Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[thunderbolt94]

Hello,

I’ve been reading this article as a way to help learn the different perspectives in trying to figure out whether if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. While I think the Eastern Orthodox church makes some good points, I felt that I wanted to get a catholic perspective on this article:

Link:
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

If you’re a catholic who is familiar with this issue, I would love to your help in seeing the catholic perspective on this article, and whether it represents Catholicism fairly.

God Bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Orthodox have a penchant for hurling the same adjectives at Catholicism like “legalistic” and “development” and “scholastic.” This article predictably makes the Orthodox sound true to the ancient Fathers and the Catholics children of the Medievel Age corrupted by scholasticism and thomism with a restless desire to innovate. It’s unfortunate.

I get disappointed when the Orthodox articles like this one seek to make the Anselmian view of the Atonement look like the doctrine of a simpleton who just doesn’t get it. While some of the Fathers speak of the ransom Christus Victor outlook, remember the Fathers are not infallible, all-perfect, all-knowing, or right 24/7. They’re men. I appreciate that the Catholic Church is holistic in its understandings of the Atonement and other theological/soteriological matters. They look at the whole picture. And I think the Catholic Church more accurately looks at Isaiah and the suffering servant who satisfies God’s justice and is a sacrifice, the Lamb of God, not just a death-stopper or ransom to the devil. In reality, God owes the devil NOTHING and I’ve never been comfortable with that imagery. I find it goofy. The Orthodox article portrays accurately what THEY believe Catholicism to be with heavy polemical language that is not surprising at all.

I wouldn’t try to get my Catholic information or catechesis from Orthodox sources. They have a heavy axe to grind I’m afraid. …unless you yourself are considering Orthodoxy.

 

[valentino]

i think this article gives a good perspective on Catholism.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Hello,

I’ve been reading this article as a way to help learn the different perspectives in trying to figure out whether if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. While I think the Eastern Orthodox church makes some good points, I felt that I wanted to get a catholic perspective on this article:

Link:
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

If you’re a catholic who is familiar with this issue, I would love to your help in seeing the catholic perspective on this article, and whether it represents Catholicism fairly.

God Bless

I’m not overly impressed with the page. If you want to see how Orthodox apologists see themselves and see Catholics, it’s good, from an athropological standpoint. But if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty details, you’ll quickly find that it’s glossed over serious problems within Orthodoxy, and misunderstands Catholicism. Some general points, sort of disorganized:

(1) If you really want to compare histories, as to which half of the Church can trace itself to the position of primacy over the whole unified Church, here’s all you need to know. The Patriarch of Constantinople calls himself the head of “Constantinople, New Rome.” You don’t see Benedict pretending to be the head of Constantinople. The whole theory behind Orthodoxy presupposes that a secular (possibly pagan) Roman Emperor can move the seat of the Catholic Church to a new location and put a different bishropic in charge.

(2) Because the Eastern Orthodox are not protected by anything like infallibility, you get things like the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church declaring himself pro-choice. If you see Pope Benedict do something like that, let me know. More strikingly, the Patriarch* declared this as the position of the E.O. Church*. Unless someone wants to seriously claim that the Church Fathers were pro-choice, I think the claim that Eastern Orthodoxy is the more faithful tradition is up right there.

(3) One of the reason Eastern Orthodoxy has struggled since the Schism is that it no longer possesses the power to call binding Ecumenical Councils. It’s humble enough to admit this, but that’s a pretty shocking concession. If any Church can call binding Councils today, it’s the Catholic Church. Since Acts 15 and early Church history clearly contemplate the ongoing use of binding Church Councils (and they’re the only reason we have things like the dogma of the Trinity), that leaves the Catholic Church.

