Eastern Catholics how/why is Union with Rome is worth being divided from all the other Orthodox Patriarchs?

[Vico]

What did they agree with, why & when?

There was difficulty from the time of Photius at least. So at various councils after the seventh ecumenical, there were agreements with bishops of the east. See post #79 in this thread. Fourth council of Constantinople, Second council of Lyons, Council of Florence, various re-unions after the Council of Trent to which there was minimal agreement including filioque, purgatory, jurisdiction. One example: Union of Brest: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

Key ~ schism year, others union year. Number of schisms.

RC: Rome…1
WS: Maronite…1 (est. about 452)
BY: Italo-Greek…1 (est. sixth century)
ES: Chaldean…1.2.1 (~431)(1552, 1599)
OO: Alexandrian…1.3.1 (~451)(1741, 1846)
OO: Armenian…1.3.1 (~451)(1742)
WS: Syriac…1.3.1 (~451)(1781, 1930)
EO: Constantinople…1.4.1 (~1000)(1595, 1611, 1628, 1646, 1697, 1829, 1861, 1905, 1918)
EO: Melkite…1.4.1 (~1000)(1724)

Communions
RC = Roman Communion
WS = West Syrian
BY = Byzantine
ES = East Syrian
OO = Oriental Orthodox
EO = Eastern Orthodox

The issues over which Constantinople removed the Pope from the diptychs since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 A.D., that I am aware of, have been:

• 879 Papal jurisdiction (opposed at the Orthodox recognized Fourth Council of Constantinople) (Pope John VIII)
• 903 anti-pope Christopher used the filioque
• 1006 Pope John XVIII (1003-9) used the filioque, then the next Pope added it in the creed (Pope Sergius IV 1009-12)
• 1054 Latin Church replacement of* artos* with azymes and removal of epiclesis (St. Pope Leo IX) *
• December 7, 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras “commit these excommunications to oblivion.”

Agreement to Creed, Florence, and decrees of Trent.
Profession de foi prescrite aux grecs

1985 1083 Ego N. firma fide credo et profiteor omnia et singula quae continentur in Symbolo fidei, quo sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur, videlicet: Credo in unum Deum . . . (ut in Symbolo Constantinopolitano, DS 150).

1986 1084 Credo etiam, suscipio atque profiteor ea omnia, quae sacra oecumenica Synodus Florentina super unione occidentalis et orientalis Ecclesiae definivit et declaravit, videlicet quod Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio aeternaliter est; et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter, tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit; cum id, quod sancti Doctores et Patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad hanc intelligentiam tendat, ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoque esse secundum Graecos quidem causam secundum Latinos vero principium subsistentiae Spiritus Sancti, sicut et Patrem. Cumque omnia quae Patris sunt, ipse Pater unigenito Filio suo gignendo dederit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo aeternaliter etiam genitus est. Illamque verborum illorum " Filioque " explicationem, veritatis declarandae gratia, et imminente tunc necessitate, licite ac rationabiliter Symbolo fuisse appositam… (Sequitur textus ex Decr. unionis Graecorum DS 1303 1307 Conc. Florentini.).

1987 1085 Insuper profiteor ac recipio alia omnia, quae ex decretis sacrae oecumenicae generalis Synodi Tridentinae sacrosancta Romana et Apostolica Ecclesia, etiam ultra contenta in supradictis fidei Symbolis, profitenda ac recipienda proposuit atque praescripsit, ut sequitur. Apostolicas… (et cetera omnia, ut in Professione fidei Tridentina DS 1863ss).

 

[Nine_Two]

If I might piggyback on that, those who criticize ECs for being both Eastern and Catholic make as much sense as those who criticize WRO for being both Western and Orthoodox … which is not much in my opinion.

This brings up something said near the beginning of this thread that has been bothering me, but before I get to that I want to clarify we don’t criticize ECs for being both Eastern and Catholic. I think they are without a doubt. We criticize them for claiming to be both Orthodox and Catholic (proper nouns). Western Rite Orthodox do not claim to be Catholic (proper noun).

