Catholic or Orthodox

[dvdjs]

His claim in the article is that many differences differences in teaching and doctrine are matters of semantics. He says that the Orthodox believe in something like Purgatory, and the fact that they pray for the dead shows this because there would be no point otherwise.

Very good. “Something like”. That is not unreasonable, the question is what are the limits on “like”. Ongoing purification? A point of agreement. Prayer helps? Agreement. That is that. Points of disagreement are in areas of speculation outside of dogma. That would include aerial toll-houses. Controversial? Some controversial figures have opposed this, but who else?

 

[dvdjs]

The definition of purgatory has certainly been diluted to make that argument work.

Please give a definition for the current CCC and compare for example to Florence. You will then want to retract this offensively erroneous post.

 

[dvdjs]

So, on the one hand you say that Aiken, and yourself, realize the understanding is not the same. On the other you say that if the Orthodox believe there may be a clensing of some kind after death there is really no issue. Do you not see a problem.

Come on. There is a lot of room in “not the same” for great similarity, including similarity on the essential points.

1. The Orthodox and Catholic view are different, and the Orthodox think the differences are important. This is especially so in the relation of purgatory to merit and penance. (However, as Nine Two pointed out, this is very much glossed over by a lot of modern Catholics, and I believe even in the CCC. But they are related doctrines.

As noted above I have yet to see an accurate delineation of Catholic dogma by any Orthodox who claimed incompatibility of belief on this issue. The issue of merit and penance may reveal less agreement, but however related they are not the issue of purgatory.

1. The CC says members must believe it, and the OC doesn’t. This in itself it a very important point. Even if some Orthodox believed in exactly the same type of purgatory as Catholics do, it would be a major difference.

I don’t think that you are right. I am reasonably certain that Orthodox must believe the same thing that Catholics must believe on the matter of purgatory: ongoing purification and efficacy of prayers for the dead. Can you point out something authoritative in Orthodoxy that says that my impression is wrong, or that one can depart from the mind of the Church on these matters.

 

[dvdjs]

And as a member of the Orthodox Church he is fully in line with the church believing that, in fact he is probably in line with the majority of Orthodox Christians there.

I would agree that the majority of Orthodox think that the Catholic Church is wrong. But I also know that this group cannot be relied upon to have an accurate understanding of Catholic teaching. Their adopting this position does not make the position true.

However getting individual thoughts is not the same thing as getting the actual position, which as has been stated a million times is that we have no doctrine on what happens between death and the last judgment, and this alone puts us at odds with the Catholic Church without saying you are wrong

Well this is your individual opinion. Similarly you have claimed:

… in the Orthodox Church the Assumption isn’t required belief, although … the vast majority of Orthodox Christians accept it

I think you have a rather liberal and unorthodox idea of the exercise of your private judgment in rejecting the teachings of your church.

 

[dvdjs]

And the Catholics go to great lengths to display that we are all exactly the same, usually by interpreting things as loosely as possible. If you truly believe as we believe, than Rome should have no trouble rejoining our communion.

Great. Orthodox are welcome to communion in Catholic Churches. Finally you make the reciprocal offer.

 

[DavidKays]

The question is flawed. It should not be “Catholic or Orthodox”, it should be “Catholic and Orthodox”.

All who eat the Body and Blood of Christ are in communion with Christ! If Catholics are in communion with Christ and Orthodox are in communion with Christ, then it has to be also true that Catholics are in communion with Orthodox through Christ! Think of it as double-communion if you wish, but the fact is that all who are in Christ are ONE. Christ cannot be divided. If both Catholic and Orthodox commune the true Body and Blood of Christ then any so called “schism” is impossible. No need to choose one over the other.

Hi JohnVIII and you have spoken the truth. It is the attitudes of both sides that needs to be changed. St.Paul warned in his Epistles about the in fighting among families when he said not to go into the area of controversies within families. He is referring to the useless debates that families can enter when they fight among themselves and thus produces no good effect. From this he is warning for the Churches not to engage in useless debates as well. There is no good fruit in this. The Apostle warns that if families can break up over useless debates that really have no meaning in our relationships with Christ how much more for the Churches to avoid them as well. I see this Catholic and Orthodox relationship in the same light as you do and hopefully in time so will the whole Church.

