Eastern Orthodox Teachings

[dvdjs]

Historically, EO Churches also regarded the use of unleavened bread by the Roman CC in the Eucharist as a heretic practice. The shaving of beards by RCC clergy was likewise rejected as unacceptable.

I seem to recall that it was the Latin side that piled on the accusations of deviancy, enumerated in the bull of excommunication placed on the altar of Hagia Sophia.

Intereting take.

The Roman legates were in Constantinople to address “accusations of deviancy” made against the Latins by the Greeks. These accusations included a tract against the Latin church “On Unleavened Bread …” written by a monk Niketas; the circulation of this tract was accompanied by acts of desecration. Prior to the bull, in the presence of the legates and Greek officials, this tract had been anathematized. The reference to “aymes” in the bull of excommunication was historical:

“he … forbid churches to celebrate Mass, just as he had earlier closed the churches of the Latins and, calling them ‘azymites,’ …”

Similarly in the case of beards, the accusation was not against the Greek practice of having beards (apart I suppose from the eunuch clergy), but for the innovative idea that the Latin practices merited excommunication.

“… and because they grow the hair on their head and beards, they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.”

Overall, Mr. Varga recalls the situation more accurately.

Regarding the use of unleavened bread, the EO understood it as heretical because the Armenians–seen as Monophysite heretics at the time–used it.

So? The office of antiphons in our liturgy was adopted from the practice of the Arians, who sang psalms as the processed outside of the city to serve the liturgy.

The Russian Churches are in communion with the Antiochians, whose WRO parishes use unleavened bread.

OK. Is the use of unleavened bread heretical or not?

 

[Madaglan]

Intereting take.

The Roman legates were in Constantinople to address “accusations of deviancy” made against the Latins by the Greeks. These accusations included a tract against the Latin church “On Unleavened Bread …” written by a monk Niketas; the circulation of this tract was accompanied by acts of desecration. Prior to the bull, in the presence of the legates and Greek officials, this tract had been anathematized. The reference to “aymes” in the bull of excommunication was historical:

The bull presented by Humbert charges the Patriarch Michael Caeluarius (whose title is denied) and the Greeks who follow him as being like Arians, Valerians, Manichaeans and just about every other heretical group then known–as well as being castrators of guests. I do not deny acts of desecration on the part of the Greek Christians, but I think it important to note that degradations also were committed against the Greeks by Latins. The tracts written against unleavened bread were in response to the imposition of Latin customs by Normans. To characterize the EO as unilaterally breaking communion with the RCC over absurdities is not true to the historical record.

 

[Madaglan]

• Patriarch Michael Cerularius.

 

[dvdjs]

The bull presented by Humbert charges the Patriarch Michael Caeluarius (whose title is denied) and the Greeks who follow him as being like Arians, Valerians, Manichaeans and just about every other heretical group then known–as well as being castrators of guests.

True, but not on-point with the issues that you quote from Mr. Varga.

I do not deny acts of desecration on the part of the Greek Christians, but I think it important to note that degradations also were committed against the Greeks by Latins. The tracts written against unleavened bread were in response to the imposition of Latin customs by Normans.

So is the use of azymes heretical or is the claim of heresy just a card to play in geo-politics? Bulgaria redux.

To characterize the EO as unilaterally breaking communion with the RCC over absurdities is not what I’ve seen to be the case.

First: are the issues of azymes and beards absurdities or not? On this thread there is a claim that Orthodoxy sees the use of unleavened bread as heretical. On another very recent thread, a member of the AOC indicated that he heard from a ROCOR priest that for a priest to be beardless is heretical. I would agree with you that these issues are dead and absurd, and only wish that our opinion was shared by others posting here as EO’s.

Second: No one claimed that the issues of hair and leaven were the only issues involved in 1054. Those two issues, however, were two brought up by Mr. Varga, and quoted by you in your response to him. If your your response was aimed at indicating that there were other issues in play, fine. I apologize that I read it incorrectly as a response directed to the issues that you quoted.

