Differences in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

[Hesychios]

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.

With all due respect, Orthodox are also Catholic. We do not use the term here because of the confusion it can create. I am happy therefore, to call myself an Orthodox Christian here in order to maintain the distinction between us. Your use of the term is creating confusion by implying that Catholics not under the authority of the Pope are not Catholics. So I can either use Roman Catholic, or Catholic under the Pope, or Papal Catholic … whatever you like. I aim to please.

But I cannot in any way make a statement that suggests that my church is not Catholic in the fullest and purest form of the term. To do so would be a sin on my part.

You, on the other hand, are making an artificial case probably because you think some Protestants coined the expression, and you may also think that anyone not under the Pope cannot possibly be Catholic. If that were really so, we have no need for dialog. We could go back to the old ways.

You should be happy, I think the term Roman Catholic is a compliment. I know many people who grew up thinking they were Roman catholics all their lives, until they got here and found out that people like you don’t like the term and are trying to impose your own ideas on all your fellows.

The list of members here at CAF who have identified themselves as Roman Catholics is pretty long, I wonder how many of them live in the diocese of Rome

Perhaps surprisingly, in the east terms just like it were used to denote Orthodox Catholic Christians, who always considered themselves Romans. It is definitely something to be proud of.

 

[Hesychios]

… To Catholics Mary did not die of necessity like us, but out of unity and conformity with her son.

Can you point out the relevant canons or catechism statements that back up this assertion?

The way you present it, makes me think perhaps Patriarch Bartholomew was right when he said your faith and mine have become ontologically different.

 

[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?

I’d also ask you in return, how did Mary remain sinless with a fallen nature without a special grace from God over and above all her peers? She had no access to Baptism or the sacraments- How could she resist sin all her life without a special grant of grace? Do the Orthodox believe that grace is necessary for fallen man to attain to holiness? If so, by what process and at which point was Mary granted this grace? Was there any baby ever, who after baptism, chrismation, even partaking of Eucharist in wine and being raised with the sacraments, managed to remain free of any sin at all?

From what I read here from many Orthodox, the opposition to the Immaculate Conception is- It makes Mary different and special- They even like to say “She’s the great example, not the great exception”- Can a fallen human nature, without any special grace, remain for an entire life w/out sin? If Mary was given nothing special, then it seems to me that according to this view, she definitely was the great exception.

 

[OnlyHeIsHoly]

Just for accuracy, some Eastern Orthodox Churches on the new calendar do celebrate Christmas on December 25th. Either way (old or new calendar), the date is properly December 25th, it’s just that the Julian calendar is 13 days off from the Gregorian calendar (hence, December 25 on the Julian is January 7th on the Gregorian). The other thing is that kneeling does happen in Church, but properly, it should not happen on Sunday.

Please explain why it should not happen on sunday

 

[Marybeloved]

With all due respect, Orthodox are also Catholic. We do not use the term here because of the confusion it can create. I am happy therefore, to call myself an Orthodox Christian here in order to maintain the distinction between us. Your use of the term is creating confusion by implying that Catholics not under the authority of the Pope are not Catholics. So I can either use Roman Catholic, or Catholic under the Pope, or Papal Catholic … whatever you like. I aim to please.

But I cannot in any way make a statement that suggests that my church is not Catholic in the fullest and purest form of the term. To do so would be a sin on my part.

You can call your Church whatever you like. Mine is called simply the Catholic Church- And the world knows exactly who you’re referring to when you say “the Catholic Church” Just as as it understands who you’re referring to when you say “the Orthodox”. It’s a sin for me to think that my Church is not orthodox, but my Church’s name in all her official statements is the Catholic Church

And No- You may not impose on me and my Church a foreign name of your own creation that is both false and alien to us, just to "make a distinction" as if “Orthodox” did not already make that distinction quite clear to those reading these posts.

 

[Marybeloved]

Can you point out the relevant canons or catechism statements that back up this assertion?

The way you present it, makes me think perhaps Patriarch Bartholomew was right when he said your faith and mine have become ontologically different.

Here’s the relevant statement from the Catholic encyclopedia page titled The Blessed Virgin;

There is still less historical information concerning the particular incidents of her life. St. Epiphanius [134] doubts even the reality of Mary’s death; but the universal belief of the Church does not agree with the private opinion of St. Epiphanius. Mary’s death was not necessarily the effect of violence; it was undergone neither as an expiation or penalty, nor as the effect of disease from which, like her Divine Son, she was exempt. Since the Middle Ages the view prevails that she died of love, her great desire to be united to her Son either dissolving the ties of body and soul, or prevailing on God to dissolve them. Her passing away is a sacrifice of love completing the dolorous sacrifice of her life. It is the death in the kiss of the Lord (in osculo Domini), of which the just die.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please explain why it should not happen on sunday

There is a canon from the council of Nicaea which says that Sundays and the the Paschal season (from Easter until Pentecost) should be free of kneeling, as kneeling is a gesture of penance which is inappropriate for the celebration of the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’d also ask you in return, how did Mary remain sinless with a fallen nature without a special grace from God over and above all her peers? She had no access to Baptism or the sacraments- How could she resist sin all her life without a special grant of grace? Do the Orthodox believe that grace is necessary for fallen man to attain to holiness? If so, by what process and at which point was Mary granted this grace? Was there any baby ever, who after baptism, chrismation, even partaking of Eucharist in wine and being raised with the sacraments, managed to remain free of any sin at all?