What has been bothering me since the beginning of this thread is someone said their priest told them “Byzantine is Orthodox” taking it away from meaning orthodox in theology to just meaning Greek. Arius was Byzantine and he was not Orthodox. The Iconoclasts were Byzantine and were not Orthodox. Only orthodox is Orthodox, Byzantine or not. Which is why we would say the WRO are Orthodox and the EC are not. Others may not agree with this position, but it is the position of our Church. I would be saddened if I were to learn Orthodoxy has been reduced to Greekness in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[Nine_Two]

When in a frivolous mood, I respond to that with “Welcome to the Internet.”

When in a down-to-earth mood, I respond with “Catholicism ≠ catholic.com.” :no emoticon:

No, but catholic.com policy does set the tone for the discussion that takes place here.

 

[Vico]

This brings up something said near the beginning of this thread that has been bothering me, but before I get to that I want to clarify we don’t criticize ECs for being both Eastern and Catholic. I think they are without a doubt. We criticize them for claiming to be both Orthodox and Catholic (proper nouns). Western Rite Orthodox do not claim to be Catholic (proper noun).

What has been bothering me since the beginning of this thread is someone said their priest told them “Byzantine is Orthodox” taking it away from meaning orthodox in theology to just meaning Greek. Arius was Byzantine and he was not Orthodox. The Iconoclasts were Byzantine and were not Orthodox. Only orthodox is Orthodox, Byzantine or not. Which is why we would say the WRO are Orthodox and the EC are not. Others may not agree with this position, but it is the position of our Church. I would be saddened if I were to learn Orthodoxy has been reduced to Greekness in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

From SerbCath Post #3, paraphrase of the priest:His statement was something like this: “Do not ever feel you are rejecting your fathers orthodoxy and Serbian heritage. Byzantine IS ORTHODOXY, in communion with the Pope.”
Since Catholics are united in jurisdiction, sacraments, and faith, that implies that the sacraments and faith are common with the Eastern Orthodox communion. Since the Eastern Orthodox do not agree on all dogma of the faith, how could it be true.

 

[Peter_J]

What has been bothering me since the beginning of this thread is someone said their priest told them “Byzantine is Orthodox” taking it away from meaning orthodox in theology to just meaning Greek. Arius was Byzantine and he was not Orthodox. The Iconoclasts were Byzantine and were not Orthodox. Only orthodox is Orthodox, Byzantine or not.

Well said. However, I think it needs to be pointed out that it isn’t always Catholics who conflate Easternness with Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox do so, in my experience.

 

[Tomdstone]

The major part of it was the filioque controversy. That was simply unfortunate because both sides simply did not have a good understanding of the different linguistic and theological presuppositions of the other side.

Another issue was the azyme issue, which many EO understood to be doctrinal.

These were the two main issues (Cerularius had also influenced the other Patriarchs into wrongly believing the Catholics were schismatics by sending them letters criticizing the Latins as such). Of course, this rebounded on the matter of papal primacy only insofar as the fact that, due to these two doctrinal issues, they would think the Pope and the Roman communion were heretics. It is understandable (even from the Catholic perspective) that they would not follow a head bishop who they thought was in heresy. To this day, this is the standard of many Orthodox. They do not particularly deny the primacy of the bishop of Rome - it is simply that they are not completely assured of his orthodoxy yet.

So there is an inherent problem with your scenario:
Namely, It presumes that communion with the Pope is an end in and of itself. In truth, it is at least traditional Catholic theologoumena (I.e., beliefs held without formal approval that do not necessarily contradict the dogmas of the Church) that a Pope who teaches heresy is by virtue of that fact no longer the Pope. And it is a CERTAIN Catholic belief that no Christian is bound to follow a Pope if he is teaching heresy. This unwritten Tradition - that a head bishop must be orthodox in order to be followed - is a Catholic principle. The ones who separated from Rome did so not necessarily because they denied the Primacy, but because they thought he was no longer orthodox so that he could not hold the primacy.

You should also consider the possibility that the ecclesiology of the EO might itself have developed Patriarchs in the early Church certainly held more authority than they do today in the EO. The concept of primus inter pares designated actual authority in the early Church, not a mere position of honor. The OO retain that patristic reality and understanding to this day. In theory, anyway, many EO do not.