 

[Hesychios]

The question is flawed. It should not be “Catholic or Orthodox”, it should be “Catholic and Orthodox”.

All who eat the Body and Blood of Christ are in communion with Christ!

Provided of course, that it is a truly confected Holy Eucharist. Who’s to say?

Are the grapejuice communions of some Protestant confessions true Holy Eucharists? Were the communions of the Ebionites true Holy Eucharists? Why or why not?

How about the Montanists? or the Arians? … or the Donatists? Where does one draw the line, and why?

These are rhetorical questions, meant to provoke thought, but the lines have already been drawn for us moderns. The question is, do we agree with the reasoning of past church fathers?

Today we are divided between Miaphysites and Diaphysites, and between Papists and Conciliarists, but are these divisions by opinion so great that it makes a difference to our salvation?

If Catholics are in communion with Christ and Orthodox are in communion with Christ, then it has to be also true that Catholics are in communion with Orthodox through Christ! Think of it as double-communion if you wish, but the fact is that all who are in Christ are ONE. Christ cannot be divided. If both Catholic and Orthodox commune the true Body and Blood of Christ then any so called “schism” is impossible. No need to choose one over the other.

The point is a good one, worth meditating over.

Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree that there is only ONE cosmic divine liturgy . It is for this reason that we say Christ is not continually re-crucified, and He is not re-sacrificed. For us there is only one, eternal divine liturgy - outside of time. All generations participate in it, with the angels and the saints before Christ the High Priest.

If we can agree that there is just one eternal and unending liturgy and we can know that that we are participating in it, all who also participate in the same sacrifice are in communion with us through Christ, regardless of what anyone wants to claim. So then theoretically if a liturgy as a sacrament of God is true (valid) regardless of which communion the bishop belongs to, there can be no division among us before God. The liturgy and the Eucharist should be efficacious for all equally, it should sustain and refresh all equally, like the rain falling on every plant equally. There is no actual concern of licity, it is irrelevant, all that matters to the individual is the reality of the sacrament and it’s benefit to those who partake.

Subsequently one can theoretically say that there should be no obstacle to individuals moving one way or the other across the jurisdictional limits of the churches so long as these churches confect a valid Eucharist. Theoretically this should have no bearing, in itself, on whether a person is saved.

I think probably the reason more than any other a person is saved or damned has to come from some other reason than church affiliation, perhaps something such as how one lives one’s life. That in turn may come from the values one keeps, and the values one keeps can be influenced by what one is taught.

Dangerous teaching can be soul killing. Not all errors are dangerous, but the really dangerous teachings are errors.

It is mainly for this reason the fathers of the past have separated us from each other, it is why the Ebionites and Montanists and Arians were cut off … to protect us from dangerous teachings that may mislead us. It was not because someone else’s eucharist might not be valid.

The question of validity always comes after the question of fidelity, not before.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes. The Catholic CCC says explicitly that Muslims (as a group) worship the same God as Christianity and Judaism. Anglicans don’t have any kind of similar compendium of beliefs, and have no obligations on the point, but most would agree.

They would say that Muslims are confused about God, in some cases even culpably so, but have recognized him in part of his Divine Nature.

Well heres what the CC says…

841 {The Church’s relationship with the Muslims}. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

The church itself makes no mistake in its actual teaching to the faithful though. The only path to Christ lies in the 7th-8th ecumenical councils.

And there are only two Christian Churchs which make it to to this point. Orthodox and Catholic.

Whats consistantly wrongly misinterpreted is John Paul IIs attempt to open the lines of communication by the focus on common ground. Which in fact is correct since we can’t kill our way out of the problem with Islam. Then the hope becomes to graduate a inferior heresy to truth.

Islam is a teaching process, and they do proclaim many aspects of Christianity and rightfully so, its all stolen to fit mohammads needs.

If we compare the Quran Surah chapter on Mary to the Bible in Luke and the Annunciation? Same story which is obviously stolen by the wonderful false profit and butcher Mohammad. Who from what I see was a great General and no-doubt achieved much success, through murder, rape, slavery, pilferidging and stealing. Basically the same is true today.

