Differences in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

[Gabriel_of_12]

JohnVIII;8471252]You meant to say “the Roman Church”, not “the Catholic Church” I’m sure.

“Heterodoxy comes from these Orthodox Church’s never the Catholic church, which the see of Peter is the only see that has never fallen into heresy as did the other sees”

NO; I meant what I said the Catholic Church. In the early church there was never no division in the Catholic Church united to Peter’s Chair in the popes. Orthodox takes it’s name after the Catholic church found Heterodox teachings being taught among the Eastern Church’s. So these Eastern church’s took on the “new name” Orthodox so as to distinguish themselves from their Eastern heterodox Church’s which mirrored them in liturgy, culture and sometimes language.

The Western Catholic Church does not take on the Roman name until the protestant reformation. Until then there has always been “The Catholic Church” and remains "The Catholic Church those united to the Pope since antiquity and today. Orthodox has changed the meaning from the original Catholic Church meaning "to seperate from the heterodox Eastern Church’s, this Orthodox from the Early Church was never placed to identify itself apart from the Popes, because Orthodox got its name while united to the Popes.

This is not to say that Orthodox is not Catholic, so they are. But there has always been one Catholic Church united to Peter’s Chair since the resurrection existing to today unchanged.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that when a Roman Pontiff did not teach orthodoxy he was thereafter referred to as an antipope?

This does not deserve an answer because it has no historical truth to it.

Also, the main stream Church of Alexandria has not only never had a heretical Patriarch, but everyone of them has been glorified as saints as well! The See of Jerusalem hasn’t done too bad either. As for Constantinople, they got off track with Nestorius, but they didn’t try to call Nestorius and anti-patriarch to try to cover up the error of Nestorius, they just worked threw it and learned from there error an exercised that wonderful principle repentance and returned to an orthodox faith - you know, the same kind of thing that St Peter did when he denied Christ 3 times but then repented.

Where do you get this stuff from? Alexandria owed its Episcopate to Peter through Mark… Oh my goodness, never mind forgive me for trying to answer this. You win, your opinion over ranks scripture and past and present Church historians.

Everyone should choose the Church that is right for them. Neither East nor West will have a “perfect” church to offer you. If there was such a perfect church the only people that could go to it would have to be perfect, and that would keep their attendance down too low. The true Church is a spiritual thing, and the physical can only be a sacramental representation of the spiritual, nothing more.

There is a perfect Church = body of Christ so long as Christ is always present in her (his body). The members (imperfect) of the body Christ is another story. Please do not confuse the two. The True Church always possesses the True resurrected mystical body of Christ which is always both fully human “physical” and fully divine.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.

This is not the thread for this, but for clarification; Cavaradossi quoted "but still unified and in full communion nonetheless And when I corrected your false statement you corrected with Cavaradossi quoted “the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox both of which are separate communions” Your statement “There are only two main bodies” is also debatable and does not relate to the other Eastern Orthodox who are not in communion. Your self correction reveals my point that need not carry on further discussion to this thread “that division does exist among the Orthodox themselves”.

The fact that you try to lump the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox together as being two divided factions within some group called “Orthodoxy” proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That would be tantamount to saying that the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church) and the Roman Catholic Church are different factions within a greater group known as “Catholicism”. The Oriental Orthodox cannot be used as an example of disunity within the Eastern Orthodox Church (unless you don’t know what you’re talking about). There was no self-correction; you are imagining things.

Did you just call other Eastern Byzantine rite Church’s not in communion with one another “Fringe groups”? You mistaken apples to oranges here these are never the same. A disunity among Eastern Orthodox exists between themselves “many church’s” is my charge to your false claim that Eastern Orthodox are “Still unified and in full communion nonetheless”. Please don’t twist my words to correct your false statement.

Umm, what are you talking about? Read what I wrote, and quit twisting my words. The Eastern Orthodox are one unified body of autocephalous churches which are in communion with each other. Those who are not within the Eastern Orthodox Church (even if they use the title Orthodox) are not Eastern Orthodox, just like how those outside of the Catholic Church, like the PNCC are not Catholic.

Again getting off topic here, but let us clarify a few things; The problem I see with your statement is that you are forcing a Present day argument from an Orthodox opinion, that never existed with the full unity with the Popes during the early councils. Your false assumption that the East alone defeated heresy statement never reaches these councils. For one the Catholic church was united to the Popes in the chair of Peter.

