Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[CompSciGuy]

Hi,

I heard from an Eastern Orthodox person who said that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not changed its beliefs and practices from the time of the apostles, but that the Roman Catholic Church has. He didn’t give any details of what doctrines specifically the Catholic Church has changed, but cited Vatican II as an example, which didn’t make any sense to me because Vatican II didn’t really change its doctrines but rather the form of its liturgy and its relationship with people of other religious beliefs. I would like to hear an Eastern Orthodox say exactly which doctrines he believes that the RCC has changed. Don’t bother with the filioque clause, that’s such a nitpicky argument.

 

[Rawb]

1. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2. Papal Infallibility

Those are the big ones. If those were gone reunion may be much closer than they are now. Other, slightly smaller issues are things which Rome has “developed” include:

1. Purgatory
2. The distinction between mortal and venial sin
3. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
4. The Western understanding of Original Sin
5. The defining of things like transubstantiation
6. And, despite what you may prefer to hear, the filioque would have to go.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Concerning 3-7

1. what do you believe about the afterlife? Do you believe that one who is justified enters straight into heaven after death? An orthodox person described to me something that sounded very much like the Catholic understanding of purgatory minus the actual title “purgatory.” Even the CC doesn’t really give a whole lot of details into the actual nature of purgatory.
2. What are the disagreements here? From what I’ve heard, confession is practiced in the Orthodox Church, and, at least among some orthodox churches, is necessary for receiving communion. Is this not the case in your church? What is the purpose of confession if not to confess mortal sins?
3. You believe that Mary lived without sin, right? What exactly does the OC say about her conception?
4. What is the Eastern understanding of original sin? From what I know, original sin is the curse that was caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and is passed onto us, and is erased when we are baptism. Is this not what you believe?
5. What do you believe then about the Eucharist? I have heard from an Eastern Orthodox person that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Is this not what you believe? How do you reconcile it with the writings of the early church fathers?

 

[CompSciGuy]

By the way, just out of curiosity, are there any doctrines that were defined in the Western church after the Eastern-Western split that the Eastern church agrees with?

 

[Rawb]

1. what do you believe about the afterlife? Do you believe that one who is justified enters straight into heaven after death? An orthodox person described to me something that sounded very much like the Catholic understanding of purgatory minus the actual title “purgatory.” Even the CC doesn’t really give a whole lot of details into the actual nature of purgatory.

We don’t believe God extracts a punishment or suffering after we die to atone for unconfessed sins. We pray for the dead because it is a good and righteous thing to do. We don’t make any definitions about how those prayers are used by God. The current catechism only hints at the “punishment” effect, but traditionally your church has taught there is suffering involved.

1. What are the disagreements here? From what I’ve heard, confession is practiced in the Orthodox Church, and, at least among some orthodox churches, is necessary for receiving communion. Is this not the case in your church? What is the purpose of confession if not to confess mortal sins?

Confession is practiced. Our teachings on sin is that it is any act that “misses the mark”. Anything that we do or do not do that doesn’t help us become Christlike is a sin. Whether we miss that mark by a little or a lot (and who is to judge that distance?) is irrelevant. We go to Confession when we find something in our life necessary to Confess. This requires the penitent to be honest with themself and take true responsibility for their sins (more so than the Catholic model, IMO). We confess everything when we go to Confession and yes, it is part of the preparation for receiving Communion.

1. You believe that Mary lived without sin, right? What exactly does the OC say about her conception?

This is easier answered below. You’ll see that by our beliefs her conception isn’t even an issue.

1. What is the Eastern understanding of original sin? From what I know, original sin is the curse that was caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and is passed onto us, and is erased when we are baptism. Is this not what you believe?

As the pinnacle of Creation Man’s actions directly effect all of creation more than any other part. As such, when Adam and Eve sinned, all of creation fell. Death, sickness, and suffering entered the world. While Adam’s ancestors feel the effects of that fall (death, suffering, inclination to sin, etc) we are not in any way responsible or bear the guilt for it (as traditional Catholic teaching is). As such the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is pointless - she never had the guilt for that sin anyway.

1. What do you believe then about the Eucharist? I have heard from an Eastern Orthodox person that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Is this not what you believe? How do you reconcile it with the writings of the early church fathers?

You misunderstand. We most definitely believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We just don’t limit how God may bring this about by the constraints of philosophy. We don’t define it at all - we just say the Eucharist is Christ and leave it as a mystery.

We may accept transubstantiation as a theory, but to mandate its belief as doctrine? No.

 

[Rawb]

By the way, just out of curiosity, are there any doctrines that were defined in the Western church after the Eastern-Western split that the Eastern church agrees with?

