Eastern Orthodox Criticism of Catholicism?

[mardukm]

Dear h20plyer,

Sadly, the modern world has left behind your Orthodox metaphysics.

Not nice.

Orthodox apologists have for centuries accused everyone as being heterodox who do not bow to the Byzantine Patriarchs.

The Latin Catholic Church has done the same.

Now you tell me, who is the universal head of the Church?

Well, that would be Jesus Christ, as all sources, both Catholics and Orthodox affirm. If you ask, “who is the visible universal head of the Church?”…

You come here to divide and argue, but you argue for the wrong side.

OK. I can agree that brother Mickey can be quite polemical at times, but I believe this statement is improper. He is arguing for what he sincerely believes is the way of Christ. That is not “the wrong side” by any means. My only disagreement with brother Mickey and others of his uniatist mindset is that the Eastern Orthodox way is the ONLY way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[lax16]

This is from a Byzantine Catholic website and it seems to give a fair description of how both sides view the papacy:

Byzantine Catholic Church in America
Becoming One in Christ
Documentation of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue​

The Great Schism (edited for length)

Although there are a number of issues that would need to be definitively addressed by the two Churches before a complete reconciliation would be possible, most commentators agree that the central issue dividing the Catholic and Orthodox Churches revolves around the appropriate conception of the ministry of the Pope of Rome, and in particular, the nature and scope of his ministry vis-à-vis the Eastern Churches. In this respect, although the issues are complicated, a reasonably accurate summary of the present positions of the two Churches on this issue would be that (1) strictly speaking, the Catholics hold that the Pope of Rome, as the Successor to St. Peter, enjoys full, immediate, direct jurisdiction over every diocese in the Church and, under certain conditions, the charism of infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, whereas (2) the Orthodox hold that the Pope of Rome is the first bishop of the Church, a source of tremendous authority and respect, and perhaps a “court of final appeal” or mediator between bishops, but that he does not have direct legal jurisdiction over each local diocese, or individual infallibility per se when speaking alone. Both the Catholic Orthodox Churches believe that their respective view of the role of the Bishop of Rome is rooted in the traditions of the ecumenical Church of the first millennium.

Do you agree that this is a fair assessment of the differing views of the papacy?

If so, what sources do the Orthodox use to back up their views - early Church Fathers, scripture, etc.

thanks!

 

[h2oplyer7]

Yes, I agree that I got very tense. I was very frustrated with him. Honestly, I feel very bad right now. I didn’t mean to insult him, though in that second to last post I did. I know how closely he holds the Church’s teachings to his heart, which is admirable, but we have to stop being so pigheaded. Do you think your average person on the street knows anything about Filioque? It should not dominate our discussion. You read on this post long enough and you will become convinced the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church have nothing in common at all. Leave the theology to the experts. I don’t think any of us are experts. Regarding the papacy: come on, the truth is that the pope is hardly is all-powerful bishop people outside the Church try and make him out to be. Heck, cardinals snub their noses at him all the time. But we have to have a unifying force, and Catholics believe that is the Pope. And I agree that the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, but he is the head of the visible Catholic Church on Earth as Christ’s vicar.

It seems it’s as if some people don’t even attempt to understand the other side. I want unification. I don’t know why Orthodox are so against it. Honestly, I just don’t see why both sides can’t get over some differences. The Catholic Church has admitted the Filioque in Greek is heterodox, so why does the Eastern Church step on our toes when the Catholic Church has made it quite plain that we do not believe in double generation or equal procession. We take the Filioque to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son. This is a formula that found considerable agreement in the early Eastern Church. See, it’s just stuff like that. Tell us what you believe, but don’t tell us what the Catholic Church believes if you are not, or are no longer Catholic. Even when I stated what the Orthodox believe, I always ended those statements with a question mark. If I am wrong then correct me.

Here we are, in a time when materialism threatens to tear down the civilized world, and Catholics and Orthodox are arguing over things that NO ONE outside our Church cares one bit about. It is really bothersome.

It does seem to me though that Catholics want unity more than Orthodox. In fact, every time there seems to be progress, it seems that new objections over the same old arguments pop up. I am not impressed. Then again, you don’t need to be an expert on the Bible, on apologetics or theology, or on philosophy to achieve Theosis. You need love of God. That is straight from Father Paisios.

The Catholic Church is not the so far from you as you would think.