Your Eastern Pagan Emperors who ruled over the Orthodox always sought the Popes approval. This is probably why your fabricated history remains in the shadows of the Councils because your Pagan Emperor ruled for your Orthodox church at the approval of the Popes on what the council ruled. But maybe you forgot about your Pagan Emperors approval? thinking the Eastern Church alone without their Emperor who sought the approval of the Popes for any ruling to be practiced in your pagan Emperors domain. Again this is for another thread.

Your argument lacks the political ramifications with your pagan Emperors in the East when it came to council decisions.

We are dealing with differences here. Which reveals you forcing post schism (1054 a.d) Orthodox arguments which never existed during the Early Councils of the church when all were united with the Popes while the Eastern Church was being ruled over by their Pagan Emperors.

Pagan Emperors? Most of the emperors held to the definitions of the councils and many of them are saints within the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Do not malign the saints.

Again this subject calls for another thread; Wow Iam impressed that out of the blue Orthodoxy found another pope to teach error? This is new to me? The Greek Pope Honorius who was sympathetic to his Eastern heterodox via mail presented “private” letters with leanings to heterdoxy “AFTER THE POPE HAD BEEN DEAD 40 YEARS LATER”.

This Greek Pope never taught heresy as a pope. As far as his personal leanings whether he liked chocolate ice cream or vanilla, Pope Honorius while he lived never taught heterodoxy. The reason the councils labeled him a heretic so that the Orthodox teaching heterodox can remain heretics along with their private letters from a 40 year old dead pope.

The see of Peter never fell into heresy is not my opinion, but Jesus promise. I only repeat what history records and what many great historical scholars past and present have recorded and proclaim. But this is another thread.

In summary another difference between Catholics in the West and Orthodox is how history is weighed. Try hearing both sides and then read the historical accounts for yourself and weigh them. Hearing a one sided argument never helps.

Peace be with you

Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, not against Rome. Perhaps you should attempt to hear both sides, instead of adhering to some sort of anachronistic view of the papacy which is not consistent with history.

 

[Marybeloved]

The matter of Honorius is not as clear and shut as polemicists like to make it. It has been thrashed out on these forums many times before, I’ve just read a heated “discussion” on it here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487009&page=10
Honorius is discussed from around the 8th/9th/10th page onward to the last page (20th) where Contrarini (+others) and Josie L (+others) present the opposite views on it.

Use the search engine to find the many other threads on it.
Catholics and others interested can look at Catholic Answers main site for a Catholic take on it- There are good articles there.

Bottom line, don’t allow Polemicists to deceive you into thinking that the matter is open and shut one way or the other.

Peace!

 

[louis91766]

I’ll help you out with the differences…

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe in the “Filioque” which teaches that God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the God the Father and God the Son. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the God the Father but not God the son.
   *]Roman Catholics believe in the “Immaculate Conception” which teaches that the virgin Mary was born without the Original sin, that is the sin of Adam and Eve, the first people. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not agree with the Catholic belief on “Original Sin” and believe that Mary could sin but she did not.
   *]Roman Catholics believe Mary went straight up to Heaven, body and soul. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary died but her soul was received by Jesus Christ and only her soul went up to Heaven and three days later, her body went up to Heaven.
   *]Roman Catholics often use 3 dimensional statues and venerate (honor) the people who the statues are of. Eastern Orthodox Christians only use icons, and venerate (honor) the people who the icons are of.
   *]Roman Catholics believe people who are free of sin go to Heaven. People who die with venial (small) sin or the punishment due to sin go to Purgatory and are purified before entering into Heaven. People who die in mortal (big) sin go to Hell. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that in Hell, people are eternally separated from God. Eastern Orthodox Christians however believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.
   *]Roman Catholics celebrate Christmas on December 25th. Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7th
   *]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.
   *]Roman Catholic priests can not marry (except for Eastern Catholics). They are not requited to have a beard. Eastern Orthodox Priests are allowed to marry except bishops. They always have beards.
   *]Roman Catholics kneel when they are in Church. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not kneel at Church.
   *]Roman Catholics believe that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ” and they believe that Christ works through that Priest. Eastern Orthodox Christians teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis).
   *]Roman Catholic “Confirmation” is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest. Eastern Orthodox “Chrismation” is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received “chrism” from the bishop.
   