The article you link to tries to claim that doctrinal development is somehow a Catholic innovation of Cdl. Newman. That’s false. The idea is that most Christians today, in light of what the Church has said in places like Nicea, have a clearer idea of the Trinity than most Christians in the immediate post-Apostolic age, when it was still a bit hazy. Only in exploring, putting theological ideas forward, and having the Church approve or disapprove, did it become clearer what the Christian doctrine on the nature of God was, and wasn’t. Catholicism just says that many doctrines were, and are, like this.

(4) The “Filoque” just says that the Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son. We see it clearly from Scripture, when Jesus bestows the Holy Spirit in places like John 20:22 and John 16:7. The source of the Holy Spirit is ultimately just the Father.

(5) Because Orthodoxy doesn’t have a transnational body like the papacy, it tends to be overly nationalistic. In places like Serbia and Bosnia, this has gotten ugly in the last couple decades, and in Russia before that. “Neither Greek nor Jew” doesn’t get enough play here sometimes. Catholic churches have been guilty of this at times (it explains the Anglican revolution, for one thing), but the papacy tends to temper this tendency.

The appropriate test for whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism is right isn’t which side you happen to agree with more on the divisive issues. It’s much more fundamental. Christ established a Church, and promised to be with the Church forever (Matthew 28:20), and to protect that Church always with the Holy Spirit (John 14:16), and to teach the Church everything (John 14:26; John 16:13). If those promises mean anything, they must refer to the visible Church, the One Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:17-19 and Matthew 18:17-18. And that visible Church is either Catholicism or nobody. Orthodoxy can’t figure out what it believes in on something as fundamental as abortion, and has no remaining institutional capacity to form a Spirit-protected consensus. It’s Rome or bust.

 

[Madaglan]

The article makes several good observations, sometimes not always with the clearest language, but I believe in general more or less true.

Some points need clarification. For example, while Orthodox understand Holy Unction as a mystery of healing, and Latins traditionally have understood it as a final sacrament, “Last Rites” (penance, anointing, viaticum) is well documented back into the first millenium in the West, so there is early basis for Latins understanding Holy Unction as a final sacrament, in addition to a sacrament of healing.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wow, Belloc, this is an impressive post and a great bit of reasoning. I was blown away at that patriarch clear back in 1990 saying something pro-abortion like that. I’ve never heard ANYTHING about that in this or any other forum! I’m glad you posted it. The Catholic Church continues to be THE most pro-life Church on the face of the planet and the loudest voice trashing abortion as an intrinsic fundamental evil. I love that.

You’re right about the Orthodox affection for emperors asserting themselves in Church affairs. I always hated that. I imagine Obama or Sarkozy or Putin sticking their noses into the Church’s affairs and I get nauseated. Imagine secular folks trying to make religious policies. We’ve seen in history where Emperors tried to install heretics as Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Popes quickly shot that down. The pope is not in a conflict of interest as a crooked secular character. The character of the Catholic Church is purely religious without outside secular butting in. Look what happened when Henry VIII got involved in the Church’s affairs in England—landslide…

I agree about the filioque. Never understood the big woop.

Doctrinal development is just the nature of the beast. I’m sure the Arians and heretics thought that Nicea saying Jesus was begotten not made and in putting together the Creed was innovative when in reality it was taking our Christology and p(name removed by moderator)ointing it, sharpening it, clarifying it, making it come to light in a new special way. Christ is always revealing Himself and giving us new insights and devotions to better worship and contemplate His radiance IMO. I don’t see a problem. As long as the developement doesn’t contradict the Scriptures or past and it’s coherently Christian, we’re good…

The nationalistic thing bugs me, too, but like you admit, Catholicism can get pretty ethnically-controlled. In my area there is nothing but Portuguese and Mexican Catholicism. I get jealous when I see East Coast Churches where the Irish and Polish and Italians just dominate the scene. I’d love to experience that for once. Catholicism can get extremely ethnic in flavor. Orthodoxy is even worse in that area IMO.

