Differences between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox

[bobzills]

Okay; let’s level the playing field:
…
(2) Yes, the Papal States did some questionable things re. Jews in Italy. Termination of parental rights due to baptism is not good domestic policy. Score one for the EO. But, when you look at, for example, the EO Church’s active participation in the pogroms agains Jews in Russia, our score finds itself tied again. RC: 2; EO: 2.

I don’t think that this quite balances out because there were pogroms against the Jews in the West, and there were the Crusades. There was the the Pogrom of 1096 in France and Germany (the first to be officially recorded), as well as the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190… In 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasbourg, and Mainz. There was a pogrom in Argentina in 1919.
This case was different, and is not related to a pogrom, since a six year old boy was kidnapped from his parents, and the Pope who ordered such, is up for sainthood in the Catholic Church? Pope Pius IX was beatified on 3 September 2000. So it looks like this is an issue where there is disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on whether or not this type of kidnapping is morally acceptable.

 

[malphono]

Anyway, I hope we can get back on topic, and whoever wants to pursue this tangent does so in another thread.

Yes that would be nice, but looking at the subsequent posts in this same thread, methinks you were being overly optimistic.

 

[Hesychios]

Pope Pius IX was beatified on 3 September 2000. So it looks like this is an issue where there is disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox teaching on whether or not this type of kidnapping is morally acceptable.

The cause of Pope Pius IX was actively opposed by the Melkite Catholic church for (some say) most of the last hundred years. Which is supposedly why it has taken so long to bring the cause to the level of Beatification.

As I understand it, the Melkite objections had much to do with the Pope’s behavior at the General Council of the West at Vatican Hill in 1870AD, I’m sure the “other incident” does not appear on the radar screen. It could go without saying that even today most Orthodox would be appalled if he actually was declared a saint for veneration. It could possibly even be something that shocked so deeply it would interfere with dialog.

But of course, the Latin Catholic church should do what it thinks best and not consider what anyone else thinks.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

There have likewise been several statements on similarities between the CC and OO from the hierarchs, and not just in the area of Christology.{/quote]

Ya akhyi (Arabic, O Brother) Marduk

the contention is what you have mentioned earlier that the RCC have with the SO what the EO don’t have in post #126,
And now it seems like you are paddling back from that, by saying that the RCC has a similar statements, I know that the RCC had established similar statements with SO later, and I agree with it.
However I dont understand what you mean by " not only in the Christology", For between the Syriac Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, the only Issue that separated us was the Chrystology also that was the case with the RCC all the way up until the RCC tried to enforce their new Dogmas on the Eastern Churches Oriental and Eastern alike and they both rejected theose Dogmas and still do, both of them, and not to mention also the list of disputed Issues between the OO and the RCC is longer than this between the OO and the EO.

… As already stated, the big difference between the CC/OO talks and the EO/OO talks is that the CC/OO talks have had FORMAL and OFFICIAL approvals from the CC and OO hierarchies. The EO/OO talks have not borne the same fruit (except to a limited extent between the Coptic Orthodox and the EO Alexandrian Patriarchate - an agreement which, nevethless, is not as far-reaching as the Syrian Orthodox/Catholic official pastoral agreements, btw).

I understand what you have stated but, again your statement does not agree with what the Syriac Orthodox Church declared in the link that I provided you earlier ( in which it seems like you turned the page on what they declared) So as A reader your statement is Immaterial when is compared with what the Syriac Orthodox Church is saying:

Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches

" Among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to the Oriental Churches in spirituality, doctrine, and in historical experience. Dialogue with this family of Churches has the potential to be the most fruitful."

" The delegates concluded, 'We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church… On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement…."
sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/index.html

Further, there is a very powerful and influential faction in EO'xy which opposes the ecumenical talks between EO and OO - namely, Mt. Athos.

NOT exactly, I think you need to update you info.
The Holy Mount Athos, in the beginning some of them suggested not to have a council with the OO for the same reason as was thought by all the Chalcedonians ( Including the RCC) and it was wrong, but afterwards Mount Athos was pleased of the outcome on those Councils, but one point remained to get them to agree, namely, that the OO, Must sign in to all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where the OO, so far are saying there is no need to sign to hose councils since their teaching( the OO) is the same as the Later four Councils taught and as a matter of fact they NEVER EVER taught anything else, ( my Opinion, they have a good point), But even that one is being Ironed out.

  And let's not forget the dates of these INformal statements between EO and OO (70's and 80's).

You missed the 90’s and the 2001, But I don’t see the significance of the dates, A schism that lasted 1500 years with no connection whatsoever, you want it to be resolved in One council maybe?, looking at how many council the RCC had with us and inthe span of centuries, I think it is rather moving very swiftly between us and the OO.