The fact is, however, as borne out on a very recent thread, there is considerable confusion about exactly what Humbertus alleged in his bull. The story is retold over and over and things get turned around. There are people who claim that Humbertus anathematized the Greeks for using leavened bread and for wearing beards - suggesting that the CC was unilaterally breaking communion with the EOC over absurdities. And I read your elliptical post in the same vein. Again sorry if I were wrong, but the erroneous perspective is so well-precedented here, that I thought a correction was in order.

I am glad that that is not your claim, and agree wholeheartedly that breaking communion over these issues is an absurdity,

 

[Madaglan]

True, but not on-point with the issues that you quote from Mr. Varga. So is the use of azymes heretical or is the claim of heresy just a card to play in geo-politics? Bulgaria redux.

The use of azymes was an irregularity in the Church, the practice found elsewhere amongst the “monophysite” Armenians and the Jews. One may ascribe ulterior motives to the claim, but really I think they were genuine in their theological concerns. The Church had used leavened bread since early times, and the West only began using azymes in the 8th century. Is the use of azymes itself heretical? I personally don’t think so, but then again I don’t believe the practices and discipline of the Church must or ought to be exactly uniform.

First: are the issues of azymes and beards absurdities or not? On this thread there is a claim that Orthodoxy sees the use of unleavened bread as heretical. On another very recent thread, a member of the AOC indicated that he heard from a ROCOR priest that for a priest to be beardless is heretical. I would agree with you that these issues are dead and absurd, and only wish that our opinion was shared by others posting here as EO’s.

To Christians who see the Truth in diversity, it is an absurdity. To Christians who see differences as signs of corruption, these matters are of grave concern.

The fact is, however, as borne out on a very recent thread, there is considerable confusion about exactly what Humbertus alleged in his bull. The story is retold over and over and things get turned around. There are people who claim that Humbertus anathematized the Greeks for using leavened bread and for wearing beards - suggesting that the CC was unilaterally breaking communion with the EOC over absurdities. And I read your elliptical post in the same vein. Again sorry if I were wrong, but the erroneous perspective is so well-precedented here, that I thought a correction was in order.

According to the version I have at my disposal, Humbert does not broach the leavened bread subject. He mentions the Greeks and beards, but his condemnation is directed towards those who refuse to commune with those who are beardless (Latins). Some of his claims make sense (from the Latin perspective) but take no heed of Byzantine tradition (e.g. married clergy). Other claims, like their castration of guests, are really just inflammatory and not readily believable.

 

[dvdjs]

The use of azymes was an irregularity in the Church, the practice found elsewhere amongst the “monophysite” Armenians and the Jews. One may ascribe ulterior motives to the claim, but really I think they were genuine in their theological concerns. The Church had used leavened bread since early times, and the West only began using azymes in the 8th century. Is the use of azymes itself heretical? I personally don’t think so, but then again I don’t believe the practices and discipline of the Church must or ought to be exactly uniform.

I agree with your perspective on heresy and diversity. And apparently there is room in the EOC for diversity on heresy. One historical point: I have seen some reports that the Latins began a push for uniformity on the use of unleavened bread in the 8th, not, as you have it, that they only began using azymes in the 8th century. Others have indicated evidence for the use of azymes in the West dating back to the 4th century. What is the origin of your claim?

According to the version I have at my disposal, Humbert does not broach the leavened bread subject. He mentions the Greeks and beards, but his condemnation is directed towards those who refuse to commune with those who are beardless (Latins). Some of his claims make sense (from the Latin perspective) but take no heed of Byzantine tradition (e.g. married clergy). Other claims, like their castration of guests, are really just inflammatory and not readily believable.

Your comments on azymes and beards agree with what I posted earlier.