I’m not overly impressed with the page. If you want to see how Orthodox apologists see themselves and see Catholics, it’s good, from an athropological standpoint. But if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty details, you’ll quickly find that it’s glossed over serious problems within Orthodoxy, and misunderstands Catholicism. Some general points, sort of disorganized:

(1) If you really want to compare histories, as to which half of the Church can trace itself to the position of primacy over the whole unified Church, here’s all you need to know. The Patriarch of Constantinople calls himself the head of “Constantinople, New Rome.” You don’t see Benedict pretending to be the head of Constantinople. The whole theory behind Orthodoxy presupposes that a secular (possibly pagan) Roman Emperor can move the seat of the Catholic Church to a new location and put a different bishropic in charge.

(2) Because the Eastern Orthodox are not protected by anything like infallibility, you get things like the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church declaring himself pro-choice. If you see Pope Benedict do something like that, let me know. More strikingly, the Patriarch* declared this as the position of the E.O. Church*. Unless someone wants to seriously claim that the Church Fathers were pro-choice, I think the claim that Eastern Orthodoxy is the more faithful tradition is up right there.

(3) One of the reason Eastern Orthodoxy has struggled since the Schism is that it no longer possesses the power to call binding Ecumenical Councils. It’s humble enough to admit this, but that’s a pretty shocking concession. If any Church can call binding Councils today, it’s the Catholic Church. Since Acts 15 and early Church history clearly contemplate the ongoing use of binding Church Councils (and they’re the only reason we have things like the dogma of the Trinity), that leaves the Catholic Church.

(4) The “Filoque” just says that the Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son. We see it clearly from Scripture, when Jesus bestows the Holy Spirit in places like John 20:22 and John 16:7. The source of the Holy Spirit is ultimately just the Father.

(5) Because Orthodoxy doesn’t have a transnational body like the papacy, it tends to be overly nationalistic. In places like Serbia and Bosnia, this has gotten ugly in the last couple decades, and in Russia before that. “Neither Greek nor Jew” doesn’t get enough play here sometimes. Catholic churches have been guilty of this at times (it explains the Anglican revolution, for one thing), but the papacy tends to temper this tendency.

The appropriate test for whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism is right isn’t which side you happen to agree with more on the divisive issues. It’s much more fundamental. Christ established a Church, and promised to be with the Church forever (Matthew 28:20), and to protect that Church always with the Holy Spirit (John 14:16), and to teach the Church everything (John 14:26; John 16:13). If those promises mean anything, they must refer to the visible Church, the One Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:17-19 and Matthew 18:17-18. And that visible Church is either Catholicism or nobody. Orthodoxy can’t figure out what it believes in on something as fundamental as abortion, and has no remaining institutional capacity to form a Spirit-protected consensus. It’s Rome or bust.

 

[Nine_Two]

Four posts to attacks against the Orthodox Church in a thread not soliciting them… this must be a new record.

 

[amy001]

SheenTwo And A Half Men DVD essentially play a version of himself (minus the drug addiction that has caused suffering in the past) Cryer makes all things neurotic to a T, which shows why the producers of Friends were wrong to go against him for role of Ross (yes, true story)The Tribe DVD The only downside is the small … It is not necessary for him … The show can be a comedy all the R-counter, such as Married with two children of nervousness but the kid is not appropriate … He can not act and has no place … It should be on Hannah Montana Hannah fat idiot friend, not on thisScrubs DVD show …All seem to show the hit series FRIENDS is included in this release, so it’s a great way to watch the laughter, tears, marriage, divorce, birth, death and other themes of the show progresses. Like all good things, the adventures of Rachel Green (Jennifer Aniston), Monica Geller (Courteney Cox), Phoebe The Office DVDBuffay (Lisa Kudrow), Joey Tribbiani (Matt LeBlanc), Chandler Bing (Matthew Perry) and Ross Geller (David Schwimmer) unfortunately ended with the 1910 exhibition season, but these episodes stand as an excellent example of timeless comedy classic TV listings greatly revived the term ofHow I Met Your Mother DVD 10 years.If you have a funny bone at all, this will definitely tickle it. There is no way not laugh… Charlie and Alan play off each other so well, it’s like a real brother relationship!​