A five-second wracking of my brain doesn’t reveal any, but there may be. The thing is Orthodoxy doesn’t define a lot of doctrines. We usually only do so in response to a heresy. So far as I know we haven’t defined a doctrine since the last major heresy in the East, which was in the late 700’s.

Don’t get me wrong - there are a LOT of things we agree on, but I think they’re mainly everything that were defined in the Ecumenical Councils. There are a few things we may agree could be Orthodox as a theory, but to make them dogma is something else, especially without an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Cider]

1. Papal Universal Jurisdiction
2. Papal Infallibility

Those are the big ones. If those were gone reunion may be much closer than they are now. Other, slightly smaller issues are things which Rome has “developed” include:

1. Purgatory
2. The distinction between mortal and venial sin
3. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
4. The Western understanding of Original Sin
5. The defining of things like transubstantiation
6. And, despite what you may prefer to hear, the filioque would have to go.

To those I’d add sanctifying grace and the teaching that ordination results in an indelible mark on the soul.

 

[jam070406]

I still don’t understand the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife, even after Rawb attempted to explain it. It almost sounds like OSAS.

 

[Rawb]

I still don’t understand the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife, even after Rawb attempted to explain it. It almost sounds like OSAS.

Then I explained very badly. If you could explain what you mean I’ll try and be more clear.

 

[jam070406]

Then I explained very badly. If you could explain what you mean I’ll try and be more clear.

Catholics believe unrepented mortal sin, that is, sin that completely cuts one off, results in seperation from God. Or Hell.
But you seem to suggest there is no mortal sin. And we need not be purified from any sin.
So when an Orthodox person dies he cannot be seperated from God? How does one become seperated or know they are on a state of grace?
I’m confused. Can you dig deeper? Thanks.

 

[Rawb]

Catholics believe unrepented mortal sin, that is, sin that completely cuts one off, results in seperation from God. Or Hell.
But you seem to suggest there is no mortal sin. And we need not be purified from any sin.
So when an Orthodox person dies he cannot be seperated from God? How does one become seperated or know they are on a state of grace?
I’m confused. Can you dig deeper? Thanks.

Ok here’s the hang up. We don’t have the definition of Mortal Sin, but we don’t have the definition of Venial Sin either. ALL sin strains our relationship with God. All of it harms our relationship with God. All of it hacks away at our connection to God. We must be purified of all of it.

So no, we don’t say that this or that sin will automatically sever your relationship with God, but instead we say any sin at all is damaging your faith and distancing you from Christ. How far can you go before that relationship actually snaps? We wouldn’t presume to say, and we wouldn’t dare try to test it either. It is very, very possible for an Orthodox Christian to turn his back on God through sin.

Here may be a way to explain: It is just as easy or possible that something a Catholic would label “venial” results in the condemnation of a soul. The seriousness of the sin is judged by God, not by man.

 

[Harpazo]

To those I’d add sanctifying grace and the teaching that ordination results in an indelible mark on the soul.

And the mandatory celibacy in the presbyterate. By and large, ECs are not permitted to have married priests. From what I understand, it is more common in their homelands, but it’s hard to do so in places like the US, for example.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[jam070406]

Ok here’s the hang up. We don’t have the definition of Mortal Sin, but we don’t have the definition of Venial Sin either. ALL sin strains our relationship with God. All of it harms our relationship with God. All of it hacks away at our connection to God. We must be purified of all of it.

So no, we don’t say that this or that sin will automatically sever your relationship with God, but instead we say any sin at all is damaging your faith and distancing you from Christ. How far can you go before that relationship actually snaps? We wouldn’t presume to say, and we wouldn’t dare try to test it either. It is very, very possible for an Orthodox Christian to turn his back on God through sin.

Here may be a way to explain: It is just as easy or possible that something a Catholic would label “venial” results in the condemnation of a soul. The seriousness of the sin is judged by God, not by man.

I get what you are saying but some sins are more grave then others, which require sacramental reconciliation. Even St. James says there are sins that kill. I don’t see why there would be an issue with the Church warning the Faithful that certain sin contrary to Divine law is worthy of damnation. With all do respect the Orthodox view seems more dangerous and wishy washy. It would seem there is a big door there to justify grave sinful behavior.

 

[jam070406]

All the arugments about IC and the Filioque are pointless if the Church can’t lead me to salvation. If it affirms me in my mortal sin instead of calling me out of it and offering absolution from it.

 

[Harpazo]

I get what you are saying but some sins are more grave then others, which require sacramental reconciliation. Even St. James says there are sins that kill. I don’t see why there would be an issue with the Church warning the Faithful that certain sin contrary to Divine law is worthy of damnation. With all do respect the Orthodox view seems more dangerous and wishy washy. It would seem there is a big door there to justify grave sinful behavior.