The issue of eunuchs was discussed in some detail on a recent thread. What’s not to believe: That they castrated? No that’s abundantly clear. That they castrated without real consent, or that the eunuch clergy were ordained in violation of canons? It is very unlikely that both of these can be denied. More likely, to some extent both are true. The comparision to Valensians is inflammatory, especially if “guest” is an accurate and meaningful translation. (Does anyone have the Latin?) But Constantinopolitans did practice castration on their kids, after all. Lots of them. It all seems unbelievable now, but the practice is well documented.

The crux of the matter - the existence in Constantinople of tens of thousands of eunuchs with many in the clergy of dubious validity - was not only readily believable, but was an issue that had been raised in previous discussions between Rome and Constantinople.

And the eunuch clergy did not have beards!

 

[prodromos]

What about the poor fellows who grow scrimpy beards, or none at all?

They have recourse to the prayers of the Mother of God !
There have been a few occasions of monks who could not grow beards, who then sought the prayers of Panagia, subsequently ending up with beards longer than the rest of the monks in the monastery they had wished to join.

 

[Madaglan]

I agree with your perspective on heresy and diversity. And apparently there is room in the EOC for diversity on heresy. One historical point: I have seen some reports that the Latins began a push for uniformity on the use of unleavened bread in the 8th, not, as you have it, that they only began using azymes in the 8th century. Others have indicated evidence for the use of azymes in the West dating back to the 4th century. What is the origin of your claim?

Johannes H Emminghaus is one source. He mentions that unleavened bread has been the Eucharistic form in the Latin Church since the 8th century. He adds that during the 1st millenium, leavened bread ordinarily was used by both West and East.

I’ve often wondered if the Armenian and Latin use of unleavened bread developed separately, or if they shared the practice.

The issue of eunuchs was discussed in some detail on a recent thread. What’s not to believe: That they castrated? No that’s abundantly clear. That they castrated without real consent, or that the eunuch clergy were ordained in violation of canons? It is very unlikely that both of these can be denied. More likely, to some extent both are true. The comparision to Valensians is inflammatory, especially if “guest” is an accurate and meaningful translation. (Does anyone have the Latin?) But Constantinopolitans did practice castration on their kids, after all. Lots of them. It all seems unbelievable now, but the practice is well documented.

I am aware of the castration of young boys (castrati) which still was practiced throughout Europe until a few centuries ago.

I am not aware though of adults being castrated and raised to sacerdotal and epsicopal rank. I interpreted “guests” as adults from foreign lands (e.g. emissaries). I would be interested in hearing the meaning of the Latin.

The crux of the matter - the existence in Constantinople of tens of thousands of eunuchs with many in the clergy of dubious validity - was not only readily believable, but was an issue that had been raised in previous discussions between Rome and Constantinople.

And the eunuch clergy did not have beards!

I’ll have to read up on this. Tens of thousands in one city seems a very high number for any given time, but I suppose it’s possible.

In just reading a little now about eunuchs, I’m finding it disturbing that making boys eunuchs was considered acceptable in Christian society.

 

[Madaglan]

The crux of the matter - the existence in Constantinople of tens of thousands of eunuchs with many in the clergy of dubious validity - was not only readily believable, but was an issue that had been raised in previous discussions between Rome and Constantinople.

And the eunuch clergy did not have beards!

I’m reading the first canon of Nicaea, on castration. It seems to indicate that those who self-castrate cannot become or remain clergy, while those castrated by barbarians or by their masters can in fact become or remain clergy.

So, does being a eunuch itself not bar one from becoming clergy?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Certainly, there are some beliefs and teaching that are common to all, ie the Blessed Trinity, the life, death and resurrection of Christ, etc.

What are the official teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy - those matters agreed upon as being essential to the Faith - that are absolutely irreconcilable with the essential teachings of Roman Catholicism?

There are certain practices that the EO regard as acceptable, but we Catholics must reject them as gravely immoral. These practices, if done with full kowledge of the fact that they are sinful, qualify as mortal sins and are sufficient for the eternal damnation of the soul. The ones I know are artificial birth control (ABC) and ecclesiastical divorce.

