Differences in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

[Marybeloved]

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.

With all due respect Hesychios, there’s no question of “changing facts” here.

We believe she died, she was sinless, was proclaimed to be full of grace by an archangel before she said Yes to God becoming her Son, was believed early on to have given birth painlessly, was proclaimed the all-immaculate, spotless and holy, died peacefully, and was assumed into heaven, that she was understood to be the 2nd Eve in the order of grace, by the fathers (and modern Catholics and Orthodox) and was contrasted with the 1st Eve, as Christ the 2nd Adam is contrasted with the 1st Adam- All three (1st & 2nd Adam and 1st Eve) had perfect human natures and made their choices without the encumberances of fallen nature- Catholics do not see how the 2nd Eve could have a fallen nature and stand in the place of the 1st Eve.

Our interpretation of the facts is that she died out of conformity to Christ as with all things in her life, as also with the Saints, she being holier than any of them and loving Christ more than all of them, she was also conformed to him in her bodily resurrection. Is there a tradition that outlines all her inner thoughts and acts of the will? I don’t believe so. Catholic interpretation makes sense of all the known facts and salvation history.

If we are "changing the facts" you’ll need to show us the contrasting beliefs (that Mary had a fallen nature and she suffered the curses of the fall) from the Early Church.

Peace!

 

[Hesychios]

Is there a tradition that outlines all her inner thoughts and acts of the will? I don’t believe so.

Then no one can state that she willed her own death, for any reason.

 

[Wesley7]

lol this thread got off-track . . . why did it end up being about Blessed Virgin Mary?

 

[Wesley7]

Why did this thread end up being about Virgin Mary? , ,

 

[Marybeloved]

Then no one can state that she willed her own death, for any reason.

I beg to differ! It is indicated by the sum of all the facts of her life and our understanding of the faith!- If you have tradition/facts that indicate the contrary, you’re free to produce it!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hesychios;8493102]No there aren’t, there are only about five ritual traditions (depending on how they are counted).

This can become huge when dealing with the different rites both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Heterodox (Orthodox) rites. Suffice to say, there are at least** 7 **Byzantine rites and this is just the beginning.

Well if your going to break it down this way there are only Two Catholic family rites Byzantine and Roman. The diversity of rites arrive to both Roman and Byzantine rites today.

Although the liturgy of St.John Chrysostom carries the Antiochene heritage to Byzantine ( Multiple rites consisting of the Chaldean East Syrian, (Coptic, Ethiopian included in the Alexandria rite of St. Mark which bears the marks of Byzantine influences) Armenian which follows the Byzantine liturgy.

When the West contained 3 great rites alongside the Roman liturgy similar to the Latin Liturgy of Africa stood the Gallican liturgy closely related to the Mozarabic liturgy, not to exclude the West Syrian and Maronite rites. See what I mean this topic grows huge and complicated.

Now these are just historical accounts and are off topic at hand. The Question is; Are the Eastern Orthodox in full communion with all these Eastern Orthodox holding “Byzantine” rites and dare I say Western Latin rite Catholic Church including those Orthodox in full communion with the Popes who themselves hold to a Byzantine liturgy?

This has been the main emphasis of my point. Those in the Western Catholic including the latin rite are all united as one in the Popes including Orthodox Church’s practicing an Eastern Byzantine liturgy.

While the Eastern Orthodox being autocephalous from one another also refuse to be in communion with those Eastern Orthodox who maintain the Byzantine liturgy as well as the Popes. This speaks volumes of Orthodoxy who themselves are not in communion with each other.

Eastern Orthodox is not in full communion with other Eastern Orthodox church’s practicing variations of the Byzantine rite. Grant it that Eastern Orthodox refuses to recognize other Orthodox Catholics in the Byzantine liturgical rite as one of them partly because Eastern Orthodox “Autocephalous” Supreme authority pretends to makes it so?

This is the question being addressed here, not how many rites are in the Catholic church.

It is 21 Roman Catholic churches, each of which share the rite they use with at least one other church.

Your the first and only Orthodox in the world who believes there exist 21 Roman Catholic churches.

To be sure any one metropolitan city in the free world may far exceed 21 Roman Catholic Churches alone. There is only “ONE” Roman Catholic Church practicing the latin rite united to the Pope. Are there other Catholic Rites united to the Popes yes as stated above including Orthodox Catholics holding to a Byzantine rite remain united to the Popes. While some Eastern Orthodox holding to a Byzantine rite refuse to be in communion with each other as well as the popes.

