Catholic or Orthodox

[Peter_J]

If only the Orthodox would have the same kind of view of Catholicism…

Speaking for myself, I would not want Orthodox to have attitudes towards Catholicism (Although I imagine that some do already, vis a vis the sex abuse scandals) that are similar to the views reflected in these posts:

I know I said I wouldn’t post in this thread anymore, but here’s a case study to consider:

1. The Communists come to power in Romania
2. The Romanian Church United with Rome (Greek-Catholic) is outlawed, most priests and bishops are imprisoned
3. The Roman Catholic Church is officially still legal, but a lot of priests and bishops are imprisoned nonetheless (Venerable Bishop Anton Durcovici - to be beatified on May 17th - succumbed to the cold and to hunger in prison because he didn’t want to give up his ties to Rome)

All the while, what are most Orthodox clerics doing? Colluding with the government (sometimes going as far as giving away secrets from Confession to the secret police) and swooping in to take over the Greek Catholic church buildings (and the faitfhul) in Transylvania. After Communism fell, they weren’t quick to give the buildings or the faitfhul back, so the Greek Catholic population in Transylvania went from around 1.5 million to around 150 thousand.

So, to the OP, ask yourself which of the Churches acted more like the true Church of Christ.

The clergy, especially the hierarchs, did very little to oppose the Communists who were tearing down churches.

As for the martyrs, the Orthodox priests who died in Communist prisons were mostly former members of the Iron Guard (a fascist, anti-semitic organization), which is why most of them were imprisoned in the first place and which is why the Romanian Orthodox Church does not want to canonize them.

 

[Nine_Two]

In contrast, when I heard Catholics talk about Orthodoxy, it was usually something like “what wonderful liturgy they have.”

But doesn’t that demonstrate a very superficial knowledge of the Orthodox Church?

I’m reminded of Proverbs 26:28.

A lying tongue hates those it hurts,
and a flattering mouth works ruin

This is something we see all to often in the west - more among Mainline Protestants, people lie and flatter out of a fear of causing offence. Orthodoxy is certainly much more upfront when it thinks there is an issue.

 

[Gicutzu]

This will be my last post not only in this thread, but also in this subforum altogether, and this time I mean it I have given off the impression that I have a negative view of Orthodoxy, which I don’t, and maybe my comments were too biased because of personal experiences (a lot of times with extremists) and national particularities.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both Apostolic and both have beautiful traditions, and while for me personally the fullness of the Faith is to be found in the CC, for others it might be in a different Apostolic Church (EO, OO, ACoE).

I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

 

[Venicejazz]

It could demonstrate a superficial knowledge, but not always. In any case, my point is that it sometimes seems to me like many Orthodox define themselves by what they are not: namely, Catholics. Obviously, not all do, and no one does it all the time, but that tendency seems to exist. In contrast, Catholics seem to basically talk about what they are. I liked that.
Perhaps it’s just the Eastern tendency to be apophatic. (just kidding)
I remember reading one interesting article where the writer didn’t want to use the term “Catholic Church” preferring to instead use “the Church of Rome” because he felt that Orthodox Church was the Catholic Church. I don’t think he represents most, or even many Orthodox, but I suspect he is just repeating things that he has heard elsewhere. I also understand why he feels as he does, but it seems sort of mean-spirited.
But as this thread has demonstrated, there is plenty of ill-will on all sides. How sad. As Western society becomes more and more secular, our similarities will be increasingly evident and our differences increasingly inconsequential.

 

[dzheremi]

As Western society becomes more and more secular, our similarities will be increasingly evident and our differences increasingly inconsequential.

I’ve read this on CAF many times. I still do not understand where this idea is coming from. Why do you think that?