  ... I (and others here) have noticed that there is a *modern* and strongly influential movement within EO'xy - which, for lack of a better term, I'll call, Neo-Eastern Orthodoxy - which tries to create false dichotomies between Catholicism and EO'xy on a whole array of matters - original sin vs. ancestral sin. Essence/Energies vs. unity of God, Atonement vs. deification, etc. ,etc. ,etc. ,etc. etc.

LOOOL, for a “NEO” word to exist There should be a case, and what you see as "* strongly influential movement within EO’xy* being a “NEO” is waaaaaay blown out of proportion, do we have some Orthodox in various parts of this world that if you mention Roman Catholicism in front of them they would put their helmet on and jump in the ditch, YES, but every church or institution has similar people within them, as a matter of fact now a days we see more tolerance and less intolerance among many Orthodox, look at the Greeks the Antiochians,etc

 ...The problem is that the false dichotomies of these Neo-EO'xy also has repercussions for the relationship between EO and OO.

original sin vs. ancestral sin. Essence/Energies vs. unity of God, Atonement vs. deification, Those are not false, those are some of the Issues where the RCC and the OC are in disagreement, I think all RCs and Os alike can see that, the proof is the many huge threads on this forum and the many theological councils that took place between the RCC and the OC.
The fact that you brought this up you have just revealed a “NEO-Catholicism” movement yourself.

continued …

 

[Ignatios]

  For though in many areas the EOC and OOC are more similar to each other than to the CC, we cannot overlook that in many areas, the CC and OOC are more similar to each other than to the EOC.  And it is in those very areas of similarity between CC and OOC that Neo-EO'xy unthinkingly seeks to create its false dichotomies.

You give forth a very nice titles, but there is no follow up to it,IAW you need to put forth a reason, Could you show those similarities according to the heirarchs of the CC and the OOC, that the OOC and the CC are more similar to each other than to the EOC.
so far you gave nothing but an opinion of yours.
Please let me post it for the third time :
" Among all Christian Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to the Oriental Churches in spirituality, doctrine, and in historical experience…"
sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/index.html

As you stated, let the readers judge for themselves.

Blessings

Amen

Dear brother Ignatios,

As brother SyroMalankara has pointed out, the issue of St. Peter’s primacy is indeed a matter of dogma within the SOC. You can’t casually brush that aside, even if you as an Eastern Orthodox view the matter merely as one of ecclesiology and not doctrine. How do you deal with that?

The Syriac Orthodox view of St Peter Position is similar to the Eastern Orthodox view, how ? and why?
Read the following from one of SyroMalankara’s provided links:

“… **The lineage of this foundation stone continues in this modern era through Apostolic tradition handed over by the preceding Prince Patriarchs to HH Zakka Iwas. For us our beloved Moran is St: Peter himself guiding his sheep in the green spiritual pastures.” **.

That is not what the RCC believe, according to the RCC it is only the Pope that receive The lineage of this foundation. this is a big difference, where the EO believe that every bishop occupy the office of St Peter.

The OO in general disagree with the EO view that the office of head bishop is borne out of church politics, and not from a divine mandate obtained from the Apostles themselves.

Sorry brother, but I think you need to review your info.concerning this, besides show where the OO disagree with the EO concerning this.
Forgive me brother Marduk, But your statements are not factual and lacks reasons, so IAW they are no more than the way you perceive things, and that is immaterial.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

I don't see anything in your quotes that states conversions were forced.  Please point it out exactly.

I believe that brother bobzills gave you a few just to demonstrate for you,
Besides forced conversion are done in different ways, there is some who did it directly and openely ( not smart) and there is those who did it indirectly ( very smart), in the inquisition what they did is what matters and not what they said, So let us see what they did again for the second time maybe you overlooked it for the lack of time:

"**The Church, after sitting in judgment, turned the heretics over to the civil authorities, knowing full well that, as night follows day, the sentence of death would follow her sentence of excommunication.**11171117 The usual expression for turning heretics over to the civil tribunal was saeculari judiciore relinquere, and for perpetual imprisonment, in perpetuum carcerem retrudiorperpetuo commorari.teran forbade priests pronouncing judgments of blood and being present at executions, but at the very same moment, and at the pope’s persistent instigation, crusading armies were drenching the soil of Southern France with the blood of the Albigenses. A writer of the thirteenth century says in part truly, in part speciously, "our pope does not kill nor condemn any one to death, but the law puts to death those whom the pope allows to be put to death, and they kill themselves who do those things which make them guilty of death."1118