   God bless :byzsoc:
   
   David

1. 
   This is a helpful list. there are a few other issues which I don’t see right away here.
   Catholics honor the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary (as you have shown in the footnote of your post.) Orthodox do not accept this imagery, And as well Orthodox do not accept the infallibility of the Roman Pope, nor do they accept his universal jurisdiction. And Orthodox do not accept the idea of indulgences. And when Orthodox depict Mary, she is almost always depicted as holding the infant Jesus (with a very few exceptions).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8486836]The fact that you try to lump the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox together as being two divided factions within some group called “Orthodoxy” proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That would be tantamount to saying that the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church) and the Roman Catholic Church are different factions within a greater group known as “Catholicism”. The Oriental Orthodox cannot be used as an example of disunity within the Eastern Orthodox Church (unless you don’t know what you’re talking about). There was no self-correction; you are imagining things

.

Please allow me to simplify the math for you. The Catholic Church remains united as one holy Catholic and apostolic church with the apostolic successors (“bishops”) world wide united to the Chair of Peter in the popes since apostlic times.

The difference between the Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Church is;

There is never an Eastern Catholic Church as one. There are many Eastern Orthodox Church’S independent from one another “autocephalous”, some or many Eastern Orthodox Church’S due to their “autocephalous” independent traditions from one another are not in communion with one another.

This is a huge difference between the Catholic Church “always” remaining united to the Popes and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’S remaining independent from one another.

You introduced the difference of unity between Oriental and Orthodoxy. I responded in generalities in keepping with the topic at hand.

Your comparisons relating to this topic is comparing oranges to apples.

I introduced the status quo in differences of unity. You falsely quoted that “All Eastern Orthodox are united”. If you want to get more specific in the differences between the Eastern Orthodox “autocephalous” Church’S including the Eastern Orthodox who remain in heterodoxy, I would be happy to welcome your modern Eastern Orthodox approach to learn and understand why you are different from other Eastern Orthodox Church’S. But this changes the OP.

It should be noted here that many of the Eastern Orthodox holding to heterodox teachings remain Catholic and predate Constantinople, Russian Orthodox Church’s. All these remain valid sacraments and valid priesthood.

Peace be with you

 

[Swiss_Guy]

.

Please allow me to simplify the math for you. The Catholic Church remains united as one holy Catholic and apostolic church with the apostolic successors (“bishops”) world wide united to the Chair of Peter in the popes since apostlic times.

The difference between the Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Church is;

There is never an Eastern Catholic Church as one. There are many Eastern Orthodox Church’S independent from one another “autocephalous”, some or many Eastern Orthodox Church’S due to their “autocephalous” independent traditions from one another are not in communion with one another.

This is a huge difference between the Catholic Church “always” remaining united to the Popes and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’S remaining independent from one another.

You introduced the difference of unity between Oriental and Orthodoxy. I responded in generalities in keepping with the topic at hand.

Your comparisons relating to this topic is comparing oranges to apples.

I introduced the status quo in differences of unity. You falsely quoted that “All Eastern Orthodox are united”. If you want to get more specific in the differences between the Eastern Orthodox “autocephalous” Church’S including the Eastern Orthodox who remain in heterodoxy, I would be happy to welcome your modern Eastern Orthodox approach to learn and understand why you are different from other Eastern Orthodox Church’S. But this changes the OP.

It should be noted here that many of the Eastern Orthodox holding to heterodox teachings remain Catholic and predate Constantinople, Russian Orthodox Church’s. All these remain valid sacraments and valid priesthood.

Peace be with you

For what you bolded I’m assuming you meant Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic, since they are apart of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For what you bolded I’m assuming you meant Eastern Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic, since they are apart of the Holy Catholic Church.

Forgive me, Iam using Eastern Catholic Church definition pre- 1054 Schism when all were one. During this time, there is also never an Eastern Orthodox Church as one separated or out of communion with the Popes authority.

Post schism the Eastern Orthodox Church changes the Orthodox definition from its original definition from the early Church Councils to define Eastern Orthodox Church’s a separation from the Popes. There is never an Eastern Orthodox Church, there are Eastern Orthodox Church’S. Post schism Heterodox Catholics take on their Eastern counterpart name of “Orthodox”.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Forgive me, Iam using Eastern Catholic Church definition pre- 1054 Schism when all were one. During this time, there is also never an Eastern Orthodox Church as one separated or out of communion with the Popes authority.

