Catholic or Orthodox

[MGLechner]

Well I see that you are Orthodox/Protestant. Protestants I’ve encountered are much more accepting of the Orthodox when considering conversion. I think it has a lot to do it being easier to have the sacraments, liturgy, and tradition without accepting the dogmas or all those other problems you had with the Catholic Church as a Protestant.

Notice St. Peter and his uniqueness among the apostles in Scripture. Look at the line of Popes from St. Peter on. Look at all the councils held and see who accepts all of them and who has been present at all. Look at who has done the greatest evangelization and is truly all encompassing.

Pray and research. Talk to a priest or others who are knowledgeable in the faith.

**Orthodox are not Protestants. Protestantism came out of Catholicism. **

 

[Bluegoat]

I didn’t see anything shallow about it. It was meant to be a magazine article, not a book; the amount of information it could contain was therefore already limited. The article presented the information well, within the confines of the format.

Do you take issue with any of the facts? Is it true there can be no Orthodox councils called? How are they to battle issues like contraception and abortion from a central position of unified authority?

This was a bad article. As soon as he argued that praying for the dead implies purgatory, it was a bad article. But I am not a fan of Jimmy Aiken’s work. He did indeed not seem to look very much into the issues he addresses.

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.

What is being described sounds like “two-lung” theory to me. I think two-lung theory is really just a Catholic form of Branch theory. And yes, Orthodoxy rejects both, even when it would like to see a restoration of a properly understood papacy.

 

[Bluegoat]

In my opinion, the Orthodox have the stronger positions on most of the specific issues, including the question of how the Church should generally function. However, when the Orthodox claim that Roman primacy was simply a political matter, they are unconvincing. This creates a dilemma and I have no easy answers. (I use the dilemma as an excuse to remain Anglican–not something I recommend to others!)

I would say simply that the popular names of the two churches are telling: the Orthodox really have a better claim to be orthodox, while the Catholics really have a better claim to be catholic. (Note: one can’t simply argue from the names, as some Catholics on this forum do.)

From where I stand as an Anglican, catholicity is a lot more important than orthodoxy. So if I join one of the two, it will probably be the Roman Communion. However, my doubts about the full orthodoxy of the Roman Communion do give me pause–obviously if I became RC I’d have to accept that no RC dogma contradicts the orthodox Faith, something of which I am presently unsure.

So for now I remain an ecumenical Anglican who would like all Western Churches to move closer to the Orthodox doctrinally and liturgically, and at the same time desires and prays for the union of all Christians with Rome.

Why do you think Catholicism has a better claim to catholicity?

 

[Mickey]

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.

It is true that some use NFP as a means to increase the likelihood of conception–and this is how it should be used. However, it is also used as a “method” to decrease the liklihood of having children. I have read that when done properly, NFP can be a more effective contraceptive than condoms. And so, when used this way, it is truly a type of contraception that has been approved by Rome. Furthermore, I have read recently that Rome is softening a bit on the use of condoms for specific cases.

 

[Contarini]

Why do you think Catholicism has a better claim to catholicity?

A bunch of considerations all working together.

The key difference, it seems to me, is that Catholicism defines the Church first and foremost as a fellowship of people, with a personal center of unity (the Papacy). Yes, purity of doctrine is important. But in Orthodoxy purity of doctrine and liturgy seems to be the primary criterion, to the point that the people who make up the Church disappear from view. So, for instance, Catholics have in the past century been forced into an ecumenical ecclesiology–admittedly with much kicking and screaming–because they have had to recognize that there are genuine Christian believers outside the visible bounds of the Roman Communion. The Orthodox, faced with the same obvious reality, simply say “well, there probably are real Christian believers outside the bounds of our Communion, but that doesn’t affect our ecclesiology–after all, we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t, etc.” Thus, Catholics can–indeed must, if they take Vatican II and other recent developments seriously–acknowledge that there are elements of Christian faith and practice outside their borders which not only have validity as imperfect imitations of Catholicism, but which may in fact represent things Catholics need to learn from. The Orthodox view of Catholicity, on the other hand, is a perfect circle of more or less static doctrine and liturgy, with an imperfect recognition of the reality of development and the valid insights of other Christians. So I think Orthodoxy functions very well as a standard for the rest of us to look to to make sure we aren’t getting too far away from the core of the Faith. But the Roman Communion does a much better job of defining where the boundaries of the Faith are. (Obviously, since I’m still Episcopalian, I don’t entirely accept even the boundaries drawn by Rome–but I respect them.)