So in the above if I fear for my life and wanted to live all I have to do is be a RC to escape the atrocity, the proof of this that Rome gain back much of Europe at the end of all this.

if the above does not satisfy you then let us turn to another inquisition:

" The Inquisition was established to punish relapsed New Christians – Jews and Muslims who converted toCatholicism, as well as their descendants – who were now suspected of practicing their ancestral religion in secret. In Goa, the Inquisition also turned its attention to Indian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have returned to their original ways. In addition, the Inquisition prosecuted non-converts who broke prohibitions against the observance of Hindu or Muslim rites or interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism"

And again, now against the Syrian of Malabar:

Persecution of non-Roman Catholic-Syrian Christians

***In 1599 under Aleixo de Menezes the Synod of Diamper converted the Syriac Saint Thomas Christians (of the Orthodox faith) to the Roman Catholic Church under the excuse that they allegedly practiced Nestorian heresy. The synod enforced severe restrictions on their faith and the practice of using Syriac/Aramaic. The Kerala Christians of Malabar were independent of Rome. What resulted in it was the persecution of the Syrian Christians of Malabar. ***

In another word, convert to catholicism and remain RC or face persecution.

absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Goa_Inquisition

…And I’m not exactly sure what your point regarding the Albigenses is. Is what occurred with the Albigenses to be considered much worse than what occurred with the Arians? Next time you bring up such points, please be certain, first of all, that it does not expose you to the charge of prejudice or of applying double-standards. That way, our discussions can be as debate-free as possible.

Blessings,
Marduk

Don’t really know where you going with this, but all I see in the above is another statement without reason, would greatly appreciate further elaboration and provide a way that we can respond.
Maybe if I agree with everything the RCC teaches and don’t criticize it, then I would not be an Anti-Catholic? but even then I would not be Orthodox I would be a RC, IAW is it that accept what the Marduk perceive or I am an Anti-Catholic?.

GOD bless and forgive me if I was or at least looked hostile in some sentence, I can assure you all that the only purpose is to bring the truth out so we be aware of it so we can avoid it in the future instead of shove it under the rug and pretend that never happened then the chance that it might happen again are very likely.

In CHRIST †††

 

[SyroMalankara]

the “Synod of Diamper” was not imposed by the Vatican or the Pope, but with the backing of the Portuguese Government… also, the Syriac Christians in India were both Orthodox and Catholic, or neither, depending on which era and which location one considers.

As to the claim that Catholics don’t believe that St. Peter’s lineage continues outside of Rome… not true. Catholics recognize St. Peter’s lineage in Antioch and indirectly Alexandria. Of course, we also recognize the St. Peter’s lineage in Rome, along with St. Paul’s - in addition, we recognize the primary significance of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in the See of Rome.

 

[ronyodish]

Ignatios,

The Catholic Church is closer to the Oriental Orthodox Churches (than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox), by virtue of the Oriental Catholic Churches. In fact, they are called and mandated to be the same in their common and basic received traditions.

For example, the Coptic Catholics are closer to the Coptic Orthodox, than the Eastern Orthodox to the Coptic Orthodox. Why? Because of the shared Alexandrian tradition, that is, the theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines of the Alexandrians. The Eastern Orthodox has a different tradition from the Coptic Orthodox, the former being of the Constantinopolitan (or Byzantine or Greek) tradition, while the latter is Alexandrian.

There seems to be this underlying assumption running in your post that Catholic means Latin (or Roman). Catholic is not Latin. Latin is Catholic, but Catholic is not Latin. Roman or Latin Catholics are of a different tradition than the Alexandrian Copts (Oriental Catholics and Oriental Orthodox), and of a different tradition than the Byzantines (Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). Likewise, the Alexandrian Copts are of a different tradition than the Byzantines. However, the Coptic Catholics are of the same tradition as the Coptic Orthodox.

So, the Communion of Catholic Churches (aka the Catholic Church), can not be pinned down as Roman Catholic, as if it is merely Roman Catholic against the Eastern Orthodox, and how these two compare against the Oriental Orthodox. One can not say that the Eastern Orthodox are closer to the Oriental Orthodox than Catholics to Oriental Orthodox, because that assumption assumes that Catholics are Latin, and ignores the Oriental Catholics.

Also, different is not necessarily contradictory, just merely different, having grown up in a different culture and setting, language, experiences, idioms and emphasis, etc. The difference is in theology, and not merely liturgy, and it is more than just Christology. Christology, or theology on Christ, is just one aspect of theology. However, the Deposit of Faith, that is, the one faith of the Apostles, is the same in all Apostolic Churches, even though expressed differently among the various traditions (Latin, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Assyrian-Chaldean). The Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, are true particular Churches, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. None of these Apostolic Churches are considered heretical by the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Rony

 

[mardukm]

GOD bless and forgive me if I was or at least looked hostile in some sentence, I can assure you all that the only purpose is to bring the truth out so we be aware of it so we can avoid it in the future instead of shove it under the rug and pretend that never happened then the chance that it might happen again are very likely.