ABC is forbidden as gravely immoral by the CC - this includes condoms, surgical procedures such as vasectomy (men) and tubal ligation (women), the pill, intrauterine devices etc. Most EOC allow ABC as long as it doesn’t cause abortion. For example, a married couple may receive their EO priest’s blessing to go ahead and have a surgical procedure that will render either the man or the wife permanently sterile (vasectomy, or tubal ligation).

Regarding ecclesiastical divorce, which is allowed by the EOC, the CC teaches that a validly contracted and consummated marriage can never be dissolved as long as the parties are alive - it will only cease to exist when one of them dies.

There are certain teachings (dogmas) that all Catholics must believe under pain of excommunication. Those are the dogmas that are solemnly defined by the CC, followed by a formula such as “and if anyone shall say that this is not true, let him be anathema”. Some of those dogmas that were solemnly defined by the CC and all Catholics must believe them, but are rejected by the EOC, include the role of the Pope as supreme leader of the Church, the existence of the Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into heaven.

Here’s what the CC teaches about the Pope, things that are rejected by the EO: that the Pope is infallible (cannot fall into error) when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. That when the Pope defines teachings on faith and morals, ex cathedra, his teachings are definitive and irreformable - that is, nobody can change, question or reject these teachings, and furthermore, the Pope doesn’t need the approval of anyone else, such as the faithful at large, or the rest of the Bishops, gathered in an Ecumenical Council, to “approve” these teachings. The Pope also has a veto power over the decisions of Church councils, including local Councils and Ecumenical Councils (councils of the Church Universal). Moreover, the Pope has “immediate and ordinary jurisdiction” over the whole Church. This means, for example, that the Pope can depose and excommunicate a Bishop who has fallen into heresy, not only in his diocese of Rome, but anywhere on the globe. We Catholics must believe (we are not free to reject) that the Pope was given all this authority by Jesus Christ, that he exercises his God-given, legitimate authority when he infallibly defines teachings on faith and morals, and when he exercises his immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church. However, the EO reject all of this - they do not believe that the Pope can infallibly define teachings on matters of faith and morals, or that he has the right to exercise immediate and ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church, beyond his diocese of Rome.

We also must reject the EO view that the “filioque” is a heresy, and that the CC has fallen into heresy by adding the filioque to the Latin text of the Creed (filioque = “and from the Son”; see the Creed where we recite that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son). The EO believe that the teaching Magisterium of our Church has fallen into heresy, and that our Popes had upheld a heretic teaching for many centuries. But we reject the notion that our Church taught, and continues to teach, heresy.

All Catholics must believe that the CC has valid sacraments, including valid baptism and valid Eucharist. Thus we must reject the beliefs of those EOC who say that our baptism is not effective to salvation, or that when Catholic priests consecrate the bread and wine, it doesn’t truly become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Whenever the CC officially canonizes someone, it means the Church infallibly discerned that the person is in heaven. Thus we Catholics must believe that our canonized saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese Lisieux, St. Pio (Padre Pio), and others, are truly in heaven. When the EOC makes fun of and mocks our saints, I strongly suspect they don’t believe that infallible discernment of our Church that these saints are for sure, beyond the shadow of a doubt, in Heaven.

When the CC judges that a certain Marian apparition, e.g. the apparition at Guadalupe (Mexico, 1531), Lourdes (France, 1858) or Fatima (Portugal, 1917) is “worthy of belief”, it means we definitely do not err by believing that Mary truly appeared there, although we are not required to believe it. So, when the EOC do not believe these Marian apparitions, they are within their right not to believe them. However, they go beyond that and some of them mock those of us who believe them, even though our CC determined that the apparitions are worthy of belief.