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

I would call into question the modern USA Byzantine Catholics, it becomes known that these western USA Byzantine Catholics are practicing an ancient “Anglican liturgy” whom the true Eastern Orthodox will not celebrate this USA “Byzantine” liturgy you speak of. I realize this becomes complicated why the Eastern Orthodox will not celebrate the USA Byzantine liturgy with you. Yet this adds more complicated differences between Eastern Orthodox Church’s as they try and move west.

Peace be with you

 

[Hesychios]

Why did this thread end up being about Virgin Mary? , ,

Posts 3 …31 …37 …38 etc.

 

[Marybeloved]

Why did this thread end up being about Virgin Mary? , ,

-Constantine G tried to make a clarification about the list of differences that was provided
-I corrected him on not clarifying that Catholics believe that Mary had an uncorrupted/unfallen nature, unlike Orthodox
-Cavaradossi asked how I could explain Mary’s death vis-a-vis my belief that she did not have an unfallen nature.
-I explained
-Hesychios challenged my explanation
-We’ve been debating it.

Peace!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Why did this thread end up being about Virgin Mary? , ,

I don’t see any difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics holding to a faith about Mary. Private devotions and reverence of the Mother of God is practiced in both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Theological differences from both misunderstanding and Understanding differences? maybe?

Mary is Mother of God, Blessed Virgin, without sin, Mary is in heaven.

How all this is revealed to each Orthodox and Catholic tradition? for me, each tradition never equates to denying none of the above Marian doctrines from ones Apostolic Catholic faith.

If one tradition says it was raining that day from these revelations of God , and another says it was snowing, never the less these never remove from what Catholics have always believed in “OUR” Blessed Mother the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God without sin “assumed” not resurrected into heaven.

 

[Hesychios]

This can become huge when dealing with the different rites both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Heterodox (Orthodox) rites. Suffice to say, there are at least** 7 **Byzantine rites and this is just the beginning.

I don’t know where you learned about your own church. But they are not ‘Rites’.

Why does it have to be an Orthodox that corrects you here on CAF? Is there no one else in your church that understands this?

Well if your going to break it down this way there are only Two Catholic family rites Byzantine and Roman. The diversity of rites arrive to both Roman and Byzantine rites today.

Bzzzt!

Wrong again.

Go back to the Eastern Catholic section and ask them.

Although the liturgy of St.John Chrysostom carries the Antiochene heritage to Byzantine ( Multiple rites consisting of the Chaldean East Syrian, (Coptic, Ethiopian included in the Alexandria rite of St. Mark which bears the marks of Byzantine influences) Armenian which follows the Byzantine liturgy.

I find this odd.

When the West contained 3 great rites alongside the Roman liturgy similar to the Latin Liturgy of Africa stood the Gallican liturgy closely related to the Mozarabic liturgy, not to exclude the West Syrian and Maronite rites. See what I mean this topic grows huge and complicated.

I agree it is complicated.

Your the first and only Orthodox in the world who believes there exist 21 Roman Catholic churches.

I have agreed to call them Catholic churches under the Pope.

They are officially Sui Iuris Particular Ritual Churches.

I would call into question the modern USA Byzantine Catholics, it becomes known that these western USA Byzantine Catholics are practicing an ancient “Anglican liturgy” …

You are starting to make me wonder where you get your information.

Are you claiming that Byzantine Catholics in the USA are using an Anglican liturgy

Father Tom would be surprised to hear that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

-Constantine G tried to make a clarification about the list given on differences
-I corrected him on not clarifying that Catholics believe that Mary had an uncorrupted/unfallen nature
-Cavaradossi asked how I could explain Mary’s death vis-a-vis my belief that she did not have an unfallen nature.
-I explained
-Hesychios challenged my explanation
-We’ve been debating it.

Peace!

As previously noted, ontollogically we are the same as Mary. I never said she is corrupted. I said she was born into a fallen world, which means that even though she lived through her live sinless and unblemished, still is human like you and me. If her nature is any different, then that would make her and Jesus of a different nature, then both of them will not be human. And Jesus being born into this world and dying would have no redemptive power over us.

 

[Hesychios]

I beg to differ! It is indicated by the sum of all the facts of her life and our understanding of the faith!- If you have tradition/facts that indicate the contrary, you’re free to produce it!

You are mythologizing, and that is ultimately dangerous. Saint Mary of Nazareth herself would not want anyone to make up fables about her, I feel certain. The truth is more than enough.

As long as this kind of thing continues unabated among your people I am sure the Orthodox churches will want nothing to do with the Catholic church under the Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know where you learned about your own church. But they are not ‘Rites’.

Why does it have to be an Orthodox that corrects you here on CAF? Is there no one else in your church that understands this?