In CHRIST †††

I’ve not perceived anything hostile in what you’ve stated, brother. On the contrary, I see here a real spirit of dialog and attempts at understanding.

Unfortunately, I need to be off for several days (and probably won’t return to the fray until Saturday).

I will give you evidence for everything I’ve stated when I return (also, I think you have misinterpreted a few of my statements ).

Brothers Syromalankara and Rony (thanks, especially, brother Rony for that great exposition!) have given you some great responses already. I would just like to reinforce brother Syromalankara’s statement - it is simply not true that the Catholic Church teaches that the Petrine succession exists only in Rome. The focus of the Catholic apologetic regarding Petrine succession in Rome is to focus on the role/office of coryphaeus, which was the role/office of St. Peter. Petrine succession also exists outside of Rome, and where it does exist outside of Rome, note that that particular successor is also the head bishop in that particular jurisdiction. Nevertheless, on the apostolic principle of the existence of a coryphaeus among bishops, there can never be a time when there is no focal coryphaeus even among all those who can lay claim to the Petrine Succession - an arch-coryphaeus among coryphaeii (I think the Assyrian tradition uses the term “Arch-Patriarch”).

As stated, I will provide proof for my statements when I return. Thanks for your patience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[trophybearer]

Ignatios,

The Catholic Church is closer to the Oriental Orthodox Churches (than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox), by virtue of the Oriental Catholic Churches.

Rome has Oriental Catholic Churches and Byzantine Catholic Churches; how does that make the Catholic Church closer to the OO than the EO? It doesn’t- logically it doesn’t even make sense and in reality it’s completely untrue. Wishful thinking, again… akin to the almost delusional wishful thinking of mardukm. Saying it again and again and even believing it won’t make it true, sorry guys. You can mislead some of the more naive Latin Catholics taking a peek at the Eastern forum but others aren’t buying what you’re selling.

 

[ronyodish]

Rome has Oriental Catholic Churches and Byzantine Catholic Churches; how does that make the Catholic Church closer to the OO than the EO? It doesn’t- logically it doesn’t even make sense and in reality it’s completely untrue. Wishful thinking, again… akin to the almost delusional wishful thinking of mardukm. Saying it again and again and even believing it won’t make it true, sorry guys. You can mislead some of the more naive Latin Catholics taking a peek at the Eastern forum but others aren’t buying what you’re selling.

trophybearer,

The question is who is closer to the Oriental Orthodox, is it the Catholics who are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, or is it the Eastern Orthodox who are closer to the Oriental Orthodox?

Before one can answer the question, one has to ask, who are the Catholics in the question? In the Catholic Church, Catholics are varied. There are Romans as Catholics, Copts as Catholics, Byzantines as Catholics, Armenians as Catholics, etc.

Now, taking one example:

The Coptic Catholics come from the same primordial apostolic succession and history as the Coptic Orthodox, and both practice the same basic Alexandrian tradition. This tradition that they share contains the same basic theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines. What separates one from the other, and which is the major difference between the two, is that the Coptic Catholics are in full communion with Rome and Latin Church (and with all other Catholics), while the Coptic Orthodox are not in full communion.

So, by tradition, Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox have the same basic tradition, but by communion, Coptic Catholic and Coptic Orthodox have a different ecclesial communion, the former being in the Catholic Communion while the latter is in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Now to answer the question, the Catholics are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, because the Oriental Catholic Churches have corresponding Oriental Orthodox Churches, with which they share the same basic traditions.

This is not the case with regards the Eastern Orthodox in their comparison with the Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox have a different tradition from the traditions of the Oriental Orthodox, because the Eastern Orthodox (including the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria, and the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Church) utilize the Constantinopolitan tradition, that great Greek tradition which was lived in, and emerged out of, Constantinople. The Oriental Orthodox do not utilize the tradition of Constantinople, rather, they utilize the Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Armenian traditions.

So, by tradition, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox have different traditions, and by communion, both are likewise in different ecclesial communions.

This is why the Catholics are closer to the Oriental Orthodox, than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox.

God bless,

Rony

 

[josethomas2005]

As to the claim that Catholics don’t believe that St. Peter’s lineage continues outside of Rome… not true. Catholics recognize St. Peter’s lineage in Antioch and indirectly Alexandria. Of course, we also recognize the St. Peter’s lineage in Rome, along with St. Paul’s - in addition, we recognize the primary significance of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in the See of Rome.