Regarding various matters of Church discipline, such as the use of the New Calendar (Gregorian calendar) by CC, the presence of pews and musical instruments in churches, the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, the shaving of beards and tonsures by Catholic clergy, we Catholics can simply trust the authority of our Church to do these things, which means we reject the EO opinion that we are heretics for doing those things.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I know that I have attended St Seraphims Russian Orthodox cathedral in Dallas and have talked with the bishop there. They are on the same calendar as everyone else.

They have a different understanding of original sin, they don’t exactly reject the Immaculate Conception. In fact they may have even more devotion to Our Lady than the Catholic church, and call OL the All Holy Theotokos and at the vespers service they say ‘Holy Mother of God, save us’.

They most certainly beleive in the Assumption, they just call it the Dormition but they do think that OL died, the Catholic dogma just does not say for sure whether she died or not.

Many EO clergy do not wear beards, and while they prefer leavened bread for the Holy Eucharist they do not think Hosts are Heretical. not to mention pews and beards.

Perhaps you were in contact with rather extreme ROs, something like the ROCOR here in America?

Yes, I was in contact with ROCOR, and with the reunified Russian Orthodox Church. ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reunited in 2006 to form a single body of united Russian Orthodox Church.

I’m not an expert on theology thus I may be wrong, but I’ve read here on the forums that according to Catholic teaching, Mary died just like Jesus died. Mary did not need to die, since she was exempt from original sin, but she died, followed by assumption into heaven, body and soul.

Regarding the Marian dogmas, I generally don’t have a clue why they are important, but I know we Catholics must accept those, just like we must accept, for example, that God is a Trinity, that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, etc. Nevertheless, here’s what was in our church bulletin once when we celebrated The Assumption (August 15): that Mary was the first disciple of Christ, she is the first member of the Church. And as Mary goes, so goes the Church. Ergo, if Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, we the rest of the believers can also count on that. That we will ultimately be assumed into heaven, body and soul. Not a bad prospect.

 

[magdalina]

What are the official teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy - those matters agreed upon as being essential to the Faith - that are absolutely irreconcilable with the essential teachings of Roman Catholicism?

Thanks for the responses.

Have been away. Back now. It looks like some of my Eastern brothers and sisters have seized the opportunity to indulge in a breathless discussion of personal grooming, self-castration, forced-castration, infantile-castration, the benefits of denying clerical eunuch-ism and the existence of a deviant Azymite empire. Thanks for all that too.

As I mentioned in my earlier posting, I was raised in isolated world of Roman Catholicism. I had heard some of these terms before. I had not realized that these matters carried so much weight in the essential teachings of Eastern Christianity, Catholic or Orthodox.

Do they?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Madaglan and dvdjs,

you know more about this subject than I do. I am reading your posts with great interest.

I’ve read somewhere that Photius first tried to become Patriarch of Constantinople and he broke communion with Rome in 861, alleging the use of azymes, and beardless Latin clergy as some of the errors Rome has fallen into. Later he was reconciled with Rome when Rome accepted him as Patriarch, and then he let go of his criticisms regarding the azymes and bearded clergy.

Another thing that fascinates me is the filioque - I’ve read that a local Western council in Toledo, Spain introduced this addition in 451, to combat some local heresy. And that Popes always ruled that the filioque was NOT a heresy, but one Pope forbade at a certain point in time to use the filioque, not because he deemed it heretical, but because he knew the Greeks were up in arms against the filioque. So, it looks like the filioque was used for some 600 years (from 451 to 1054) in certain parts of Western Christendom, before the conflict over its use reached the point of causing, in part, the schism between the EO and Catholic Churches in 1054.

 

[dvdjs]

On azymes:

A quick read of several accessible histories indicates that this issues was not used against the west until the the time of Patriarch Cerularius. It was** not** among the issues raised by Photius.

I haven’t yet read the whole of Emminghaus, but the money quote is part of a discussion at ByzCath byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/352408/Re:%20Western%20Rite%20and%20some%20Lati

Taken as a whole, and taking care not to read too much into the texts (e.g., that the call for conformity represents a complete conversion from leavened to unleavened bread), it appears that this call in the west began in the seventh or eighth century. Conformity was not achieved until the second millenium. Before this, the practice seemed to be mixed, as there is some evidence for the use of azymes in the west back to the fourth century. See, eg “A Dictionary of Christian antiquities” edited by Sir William Smith, Samuel Cheetham.

