Catholic vs Orthodox?

[Rawb]

The Assumption I understand is much less of a problem for Orthodox theologians (though I have seen Orthodox apologists attack it for its supposed basis on the much maligned Augustinian theology, which I made an half-hearted effort to address here). I’m fully aware that the real problem most Orthodox have with it is the manner of it’s promulgation, and thus I include it among those points of disagreement which are largely derivative from what I maintain is the real crux of the matter, namely Papal claims to unilaterally define dogma.

The papal claims are a large part, yes, but we also strongly disagree with declaring it dogma at all. To do so inspires division where it’s unnecessary. To have declared it anathema makes to not believe it quite serious, and not a penalty that should be awarded for this doctrine. There was no need to do so. Again, we run into a huge difference in mindset, and the mindset of Roman Catholicism is not one that inspires much trust among the Orthodox.

But I will probably not post on this thread again. I don’t want to get into a debate about this doctrine here, or mean to insult Roman Catholicism, I would only reiterate my original post as advice to the OP.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I confirm that what Wandile posted below is accurate. I’m on the side of the Orthodox Church.

Well to answer your first question :

• The Orthodox reject the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some go as far as to deny the Pope’s primacy but this is rare in my experience. They see the Pope only as the Patriarch of the West and first among the equals but nothing more. Catholics on the other hand acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church on earth, the Primacy of the Pope and Supremacy of the Pope as well as Papal infallibility when it comes to matters on faith and moral pronounced Ex Cathedra.
• The Orthodox believe the Church of Rome to be in heresy where as Catholics believe the Orthodox to be schismatics but not heretics.
• The Orthodox believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father where as Catholics believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father AND the Son (Filioque)
• Catholics believe in Purgatory while the Orthodox do not.
• Both Catholics and Orthodox believe themselves to be the True Church – the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that contains the fulness of truth.
  Personally I’m with the Catholic Church on this issue

These are just some of the teachings that Catholics and Orthodox disagree on.

 

[ConstantineTG]

• The Orthodox believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father where as Catholics believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father AND the Son (Filioque)

Eastern Catholics do not use the Filioque and do not see anything conflicting between the Greek and Latin understanding of the Creed

• Catholics believe in Purgatory while the Orthodox do not.

Byzantine Catholics generally do not (sans Latinizations)

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I confirm that what Wandile posted below is accurate. I’m on the side of the Orthodox Church.

Well to answer your first question :

• The Orthodox reject the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Some go as far as to deny the Pope’s primacy but this is rare in my experience. They see the Pope only as the Patriarch of the West and first among the equals but nothing more. Catholics on the other hand acknowledge the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church on earth, the Primacy of the Pope and Supremacy of the Pope as well as Papal infallibility when it comes to matters on faith and moral pronounced Ex Cathedra.
• The Orthodox believe the Church of Rome to be in heresy where as Catholics believe the Orthodox to be schismatics but not heretics.
• The Orthodox believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father where as Catholics believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father AND the Son (Filioque)
• Catholics believe in Purgatory while the Orthodox do not.
• Both Catholics and Orthodox believe themselves to be the True Church – the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that contains the fulness of truth.
  Personally I’m with the Catholic Church on this issue

These are just some of the teachings that Catholics and Orthodox disagree on.

 

[Wandile]

Read the Catechism. The true Church ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church (n. 870). This is not the same as being the Catholic Church.

Implicit in your suggestion is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church - this is a recent heresy known as Feeneyism. Look up Fr. Feeney and see what happened.

Outside the catholic church there is no salvation. I believe in this and the church still teaches this! however the heresy you refer to is an exaggeration made by some ‘catholic’ extremists. they declared that if you are not catholic then you are unsaved. The Church :

" Outside the Church there is no salvation""

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 ‘’

so YES there is no salvation outside the Church. i bleieve this in accordance with the techings of the CCC not Feeneyism

 

[TimeEntrance]

**For nearly 1000 years these two were ONE church.

For all the differences they have today, they are still much closer in many respects (and in my opinion, which is of no consequence)** than either is to any protestant churches, with the possibility of the High Anglicans.

I do invite criticism, for my own benefit and knowledge.

Nine Two has given the best answer so far, and I would urge you, saying this in all possible charity, to not seek answers about Orthodoxy from Roman Catholics (or even Roman Catholics who used to be Orthodox), especially here. Many on this site believe they know Orthodoxy when they do not, and present their misrepresentations as fact.

The best place I’ve found online for Orthodox discussion is The Ancient Way forum, which is a subforum of Christianforums.com. We’d love to have anybody with questions.

Please note I am not using this as a means of proselytizing anyone, merely providing a resource for learning Orthodoxy from the Orthodox.