These facts may be true in papers and speeches. But I don’t think the head bishops approve all these. I found that Pope Paul VI had avoided using papal tiara when he became pope. Also his words pointed out that he no longer concerned about the superiority of Rome. Also it is found that a number of cardinals had opposed the authority of Rome in many instances. For example, the great American Arch bishop James Cardinal Gibbons always quarrelled with Rome. He also expressed his belief that Peter went to Antioch and Antioch is the primary see. He always opposed Rome. Then we have the statement from the head of Syro malabar catholic church rigourously questioning the authority of Rome. There also he expressed the primacy of antioch.

 

[SyroMalankara]

One can disagree, quarrel, make statements against any particular action that the Pope holds because not everything the Pope does has to do with his Petrine primacy.

Petrine primacy and the ecumenical headship of the Bishop of Rome is held by all Churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian - the only disagreements are on how this primacy was expressed and should be expressed in the future.

 

[josethomas2005]

One can disagree, quarrel, make statements against any particular action that the Pope holds because not everything the Pope does has to do with his Petrine primacy.

Petrine primacy and the ecumenical headship of the Bishop of Rome is held by all Churches, Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian - the only disagreements are on how this primacy was expressed and should be expressed in the future.

Then you may explain to me the following facts I got from an interview published. The current catholicos of malankara catholic church was elected in 2007. A senior archbishop of malabar church presided over the election. After the election the archbishop advised the catholicos to be sincere and faithful to Antiochene tradition and liturgy always. The catholicos explains what is Antiochene tradition. It is that the the first person and head of the universal church is bishop of antioch. His official name is Ignatius. The second person in the church is catholicos. His official name is Baselios.

 

[Ignatios]

the “Synod of Diamper” was not imposed by the Vatican or the Pope…

1. This Synod was headed by a RC “ARCHBISHOP” Whom is the RCC in that jurisdiction and the Vicar of the Pope in one way if you will.
2. the Vatican or the Pope did not reject this Synod or annulled it, where the Pope should have issued a “bull” against it especially when the Jesuits ( the Pope’s Army as they call them) were informed about the misconduct of this Synod. Please read the following:

***" The Thomas Christians of the 17th century were profoundly grief-stricken at this humiliation meted out to their Church after the Synod of Diamper in 1599. Their protest to the Latin bishop Francis Roz ran like this:

“What wrong have we done that His Holiness (the Pope) should take away from our Church a title it has always had? Is it because we make our submission to the Apostolic See? Did an Apostle not found our Church? Is it not the most ancient Church in India? Oh! We know very well that this is the doing of the Archbishop of Goa; for, how can he be the Primate of our Church?” (Letter of Roz SJ to Alvarez, cited by Heras H. SJ, The Examiner, March 26, Bombay, 1938).***"

1. The Vatican and the Pope relations with the Syriacs was in no diffrence than what this council dictated on the Syriacs of this region, and this situation kept going all the way up until Vatican II then the relations changed ( the credit goes back to the Patriarch of the Melkite for that).

The following is from the Malankara Catholic Church, and in it we find an answer to two points that are being discussed here namely who is the successor of saint Peter according to the Catholic Church and that the outcome of the Synod of Diamper endured for centuries as I have mentioned before :

***The sharp contrast between the vision of the Church which existed in the East outside the Roman Empire, and that of the Church of the colonizers from the West with their imperial background, is obvious in the following canon of the ‘Synod’ of Diamper, which was convened and presided over by Dom Alexis Menezes, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa.

“Furthermore, that Catholic Church is one and the same all over the world, having for its pastor the chief Bishop of Rome successor in the chair of the blessed prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, to whom and by him to his successors, our Lord Jesus Christ delivered the full power of ruling and governing his whole Church; for whence it is, that the Roman Church is the head of the whole Church, and the father, master and doctor of all Christians; and the prelate of all in common, and of all priests, bishops, archbishops, primates and patriarchs, of whatsoever church they are; as also the pastor of all emperors, kings, princes and lords: in a word, of all that are Christians, and of all the faithful people. Hence it is, that all that are not under the obedience of the said Roman Bishop, the Vicar of Christ upon earth, are out of a state of salvation, and shall be condemned to hell as heretics and schismatics for their disobedience to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order that he left in his Church.”(Session III, Decree I, Chapter XIII; Hough James, History of Christianity in India, Vol. II, London 1845,p.537).***

"… An ecclesiastical leadership with this colonial and imperial attitude ruled over the Church of the Church in India for three centuries, which is being almost continued by its indigenous leadership, which we called neo-colonialism. It means the servile attitude to the colonial heritage and its ecclesiastical set up by those who are Indians or Oriental by birth but alien to their own indigenous ecclesial patrimony."thenazrani.org/about.htm

…As to the claim that Catholics don’t believe that St. Peter’s lineage continues outside of Rome… not true. Catholics recognize St. Peter’s lineage in Antioch and indirectly Alexandria. Of course, we also recognize the St. Peter’s lineage in Rome, along with St. Paul’s - in addition, we recognize the primary significance of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in the See of Rome.