This practice just wasn’t an issue until it became a symbol of the split between Greeks and Armenians. Then, instead of sticking to fundamental Christological issues, simple practices and disciplines were elevated to great theological significance.

The connection between the practice among the Latins, Armenians, and Maronites is intriguing, but I haven’t seen anything on that point.

 

[dvdjs]

On eunuchs:

Like Madaglan, I found this surprising and disturbing, as began to read on this subject. I knew of the castrati who were prominent in music for some centuries following the renaissance in the west. I had no idea that Orthodox choirs in Constantinople featured eunuchs until the practice was ended in 1204.

The details of Humbertus’s claims are hard to verify, but there are not so easy to dismiss as we might like to think. Were the eunuch priests, bishops, and patriarchs all ordained and installed canonically? Hard to say without a case by case examination, but it is not hard to imagine a role for “economy” in these ordinations and elevations. And this question raises another: how many of the eunuchs were castrated unwillingy? Even apart from the issue of the meaning of “guests” the large number of eunuchs and their prominence is a shock.

We tend to be far more acquainted with the sins of the West than of the East. That can color our perceptions of their interactions in an unfortunate way.

 

[Madaglan]

On eunuchs:

Like Madaglan, I found this surprising and disturbing, as began to read on this subject. I knew of the castrati who were prominent in music for some centuries following the renaissance in the west. I had no idea that Orthodox choirs in Constantinople featured eunuchs until the practice was ended in 1204.

The details of Humbertus’s claims are hard to verify, but there are not so easy to dismiss as we might like to think. Were the eunuch priests, bishops, and patriarchs all ordained and installed canonically? Hard to say without a case by case examination, but it is not hard to imagine a role for “economy” in these ordinations and elevations. And this question raises another: how many of the eunuchs were castrated unwillingy? Even apart from the issue of the meaning of “guests” the large number of eunuchs and their prominence is a shock.

We tend to be far more acquainted with the sins of the West than of the East. That can color our perceptions of their interactions in an unfortunate way.

Now I’ll forever be tainted with the image of the Slavic emissaries marveling in Hagia Sophia amid choirs of *castrati *chanting in the background.

I would think or hope most eunuchs were castrated unwillingly, unless castration were the fad of the day, as popular as tattoo parlors are today.

The large number of eunuchs is a bit of a shock. I wonder if the Byzantines castrated their defeated enemies. if defeated Byzantines were castrated before being released. Perhaps Constantinople was a focal point for eunuchs having nowhere else to go.

 

[dvdjs]

Now I’ll forever be tainted with the image of the Slavic emissaries marveling in Hagia Sophia amid choirs of *castrati *chanting in the background.

I hadn’t thought of that!

I would think or hope most eunuchs were castrated unwillingly, unless castration were the fad of the day, as popular as tattoo parlors are today

I am not sure which is worse: masses of willing eunuchs or masses of unwilling ones. The fad appears to go back into ancient Sumeria. But the Byzantines were the ones who elevated eunuchs from ignominious servitude to positions of behind-the scenes power - precursors of our civil servant class.

The large number of eunuchs is a bit of a shock.

Yes. I think that east and west got along as long as there were at a safe distance, imagining that both shared a culture. But the shared culture died as the Byzantines drove the barbarians west where they became empowered. By the time east and west were rubbing elbows in Bulgaria, or ostensibly collaborating during the Crusades, the West probably saw Byzantines in a manner similar to the Taliban looking at San Francisco. And vice versa.

 

[Madaglan]

Madaglan and dvdjs,

you know more about this subject than I do. I am reading your posts with great interest.