The other factors that RCs typically point to, like the greater cultural universality of their Communion, the fact that they are in communion with fairly large Eastern churches and have, at least in recent years, made serious efforts to “breathe with both lungs,” or their relatively greater ability to resist cultural assimilation–these should all be taken seriously as well, though they may not be the knock-down proofs that many RC apologists claim.

Edwin

 

[dvdjs]

This was a bad article. As soon as he argued that praying for the dead implies purgatory, it was a bad article.

Why is that argument a problem?

 

[Bluegoat]

Why is that argument a problem?

Because it doesn .

The most obvious answer, which applies even in Catholic theology, is that just because you pray for someone today, doesn’t mean that if God so chooses he must “apply” the effects today or tomorrow. He could also apply them ten years ago, before the person died and before you said the prayer. That is a pretty basic principle.

 

[Contarini]

Why is that argument a problem?

Because

1. It ignores the basic problem described by Hart–that the juridical, penal way Purgatory has traditionally been spoken of in the West distorts the entire Christian doctrine of sanctification; and
2. It assumes that we need to have some account of how prayer for the dead “works” in order to do it. That’s a case where rationalism is irrational. To engage in intercessory prayer at all is to place the one for whom we pray in God’s merciful hands without having a very clear idea of just how our prayer is directly affects the person in question.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because it doesn .

The most obvious answer, which applies even in Catholic theology, is that just because you pray for someone today, doesn’t mean that if God so chooses he must “apply” the effects today or tomorrow. He could also apply them ten years ago, before the person died and before you said the prayer. That is a pretty basic principle.

I agree with this (in fact I came up with this principle as a teenager, before I believed in Purgatory or anything like it!), but I wouldn’t call it a “basic principle.” It’s a reasonable but speculative application of the traditional doctrine of God’s timelessness. It’s an excellent counter-example to Akin’s claim that prayer for the dead doesn’t make sense without Purgatory, but from my perspective it’s more of an example of the fact that we really don’t know how prayer works than a “basic principle” on which our prayer for the dead should be based.

Edwin

 

[Mickey]

Yes, purity of doctrine is important. But in Orthodoxy purity of doctrine and liturgy seems to be the primary criterion, to the point that the people who make up the Church disappear from view.

Disappear? Everyone is visible in the Holy Orthodox Church, from dignitaries to the peasants in the streets. It is the people who rallied around St Mark of Ephesus. The people are gathered around their bishops as they profess the Holy Orthodox faith.

The Orthodox, faced with the same obvious reality, simply say “well, there probably are real Christian believers outside the bounds of our Communion, but that doesn’t affect our ecclesiology–after all, we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t, etc.”

Some people use the “we know where the Church is…” phrase (it is a pet peeve of mine). In reality, the Holy Orthodox Church knows that the Holy Spirit blows where it wills.

The Orthodox view of Catholicity, on the other hand, is a perfect circle of more or less static doctrine and liturgy, with an imperfect recognition of the reality of development and the valid insights of other Christians.

This is a tad condescending. What do you mean by static? Perhaps you are confusing the terms “development” and “innovation”?

But the Roman Communion does a much better job of defining where the boundaries of the Faith are.

And of course I couldn’t disagree more.
What do you mean by “defining where the boundaries of faith are”?

 

[Bluegoat]

A bunch of considerations all working together.

The key difference, it seems to me, is that Catholicism defines the Church first and foremost as a fellowship of people, with a personal center of unity (the Papacy). Yes, purity of doctrine is important. But in Orthodoxy purity of doctrine and liturgy seems to be the primary criterion, to the point that the people who make up the Church disappear from view. So, for instance, Catholics have in the past century been forced into an ecumenical ecclesiology–admittedly with much kicking and screaming–because they have had to recognize that there are genuine Christian believers outside the visible bounds of the Roman Communion. The Orthodox, faced with the same obvious reality, simply say “well, there probably are real Christian believers outside the bounds of our Communion, but that doesn’t affect our ecclesiology–after all, we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t, etc.” Thus, Catholics can–indeed must, if they take Vatican II and other recent developments seriously–acknowledge that there are elements of Christian faith and practice outside their borders which not only have validity as imperfect imitations of Catholicism, but which may in fact represent things Catholics need to learn from. The Orthodox view of Catholicity, on the other hand, is a perfect circle of more or less static doctrine and liturgy, with an imperfect recognition of the reality of development and the valid insights of other Christians. So I think Orthodoxy functions very well as a standard for the rest of us to look to to make sure we aren’t getting too far away from the core of the Faith. But the Roman Communion does a much better job of defining where the boundaries of the Faith are. (Obviously, since I’m still Episcopalian, I don’t entirely accept even the boundaries drawn by Rome–but I respect them.)