My mistake I wasn’t clear enough ,The Pivot point here it is not the word LINEAGE but understanding of the Office of St Peter and who occupy it and what is his office include… Lineage, yes, Rome recognize the Lineage of St Peter in other Churches, but the point that i was making is that, the RCC consider that the Bishop of Rome is the “THE Successor to St Peter’s Office”:

from the CCC-*** 883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404 ***

where the Syriac Orthodox consider their Patriarch over their own Church and not the over all the other Churches. which is in agreement with the Eastern Orthodox and not the RCC.

continued…

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

The Catholic Church is closer to the Oriental Orthodox Churches (than Eastern Orthodox to Oriental Orthodox), by virtue of the Oriental Catholic Churches. In fact, they are called and mandated to be the same in their common and basic received traditions.

For example, the Coptic Catholics are closer to the Coptic Orthodox, than the Eastern Orthodox to the Coptic Orthodox. Why? Because of the shared Alexandrian tradition, that is, the theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines of the Alexandrians. The Eastern Orthodox has a different tradition from the Coptic Orthodox, the former being of the Constantinopolitan (or Byzantine or Greek) tradition, while the latter is Alexandrian.

There seems to be this underlying assumption running in your post that Catholic means Latin (or Roman). Catholic is not Latin. Latin is Catholic, but Catholic is not Latin. Roman or Latin Catholics are of a different tradition than the Alexandrian Copts (Oriental Catholics and Oriental Orthodox), and of a different tradition than the Byzantines (Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox). Likewise, the Alexandrian Copts are of a different tradition than the Byzantines. However, the Coptic Catholics are of the same tradition as the Coptic Orthodox.

So, the Communion of Catholic Churches (aka the Catholic Church), can not be pinned down as Roman Catholic, as if it is merely Roman Catholic against the Eastern Orthodox, and how these two compare against the Oriental Orthodox. One can not say that the Eastern Orthodox are closer to the Oriental Orthodox than Catholics to Oriental Orthodox, because that assumption assumes that Catholics are Latin, and ignores the Oriental Catholics.

Also, different is not necessarily contradictory, just merely different, having grown up in a different culture and setting, language, experiences, idioms and emphasis, etc. The difference is in theology, and not merely liturgy, and it is more than just Christology. Christology, or theology on Christ, is just one aspect of theology. However, the Deposit of Faith, that is, the one faith of the Apostles, is the same in all Apostolic Churches, even though expressed differently among the various traditions (Latin, Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Assyrian-Chaldean). The Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East, are true particular Churches, built upon orthodox faith and apostolic succession. None of these Apostolic Churches are considered heretical by the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Rony

Okay two things:

1. now you are speaking tradition, yes we understand that there is various traditions in the Church from its earliest times, the Latin, the Antiochian and the Alexandrian, and within each there was also various Rites, and yet the Church was one, all traditions had one faith one belief, however the schism was not over a tradition but over dogmatic issues,
   Therefor closeness between the Churches is not traditions what matters but Dogma, since again schisms happened over a Dogma and not tradition, as for the Catholic Coptics despite that both have the same tradition, unification is much further between them than it is between the COC and the EOC simply because the Catholic Coptics are tied to Rome and they can’t reunite with the Orthodox without Rome.

what I am trying to convey for you here that it is not tradition what makes Churches closer to each others but their belief their Dogma that is … yes the Coptic Catholic Church is closer to the Coptic Orthodox Church in language history nationality, But since they cant be one with them despite the closeness of both tradition since they are now under Rome and since there is a much larger gap between the RCC and the OOC vs. the EOC and the OOC.

1. Again you put forth words from your own thoughts … where I gave forth words from the Syriac Orthodox Church thoughts, and as I told Marduk previously, what is Material here is what the subject mater, namely the SOC, thinks and sees and NOT your own thoughts or mine.
   Again and again here it is from the mouth of the SOC:
   ***Relationships with the Eastern (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches

" Among all Christian Churches*, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to the Oriental Churches in spirituality, doctrine, and in historical experience. Dialogue with this family of Churches has the potential to be the most fruitful."