Ok, that makes more sense.

 

[Cavaradossi]

.

Please allow me to simplify the math for you. The Catholic Church remains united as one holy Catholic and apostolic church with the apostolic successors (“bishops”) world wide united to the Chair of Peter in the popes since apostlic times.

The difference between the Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Church is;

There is never an Eastern Catholic Church as one. There are many Eastern Orthodox Church’S independent from one another “autocephalous”, some or many Eastern Orthodox Church’S due to their “autocephalous” independent traditions from one another are not in communion with one another.

You are wrong; the 14 autocephalous churches of Eastern Orthodoxy are in communion with each other. Churches which are not in communion with the others are not part of Eastern Orthodoxy. It has been this way since before the schism.

This is a huge difference between the Catholic Church “always” remaining united to the Popes and the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church’S remaining independent from one another.

You introduced the difference of unity between Oriental and Orthodoxy. I responded in generalities in keepping with the topic at hand.

Only in the Roman Church, which essentially isolated itself from all other forms of apostolic Christianity after the East-West schism has come to the erroneous conclusion that the Roman Church is the center of unity. Holding the same faith and having free intercommunion is the true mark of unity, not the papacy.

Your comparisons relating to this topic is comparing oranges to apples.

No, it’s not.

I introduced the status quo in differences of unity. You falsely quoted that “All Eastern Orthodox are united”. If you want to get more specific in the differences between the Eastern Orthodox “autocephalous” Church’S including the Eastern Orthodox who remain in heterodoxy, I would be happy to welcome your modern Eastern Orthodox approach to learn and understand why you are different from other Eastern Orthodox Church’S. But this changes the OP.

It should be noted here that many of the Eastern Orthodox holding to heterodox teachings remain Catholic and predate Constantinople, Russian Orthodox Church’s. All these remain valid sacraments and valid priesthood.

What status quo? You make an allegation that there is disunity within the Eastern Orthodox Church, but cannot provide evidence to support your claim.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;8491469]You are wrong; the 14 autocephalous churches of Eastern Orthodoxy are in communion with each other. Churches which are not in communion with the others are not part of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let’s be reasonable here; there are 21 rites in the Catholic Church, you claim to only be united to 14 autocephalous church’s. The Roman “latin” Rite is just one of the 21 Catholic rites. You do the math.

If you claim Eastern Orthodoxy is only in communion with the 14 “autocephalous” Church’s and deny that the other Byzantine Liturgical practicing Catholics from the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy are not part of your Byzantine unity from Orthodoxy is another argument which deals with your modern Orthodoxy not Orthodoxy from antiquity united to the Popes.

In other words what you deny as Catholics who practice the Byzantine rite not being in communion with your Byzantine rite are not really Eastern Orthodoxy, even though they predate the schism of 1054 as you quote “the others are not part of Eastern Orthodoxy” but are “fringe groups?” This leads me to think; we are NOT on the same page?

Sometimes it does good to have another Eastern Orthodox or Catholic to chime in here who can decipher our mindsets here. Because you leave me bewildered from your statements excluding other Catholic Rites holding to the Byzantine liturgy as “fringe groups” and not Orthodox who hold to the same Catholic Rite you hold too?

I am willing to settle the matter here if you are willing to accept that not all Catholics holding to the Byzantine rite are not in communion with one another. Eastern Orthodox holding to the Byzantine rite are united who refuse communion with the Popes. While all Latin rite Catholics world wide including some Catholics holding to the Byzantine rite are united as one in the Catholic Church with the Chair of Peter presided by the Popes who are the bishops of Rome where both Peter and Paul’s (relics) bones remain to this day.

Let’s be clear here; One who refuses communion with the Popes is the one removing oneself from the Popes, not the Popes removing himself out of communion with the other. In short the Popes never removed himself from unity of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox who refuse communion with the popes remove themselves from unity in the Cahtolic Church.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

You got it wrong. I mean, the idea is right but what you argued here is the high level understanding of the differences without any understanding of what the difference actually is.

I’ll help you out with the differences…

1. 
   *]Roman Catholics believe in the “Filioque” which teaches that God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the God the Father and God the Son. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the God the Father but not God the son.

