A
Augustus24
Guest
Oh sorry, my question is in response to the OP who limited himself/herself to just the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and not the Oriental Orthodox Church.
- Status
S
Skeptic92
Guest
Believe it or not, both Churches have valid holy orders, sacraments and apostolic succession. the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholic Church, and the Oriental Orthodox are all valid, are all part of, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, there are some minor differences in Theology, but much of it is different wording, because of a different traditional understandings, such as on Mary, she is the Mother of God, and the Mother of the Church in a Western understanding, but she is the Theokotos in an Eastern understanding.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
That’s the problem – there is no unified authority among the Orthodox.
After centuries of opposition, the Orthodox have changed their minds and now approve contraception. Question: Is this true of all Orthodox Churches? The Orthodox oppose abortion, but whether they all have condemned the abortifacient known as The Pill, I do not know. No one speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy – a group of separate nationalistic and ethnic Churches with similar doctrines but no overarching authority. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches disdain one another. I find the whole Orthodox mileau, for all these reasons, troubling.
Jim Dandy
D
dzheremi
Guest
This is a canard. From my readings, which have been quite basic, it seems clear that all forms of abortifacient contraception are completely condemned in all Orthodox Churches, regardless of their canonical jurisdiction. Where a range of opinions do exist is on the use of non-abortifacient contraception, such as NFP which is also condoned in the Roman Catholic Church. So please stop pretending that there is some higher ground to stand upon just because the Orthodox don’t pretend that there isn’t a range of opinions on these things. There is also a range of opinions among Catholics, even as you pretend that “Roma locuta, causa finita est”.
D
DavidKays
Guest
They are both from the same branch. One is not better than the other. Both can say they are the Church and they are right. One claims St.Peter as its Founder and they are right. The other claims the other Apostles founded them and they are right. Both have Apostolic claims. And both can trace their present bishops to one of those Apostles. Rome has the claim to St.Peter and today that is why we have the Papacy. The Popes are the successors to the Office of St.Peter. However the bishops united to him tend to be those who were founded by him and to their apostolic missionary work. The Eastern bishops are not founded by St.Peter. Some Catholics do make that mistake that they were. They the Eastern bishops were the success of the missionary work of the other Apostles. The only exception to that is the Church of Antioch which holds St.Peter as its founder. But the bishops of the East while holding unto Apostolic succession were never governed by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. They were united to him through their common apostolic identity but there was never any influence by the Papacy towards the East as so many have declared on this website. We are only discovering each other now really for the first time. What guarentees the sanctity and belief within a Church is the sanctity and beliefs of her members. As there have been countless Saints in the Catholic Church so the Holy Spirit guided many in the Eastern Church in the same direction. There are many Saints, Church Fathers and Mothers, Church Doctors, Spiritual Giants, and countless Martrys that the Eastern Orthodox have given witness before God that the West hardly know of. And the Orthodox while holding dearly to their own Saints have yet to know about their brother and sister Saints of the Catholic Church. We the Orthodox have at our disposal an armanda of Saints similar to the ones Catholic have and this my friend guarentees that both Catholic and Orthodox are the true Church. Papal authority while it is a factor for the West really is much misunderstood and only now do Catholics and Orthodox are beginning to understand its role for the whole Church. While the Orthodox have always manage and govern themselves and while the Catholic Church has emerged as one to preside in the service of Love, the primary role of the Popes and the Papacy is to take care of the Church. This taking care means it is primary a pastoral one. Many Catholics believe this means juridiction over the East. This is only politics and has nothing to do with Papal primacy. The Primacy of the Pope belongs to his pastoral ministry when dealing with the East. When unfortunate events cause the West to have juridiction over the East then politics got in and there is where we get all our problems. The Papacy is now understanding its office of Primacy as a pastoral one and this is where the Orthodox can and will accept it. The Orthodox must understand and accept this Primacy and allow the Pope to help them. In doing this we can be of service to him as well. The Church is both Catholic and Orthodox and we are only beginning now to discover each other.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I thought the Orthodox rejected the “branch theory”, David? I know the Catholic Church does, anyway. I had been told that it is a theory that comes from Anglicanism.
C
Crusading_Canuk
Guest
The Catholic Church is universal (Catholic comes from the Greek for universal does it not?) and the Roman Church (ie. the Latin Rite) is one Rite in Christ’s Church. One of the Four Marks of the Church is universality. Within the Catholic Church, there are many rites to choose from. To the OP, explore the different rites of the Catholic Church to see which one you feel strengthens your Faith the most.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
This isn’t a matter of faith traditions, it’s the issue of Churches. Eastern Catholic Churches are still part of the Catholic Church.