Blessings,
Marduk

If the Pope is infallible, he would not be teaching heresy. A logical conclusion to your line of reasoning would be that the other Patriarchs did not believe the Roman Pope to be infallible, which supposedly is an unchanged and unchangeable doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot make up doctrines as time passes, so the infallibility of the Roman Pope was a doctrine early on. This is what the Orthodox Church denies and it may point to the fact that all of the other Patriarchs, except the Roman Patriarch, agree. And they all refused to bow to the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[coptsoldier]

Arius was not byzantine, But Coptic.

 

[twf]

Let’s look at that heresy you accuse Orthodoxy of having. The rejection of Papal Primacy.

Catholics look at this and say it is error on our part, although they can seldom show us where it has led us astray, they point to the certainty they have over X and Y that we don’t have as evidence in the superiority of accepting the Pope.

This heresy you accuse us of is grounded in that different theological perspective. You (by which I mean Roman Catholicism) craves certainty, we accept that there is much that must remain uncertain, and therefore when we encounter an earthly issue we are not bothered by a level of uncertainty in it - it doesn’t affect our faith. If this is a heresy on our part is brought about by that very difference in theological outlook that you seek to downplay.

I’ve been quite close to Pentecostals, attending their service (yes, even in the third world where they are semi-underground). I would even say that I have experienced the Holy Spirit at these events.
They are still very much driven by a scholastic view of things. To be truly Christian you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit, to be baptized in the Holy Spirit X and Y must happen.
I once sat through a Pentecostal sermon on the different types of tongues, and how you can distinguish each from the other (I think there were seven listed, it was some time ago). This is very much the same mindset Catholics have (although I’ll grant you don’t spend your time discussing the different ways in which the Holy Spirit can come down on worshipers)

Absolutely. You could also point to evidence of a cataphatic mindset in the East (The Nicene Creed is very cataphatic), but it is not the way problems are approached, leading to a gulf between us that I don’t think exists between Catholics and Protestants (even the biggest wingnuts) since you are still approaching the problem largely the same way.

You missed my point. I wasn’t accusing the Orthodox of anything. My point was that, from a Catholic perspective, we have far more in common of substance with the Orthodox than we do with Protestants. While Protestants profess numerous heresies, there is very little in Orthodoxy that Catholics would consider heretical. (On the other hand, many Orthodox Christians seem to have a very long list of “heretical” Catholic beliefs). The issue of papal primacy was not really relevant to my point - it was just an example of a point of doctrine on which we do disagree. Orthodoxy and Catholicism both agree, however, that Christ appointed 12 apostles whose ministry has continued down to the present day in a body of bishops. This is a fundamental belief of both Churches, but it is rejected by most Protestants. I don’t disagree that Latin Catholics and many Protestant traditions share a similar approach to theology, but to me that is a superficial argument. When one looks at the substance of faith, what we truly believe, and not just how we express it, there is far more in common between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Who cares if Pentecostals approach the gifts of the Holy Spirit systematically? There could be a pagan religion that approaches its faith very systematically and rationally, but that wouldn’t mean that it had anything in common with Catholicism. At the end of the day, Catholics and Orthodox Christians share belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the institution of sacraments / mysteries, the apostolic succession of the episcopate, the intercession of saints, the deification of man, the all-holiness and unique intercessory role of the Theotokos, the institution of a visible Church and a host of other things that most Protestants reject. As I said to Jeremy in an earlier post, Catholics believe that both we and the Orthodox truly encounter the Risen Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice…this is the source and summit of our faith…for Catholics, any similarities with Protestants pale next to this. (I realize that the Orthodox don’t necessarily agree that Catholics encounter Christ in our Eucharist…but Catholics believe this is something we share with the Orthodox but not with Protestants).

I also get tired of the “no room for mystery” argument. Just because we have a doctrine that states that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ doesn’t mean we understand HOW it happens…it is still a great mystery beyond human comprehension no matter how you look at it. We just happen to go into a bit more detail than the Orthodox do. The fact that the Orthodox profess that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ is cataphatic. It is all relative.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for your reply/ There are several problems here, all stemming from a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s teaching on “papal” infallibility:

If the Pope is infallible, he would not be teaching heresy. A logical conclusion to your line of reasoning would be that the other Patriarchs did not believe the Roman Pope to be infallible, which supposedly is an unchanged and unchangeable doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

(1) The Church’s dogma on “papal” infallibility does not say that he cannot be a heretic or cannot teach heresy. Rather, it asserts that he cannot proclaim and impose it as the Faith of the entire Church. The dogma of “papal” infallibility, contrary to the misunderstanding of many non-Catholics (and also Absolutist Petrine advocates) is not a positive protection of the Pope’s person. Rather, it is a negative protection (i.e., a preventive) for the positive protection of the Church. The Church is the focus here, not the Pope alone.