I’m on the West Coast, let me get off work first

 

[Marybeloved]

You are mythologizing, and that is ultimately dangerous. Saint Mary of Nazareth herself would not want anyone to make up fables about her, I feel certain. The truth is more than enough.

Agreed! Now, when Catholics start making up fables about her, you can get back to me with this comment!

As long as this kind of thing continues unabated among your people I am sure the Orthodox churches will want nothing to do with the Catholic church under the Pope.

Well, If you want to force us to think like the East and understand our faith through the Eastern frame of mind, then certainly- that will be a problem :sad_yes: Thankfully, though, you’re neither God the Holy Spirit, nor a Bishop . So, frankly, your threats here really make no difference to me one way or the other .

I wish you well, my friend.

 

[Marybeloved]

As previously noted, ontollogically we are the same as Mary. I never said she is corrupted. I said she was born into a fallen world, which means that even though she lived through her live sinless and unblemished, still is human like you and me. If her nature is any different, then that would make her and Jesus of a different nature, then both of them will not be human. And Jesus being born into this world and dying would have no redemptive power over us.

Constantine G, Jesus was also born into a fallen World as is everyone else since Adam took a bite off that apple- His nature, though perfectly human, was not fallen, neither was his mother’s- Yours and mine, on the other hand are very much fallen. That is my Catholic take on the matter.

Thankfully, we have baptism and the sacraments, prayer, asceticism, the example and help of Our Lady and the Saints etc- So our fallen natures are slowly being restored- Hopefully, the work will be done by death and we’ll be saints, and then the body will be resurrected a the end of time and we’ll all be like Jesus and Mary!

 

[Cavaradossi]

This can become huge when dealing with the different rites both Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Heterodox (Orthodox) rites. Suffice to say, there are at least** 7 **Byzantine rites and this is just the beginning.

Are you confusing the word Byzantine with Eastern or something? There is one Byzantine rite (more properly called the Constantinopolitan rite), and that is the rite which was used by Eastern Rome in the area around Constantinople, and spread out to the city-dwelling Antiochians and to the Slavs who were evangelized by missionaries from the Church of Constantinople. This rite is the rite which regularly celebrates the divine liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, and has a system of celebrating the canonical hours which is detailed in the Horologion. If a rite does not observe these particular liturgical customs, then it is not Byzantine.

Well if your going to break it down this way there are only Two Catholic family rites Byzantine and Roman. The diversity of rites arrive to both Roman and Byzantine rites today.

That would be a gross oversimplification. As I pointed out earlier, the Byzantine rite is only one rite that contains at most two liturgies. It is more accurate to say that There are Eastern and Western rites (including Constantinopolitan, Alexandrine, Antiochian, Eastern Syrian, Western Syrian in the East, and Roman, Ambrosian, Gallician, Mozarabic, and Sarum in the West).

Although the liturgy of St.John Chrysostom carries the Antiochene heritage to Byzantine ( Multiple rites consisting of the Chaldean East Syrian, (Coptic, Ethiopian included in the Alexandria rite of St. Mark which bears the marks of Byzantine influences) Armenian which follows the Byzantine liturgy.

Incorrect, the Alexandrine rite is properly a different rite from the Byzantine rite. For one thing, the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark is a bit longer than the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and if I’m not mistaken, the bread and wine are served separately in the liturgy of St. Mark; the way the services of the canonical hours are structured in the Alexandrine rite (according to the Agpeya) and in the Byzantine rite also differs.

When the West contained 3 great rites alongside the Roman liturgy similar to the Latin Liturgy of Africa stood the Gallican liturgy closely related to the Mozarabic liturgy, not to exclude the West Syrian and Maronite rites. See what I mean this topic grows huge and complicated.

I’m not so sure that you can count the Western Syrians and Maronites as ‘Westerners’.

Now these are just historical accounts and are off topic at hand. The Question is; Are the Eastern Orthodox in full communion with all these Eastern Orthodox holding “Byzantine” rites and dare I say Western Latin rite Catholic Church including those Orthodox in full communion with the Popes who themselves hold to a Byzantine liturgy?

This has been the main emphasis of my point. Those in the Western Catholic including the latin rite are all united as one in the Popes including Orthodox Church’s practicing an Eastern Byzantine liturgy.

And this is where your argument becomes fallacious: Eastern Orthodoxy is not constituted by the Byzantine rite, just as Roman Catholicism is not constituted by the Roman rite. Greek Catholics, by virtue of their union with Rome are not Eastern Orthodox. What you are arguing is the same as saying that there is disunity within the Roman Catholic Church because of Anglicans and Lutherans, some of whom still use the Roman rite. Breaches in communion with churches which leave the communion of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (which I believe to be the Eastern Orthodox Church) are not indicative of disunity within Holy Orthodoxy, as the Churches which left are no longer part of the Church.