D
DavidKays
Guest
That is true. But I am using that word for a different meaning. The Branch I am referring to is Christ Himself. And both Orthodox and Catholic are in Christ fully. One cannot make that claim without the other. Anglicanism probably did that so that they can see themselves as part of that branch. While I fully support Anglican claims as been Apostolic meaning their bishops have Apostolic succession, they are far from Apostolic teaching. Protestant teachings have crept into Anglicanism. This has to be filtered out. But Orthodox and Catholics have within themselves solid Apostolic teachings and with their common apostolic beginnings can both claim to be the Church. There are no heresies in either Church. When I say that both are the Church what I am truly saying is together they form the Church. I do not like branches either so I used Jesus as been that Branch with the name Orthodox/Catholic on it. There are not 2 branches but 1 branch.
S
searn77
Guest
This still sounds like the branch theory, it just doesn’t include Anglicans. The Orthodox do not accept this.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Some would say it is the worst of both worlds.
D
DavidKays
Guest
That the Orthodox do not include Anglicans or accept the branch theory at all? My understanding of the Orthodox is that they do not accept Rome’s claims at all. Some do but many do not. All I was trying to point out is that we are both ( Catholic and Orthodox ) right claiming to be the Church. Our beginnings to now have proven that. The proof is the Apostolic order within each Church. I am certain that someday this will be realized. We are only NOW beginning to know and understand each other. Think about it. We hardly knew about each other from the last 2000 years. Now I am referring to us the laypeople and not to the clergy. The laypeople for the first time in 2000 years are beginning to know and understand each others Church. This is a new discovery for most and really how can anything bad come from this. I believe soon that newer generations will leave misunderstandings and misconceptions to the past and will foward into a more unified and closer Communion and eventually to Full Communion with each other. The only thing that will change really is all those misunderstandings and misconceptions of each other. What will emerge is the Truth of our Common Apostolic Identity and Witness and Teachings. Instead of using the word branch how about trunk? My point really was that both East and West comes from the same category.
S
searn77
Guest
That the Orthodox do not accept the branch theory at all.
I think I understand what you are saying and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Then what do we make of Western-Rite Orthodoxy?
D
DavidKays
Guest
That’s ok because all of this is new to me too. I think contacts with the Catholics can be engaging and rich and yet it can be difficult too. I do not think at any time in the history of the Church that 2 groups of laypeoples from the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have ever engaged in discussions as they do now. I hope in the future that these engagements will eventually lead to deeper understandings and acceptance and respect for each other to the fuller developements of mutual communion and finally Full Communion with each other.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
According to Catholic understanding, NFP is not a form of contraception. This is because, again according to the CC, contraception entails the use of some method (barriers - condoms, surgical sterilization - vasectomy or tubal ligation, spermicide foams and substances, hormonal methods such as birth control pills, patches, implants) to prevent the natural outcome of the marital act which is pregnancy. NFP on the other hand does not use any method or means to interfere with the natural outcome of the marital act. NFP can be used in two different ways. Some couples will abstain from the marital act during the fertile period of the wife, in order to lower their chances of conceiving a child. Others who try to conceive will do the opposite, will observe the fertile period and engage in the marital act during that period in order to increase their chances of conceiving a child.
I know the difference between contraception and NFP (natural family planning) is difficult to grasp for many people, and some people will say there’s no difference between them, but the Catholic Church on her part does not regard NFP, when it entails periodic abstinence, as a form of contraception. Here’s a humorous way to show the difference between abstinence and contraception: let’s say I mention to my girlfriend’s father that we are contracepting. Then, when he draws his shotgun to kill me, or before the poor man is about to faint of heart attack, I explain to him, that in fact we never did anything inappropriate whatsoever, I haven’t even touched his precious daughter apart from an occasional peck on the cheek!
So that’s abstinence, and why would I call that contraception - unless I have a death wish? Having sex with his daughter, while using the pill or condoms, and abstinence on the other hand, may both have the same effect of avoiding getting her pregnant, but yet it would be quite mistaken to put the moral sign of equality between the two! 
And NFP, when couples are trying to postpone having babies, consists of periodic abstinence. The CC does not regard mutually agreed periodic abstinence sinful in a marriage, but the use of any method (condoms, sterilizations etc) that tries to prevent the natural outcome of the marital act is considered sinful by the CC.Also, while marriage MUST be open to children, i.e. those who do not want children at all are not validly married in the eyes of the CC, the CC does not command married people to engage in the marital act as frequently as they can and to have as many children as physically possible. Periodic abstinence and an effort to postpone and space pregnancy through recourse to abstinence, are fine with the CC.
I’m not saying you have to agree with the Catholic Church’s position on this, but I wanted to present the Catholic position on why NFP is not contraception.
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, I erred in accepting another poster’s claim that it’s by one Fr. Harrison, without checking the name on the article itself! The article appears to be by Jimmy Akin. I respect a lot of Akin’s work, but it doesn’t look as if he’s given a lot of serious consideration to Orthodoxy. Nor is there any necessary reason why he should. You can’t possibly consider all options equally. But those of us who do take the Orthodox perspective seriously–in my case both because I have spent time in Romania and actually had personal exposure to Orthodoxy before I had had much exposure to Catholicism outside of books, and because my issues with the claims of Catholicism have been more protracted and difficult to resolve that Mr. Akin’s appear to have been–the article just isn’t going to get very far.
