Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[Algernon]

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.

You forgot a big one: indulgences.

A

 

[Mickey]

Transubstantiation is not about “how God brings this about”; where on earth do you get these mistaken ideas? The philosophical terms are merely used to delineate the difference between what we see and what our faith teaches us.

It is a product of scholasticism. It is a term which attempts to further express the Mystery of the Real Presence. Most Orthodox believe it is not necessary to use this term.

By the way, in over reacting against the Catholic theology, there are no shortage of Orthodox apologists who are, in fact defining things, and are speaking more along the lines of consubstantiation.

Nonsense.

 

[dvdjs]

It is a product of scholasticism. It is a term which attempts to further express the Mystery of the Real Presence. Most Orthodox believe it is not necessary to use this term.

So what of scholasticism? We go through criticism of the term often here, but typically without a well-defined sense of what it is - a matter that needs to be understood before any criticism is reasonable.

What is necessary is the belief in the real presence, against what our senses indicate.

As to you claim of “nonsense” check out the threads on the matter at OC.net, in particular the posts by Orthodox clergy.

 

[Mickey]

What is necessary is the belief in the real presence

And hence…the scholastic term of “transubstantiation” is not necessary.

As to you claim of “nonsense” check out the threads on the matter at OC.net, in particular the posts by Orthodox clergy.

Poppycock! Nobody there teaches “consubstantiation”.

 

[dvdjs]

And hence…the scholastic term of “transubstantiation” is not necessary.
Poppycock! Nobody there teaches “consubstantiation”.

You, of course, have altered what I said. In any case, please do the reading.

 

[Link0126]

Poppycock! Nobody there teaches “consubstantiation”.

Why are you so against that term? Consubstantiation is still the real presence and that is all that is necessary to believe. It’s like in one way you are against the defining of transubstantiation but get offended at other definitions of the real presence. Doesn’t this negate your opinion that transubstantiation as a definition is necessary?

 

[Mickey]

You, of course, have altered what I said.

I have not altered what you said…and I have done the reading.

Good day. :tiphat:

 

[Mickey]

Why are you so against that term? Consubstantiation is still the real presence and that is all that is necessary to believe. It’s like in one way you are against the defining of transubstantiation but get offended at other definitions of the real presence. Doesn’t this negate your opinion that transubstantiation as a definition is necessary?

I do not adhere to odd philsophical terms such as “transubstantiation” (RC) or “consubstantiation” (Lutheran)—which attempt to explain a glorious Mystery.

 

[George_Largess]

Hello,

I am sure that this post is going to offend but I believe that all of these polemics and that stating the other side is wrong and my side is right is counterproductive and actually contrary to the spirit of the Gospels. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches need to work together to counteract the coming homosexual “marriage” requirement that no one can preach that this is contrary to The Bible; moral relativism; that those who believe that abortion and euthanasia is morally evil will have to pay for it anyway; that praying in public is a prohibited act; and there are so many other assaults on religious freedom of expression will make these arguments mute. Religious behavior will be outlawed by judicial fiat or by legislative decree.

God is Love and he who abides in love abides in God.

We all love Jesus Christ and wish to receive him as often as possible in the Eucharist. He came for sinners (me).

Thanks for listening.

George Largess

 

[Wesley7]

Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

It may be that Catholicism is western and logically defined (for the Western thinking mind) while Eastern Christianity is true to ‘dogmatic mysterion’ of Faith.

 

[Madaglan]

Why are you so against that term? Consubstantiation is still the real presence and that is all that is necessary to believe. It’s like in one way you are against the defining of transubstantiation but get offended at other definitions of the real presence. Doesn’t this negate your opinion that transubstantiation as a definition is necessary?

I know the West dealt with Eucharistic heresies centuries before the Protestant Reformation (Berengar comes to mind), while the East for the most part did not have these heresies. Perhaps transubstantiation can be thought of as the orthodox Western response to heretical teachings on the Eucharist?

 

[Harpazo]

I know the West dealt with Eucharistic heresies centuries before the Protestant Reformation (Berengar comes to mind), while the East for the most part did not have these heresies. Perhaps transubstantiation can be thought of as the orthodox Western response to heretical teachings on the Eucharist?

That sounds like a fair analysis to me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Rawb]

I know the West dealt with Eucharistic heresies centuries before the Protestant Reformation (Berengar comes to mind), while the East for the most part did not have these heresies. Perhaps transubstantiation can be thought of as the orthodox Western response to heretical teachings on the Eucharist?

Where does the doctrine originate? A brief reading of the Berengar situation seems to imply that transubstantiation was already *the *doctrine, so it wasn’t formed in response to him.