Buy Cheap DVD
Two And A Half Men DVD

 

[Madaglan]

(1) If you really want to compare histories, as to which half of the Church can trace itself to the position of primacy over the whole unified Church, here’s all you need to know. The Patriarch of Constantinople calls himself the head of “Constantinople, New Rome.” You don’t see Benedict pretending to be the head of Constantinople. The whole theory behind Orthodoxy presupposes that a secular (possibly pagan) Roman Emperor can move the seat of the Catholic Church to a new location and put a different bishropic in charge.

(2) Because the Eastern Orthodox are not protected by anything like infallibility, you get things like the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church declaring himself pro-choice. If you see Pope Benedict do something like that, let me know. More strikingly, the Patriarch* declared this as the position of the E.O. Church*. Unless someone wants to seriously claim that the Church Fathers were pro-choice, I think the claim that Eastern Orthodoxy is the more faithful tradition is up right there.

(3) One of the reason Eastern Orthodoxy has struggled since the Schism is that it no longer possesses the power to call binding Ecumenical Councils. It’s humble enough to admit this, but that’s a pretty shocking concession. If any Church can call binding Councils today, it’s the Catholic Church. Since Acts 15 and early Church history clearly contemplate the ongoing use of binding Church Councils (and they’re the only reason we have things like the dogma of the Trinity), that leaves the Catholic Church…

(4) The “Filoque” just says that the Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son. We see it clearly from Scripture, when Jesus bestows the Holy Spirit in places like John 20:22 and John 16:7. The source of the Holy Spirit is ultimately just the Father.

(5) Because Orthodoxy doesn’t have a transnational body like the papacy, it tends to be overly nationalistic. In places like Serbia and Bosnia, this has gotten ugly in the last couple decades, and in Russia before that. “Neither Greek nor Jew” doesn’t get enough play here sometimes. Catholic churches have been guilty of this at times (it explains the Anglican revolution, for one thing), but the papacy tends to temper this tendency.

The appropriate test for whether Catholicism, Orthodoxy or Protestantism is right isn’t which side you happen to agree with more on the divisive issues. It’s much more fundamental. Christ established a Church, and promised to be with the Church forever (Matthew 28:20), and to protect that Church always with the Holy Spirit (John 14:16), and to teach the Church everything (John 14:26; John 16:13). If those promises mean anything, they must refer to the visible Church, the One Jesus refers to in Matthew 16:17-19 and Matthew 18:17-18. And that visible Church is either Catholicism or nobody. Orthodoxy can’t figure out what it believes in on something as fundamental as abortion, and has no remaining institutional capacity to form a Spirit-protected consensus. It’s Rome or bust.

Hi Belloc Fan,

In response to your points:

1. St. Constantine moved the imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium (renamed Constantinople). It was a strategic political and military move. It was later Ecumenical Councils (after Constantine died) that raised the status of the archbishopic of Constantinople to Patriarchate, and later to a Patriarchate equal in privileges with Rome. St. Constantine supported the Christian churches and demonstrated desire to be baptized, which was done at the end of his life.
2. Most Orthodox do not consider the Ecumenical Patriarch as the “head” of the Orthodox Church. The canons and teachings of the Orthodox Church firmly condemn abortion of any kind, and you will find this condemnation upheld by the vast majority of Orthodox hierarchs.
3. None of the first seven Ecumenical Councils was called by the Pope of Rome. Councils are not called to create dogma but to defend the constant teaching of the Church. The Seven Ecumenical Councils involved the interaction of the Patriarchs. For Rome to hold councils without the involvement of the Eastern Patriarchs is not Ecumenical. Struggles have come to both West and East (the Reformation one big struggle for the West; atheistic communism a struggle for the East), so I do not think it fair to say the Eastern Church has encountered struggle since there is no communion with Rome.
4. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (ekporousis) from the Father alone, but is eternally and temporally manifested through the Son. This is the Orthodox teaching In Latin Catholicism, procession is from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.
5. Nationalism is unfortunate, but much of it is the fruit of secularist philosophies rather than the true fruit of Orthodoxy. Philitism (religious nationalism) is condemned as a heresy in Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy teaches abortion is wrong and sinful. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not supportive of abortion or pro-choice in the sense of believing women have a right to choose to have an abortion. His rhetoric elsewhere is that abortion does grave harm to a woman’s femininity. In any case, he is not the spiritual head of the Orthodox Church in the same way as Catholics understand the Pope to be head of their church. He does not have “ordinary magisterium” over all Orthodox faithful. Shortly before he made that brief and somewhat unclear 1990 statement, the Holy Orthodox Church in America presented this brief to the Supreme Court: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/OrthodoxAmicusBrief.php
See footnote 5 after reading.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally posted by gurneyhalleck:
You’re right about the Orthodox affection for emperors asserting themselves in Church affairs. I always hated that. I imagine Obama or Sarkozy or Putin sticking their noses into the Church’s affairs and I get nauseated. Imagine secular folks trying to make religious policies. We’ve seen in history where Emperors tried to install heretics as Patriarchs of Constantinople and the Popes quickly shot that down. The pope is not in a conflict of interest as a crooked secular character. The character of the Catholic Church is purely religious without outside secular butting in. Look what happened when Henry VIII got involved in the Church’s affairs in England—landslide…

Christian rulers can work for or against the Church. In the case of the East, many emperors (e.g. St. Constantine) built up the Church, while others promoted heresy to the woe of many Eastern saints. In the West, one big problem was the Pope becoming a powerful head of state (Papal States) in addition to being spiritual head of the Western Church.

Doctrinal development is just the nature of the beast. I’m sure the Arians and heretics thought that Nicea saying Jesus was begotten not made and in putting together the Creed was innovative when in reality it was taking our Christology and p(name removed by moderator)ointing it, sharpening it, clarifying it, making it come to light in a new special way. Christ is always revealing Himself and giving us new insights and devotions to better worship and contemplate His radiance IMO. I don’t see a problem. As long as the developement doesn’t contradict the Scriptures or past and it’s coherently Christian, we’re good…

Eh, I can’t agree.

God fully revealed himself to the Apostles. The clarifications are not new insights about God, but rather guard from heresy that which always has been the teaching of the Church.

The nationalistic thing bugs me, too, but like you admit, Catholicism can get pretty ethnically-controlled. In my area there is nothing but Portuguese and Mexican Catholicism. I get jealous when I see East Coast Churches where the Irish and Polish and Italians just dominate the scene. I’d love to experience that for once. Catholicism can get extremely ethnic in flavor. Orthodoxy is even worse in that area IMO.

I’ve never experienced Hispanic Catholicism, so it would be interesting to compare with the East Coast Catholicism with which I am familiar.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The shocking thing I see, Nine, is a few Catholics actually standing up to Orthodoxy and disagreeing with it instead of trying to get the approval of the Orthodox. For years I’ve watched Catholics have a hands-off approach with Orthodoxy unwilling to debate them or disagree or much of anything. The real record set is how long it took for people to debate and disagree with them.

Four posts to attacks against the Orthodox Church in a thread not soliciting them… this must be a new record.

 

[dzheremi]

It’s impossible to assess this sort of thing. Does the article represent the Roman Catholic Church’s view of itself? Certainly not. But I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily being unfair, either. I more or less agree with it, but that’s the personal opinion of someone who is not looking to appease either side, so it is also not without problems, either.