Anyway, and on-ward we go.

 

[JohnVIII]

[user]Hesychios[/user]

Thank you so much for you comments! Especially this part:

It is mainly for this reason the fathers of the past have separated us from each other, it is why the Ebionites and Montanists and Arians were cut off … to protect us from dangerous teachings that may mislead us. It was not because someone else’s eucharist might not be valid.

The question of validity always comes after the question of fidelity, not before.

I wish I could articulate these thoughts as well as you have.

I tend to think that that the Orthodox are not really ‘out of communion’ with Rome per say, but rather they have ‘walled themselves off’ from communion with Rome (not really the same thing I think) in order to preserve the whole deposit of faith as it has been passed down from the apostles. I don’t think it has to be only for reasons such as heresy, but I think it could be justified simply to preserve the jurisdictional freedom held since the beginning. As the 8th canon of the Third Ecumenical says, “lest imperceptibly and little by little you lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood”. As long as Rome believes that it has the right to rule over any and all jurisdictions as it sees fit, why wouldn’t this be reason enough? It doesn’t have to mean that we are not in reality all one true communion in Christ, nor does it have to mean that someone is in heresy either.

You also brought up the question “why the Ebionites and Montanists and Arians were cut off”. You know, of course, Rome is going to claim that it would have the final say who should and should not be “cut off”. But ever since the beginning each and every local Church has had the right judge for itself as it sees fit just who it should commune with. And in retrospect it seems that not in every case has Rome made the right choices in this regard either. Some will say that we need to know for sure who we should commune with, so we need Rome’s infallibility. But I don’t think we need any such certain knowledge. It can be one way to learn instead of just having blind dependency.

This is a very thought provoking line! I wonder if thoughts along this line could be helpful toward the goal of visible communion between Orthodox & RC?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The progress made to date between the East/West churchs leaves hope. The question isn’t so much “if” a closer relationship will develope, its “when.”

Though I don’t think the author of “Light of the World” was accurate in his stated percentage of 97% complete between Catholic/Orthodox, MOF, Benedict clearly stated he thought that was very generous. Nonetheless the healing process continues, and in fact, that is what I believe it is more than anything. And rightfully so, the schism is a result of total chaos. And should have never occured.

It would be awfull Catholic of me to say the Church was in fact 100% correct. I fail to see that. Political agenda combined with religion has never worked, nor will it. Politics need be a result of the Church, not part of it. Life is a long lesson though and here we are today at the threshold of extinction. Which I do believe is the absolute reason for the meeting of the minds. Had man been afforded another 50-years of comfortibility, we simply would not be having this conversation.

So from where I sit I see communion as survival plan of nessessity. And for sure it would go a long way in Gods plan for mankind. The world would overnight become just a bit better of a place to live for many, many living Souls at the bottom.

“From now on it is only through a conscious choice and through a deliberate policy that humanity can survive.”
Pope John Paul II

I agree!

 

[Contarini]

Do the Episcopalians and/or the Roman Catholics believe that they worship the same God as the muslims?

The Catholic Church as a whole seems to believe this, as Christians have traditionally believed. The idea that wrong conceptions of God amount to a “different God” appears to be a modern idea. I would trace it primarily to Calvinist emphasis on special revelation over natural theology, but you find it in modern Orthodoxy as well, clearly. It certainly was not the approach the Fathers took to forms of pagan thought that held to the existence of a supreme Deity, nor as far as I know was it the way Christians either East or West initially reacted to Islam. Muhammad was seen as a false prophet who claimed to speak in the name of the one God, but not as the prophet of a false god.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As long as the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ the gathering is in the name of Christ.

Well, I’d put it the other way round!

But I expect Catholics and Orthodox (and Anglo-Catholics) to disagree with that.

Your statement, however, makes no sense to me. I don’t mean that I don’t understand it, only that I can see no good reason for believing it to be true.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, Islam claims to worship the God of Abraham. Thats the God “all christians” worship. All Christians not specific denominations…ALL.

Its not a question of “if” we Worship Islams God. Its a process of understanding “exactly” who Islams God is. Personally I believe its Satan.