It seems like no matter the heresy the truth of the doctrine could’ve been emphasized, that it is Truly Christ, without getting into the definitions and philosophies of ‘transubstantiation’. I’ve never heard an Orthodox reject the idea of it as a theory, but definitely as a doctrine, and most seem confused as to why it is even ever necessary.

 

[CompSciGuy]

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.

You can confess all your sins, and you should. I once confessed something that was not a mortal sin simply because it was weighing on my heart. The priest told me that you should always confess something if it is something you feel guilty about.

Mortal sin is defined as such: 1. It is of a grave matter. 2. It is done freely with full consent. 3. It is done with full knowledge of its gravity.

In essence, it could be said that mortal sin is a form of apostasy. It is us saying “I know that this is a sin and is contrary to God and everything I am as a baptized Christian, but I’m going to do it anyway.”

 

[h2oplyer7]

I considered becoming Orthodox before I converted to Catholicism. In my humble opinion, I see the Orthodox Church as the true Church, just without the Pope. Polemics and language gap are the real problems between us. I am not trying to reduce all of our disagreements to mere semantics, but I do believe that 99% can be. Both Catholics and Orthodox cling to centuries old arguments, and in my view most of these are merely two sides to the same coin. Yet, every new century that we’re apart serves nothing more than to perfect the image on our side of the coin.

Look at it this way, the east and west continue to thrive after 1000 years apart. Neither side appears to be going anywhere. Protestantism, on the other hand, is already breaking down everywhere you look. If it is not obvious that God is holding these two Churches together, it seems to me for a special purpose in the future, then one is merely a small-minded theologian.

I’m sorry, but Orthodoxy needs Catholicism. Modern science, and most of human innovation has come from the western mind. Catholicism needs Orthodoxy, who are much less legalistic and philosphical in their approach to understanding God. That being said, the actual Catholic dogmatic defintions are not legalistic, as many Orthodox suppose, only their understanding among a great many of the clergy and laity.

Go ahead and keep repeating the old arguments, in the end it won’t get either side anywhere. Heels are dug in. Instead, we need to try to understand the other side. Orthodox need to ask themselves if anything would actually change if they accepted the Pope as supreme head of the Church. The answer…nope. They don’t need to add the filoque, which in the Greek language is truly heretical. Look at the Eastern Catholic Churches. Catholics need to reeducate themselves on Church teachings, since sadly our catechesis in the west is absolutely horrible. Example: Transubstantiation is only a definition of WHAT happens, not an definition of HOW or WHEN it happens.

I am a western mind. I was born in the west, and educated in western universities. I was a Lutheran, who became an Evangelical (both western products), who became an Agnostic, who chose Catholicism because Catholicism is the path to God for the mind who thinks as I do. I am a product of my society. But that is only me. I am not an eastern mind, if I was, I would probably have become Orthodox. When Orthodoxy says Catholicsm and their western philosophy is wrong, what they are really saying is that western society is wrong. This is the greatest arrogance of the Orthodox Church. It is an equal arrogance when Catholics say the same things about the mystical mindset and the culture that forged it.

Theosis.

 

[Mickey]

Both Catholics and Orthodox cling to centuries old arguments, and in my view most of these are merely two sides to the same coin.

There are very real differences. And these differences cannot be overcome by compromise. Only God can heal this schism.

Go ahead and keep repeating the old arguments, in the end it won’t get either side anywhere.

Those in the hierarchy must keep repeating these arguments. Without discussion, nothing can get accomplished.

Of course, those of us here are only amateur apologists with big egos.

Orthodox need to ask themselves if anything would actually change if they accepted the Pope as supreme head of the Church.

In the first 1000 years, there was no such thing as a “supreme pontiff.” That one is a non-starter.

I am not an eastern mind, if I was, I would probably have become Orthodox.

I was a Western mind who became of an Eastern mind.

When Orthodoxy says Catholicsm and their western philosophy is wrong, what they are really saying is that western society is wrong.

No they are not. They are saying that certain (relatively new) Roman Catholic teachings are not part of Holy Tradition.

 

[h2oplyer7]

Mickey, how do you consider yourself a western mind? Do you accept the Big Bang Theory and Evolution? My guess is you do not. Do you believe there was biological death before the evolution of man? Do you believe that one can come to knowledge of the divine through reason? If you do not, then you are hardly a western mind, for you care little for human reason or modern science, two of the true children of western thought.

The fact is that the modern scientific method and new scientific theories on the origin of the universe could never have come out of the east. They did arise in the west, being built upon the groundwork laid by such Catholic thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas (who your Church considers a heretic, as I’m sure you know), and Catholic scientists such as Father Georges Lemaître, the creator of the Big Bang Theory. The eastern purely mystical view of revelation limits the Eastern Church. We can see this in terms of the slow progress made in the east in science and technology.

