Catholic and Orthodox

[dzheremi]

I can’t think of a case in which a Catholic tried to attach an alien understanding of Orthodoxy to the EOC. If anything, ECs have had occasion to point out erroneous ideas about Orthodoxy that some EOs here hold.

For someone who is so hung up on respecting the church’s own explanations of itself and its doctrine, I find it highly curious that you should assert this. What makes you think that you, as an Eastern Catholic, are in the position to correct erroneous ideas about Orthodoxy held by ANYONE, let alone Orthodox Christians? Where does that authority come from? Or do all these appeals to what the church says about itself only apply to the RCC, not any other church?

The latter issues are unique to dialogue with the CC. But this idea of substantially similar faiths of the EO and OO churches is shocking to me.

Not to me, and not to most OO I know, and not to many EO I know. It is by no means held across the board, but it is more common than you apparently realize.

No. I want to hear what* you* mean.

I keep bringing up what the EP says because that IS what I mean, but obviously explained much more eloquently than I could ever hope to explain it. We have become ontologically different. Our realities are not the same, and this influences the practice and content of our religion in profound ways. We’re different people. That doesn’t necessarily portend schism (we were different before 1054, too), but it does make it a lot harder to heal it.

I am talking about your writings. If time allows I will comment on the links later.

Okay then. I don’t know where you got that out of anything I’ve written.

However, as you just pointed out, whatever authority these links may have about the OO faith, they cannot be take, as a matter of faith to have authority in what they say about others.

You strike me as obsessed with authority and some mythical “authority” or expertise that is independent of necessarily-biased analysis. Unfortunately, no such expertise exists, as it impossible to be completely without prior influence if you’ve reached the point needed in order to make a statement on anything. So, just as Roman Catholic conceptions of Orthodoxy are necessarily tainted by the philosophical underpinnings of Roman Catholicism, Orthodox conceptions of Roman Catholicism are necessarily tainted by the Orthodox idea of what the true faith consists of and what it does not consist of. I do not pretend that it can be any other way, or that this is necessarily even a bad thing, so long as it is recognized upfront. I have never, ever seen any modern Orthodox critique of Catholicism or modern Catholic critique of Orthodoxy that does not at some point extol the reader to go to the primary sources of the other church’s doctrine. This is as close to insulation against accusations of unfairness as anybody can get. Religion is not science. Neutrality or objectivity are not possible.

That is a very important point, which you seemed not to want to agree to.

See above. If you are upfront about the fact that you hold a certain view and that it colors what you think and say, then I have no problem. If, however, you insist that only unbiased sources be used (or that you use only unbiased sources in your own analysis), I’m going to have to conclude that you are delusional. Leave expertise to scientific fields. Religion is something else entirely.

It is the real point about why it is necessary to approach dialogue with openness toward new understanding. Because whatever it is we are saying about others is subject to growth in understanding with no compromise of our own faith. This is key.

I am hesitant to agree with this because I know that Catholic apologetics often frame Rome’s doctrinal innovations in terms of a similar “growth in understanding”, and I don’t agree with that. So, yes, while we certainly can come to new understandings in our relationships with others, we should be careful so as to not be swept away in this desire to embrace one another to the point that we manufacture supposed commonalities that upon closer inspection are built on sand. It is better to stay apart and preserve our faith than to unify under false pretenses.

 

[dzheremi]

You are quick to give a facile thumbs up or thumbs down before you carefully define each “thing”.

I am quick to negate them all because they are well-worn subjects, and I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ll leave it to you to carefully define each “thing” if you wish, as I do not share your presupposition that more information or more nuance always leads to a deeper understanding, or to some kind of correction in thinking. Truthfully I have read the RC documents that concern many of these things (I was RC once, too), and I just view them differently now. Would you say I understand them less now that I disagree with them than I did when I agreed with them? I think that’s really what we’re talking about here. At the heart of these dialogues beats the Roman Catholic hope that if somehow they can just get the Orthodox to look again (even closer) at X, Y, Z then it will become clear that whatever is under discussion is really not objectionable. I’m sorry, that’s just not realistic.

Can you give an accurate representation of Catholic thinking on each.

Yes, I can search the Vatican website. I can also fold my laundry, replace the ink in my printer, or put up my dishes. Guess which is a better use of my time…

I am certain from precious discussion that the answer is no.