1. 
   This is explained wrong. The issue is how the Greek for “proceeds” is understood when translated to Latin. In the Latin sense, it doesn’t make sense. In the Greek sense, it does. You’re talking about two languages, two cultures, two philosophies. The explanation isn’t as simple as one believing in the procession of the Holy Spirit from Jesus. The issue is about what the word “procession” means.
   

   *]Roman Catholics believe in the “Immaculate Conception” which teaches that the virgin Mary was born without the Original sin, that is the sin of Adam and Eve, the first people. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not agree with the Catholic belief on “Original Sin” and believe that Mary could sin but she did not.

   Again, wrong. The Eastern belief is not about rejecting Mary’s exemption from Original Sin. In the Eastern understanding of the Fall, there is no original sin that is inherited by every man. The Eastern praxis state that Adam’s sin changed our very nature, our nature now is in a fallen state. We are born into this state. We do not inherit any kind of stain on our soul. So if there is no such thing as original sin, what does Mary get exempted from? That is why there is no such thing as Immaculate Conception in the East. But we do believe and profess that the Theotokos is pure and immaculate throughout her entire life, including from the moment of conception.
   

   *]Roman Catholics believe Mary went straight up to Heaven, body and soul. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary died but her soul was received by Jesus Christ and only her soul went up to Heaven and three days later, her body went up to Heaven.

   No, Mary was assumed body and soul. Read about the Dormition. Mary died, was resurrected and then immediately assumed into heaven. You can’t be resurrected if your body and soul is separated.
   

   *]Roman Catholics often use 3 dimensional statues and venerate (honor) the people who the statues are of. Eastern Orthodox Christians only use icons, and venerate (honor) the people who the icons are of.

   Icons aren’t just images of people. But all those who are in heaven. Also icons are used to tell a story. So the imagery of an icon is deep with symbolism. Like Bishop saints usually have their hands positioned in the Christogram which is how priests and bishops give blessings to the faithful. And of course there are icons which depict events, such as those we celebrate as feasts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

continued…

*]Roman Catholics believe people who are free of sin go to Heaven. People who die with venial (small) sin or the punishment due to sin go to Purgatory and are purified before entering into Heaven. People who die in mortal (big) sin go to Hell. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe all people go to Hades when they die (though there are some exceptions such as Jesus and Mary), and at the end of time, good people go to Heaven and bad people go to Hell. There are two parts of Hades, Abraham’s Bosom for good people and Tartarus for bad.

Again, wrong. We have saints. Eastern saints are not in Hades. Although there is a belief of praying FOR saints as well. Even though they are in heaven, they are still levels of closeness to God. So we pray that they may be closer and closer.

*]Roman Catholics believe that in Hell, people are eternally separated from God. Eastern Orthodox Christians however believe that Hell and Heaven are in the same realm, and that they are both in God’s presence, and that there is no separation from God.

Close but not quite. Hell is essentially one man eternally being aware of God and His love, but eternally reject God’s love. That unwillingness to accept God’s love is the cause of pain.

*]Roman Catholics celebrate Christmas on December 25th. Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate Christmas on January 7th

As explained above, Christmas is December 25 always. Some Orthodox do use the Gregorian Calendar, so they celebrate on the same day as Roman Catholics. Some use the Julian Calendar. The issue is that December 25 on the Julian Calendar is January 7 on the Gregorian. So its wrong to say that those on the Julian celebrate on January 7. Because from the perspective of those using the Julian Calendar, its only December 25.

*]Roman Catholics believe Jesus Christ died to appease the wrath of God the father brought upon by the sin of Adam and of humanity. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus Christ by the cross was united with humanity in all its suffering and took upon the suffering of sin rather taking upon the wrath of God the father.

Jesus Christ became man so that men may become gods. Theosis. The objective of Eastern life.

*]Roman Catholic priests can not marry (except for Eastern Catholics). They are not requited to have a beard. Eastern Orthodox Priests are allowed to marry except bishops. They always have beards.

Eastern Orthodox priests are NOT allowed to marry.
However, married men are allowed to be ordained to the priesthood.

*]Roman Catholics kneel when they are in Church. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not kneel at Church.

Only on Sundays. There are kneeling Vespers and during Lent there is plenty of kneeling in church.

*]Roman Catholics believe that the Sacraments are effective on account of the priest who acts "in the person of Christ” and they believe that Christ works through that Priest. Eastern Orthodox Christians teach that their material elements (bread, wine, water, chrism, etc.) become grace-filled by the calling of the Holy Spirit (epiklesis).

