox. This is in fact what the Chalcedonians say they were defending against the encroachment of Nestorianism. So there is no comparison. One preaches two people (as Nestorius believed that Christ in His divinity and Christ in His humanity were separate; this is why the formula of Chalcedon seemed to be the victory of Nestorianism to the Copts and other OO), one preaches one person, of one nature which is both fully man and fully divine (so we believe, as you do, that Christ is both fully man and fully divine, but not that they constitute “two natures”).

Again, there is no comparison to be made here. I really wish people would stop doing this.

there is the rather embarrassing issue of talking past open another for centuries, while believing the same thing . . .

Yes, it would be embarrassing if that were what were happening, but it isn’t. If it were, you would be in communion with the Orthodox, and you are not. Much headway has been made in resolving certain aspects of your schism with the EO (e.g., the lifting of the mutual anathemas in 1965), but that does not mean that you believe the same thing. Ask any EO on this board if you need clarification of this point.

there is a basic problem that if an EC were to decide that he should join his mother (or splinter, as the case may be) church, he is generally not able to simply join it, but generally must make explicit denouncements of Rome . . .

Indeed. I would take that as further evidence that the two do not believe the same thing. Anyway, this is only a problem if the EC gone EO (or OO) would not be willing to make explicit their belief in EO or OO doctrine, and renounce their past errors (again, this is from an Orthodox perspective, where Rome does indeed teach error). If they are not able to do that, then they shouldn’t be joining an Orthodox church in the first place. That’s pretty fundamental and logical, I should hope.

When I am received into the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (God willing, at the end of this month, after a nearly three-year journey; please, should anyone feel moved to pray for me, I would be forever grateful), I will be prepared to make public renunciations of my past errors, should I be required to do so.

Eventually you gotta pick a street, y’know? No amount of appeals to the idea that the EO and RC are essentially the same will make that so, and I would caution you that you are wasting your time in trying to make yourselves appear to be something you’re not to people who know better (EO, OO, and ECs who may be wavering in their commitment to Rome’s idea of orthodoxy). If this energy were instead spent recovering the lost or obscured Roman Orthodox patrimony, we could eventually stop rehashing this particular conversation. And wouldn’t that be a glorious day?

 

[Celticnovice]

I’m really interested in this myself…What does Roman Orthodox patrimony look like?

Do you have any references you could recommend? I am having trouble finding information on this topic.

Now, I see the point(s) Hesychios has made and I believe those are legit criticisms…But I really want to see the similarities and differences between present and ancient Roman Catholicism.

 

[dzheremi]

I’m really interested in this myself…What does Roman Orthodox patrimony look like?

Do you have any references you could recommend? I am having trouble finding information on this topic.
.

By “Roman Orthodox”, I just mean the practices of the Christians in the Western Roman Empire during its Orthodox period. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I am not suggesting that there is some separate church or collection of practices that go under that specific title (as there is for, say, Syriac Orthodoxy or Eastern Orthodoxy). Indeed, there was quite a bit of variation, and you can find even today churches (such as the “Western Rite” parishes in the Eastern Orthodox communion, or the British Orthodox Church under the Coptic Patriarchate) that retain these practices, at least as much as is possible.

If you are interested in specific churches (as the Latin church used to be more attuned to geographical variation/uniqueness than it often seems to be now), you can find much about the church in Spain, France, Belgium, Ireland, etc., depending on what perspective you are looking to explore the history of these churches and communities from. You might be surprised by what you find. For instance, I was very happy to see a little bit of space (not much, but a few paragraphs) dedicated to the church in Belgium in Idris Habib El Masri’s “History of the Copts”, because St. Athanasius the Apostolic, a major figure in the history of the Alexandrian church (and indeed all of world Christianity) was exiled there in the wake of the Arian council that wrongly condemned him, so his influence was felt there for quite a long time despite the fact that Belgium is obviously “Latin” territory. And not just isolated individuals like St. Athanasius, either, but the whole Theban Legion (from which we venerate by name St. Maurice, St. Victor, St. Verena, etc.) were martyred in Switzerland, and hence venerated there for centuries. These were Egyptians venerated in the West, as surely as we in the Coptic Church venerate St. Arsenius, one of the wise Romans among the Desert Fathers.