Well then, this discussion is even more pointless than I thought.

So your responses to them are utterly meaningless.

The charity…I’m suffocating under all this charity!

Second, whatever the outcome of a serous discussion, are they church dividing issues? Consider for example, item 4. When did that become church dividing - and by the way, who said it is and on what authority?

There you go again with your appeals to authority. I don’t know what I could tell you to satisfy that insatiable demand. The RC conception of Original Sin, being one of the philosophical motivators behind its peculiar Mariology and several other points of contention with Orthodoxy, has long been objected to by the Orthodox as providing a warped view of human nature and the effect of Adam’s fall.

ps glad to see nothing about azymes

Yes, this is a point of difference between the OO and the EO (cf. Armenian Orthodox Church). We do not believe that this is a church-dividing issue.

 

[Marybeloved]

No, not at all. I would love for Rome to return to Orthodoxy. We commemorate Roman saints in the Coptic Orthodox Church, One of the greatest of the monasteries is in fact the Monastery of the Romans (Paromeos/Deir el Baramous). But we cannot share communion with Rome until we share faith, and we’re not currently sharing it. Division lasts as long as that is the case.

We can develop a deeper understanding on many things, and indeed that has been the result of many ecumenical talks (see HE Metropolitan Bishoy’s page that I linked earlier for some examples). But no amount of common understanding can replace common faith. We can understand each other perfectly well and still disagree.

The Roman Catholic Church has contradicted herself most plainly on every matter on which she once held the Orthodox faith and now does not. The particulars will vary from EO to OO and by level of internet belligerency )), but the well-known ones that are mostly common to both that you’re likely to hear are…well, well-known: Papal dogmas, the filioque, understanding of the faith and the sacraments, ascetic life, etc.** Pretty much everything that it means to be Christian that is of much import, in my opinion, hence my agreement with the EP even though I’m not in communion with him, either.**

Again, what exactly constitutes faith to you, just so I understand you? Is it actual contradictions in doctrine as formally defined by both churches? Is it differences in understanding, is it practice, expressions of the faith? I asked you about disagreements over the use of the calender, for example- Does that constitute no longer sharing faith?, as you put it?

For that matter, what constitutes contradictions to you?

Wikipedia says “In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions”. Another definition says “a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something”, Which is what I have always understood. So again, How has the Catholic Church contradicted herself- How is she backwards incompatible? You can’t answer this by calling on differences with the orthodox faith (And you are yet to show that this is in fact the case)- Your assertion was that she contradicts herself so please show us how her former definitions are mutually exclusive with the later doctrinal developments.

Developing the faith in a way that is incompatible with previous definitions- Now that would be contradiction. If not, then the Orthodox might very well be accused of contradicting themselves with regard to the immaculate conception- A belief that was unanimous in the East, fiercely defended by Easter theologians up until the 15th Century and in some parts, the 17th Century- And if you accuse me of putting something on the orthodox that is alien to how they understand their own history and understanding of the faith?- Well, right back atcha!

I’ve underlined that last bit to show that your earlier protests at not having accused the Catholic Church of changing what it means to be a Christian are infact baseless- you did make the accusation.

 

[dzheremi]

The approach is fine as far as it goes, but it is simply not sufficient for drawing the conclusion that you draw. Lacking in logic, and susceptible to prelest.

I could just as easily say that your approach is overburdened with logic and susceptible to an unhealthy, faith-destroying rationalism.

So, in this discussion, is it the Word of God that you are hearing or critiques of the Catholic faith?

We are talking about both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches in this thread because that is the topic. However, when I talk to my Orthodox friends and mentors, the Roman Catholic church does not come up at all unless they ask me about Roman Catholic practices (one friend was very intrigued by the idea of the confessional box, and said that she would like to have it in her church!), or on the rare occasion that I ask for clarification of the Orthodox position vis-a-vis what I was previously taught in the RCC (sometimes it differs, sometimes it does not). Critiques are for those who are looking for them, which I generally am not anymore. I have been exposed to many as a result of my journey from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, but again, the RCC does not generally come up but under very limited circumstances. We’re our own church with our own faith, you know. It’s sort of like how I don’t remember Protestants or Mormons ever coming up in the homilies given in my home parish. That sort of thing is kept to a minimum unless there is some compelling reason to contrast belief systems.

Against the objective reality of the findings of an Ecumencial Council. Fascinating.