The other factors that RCs typically point to, like the greater cultural universality of their Communion, the fact that they are in communion with fairly large Eastern churches and have, at least in recent years, made serious efforts to “breathe with both lungs,” or their relatively greater ability to resist cultural assimilation–these should all be taken seriously as well, though they may not be the knock-down proofs that many RC apologists claim.

Edwin

It seems to me that the requirement to say precisely what non-Orthodox Christians are is mitigated very much by the understanding of salvation and of theosis. They have already affirmed that everyone stands in relation to Christ and is saved, and that there experiences outside the Church can contribute to that. So there are people who may not even be Christian believers at all who may be |saved" through their participation in that community, and moreso for non-Orthodox Christians. In saying that they do not know what happens outside the Church, they are affirming that there is not the fullness of truth, and no guarantee of orthodoxy, and no guarantee that the sacraments are “real”. That seems to me to be more than what the Catholic Church is saying even if you leave out the understanding of salvation.

I am also surprised that you think the individual is lost in Orthodoxy but not Catholicism, because it seems to me to be the opposite. In Catholicism you only have the Church really present when you have the top half, whereas in Orthodoxy the Church is in a way fully present in each individual congregation, and each individual.

As far as actual missions to other cultures, it seems to me that Orthodoxy has historically been more accommodating that Catholicism in many ways. There has also been a lot of growth recently in Western Rite Orthodoxy, and the Eastern Catholic Churches have only been a middling example of Catholic “universalism”.

 

[Madaglan]

A bunch of considerations all working together.

The key difference, it seems to me, is that Catholicism defines the Church first and foremost as a fellowship of people, with a personal center of unity (the Papacy). Yes, purity of doctrine is important. But in Orthodoxy purity of doctrine and liturgy seems to be the primary criterion, to the point that the people who make up the Church disappear from view. So, for instance, Catholics have in the past century been forced into an ecumenical ecclesiology–admittedly with much kicking and screaming–because they have had to recognize that there are genuine Christian believers outside the visible bounds of the Roman Communion. The Orthodox, faced with the same obvious reality, simply say “well, there probably are real Christian believers outside the bounds of our Communion, but that doesn’t affect our ecclesiology–after all, we know where the Church is but not where it isn’t, etc.” Thus, Catholics can–indeed must, if they take Vatican II and other recent developments seriously–acknowledge that there are elements of Christian faith and practice outside their borders which not only have validity as imperfect imitations of Catholicism, but which may in fact represent things Catholics need to learn from. The Orthodox view of Catholicity, on the other hand, is a perfect circle of more or less static doctrine and liturgy, with an imperfect recognition of the reality of development and the valid insights of other Christians. So I think Orthodoxy functions very well as a standard for the rest of us to look to to make sure we aren’t getting too far away from the core of the Faith. But the Roman Communion does a much better job of defining where the boundaries of the Faith are. (Obviously, since I’m still Episcopalian, I don’t entirely accept even the boundaries drawn by Rome–but I respect them.)

The other factors that RCs typically point to, like the greater cultural universality of their Communion, the fact that they are in communion with fairly large Eastern churches and have, at least in recent years, made serious efforts to “breathe with both lungs,” or their relatively greater ability to resist cultural assimilation–these should all be taken seriously as well, though they may not be the knock-down proofs that many RC apologists claim.

Edwin

Part of this has to do with how Rome and the Orthodox approach baptism (and grace) differently. According to the Roman viewpoint, many Protestant Christians are in a certain though imperfect communion with the Catholic Church through their Trinitarian baptism. Orthodox, on the other hand, in general do not so readily accept the baptism at the hands of the non-Orthodox. This issue goes back to the early days of Pope Stephen, St. Cyprian, St. Basil, etc. While in the past Catholics may have emphasized the Protestants as non-orthodox for their denial of the papacy, the sacraments, Purgatory, etc., today the emphasis is more on the equally “valid” Trinitarian baptisms that Protestants share with Catholics.

 

[jam070406]

Because

1. It ignores the basic problem described by Hart–that the juridical, penal way Purgatory has traditionally been spoken of in the West distorts the entire Christian doctrine of sanctification; and

Purgatory is our final purification.

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.”
(St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5G 61,361; cf. Job 1:5.)

1. It assumes that we need to have some account of how prayer for the dead “works” in order to do it. That’s a case where rationalism is irrational. To engage in intercessory prayer at all is to place the one for whom we pray in God’s merciful hands without having a very clear idea of just how our prayer is directly affects the person in question.