(2) Papal infallibility is not inspiration nor revelation. It certainly does not claim that an ex cathedra teaching is magically enforced by the Holy Spirit so that everyone understands it immediately. Nor does it magically prevent a Pope from expressing God’s Truth in a way that others may misunderstand. Even the biblical writers with the charism of inspiration had full freedom to express themselves according to their personal and cultural styles. If Westerns/Easterns innocently misunderstood what each other meant because of theological/linguistic differences, that is certainly no indication that papal infallibility did not exist. In fact, recent talks have exposed this misunderstanding of centuries past between Easterns, Orientals and Westerns. And the path to reunion through understanding is slowly being paved.

(3) The doctrine of papal infallibility does not claim that an ex cathedra teaching should be accepted blindly. It merely states that under certain conditions and specific circumstances, the Pope will be graced by the infallibility of the Church in order to speak to and for the Church on a matter of faith/morals.

To refute the dogma of “papal” infallibility, evidence of conscientious disagreement is an irrelevant and invalid approach. What one needs to do is give evidence that the Pope has actually taught as the Faith of the entire Church to be believed by all, a particular teaching that OBJECTIVELY contradicts the Sacred Tradition of the Church. If you feel there is such a case, please present the evidence here.

And they all refused to bow to the supremacy and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.

As noted in my previous post, no one is bound to follow anyone, even a Pope, into heresy. If Easterns conscientiously (though inadvertently, due to insurmountable differences in language and theological perspectives at that time) did not follow the Pope, then that has no bearing against papal primacy and universal jurisdiction.

Please consider also that you might be viewing papal primacy and universal jurisdiction through the lens of the Absolutist Petrine distortions of the CC’s actual teaching on the matter.

Blessings

 

[dzheremi]

I can’t speak for Orthodoxy, but the “signposts”, to use your term, that the bishops of my Church emphasize suggest that Orthodoxy and Catholicism share much in common than do Catholicism and Protestantism. I can only speak from the perspective of my Church. For Catholics, the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith - it is the mystical continuation of the Incarnation - it is the re-presentation of the very sacrifice of Christ…it is a true encounter with the living Christ. From a Catholic perspective, Protestantism lacks this…and in fact, the vast majority of Protestants don’t even claim to have any such thing. We do, however, believe that you Orthodox, both Eastern and Oriental, encounter the same Risen Christ and offer the same Eucharistic sacrifice…when it comes down to it, all of these other comparisons are moot, for everything else pales next to the Eucharist and the other mysteries / sacraments which flow from the Eucharistic Christ. This is the very heart of our faith, and we believe we share it with the Orthodox but not with Protestants.

In regards to Pentecostalism, yes it did originate from older Protestant bodies which at some point could be traced back to Catholicism, but I would argue that the tradition they inherited is so diluted at this point that, other than fundamental Christian beliefs which we all share in common, there is little in their approach, spirituality, or theology which could be identified as Latin.

This is what I was getting at in my post about how having any developed theology versus no developed theology regarding some particular part of the faith is not enough reason to say, on its own, that there is more in common between Catholics and Orthodox than between Catholics and Protestants. Not only are their Protestants who also share some measure of theology with you about the sacraments (Lutherans, et al.), but there are not nearly as many Orthodox who would speculate on such matter (since it’s not popular to make such judgments of someone else’s sacraments…we’re never supposed to share them anyway, so the question is ultimately irrelevant).

