Changes in the Eastern Orthodox Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter xixxvmcm85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are a few:

Papal infallibility/supremacy
Immaculate conception/original sin
purgatory
Filioque
Communion under one species

And here is one by my personal opinion because I have never cared for it…the Novus Ordo Mass. :bigyikes:
Two of the disagreements you have don’t regard doctrine: communion under one species and the Novus Ordo Mass. We now offer communion under both species, and the current Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma.
 
Note that the synods only deal with what is applicable to Orthodoxy; it does not proclaim such synods as “ecumenical” as the Catholic Church is wont to proclaim its synods after 1054. So such synods only deal with what is happening inside the Orthodox Church.
So, Orthodoxy is the “remnant” spken of in Scripture?
 
Two of the disagreements you have don’t regard doctrine: communion under one species and the Novus Ordo Mass.
I know.
We now offer communion under both species
There continues to be many RC Churches that do not.
and the current Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine or dogma.
I know. I often wonder what the early Church Fathers might have said if they had suddenly found themselves at the Novus Ordo. :eek:
 
I know. I often wonder what the early Church Fathers might have said if they had suddenly found themselves at the Novus Ordo. :eek:
I think the first shock would have nothing to do with the litergy but the way some behave at the mass
 
I know.
There continues to be many RC Churches that do not.

I know. I often wonder what the early Church Fathers might have said if they had suddenly found themselves at the Novus Ordo. :eek:
They would get on their knees and recognize that Jesus was present. They would give thanks to God for the Gift they received. They would admonish their brothers and sisters who gathered irreverently to partake of the Body and Blood in a way to encourage them in their faith, not demean. Finally, and most importantly, they would recognize the authority by which the Norvus Ordo was established, as it came from them through Jesus Christ.
 
They would get on their knees and recognize that Jesus was present. They would give thanks to God for the Gift they received. They would admonish their brothers and sisters who gathered irreverently to partake of the Body and Blood in a way to encourage them in their faith, not demean. Finally, and most importantly, they would recognize the authority by which the Norvus Ordo was established, as it came from them through Jesus Christ.
They would not know where they were. Nothing would look familiar to them. They would run to the nearest Holy Orthodox Catholic Church where they would recognize the ancient, beautiful and holy Divine Liturgy.
 
They would not know where they were. Nothing would look familiar to them. They would run to the nearest Holy Orthodox Catholic Church where they would recognize the ancient, beautiful and holy Divine Liturgy.
Assuming that there was one nearby…

I am not sure. How close is your Liturgy to the one from 150? 250? 450? 650?

I am not saying that they will prefer ours, mind you. I am not sure that you can say that the Liturgy is unchanged for 2,000 years.
 
They would not know where they were. Nothing would look familiar to them. They would run to the nearest Holy Orthodox Catholic Church where they would recognize the ancient, beautiful and holy Divine Liturgy.
My point exactly - you recognize a Liturgy - they would recognize Christ’s Presence
 
They would not know where they were. Nothing would look familiar to them. They would run to the nearest Holy Orthodox Catholic Church where they would recognize the ancient, beautiful and holy Divine Liturgy.
Could you provide a link for me where I could look at how the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church lead Jesus disciples’ throughout the centuries?
 
I am not sure. How close is your Liturgy to the one from 150? 250? 450? 650?

I am not saying that they will prefer ours, mind you. I am not sure that you can say that the Liturgy is unchanged for 2,000 years.
The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is a shortened form of the Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great. St Basil was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia from 370—379AD. Both are derived from the Divine Liturgy of St James—so named after James the Just, the brother of the Lord.

The Divine Liturgy has changed very little since the time of St John Chrysostom (born 347 in Antioch).

So needless to say, the early Church Fathers would be quite familiar with today’s Divine Liturgy and would be very confused by the Novus Ordo as set forth by Vatican 2.
 
If you have heard it said that no practice of Orthodoxy has not changed, and someone can show you that such have changed - all that means is that you have heard wrong.

What has not changed is the Orthodox Faith.

Of course things that you call mundane - which I believe means worldly (and opposed to things extra-wordly like God and angels) have changed. But Faith is same. We will not suddenly abandon Orthodoxy because what you have heard - that no practice has changed - is not true.

What you heard is wrong.
 
If you have heard it said that no practice of Orthodoxy has not changed, and someone can show you that such have changed - all that means is that you have heard wrong.

What has not changed is the Orthodox Faith.

Of course things that you call mundane - which I believe means worldly (and opposed to things extra-wordly like God and angels) have changed. But Faith is same. We will not suddenly abandon Orthodoxy because what you have heard - that no practice has changed - is not true.

What you heard is wrong.
What has changed about the faith of Roman Catholicism since 1054?
 
What has changed about the faith of Roman Catholicism since 1054?
Your own sources should be able to make that clear to you.

Just start reading, or ask Johnnykins, he can tell you.

You might claim (as some do) that Orthodox misunderstand your church, being outsiders. But you cannot deny your own sources, read Ott for example, or the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. They should be able tell you when each new dogma was first proposed, and when each change in the administration of the church was initiated, or each new devotional practice.

Your own Catholic sources can tell you a lot of things if you care to look. Many of those things have been listed here in this thread, look for the mention of innovations in prior posts and then read about them in your own sources.

