Catholic or Orthodox

[Randy_Carson]

So you are saying, there is only one Catholic Church, and from this one catholics exist different rites. Orthodox Church is the Eastern Rite, and the Roman Catholic Church is the Western Rite???

Jesus promised to build one Church. He has one body.

That church, that body, has a name by which it has been known since the end of the first century: the Catholic Church.

Those who have separated themselves from the Catholic Church but remain Christians are by virtue of their baptism into Christ really Catholics but they do not know or recognize that fact or call themselves by that name.

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Body. One Flock. One Shepherd.

 

[Peter_J]

So you are saying, there is only one Catholic Church, and from this one catholics exist different rites. Orthodox Church is the Eastern Rite, and the Roman Catholic Church is the Western Rite???

Hi TruthBearer. I’ve been a mostly-silent participant on this thread, but I think I ought to intervene a little bit here.

Catholicism (i.e. all the churches in full communion with Rome) is mostly Western, but not entirely (some of us are Eastern Catholics). Likewise, Orthodoxy is *mostly *Eastern, but not entirely (there are Western Rite Orthodox).

There’s a quote I like from St. John Maximovitch: “Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must be Eastern.”

 

[spina1953]

All Orthodox who belong to jurisdictions that are members of SCOBA (CONFERENCE OF CANONICAL BISHOPS IN AMERICA) are in communion with each other. The Orthodox not in SCOBA are few. They are mostly consisted of small non-canonical groups who make a huge deal out of the old calendar.

Hi andrewstx: Thanks for the information I was not aware of that information. What I was trying to say is that from Orthodox posters I have read say that there are some Orthodox who are not in union with other Orthodox Churches. It seems to me that there are a great many Catholic’s who think that all Orthodox Churches are in union with each other in the same way the Catholic Church is. Orthodox posters in the past have said that this is not actually so, that some Orthodox Churches are in union with other Orthodox Churches but not all Orthodox Churches as there are some Orthodox Churches that are not in union with every Orthodox Church. At least that is my understanding so far.

 

[josie_L]

The condemnation of phyletism came about in direct response to the Bulgarians attempting to establish a separate ministry to ethnic Bulgarians in Constantinople. This is the example par excellence of what phyletism is. Anything else is one attempting to use the condemnation of phyletism to bolster their own pet causes.

No, that is not what phyletism is in it’s entirety, and the Bulgarians were trying to establish a national church, which in the end they succeeded in accomplishing.

Let me also talk about other aspects of phyletism, which need a little explanation. Now, phyletism can also be understood to be the merging of the two, our two identities—our worldly identity, our identity as a pilgrim in this world, and our identity as a member of the Kingdom of God—without distinction, confusing the two, without proper ordering, confusing the roles and the places, such that the Church becomes an instrument, a tool, for the advancement of our ethnic identity, our ethnic goals, a nation’s goals. And the Church is then seen by others as a part of one’s ethnic identity and not as the Kingdom of God on Earth and place for all peoples and all nations.

Phyletism is also making Orthodoxy a part, a subservient part, of a nation’s social agenda and mechanisms—putting it to the service of the nation, when the nation is no longer informed by Orthodox principles, and not the nation to the service of the Church, to the spiritual life of the people. In fact, in a proper ordering of things, the nation should be at the service of the Church—working toward the spiritual betterment and salvation of the people and of the world. And their policies, the laws of the people, and the beliefs of the government, should express Orthodox Christian teachings on the nature of man and the world.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/postcards/phyletism

The list given by Fr. Josiah is frankly just wrong. If points 1 and 2 are in themselves signs of phyletism, then he would have to concede that St. Basil was a phyletist, as was St. Nikodemos, and as were the Russians when they decided in 1620 to receive all Latins by baptism. If points 3-7 were signs of phyletism, then we should have to condemn all bishops as phyletists when they exercise their right as oikonomos (as the steward of the house) to interpret the canons and to determine whether or not suicides should be given proper Orthodox burial, whether one should be penanced after an ecclesiastical divorce or only when seeking a second marriage, etc. If points 8-9 are phyletism, then we should have to condemn as phyletists the numerous bishops and clergymen who decided to remain in communion with hierarchs after they had been unjustly deposed. For example, what of the bishops who remained supporters of St. John Chrysostom after his deposition, were they phyletists? What of Pope Zosimus? Was he a phyletist for having received Apiarius after the Synod of Carthage excommunicated him, determining that his ordination was illicit?

I think what Father Josiah is trying to point out is that due to phyletism varying churches in Orthodoxy are applying “oikonomia” in a helter skelter manner, i.e., even within the EO there are such varying ways in which converts and the like are received (even if they should be from similar faith backgrounds) that it cannot be adduced simply to oikonomia.