Certainly there is room and reason for cooperation on many things with the Roman Catholic Church, but from what we see going on in the USA (I can’t speak for other parts of the West), it seems more accurate to say that the Roman Catholic Church itself is becoming or has become like a secular institution, at least insofar as it cooperates with the secular vision of the Church as a kind of locus of good will and social programs, rather than something that truly challenges people to get out of their comfort zone and do something to affirm traditional Christian tenets (which the secular world hates and has always hated). I suspect this is not even a modern reaction to challenges, either, as I have often seen Catholics advance the idea of Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) that when preaching the gospel, words are actually secondary or at any rate not entirely necessary (you know, “Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words” or some such). I personally find this to be a very foolish idea, but it is in line with the general move to make Christianity about anything other than the literal message of Christ’s death, resurrection,. and victory and power over the bonds of sin and death that we are to participate in in a very active, engaged way, and instead to reduce it to what others have called “the social gospel” (bleh). I mean, I don’t dislike the Catholic Church for not being Orthodox (I don’t expect it to be, anyway), but it is kind of hard to miss how almost every change to Roman Catholic practice in recent centuries has been a relaxation or abolition of this or that earlier practice. Of course, other churches do this too (including my own), but partly because of the different cultural environment that the churches live in, it seems from the outside that the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of opportunities it is not taking because…well, I don’t know why. Just as an illustration, as I was heading to the Apocalypsis night service (or ‘Abu Ghalimsis’, as the Copts put it) two days ago with some friends from church, one of them mentioned how pleased he was at the (Coptic) Pope’s Easter homily because HH Pope Tawadros II was “very strong about Jesus Christ’s divinity”. I said “Well, yeah…isn’t he supposed to be? He’s the Pope!” My friend replied that, yes, he’s supposed to be, but it means a lot more to hear and see that message proclaimed directly in front of the many Muslim government officials and dignitaries who are once again attending the Easter liturgy at the Coptic Cathedral (something they did not do as recently as a few years ago under Morsi, for clearly ideological religious/Islamist reasons). When your Cathedral has been the site of violence and record numbers of churches and monasteries have been attacked in an atmosphere of political and religious Salafi terrorist-led chaos in the current day, to preach the gospel with words to the leaders of the very people doing the violence towards you is a direct confrontation to the portion of society that truly would like to see you gone. By contrast, while I do love Pope Francis (and the world seems to, too, but I think for the wrong reasons), there is strangely a kind of barrier to really getting a substantial Christian message out there, so tailored are many of his responses as to not offend this or that group that is, in their own ways, doing no less ideological violence to Christianity. I do not think that this is Pope Francis’ or any other Roman Catholic’s fault, but it is just a fact that no established Western form of Christianity presents any kind of serious threat to the social order in the West (that is to say, increasing secularization, Islamification in certain places, etc). To paraphrase the apocalypse of St. John, many Western people, whether Christians or not, have forgotten their first love. They may get along better for it, but this only shows how easy it is to become unfocused and hence impotent when well-entrenched within a given society (something which all of us must guard against, for sure).

 

[Peter_J]

This will be my last post not only in this thread, but also in this subforum altogether, and this time I mean it I have given off the impression that I have a negative view of Orthodoxy, which I don’t, and maybe my comments were too biased because of personal experiences (a lot of times with extremists) and national particularities.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both Apostolic and both have beautiful traditions, and while for me personally the fullness of the Faith is to be found in the CC, for others it might be in a different Apostolic Church (EO, OO, ACoE).

I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

Glad to hear that we have been having a positive influence on you.

But on a slightly more somber note, I have read a number of posts from you which indicate a view of the Orthodox that is very much at odds with the positive regard that the Catholic Church has for them. (The fact that you can then turn around and claim that you do not have a negative view of Orthodoxy makes it a tad more, not less, troubling.)

 

[dzheremi]

I dunno, Peter J…I want to give this person the benefit of the doubt. I would think what his or her posts show us is that there is a difference between “I live/grew up in an Orthodox country” or “Most of my friends are Orthodox” and “I have a positive view of the Orthodox Church”, which is not the poster’s fault (i.e., that difference would be there anyway even if they had never posted in this thread). Not terribly surprising, that, but just as basically nobody buys the tired old “I’m not racist; I have black friends” non-argument, it’s not terribly surprising to find the same logic at play when it comes to defending oneself against charges that you might not actually have as positive a view of another church or religion as you tell yourself and others you do. (And, following Nine Two’s train of thought, it might not even be a positive thing to an Orthodox person that a non-Orthodox person claims to like the Orthodox Church in this or that respect, depending on the context of the statement and the person saying it. I’ve heard plenty since becoming Orthodox myself, living in a historically very Roman Catholic state as I do, that we have such a beautiful liturgy, etc. This is from people who I know have not attended our liturgies at least in the three years since I moved here, since I’ve never seen them there. It seems that many people appreciate Orthodoxy conceptually, rather than actually, which makes their praise somewhat underwhelming when it comes also with massive doses of intentional or unintentional “…but I do think that you’re _______” [stereotypes and put-downs])

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Venicejazz
In contrast, when I heard Catholics talk about Orthodoxy, it was usually something like “what wonderful liturgy they have.”