This is what I mean by “Roman Orthodoxy”, as well: These are our saints, as Western people. These are testaments to the Orthodox life of the Church as it was for centuries before either major schism. To venerate these saints, and to know and celebrate Orthodox liturgical chant and iconography in its Western setting not as some “extraordinary form” but quite ordinarily would do wonders for the supposed “liturgical renewal” and the obvious damage done to the Western church that has necessitated such a renewal. Or at least that’s my feeling as an outsider. It would also send a good message to those outside of your church (like me and others) that the RCC is serious about returning to its ancient roots in terms of praxis and devotion, not just to the 1950s as the “Traditionalists” often seem to want.

It is interesting to note that the Mozarabic liturgy (which is what you hear a portion of in the above video link) is celebrated by both EO and RC in Spain, though I think it is only the RCs that make regular use of it (in Toledo, of course). I have seen Youtube videos of the EO celebrating it there, but I could not find it just now. This is evidence that it is recognized by all as the native Orthodox liturgical form in that location, and hence provides one example of what a truly Orthodox Roman Catholic Church could look like. Other places, of course, would have their own histories, as evidenced by uniquely Ambrosian, North African, and other historical liturgical forms (not all of which are reconstructable, sadly). And of course some people of Italy would probably return to their Byzantine liturgical origins, as on the island of Sicily.

 

[Celticnovice]

Thank you sir…I will PM more reflections

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well there are two Papal dogmas.

But even if it were only one, that would be too many.

I see the concept of universal jursidiction to be in conflict with early church thinking, but that wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t a dogma. As an opinion about a church discipline I’d say it is not at all dangerous. If all the synods of western Europe wanted to voluntarily place themselves under a common patriarch for practical reasons, I’d say that is their prerogative (in that case the bishop of Rome would likely have the best credentials for the job). For them to declare that all other synods must do likewise whether they want to or not is religious politics which can be negotiated, but not necessarily a heresy. But to further declare God intends for it to be that way and we must all believe it or be anathema (as happened in 1870) is from an Orthodox perspective either an honest mistake or a deliberate fabrication.

For an example (bear with me), some people might think that the Secretary General of the United Nations should be the emperor of the world. That some people think such a thing is their right. Each would have his own reasons (some might even think God wants it that way).

It’s ok if people think the United Nations should be a worldwide empire run from New York, those people have a right to their opinion as long as each and every other person has an equal right to their own opinion. It’s even ok if most people around the world think so, then they can mutually decide to make it happen! But to claim that God wants it that way is actually to proclaim a dogma which cannot be shown to be an Apostolic teaching, and that is where a charge of heresy can come from.

Returning the idea of Papal universal jurisdiction to a theological opinion, and removing the claim of dogma for it would free up the RC church to compromise on it. Right now it simply cannot compromise, it is non-negotiable.

The sad thing here is, I am starting to agree with you.

 

[Mark_Cassian]

The sad thing here is, I am starting to agree with you.

Progress indeed!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The early Church, in fact, and throughout the first millennium, saw the pope of Rome as the highest court of appeal. One could always call on the Pope to act as referee whenever the local or regional church authorities were snagged on an issue.

The papal dogmas actually say very little, when one comes right down to them. It is how they are implemented which might raise concerns. But the implementation aspect is always open to reform/change.

Alex

 

[rciadan]

When my doubts have been cleared.

Doubts are a normal part of life. They are what make us seek Truth. Embrace the Truth of the Catholic Church and face the doubts as they come. This is true whatever Rite, or rather, lung (as the Holy Father says), you happen to be using to breath with…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Doubts are a normal part of life. They are what make us seek Truth. Embrace the Truth of the Catholic Church and face the doubts as they come. This is true whatever Rite, or rather, lung (as the Holy Father says), you happen to be using to breath with…

What if I find the truth in Holy Orthodoxy?

 

[Pork_Roll]

What if I find the truth in Holy Orthodoxy?