 

[Nicea325]

To my knowledge, in general the various rites would trace their lineage in the same way their Orthodox counterpart does. So no, they would not all trace their lineage to St. Peter. The reason there is an Orthodox counterpart to the Catholic rites (or a Catholic counterpart to the Orthodox churches, depending on how you look at it) is because there was an internal conflict in the body over whether to stay in full communion with the Catholic Church. So you have a split where some are in full communion with the Catholic Church and some are not, while the liturgies remain essentially the same. Some rites, such as the Maronite, are fully Catholic with no Orthodox counterpart.

The Latin rite is the largest Catholic rite, but that does not invalidate my claim that the Catholic Church is larger than the Roman Catholic rite.

Aahhhh…the “Roman” Rite is part of the CC. They are not two separate entities. Hope you aware the “Roman” Catholic Church was never called that until centuries later? Everyone regardless of location (rite) called themselves Catholics and were part of One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatreprocedit
Here’s a tip for you: the First Letter to the Corinthians, as was all of the New Testament, was originally written in koine Greek, not English. So trotting out the grammar of a particular English translation of a passage that most likely was not intended to deal with the issue at hand in the first place is not particularly persuasive.

Here is what I DO find persuasive on this issue: “Drink, ALL OF YOU…”

However, Jesus spoke Aramaic,not Greek as well as His Apostles. So Aramaic was first spoken and only later translated into Greek and so on. People always seem to forget that simple and evident fact.

I totally understand your point. I did not mean to be conflictive.

 

[adf417]

I don’t claim to speak for Nacho45, but fwiw I don’t see where he/she made such an assumption. However, let me quote my question to you in case you forgot it:

I will answer your question with “no it doesn’t”. Can you please tell me how this answers my question?

Peace!!!

 

[Gicutzu]

I think that phyletism is being fought in at least two jurisdictions in America. The Orthodox Church in America, and the Antiochian archdiocese. I have been to both and I prefer the OCA. Both churches have members from different ethnicities giving
no overwhelming weight to just one. Both of those churches use mostly English for the Divine Liturgy. And many in both churches are non-ethnic Americans.

I’ll concede that phyletism is fought amongst the Orthodox in America, but this brings up another problem: I find that Americans (maybe Western Europeans too) seem to have an idealized view of the Orthodox Church. I live in an “Orthodox country” and the stories of priests coming to DL drunk and performing “express” weddings just to get more money (and in general asking for money for every little thing) are overwhelming. I also dislike the fanaticism of a lot of Orthodox priests and monks, which is often violently xenophobic and anti-Catholic despite the charity demonstrated by Catholics toward the Orthodox. I don’t even want to get started on how the Greek Catholic church was treated by the Orthodox, since these problems are well known.

Maybe I have an idealized view of Catholics as well, since a Catholic priest here wouldn’t be caught dead doing something like that. But, I also lived in a “Catholic country” for 8 years and apart from some sexual abuse cases (which happen in the Orthodox Church as well) I didn’t hear anything bad about the priests.

Leaving my experiences and dislikes aside, I have one more point to make:

• Protestants say the Bible is everything we need and after the Bible there came nothing else (of course that’s only in theory because if you look at Protestant communities most of them have a “founding figure” which is often on par with the Bible, but leaving that aside for the moment).
• Orthodox say that the Bible and the first seven Ecumenical Councils are everything and after them came nothing else.

See the similarity? Isn’t that setting up a dead church which cannot “bind and loose” anything? I know the possibility for an Ecumenical Council exists in theory for the Orthodox, but to be honest I don’t even see a Pan-Orthodox Synod happening without Moscow and Constantinople blowing each other to bits.

 

[EIF5A]

I’ll concede that phyletism is fought amongst the Orthodox in America, but this brings up another problem: I find that Americans (maybe Western Europeans too) seem to have an idealized view of the Orthodox Church. I live in an “Orthodox country” and the stories of priests coming to DL drunk and performing “express” weddings just to get more money (and in general asking for money for every little thing) are overwhelming. I also dislike the fanaticism of a lot of Orthodox priests and monks, which is often violently xenophobic and anti-Catholic despite the charity demonstrated by Catholics toward the Orthodox. I don’t even want to get started on how the Greek Catholic church was treated by the Orthodox, since these problems are well known.

Maybe I have an idealized view of Catholics as well, since a Catholic priest here wouldn’t be caught dead doing something like that. But, I also lived in a “Catholic country” for 8 years and apart from some sexual abuse cases (which happen in the Orthodox Church as well) I didn’t hear anything bad about the priests.

Leaving my experiences and dislikes aside, I have one more point to make:

** - Protestants say the Bible is everything we need and after the Bible there came nothing else (of course that’s only in theory because if you look at Protestant communities most of them have a “founding figure” which is often on par with the Bible, but leaving that aside for the moment).