All sin is harmful to the soul no matter what it is because it is a refusal of God’s grace. It is akin to allowing a piece of bread to grow mold. An imperfect analogy for sure, but I think you understand where we are coming from. We don’t distinguish between mortal and venial and are to confess all the sins on our conscience. From what I understand about my Church’s teaching is if someone dies wilfully unrepentant of his sins, then they are in danger of Hell. Of course, the Lord is merciful and compassionate and can save whomever He wills, but I don’t think He distinguishes between willfully stealing a candy bar and wilfully committing adultery. Of course, if one repents earnestly, He has mercy on them and welcomes them back.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mickey]

With all do respect the Orthodox view seems more dangerous and wishy washy.

How do you figure? We say to get yourself to the Holy Mystery of Confession as much as possible because it is another baptism—whether you have committed adultery or stolen a pencil from work–because we cannot repent after we die.

It seems that RC’ism is a bit more wishy-washy.

 

[Mickey]

All sin is harmful to the soul no matter what it is because it is a refusal of God’s grace. It is akin to allowing a piece of bread to grow mold. An imperfect analogy for sure, but I think you understand where we are coming from. We don’t distinguish between mortal and venial and are to confess all the sins on our conscience. From what I understand about my Church’s teaching is if someone dies wilfully unrepentant of his sins, then they are in danger of Hell. Of course, the Lord is merciful and compassionate and can save whomever He wills, but I don’t think He distinguishes between willfully stealing a candy bar and wilfully committing adultery. Of course, if one repents earnestly, He has mercy on them and welcomes them back.

In Christ,
Andrew

Wow! You submitted this as I was typing an almost identical response (except I used pencil and you used candy bar)!

Way to go my brother!:clapping:

 

[Rawb]

I get what you are saying but some sins are more grave then others, which require sacramental reconciliation.

Yes, there are. However they differ from individual to individual. Being angry at someone may be the thing that condemns one. Murder may be the thing for another, but murder in a fit of passion when a person was half crazed (while I can guarantee it would still be confessed) may not damn a person.

The idea that just be virtue of what they are some sins are more grave than others creates a “system of checks”. So long as I don’t do such-and-such I’m in a “state of grace”. It’s a Western creation.

Even St. James says there are sins that kill.

I’d like the passage please, so I can be more clear, but what you’re saying doesn’t conflict with Orthodox doctrine - there ARE some sins that kill.

I don’t see why there would be an issue with the Church warning the Faithful that certain sin contrary to Divine law is worthy of damnation.

Because they’re measuring what is “worthy of damnation” by man’s measure. ALL sin is contrary to Divine Law. It is only for God to judge what is worthy of damnation.

With all do respect the Orthodox view seems more dangerous and wishy washy. It would seem there is a big door there to justify grave sinful behavior.

The funny thing is I see the Catholic way as doing that. One doesn’t have to be completely honest with oneself about one’s intentions, behavior, and the discovery of rationalizations, they just have to compare what they’ve done with a list of sins. Was it mortal? Yeah? Confess. Venial? Don’t need to. You could if you’d like, but it’s not ‘required’. It turns your relationship with God into a formula; it’s a checklist. In Orthodoxy one has to be completely honest with one’s priest, wrestle with their true self and admit guilt in a wide variety of situations.

A real world example a friend of mine used when I first began investigating Orthodoxy - He had an issue with masturbation and pornography, but also with anger. As a Catholic his priests were always focusing on the first, because that’s the ‘greater’ sin. In Orthodoxy his priest said, because he was at that point addicted to the porn and self-abuse, he was more concerned about the willful temper tantrums that this man used to justify rage against friends, family, and his wife. The man, for the first time, had to admit that it was not the masturbation that was truly endangering his soul, but his temper. The temper his Catholic priests had always condoned with “everyone loses their temper now and then, that’s not a mortal sin.”

May another Catholic priest have treated the situation differently? Of course! However the very mentality of ‘ranking’ sins made those Catholic priests always focus on what they considered the higher ranking sin, despite the fact that the man didn’t really have control over his actions there (addiction) and was aware that he “had a temper”.

 

[jam070406]

How do you figure? We say to get yourself to the Holy Mystery of Confession as much as possible because it is another baptism—whether you have committed adultery or stolen a pencil from work–because we cannot repent after we die.

It seems that RC’ism is a bit more wishy-washy.

I see your point.

 

[asd72]

So do the Orthodox also have confession to a Priest like Catholics, but you confess all sin?

I have to say I find mortal and venial sins confusing. I believe there are sins that are mortal, I would just find it hard to make that judgement myself, I would rather just have regular confession and confess all, but that is OK to do for Catholics also.