" The delegates concluded, 'We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church… On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement…"
sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/index.html

I mean what more than this could be said to convince you.

GOD bless †††**

 

[HereticAmI]

For the original poster, the now irreconcilable fundamental difference between the two concerns the notion of original sin. The Roman Catholic Church derives its notion of original sin from Augustine whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church derives its notion of original sin from Athanasius. There was no problem for a while there, as the matter of original sin was treated as one of mere opinion. However, the RCC has made its view of original sin an infallible dogma and so there can now never be a reconciliation between the RCC and the EOC.

Augustine was otherwise flat out wrong, since Ezekiel 18 makes plain that there is no guilt for sin by association, and so there can be no “taint” or “stain” of sin that we all inherit. The EOC, through Athanasius, rightly takes the view that original sin is not “taint” or “stain” that contaminates us all, but is instead the withdrawal of the special grace of God, leaving us in our natural state.

There is much more hope in Athanasius than in Augustine. Augustine condemns all unbaptized infants and little ones to hell [flatly contradicts the Torah, as our infants and little ones, those not knowing tov and ra’, they shall go in to God’s promised land (heaven), to them [He] will give it, and they shall possess it], whereas Athanasius allows for the salvation of unbaptized infants and little ones.

Also, Aquinas posited the notion that man’s nature changed as a result of the fall. The Genesis text does not record any such transformation and so the notion is entirely without foundation in the Genesis text.

Athanasius also did not view death as a punishment from God for that first sin. Athanasius is correct here, since the mere fact that we must eat food in order to survive rather implies decay and death [that is the lesson of science], and since God told someone that he could eat… The Genesis text confirms that Athanasius was correct, since if those two were created immortal then there would be no need for a tree of life and there would also be no report of the concern that God had re those two eating from the tree of life in their fallen state [and so they were, as the text reports, banished from the garden and access to the tree of life was no more, and that is how death entered our world, in the Pauline sense].

Lastly, of all the church fathers down through the ages, Athanasius is the only one who agrees with modern science regarding the natural state of man [mortal with free will]. And sorry to have to say it, but the RCC’s teaching on original sin is indeed patently wrong and does clear and direct violence to the Genesis text as well as other Scripture. For some consolation, most Protestant denominations are in an even worse position [think Calvin]. The only doctrine that passes muster with both the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh is the doctrine of Athanasius and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Ignatios]

For the original poster, the now irreconcilable fundamental difference between the two concerns the notion of original sin. The Roman Catholic Church derives its notion of original sin from Augustine whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church derives its notion of original sin from Athanasius. There was no problem for a while there, as the matter of original sin was treated as one of mere opinion. However, the RCC has made its view of original sin an infallible dogma and so there can now never be a reconciliation between the RCC and the EOC.

Augustine was otherwise flat out wrong, since Ezekiel 18 makes plain that there is no guilt for sin by association, and so there can be no “taint” or “stain” of sin that we all inherit. The EOC, through Athanasius, rightly takes the view that original sin is not “taint” or “stain” that contaminates us all, but is instead the withdrawal of the special grace of God, leaving us in our natural state.

There is much more hope in Athanasius than in Augustine. Augustine condemns all unbaptized infants and little ones to hell [flatly contradicts the Torah, as our infants and little ones, those not knowing tov and ra’, they shall go in to God’s promised land (heaven), to them [He] will give it, and they shall possess it], whereas Athanasius allows for the salvation of unbaptized infants and little ones.

Also, Aquinas posited the notion that man’s nature changed as a result of the fall. The Genesis text does not record any such transformation and so the notion is entirely without foundation in the Genesis text.

Athanasius also did not view death as a punishment from God for that first sin. Athanasius is correct here, since the mere fact that we must eat food in order to survive rather implies decay and death [that is the lesson of science], and since God told someone that he could eat… The Genesis text confirms that Athanasius was correct, since if those two were created immortal then there would be no need for a tree of life and there would also be no report of the concern that God had re those two eating from the tree of life in their fallen state [and so they were, as the text reports, banished from the garden and access to the tree of life was no more, and that is how death entered our world, in the Pauline sense].

Lastly, of all the church fathers down through the ages, Athanasius is the only one who agrees with modern science regarding the natural state of man [mortal with free will]. And sorry to have to say it, but the RCC’s teaching on original sin is indeed patently wrong and does clear and direct violence to the Genesis text as well as other Scripture. For some consolation, most Protestant denominations are in an even worse position [think Calvin]. The only doctrine that passes muster with both the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh is the doctrine of Athanasius and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I never saw anyone put it the way you did !!! I appreciate it very much, it is well put together, well explained, It even gave me a much clearer picture on this Issue than the one That I had, thank you very much, Job well done:tiphat:

GOD Bless you †††

 

[SyroMalankara]

Very articulate post… The only problem with the post is that the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the Augustinian “transmission” of original sin exactly as Blessed Augustine stated it.