One thing I will take issue with, for the sake of trying to address a line of thinking that seems like it could lead to some pretty nasty fighting (and because I know he’s a good guy and wouldn’t be provoking something like that on purpose), is the idea that it’s some sort of shock or anomaly that Catholics would “stand up” to Orthodoxy. Gurney…I dunno what to say, but…really? Does the defense of Roman Catholicism not come through loud and clear in every approach to the EO that asserts the Roman Catholic viewpoint as normative and inherently sensible, in contrast to the Orthodox who are deficient in one way or another (likely many ways)? Such things come up in literally every thread that has Roman Catholics and EO interacting with each other. Maybe you don’t get over to the EC sub-forum very often, but titles like “When did Eastern bishops start allowing for remarriages?” don’t exactly scream “accurate representation” of anything: Ecclesiastical history, Eastern Christianity, how to properly phrase a question about a situation you’re not sure about the basics of, etc.

It’s easy to complain about the others’ misinterpretations of what we believe, do, etc. It’s much harder to admit that we are not any more likely to represent them accurately than they are to represent us accurately. And from the “it’s about damn time” tone of your post, it seems like you’re relishing this misrepresentation when Roman Catholics engage in it, while at the same time finding it very “unfortunate” when Orthodox do the same. Apparently you’d like to see more misrepresentation, or maybe quicker misrepresentation, or more strident misrepresentation…in some way the current level or intensity of misrepresentation is not good enough!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Then Metropolitan Bartholomew of Chalcedon makes one somewhat cryptic statement about abortion prior to his election as Ecumenical Patriarch and that is somehow proof that the Orthodox Church condones abortion? The bishop of Chalcedon, a diocese with just a handful of Orthodox, does not speak for the Orthodox Church. I would have thought that would go without saying.

The Orthodox Church condemns abortion and always has. One “gotcha” moment from one individual bishop of a largely vacant see doesn’t change that.

As to the statement that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the “head” of the Orthodox Church, it belies an ignorance of Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a very common mistake made by Western Christians.

The EP is not some kind of Orthodox pope. He has jurisdiction over approximately 4,000 Greeks in Istanbul. Outside of his own diocese he has no jurisdiction. He doesn’t even have jurisdiction over the other dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Church of Constantinople is governed by the Holy Synod with the EP sitting as primate. Major decisions are made in a conciliar manner and if asked to mediate in a dispute between other Churches those disputes are heard and decided by the Holy Synod.

 

[thunderbolt94]

It’s impossible to assess this sort of thing. Does the article represent the Roman Catholic Church’s view of itself? Certainly not. But I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily being unfair, either. I more or less agree with it, but that’s the personal opinion of someone who is not looking to appease either side, so it is also not without problems, either.

One thing I will take issue with, for the sake of trying to address a line of thinking that seems like it could lead to some pretty nasty fighting (and because I know he’s a good guy and wouldn’t be provoking something like that on purpose), is the idea that it’s some sort of shock or anomaly that Catholics would “stand up” to Orthodoxy. Gurney…I dunno what to say, but…really? Does the defense of Roman Catholicism not come through loud and clear in every approach to the EO that asserts the Roman Catholic viewpoint as normative and inherently sensible, in contrast to the Orthodox who are deficient in one way or another (likely many ways)? Such things come up in literally every thread that has Roman Catholics and EO interacting with each other. Maybe you don’t get over to the EC sub-forum very often, but titles like “When did Eastern bishops start allowing for remarriages?” don’t exactly scream “accurate representation” of anything: Ecclesiastical history, Eastern Christianity, how to properly phrase a question about a situation you’re not sure about the basics of, etc.

It’s easy to complain about the others’ misinterpretations of what we believe, do, etc. It’s much harder to admit that we are not any more likely to represent them accurately than they are to represent us accurately. And from the “it’s about damn time” tone of your post, it seems like you’re relishing this misrepresentation when Roman Catholics engage in it, while at the same time finding it very “unfortunate” when Orthodox do the same. Apparently you’d like to see more misrepresentation, or maybe quicker misrepresentation, or more strident misrepresentation…in some way the current level or intensity of misrepresentation is not good enough!