 

[RyanBlack]

No, Islam claims to worship the God of Abraham. Thats the God “all christians” worship. All Christians not specific denominations…ALL.

Its not a question of “if” we Worship Islams God. Its a process of understanding “exactly” who Islams God is. Personally I believe its Satan.

Concerning Muslims, the CCC states “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that the God of Islam is Satan; rather she teaches that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Concerning Muslims, the CCC states “these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that the God of Islam is Satan; rather she teaches that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God.

Go back and “read this thread”. I posted exactly what the catechism of the Catholic Church states from the catechism of the Catholic Church.

Again here it is…

841 “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator” “they profess to hold the faith of Abraham.”

Well, how in the world do Catholic’s acknowledge the Creator???

The CC instructs there is “ONE” path to God and thats through Jesus Christ in Baptism and “acknowledgement”. Thats not the path Islam follows is it? So where does the Islamic path lead?

The paragraph must be read carefully. And is there NO CATHOLIC CHURCH that teachs any other path of Salvation, NONE NOWHERE!

There is not one of the Elect worldwide that doesn’t clearly understand Islam is Christian heresy. One path to God, not two, some, not through the back door or side.

Could Islam be saved? Of course, but NOT on their current path. Its IMPOSSIBLE!

But this thread isn’t about Islam, and my post isn’t intended to distract, just correct false teaching and understanding.

Outside the Ark there was “No Savation” none. If you missed Noahs Ark you were fresh out of Hope. And if you miss this Ark your fresh out of Hope also.

 

[Madaglan]

The Catholic Church as a whole seems to believe this, as Christians have traditionally believed. The idea that wrong conceptions of God amount to a “different God” appears to be a modern idea. I would trace it primarily to Calvinist emphasis on special revelation over natural theology, but you find it in modern Orthodoxy as well, clearly. It certainly was not the approach the Fathers took to forms of pagan thought that held to the existence of a supreme Deity, nor as far as I know was it the way Christians either East or West initially reacted to Islam. Muhammad was seen as a false prophet who claimed to speak in the name of the one God, but not as the prophet of a false god.

Edwin

The Church Fathers teach that the existence of the one God can be discerned in creation. Socrates, Plato and other philosophers have been regarded as Christians before Christ along these lines.

Islam is somewhat a different bag. It entails, among other grievous errors, open rejection of God’s revelation of himself in Christ. St. John the Damascene, one of the earliest Fathers to encounter Islam, calls the Muslims “Mutilators of God”, as they believe God is without word and spirit. Mohammad in the Quran flatly rejects that God has a Son.

The “God” worshiped by Muslims may be one and all-powerful, but is quite different from the triune, personal God worshiped by Christians.

 

[stormy99]

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.

**I was raised Romanian Orthodox…my mother was a Romanian Catholic…Dad was orthodox…then onto Presbyterian with my friends down the street when I grew up…by choice not birth I am a Catholic Convert…researching them both I feel the Roman Catholic Chuch is the true church by Peter…

stormy**

 

[Bluegoat]

The Church Fathers teach that the existence of the one God can be discerned in creation. Socrates, Plato and other philosophers have been regarded as Christians before Christ along these lines.

Islam is somewhat a different bag. It entails, among other grievous errors, open rejection of God’s revelation of himself in Christ. St. John the Damascene, one of the earliest Fathers to encounter Islam, calls the Muslims “Mutilators of God”, as they believe God is without word and spirit. Mohammad in the Quran flatly rejects that God has a Son.

The “God” worshiped by Muslims may be one and all-powerful, but is quite different from the triune, personal God worshiped by Christians.

The Fathers said the same thing about the Platonists who denied Christianity, which seems pretty close to the Muslim situation as you describe it…

 

[Mickey]

Islam is somewhat a different bag. It entails, among other grievous errors, open rejection of God’s revelation of himself in Christ. St. John the Damascene, one of the earliest Fathers to encounter Islam, calls the Muslims “Mutilators of God”, as they believe God is without word and spirit. Mohammad in the Quran flatly rejects that God has a Son.

The “God” worshiped by Muslims may be one and all-powerful, but is quite different from the triune, personal God worshiped by Christians.

Yes.