Are the councils to be worn like a straight jacket around us?

Really? We get that all the time here from EOs. Dogma or Theologoumenon: Sinlessness of Mary, Aerial Toll houses; etc.

I was unaware that the sinlessness of Mary is in dispute among any Orthodox people. That is sad to hear. I am also unaware of anything like the idea of toll houses among the OO (I know they are not accepted by all EO in the first place). Dogma or theologumenon…yeah, okay, I can kinda see a parallel here, but I do not know that it is as tightly held to as the similar division among Catholics, given the Orthodox reluctance to declare this or that dogma. Furthermore, as the common usage related to the RC concept is intimately tied to Papal power to define such, I would say that the Orthodox idea of dogma or theologoumenon is qualitatively different than the RC “de fide” distinction. It has been explained to me that the Coptic Pope, for instance, has no power to declare anything as dogma. (This is one of the first things I asked as soon as I met a Coptic priest.)

If, at long last, you say that you cannot tell what is of the faith, and what is mere custom, then how on earth can you presume to tell what other faith is essentially the same or truly different?

Ahh…I think I’m beginning to see where we’re having some communication problems. Notice I said that this categorization doesn’t exist; we can obviously tell what is a matter of faith and what is a matter of custom (though with some people, I do wonder!), but this isn’t systematized or part of some overall taxonomy like it seems to be in the RCC. Rather, I would say that if an Orthodox priest in good standing with the church preaches something that is not obviously at variance with the Orthodox faith (as I do believe that people do have a sense of what is “de fide” within themselves, especially if they have been raised in the church), you should believe it and follow it. There’s no need to dissect it and ask “well, is this a BIG matter or a small matter”. It’s a matter, and the priest is not just mindlessly talking because he has to fill up time in the liturgy. These words of spiritual benefit are for YOU specifically. What you do with them is up to you, but there is no brushing them aside as though you can say “well, that’s not ‘de fide’…I don’t need to concern myself with it.” To paraphrase I talk I recently heard, Orthodoxy is not minimalist in its adherence to the faith; it is maximalist. All things are important. If it’s in the Fathers, or the Councils, or the Agpeya, or the Sunday sermon, it’s important. Even if it is a theologoumenon (such as toll houses), you should familiarize yourself with it as part of being a well-informed person about the issues that affect your church.

 

[dzheremi]

Again, what exactly constitutes faith to you, just so I understand you?

“Faith” as an abstract noun, or THE faith? Because the Christian faith is much more a verb than a noun. Sure, there are certain things that I would say are elemental to it (“de fide”, if you like, to reference the ongoing discussion), but anything beyond those can really get in the way of living the faith. I don’t feel like it’s terribly necessary or illuminating to make a list here, on this Christian message board. I would direct you to the Nicean Creed, and perhaps (if you mean specifically Coptic Orthodoxy, as that is what I aspire to live) to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Athanasius. St. Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation” is one of the absolute best defenses of the Christian faith that I’ve ever read. I would say that the closer one comes to the understanding of these venerable and holy fathers (and the many others like them), the more they are able to live the faith.

Is it actual contradictions in doctrine as formally defined by both churches? Is it differences in understanding, is it practice, expressions of the faith? I asked you about disagreements over the use of the calender, for example- Does that constitute no longer sharing faith?, as you put it?

Differences in understanding can constitute a difference in faith, sure. Certainly we would all agree that the Mormon faith is a different faith than the Roman Catholic faith or the Orthodox faith, even though they use many of the same terms as we do. I would suspect that it is probably a difference of degree, then, but I do not know where the line is. I would suspect it varies (e.g., it is fine for Latins and Armenians to use unleavened bread; it is NOT fine for Nestorians to teach their incorrect Christology).

The calendar is an EO issue, not an OO issue. I have no opinion on it. The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the Coptic calendar, which matches the Ethiopian calendar but has different month names and starts at a different year (the Ethiopian calendar is I think 7 years behind the Gregorian; the current Coptic year is 1727 A.M., “Anno Martyrum”).

For that matter, what constitutes contradictions to you?

Contradictions. In the 14th century, all humankind had to be under the authority of the Roman Pontiff. In the 20th century, all human beings had religious liberty and Muslims are admired as believers in the one God, and so on.

Wikipedia says “In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions”. Another definition says “a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something”,

Orthodox Christianity is not based on classical logic.