These two posts really caught my eye. There is something in diction and tone about them that I like. The parts in bold are what I really like.

Carlj, don’t take this as an attack, it’s not meant as that, but your nondenominational background is really evident in your post about trying out different Churches. But don’t let that comment of mine discourage you. Converts to Catholicism often times are far better Catholics than we cradle Catholics.

Somethings about Catholicism - what Fr. Greeley calls the “instincts of the faith” - are more easily transmitted to a person if they are raised in the Church. I’m sure this goes with Orthodoxy and Protestantism as well.

Personally, I’m happy not to be involved in some of the theological and liturgical fights between the Orthodox and Catholics. Ignorance is bliss. I think it’s a real shame that the Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church are so split. Frankly, I suspect at least some small part of it has to do with linguistic and cultural misunderstandings.

If you want answers to Orthodoxy you would be better off seeking that information from competent laity and clergy within Orthodoxy.

The Latin Catholic Church is essentially the religious equivalent of the United States of America. Both might be termed a melting pot of people. But being that big, diverse, and influential comes with a cost. A lot of people think you’re evil. And it probably comes with a personal cost of arrogance - relative those less influential as you.

There are a few shortcomings I see in the Orthodox world - at least from my perspective. But I really don’t have anything bad to say about the Orthodox Churches. I’m happy they’re around. They have apostolic succession and the sacraments.

 

[Ion]

I believe the Pope and the Patriarchs are under strong protection and guidance from the Holy Spirit. Virgin Mary and bilions of people pray for them every Sunday.
Maybe this is how is supposed to be. I wont advocate union any more, maybe is not good for the future. But as the last straw, I challenge Jharek to find any sentence in a orthodox prayer that is agains any of the catholic dogmas…

 

[mardukm]

• The Orthodox believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father where as Catholics believe in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father AND the Son (Filioque)

Not exactly. Orthodox understand “procession” in a different way than Latin Catholics do.

To Orthodox, the line “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone.

To Latin Catholics, the line “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” means that the ousia of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son.

Both notions are completely orthodox. It is just that for centuries up to today, many - even most - Orthodox and Catholics have misunderstood each other.

• Catholics believe in Purgatory while the Orthodox do not.

Not exactly. The most you can say is that Catholics (especially Latin Catholics) USE the term Purgatory, while Orthodox do not, but Orthodox fully believe in a state after death where purification/perfection of souls can occur.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Not exactly. Orthodox understand “procession” in a different way than Latin Catholics do.

To Orthodox, the line “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone.

To Latin Catholics, the line “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” means that the ousia of the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son.

Both notions are completely orthodox. It is just that for centuries up to today, many - even most - Orthodox and Catholics have misunderstood each other.

I must disagree. Affirmations that one finds from certain saints, like Saint Cyril, that the Spirit progresses essentially (proeisi ousiodos) or that the Spirit is poured forth (procheitai) from the Father and the Son don’t implicate that the Spirit receives the divine nature through the Son. They mean that by virtue of their shared nature, the Spirit comes forth from the Son, because the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. This understanding is best summed up by Gregory Palamas: ‘The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis, it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds.’

 

[mardukm]

I must disagree. Affirmations that one finds from certain saints, like Saint Cyril, that the Spirit progresses essentially (proeisi ousiodos) or that the Spirit is poured forth (procheitai) from the Father and the Son don’t implicate that the Spirit receives the divine nature through the Son. They mean that by virtue of their shared nature, the Spirit comes forth from the Son, because the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. This understanding is best summed up by Gregory Palamas: ‘The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis, it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds.’

When St. Palamas states “proceeds,” is he utilizing ekporeusai or proienai? If he is utilizing ekporeusai in this statement, what makes you think he is saying anything different than what the Latins teach? Please explain.

To clarify, if St. Palamas is utilizing ekporeusai in his statement, all he is saying is that the Father is the ORIGIN of the hypostasis/essence. This would not contradict the teaching that the Essence of the Spirit is THROUGH the Son, which is what the filioque teaches.

So I ask again, how do you propose St. Palamas’ statement teaches anything different than what the Latins intend to teach by filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[theistgal]

I love the Orthodox Churches that I have visited and I know many individual Eastern Orthodox people who do not have as harsh a view of the Catholic Church as others do.

However, after years of exploration on my own (and after marrying a Byzantine Catholic! ), I opted for Eastern Catholicism as being “the best of both worlds”.

My own parish, St. Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church of Sherman Oaks, CA, which is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) (liturgy at 9:30 a.m.), also hosts St. Mary’s Romanian Catholic Church (liturgy at 11:30 a.m.).

Our Romanian priest is a convert from Romanian Orthodoxy, is married and has four beautiful children, and would be more than happy to have a conversation with you about the benefits and drawbacks of Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism - as would his wife.