There is much truth there. But they do not have the fullness of truth. Basically, you have more to lose than to gain by leaving the catholic faith IMO. The catholic church has more theology and more liturgies to choose from. The orthodox faith has really not developed since the close of the 1st millenium. Which is fine but I don’t see any advantage of throwing away all of the doctrinal development as seen in the west during the last 1,000 years.

Plus, some of these orthdox churches have un-orthdox or seemingly odd practices: permitting up to 3 divorces and contraception, married bishops (church of the east), Jewish dietary laws (ethiopians), extra books in bible… etc.

But, the Eastern Orhodox generally have excellent liturgies as a rule. If I had to pick one, I would choose EO.

 

[dzheremi]

The catholic church has more theology and more liturgies to choose from.

So more = true?

The orthodox faith has really not developed since the close of the 1st millenium.

Has it needed to? Neither have the teachings of the apostles and their disciples.

Plus, some of these orthdox churches have un-orthdox or seemingly odd practices: permitting up to 3 divorces and contraception, married bishops (church of the east), Jewish dietary laws (ethiopians), extra books in bible… etc.

The Ethiopians received that would make up their Bible largely prior to the establishment of the canon that would eventually hold in the West, and have many of these “extra” books because they are preserved in Ethiopic only (Meqabyan) or are considered canonical in their own tradition but not in others (Jubilees). This is absolutely not a problem in the Orient, and as your canon was not finalized at that time (actually not until quite recently, following the declarations of the Council of Trent, 1545-1563), I don’t see why another’s should be such a problem for you. Would you also have problems with the fact that the Roman Church before Pope Victor I (189-199) did not celebrate the Mass in Latin? It is probably not in keeping with your church’s ethos (or at least its modern expressions) to object to something simply for being different than your own tradition, else you’d do well to reintroduce Latinizations into your “Eastern lung”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is much truth there. But they do not have the fullness of truth. Basically, you have more to lose than to gain by leaving the catholic faith IMO. The catholic church has more theology and more liturgies to choose from. The orthodox faith has really not developed since the close of the 1st millenium. Which is fine but I don’t see any advantage of throwing away all of the doctrinal development as seen in the west during the last 1,000 years.

Plus, some of these orthdox churches have un-orthdox or seemingly odd practices: permitting up to 3 divorces and contraception, married bishops (church of the east), Jewish dietary laws (ethiopians), extra books in bible… etc.

But, the Eastern Orhodox generally have excellent liturgies as a rule. If I had to pick one, I would choose EO.

Seems like a bit of a double standard there. On one hand the fact that the Catholic Church is diverse in its traditions is wonderful. On the other hand, the fact that the East is diverse in its traditions is a bad thing.

Divorce is allowed because it is allowed in scripture (by the words of Jesus Christ himself) whenever adultery is involved. There are many things we were told to do by Christ that we understand were not to be taken literally for the Spirit brings life, but the letter does not. This is why you don’t see many one-eyed, one-handed Christians, because we know that Christ did not mean for us literally to pluck our eyes out and cut off body parts which cause us to sin (I suppose that didn’t stop Origen).

To say, however, that divorce is “allowed” is a gross over-simplification of matters. Divorce is not allowed, but it is tolerated. When a divorce occurs (and divorce can only occur for specific reasons, adultery the chief among them; no-fault divorces do not exist), it is the common practice only to allow the innocent party to remarry. The guilty party must first perform a canonical penance for absolution before being allowed to remarry. This is useful for example when one spouse is abandoned by another. It allows the innocent party for a chance to start anew, and prevents the guilty part from doing the same without correction. One can find great saints like Basil offering pastoral advice on divorce, so it’s not as if it is an innovation.

On married bishops: firstly, I think it should be pointed out that the Church of the East is not normally called an Orthodox Church. It is a bit misleading to lump them in with Orthodoxy. This may come as a surprise, but the practice of having married bishops can be traced to apostolic times; it is hardly an innovation. The practice of mandating celibacy for bishops only comes centuries later, when bishops were drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of monastics. There is nothing sacramentally improper with ordaining married men to the episcopacy.