Islam’s fatal flaw, of course, is that it worships a false god. Ecumenists would have us believe that all religions are basically the same, and that if we would only lay aside the interpretations, traditions, and other human accretions that create our differences, we could all stand on common ground. This, certainly, is the vision of proponents of the New World Order. As Christians, however, we cannot subscribe to such a monstrous proposition, for it would be tantamount to denying Christ. Holy Scripture says plainly: Christ and the Father are One (John 10:30), and Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father (I John 2:23). Christ Himself is the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except by Him (John 14:6). In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). Our faith in Christ and His words is supported by numerous prophecies, by the evidence of miracles, by His divine Incarnation of a virgin, His Resurrection and ascension, and by countless manifestations of His love for mankind. Islam has no comparable testimony to offer. It is a composite religion based on one man’s alleged revelations about a strange god, a god who has done nothing for man’s redemption and salvation.
roca.org/OA/158/158n.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Amen, Yes the teaching of Aristotle came to my mind in another thread. The fundementals of Freedom, Truth and Good have long been taught, Thomas Aquinas tried it into Christianity very well. Threre is nothing new with Islam. Its not a surprise anyone would not grasp this. Its well covered in deceit with a religious cloak.

Islam just continues on and on with blasphemy. 70 Virgins in Heaven? To do exactly what with? So what theres sex in heaven or slavery? What is that? I can’t even wrap my head around that from a christian perpective. And honestly you would conclude thats a direct message from God? What part of Islam is right? The fact that they claim to worship the God of Abraham. Thats what we should hang our hat on? In fact, it could be the only thing. Christ, Mary, Trinity, Violence, Slavery, Polygamists, Where do you start?

I’m not sure at which point Islam is or can be correct but the God of Abraham. The more I view Islam the closer it resembles nazi germany. It kills all who isn’t exactly like they are, then it will turn on itself and kill all within itself which doesn’t live up or meet its expectations. And slavery becomes another issue, how about the insignificance of women? Am I missing something? And you know what, nazi germany claimed initially to also be following christian faith. Until Rome finally seen the forest from above the trees with the help from all Christianity and most important Eastern Catholic and Orthodox.

So, Whats the difference this time around? The evil comes in the name of religion and boldly claims to be the one and only Gods “NEW Religion”, and in the God of the Bibles name. Blasphemous is what it is. Then it concludes your Holy Bible is rubbish, and the Corrupt Koran is the “Last Testament”. So God who abolished War after the Old Testament with Christ and His Apostles, changed His mind especially for Mohammad? OK, its a wonder man has been sleepwalking this long with Islam. And Christ in fact isn’t God, he was just a prophet? You go for this nonsense, you’ll go for anything. Theres bridge in NY for sale also.

I mean listen, I believe in being polite to all, but that doesn’t mean not speaking your mind or calling a Ace an Ace.

45-million Christians killed last century and Turkey was close to the top in slaughtering Christians. This century is no different with Islam leading the way in the God of Abrahams new murderous plan? . So how long and how many Jews, Christians have to die with the on-going apology and the drival that suggests “oh thats radical Islam.” Please, those are the children you chose to raise as such, and they then act out their learned behavior. Its is no other way. If Christians and Jews are being constantly martryed than what else could it be but evil. God choosing to kill Good God fearing men and women? Does that make sense? I’m not sure how one suggests such with a straight face, its either total ignorance or a straight out lie.

And the stance many chose to take in civil society in supporting Islam is in fact enabling the corrupt behavior. Why would one do this? Certainly violence isn’t suggested but the encouragement to any degree also cannot be correct. It enables the behavior.

When Islam begins to deal with there own attrocitys, then the world becomes attentive to a just cause. Thus far its, “oh thats radical islam and mind your own business.” Well how about this, when your slaughtering christians it is our business.

Straight out of the lake of fire is all its shown to me.

We ought to thank God for Christainity in the East. They have been given a heavy Cross by the Lord. And you know what, the West wouldn’t have survived that. What Poland and others countries there survived is a testament to there roots in Christian Faith. Its no wonder God didn’t give the West that Cross.

If Islam is not true evil? I’ll tell you what, it sure bears a close resemblance in my mind.