I’ve read somewhere that Photius first tried to become Patriarch of Constantinople and he broke communion with Rome in 861, alleging the use of azymes, and beardless Latin clergy as some of the errors Rome has fallen into. Later he was reconciled with Rome when Rome accepted him as Patriarch, and then he let go of his criticisms regarding the azymes and bearded clergy.

Another thing that fascinates me is the filioque - I’ve read that a local Western council in Toledo, Spain introduced this addition in 451, to combat some local heresy. And that Popes always ruled that the filioque was NOT a heresy, but one Pope forbade at a certain point in time to use the filioque, not because he deemed it heretical, but because he knew the Greeks were up in arms against the filioque. So, it looks like the filioque was used for some 600 years (from 451 to 1054) in certain parts of Western Christendom, before the conflict over its use reached the point of causing, in part, the schism between the EO and Catholic Churches in 1054.

As is the case with most contended hierarchs, there are varying accounts about St. Photius. The Latin version portrays him as an illegitimate schemer and castigator. The Greek version has him as a defender against papal encroachment, and a sound teacher of Trinitarian doctrine.

When the filioque began spreading outside of Spain and amongst the Franks, the Popes of Rome resisted the addition of the filioque. The Latin side holds that this resistance was not theological disagreement but rather a consideration of the conciliar prohibition against adding to the Creed.

If you’re interested in more, I’ve heard that Francis Dvornik’s The Photian Schism is an excellent treatment of the Photian issues.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Now I’ll forever be tainted with the image of the Slavic emissaries marveling in Hagia Sophia amid choirs of *castrati *chanting in the background.

:bigyikes:

Is this scene what you mean, leading to the Baptism of the Kievan Rus’ under Prince Vladimir?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_I_of_Kiev

The Primary Chronicle reports that in the year 987, as the result of a consultation with his boyars, Vladimir sent envoys to study the religions of the various neighboring nations whose representatives had been urging him to embrace their respective faiths. The result is amusingly described by the chronicler Nestor. Of the Muslim Bulgarians of the Volga the envoys reported there is no gladness among them; only sorrow and a great stench. He also said that the Bulgars’ religion of Islam was undesirable due to its taboo against alcoholic beverages and pork;[6] Vladimir said on that occasion: “Drinking is the joy of the Russes. We cannot exist without that pleasure.”[7] Russian sources also describe Vladimir consulting with Jewish envoys (who may or may not have been Khazars), and questioning them about their religion but ultimately rejecting it, saying that their loss of Jerusalem was evidence of their having been abandoned by God[citation needed]. Ultimately Vladimir settled on Christianity. In the churches of the Germans his emissaries saw no beauty; but at Constantinople, where the full festival ritual of the Byzantine Church was set in motion to impress them, they found their ideal: “We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,” they reported, describing a majestic Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, *“nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.” *

 

[mick321]

There are certain practices that the EO regard as acceptable, but we Catholics must reject them as gravely immoral. These practices, if done with full kowledge of the fact that they are sinful, qualify as mortal sins and are sufficient for the eternal damnation of the soul. The ones I know are artificial birth control (ABC) and ecclesiastical divorce.

• ABC is forbidden as gravely immoral by the CC…
• Regarding ecclesiastical divorce…
• There are certain teachings (dogmas) that all Catholics must believe…
• Here’s what the CC teaches about the Pope…
• We also must reject the EO view that the “filioque”…
• All Catholics must believe that the CC has valid sacraments…
• Whenever the CC officially canonizes someone…
• When the CC judges that a certain Marian apparition…
• Regarding various matters of Church discipline…

Thanks Joseph. That’s quite a list.

Nine hours from now, I will be in a Roman Catholic chapel assisting my regular Sunday EF/TLM. Twelve hours from now, I will be visiting a Western Rite Orthodox chapel for the Liturgy of St. Tikhon. Would it be too much trouble to shorten your list to maybe 2-3 key Orthodox teachings that I am likely to hear discussed during either of these services?