While the Eastern Orthodox being autocephalous from one another also refuse to be in communion with those Eastern Orthodox who maintain the Byzantine liturgy as well as the Popes. This speaks volumes of Orthodoxy who themselves are not in communion with each other.

Eastern Orthodox is not in full communion with other Eastern Orthodox church’s practicing variations of the Byzantine rite. Grant it that Eastern Orthodox refuses to recognize other Orthodox Catholics in the Byzantine liturgical rite as one of them partly because Eastern Orthodox “Autocephalous” Supreme authority pretends to makes it so?

This is the question being addressed here, not how many rites are in the Catholic church.

Again, your reasoning is fallacious. There is no reason why the Eastern Orthodox should have communion with the Eastern Catholics just because they use the same rite. Breakaway traditionalist Catholic groups use the same rite as Roman Catholics (the EF of the Mass), and yet there is no pressing need for the RCC to be united with them. The other bit of fallacious thinking is that the Orthodox are withholding intercommunion from the Eastern Catholics. Even if the Eastern Orthodox and the Greek Catholics were to reenter into communion, it would likely come at the cost of the Greek Catholics being excommunicated by Rome, as this is not something Rome would allow for.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your the first and only Orthodox in the world who believes there exist 21 Roman Catholic churches.

This would be news to your Eastern Catholic brethren who do not get hung up over semantics.

To be sure any one metropolitan city in the free world may far exceed 21 Roman Catholic Churches alone. There is only “ONE” Roman Catholic Church practicing the latin rite united to the Pope. Are there other Catholic Rites united to the Popes yes as stated above including Orthodox Catholics holding to a Byzantine rite remain united to the Popes. While some Eastern Orthodox holding to a Byzantine rite refuse to be in communion with each other as well as the popes.

Again with the fallacious assertion that there is some refusal of communion. Communion was broken when those groups either left or were forced to leave Holy Orthodoxy (usually by secular rulers looking to gain power by converting nations to Catholicism). It can be restored if they leave the Roman Catholic Church and reenter into Holy Orthodoxy, or in the unlikely event that union is achieved between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I would call into question the modern USA Byzantine Catholics, it becomes known that these western USA Byzantine Catholics are practicing an ancient “Anglican liturgy” whom the true Eastern Orthodox will not celebrate this USA “Byzantine” liturgy you speak of. I realize this becomes complicated why the Eastern Orthodox will not celebrate the USA Byzantine liturgy with you. Yet this adds more complicated differences between Eastern Orthodox Church’s as they try and move west.

This would also be news to your Eastern Catholic coreligionists, as I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any Greek Catholic Churches using an Anglican Liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine G, Jesus was also born into a fallen World as is everyone else since Adam took a bite off that apple- His nature, though perfectly human, was not fallen, neither was his mother’s- Yours and mine, on the other hand are very much fallen. That is my Catholic take on the matter.

Thankfully, we have baptism and the sacraments, prayer, asceticism, the example and help of Our Lady and the Saints etc- So our fallen natures are slowly being restored- Hopefully, the work will be done by death and we’ll be saints, and then the body will be resurrected a the end of time and we’ll all be like Jesus and Mary!

Of course Jesus is not fallen. Its humanity that is fallen and that is why Jesus needed to share our humanity so that through Him, we may be perfected.

 

[Marybeloved]

Of course Jesus is not fallen. Its humanity that is fallen and that is why Jesus needed to share our humanity so that through Him, we may be perfected.

Great! I just wanted you to see that your earlier reasoning that if Mary’s nature was not fallen, then Jesus would not share human nature is simply not true-Because either way, he shared in human nature w/out the corruption of the fall. Jesus is not fallen in any way, either in his divine nature or his human nature- so he’s part of that “humanity” that you describe. The Immaculate conception does not affect that one bit.

Peace!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Great! I just wanted you to see that your earlier reasoning that if Mary’s nature was not fallen, then Jesus would not share human nature is simply not true-Because either way, he shared in human nature w/out the corruption of the fall. Jesus is not fallen in any way, either in his divine nature or his human nature- so he’s part of that “humanity” that you describe. The Immaculate conception does not affect that one bit.

Peace!

The problem here is I’m reasoning using the Eastern Praxis. You’re reasoning with the Western. In the East there is no original sin. The nature of man and all of creation was altered by the sin of Adam. Therefore all who enter this world are part of that nature. Mary and Christ included. That is why Christ brought his perfect nature to combine with our nature so that we may be restored to what God intended us to be, His image and likeness.