Converts from Protestantism to Catholicism need to stop this farce of claiming to have given serious, equal consideration to Orthodoxy, when it’s clear that they haven’t.
No, it’s false. There have been quite a few Orthodox councils since the split. One list can be found here, and a list of authoritative Orthodox teachings, some of them by councils, can be found here (under “local councils”). It’s true that the later councils are not called “Ecumenical,” and that one could argue over the status of some of them. Certainly authority in Orthodoxy is less clear-cut than in Catholicism, but just as certainly the Orthodox have managed to solve quite a few doctrinal conflicts without being in communion with Rome!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Here’s a more in-depth critique of Akin’s article:
Of course his decision wasn’t based only on his relatively greater familiarity with Catholicism, but that was clearly a factor.
David Hart, an Orthodox theologian who is highly ecumenical toward Rome, has put the Orthodox case well in his essay “The Myth of Schism” in the book Ecumenism Today (ed. Murphy & Asprey, pub. Ashgate), pp. 102-3 (available on Google Books). There’s more going on here than Akin is acknowledging.
Note that the way he frames the question assumes Catholicism as the default. Indeed, that’s what it should be and necessarily is for Western Protestants. There’s nothing wrong with that. But the final rhetorical question is loaded from the start by the fact that he’s posed Orthodoxy as an “easier” alternative to Catholicism for a Protestant. If you look at Orthodoxy as “Catholicism without the hard stuff,” you certainly *should *reject it. But just as surely, if that’s how you see Orthodoxy, you haven’t taken it seriously.
This is a false dichotomy. We are embodied creatures who exist in space and time. It’s quite reasonable and proper to be heavily biased toward those religious bodies which exist in your physical vicinity and thus can make a practical, embodied claim on your allegiance. The idea of studying all the religious claims made by anyone in the world in some kind of impartial manner before making a decision is preposterous–yet modern people are haunted by the idea that this is what they are supposed to be doing.
Of course his decision wasn’t based only on his relatively greater familiarity with Catholicism, but that was clearly a factor.
Here you see Akin simply dismissing Orthodox theological concerns based on what “makes sense” to his Western, Calvinist-on-the-way-to-Rome perspective. He can’t see a difference, therefore there must be one. He doesn’t stop to ask whether it might be that the assumptions Western Protestants share with Rome blind them to differences that seem important to the Orthodox.
David Hart, an Orthodox theologian who is highly ecumenical toward Rome, has put the Orthodox case well in his essay “The Myth of Schism” in the book Ecumenism Today (ed. Murphy & Asprey, pub. Ashgate), pp. 102-3 (available on Google Books). There’s more going on here than Akin is acknowledging.
And there you have it. Start with juridical questions and of course you will decide that Rome has the answers. But then don’t pretend that the outcome was ever in doubt–it was determined from the start by the issues that you chose to consider important.
Again, he’s proving the Orthodox point that Catholics and Protestants have a lot more in common than either side admits. They are two sides of the same coin.
Exactly. He’s starting with the dichotomy “invisible Church with no earthly leader; visible Church with one supreme human leader,” because that’s the way the Protestant-Catholic debate has been framed for 500 years. He dismisses without serious consideration the possibility that there might be another way of looking at the structure of the Church.
C
Contarini
Guest
No doubt about that. But just as clearly, the way the papacy has functioned in the West has had negative effects. Akin prejudges the issue by putting all the valid criticisms of the Papacy into a box labeled “prudential” and thus declaring them irrelevant (see his cavalier dismissal of the very serious problems with the way the Filioque was added, above). Yet he thinks he can point to all the practical problems with Orthodox church structure as proof that Orthodoxy has the wrong ecclesiology. This is an obvious double standard.
What absence? This is, on the face of it, heresy and blasphemy. But moving right along. . . .
Sure, there’s a sense in which Jesus is absent. There’s also a sense in which the saints are dead. Akin’s argument here (Jesus is absent so He must have some kind of replacement) is on the same level as the Protestant “praying to the saints is necromancy” argument. Neither argument takes the doctrine of the Mystical Body seriously enough.
Again, he’s framing the questions in the way that guarantees that Rome will win. That Peter is the “Rock” is fairly clear–that this provides a warrant for modern Roman Catholic ecclesiology is much less clear.
Again, he’s biasing the issue by the language and parallels that he chooses.
How about, instead, we ask whether the NT sustains the idea that Peter’s primacy is to be considered along the lines of the authority of the Roman Emperor, which appears to be the Western Catholic model?
Yes, this is just as biased a way to put it, I know!
Akin seems to have missed the whole bit where Jesus explains to the disciples that authority in the Church is supposed to work differently from the models they’re familiar with in their culture!
Sorry–I’ve got to go at this point! But hopefully I’ve given a better sense of why I find this analysis shallow.
Edwin
N
Nine_Two
Guest
A Western based liturgy edited to conform to Orthodox teachings that makes no pretention to be something it isn’t, that is “the best of both worlds”.Then what do we make of Western-Rite Orthodoxy?
- Status