Depends. I’m familiar with, and appreciate, Clark Carlton’s (famous?) response to the line “Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology”:

The really amusing thing about Hahn’s comment is that it sounds like something one would expect to hear from the ultra liberal Episcopal bishop John Spong - complete with a patronizing reference to Orthodoxy’s wonderful liturgy.

but we cannot blanketly condemn all “what wonderful liturgy they have” comments without having been present to hear the rest of the conversation.

 

[Nine_Two]

It could demonstrate a superficial knowledge, but not always. In any case, my point is that it sometimes seems to me like many Orthodox define themselves by what they are not: namely, Catholics. Obviously, not all do, and no one does it all the time, but that tendency seems to exist. In contrast, Catholics seem to basically talk about what they are. I liked that.
Perhaps it’s just the Eastern tendency to be apophatic. (just kidding)
I remember reading one interesting article where the writer didn’t want to use the term “Catholic Church” preferring to instead use “the Church of Rome” because he felt that Orthodox Church was the Catholic Church. I don’t think he represents most, or even many Orthodox, but I suspect he is just repeating things that he has heard elsewhere. I also understand why he feels as he does, but it seems sort of mean-spirited.
But as this thread has demonstrated, there is plenty of ill-will on all sides. How sad. As Western society becomes more and more secular, our similarities will be increasingly evident and our differences increasingly inconsequential.

I’ve never met an Orthodox Christian who defined the faith as being “not Catholic”. In our discussions with Catholics we are often forced to distinguish ourselves from Catholics by saying things that are different, but that is no different than how other groups distinguish themselves from each other.

Any Orthodox Christian who is simply “not Catholic” has a very superficial faith.

 

[Nine_Two]

Depends. I’m familiar with, and appreciate, Clark Carlton’s (famous?) response to the line “Further study led me to conclude that Orthodoxy was wonderful for its liturgy and tradition but stagnant in theology”:

I’m not familiar with Carlton’s response to that line, but I take it as a compliment, and perhaps one that does demonstrate some knowledge - though clearly couched in terms that show disdain.

Our theology is largely unchanged and unchanging because God himself is unchanging, and he gave his revelation to us 2,000 years ago. A change in theology is an admission that, at least previously, you were wrong, and if you were wrong before on what grounds should anyone give any credence to these new things you’re teaching?

But to simply say we have a nice liturgy is meaningless. To most it is somewhat exotic, they think it is ‘neat’ in much the same way the I thought the Buddhist temples I visited in Asia were. It is new and different to them, so it is “nice”.

 

[dzheremi]

Any Orthodox Christian who is simply “not Catholic” has a very superficial faith.

Not to mention that no Orthodox Christian defines themselves either individually or collectively via the Roman Catholic yardstick. This seems to be something of the proverbial elephant in the room in many discussions with Roman Catholics, as they desperately wish to make Orthodox Christianity fit somehow into their way of viewing the world. (Which, I suppose, is no different than the Orthodox way of looking at other Christians as being either Orthodox or not Orthodox, with the important caveat that it is much more rare to find Orthodox Christians making pronouncements regarding the relationship or state of the non-Orthodox vis-a-vis Orthodoxy than it is to find the Roman Catholic stating the same regarding the Orthodox vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism. I mean, how many posts in this very thread and others like it contain statements like “I was surprised to find that Orthodox do not reciprocate even though we say they can receive communion with us” or similar statements – why? Why is this shocking? I can only guess that it is because they really believe we are essentially the same as they are in our outlook, but it is ‘extremists’ of one kind or another who maintain that we are not. And that’s what confuses me, personally…)

 

[Gicutzu]

Glad to hear that we have been having a positive influence on you.

But on a slightly more somber note, I have read a number of posts from you which indicate a view of the Orthodox that is very much at odds with the positive regard that the Catholic Church has for them. (The fact that you can then turn around and claim that you do not have a negative view of Orthodoxy makes it a tad more, not less, troubling.)