 

[Cavaradossi]

This is from a Byzantine Catholic website and it seems to give a fair description of how both sides view the papacy:

Byzantine Catholic Church in America
Becoming One in Christ
Documentation of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue​

The Great Schism (edited for length)

Although there are a number of issues that would need to be definitively addressed by the two Churches before a complete reconciliation would be possible, most commentators agree that the central issue dividing the Catholic and Orthodox Churches revolves around the appropriate conception of the ministry of the Pope of Rome, and in particular, the nature and scope of his ministry vis-à-vis the Eastern Churches. In this respect, although the issues are complicated, a reasonably accurate summary of the present positions of the two Churches on this issue would be that (1) strictly speaking, the Catholics hold that the Pope of Rome, as the Successor to St. Peter, enjoys full, immediate, direct jurisdiction over every diocese in the Church and, under certain conditions, the charism of infallibility when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, whereas (2) the Orthodox hold that the Pope of Rome is the first bishop of the Church, a source of tremendous authority and respect, and perhaps a “court of final appeal” or mediator between bishops, but that he does not have direct legal jurisdiction over each local diocese, or individual infallibility per se when speaking alone. Both the Catholic Orthodox Churches believe that their respective view of the role of the Bishop of Rome is rooted in the traditions of the ecumenical Church of the first millennium.

Do you agree that this is a fair assessment of the differing views of the papacy?

If so, what sources do the Orthodox use to back up their views - early Church Fathers, scripture, etc.

thanks!

As I am not particularly well versed in Orthodox apologetics yet (that was part of my goal in coming here, that I could practice a bit), I cannot answer the question of what quotes from the Church Fathers and the Scriptures in particular would back up these views, and I will leave it up to one of the more experienced apologists to supply evidence. I will say that the view which is presented in that quote is, in my opinion, a rather accurate overview of the difference between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mindset.

 

[Rdunbar123]

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?

As a child the Baltimore catechism showed sin as milk bottles, spotted ones were venial sins and black ones were mortal sins, useful illustration. Sin is sin and some are more gave than others. IMO the orthodox are less legalistic and don’t need everything broken down. Although purgatory is not defined prayers for the dead are considered useful as we don’t know how God judges. This is my understandig. I am an orthodox catechumen so I culd be wrong.
6) 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?

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?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

15 posts pruned.
Try to discuss the topic with charity and respect,

 

[Marybeloved]

**I just wanted to say that the idea that the Catholic Church has ever taught inheritance of personal GUILT from Adam and Eve is utterly false, and complete slander.

We inherit the effects of Adam’s sin due to the unity of the human race (one man’s sin brought death, one man’s justice and sacrifice brings life). Catholics believe that we are not born in the state in which God originally created Adam- Adam and Eve had no inclination to sin before the fall. Death, suffering and this evil inclination to sin (the law of the members that st Paul tells us he discovers in himself, Romans 7:23) are the consequences of Adam’s sin. No person inherits Adam’s guilt, everyone inherits the consequences of his sin. The Catholic Church has never taught anything contrary to this. Why perpetuate such slander? At least try to understand the other side honestly.

Catholics believe that Mary was put in the state Adam (and Eve) was before the fall, and made a contrary choice- obedience- This is the doctrine of the Immaculate conception. Not that Mary was protected from the guilt of Adam (everyone is!) but that her nature was also exempted from the effects of the fall so that she would be free to make the choice she did and Christ would have a perfect mother.

**Transubstantiation says that we see, feel, taste, smell what to our senses seems like bread (therefore, the accidents are retained, as we all who receive the eucharist know) but in truth what we receive is not bread but Christ (Therefore what was just now bread has mysteriously become Christ- The How is and always remains a mystery).

It has been said above that the orthodox just say- “The Eucharist is Christ”- How is that in all honesty, different from what I’ve just written here?

 

[Bluegoat]

**I just wanted to say that the idea that the Catholic Church has ever taught inheritance of personal GUILT from Adam and Eve is utterly false, and complete slander.

We inherit the effects of Adam’s sin due to the unity of the human race (one man’s sin brought death, one man’s justice and sacrifice brings life). Catholics believe that we are not born in the state in which God originally created Adam- Adam and Eve had no inclination to sin before the fall. Death, suffering and this evil inclination to sin (the law of the members that st Paul tells us he discovers in himself, Romans 7:23) are the consequences of Adam’s sin. No person inherits Adam’s guilt, everyone inherits the consequences of his sin. The Catholic Church has never taught anything contrary to this. Why perpetuate such slander? At least try to understand the other side honestly.

THis is what the modern Catholic Church teaches - I think it is a bit questionable to assert that it has always taught this.

Consider that the the Catholic Church, even today, says that we cannot know the fate of unbaptized babies, and until recently the most popular view was that they did not go to Heaven. (So much so that in some places babies who died unbaptized were not allowed to be buried in Catholic cemeteries). The Orthodox do not teach this.