Your assertion was that she contradicts herself so please show us how her former definitions are mutually exclusive with the later doctrinal developments.

Gladly. See for instance this thread on Papal infallibility. Keenan’s 1850’s catechism, which bore an imprimatur, denied Papal infallibility explicitly. In 1870, Papal infallibility was (infallibly?) declared, and the offending passage was subsequently replaced. Various rather lame defenses of this clear change are given. but they don’t alter the text. Rome does.

I’ve underlined that last bit to show that your earlier protests at not having accused the Catholic Church of changing what it means to be a Christian are infact baseless- you did make the accusation.

What are you talking about? Of course I accuse(d) the Roman Catholic Church of changing. I believe it has. I think you might be confusing this with my refutation of Jam’s claim that I think that only Easterners can be Christian, which is ridiculous and not something I wrote or would ever write or think.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Why cant the Catholics and Orthodox call themselves by the same name to come closer together?

Why cant the Catholics and Orthodox have the same date for Easter so as to come closer together?

Why cant the Catholics and Orthodox do the same sign of the cross so as to come closer together?

Bit by bit they should practice becoming closer and closer together

Is everything expected to be healed all at once?

If we have a broken car ,bit by bit and part by part we will fix things

It’s not one of the main reasons for the split but I’ve always wondered myself why they cross right to left… Does anybody know why the difference?

 

[dzheremi]

Latins used to cross themselves right to left, too. I can’t remember exactly when it changed. I have a video produced in the early 1990s by the Eparchy of Parma called “A Brief Introduction to the Eastern Catholic Churches” that goes into a bit of detail about that. Unfortunately I don’t have a VCR anymore so I can’t watch it, but as I remember it was sometime in the middle ages, as the result of the laity incorrectly mirroring the motions of the priest.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well some follow the Mass which is of course opposite to the Priest facing the mass. For others making a small cross on the forhead lips etc its probly more natural right to left. Which I see also. However in history? I find nothing any older than this? How about you?

“For as St. John Chrysostome sayth, wherever the fiends see the signe of the crosse, they flye away, dreading it as a staffe that they are beaten withall. And in thys blessinge ye beginne with youre hande at the hedde downwarde, and then to the lefte side and byleve that our Lord Jesu Christe came down from the head, that is from the Father into erthe by his holy Incarnation, and from the erthe into the left syde, that is hell, by his bitter Passion, and from thence into his Father’s righte syde by his glorious Ascension”.
{Catholic Encyclopedia}…347-407-AD.

Sounds to me like top, bottom, left, right? Of course thats a Catholic sight, can’t go by that.

Peace

 

[followingtheway]

Bit by bit they should practice becoming closer and closer together

Easier, said then done. It’s more than that Roman Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians have DOCTRINAL differences, which is the main problem.

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.
   *]Roman Catholic priests can’t get married. Eastern Orthodox Priests CAN get married (except bishops)
   *]Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately concieveed. Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching on Original sin and believe Mary could sin chose not to sin.
   *]Roman Catholics believe the souls in Hell are separated from God, but in the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that the soul either goes to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, and the souls in Purgatory go to Heaven afterwards. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in Purgatory and believe that all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.
   *]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam (the first man) and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.
   
   and much more…
   
   How we will decide what to believe will we have debates, how will we unite opposing doctrine?

 

[followingtheway]

Really? My mistake then.

God bless :byzsoc:

David

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not one of the main reasons for the split but I’ve always wondered myself why they cross right to left… Does anybody know why the difference?

There’s probably no real reason. Variances in customs were common in Christendom during the early years. These people lived hundreds of miles away from each other, and information on particular local practices spread slowly (it took 300 years for the filioque to come to Constantinople’s attention after all). If you look into it, there are all sorts of preferences on direction (right to left vs. left to right) and hand gestures (open handed, three fingers, two fingers, and some others), all with their own particular symbolism.

 

[Marybeloved]

Easier, said then done. It’s more than that Roman Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians have DOCTRINAL differences, which is the main problem.

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.
   *]Roman Catholic priests can’t get married. Eastern Orthodox Priests CAN get married (except bishops)
   *]Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately concieveed. Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching on Original sin and believe Mary could sin chose not to sin.
   *]Roman Catholics believe the souls in Hell are separated from God, but in the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that the soul either goes to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, and the souls in Purgatory go to Heaven afterwards. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in Purgatory and believe that all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.
   *]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam (the first man) and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.
   
   and much more…
   
   How we will decide what to believe will we have debates, how will we unite opposing doctrine?