• Orthodox say that the Bible and the first seven Ecumenical Councils are everything and after them came nothing else.**

See the similarity? Isn’t that setting up a dead church which cannot “bind and loose” anything? I know the possibility for an Ecumenical Council exists in theory for the Orthodox, but to be honest I don’t even see a Pan-Orthodox Synod happening without Moscow and Constantinople blowing each other to bits.

(bolded by me)

Hmm…interesting similarity…(Although our Orthodox brethren might disagree Perhaps the claim of man-made innovations…)

On the flip side of spiritual practice, the Orthodox do appear more into everyday ascesis (e.g., more stringent fasting). And the saints lived off of like, carrots and lettuce, while praying on a pillar.

 

[dzheremi]

Orthodox people say there’s nothing but the ecumenical councils? This sounds like another thing that is being thrown into the thread in order to pile up as many possible reasons why the Orthodox are wrong as an individual poster can think of and hopefully find other posters to agree with them, whether they correspond to reality or anything that’s actually being discussed or not. From a randomly-chosen timeline of Church history from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, we find the following significant events happening after 787 AD (the date of the last council recognized so far by the EO):

• 988 Conversion of Rus’ (Russia) begins.

· 1054 The Great Schism occurs. Two major issues include Rome’s claim to a universal papal supremacy and her addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Photian Schism (880) further complicates the debate.

· 1066 Norman Conquest of Britain. Orthodox hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to Rome.

· 1095 The Crusades begun by the Roman Church. The Sack of Constantinople (1204) adds to the estrangement between East and West.

· 1333 St. Gregory Palamas defends the Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and the use of the Jesus prayer.

· 1453 Turks overrun Constantinople; Byzantine Empire ends.

· 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg, starting the Protestant Reformation.

· 1529 Church of England begins pulling away from Rome.

· 1794 Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North America.

· 1870 Papal Infallibility becomes Roman dogma.

· 1988 One thousand years of Orthodoxy in Russia, as Orthodox Church world-wide maintains fullness of the Apostolic Faith.

The timeline found at Orthodoxwiki, an Eastern Orthodox Wikipedia, is much more in-depth and contains hundreds of important events that occurred after the last council to be recognized by the EO which certainly shaped the way that church operates and relates to the world today (we’re talking major works by Gregory Palamas and many others, the conversion of Russia to Christianity, the consecration of the first Orthodox church in China, the first publication of the Philokalia, etc).

 

[Gicutzu]

Orthodox people say there’s nothing but the ecumenical councils? This sounds like another thing that is being thrown into the thread in order to pile up as many possible reasons why the Orthodox are wrong as an individual poster can think of and hopefully find other posters to agree with them, whether they correspond to reality or anything that’s actually being discussed or not. From a randomly-chosen timeline of Church history from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, we find the following significant events happening after 787 AD (the date of the last council recognized so far by the EO):

• 988 Conversion of Rus’ (Russia) begins.

· 1054 The Great Schism occurs. Two major issues include Rome’s claim to a universal papal supremacy and her addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Photian Schism (880) further complicates the debate.

· 1066 Norman Conquest of Britain. Orthodox hierarchs are replaced with those loyal to Rome.

· 1095 The Crusades begun by the Roman Church. The Sack of Constantinople (1204) adds to the estrangement between East and West.

· 1333 St. Gregory Palamas defends the Orthodox practice of hesychast spirituality and the use of the Jesus prayer.

· 1453 Turks overrun Constantinople; Byzantine Empire ends.

· 1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the door of the Roman Church in Wittenberg, starting the Protestant Reformation.

· 1529 Church of England begins pulling away from Rome.

· 1794 Missionaries arrive on Kodiak Island in Alaska; Orthodoxy introduced to North America.

· 1870 Papal Infallibility becomes Roman dogma.

· 1988 One thousand years of Orthodoxy in Russia, as Orthodox Church world-wide maintains fullness of the Apostolic Faith.

The timeline found at Orthodoxwiki, an Eastern Orthodox Wikipedia, is much more in-depth and contains hundreds of important events that occurred after the last council to be recognized by the EO which certainly shaped the way that church operates and relates to the world today (we’re talking major works by Gregory Palamas and many others, the conversion of Russia to Christianity, the consecration of the first Orthodox church in China, the first publication of the Philokalia, etc).

Sorry, but how do some historical events (some of which have nothing to do with the development of Orthodox dogma) compare to the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Catholic Church?

 

[joe371]

Sorry, but how do some historical events (some of which have nothing to do with the development of Orthodox dogma) compare to the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Catholic Church?

 

[dzheremi]

Do they have to? Your post said “Orthodox say that the Bible and the first seven Ecumenical Councils are everything and after them came nothing else.” I’m only pointing out that this isn’t the case, since many significant events happened after the last ecumenical council that they recognize which they themselves admit shape their practice and involve responses and action precisely of the type that certain people in the RCC claim that the Orthodox are somehow incapable or unwilling to formulate.