This I think point to a difference, though a more subtle one than some want to admit subtle one, in the understanding of original sin and its effects. I think the Catholic Church has actually moved closer to the Orthodox understanding in recent years - many Orthodox would probably have no issue with the understanding of Original Sin found in the CCC.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I agree that I got very tense. I was very frustrated with him. Honestly, I feel very bad right now. I didn’t mean to insult him, though in that second to last post I did. I know how closely he holds the Church’s teachings to his heart, which is admirable, but we have to stop being so pigheaded. Do you think your average person on the street knows anything about Filioque? It should not dominate our discussion. You read on this post long enough and you will become convinced the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church have nothing in common at all. Leave the theology to the experts. I don’t think any of us are experts. Regarding the papacy: come on, the truth is that the pope is hardly is all-powerful bishop people outside the Church try and make him out to be. Heck, cardinals snub their noses at him all the time. But we have to have a unifying force, and Catholics believe that is the Pope. And I agree that the Pope is not the head of the Catholic Church, but he is the head of the visible Catholic Church on Earth as Christ’s vicar.

It seems it’s as if some people don’t even attempt to understand the other side. I want unification. I don’t know why Orthodox are so against it. Honestly, I just don’t see why both sides can’t get over some differences. The Catholic Church has admitted the Filioque in Greek is heterodox, so why does the Eastern Church step on our toes when the Catholic Church has made it quite plain that we do not believe in double generation or equal procession. We take the Filioque to mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son. This is a formula that found considerable agreement in the early Eastern Church. See, it’s just stuff like that. Tell us what you believe, but don’t tell us what the Catholic Church believes if you are not, or are no longer Catholic. Even when I stated what the Orthodox believe, I always ended those statements with a question mark. If I am wrong then correct me.

Here we are, in a time when materialism threatens to tear down the civilized world, and Catholics and Orthodox are arguing over things that NO ONE outside our Church cares one bit about. It is really bothersome.

It does seem to me though that Catholics want unity more than Orthodox. In fact, every time there seems to be progress, it seems that new objections over the same old arguments pop up. I am not impressed. Then again, you don’t need to be an expert on the Bible, on apologetics or theology, or on philosophy to achieve Theosis. You need love of God. That is straight from Father Paisios.

The Catholic Church is not the so far from you as you would think.

You know, a lot of Anglicans feel this way towards the Catholic Church. And then Catholics say “sorry, you are outside the Church and you must come back to her, even though we know we are all brothers in Christ” Unity has to be real unity, we cannot forget about serious doctrinal issues.

Well, that’s fine, I can understand that position, even if I do not agree with parts of it.

What I find weird is when those same people get all upset when the Orthodox say the same thing to them, as if it is some personal affront.

 

[Bluegoat]

Then tell me, other than using a metaphoric interpretation, how are you to rectify the differences between the Genesis account and the order in which things were actually formed according to scientific reasoning? If the only answer you can think of is to interpret the Genesis account metaphorically in order to place it in a greater metaphysical context, then why is that same approach not applicable to statements like, “there was no death before the fall”? Why must faith and reason collide, in your mind, when faith obviously ventures into territory which is beyond reason.

Are you suggesting that Orthodoxy does not allow for it’s members to accept evolution? As far as I am aware, there are many that do, including priests and even bishops.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you suggesting that Orthodoxy does not allow for it’s members to accept evolution? As far as I am aware, there are many that do, including priests and even bishops.

I don’t think that the Church has an official stance on the theory of evolution. Evolution, understood in the context of a theistic universe is fine. It is only when evolution is interpreted as a sign of naturalism being the truth (that is that nature is the ultimate source and cause of all of existence) that it becomes troublesome. As Christians, we are all obliged to believe that naturalism is false.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think that the Church has an official stance on the theory of evolution. Evolution, understood in the context of a theistic universe is fine. It is only when evolution is interpreted as a sign of naturalism being the truth (that is that nature is the ultimate source and cause of all of existence) that it becomes troublesome. As Christians, we are all obliged to believe that naturalism is false.

Ah thanks, that is my understanding also. I’ve met a few Orthodox recently who were strong creationists (in the American Protestant sense), and so I am interested to see how people think this is to be understood.

 

[Hesychios]

Ah thanks, that is my understanding also. I’ve met a few Orthodox recently who were strong creationists (in the American Protestant sense), and so I am interested to see how people think this is to be understood.

If one were to ask me if I believe that matter and all things were created substantially as they now exist, as it is recounted in the first chapter of Genesis and not gradually changing …

… I would say no, I do not believe that.

 

[searn77]

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

From my opinion your focus is a little off here. While I agree that homosexual marriage is bad, that abortion is murder, that praying in public shouldn’t be prohibited, etc., the focus needs to be on Christ, not these issues. If one focuses his attention on Christ, other’s will see the peace and love of Christ he has within him regardless of what his situation is and be led to Christ, leaving their former unchristian ways behind. There’s a better chance that abortion, homosexual marriages, etc will reduce in numbers if people are led to Christ first. Instead of opposing these issues and then trying to bring people to Christ, people need to be led to Christ first and then they will naturally leave these evils.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rawb, you said:

“We pray for the dead because it is a good and righteous thing to do…”

I was just curious about one thing: There is no reason to pray for those souls in heaven or hell, so where, according to EOC tradition, are the souls of the dead that EO Christians pray for, being that it is a righteous thing to do?