Umm . . . I just wanted to see a Catholic view point on this article, as someone exploring both RC and EO. I wasn’t looking to find more “misrepresentation”, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[dzheremi]

My response to the OP is in the first paragraph, thunderbolt94. The subsequent paragraphs were in reply to Gurney’s post, point being that exchanging one misunderstanding for another is not helpful.

 

[Nine_Two]

The shocking thing I see, Nine, is a few Catholics actually standing up to Orthodoxy and disagreeing with it instead of trying to get the approval of the Orthodox. For years I’ve watched Catholics have a hands-off approach with Orthodoxy unwilling to debate them or disagree or much of anything. The real record set is how long it took for people to debate and disagree with them.

I’m fine with Catholics standing up for themselves. It is when they launch into polemics. Whether or not an individual bishop is pro-life (and the quote in that story was hardly enough to establish context) doesn’t make a difference regarding the teachings of the church, the tired, and made up, claim that we acknowledge we can’t have Ecumenical Council’s absent Rome because we realize we aren’t the Church, arguing that our disagreement against the Filioque contradicts what is written in the gospels (that has nothing to do with it), arguing that Orthodoxy is nationalistic while ignoring the Polish, Irish, and Hispanic Churches that make up a significant portion of Catholicism.

Certainly attacks made about any ignorant points in the original article would be appropriate, that’s what the OP was asking for, but ignoring the article and responding with ones own ignorant attacks on the Orthodox Church is something else entirely.

It would be like if I entered every thread that contained the word “Catholic” and made a long (ignorant) rant about why the Catholic Church is wrong. Mentioning such things as the Catholic recognition of the Pope as God on Earth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I have little use for debates with those who follow Orthodox Christianity.

Here we stand at the end of the world and what. we should debate petty differences?

I know we are all human and get caught up in nonsense at times including myself. But the Truth is we are fresh out of time. We are either going to live or die together, And we will be doing this together.

God Bless, GT

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What I read here are authentic topics, but never a Catholic official teaching. The author here only gives an “Opinion” to how these teachings are viewed from his/her interpretation.

They are never an official “clarified” Catholic position, although they are introduced as such by using quotes from councils and Popes. But the misrepresentation derives from the opinion held by the author.

It would be wise to look to the CCC on these subject matters so as to get a clear and concise clarification from those who defended these apostolic teachings, and live them out, rather than taking an opinion from one looking at them from a bias or prejudiced view.

The opinions strike me as offensive, because they are not what I believe and practice as a Roman Catholic. The opinions tend to make negative nuances between the authors position and the one he appears to reveal in the negative. This is not a fair assessment.

It is a good perspective or opinion to draw debate as proven here, but it does not give a clear and unbias view of Catholicism.

Each opinion given from the differences, can be debated as not official teachings of the Catholic church, when the “opinion” is in place.

One would have to take each topic introduced here and break it down to the official teachings of the Catholic Church, which are too numerous to list here.

Had the author only introduce each subject, without leanings from his negative view towards them, and just gave his “Orthodox” view. A person such as you, might be able to see how “Orthodoxy” has not matured from the milk of the apostolic sacred Traditions and writings reveal the revelations of Jesus Christ, which were followed by signs and wonders, so as the Church matures to eating the meat of the gospels.

In short, your commentary only makes present that the Orthodox position has remained “stagnant” which protests the Catholic Church for teaching the gospel message of Jesus Christ to every nation as she was commissioned by Christ, to every tongue and people. The Catholic Church has remained faithful to Jesus commandments, never changing or inventing any new doctrine to these new worlds, but revealing the same gospel message to new tongues and understanding in ways that these new people can understand them. This is what your commentary reveals to me, in the negative.

Throw the history into these defined apostolic teachings, and you will not find change, but clarification and defense of the message of Jesus Christ defined to developed understandings of man, that do not speak Greek nor do not have the culture and mindset of Greek.