And as far as Pentecostals are concerned, I would say that they are still basically entirely Latin, in the sense that their entire existence and all of their theology is essentially either an embrace (unknowingly, sure) or a rejection of Latin doctrines or what their leaders or forefathers laid at the feet of the RCC, perhaps unfairly. Again, the question of relevance might come into play here – the Protestants (all of them, whether mainline or Evangelical) don’t even really have much of a choice in whether or not they want to be aligned with the RCC in this manner. It is in the DNA, so to speak, of how they view the faith, being the natural inheritors of this way of thinking. Protestant anti-clericalism, for instance, which you would be right to say is a big difference between Protestants and Catholics, nevertheless developed as it did in reaction to (what they interpreted as) Roman Catholic clerical theology. It’s still within that orbit, if you will. It’s still shaped by Rome, just in a negative fashion. Meanwhile, in Orthodoxy, nothing that Rome has proclaimed or defined or whatever since the schism is even the slightest bit relevant. This even bleeds into my own life, as most of my time among the non-Orthodox is spent trying to disabuse them of their notions that Christianity is or should be shaped by Rome at all (I know this is terribly negative-sounding and could seem unkind, and I’m sorry, but the point is that when you’re not in communion with a church, it doesn’t matter what they say or do, in terms of your church and what it says and does; think of it, if it would help, in terms of Catholics and Protestants: The Baptists say such and such a thing…as a Catholic, does this matter to your church? Will you shape your doctrine according to what the Baptists have said, either positively or negatively? No, right? They can believe whatever; it doesn’t matter). I cannot tell you how many times even in my few years of being Orthodox that I have confused a Protestant friend or someone from that background by informing them that the Orthodox Church has married priests as the norm rather than the exception, let alone that we have a Pope but he is of no relation ecclesiastically, theologically, or in any other way to the Roman Pope. A completely different guy, shepherding a completely different church with its own history, theology, etc. that is not shaped by Rome. It boggles their minds.

So…yeah, I still don’t see it. I’m sorry. I know you’re just going by what your own church says, and that’s of course totally fine, but the blind spot created as a result is that apparently the only similarities you see with either Protestantism or Orthodoxy is in what each will affirm in common with the Roman Catholic Church. With due respect, I think this misses the point of why I and others have brought up the essentially Roman mindsets of the Protestants (i.e., how their doctrine and general outlook is still shaped by Rome, even or perhaps especially in the things they are protesting), and in some sense ‘over-values’ similarities with Orthodoxy by comparison to Protestants.

Put another way, no number of point-by-point similarities which would not change the mindset of the Roman Catholic Church (read: its approach to the faith) could make it closer to Orthodoxy than it would be if it actually shared that mindset once again. (Of course it could be asked in that case if it would really be the Roman Catholic Church anymore, but that’s probably better addressed somewhere else, by someone who is not me.)

 

[mardukm]

Though the Catholic Church and Protestants share the same cultural and theological foundation, the Catholic Church has used that particular foundation to arrive at MOST OF THE SAME doctrines of the Faith as our Orthodox brethren. The Protestants have used that same theological foundation to arrive at many doctrines that are OPPOSED TO both Catholic-Orthodox doctrines. Hence, it is not correct to say that Catholics are closer to Protestants than Catholics are to Orthodox.

I cannot tell you how many times even in my few years of being Orthodox that I have confused a Protestant friend or someone from that background by informing them that the Orthodox Church has married priests as the norm rather than the exception,

And so it is correct, then, to say that since married ministers are normative in Protestantism just as in Orthodoxy, then Orthodoxy has more in common with Protestantism than Orthodoxy has with Catholicism? That would be ridiculous, just as it is equally ridiculous to say that just because Latin Catholics share some particular thing in common with Protestants (a more cataphatic approach to the faith, for instance), then that makes Latin Catholics have more in common with Protestants than they have with Orthodoxy.

let alone that we have a Pope but he is of no relation ecclesiastically, theologically, or in any other way to the Roman Pope. A completely different guy, shepherding a completely different church with its own history, theology, etc. that is not shaped by Rome. It boggles their minds.

All the theological colloquies between the Coptic Orthodox and the Catholic Church reveals that this statement that there is “NO relation ecclesiastically, theologically or in any other way to the Roman Pope” or that the COC and CC are “COMPLETELY different” is false. Anyone can read the theological colloquies online, which will readily evince the extremism of brother Dzheremi’s claims.

So…yeah, I still don’t see it. I’m sorry. I know you’re just going by what your own church says, and that’s of course totally fine, but the blind spot created as a result is that apparently the only similarities you see with either Protestantism or Orthodoxy is in what each will affirm in common with the Roman Catholic Church. With due respect,

Is it not possible that your peculiar extremism has also created a prejudicial blind spot as to the actual and numerous similarities between the RCC and the COC?

