Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[JMJ_coder]

EC & OO 1 similarity theologically: neither have a dogma/belief that the Pope of Rome is Infallible

I told you that was too easy.

Though, while the Oriental Orthodox Church does not teach the infallibility of the Pope of Rome, I also don’t seem them as intractably opposed to the idea of the Papacy as I do the Eastern Orthodox.

EC & OO 1 similarity in praxis: both practice the same type of pre-Communion & Church-year Fasts

Similar in some regards, but definitely not identical, and the Catholic Church also has its teaching on fasting. But, could you please explain how you see the situation as this:
OO<->EO<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->CC

 

[JMJ_coder]

I’ve not read that any Ecumenical Council (pre-schism) ever claimed to be infallible. Have you? We know that what was taught by Ecumenical Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and is true and orthodox and Orthodox. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit sent by the Father would guide the Orthodox Church in all truth, we don’t need any extra guarantee of infallibility. We can take Him at His word without claiming anything extra.

Do you not see an anathema as a claim of infallibility?

And without any such guarantees, how do you know which of the countless councils are to be considered binding and which are benign but not all that binding and which are outright heretical?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve not read that any Ecumenical Council (pre-schism) ever claimed to be infallible. Have you? We know that what was taught by Ecumenical Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and is true and orthodox and Orthodox. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit sent by the Father would guide the Orthodox Church in all truth, we don’t need any extra guarantee of infallibility. We can take Him at His word without claiming anything extra.

This is indefectibility with stems from the Apostles and their Church’s. Infallibility relates to the teaching authority in Rome. “I am with you always, till the end of time” - indefectibility, infallible for example is here…

rosarychurch.net/answers/infall.html

 

[dvdjs]

The other poster said that although EO & RC are currently in schism, they at least have a common pre-schism agreement on the Ecumenical Councils and yet while EO & OO do not have the same pre-schism agreement on the Ecumenical Councils the OOs are none the less closer to EO theologically than RCs are.

You immediately agrued that the other poster was wrong, that EO & RC do Not have pre-schism agreement on the Ecumenical Councils. Now you say that you don’t overturn the Ecumenical Councils…so which is it? I’m confused at what stance you’re taking & even more confused at Why you disagreed in the first place.

The separation of the OOCs from the EOCs and CC occurred in the aftermath an ecumenical council that made clear, binding Christological statements, and anathematized those who did not adhere to them. There has been no such church council that solifdified the separation of the EOCs and CC. Even first millenium disagreements on the filioque were resolved without lasting schism and without ultimate declaration against the Western theology. To consider the OOC closer at a fundamental theological level to the EOC than the CC stains credulity: are the EOs really about to go back on Chalcedon, ir concede that the Fathers of the Patristic age had it wrong, or whatever?
I think that comments on this ostensible theological closeness rather clearly suggest that something else is being used as a substitute for genuine theological closeness.

 

[jimmy]

I thought I read back a bit that someone claimed that in the Orthodox Church there is absolutely no claim to what can be called infallibility? Is that correct? Is there no guarantee made by the Orthodox Church that what is proclaimed as the truth revealed by God in the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the truth revealed by God?

Who is guaranteed to be correct? Every church has had bishops that made errors or were heretics. The Orthodox claim that they preach the truth, not that they have a special charism that protects them from ever teaching error. Every church has been in error at one point, some returned to truth. No council ever invoked infallibility.

I think you have to realize that the Orthodox maintain a perspective that is pre-Kantian, atleast to a large extent. In the west, Kant has radically transformed our way of thinking. There is constant doubt in the western way of thinking. We don’t trust anyone to tell us truth, and all myth and spirit have been lost. I think in the Orthodox way of thinking, there is a little more trust of knowledge. They don’t doubt so much in their ability to know the truth.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The separation of the OOCs from the EOCs and CC occurred in the aftermath an ecumenical council that made clear, binding Christological statements, and anathematized those who did not adhere to them. There has been no such church council that solifdified the separation of the EOCs and CC. Even first millenium disagreements on the filioque were resolved without lasting schism and without ultimate declaration against the Western theology. To consider the OOC closer at a fundamental theological level to the EOC than the CC stains credulity: are the EOs really about to go back on Chalcedon, ir concede that the Fathers of the Patristic age had it wrong, or whatever?
I think that comments on this ostensible theological closeness rather clearly suggest that something else is being used as a substitute for genuine theological closeness.

I think it should be pointed out that there exists Joint Christological Declarations between each of the Oriental Churches and the Catholic Church. I am aware of no similar document existing between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox (please correct me if I am wrong on this). I, too, have hopes that communion may be restored between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches in my lifetime. Perhaps the Oriental Orthodox could serve as a bridge between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Who is guaranteed to be correct? Every church has had bishops that made errors or were heretics. The Orthodox claim that they preach the truth, not that they have a special charism that protects them from ever teaching error. Every church has been in error at one point, some returned to truth. No council ever invoked infallibility.