The fact is that Orthodoxy needs Catholicism more than Catholicism needs Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church has universities the world over, the Catholic Church has great mystics, such as St. John of the Cross. As wonderful as the Orthodox Church is, and it really is, it lacks the rational side of the house that Catholicism has in spades. I am not saying that human rationality is superior, or even equal to the knowledge of God as one attains through theosis, but it is important, and it is something forgotten in the east.

However, I am only one man, and I have a lot to learn still. I am a Catholic, because Catholicism answered everything I had a question for. Where Orthodoxy told me, “don’t worry about it,” Catholicism said, “here is what we suppose, or here is what we think.” But, if your spirit is satisfied by the East, then I am not one to argue with you. In many ways, it is probably better that we should all be satisfied by the knowledge of God as on the Mountain of Silence. All I know is that the East could not satisfy by mind, where the West satisified both my spirit and my mind.

As for your “non-starter” of the papacy, it is merely your opinion, as I believe the Church Fathers do teach that the Church of Rome is the preeminent. Again, I really could care less about the polemics of theology, which I equate most Catholic-Orthodox dialogue as theological ham-stringing.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is no word in the world, ‘consubstantiation’.

That word was created to mean that Christ is of one substance with the Father. The world does not believe in Jesus Christ, let alone many Christians as well not believing the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

To talk about this reality…people use words. So ‘consubstantiation’ was created to explain this mystery. This is not heretical. Consubstantiation is the reality and truth of Jesus Christ present among us.

Christ called Peter to a particular task. The early churches drew from Roman church. The issues in time between temporal rulers and ecclesial rulers had to be defined…so that the will of God is always before mankind. I do not consider temporal rulers having that jursidiction but ecclesiastics.

 

[Harpazo]

Mickey, how do you consider yourself a western mind? Do you accept the Big Bang Theory and Evolution? My guess is you do not. Do you believe there was biological death before the evolution of man? Do you believe that one can come to knowledge of the divine through reason? If you do not, then you are hardly a western mind, for you care little for human reason or modern science, two of the true children of western thought.

The fact is that the modern scientific method and new scientific theories on the origin of the universe could never have come out of the east. They did arise in the west, being built upon the groundwork laid by such Catholic thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas (who your Church considers a heretic, as I’m sure you know), and Catholic scientists such as Father Georges Lemaître, the creator of the Big Bang Theory. The eastern purely mystical view of revelation limits the Eastern Church. We can see this in terms of the slow progress made in the east in science and technology.

The fact is that Orthodoxy needs Catholicism more than Catholicism needs Orthodoxy. The Catholic Church has universities the world over, the Catholic Church has great mystics, such as St. John of the Cross. As wonderful as the Orthodox Church is, and it really is, it lacks the rational side of the house that Catholicism has in spades. I am not saying that human rationality is superior, or even equal to the knowledge of God as one attains through theosis, but it is important, and it is something forgotten in the east.

However, I am only one man, and I have a lot to learn still. I am a Catholic, because Catholicism answered everything I had a question for. Where Orthodoxy told me, “don’t worry about it,” Catholicism said, “here is what we suppose, or here is what we think.” But, if your spirit is satisfied by the East, then I am not one to argue with you. In many ways, it is probably better that we should all be satisfied by the knowledge of God as on the Mountain of Silence. All I know is that the East could not satisfy by mind, where the West satisified both my spirit and my mind.

As for your “non-starter” of the papacy, it is merely your opinion, as I believe the Church Fathers do teach that the Church of Rome is the preeminent. Again, I really could care less about the polemics of theology, which I equate most Catholic-Orthodox dialogue as theological ham-stringing.

We disagree.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, how do you consider yourself a western mind?

I was Roman Catholic for 38 years. I used to have the Western mindset.

My guess is you do not.

I suppose you can guess all you want. You do not know me.

being built upon the groundwork laid by such Catholic thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas (who your Church considers a heretic, as I’m sure you know)

Holy Orthodoxy considers anyone who is not Orthodox as “heterodox”. Obviously, I am not a big fan of scholastic philosophy.

The eastern purely mystical view of revelation limits the Eastern Church.

No way…on the contrary…it is evident that you are not knowledgable about Holy Orthodoxy (or Eastern Catholicism for that matter).

A true theologion experiences God.

The fact is that Orthodoxy needs Catholicism more than Catholicism needs Orthodoxy.

Wrong again. It is this type of triumphalism that shows reunion will not happen anytime soon.

As for your “non-starter” of the papacy, it is merely your opinion,

And the opinion of many Orthodox saints, Fathers, clergy, and laity.