From what I read here from many Orthodox, the opposition to the Immaculate Conception is- It makes Mary different and special- They even like to say “She’s the great example, not the great exception”- Can a fallen human nature, without any special grace, remain for an entire life w/out sin? If Mary was given nothing special, then it seems to me that according to this view, she definitely was the great exception.

That’s what Protestants might say (Mary is the great example). The Orthodox do believe that she was exceptional, being the Theotokos (higher than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim as one prayer puts it). But to say that she was somehow ontologically different (that is to say that her manner of existence was fundamentally different from ours) is troubling.

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s what Protestants might say (Mary is the great example). The Orthodox do believe that she was exceptional, being the Theotokos (higher than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim as one prayer puts it).

This is great to know! Really!- Because I always thought that attitude was a bit odd- After all, why shouldn’t she be exceptional? As you put it, she’s the Theotokos- God-bearer! If that alone does not place her in a very special, exceptional, unique category, I have no idea what can .

But to say that she was somehow ontologically different (that is to say that her manner of existence was fundamentally different from ours) is troubling.

Fair enough. But may I ask why it’s troubling?

 

[Hesychios]

Here’s the relevant statement from the Catholic encyclopedia page titled The Blessed Virgin …

It is hard to tell whether this is official teaching, or the opinion of the author.

However, it is telling that the article admits it is not in fact Apostolic teaching but an evolved idea from a later date (actually, a rather imprecise term ‘Middle Ages’).

In addition, no saint wills to die, that is suicide, a grave sin if it is chosen. Life is a Gift.

One would think she rather resigned herself to her fate, like the rest of us. You are implying she was not subject to death at all … ergo: the choice.

 

[Hesychios]

You can call your Church whatever you like.

No offense intended.

Have it your way, I will call your communion Catholic under the Pope, or perhaps Papal Catholic for short.

I am glad we can now put this behind us.

 

[Marybeloved]

It is hard to tell whether this is official teaching, or the opinion of the author.

However, it is telling that the article admits it is not in fact Apostolic teaching but an evolved idea from a later date.

In addition, no saint wills to die, that is suicide, a grave sin if it is chosen.

One would think she rather resigned herself to her fate, like the rest of us. You are implying she was not subject to death at all … ergo: the choice.

The reason for her death was not Adam’s sin but her unity in mind, will and body with her divine son.

I don’t know about your saints, but ours very willingly desire and yearn to suffer and die with the suffering and death of the Christ. Unless you think that Catholics believe that Mary swallowed poison or hang herself, I honestly do not see how you could describe Mary’s perfect desire to be conformed with her son in every way, including death, as suicide. Her love and desire, so strong that it would bring this to be or God would make it be, is not suicide- And like I said, enough of our Saints crave with a deep craving to die countless times for Christ, if only it were possible, and this more so as they become holier- so your suicide comment is very strange to me indeed.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The reason for her death was not Adam’s sin but her unity in mind, will and body with her divine son.

I don’t know about your saints, but ours very willingly desire and yearn to suffer and die with the suffering and death of the Christ. Unless you think that Catholics believe that Mary swallowed poison or hang herself, I honestly do not see how you could describe Mary’s perfect desire to be conformed with her son in every way, including death, as suicide. Her love and desire, so strong that it would bring this to be or God would make it be, is not suicide- And like I said, enough of our Saints crave with a deep craving to die countless times for Christ, if only it were possible, and this more so as they become holier- so your suicide comment is very strange to me indeed.

Correct.

 

[Marybeloved]

No offense intended.

Thank you.

Have it your way, I will call your communion Catholic under the Pope, or perhaps Papal Catholic for short.

I am glad we can now put this behind us.

I’m not eager to fight, either.

My main issue was calling Eastern Catholics, Roman Catholics, but Catholics with the pope is not offensive to me- So yeah, we’ll put the matter behind us.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t know about your saints, but ours very willingly desire and yearn to suffer and die with the suffering and death of the Christ. …

Now you are equating her death with martyrdom.

That is not traditional. She died a natural death, as did Saint John the beloved disciple.

 

[Marybeloved]

Now you are equating her death with martyrdom.