Edwin

Trusting the dead to the mercy of God is EXACTLY what is being done by those that offer prayers!?

You should really drop the polemics.

 

[Mickey]

in Orthodoxy the Church is in a way fully present in each individual congregation

Yes. The whole Church is made manifest in each and every local Church, so long as the Eucharist is celebrated and the Orthodox faith is professed.

 

[Mickey]

Purgatory is our final purification.

The final purification?

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.”(St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5G 61,361; cf. Job 1:5.)

This quote is definitely not an apologetic for the RC doctrine of purgatory.

You should really drop the polemics.

Well, it seems that you are the one engaging in polemics. But perhaps we should not allow this thread to mutate into another purgatory debate?

 

[Madaglan]

I am also surprised that you think the individual is lost in Orthodoxy but not Catholicism, because it seems to me to be the opposite. In Catholicism you only have the Church really present when you have the top half, whereas in Orthodoxy the Church is in a way fully present in each individual congregation, and each individual.

I too was a little surprised by the statement. In my experience of American Orthodoxy, I’ve found the case to be that the individual is much more lost in Latin Catholicism than in Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism). Most Orthodox churches are relatively small compared to Latin Catholic churches. The priest personally knows everyone who is a regular member, there is fellowship after Divine Liturgy, and even the bishop comes to know the people personally. In Latin Catholicism, a single parish might have 500-1000 families, with 3-4 separate Masses each weekend, and everyone leaving within 10 minutes after Mass. One thing that initially attracted me to Eastern Catholicism when I was Latin Catholic was that it seemed much more personable than the Latin parish in which I grew up.

 

[Bluegoat]

I too was a little surprised by the statement. In my experience of American Orthodoxy, I’ve found the case to be that the individual is much more lost in Latin Catholicism than in Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism). Most Orthodox churches are relatively small compared to Latin Catholic churches. The priest personally knows everyone who is a regular member, there is fellowship after Divine Liturgy, and even the bishop comes to know the people personally. In Latin Catholicism, a single parish might have 500-1000 families, with 3-4 separate Masses each weekend, and everyone leaving within 10 minutes after Mass. One thing that initially attracted me to Eastern Catholicism when I was Latin Catholic was that it seemed much more personable than the Latin parish in which I grew up.

Yes, though i would be careful about assuming too much about this - in places where Orthodoxy is the main religious group, there are some huge Orthodox congregations, and small intimate Catholic ones. Even in the US, I know a woman whose Orthodox church is so large it takes more than two hours to communicate everyone. Even so, the priests seem much more involved in the individuals lives than in many catholic parishes. But the priest shortage may be to blame there to a large degree.

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree with this (in fact I came up with this principle as a teenager, before I believed in Purgatory or anything like it!), but I wouldn’t call it a “basic principle.” It’s a reasonable but speculative application of the traditional doctrine of God’s timelessness. It’s an excellent counter-example to Akin’s claim that prayer for the dead doesn’t make sense without Purgatory, but from my perspective it’s more of an example of the fact that we really don’t know how prayer works than a “basic principle” on which our prayer for the dead should be based.

Edwin

Yes, I was just arguing in response to the article here. This is basic in the sense that a full grown Christian ought to be able to think of it and realize that Purgatory is not the only reasonable way to rationalize praying for the dead.

 

[dzheremi]

I too was a little surprised by the statement. In my experience of American Orthodoxy, I’ve found the case to be that the individual is much more lost in Latin Catholicism than in Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism). Most Orthodox churches are relatively small compared to Latin Catholic churches. The priest personally knows everyone who is a regular member, there is fellowship after Divine Liturgy, and even the bishop comes to know the people personally. In Latin Catholicism, a single parish might have 500-1000 families, with 3-4 separate Masses each weekend, and everyone leaving within 10 minutes after Mass. One thing that initially attracted me to Eastern Catholicism when I was Latin Catholic was that it seemed much more personable than the Latin parish in which I grew up.

That’s just a result of the size of the particular congregation though, Magdalan. I don’t think it’s really indicative of the character of the Latin church in and of itself. For instance, when I went to my first Catholic mass, it was in my home town which is pretty small, so the Catholic population is also small. Given that, any newcomer is hard not to notice, and upon leaving the church building the priest stopped me to talk to me, extend a greeting, ask me about my background, etc. It turns out he knew my grandfather, who had attended the same parish back in the 1950s when the priest was a young man The Catholic world can be very small, though I agree that Eastern churches do have a different feel overall.

Edit: Er…yeah, what Bluegoat said!

 

[milkbar]

Certainly authority in Orthodoxy is less clear-cut than in Catholicism,

And why is this okay?