I think this misses the point of why I and others have brought up the essentially Roman mindsets of the Protestants (i.e., how their doctrine and general outlook is still shaped by Rome, even or perhaps especially in the things they are protesting), and in some sense ‘over-values’ similarities with Orthodoxy by comparison to Protestants.

To say that Latin Catholics and Protestants have the same approach to matters is OK. To claim or imply that this thereby makes Latin Catholics MORE similar to Protestants than to Orthodox is beyond the pale of reason.

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

This brings up something said near the beginning of this thread that has been bothering me, but before I get to that I want to clarify we don’t criticize ECs for being both Eastern and Catholic. I think they are without a doubt. We criticize them for claiming to be both Orthodox and Catholic (proper nouns). Western Rite Orthodox do not claim to be Catholic (proper noun).

I suppose, but many do create a new fantastical history where the “Celts” were “Orthodox” and came under the “Roman Pope”, Patrick was recreating the Orthodox faith of the followers of Joseph of Arimethea … and other fictional legends… so… while WRO don’t claim to be Catholic, many do claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

I suppose, but many do create a new fantastical history where the “Celts” were “Orthodox” and came under the “Roman Pope”, Patrick was recreating the Orthodox faith of the followers of Joseph of Arimethea … and other fictional legends… so… while WRO don’t claim to be Catholic, many do claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

I’m having quite a hard time seeing why you say that. If an Orthodox (or anyone for that matter) posts on this particular forum, then hopefully they would conform to our usage of “Catholic” to mean “a member of the Roman Communion”; however, there are many Orthodox forums, blogs, etc out there, and I wouldn’t expect them to use our definition of “Catholic”. Would you?

 

[Nine_Two]

Well said. However, I think it needs to be pointed out that it isn’t always Catholics who conflate Easternness with Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox do so, in my experience.

I will agree with that. In fact I think this is the first time I’ve seen it explicitly expressed by someone who was not within the Orthodox Communion.

 

[Nine_Two]

A long post - part 1 of 2

You missed my point. I wasn’t accusing the Orthodox of anything.

You missed my point. Whether or not there was an accusation was beside my point. It was a point of major doctrinal distinction - if you don’t want to call it heresy, that’s fine.

My point was that, from a Catholic perspective, we have far more in common of substance with the Orthodox than we do with Protestants.

You say that here and yet farther down the post you seem to be stating it as objective fact. I’ll agree that from the Catholic perspective they see themselves as having more in common with Orthodoxy than Protestantism, however from the Orthodox perspective that is reversed. I believe also that Eastern Orthodoxy has more in common with Oriental Orthodoxy, yet Dzheremi, as Oriental Orthodox disagrees. I’ll trust him on that perspective. Protestants often seem to believe they have more in common with us than you. I would say that it has everything to do with what is perceived to be important to a given persons faith. For most Orthodox we would place more emphasis on inward spirituality, you (at least your arguments indicate) seem to focus on the externals.

While Protestants profess numerous heresies, there is very little in Orthodoxy that Catholics would consider heretical. (On the other hand, many Orthodox Christians seem to have a very long list of “heretical” Catholic beliefs).

Protestants profess numerous heresies because they are not a uniform movement. Nonetheless they do have a uniform source.

The issue of papal primacy was not really relevant to my point - it was just an example of a point of doctrine on which we do disagree.

I know how you were using it, but it was relevant to my counter point.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism both agree, however, that Christ appointed 12 apostles whose ministry has continued down to the present day in a body of bishops. This is a fundamental belief of both Churches, but it is rejected by most Protestants.

I disagree that most Protestants reject that. Some, such as the Methodists, look at apostolic succession differently, and some don’t even believe in apostolic succession but they still believe in the continuing mission of the Apostles. Ask any fundamentalist if the primitive church worshiped in a manner similar to them and they will say yes.

I don’t disagree that Latin Catholics and many Protestant traditions share a similar approach to theology, but to me that is a superficial argument. When one looks at the substance of faith, what we truly believe, and not just how we express it, there is far more in common between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Who cares if Pentecostals approach the gifts of the Holy Spirit systematically?

I would certainly agree that Orthodoxy is closer to Catholicism than Protestantism, however I’m not all that convinced that Catholicism is to Orthodoxy. You speak the same language as them, even if it is a different dialect. You have disagreements with them that we can’t even understand - Justification? Faith vs. Works? The whole Augustinian linage?