The Church as a whole will never be completely overtaken by error. The difference I see between the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church sees the Pope as the visible source and guarantor of this indefectibility.

It should also be noted, as I’m sure you are aware, that the Catholic Church professes that the Church of Rome has never taught error.

I think you have to realize that the Orthodox maintain a perspective that is pre-Kantian, atleast to a large extent. In the west, Kant has radically transformed our way of thinking. There is constant doubt in the western way of thinking. We don’t trust anyone to tell us truth, and all myth and spirit have been lost. I think in the Orthodox way of thinking, there is a little more trust of knowledge. They don’t doubt so much in their ability to know the truth.

I think it’s more a matter of who among competing voices one should listen to. For example, in just the realm of Apostolic Christianity, group A says our council declares Jesus is divine and group B says our council declares Jesus is not divine. Both have bishops in their corner - who is right? Who do we listen to?

 

[dvdjs]

I think it should be pointed out that there exists Joint Christological Declarations between each of the Oriental Churches and the Catholic Church. I am aware of no similar document existing between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox (please correct me if I am wrong on this). I, too, have hopes that communion may be restored between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches in my lifetime. Perhaps the Oriental Orthodox could serve as a bridge between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox?

I believe that there is a similar document, between the OOs and EOs.
I also am very hopeful about restoration of communion. In fact the CC looks ot both the OO and the EO with open arms.
Here is another perspective on EO OO ecumenism:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
Which is pretty much how the local EOs view the CC.

 

[Peter_J]

The separation of the OOCs from the EOCs and CC occurred in the aftermath an ecumenical council that made clear, binding Christological statements, and anathematized those who did not adhere to them. There has been no such church council that solifdified the separation of the EOCs and CC.

Actually, there was: the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

 

[Peter_J]

I think it should be pointed out that there exists Joint Christological Declarations between each of the Oriental Churches and the Catholic Church. I am aware of no similar document existing between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox (please correct me if I am wrong on this). I, too, have hopes that communion may be restored between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches in my lifetime. Perhaps the Oriental Orthodox could serve as a bridge between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox?

I think we can trust you to accurately tell us what you’re aware of or not aware of.

 

[dvdjs]

Actually, there was: the Council of Florence in the 15th century.

I really don’t get the point, but I am pretty confident the best response is, simply: no.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Who do we listen to?

The hard fast answer is Rome. Yet for example had Rome declared Jesus was not divine then it would be our responsibility as disciples of Christ to protect the faith. That’s the entire issue it seems, where is this error? We have these suggestive ideas which hinge on arguments with little or no foundation. Thomas Aquinas is a perfect example with the Beatific Vision, its easy to say he is a heretic because he believed you can know Gods essence. Yet I find this no-where in his work, if fact just the opposite. Nevertheless by large this is the type of misinformation presented, because so and so said so. That’s no different than saying I read it on the internet so it must be true, couple chants from the peanut gallery “oh ya heretic” and its on its way down the telephone line… confirmed.

The OO and CC looks promising from the recent talks. I don’t take the OO to be speaking in an ecumenical sense. Hey when the man states we have a problem and we need Unity, and we need to work quickly. He was sending a signal out for everyone, I see no way to read that but sincere.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by the term ‘conciliar findings’. Could you please explain that to me.

Also, could you give me some examples of how the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are similar in theology and/or praxis and how this is lacking in the Catholic Church (and the Papacy is too easy ).

Well, we are the same in practically everything. Where do I even start? The only major disagreement so far is how we define Christ being fully human and fully divine at the same time. Besides that, our understanding of the faith stems from the same Church Fathers until the schism, and even the Fathers after the schism still teach essentially the same things. I think the biggest one is the understanding of the Fall, with again the concept of Original Sin as taught by St. Augustine and expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas is virtually non-existent in both EO and OO traditions. Everything else flows from that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do you not see an anathema as a claim of infallibility?

No, it isn’t.

And without any such guarantees, how do you know which of the countless councils are to be considered binding and which are benign but not all that binding and which are outright heretical?

Because of truth. If truth is the same past, present, and future, why do we need infallibility to know what the truth is?

 

[dvdjs]

The only major disagreement so far is how we define Christ being fully human and fully divine at the same time…

This is a MAJOR disagreement that resulted in anathemas from an ecumenical council.

I think the biggest one is the understanding of the Fall, with again the concept of Original Sin as taught by St. Augustine and expounded upon by St. Thomas Aquinas is virtually non-existent in both EO and OO traditions. Everything else flows from that.

This is a non-issue. Whatever you think of certain pieces of Augustine’s theology, the fact is that he is not anathematized, but recognized as a Saint in the Orthodox church. The issue “original sin” have not been a issue of division between the CC and EOC because they are not really different, notwithstanding the effort of some modern innovators in the East casting aspersions upon Saint Augustine.