*]Roman Catholic “Confirmation” is separated from the Baptism and is performed by the bishop and not the priest. Eastern Orthodox “Chrismation” is performed with Baptism by a priest who has received “chrism” from the bishop.

God bless :byzsoc:

David

Incomplete. Adults that convert to the RC receive all 3 Sacraments at the same time. And priests do get to give confirmation more often than not. Priests in the RC also have chrism with them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Let’s be reasonable here; there are 21 rites in the Catholic Church, you claim to only be united to 14 autocephalous church’s. The Roman “latin” Rite is just one of the 21 Catholic rites. You do the math.

If you claim Eastern Orthodoxy is only in communion with the 14 “autocephalous” Church’s and deny that the other Byzantine Liturgical practicing Catholics from the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy are not part of your Byzantine unity from Orthodoxy is another argument which deals with your modern Orthodoxy not Orthodoxy from antiquity united to the Popes.

In other words what you deny as Catholics who practice the Byzantine rite not being in communion with your Byzantine rite are not really Eastern Orthodoxy, even though they predate the schism of 1054 as you quote “the others are not part of Eastern Orthodoxy” but are “fringe groups?” This leads me to think; we are NOT on the same page?

Sometimes it does good to have another Eastern Orthodox or Catholic to chime in here who can decipher our mindsets here. Because you leave me bewildered from your statements excluding other Catholic Rites holding to the Byzantine liturgy as “fringe groups” and not Orthodox who hold to the same Catholic Rite you hold too?

I am willing to settle the matter here if you are willing to accept that not all Catholics holding to the Byzantine rite are not in communion with one another. Eastern Orthodox holding to the Byzantine rite are united who refuse communion with the Popes. While all Latin rite Catholics world wide including some Catholics holding to the Byzantine rite are united as one in the Catholic Church with the Chair of Peter presided by the Popes who are the bishops of Rome where both Peter and Paul’s (relics) bones remain to this day.

Let’s be clear here; One who refuses communion with the Popes is the one removing oneself from the Popes, not the Popes removing himself out of communion with the other. In short the Popes never removed himself from unity of the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox who refuse communion with the popes remove themselves from unity in the Cahtolic Church.

Peace be with you

May you be reminded that indeed it was the West which hit off the East-West schism with Cardinal Humbert’s illegitimate bull of excommunication, which among other things accused the Easterners of, “deleting the filioque from the Creed.” What rubbish.

There is nothing further to debate or settle, as all you have done is make non sequitur arguments in an attempt to “prove” that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not one unified body of Churches. I stand by my original statement that Eastern Orthodoxy is one unified body of Churches because it is correct, and no amount of covering your ears and talking past me while wishing that your erroneous arguments will challenge the veracity of my original statement that, “[The Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy are] independent jurisdictionally, but still unified and in full communion nonetheless,” will change that. None of this irrelevant stuff you have posted about Eastern Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, or the Pope has disproved my original point (because not one of them is relevant to the unity of Eastern Orthodoxy, and hence all three are non-sequitur arguments), and by this time, I believe that either out of ignorance, some sort of misunderstanding, or pride, you do not wish to admit that your assertion that Eastern Orthodoxy is not one body of united Autocephalous Churches is false.

 

[Hesychios]

Let’s be reasonable here; there are 21 rites in the Catholic Church, …

No there aren’t, there are only about five ritual traditions (depending on how they are counted).

It is 21 Roman Catholic churches, each of which share the rite they use with at least one other church. In the USA the Byzantine Catholics and the Ukrainian Catholics share the same rite and are only separated because they could not get along, the division is entirely artificial.

Even the Latin rite is shared. The Ethiopian church uses both the Latin rite and the Coptic rite, because when the Roman Catholic missions were established they intended to poach the Christians of that country to Roman Catholicism in the Latin rite. After they saw the disappointing results the missionaries began to imitate the local priests and borrowed the local Coptic rite, it was controversial in it’s day, at first Rome disapproved, but now the missionary who started the practice has been canonized. It is interesting that they did not concentrate on converting the local Muslims, but went after the Christians.

The 20 Eastern Catholic churches all together constitute about 1-1/2% of all Roman Catholics.