Michael
 
Your own sources should be able to make that clear to you.

Just start reading, or ask Johnnykins, he can tell you.

You might claim (as some do) that Orthodox misunderstand your church, being outsiders. But you cannot deny your own sources, read Ott for example, or the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. They should be able tell you when each new dogma was first proposed, and when each change in the administration of the church was initiated, or each new devotional practice.

Your own Catholic sources can tell you a lot of things if you care to look. Many of those things have been listed here in this thread, look for the mention of innovations in prior posts and then read about them in your own sources.

Michael
I care to know that my Church teaches that I must be baptized and confirm my faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by His sacrifice am I afforded redemption and eternal life with God.

My Church teaches that I must eat His Body and drink His Blood to have this eternal life.

My Church teaches that Mary was the Mother of God. Theotokos. My Church teaches [that] it is proper that the one whom God and the Son, through Whom all things were made, chose to be the Ark of the New Covenant, be blameless before man, and therefore gave her the gift of the fullness of grace at her Immaculate Conception and as Enoch, who walked with God, no less was Mary who was Assumed into heaven and exalted to the highest postition among women, fulfilling the fourth commandment *par excellence *

My Church teaches that to devote yourself to Mary or any other saint does not provide for you that what Jesus alone accomplished on the Cross, but simply draws one closer to Jesus. Mary and the saints bring us to Jesus not away from Him.

According to non-partisan history, the See of Rome was and remains pre-eminent of the Patriarchates.

My Church teaches much. Could you provide a link to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church?
 
I care to know that my Church teaches that I must be baptized and confirm my faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that by His sacrifice am I afforded redemption and eternal life with God.

My Church teaches that I must eat His Body and drink His Blood to have this eternal life.

My Church teaches that Mary was the Mother of God. Theotokos. My Church teaches [that] it is proper that the one whom God and the Son, through Whom all things were made, chose to be the Ark of the New Covenant, be blameless before man, and therefore gave her the gift of the fullness of grace at her Immaculate Conception and as Enoch, who walked with God, no less was Mary who was Assumed into heaven and exalted to the highest postition among women, fulfilling the fourth commandment *par excellence *

My Church teaches that to devote yourself to Mary or any other saint does not provide for you that what Jesus alone accomplished on the Cross, but simply draws one closer to Jesus. Mary and the saints bring us to Jesus not away from Him.

According to non-partisan history, the See of Rome was and remains pre-eminent of the Patriarchates.

My Church teaches much. Could you provide a link to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church?
good post
 
My Church teaches much. Could you provide a link to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Orthodox Church?
Except for the last part, most of them are believed by the Orthodox Church as well. See, there are actually more similarities than differences with both Churches. I would rather start from there than go into the differences.
My point exactly - you recognize a Liturgy - they would recognize Christ’s Presence
I think Mickey’s point is clear–the early Fathers would recognize Divine Liturgy immediately, especially if they run into the Liturgy of St. James or even St. Basil, though no doubt they would still recognize the Liturgy of St. John Crysostom. I have commented on another thread on this board regarding how 4th century Rome celebrated Mass, and it seems much closer to Divine Liturgy than Tridentine or even Novus Ordo. The thread in question then: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200272 My comment is post 11, if I am correct, to which the thread starter verified that the Liturgies of the two were very similar back then. Guess the Orthodox Church then has kept Holy Tradition here much better. So to reply to this–the early Fathers will recognize Christ’s Presence in Divine Liturgy more than in the Novus Ordo, as it is the Liturgy they were familiar with, and would see the Novus Ordo as an innovation of Divine Liturgy (and we need not go into the horrors of clown Masses, “liturgical dance”, and other such abuses which seem to have taken hold in a number of parishes).
 
Except for the last part, most of them are believed by the Orthodox Church as well. See, there are actually more similarities than differences with both Churches. I would rather start from there than go into the differences.

I think Mickey’s point is clear–the early Fathers would recognize Divine Liturgy immediately, especially if they run into the Liturgy of St. James or even St. Basil, though no doubt they would still recognize the Liturgy of St. John Crysostom. I have commented on another thread on this board regarding how 4th century Rome celebrated Mass, and it seems much closer to Divine Liturgy than Tridentine or even Novus Ordo. The thread in question then: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200272 My comment is post 11, if I am correct, to which the thread starter verified that the Liturgies of the two were very similar back then. Guess the Orthodox Church then has kept Holy Tradition here much better. So to reply to this–the early Fathers will recognize Christ’s Presence in Divine Liturgy more than in the Novus Ordo, as it is the Liturgy they were familiar with, and would see the Novus Ordo as an innovation of Divine Liturgy (and we need not go into the horrors of clown Masses, “liturgical dance”, and other such abuses which seem to have taken hold in a number of parishes).
Is liturgy doctrine? Why and how does liturgy change? What forces are there to change how we worship? Should it be allowed?
 
Is liturgy doctrine?
From liturgy flows doctrine (and vice versa). To understand what a church teaches, I often find it helpful to see how they worship first and foremost; from there you will already garner a lot of information just by mere observance.
Why and how does liturgy change? What forces are there to change how we worship? Should it be allowed?
Ah, this would require much dissertation. Since I am not a Liturgist, I would defer these statements to someone who can sufficiently answer them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top