This is familiar territory:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8555000&postcount=25
and ff.

 

[steve_b]

This is your own personal interpretation of scripture that was never taught by any of the Church Fathers.

obedience to faith,. to what Our Lord taught was never taught by the ECF’s?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is a MAJOR disagreement that resulted in anathemas from an ecumenical council.

Well, it is huge, I’ll give you that. But the difference between East and West is a longer list. There are far more things in common between the EO and OO than the RC have with either of them. Think of it this way, the EOs are Canadians, the OOs are Americans, the RCs are Chinese. That is the degree if difference in Theology.

This is a non-issue. Whatever you think of certain pieces of Augustine’s theology, the fact is that he is not anathematized, but recognized as a Saint in the Orthodox church. The issue “original sin” have not been a issue of division between the CC and EOC because they are not really different, notwithstanding the effort of some modern innovators in the East casting aspersions upon Saint Augustine.

This is familiar territory:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8555000&postcount=25
and ff.

Not because he is not anathemized means all his teachings are accepted. On the other hand, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom are both still Doctors of the Church in the books of the Roman Catholics, despite them teaching that Mary did commit minor sins which opposes Roman Catholic dogma on the Immaculate Conception.

 

[ConstantineTG]

obedience to faith,. to what Our Lord taught was never taught by the ECF’s?

They taught obedience to God, not to faith. I don’t recall any Church Father telling people they are Church Fathers and thus everyone should be obedient to them.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, it is huge, I’ll give you that. But the difference between East and West is a longer list. There are far more things in common between the EO and OO than the RC have with either of them. Think of it this way, the EOs are Canadians, the OOs are Americans, the RCs are Chinese. That is the degree if difference in Theology.

The list, however you make it, may be long, but it contains nothing - nothing - that is “huge” as measured by anathemas of an ecumenical council. Similarity of culture or mode of expression is superficial. It is nonsensical to be of a mind to fight over azymes, or tiny pieces of St. Augustine, and such, while papering over adjudicated Christological heresy,

Not because he is not anathemized means all his teachings are accepted. On the other hand, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom are both still Doctors of the Church in the books of the Roman Catholics, despite them teaching that Mary did commit minor sins which opposes Roman Catholic dogma on the Immaculate Conception.

Not sure of your point. No church accepts the writings of the fathers uncritically. That proviso not only applies to Augustine in the East, but also in the West. It certainly also applies to the view of Chrysostom on the sinfulness of the Theotokos: that view has no currency whatsoever in orthodox thinking in the East, as well as the West; it thus has zero bearing on the the IC. If someone is confusing you about this, seek counsel of someone better-rooted in Orthodoxy

I provided a link to an older thread where the actual teaching in original sin of the CC was discussed. While I am not entirely sure what, exactly, is though to be objectionable, that simple fact is that thoughts on original sin had never been a church dividing issue. Indeed, language that rather precisely parallels RC teaching can be found in numerous Orthodox catechisms. Again this is old territory:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9684693&postcount=340

 

[ConstantineTG]

The list, however you make it, may be long, but it contains nothing - nothing - that is “huge” as measured by anathemas of an ecumenical council. Similarity of culture or mode of expression is superficial. It is nonsensical to be of a mind to fight over azymes, or tiny pieces of St. Augustine, and such, while papering over adjudicated Christological heresy,

Based on your reasoning, we have much in common with Buddhists as we haven’t anathemized any of the teachings of the various Buddhas. Come to think of it, was Muhammad ever anathemized?

Just because there was no anathemization, doesn’t mean there is no significant difference.

Not sure of your point. No church accepts the writings of the fathers uncritically. That proviso not only applies to Augustine in the East, but also in the West. It certainly also applies to the view of Chrysostom on the sinfulness of the Theotokos: that view has no currency whatsoever in orthodox thinking in the East, as well as the West; it thus has zero bearing on the the IC. If someone is confusing you about this, seek counsel of someone better-rooted in Orthodoxy

The same that is disregarded from St. John’s teachings is that original sin is disregarded. Did we anathemize St. John Chrysostom? No. We don’t have to anathemize St. Augustine to not accept original sin. Not just because one is canonized means we accept all their teachings.

I provided a link to an older thread where the actual teaching in original sin of the CC was discussed. While I am not entirely sure what, exactly, is though to be objectionable, that simple fact is that thoughts on original sin had never been a church dividing issue. Indeed, language that rather precisely parallels RC teaching can be found in numerous Orthodox catechisms. I can look thenm up again if you would like documentation,

It was not a Church dividing issue, true. But today the various theologies of the West that spawned from Original Sin prevents any sort of union. In fact, Original Sin itself is a gigantic mountain that needs to be scaled towards union. Why was it not debated in the early Church? There are various opinions. Some even say that Rome’s adherence to the Augustinian view flew virtually under the radar of the East, and it may not have even developed as must until St. Aquinas who came well after the schism.