Latin Catholic theology, as Aquinas so admirably explains, views original sin differently than personal sin - it is not inherited guilt, but more like a leaning toward sin. This is very much compatible to the theology of Oriental Orthodoxy.
www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/riker

 

[ronyodish]

Okay two things:

1. now you are speaking tradition, yes we understand that there is various traditions in the Church from its earliest times, the Latin, the Antiochian and the Alexandrian, and within each there was also various Rites, and yet the Church was one, all traditions had one faith one belief, however the schism was not over a tradition but over dogmatic issues,
   Therefor closeness between the Churches is not traditions what matters but Dogma, since again schisms happened over a Dogma and not tradition, as for the Catholic Coptics despite that both have the same tradition, unification is much further between them than it is between the COC and the EOC simply because the Catholic Coptics are tied to Rome and they can’t reunite with the Orthodox without Rome.

Ignatios,

Schisms in the universal Church occurred over various expressions or formulas of the faith, to which each of the sides thought the other was using a wrong formulation that departed them from the faith of the Apostles. So yes, schisms occurred over traditions, theological traditions, to which each side thought the other was holding onto the wrong theological expression, the wrong tradition. However, in reality, the faith was the same ever since the Apostles, and as you said all traditions had one faith one belief, and I will say further, that the faith continues to be the same among the current Apostolic Churches. By the way, the Latin, Antiochene, and Alexandrian traditions were not the only traditions in the early universal Church.

Now, I brought up tradition as the factor for closeness, because two particular Churches of the same tradition (theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines) are always going to be closer to one another than two particular Churches of different traditions. I will disagree with you and say that it is much easier for unity between the Coptic Catholic and the Coptic Orthodox than unity between the Coptic Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, because of the shared tradition in the former, and the different traditions in the latter. The former represents an internal split of the particular Church in which both currently maintain the same tradition, the latter a split in the particular Church in which both currently maintain two different traditions. Same thing, for example, with Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox, who are closer together, than Ukrainian Orthodox with Syriac Orthodox.

As far as Rome, while the Coptic Catholics can not reunite with the Coptic Orthodox without bringing along Rome and Latin Church (and along all other Catholic Churches), with which they are in full communion, the same thing is true for the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, though it is even harder for them. The Greek Orthodox of Alexandria can not reunite with the Coptic Orthodox without bringing along Constantinople (and along all other Eastern Orthodox Churches), with which they are in full communion, as well as, the fact that they do not share the same tradition as the Coptic Orthodox, which makes it even harder. Reunification between Coptic Catholics and Coptic Orthodox will result in one Coptic Church of one Alexandrian tradition (which they both currently share), whereas reunification between the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox will result in two Alexandrian Churches of two different traditions, unless the Greek Orthodox abandon their Greek-Constantinopolitan tradition and adopt the Coptic-Alexandrian tradition.

what I am trying to convey for you here that it is not tradition what makes Churches closer to each others but their belief their Dogma that is … yes the Coptic Catholic Church is closer to the Coptic Orthodox Church in language history nationality, But since they cant be one with them despite the closeness of both tradition since they are now under Rome and since there is a much larger gap between the RCC and the OOC vs. the EOC and the OOC.

The belief has always been the same, across all Apostolic Churches, so the belief, the faith, is not what makes two Churches closest to one another. Again, I will disagree with you and say that tradition is what makes two Churches closest to one another. The Coptic Catholic is closer to, and virtually the same, as the Coptic Orthodox not just in language, history, and nationality, but also in theology, liturgy, spirituality, and disciplines. They can not be one yet because of the fullness of communion that each has with their respective Communions. Once the fullness of communion is established, the two will literally become one particular Church, not just two particular Churches in full communion. Again, this is not the case with the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria, which will have to decide whether to change her tradition, or to remain with the Coptic Orthodox as two particular Churches of two traditions in full communion. So, the gap is closer between the Coptic Catholics and the Coptic Orthodox vs. the Greek Orthodox of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox.

Also, you are again lumping the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches all together under the term “RCC”. The Roman Catholic Church (or Latin Church) with its Holy See at Rome, is but one Church in the Communion of Catholic Churches, though off course, she presides in charity among the Churches, and her bishop, holds the universal Primacy. Nevertheless, the proper way to speak of our Communion is the Catholic Church (CC), not the Roman Catholic Church.