There could be a pagan religion that approaches its faith very systematically and rationally, but that wouldn’t mean that it had anything in common with Catholicism.

No but that approach would give it common ground on which to discuss itself with Catholicism that it wouldn’t have with Orthodoxy.

At the end of the day, Catholics and Orthodox Christians share belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the institution of sacraments / mysteries, the apostolic succession of the episcopate, the intercession of saints, the deification of man, the all-holiness and unique intercessory role of the Theotokos, the institution of a visible Church and a host of other things that most Protestants reject.

And that is fine as far as it goes but we don’t necessarily see those things the same way. I had a recent discussion in the non-Catholic forum about the distinction between the sacraments/mysteries, and I’m not certain we have the same view of the Theotokos. The term escapes me but I understand that a whole other term is used for veneration of her vs. other saints, as though it is a greater sort of veneration.
On the topic of deification, this was once all but forgotten in the West. Our own belief in theosis has been used historically to vilify the Orthodox faith. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t even seem to have an article on the subject (though I admit only spending about 5 minutes searching). What little acknowledgement it does have came either by way of the Methodists reviving the doctrine in the 18th century, or even more recently due to Roman Catholic attempts to engage in dialogue with the East. It is a particular belief that I would suggest shows a closer tie between Protestants and Catholics than either with Orthodox.

As I said to Jeremy in an earlier post, Catholics believe that both we and the Orthodox truly encounter the Risen Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice…this is the source and summit of our faith…for Catholics, any similarities with Protestants pale next to this. (I realize that the Orthodox don’t necessarily agree that Catholics encounter Christ in our Eucharist…but Catholics believe this is something we share with the Orthodox but not with Protestants).

This sounds almost as though you are saying that similarity should be established on this one doctrine.
I agree with you that it is a very important one, but a great many Protestants share in it. Wouldn’t this mean that your argument necessitates not looking at Protestants as a monolithic thing, and further acknowledging that this makes those certain Protestants (and they aren’t small in number) closer to you, than you are to us?

 

[Nine_Two]

post 2 of 2

I also get tired of the “no room for mystery” argument. Just because we have a doctrine that states that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ doesn’t mean we understand HOW it happens…it is still a great mystery beyond human comprehension no matter how you look at it. We just happen to go into a bit more detail than the Orthodox do. The fact that the Orthodox profess that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ is cataphatic. It is all relative.

As I said before, I grant that we do show evidence of cataphatic theology. I would argue (and I don’t think you’d disagree with me on this) that you can’t have a creed-based religion, like Christianity without at some point resorting to a Cataphatic explanation of certain things. The doctrinization of transubstantiation is again one that I don’t hold against Catholics - it was done for the purposes of clarifying in the face of heresy, which is exactly when doctrine should be defined (but I’m digressing here).
However, while you can argue there is in fact room for mystery, the Catholic Church (and Protestant churches) do have a tendency to try to explain things whether it is necessary or not.

 

[Nine_Two]

I suppose, but many do create a new fantastical history where the “Celts” were “Orthodox” and came under the “Roman Pope”, Patrick was recreating the Orthodox faith of the followers of Joseph of Arimethea … and other fictional legends… so… while WRO don’t claim to be Catholic, many do claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

I’m going to skip what you’re saying about Celts and Orthodoxy simply because I have a lot to say there but it is a whole other topic of interest to me (I love history and I love my Celtic heritage, what can I say?)

But to the idea that WRO claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

They don’t claim to be more Roman Catholic than the Pope, but yes they, along with the rest of Orthodoxy, would claim to be more Catholic than the pope insofar as it is mentioned in the Creed.
I would hope that similarly, Catholics (Eastern and Western) would hold themselves to be more orthodox than us.

 

[dzheremi]

Well said. However, I think it needs to be pointed out that it isn’t always Catholics who conflate Easternness with Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox do so, in my experience.