1. 
   I think this list is a good illustration of what someone said earlier…We need deeper understanding of what each side truly teaches and believes before deciding beforehand that we teach contradictory doctrines or hold to opposing views
   
   “Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately concieveed. Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching on Original sin and believe Mary could sin chose not to sin”.
   
   Do you have the idea that Mary (according to RC teaching) was incapable of sin? The whole point of the doctrine of the immaculate conception is that our lady was in the exact state that our parents Adam and Eve were before they sinned, so that she could be truly free from the weaknesses that affects the rest of to chose to obey God rather than disobey like they did. You believe the mother of God was sinless- so do we, we don’t believe that she was deprived of her free will, but that she co-operated freely and perfectly with God (willing submission to his will ie holiness).
   
   “Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam (the first man) and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father”.
   
   We believe that God became a part of the human race, a descendant of Adam, so that he could, as one of us and the best of us, participate fully in all our suffering and expiate (make up for) all our sin, so that* We* could by virtue of our union with him and through him, participate in the divine life- The life and love of the Blessed Trinity. It’s so unfair of you (and others) to simplify our holy belief like that (to appease the wrath of God brought by Adam’s sin) just so you can bring up a false “difference” in teaching that to pile up even more unjustified reasons for the schism.
   
   And original sin, is not a stain or guilt as such, it just means that we are not born in the state in which God created Adam and Eve before the fall, They lost an original perfection that they had and transmitted to their descendants “the law of the members” that st Paul spoke of when he spoke about two laws subsisting in him. It’s an inclination to sin, that Adam did not suffer from before the fall- it’s not actual sin like personal sins.
   
   Perhaps lay persons should take the example of our leaders and the theologians and actually attempt to understand each other’s true position rather than engage in what might seem like deliberate misunderstanding and polemics.

 

[Diakonia]

Easier, said then done. It’s more than that Roman Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians have DOCTRINAL differences, which is the main problem.

1. 
   *]Roman Catholic priests can’t get married. Eastern Orthodox Priests CAN get married (except bishops)

1. 
   Umm, no …
   
   Firstly, celibacy is not a doctrine - it’s a discipline. And Eastern Orthodox priests may not marry. Married men may be ordained to the presbyterate, but a priest may not marry. The same, by the way, is true of Eastern Catholic priests.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Easier, said then done. It’s more than that Roman Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians have DOCTRINAL differences, which is the main problem.

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.
   *]Roman Catholic priests can’t get married. Eastern Orthodox Priests CAN get married (except bishops)
   *]Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately concieveed. Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching on Original sin and believe Mary could sin chose not to sin.
   *]Roman Catholics believe the souls in Hell are separated from God, but in the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that the soul either goes to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, and the souls in Purgatory go to Heaven afterwards. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in Purgatory and believe that all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.
   *]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam (the first man) and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.
   
   QUOTE]
   
   So whos beliefs are right and whos are wrong?
   
   Or are they both correct and just have a different way of understanding or expressing them?

 

[Marybeloved]

followingtheway;8275603:

Easier, said then done. It’s more than that Roman Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians have DOCTRINAL differences, which is the main problem.

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.
   *]Roman Catholic priests can’t get married. Eastern Orthodox Priests CAN get married (except bishops)
   *]Roman Catholics believe that Mary was immaculately concieveed. Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with the Catholic teaching on Original sin and believe Mary could sin chose not to sin.
   *]Roman Catholics believe the souls in Hell are separated from God, but in the Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that the soul either goes to Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, and the souls in Purgatory go to Heaven afterwards. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe in Purgatory and believe that all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.
   *]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam (the first man) and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.
   
   QUOTE]
   
   So whos beliefs are right and whos are wrong?
   
   Or are they both correct and just have a different way of understanding or expressing them?

1. 
   If you go back and look at some of the posts, you’ll note the catholic complaint that many of the catholic beliefs here are misrepresented. You can’t discuss who is right or wrong, or even if the beliefs are similar until you have a clear understand of the true position, each side holds on the matter.
   
   Also bear in mind that lay persons debating on such a forum may not be truly aware of the right positions held by their own professions, much less the true position of the other side.