 

[searn77]

Hey Rawb, you said:

I was just curious about one thing: There is no reason to pray for those souls in heaven or hell, so where, according to EOC tradition, are the souls of the dead that EO Christians pray for, being that it is a righteous thing to do?

We do not speculate where souls go after they die. We pray for the dead simply because we love them. And God, being outside of time, knows of our prayers before we pray them.

So ultimately to answer your question, we pray for the departed simply out of love for them.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Hey Rawb, you said:

I was just curious about one thing: There is no reason to pray for those souls in heaven or hell, so where, according to EOC tradition, are the souls of the dead that EO Christians pray for, being that it is a righteous thing to do?

Our prayers assist those passing through the aerial toll houses (where, upon death, the demons do everything within their power to keep the soul from salvation). Our prayers assist them in these trials. In addition to this, there is an aspect of purification for which we pray (this is not, however, synonymous with the punishment-oriented concept of purgatory). St. Mark of Ephesus :

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell , but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard."

 

[joe370]

Our prayers assist those passing through the aerial toll houses (where, upon death, the demons do everything within their power to keep the soul from salvation). Our prayers assist them in these trials. In addition to this, there is an aspect of purification for which we pray (this is not, however, synonymous with the punishment-oriented concept of purgatory). St. Mark of Ephesus :

“But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in they very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell , but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard.”

Thanks brother for the response. I did not know that. Always enjoy learning something…

 

[joe370]

We do not speculate where souls go after they die. We pray for the dead simply because we love them. And God, being outside of time, knows of our prayers before we pray them.

So ultimately to answer your question, we pray for the departed simply out of love for them.

Is it fair to say that those souls in heaven do not need our prayers and those souls in hell cannot benefit from our prayers? Only those souls that are not in heaven or hell can benefit from our prayers? If so, what about the toll houses as Raub suggested?

 

[searn77]

Is it fair to say that those souls in heaven do not need our prayers and those souls in hell cannot benefit from our prayers? Only those souls that are not in heaven or hell can benefit from our prayers? If so, what about the toll houses as Raub suggested?

The toll houses are a controversial subject among today’s Orthodox. Some take it quite literally, some figuratively, and some a little bit of both. But the toll houses, unlike Purgatory, are not any type of doctrine or dogma of the Orthodox Church.

Here’s an answer one priest gave to someone who asked about praying for the departed that I think answers your question:

Just as we love and respect our living brethren, so do we love and respect those of our brethren who have departed this life. We express our love for our departed friends and relatives through prayer. Just as we pray for the living that the Grace of God may be upon them, so do we pray for the dead that they may become worthy of the vision of God. At death no man leaves the world to appear before God free of sin, perfect, holy, so that he does not need the mercy and Grace of God. The Holy Church is composed not only of the living, earthly members but also of the faithful departed. All of us, living and dead, are members of one Church and are bound together by one Faith, by common love, and are unworthy sons of the merciful God. It is therefore our duty to ask God, each of us separately, and all together are one Church, to be merciful toward the sinful soul of our departed brother.

Death and burial cannot sever the Christian love which united the living with those once living and now deceased. We continue to love our parents even after death. We continue to express this Love for Them and it becomes real when we commemorate them in our prayers. We can communicate with the living members of the Church in both a visible, physical manner and a spiritual manner, i,e., we can talk to them and do things for them materially and spiritually. We can communicate with the faithful departed in a spiritual manner only-through prayer, in which we ask for the forgiveness of their sins and for their establishment in God’s Heavenly mansions. We pray for them in the spirit of love, knowing that no one will be saved otherwise than by the prayer of all the Church in which Christ lives, knowing and trusting that so long as the end of time has not arrived, all the members of the Church, both living and departed, are being continually perfected by mutual prayer.

How can we but not pray for our deceased parents who brought us into this world, who cared for us in our childhood and looked after our upbringing, who fed us and clothed us? How can we not remember in our prayers our brothers and sisters and our friends, the companions of our life who have departed into eternity? How can our hearts not be possessed with the insatiable desire to pray for them as our expression of thanks, devotion and love. How else, if not by prayer, we express our feelings of unity and fellowship with our brethren in the Faith who have gone to their rest before us?

pravmir.com/article_596.html

So basically, to answer you plainly, the Orthodox pray for the departed simply out of love. What these prayers do, and how they do it, remain a mystery.