I know that you and I have discussed that before, Peter J, and maybe you have Easterners/Byzantine Orthodox in mind when you say that, but I still for the life of me can’t see how that would be the case. Of course Eastern Catholics are Eastern. Their liturgies, to whatever degree they are preserved, are descended from those used by the churches of the East from which they came (Orthodox and otherwise), so how could they not be Eastern? Eastern and Orthodox are nowhere near the same thing (see: the Church of the **East **). That they happen to coincide in the popular name of a particular communion which is known as “Eastern Orthodox”…well, how “Eastern” they are is really in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? (I’ve always thought of places like Russia, Greece, etc. where the majority of Eastern Orthodox live as being rather solidly Western, at least compared to some of the places Christianity has traditionally thrived in other, non-Byzantine forms like India, Ethiopia, and the Middle East.)

You may have heard such statements from Orthodox people, but in that case those Orthodox people are probably meaning “Eastern” as a shorthand for their particular liturgical patrimony or something like that. I mean, not to air anyone’s dirty laundry, but it doesn’t take too much digging to find Eastern Orthodox people who have various problems with the “Western Rite” of their communion (perhaps with good reason; that’s not my call to make).

In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, but I imagine you have probably also heard Orthodox people deny that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox precisely because even though they may to varying degrees practice their faith and hold liturgies in manners very similar to the Eastern Orthodox from whom they came (I’m thinking here of the Melkites, but I suppose that some Syro-Malankara Catholics could also say the same about their church, to bring in the Oriental/OO-descended Catholics as well), they do not believe the same things, so even a perfectly celebrated Eastern liturgy with no deviation from how the Orthodox would celebrate it still wouldn’t be Orthodox…or perhaps I should say that if have heard a lot of the former “Eastern is Orthodoxy” argument and not much of the latter, I would be concerned as to the impression of Orthodoxy that your interlocutors are leaving you with.

 

[dzheremi]

I believe also that Eastern Orthodoxy has more in common with Oriental Orthodoxy, yet Dzheremi, as Oriental Orthodox disagrees. I’ll trust him on that perspective.

I just want to make sure I’m understood on this point: I don’t disagree with that at all. I very much agree that the OO and the EO have a lot more in common with each other than with any other church with which neither of us are in communion. I don’t know any OO of any particular church who would say otherwise, and that includes not only laypeople but also priests and bishops to the extent that I’ve heard them talk about this issue. The point I was trying to make to twf was rather that if Rome were not in the picture (if it didn’t exist for some reason), it is not clear to me that the OO and EO would see each other as necessarily very close. Let’s remember please that until Rome and Constantinople parted ways, both considered one another to be (the) one Church, of which the non-Chalcedonians were certainly not a part (perhaps with some reunion-minded exceptions; for the OO, there are people like Armenian saint Nerses Shnorhali, and certainly there were probably others among the EO or what would become the EO as something separate and distinct from the RCC in a communal sense). Hopefully it makes sense why I would bring that up in response to twf and is not seen as a denial of the closeness that does exist between EO and OO, on a personal level and sometimes even on an official level (e.g., in Alexandria).

On a personal level, while I see talk of reunion with Rome mostly coming from Romans who would like it for their own reasons, what I have seen of the talks between OO and EO as gathered in the official consultations (I have a small booklet of them somewhere around here, though I can’t remember the title in order to recommend it, though it is very much recommended…Healing The Divide, maybe? Something like that) is far more hopeful in the sense that because of our commonalities (which actually may be amplified in the current situation in large part due to similar overtures from Rome and others), there seems to be a great deal more substance in whatever is reached in the EO-OO consultations than in talks with other churches. Nobody would be so foolish as to bet on chances for reunion, no doubt, but if someone were to ask me which of the two great schisms would be more likely to be healed before the other, I’d have to rank the Chalcedonian schism before that of the Latin West and the Greek East (and even more interestingly, it seems more likely that whatever progress is made to this end will be made without Rome, as they are of course not a part of the EO-OO dialogues, and the issues that both of us have with them are more than what we seem to have with each other).

 

[Peter_J]

But to the idea that WRO claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

They don’t claim to be more Roman Catholic than the Pope, but yes they, along with the rest of Orthodoxy, would claim to be more Catholic than the pope insofar as it is mentioned in the Creed.
I would hope that similarly, Catholics (Eastern and Western) would hold themselves to be more orthodox than us.

Hmmm … perhaps I was overconfident in my earlier assumption that Orthodox on this forum are alright with the usage (on this forum anyhow) of “Catholic” to mean exclusively “a member of the Roman Communion”.