On dietary restrictions: reading the New Testament, we will find that the Jewish apostles did not abandon their dietary laws or Jewish customs, but only that they determined that it would be unnecessary for gentiles to adopt such customs in order to become Christians. The Ethiopians, being Jews before their conversion to Christianity, simply continued following their old customs as the Apostles did. The Christians in the Levant followed some Jewish customs (including the dating of Easter, which they celebrated on the 14th day of the month of Nissan, regardless of whether that day was a Sunday or not, retaining the connection between Easter and Passover) well into the fourth century, when growing numbers of gentile converts lessened the prevalence of Jewish customs in that region of the world. The Ethiopians, since they did not have many gentile converts, would not have had much reason to cease observing customs derived from Judaism.

On scriptural canons: this objection seems somewhat silly. What makes a writing scriptural is whether or not it reflects correct doctrine, and whether the tradition shows that it was used as scripture. Several books in the Old testament canon used by the Catholic Church are likely of spurious authorship, which did not seem to bother the fathers much. As dzheremi pointed out, the Catholic Canon of Scripture wasn’t even formalized until Trent, which happened many years after the East-West schism.

On doctrinal development: I must ask, was the faith of the Apostles sufficient for salvation? If so, why are the developments after the schism necessary or even desirable? It is not as if Orthodox teaching just stopped after 1054, by the way. Orthodoxy is a living tradition, and so it has continued to clarify its teachings in response to heresies which have popped up. The last major heresy Orthodoxy has dealt with would probably be Balaam’s heresy that man cannot truly participate in God, but that we can only participate in created effects, a heresy which was condemned in the late 14th century. As with the other major heresies, it should be immediately clear how this heresy could jeopardize the salvation of man, since it would imply that our salvation through theosis is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[Padraig1972]

More truth and more liturgies?

Well, i think the truth, traditions and a liturgy that shows the true glory of God matters.
Let me repeat myself, for 2 1/2 years i have been and attended fully in many masses in different catholic churches. Many of them has been awesome.

Last saturday i attended an vigil in a really sweet ROCOR church and it grabbed totally hold of me and all of my senses. The language was totally strange, but it did some very special. More than any catholic masses all together has. Saying anything else would be a lie.
And i will not apologize or feeling bad for saying so.

Changing this for the sake of changing them and pride is the two major problems today. If orthodox is the true faith? I begin more and more to believe that yes.

 

[swamiji]

There are so many sects in the Christian world then why should we be afraid of orthodox?We all deal with even Hindus and Muslims smoothly.

 

[swamiji]

There is no basic difference between orthodox and Catholics regarding faith.But there are many differences in other areas.

 

[dvdjs]

Divorce is allowed because it is allowed in scripture (by the words of Jesus Christ himself) whenever adultery is involved… To say, however, that divorce is “allowed” is a gross over-simplification of matters. Divorce is not allowed, but it is tolerated. When a divorce occurs (and divorce can only occur for specific reasons, adultery the chief among them; no-fault divorces do not exist), it is the common practice only to allow the innocent party to remarry. The guilty party must first perform a canonical penance for absolution before being allowed to remarry. This is useful for example when one spouse is abandoned by another. It allows the innocent party for a chance to start anew, and prevents the guilty part from doing the same without correction. One can find great saints like Basil offering pastoral advice on divorce, so it’s not as if it is an innovation.

The issue of divorce in the EOC has been discussed in many, many threads. Some key points:

The idea that Christ sanctioned divorce for adultery relies on a particular, not uniformly accepted, interpretation of a verse, and the neglect of anther that gives no such sanction. Expansion of that presumed allowance to numerous other causes has developed over the years.
Practices regarding divorce and remarriage vary in major ways among jurisdictions - for example, some accept civil divorce, other require ecclesiastical divorce: when the church grants a divorce it’s hard to maintain that divorce is not allowed.
The few who have direct experience with the practices, indicate that they involve little if any penetential elements. Practices in this regard have developed dramatically greatly since the time of the Fathers - for example, marriage within the church of divorced persons was forbidden in the time of the Fathers.