I mean, feel free to think that the Orthodox are wrong all you want, but don’t dismiss what they themselves say about their own history in the process. It does not hurt the RC position even slightly to admit that the Orthodox Church has a different way of operating (as well as a different conception of dogma and what it means for it to develop) that you might not think is right, but is at least a bit more nuanced than “the Orthodox don’t think that anything exists outside of the ecumenical councils” That’s exactly as wrong as when non-RCs on this board and elsewhere think that Papal Infallibility means that the Roman Pope can tell you what you should do with your retirement savings or whatever.

 

[Peter_J]

I will answer your question with “no it doesn’t”. Can you please tell me how this answers my question?

Peace!!!

Why isn’t it a problem, for your faith, that other Churches besides your own claim to be the one true church?

 

[Expatreprocedit]

So what was the cause of the internal conflict? It must have been something real serious that it required the Church to split as it did, in so many way.

It was indeed serious, which isn’t to say that politics and cultural differences and linguisitc problems didn’t play a major role. If you want it in a nutshell (from an Orthodox pov, of course, since I’m Orthodox) the East was committed to preserving what it saw (and still sees) as the substance of the Apostolic Faith, while the West became more and more concerned with locating ultimate authority in ecclesiastical offices, culminating at the top with the papacy, of course. The West also engaged more and more in intellectual theologizing utilizing philosophical and logical methods, while the East stuck with adhering to “Tradition” and the actual experience of God (as they saw it).

 

[adf417]

Why isn’t it a problem, for your faith, that other Churches besides your own claim to be the one true church?

Because Im secure in my faith.

How did I do? Do I get the secrete hand shake now? Why is it a problem to simply answer my question directly? Is this some sort of philosophy class?

Peace!!!

 

[Nacho45]

You are about the 3rd person that has assumed my question has been answered and therefore I must concede my ignorance once again. I trust you guys have, in some way, answered my question but I haven’t seen it.

I can’t help feel like my intensions were somehow misunderstood and assumed to be rhetorical but that is nor ever has been my intension as my respect for the Orthodox faith is great.

Sorry for taking your time. :imsorry:

Peace!!!

You misunderstand. I know your question was not answered. I know the replies had a stain of cynicism. That is the part of what I was suggesting should tell you something about the poster and what motivates their statements. It has nothing to do with your questions, only in their responses to which you continued to not get answers and the ones posting them.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have spent some time reading Orthodox material, and I am inclined to believe that the Orthodox is truth. I am just curious to see what are the arguments against the Orthodox are.

Are you joining to become an apologist or to become a disciple of Christ?

Have you looked at both our histories? We all carry baggage but we are both incredibly persevering, you know the supernatural persevering style .

What is the Spirit guiding you to?

Have you attended Orthodox and Catholic Liturgies? Talked to their Priests? Gone to Bible Studies and spend some time?

In my humble opinion, no amount of reading can completely help you discern. It certainly helps but to actually go and worship and honor God should be the deciding factor.

Peace,

 

[Peter_J]

You misunderstand. I know your question was not answered. I know the replies had a stain of cynicism. That is the part of what I was suggesting should tell you something about the poster and what motivates their statements. It has nothing to do with your questions, only in their responses to which you continued to not get answers and the ones posting them.

So if understand you correctly, some posters here (such as myself) have basically been put on trial and found wanting? It will be interesting if adf417 disagrees with that.

 

[Venicejazz]

I was interested in Orthodoxy before Catholicism. This is in part due to the depth and beauty of the Orthodox faith. It was also due in part, however, to the fact that Orthodoxy is exotic and doesn’t face the kind of criticism that the Catholic Church does. I come from a very secular background, and it will not surprise anyone here if I say that for the secular world, the Catholic Church is enemy number one. I thought it would be easier for me to tell people I was Orthodox rather than Catholic: it sounds cooler.
What changed my mind? A whole host of things. Pope Francis has certainly played a role: he is an amazing communicator, however much the media wish to distort his words. Orthodox hostility to Catholicism, to be perfectly honest, was another factor. I know the enmity runs both ways but it seems stronger, and more institutionalized in the East.
In the end, I figured that, since I don’t live in Russia or Greece or any other Orthodox country, I need a Church that is totally universal. And so I found one, which had been there all the time. I know that this isn’t the most theologically astute reasoning. I don’t know half of what most Orthodox or Catholic posters on this forum know. But I’m confident in my decision.

Some of my family was Catholic generations ago, and, after Easter vigil, I will be too. There is a saying in Japanese: it’s always dark right beneath the lighthouse (or something like that). In other words, you don’t see what’s right in front of you. I finally did, and found my way home.