Jesus did not command the apostles to teach all the nations Greek or live as the Greeks do? Jesus commanded the apostles to baptise, teach and feed all nations and peoples, this is what the Catholic Church has obeyed and will continue to do, even now that our languages will succumb to new understandings, new words to define, new knowledge in the computer age. The Catholic Church can assure you, that she will be here to defend these apostolic teachings, not new, but in new words, so as the future generations can understand them and be nurtured on the milk and mature to eating the meat of the gospels.

Peace be with you

Hello,

I’ve been reading this article as a way to help learn the different perspectives in trying to figure out whether if Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. While I think the Eastern Orthodox church makes some good points, I felt that I wanted to get a catholic perspective on this article:

Link:
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

If you’re a catholic who is familiar with this issue, I would love to your help in seeing the catholic perspective on this article, and whether it represents Catholicism fairly.

God Bless

 

[Nicea325]

arguing that Orthodoxy is nationalistic while ignoring the Polish, Irish, and Hispanic Churches that make up a significant portion of Catholicism.

This is false. Are those churches,for instance, in Mexico separate from Rome? The Catholic Churches in Mexico are not all about Mexico (nationalistic first,the church second) or in Poland and so on. They are not separate entities,they are all part of the one and the same church:Catholic.Different cultures and different nations has nothing to do with it at least with the Catholic Church.

 

[jam070406]

What I read here are authentic topics, but never a Catholic official teaching. The author here only gives an “Opinion” to how these teachings are viewed from his/her interpretation.

They are never an official “clarified” Catholic position, although they are introduced as such by using quotes from councils and Popes. But the misrepresentation derives from the opinion held by the author.

It would be wise to look to the CCC on these subject matters so as to get a clear and concise clarification from those who defended these apostolic teachings, and live them out, rather than taking an opinion from one looking at them from a bias or prejudiced view.

The opinions strike me as offensive, because they are not what I believe and practice as a Roman Catholic. The opinions tend to make negative nuances between the authors position and the one he appears to reveal in the negative. This is not a fair assessment.

It is a good perspective or opinion to draw debate as proven here, but it does not give a clear and unbias view of Catholicism.

Each opinion given from the differences, can be debated as not official teachings of the Catholic church, when the “opinion” is in place.

One would have to take each topic introduced here and break it down to the official teachings of the Catholic Church, which are too numerous to list here.

Had the author only introduce each subject, without leanings from his negative view towards them, and just gave his “Orthodox” view. A person such as you, might be able to see how “Orthodoxy” has not matured from the milk of the apostolic sacred Traditions and writings reveal the revelations of Jesus Christ, which were followed by signs and wonders, so as the Church matures to eating the meat of the gospels.

In short, your commentary only makes present that the Orthodox position has remained “stagnant” which protests the Catholic Church for teaching the gospel message of Jesus Christ to every nation as she was commissioned by Christ, to every tongue and people. The Catholic Church has remained faithful to Jesus commandments, never changing or inventing any new doctrine to these new worlds, but revealing the same gospel message to new tongues and understanding in ways that these new people can understand them. This is what your commentary reveals to me, in the negative.

Throw the history into these defined apostolic teachings, and you will not find change, but clarification and defense of the message of Jesus Christ defined to developed understandings of man, that do not speak Greek nor do not have the culture and mindset of Greek.

Jesus did not command the apostles to teach all the nations Greek or live as the Greeks do? Jesus commanded the apostles to baptise, teach and feed all nations and peoples, this is what the Catholic Church has obeyed and will continue to do, even now that our languages will succumb to new understandings, new words to define, new knowledge in the computer age. The Catholic Church can assure you, that she will be here to defend these apostolic teachings, not new, but in new words, so as the future generations can understand them.

Peace be with you

I listened to a talk by what I believe was an Orthodox priest recently on youtube. This guy actually claimed that the Popes invented the Filioque to give the appearance that Jesus had more power and that the Pope could also claim that power by being his vicar and making himself infalliable.