 

[Marybeloved]

The 20 Eastern Catholic churches all together constitute about 1-1/2% of all Roman Catholics.

How can they be ***1% of all Roman Catholics ***when they’re not Roman Catholics at all but Eastern Catholics?

 

[Hesychios]

How can they be ***1% of all Roman Catholics ***when they’re not Roman Catholics at all but Eastern Catholics?

They are not Latin Catholics, but they are under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff at Rome (and also east of Rome - their relation to Rome defines them).

 

[Marybeloved]

They are not Latin Catholics, but they are under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff at Rome (and also east of Rome - their relation to Rome defines them).

Being in communion with the Bishop of Rome and recognizing his headship as Vicar of Christ in the Universal Church and successor to St. Peter is what makes them Catholics.

Roman Catholics are Catholics in the diocese of Rome and Latin Catholics are Catholics of the Latin Rite. All Catholics outside these two groups are in no way Roman Catholics. This sounds like an external imposition of an alien concept of the Church that is false.

 

[Marybeloved]

Again, wrong. The Eastern belief is not about rejecting Mary’s exemption from Original Sin. In the Eastern understanding of the Fall, there is no original sin that is inherited by every man. The Eastern praxis state that Adam’s sin changed our very nature, our nature now is in a fallen state. We are born into this state. We do not inherit any kind of stain on our soul. So if there is no such thing as original sin, what does Mary get exempted from? That is why there is no such thing as Immaculate Conception in the East. But we do believe and profess that the Theotokos is pure and immaculate throughout her entire life, including from the moment of conception.

-But do you believe that Mary’s nature was fallen as per your explanation of fallen here?
-Do you believe that she had the law of the members (tendency to sin) in her nature?
-Does this fallen nature, according to your understanding, not affect the human soul?

From my reading of orthodox statements on this board, it seems that the belief is that Mary was no different than any other human apart from the fact that she did not sin- So she inherited a fallen nature with it’s tendency to evil like everyone else.

If so, then the underlined bit above is inaccurate. Because with regards to this fallen nature and its law of the members/tendency to sin, the Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary was exempt from it- For Catholics, Mary was as free of original sin (consequences of Adam’s sin) and ancestral sin as E.O like to call their understanding, as Eve was at her creation, before the fall.

PS- Catholic teaching on “the stain of original sin” refers to a lack of something lost from the human nature handed on from generation to generation, not its guilt in terms of fault for Adam’s sin as we carry fault for personal sin, but guilt only in terms of sharing in the punishment/ consequences of Adam’s sin, including death, though we ourselves did not eat the fruit. Adam and Eve only carries the personal guilt/fault, as each of us for all our personal evil choices.

 

[Cavaradossi]

-But do you believe that Mary’s nature was fallen as per your explanation of fallen here?
-Do you believe that she had the law of the members (tendency to sin) in her nature?
-Does this fallen nature, according to your understanding, not affect the human soul?

From my reading of orthodox statements on this board, it seems that the belief is that Mary was no different than any other human apart from the fact that she did not sin- So she inherited a fallen nature with it’s tendency to evil like everyone else.

If so, then the underlined bit above is inaccurate. Because with regards to this fallen nature and its law of the members/tendency to sin, the Catholic doctrine teaches that Mary was exempt from it- For Catholics, Mary was as free of original sin (consequences of Adam’s sin) and ancestral sin as E.O like to call their understanding, as Eve was at her creation, before the fall.

PS- Catholic teaching on “the stain of original sin” refers to a lack of something lost from the human nature handed on from generation to generation, not its guilt in terms of fault for Adam’s sin as we carry fault for personal sin, but guilt only in terms of sharing in the punishment/ consequences of Adam’s sin, including death, though we ourselves did not eat the fruit. Adam and Eve only carries the personal guilt/fault, as each of us for all our personal evil choices.

What about death? In the Eastern tradition, she dies and is subsequently assumed into heaven. Is the immaculate conception consistent with the Virgin Mary dying? Why would she die if she had not been born with a fallen human nature?

 

[Marybeloved]

What about death? In the Eastern tradition, she dies and is subsequently assumed into heaven. Is the immaculate conception consistent with the Virgin Mary dying? Why would she die if she had not been born with a fallen human nature?

Jesus died- Did he have a fallen human nature? To Catholics Mary did not die of necessity like us, but out of unity and conformity with her son.