This may come as a surprise, but the practice of having married bishops can be traced to apostolic times; it is hardly an innovation. The practice of mandating celibacy for bishops only comes centuries later, when bishops were drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of monastics. There is nothing sacramentally improper with ordaining married men to the episcopacy.

I am curious about this history. Already in the Byzantine Empire the Emperor had great influence in choosing a bishop; orders could be imposed quickly to accomodate his choice. And the situation is similar today. I have doubts about the idea that a celibate episcopate is a consequence of drawing nbishops from monastic orders. Is there more information on the subject? I am intigued to see some traction in other fora EOC for married bishops in the EOC.

On doctrinal development: I must ask, was the faith of the Apostles sufficient for salvation? If so, why are the developments after the schism necessary or even desirable?

It is not as if Orthodox teaching just stopped after 1054, by the way. Orthodoxy is a living tradition, and so it has continued to clarify its teachings in response to heresies which have popped up. The last major heresy Orthodoxy has dealt with would probably be Balaam’s heresy that man cannot truly participate in God, but that we can only participate in created effects, a heresy which was condemned in the late 14th century. As with the other major heresies, it should be immediately clear how this heresy could jeopardize the salvation of man, since it would imply that our salvation through theosis is nothing but wishful thinking.

I think that you answered your own question very well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is much truth there. But they do not have the fullness of truth. Basically, you have more to lose than to gain by leaving the catholic faith IMO. The catholic church has more theology and more liturgies to choose from. The orthodox faith has really not developed since the close of the 1st millenium. Which is fine but I don’t see any advantage of throwing away all of the doctrinal development as seen in the west during the last 1,000 years.

Plus, some of these orthdox churches have un-orthdox or seemingly odd practices: permitting up to 3 divorces and contraception, married bishops (church of the east), Jewish dietary laws (ethiopians), extra books in bible… etc.

But, the Eastern Orhodox generally have excellent liturgies as a rule. If I had to pick one, I would choose EO.

Is Jesus fully present on their altars during Divine Liturgy?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Seems like a bit of a double standard there. On one hand the fact that the Catholic Church is diverse in its traditions is wonderful. On the other hand, the fact that the East is diverse in its traditions is a bad thing.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, in its entirety.

I do agree that a double standard is often evident in some exchanges on the Orthodox-Catholic divide, yet IMHO we always seem to be missing the point.

Take the divorce scenario, for example. We continue to waste our energy arguing incessantly and unendingly as to which side is right or wrong, and when sometimes flawed logic (or none at all) is applied, we declare our particular side the “winner”.

I have seen for a while now a clear paradox that seems to be at the heart of the Catholic-Orthodox divide. It’s not dogma, and its not necessarily the Papacy, per se.

The Orthodox seem quite comfortable with decentralized governance, a foreign concept to many Catholics. The underlying assumption, however, is that no one Church in the Orthodox Communion would even consider changing something or reinterpreting something that is considered part of the Deposit of Faith, the Truth as handed down by the Apostles.

The Catholic Church has developed a more centralized form of governance, seemingly in order to safeguard the Deposit of Faith and ensure consistency of application throughout its Church. In the process, the Orthodox see some of the actions of the Catholic Church, especially the modern Catholic Church in the era of infallibility, as (i) actually having had potentially changed the Truth and (ii) forcing a scenario where it can continue to change the Truth, at will.

Catholics argue to no end that this is not the case. Orthodox reject any and all such arguments, because in their view and manner of existence this should never be. To me, this is the point that most Catholics just don’t seem to get, or at best politely acknowledge yet refuse to consider.

What is common is that both do genuinely desire to protect the Truth and maintain it. To do so together, as we should and are called to do, requires honesty on both sides as to the pros and cons of each governance approach, more so than the tireless debate as to who is right and who is wrong. On the Final Day, we will be judged justly and individually. The manner in which our Church has attempted to fulfill its mission will be of little consequence, except perhaps to the extent that we individually have actively sought to maintain a division amongst ourselves, inconsistent with most essential demands of being a follower of Christ.