 

[Nine_Two]

How? Adam and Eve didn’t have original sin, but they were not more than human.

Edwin

Are we not less than God made us to be? Perhaps it would be better to say we are less than human then. At any rate the IC makes the Theotokos into something greater than ourselves.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

At any rate the IC makes the Theotokos into something greater than ourselves.

I think the Fathers are pretty unanimous in their proclamation that the Theotokos is the greatest of God’s creation.

Obviously, it is the Catholic and Orthodox Tradition that there is something about the Theotokos that is greater than you or me.

Perhaps you can clarify your statement?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Contarini]

Are we not less than God made us to be? Perhaps it would be better to say we are less than human then. At any rate the IC makes the Theotokos into something greater than ourselves.

But that’s the point–that Mary is the New Eve (which is a thoroughly Orthodox idea)–the beginning of God’s recreation of humanity in Jesus. To use a Karl Barth metaphor, the Incarnation is like an explosion in humanity–it radiates in all directions, backward as well as forward. Mary was closest to ground zero so she got the full force of the blast.

Edwin

 

[onemangang]

!

As I pointed out before, there are a few great parishes Othodox and Catholic in Los Angeles.

I feel that I should mention one specifically you may want to avoid, or not, your choice!

The Greek Ukranian Catholic Church somewhwere in Hollywood had a bunch of Brother Peter Diamond “Sedevacantist” literature in it. I do know that the people were very knowledgeable of the History of the Catholic deposit of faith, but many Sedevacantist will not view you as Christian

Like I said before Check out the Russian Orthodox in Hollywood. Make sure you go to the English divine Liturgy pokrovchurch.org/ and listen to ancientfaith.com/
Keep in mind this in an Orthodox point of view and some Catholic tenets of faith are sometimes misrepresented or misunderstood.

If you want to learn Catholicism, you have EWTN, americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm and many other places like Catholic Answers

It would be beneficial to learn the history of Liturgy, from sacrificial Judaism, to early Christianity, in order to get a better understanding of What is going on in the divine liturgies.

The liturgy was instrumental in discerning the canon of scripture, so its importance is not just a way to approach God, but a much deeper reality subsist in it

Christ has risen… you will hear that a lot in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches your response is …Truly Risen!

God Bless!

 

[fastenatingguy]

These two posts really caught my eye. There is something in diction and tone about them that I like. The parts in bold are what I really like.

Carlj, don’t take this as an attack, it’s not meant as that, but your nondenominational background is really evident in your post about trying out different Churches. But don’t let that comment of mine discourage you. Converts to Catholicism often times are far better Catholics than we cradle Catholics.

Somethings about Catholicism - what Fr. Greeley calls the “instincts of the faith” - are more easily transmitted to a person if they are raised in the Church. I’m sure this goes with Orthodoxy and Protestantism as well.

Personally, I’m happy not to be involved in some of the theological and liturgical fights between the Orthodox and Catholics. Ignorance is bliss. I think it’s a real shame that the Orthodox Churches and Catholic Church are so split. Frankly, I suspect at least some small part of it has to do with linguistic and cultural misunderstandings.

If you want answers to Orthodoxy you would be better off seeking that information from competent laity and clergy within Orthodoxy.

The Latin Catholic Church is essentially the religious equivalent of the United States of America. Both might be termed a melting pot of people. But being that big, diverse, and influential comes with a cost. A lot of people think you’re evil. And it probably comes with a personal cost of arrogance - relative those less influential as you.

There are a few shortcomings I see in the Orthodox world - at least from my perspective. But I really don’t have anything bad to say about the Orthodox Churches. I’m happy they’re around. They have apostolic succession and the sacraments.

Thanks TIME-

I have an unique perspective on this. My father was the son of Greek immigrants from the Pontus area of the Black Sea, now North Central Turkey. My ancestors lived in that area somewhat peacefully for three hundred years, along with Syrians, Armenians, and Turks of course, even some Jews. But the Armenian genocide of WW1 and the purge of remaining Christians after the war by both the Nationalists “Young Turks” and their Muslim cohorts resulted in the extermination of several hundred thousand (perhaps more) Christians, including Greek Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants. Many of my relatives
were killed there, but my grandparents escaped and emigrated to the USA in 1922.

I just learned a few months ago that I had distant relatives in the USA, one of them being the 86 year old first cousin of my deceased father. I learned a lot about my family history that had previously been a mystery to me. Turns out that my Great Grandfather was a widower who had three children with his GO first wife. Later he converted from Greek Orthodox to Evangelical Presbyterian after meeting American missionaries in the area. That separated him from his GO family totally. Then he remarried and had six more children, including my Grandfather. He eventually became pastor and built a Presbyterian church.