That is not traditional. She died a natural death, as did Saint John the beloved disciple.

I’ve said clearly what manner of death she died. My quotations from the Catholic encyclopedia also indicate clearly that she suffered no violence- so any pretence that we are saying that Mary died unnaturally in the sense of being murdered is, just as with the suicide comment above, a pretense.

Again, I don’t know about your saints, but ours experience the same identification with the suffering and death of our Lord as I described earlier, whether or not they are actually martyred. Bottom line is that Mary identified with it more than any other person and her wish to conform with him by death just as she had in life was granted her, just as the Lord would conform her with him in the glorification of her body as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

-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.

If Mary is of a different nature from us, then Christ would not have shared our nature and he wouldn’t have been able to redeem our nature.

 

[Marybeloved]

If Mary is of a different nature from us, then Christ would not have shared our nature and he wouldn’t have been able to redeem our nature.

This is quite strange- Why is that exactly?

Do you believe that Jesus’ human nature was itself fallen? What do you mean when you say that “he would not have shared our nature” or been able to redeem it?

Your phrase is quite off- Mary is not “of a different nature”. Both she and Christ are perfectly human and Adam’s descendants. What they do not have are the unnatural effects of Adam’s sin and its corruption on human nature.

PS- Sin is not human nature- It’s the corruption of human nature. Adam and Eve were created human and perfectly sinless- God did not mix sin in, along with the dust and the breath of life when he made the creature “mankind”. Sin and the law of the members/tending to evil, are therefore very unnatural to man- A disease.

Regardless of what you believe about Mary’s nature, Jesus’ nature was perfect and not fallen or corrupted, so your comment would apply to all Christendom if it were true! If sin and corruption is what constitutes human nature, then Jesus did not share our nature- Again, this would be true of all Christendom (per your reasoning) regardless of what you thought about Mary’s nature being fallen or not.

 

[Marybeloved]

It’s my understanding from scouring the net that it is a bonafide tradition held by Orthodox and Catholics alike, that Mary gave birth painlessly.

Knowing that birth pains were a direct result of sin and a curse/punishment on mankind for all generations, a part of our fallen nature- Does this not indicate that Mary was at least to some extent exempt from the consequences of the first sin on man-kind? This painlessness surely cannot be credited to her own action, but to God’s as it is not about her own will but something in her body and of her very nature that indicates a difference.

I guess I’m asking Hesychios, Cavaradossi and/or Constantine G, how the Orthodox understand Mary’s lack of birth pains vis-a-vis her nature?

 

[Hesychios]

It’s my understanding from scouring the net that it is a bonafide tradition held by Orthodox and Catholics alike, that Mary gave birth painlessly.

Knowing that birth pains were a direct result of sin and a curse/punishment on mankind for all generations, a part of our fallen nature- Does this not indicate that Mary was at least to some extent exempt from the consequences of the first sin on man-kind? This painlessness surely cannot be credited to her own action, but to God’s as it is not about her own will but something in her body and of her very nature that indicates a difference.

I guess I’m asking Hesychios, Cavaradossi and/or Constantine G, how the Orthodox understand Mary’s lack of birth pains vis-a-vis her nature?

The problems with this are several (I am at work presently, so I have to work fast). I can only share a few thoughts.

There doesn’t seem to be any historical evidence of the conditions of the Saviour’s birth, so it is possible to have a multitude of opinions of the subject. The idea that the birth was painless was a popular legend. It may be true.

Let us assume for arguments sake that it is true. Saint Mary, the Holy Theotokos did not give birth to any other children so (if the account were accurate) we cannot know if this was due to a special condition inherent in Saint Mary or because it was the Lord who was born. In other words there is always the possibility that the birth of other children would have been painful. So the ‘evidence’ (if it was evidence) is inconclusive. There is not enough to go on here, so the account is neutral for our purposes.

All we have then, is the historical account of her death, and what that fact meant to the Christians of the day. We cannot go by what we would like to believe, nor with what ‘makes sense’ to us from this vantage point 2000 years later, we have to confront the facts.

The fact is that she definitely died, and had to be buried. The interpretation the early Christians gave to this was that she died.

The tomb was opened to be found empty. The interpretation the early Christians gave to thuis was that she was assumed into heaven as the First Fruits of the coming Resurrection. In other words, they didn’t think she was a victim of grave robbers, but they did know she had died and was buried. They definitly believed she was assumed.

They also had no tradition of her willing her own death. It appears no where. The idea is alien to Christianity.

Whatever else we might believe about the nature of Original Sin, or Saint Mary’s role in salvation history has to conform to these facts. We cannot change the facts to conform to what we want to believe.

Changing the known facts is like the police planting evidence to get a false conviction. Regardless of what motivates a person to do this it is always wrong.