 

[Lesley]

As a long-time convert to Catholicism who is leaning East, I have found nothing to fear in any way. I have been very warmly welcomed at the Greek, Ukrainian, and OCA parishes I have visited with my Orthodox son-in-law (who converted from Church of the Brethren after an intense search for the true apostolic faith- and yes he did seriously look at the Catholic Church but was not edified by the insipid protestantized liturgies he experienced, the antics of a politicized hierarchy, and many other factors, none of which I could effectively counter in my own mind much less his). A wonderful Ukrainian Orthodox priest even joyfully agreed to come bless our house. I realize that just because I haven’t encountered any hostility doesn’t mean it isn’t there, however.
Having always believed that the timeline of Church history consisted of a flat, continuous line which was the Catholic Church, with the first branch off that line being the “Orthodox schism”, and the second the “Reformation”, with that branch rupturing into thousands of “branchlets”, I must admit that when I first saw the Orthodox version of that timeline, it gave me great pause, and may have changed the way I see the Church forever. The flat, continuous line of Orthodoxy, with one major branch (when the Catholic Church separated from the Orthodox faith) which, after a period of relative stability, exploded into those thousands of “Protestant” churches, seems to reflect/presage the reality of the situation we see today in the Catholic Church’s seeming self-immolation. Is the Catholic Church merely bearing the fruit of it’s own willful separation all those centuries ago, with its own dissolution and the scandalous fragmentation of Protestantism the end result? Pondering…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, in its entirety.

I do agree that a double standard is often evident in some exchanges on the Orthodox-Catholic divide, yet IMHO we always seem to be missing the point.

Take the divorce scenario, for example. We continue to waste our energy arguing incessantly and unendingly as to which side is right or wrong, and when sometimes flawed logic (or none at all) is applied, we declare our particular side the “winner”.

I have seen for a while now a clear paradox that seems to be at the heart of the Catholic-Orthodox divide. It’s not dogma, and its not necessarily the Papacy, per se.

The Orthodox seem quite comfortable with decentralized governance, a foreign concept to many Catholics. The underlying assumption, however, is that no one Church in the Orthodox Communion would even consider changing something or reinterpreting something that is considered part of the Deposit of Faith, the Truth as handed down by the Apostles.

The Catholic Church has developed a more centralized form of governance, seemingly in order to safeguard the Deposit of Faith and ensure consistency of application throughout its Church. In the process, the Orthodox see some of the actions of the Catholic Church, especially the modern Catholic Church in the era of infallibility, as (i) actually having had potentially changed the Truth and (ii) forcing a scenario where it can continue to change the Truth, at will.

Catholics argue to no end that this is not the case. Orthodox reject any and all such arguments, because in their view and manner of existence this should never be. To me, this is the point that most Catholics just don’t seem to get, or at best politely acknowledge yet refuse to consider.

What is common is that both do genuinely desire to protect the Truth and maintain it. To do so together, as we should and are called to do, requires honesty on both sides as to the pros and cons of each governance approach, more so than the tireless debate as to who is right and who is wrong. On the Final Day, we will be judged justly and individually. The manner in which our Church has attempted to fulfill its mission will be of little consequence, except perhaps to the extent that we individually have actively sought to maintain a division amongst ourselves, inconsistent with most essential demands of being a follower of Christ.

Well said. One has to wonder how much is an issue. Seems to me much isn’t of consequence. When we say Dogma of Faith and start to view individual issues of the Nicene Creed for example. We are talking three words here which no-one disagrees on.

The philosophy/theology, this does not need to be void, in fact I would argue all the teachings should be preserved for further contemplation"over time".

That is but one issue, but I see similar in other areas also.

This…

“The manner in which our Church has attempted to fulfill its mission will be of little consequence, except perhaps to the extent that we individually have actively sought to maintain a division amongst ourselves, inconsistent with most essential demands of being a follower of Christ”

Becomes most relevant and critical in particular in the current crisis of today.

Division doesn’t equate to = Good. Very much the contrary as we see.