My Grandfather, the son of a pastor, ended up falling in love with a GO woman. They fled
and got married in Greece and then came to the USA. The rest of his family shunned him for denying his faith. So he never really kept up with them, even after a few others were fortunate enough to get to the USA. My grandparents never really talked about this, and neither did my dad, who was an only child. So I just figured I was the “last of the line” so to speak.

My dad was born in Chicago and married a Polish Catholic woman in the mid 50’s, kind of “racy” at the time since he was “kind of” Greek Orthodox. But the reality is that he had never been baptized. So my dad eventually became Catholic. My sister and I, and our families, are neither GO like some of the distant relatives or EP like most of the others (all of whom have the eldest sons as pastors, even to this day). So it is very funny for me to be known now as “the Catholic” to all the others who are either GO or EP. I cannot wait to meet them all!

 

[Cavaradossi]

When St. Palamas states “proceeds,” is he utilizing ekporeusai or proienai? If he is utilizing ekporeusai in this statement, what makes you think he is saying anything different than what the Latins teach? Please explain.

To clarify, if St. Palamas is utilizing ekporeusai in his statement, all he is saying is that the Father is the ORIGIN of the hypostasis/essence. This would not contradict the teaching that the Essence of the Spirit is THROUGH the Son, which is what the filioque teaches.

So I ask again, how do you propose St. Palamas’ statement teaches anything different than what the Latins intend to teach by filioque?

Blessings,
Marduk

I am sure that he uses some variant of ekporeuo (the quote would not make sense if he used the verb proeimi). The problem here is that having the Holy Spirit receive the divine essence was not the intent of the fathers in using the verbs procheo/proeimi. For St. Cyril, saying that the Holy Spirit is poured forth from the Son, or that It progresses naturally from Him is meant to stress the consubstantiality of the Son (particularly of the one incarnate Word) with the Father. Just as the Spirit is poured forth from the Father, so too does Jesus, the Word, pour the Spirit forth, and just as the Spirit progresses essentially from the Father, so too does the Spirit progress essentially from the Son (and therefore belong to the Son). I honestly do not see how the affirmation that the Spirit progresses naturally from the Son can be interpreted as anything more than stressing the essential belonging of the Spirit to the Son, or the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, as Gregory Palamas makes clear in that quote.

 

[Nine_Two]

But that’s the point–that Mary is the New Eve (which is a thoroughly Orthodox idea)–the beginning of God’s recreation of humanity in Jesus. To use a Karl Barth metaphor, the Incarnation is like an explosion in humanity–it radiates in all directions, backward as well as forward. Mary was closest to ground zero so she got the full force of the blast.

Edwin

If Mary is the New Eve then she must be able to make a conscious decision. The doctrine of the IC takes this decision from her.

As this decision (free will) is something that defines us as humans, taking that from her makes her something different.

I hope this answers Mardukm’s similar question as well. I should have said different, rather than greater.

 

[Contarini]

If Mary is the New Eve then she must be able to make a conscious decision. The doctrine of the IC takes this decision from her.

Quite the reverse. How does being without original sin decrease your free will? This makes no sense. Eve, after all, certainly did not have original sin! Whatever original sin is–even if it’s just disordered passions as in the Eastern tradition–it weakens free will (how far it weakens it is a matter of debate).

Edwin

 

[PatriciusRex]

If Mary is the New Eve then she must be able to make a conscious decision. The doctrine of the IC takes this decision from her.

As this decision (free will) is something that defines us as humans, taking that from her makes her something different.

Taken alone, the Augustinian notion of Original Sin and doctrine of Grace would seem to deny human agency, hence the deterministic predestination of various “hyper-Augustinian” theologies over the centuries, whether Protestant or Baianist, Jansenist, etc. However when Augustine is placed in dialogue with the rest of the Fathers, the importance of free will is clear. (Indeed the error seems to arise when one focuses too much on Augustine to the exclusion of all others, as Calvin did. Jansen even referred to Augustine as “the only authoritative Father.”)

The Catholic Church as a whole has always affirmed the free will of the human being to choose or reject the means of salvation offered by God through Christ. From this background, the IC does not in any way revoke the Blessed Virgin’s freedom to reject her role, and indeed her response of “May it be done to me according to thy word” has always been interpreted as her voluntarily submitting to the will of God for the salvation of the world.

Now as a related aside, much of Augustine’s theology on grace and free will was developed as a result of the controversy in the Western Church with Pelagianism, which posited that salvation rested in simply making a decision not to sin. (i.e. “Be good, and go to heaven”). To my knowledge, the Eastern Church never had to contend with any major movement like this. What would be an Orthodox response to the Pelagian heresy?