P
Peter_J
Guest
I think he meant “big”.
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
If by we you mean Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics than yes. But if you mean Catholics and Orthodox, than no.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I imagine if you made a list of every single last doctrine and put them side by side you would get a similarity in the ninetyith percentile.
Additionally the Catholic Church has a tendency to dogmatize doctrine, while Orthodox Churches don’t, this also becomes a major issue, it creates a tension, we say belief in these things is unrelated to salvation, while the Catholic Church says it is. I’ll give you the example of the Assumption of Mary. Both Churches teach it, but only one requires belief in it.
The teachings may be pretty close, and while a different theological perspective is, to my mind, acceptable, actual beliefs must coincide exactly. 99% the same is no better than 1% the same.
A
Art321
Guest
How so? From what I have understood the main differences are the filioque, the papacy, and the Immaculate Conception. The filioque and the Immaculate Conception are from what I read just differences in theology from East and West.
So that only leaves the papacy and it appears more of a problem of authority.
A
Art321
Guest
It seems people always make it more of a big deal than what it really is. These differences in my opinion are not really that huge and could easily be worked out through much dialogue between us if we really tried. Not saying it could be worked out overnight but it sure would take more than a couple of decades at the most.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I think it is pretty optimistic to say that issues that have arisen over 1,000 years can be solved in 20.
There are points of contention on which both sides are, at present, and for the foreseeable future, unmovable, such as Papal Infallibility.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
People like to whitewash the filioque to make it less than it is, and it is easy to get caught up in that, I know I was convinced it wasn’t a big deal for quite a while, “Oh no, the Catholic Church just teaches that the Holy Spirit comes through the Son, because proceed doesn’t mean the same as origin point” then one day a Catholic poster decided to share what they really believe, and actually back it up. It changes things significantly, and as far as I can see cannot be reconciled to Orthodox theology.
V
Vico
Guest
Does Orthodoxy accept this Catholic dogma of faith from Vatican One?
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Nope.
V
Vico
Guest
And that is the difference between the Orthodox and the eastern Catholics, expressed in the CCEO:
Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Code:
**Canon 1436** – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It is a difference, and certainly one of the big ones.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know what “just differences in theology” means.
Papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction have been considered dogmas in the RCC since Vatican I. None of the recent popes have ever suggested that they aren’t dogmas.
P
Peter_J
Guest
*Some *people do. There are a lot of very anti-ecumenical Christians out there, but there are also a lot of ecumaniacs.
P
Peter_J
Guest
C.S. Lewis wrote in “Mere Christianity” (hardly an anti-ecumenical book!) that “It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the center of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”
A
Art321
Guest
Are you claiming that I’m whitewashing the issue?
If I am, my apologies. I was only being a bit optimistic from what I have read and I don’t want to turn this into a pointless argument like so many have happened here on the forums.
God bless.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Just speaking for myself, I’d like to defer judgment on that question until I know what “just differences in theology” means.
D
dcointin
Guest
I’m not sure I would agree. I know a western-rite Orthodox priest who believes the Filioque is not an objection to unity, properly understood.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Given your reference to it being what you’ve read, no, you’re not whitewashing, though your sources probably are. Either way I see dismissing the places we don’t agree and saying “Can’t we all just get along?” a bit of a white wash. There are serious issues that need to be dealt with.
While I agree that we hold the same beliefs the vast bulk of the time, the issues that remain are in no way small, or going to be solves quickly.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I would be curious to hear how it can be rectified.
I’ve asked Catholics to explain it, but that only leads to me getting accused of engaging in Polemics (questions are bad it seems).
If you know I’d love to hear it.
- Status