You provoke me and I need to post again

I have been very confused, spiritually speaking, in the last few months. I went from SDA to Catholic to atheist to Orthodox to Catholic to atheist and so on, so a little perceived turn around here is no big deal.

That being said, recounting historical realities (if prodromos thinks I’m making stuff up he can search for the sources him/herself, I think I know the Romanian situation a bit better than he/she does) is not the same as having a negative view of the Orthodox. I disagree with what some Orthodox have done in the past, just as I disagree with what some Catholics have done in the past.

Also, I don’t think I’m at odds with the view your Greek Catholic brethren here hold about the events which I described.

 

[Peter_J]

I mean, how many posts in this very thread and others like it contain statements like “I was surprised to find that Orthodox do not reciprocate even though we say they can receive communion with us” or similar statements – why? Why is this shocking? I can only guess that it is because they really believe we are essentially the same as they are in our outlook, but it is ‘extremists’ of one kind or another who maintain that we are not. And that’s what confuses me, personally…)

It is confusing … at least insofar as some of the Catholics who say that are aware that even we Catholics do not “reciprocate” with respect to the Anglicans.

 

[Peter_J]

You provoke me and I need to post again

I have been very confused, spiritually speaking, in the last few months. I went from SDA to Catholic to atheist to Orthodox to Catholic to atheist and so on,

Forgive me for picking on (so to speak) your words, but I feel I have a little duty to do so in this instance, since you may wish to clarify: if taken literally this ^^ would mean that you joined the Catholic Church and then schismed from it, then joined the Orthodox Church and then schismed from it, then joined the Catholic Church again, and so on.

 

[Gicutzu]

Forgive me for picking on (so to speak) your words, but I feel I have a little duty to do so in this instance, since you may wish to clarify: if taken literally this ^^ would mean that you joined the Catholic Church and then schismed from it, then joined the Orthodox Church and then schismed from it, then joined the Catholic Church again, and so on.

Yes, sorry, I realized after I posted that it might be confusing. I meant a Catholic/Orthodox/etc. outlook on life, or a desire to be part of that respective church.

To make it even clearer: I was never baptized in any Church/community, but I did live most of my life up to about a year ago as a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist.

 

[dcointin]

To address the original question, choosing between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy is quite difficult, and there are very intelligent and pious people who have chosen each of them. This is to be expected however as all three are genuine apostolic churches whose differences are more a matter of their particular development than of adhering to the apostolic faith. The best I could say is to study and pray with an open mind, and experience each of them first hand as much as possible.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Jesus built his Church on Peter not Andrew. So be Catholic.

In terms of the Supremacy of the Church in Orthodoxy there is just the college of Bishops with no divinely instituted distinction.

In Catholicism there is a distinction.

Orthodoxy just has Matthew 18:18.

Catholicism has:

1. Matthew 16:18-19 AND
2. Matthew 18:18

The divinely instituted heirachy,

The power to bind and loose is the supremacy of the Church.

The college of Bishops have the power to bind and loose as 2 shows, but ONE MAN has not only that but also the keys which are required to exercise that power as 1 shows. This shows that one man is the unity of the college, undoubtedly

 

[Paul_Edwards]

There is no point having unity under a Bishop if there is no unity among the Bishops themselves.

Arguments like “jesus is that unity” are nonsensical to what is clearly being discussed.

There has to be a way of determining who is part of the church and a de facto way of being a proper member. If there is no visible unity there is no way of knowing who’s part of the church.

 

[rinnie]

Catholic or Orthodox

I am curious as to which version of Christianity is more correct, and the arguments for and against each branch or sect of Christianity.

It all comes down to who holds the keys to the Kingdom. If you accept the bible its says YOU are Peter and to YOU I give the keys to the Kingdom what you bind is bound and what you loose is loose.

The Pope got the keys and has authority here on earth to bind and loose.

Pretty simple actually!

 

[RyanBlack]

There is no point having unity under a Bishop if there is no unity among the Bishops themselves.

Arguments like “jesus is that unity” are nonsensical to what is clearly being discussed.

There has to be a way of determining who is part of the church and a de facto way of being a proper member. If there is no visible unity there is no way of knowing who’s part of the church.

Which Church does not have unity among the bishops themselves? Which Church does not have visible unity? With which Church can it not be known who is a member of that Church?