Eastern Orthodox view of Catholics?

[Contrabass101]

I was wondering what the EO opinion on Catholics is.

In Catholic theology/ecclesiology, it is necessary to be in communion with Rome; in fundamentalist theology, you may not be in communion with Rome. But what say the Easterners?

Are Catholics saved? Are they Church?

And aren’t the people in the West *rightfully *under papal jurisdiction? I mean, there may be disagreement to the popes primacy, but he is still bishop and (i suppose) patriarch of the West, isn’t he?

• CB

 

[Magicsilence]

I was wondering what the EO opinion on Catholics is.

In Catholic theology/ecclesiology, it is necessary to be in communion with Rome; in fundamentalist theology, you may not be in communion with Rome. But what say the Easterners?

Are Catholics saved? Are they Church?

And aren’t the people in the West *rightfully *under papal jurisdiction? I mean, there may be disagreement to the popes primacy, but he is still bishop and (i suppose) patriarch of the West, isn’t he?

• CB

I am not EO, but opinion on this matter amongst EO differs.

Generally, the perceived corruption of the papacy is the main focus, and people in the pews are given less attention.

I think the general thrust is that once (in their eyes) the pope left the Church, he lost any right to maintain his position.

I would hazard a guess that many Orthodox lay people still view Catholics as brothers in Christ, but some converts can be less ecumenically inclined.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Seamus_L]

Because of the widely differing opinions within the various Orthodox churches, you get everything from those who are seeking some form of reunion, to others who believe the Papacy is the Anti-Christ.

 

[Thomas_a_Sinner]

Because of the widely differing opinions within the various Orthodox churches, you get everything from those who are seeking some form of reunion, to others who believe the Papacy is the Anti-Christ.

I don’t think the opinions vary as much as you think. All of the Churches want reunion. It’s a matter of under whose terms the reunion would happen.

All of the Orthodox Churches teach that the Church of Rome is fallen. Orthodox do not believe in the two lung theory. There is a Greek Bishop in Rome that we now consider the Bishop of Rome.

Depending on the tradition of the local parish a person 50/50% might get excommunicated for taking part of the Divine Gifts at a Roman Catholic Church.

We believe that salvation outside of the Church is not impossible but extremely unlikely and wholly depends on the mercy of God.

The Pope, Bishops and Priest will be judged more harshly then the lay people.

Most Orthodox I know really feel sorry for the Latin Church especially for the Church in the 20th Century and post Vatican II.

A friend of mine was Baptized in a Latin Rite Church. His sponsor was also a woman from my school. When she walked into the alter I almost fell over. In the Orthodox Tradition women are never allowed in the Alter.

When the topic of the Latin Church come up I think there is a consciences among the Priest and lay people alike that the Roman Church is in real trouble and that a time will soon come when the Church in America at least will implode. I’m sorry for what appears as a slam against the Roman Catholics but you asked.
Thomas a Sinner

 

[Mar_Isaac]

How is this entire thread not a violation of this sub-forum’s posting rules?

 

[Seamus_L]

Not offended at all Thomas. Orthodox Christians tend to be much more realistic than Catholics regarding the serious differences in our respective churches. As a Catholic, I also have problems with the Two Lungs theory as it just smacks of false ecumenism. And I too hate to sound so negative, but before the day is through a few posters will be telling us that our differences are relatively meaningless and that it all can be easily worked out if we set our minds to do it.

 

[dessert]

I don’t think the opinions vary as much as you think. All of the Churches want reunion. It’s a matter of under whose terms the reunion would happen.

All of the Orthodox Churches teach that the Church of Rome is fallen. Orthodox do not believe in the two lung theory. There is a Greek Bishop in Rome that we now consider the Bishop of Rome.

Depending on the tradition of the local parish a person 50/50% might get excommunicated for taking part of the Divine Gifts at a Roman Catholic Church.

We believe that salvation outside of the Church is not impossible but extremely unlikely and wholly depends on the mercy of God.

The Pope, Bishops and Priest will be judged more harshly then the lay people.

Most Orthodox I know really feel sorry for the Latin Church especially for the Church in the 20th Century and post Vatican II.

A friend of mine was Baptized in a Latin Rite Church. His sponsor was also a woman from my school. When she walked into the alter I almost fell over. In the Orthodox Tradition women are never allowed in the Alter.

When the topic of the Latin Church come up I think there is a consciences among the Priest and lay people alike that the Roman Church is in real trouble and that a time will soon come when the Church in America at least will implode. I’m sorry for what appears as a slam against the Roman Catholics but you asked.
Thomas a Sinner

This is a good post and very charitable I don’t think I could be as nice.
Speaking of the lung theory I have never been comfortable with it’s representation and maybe our Holy Father is considering a lung transplant? We could exist on one. The Latin Roman Church will last.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because of the widely differing opinions within the various Orthodox churches, you get everything from those who are seeking some form of reunion, to others who believe the Papacy is the Anti-Christ.

Funny, I’ve seen the same spectrum in the Latin church.

 

[Hesychios]

There is a Greek Bishop in Rome that we now consider the Bishop of Rome.

I am sorry Thomas, but you are going to have to clarify this statement for us. Do you have references?

If there is a Greek bishop in Rome (and why not, if there are Greeks there who need a bishop) this is not considered a replacement for the ancient line of bishops at Rome, any more than a Roman Catholic bishop in Athens is replacing the historic line of bishops of Athens. There is no policy to rebuild the western church anew, or replace it.

But I agree, the “two lung” theory is an inadequate analogy and we do not subscribe to it.

I dislike the theme of this thread. But since I have been drawn in I will address the OP as well…
*
Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

I was wondering what the EO opinion on Catholics is.

As variable as any Roman Catholic opinion can be.

This is a dangerous topic, because people will draw all kind of conclusions from what is stated:

• Some are just looking for a reason to be offended and pick a fight.
• Some people will look for unrealistic reasons to be optimistic.
• Some people just want validation from a member of a church not their own.
  Everyone is bound to be disappointed if there are enough responses.

In Catholic theology/ecclesiology, it is necessary to be in communion with Rome; in fundamentalist theology, you may not be in communion with Rome. But what say the Easterners?

A false dichotomy.

One need neither be in communion with Rome, nor out of communion with Rome. One should ideally be Orthodox, every one should ideally be Orthodox.

Are Catholics saved? Are they Church?

I don’t know. Why do you ask?

Are Orthodox saved? Why do I ask you…it makes no sense!

Jesus Christ is our judge.

Let’s not ask such judgments of each other.

[continued below]

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

And aren’t the people in the West *rightfully *under papal jurisdiction? I mean, there may be disagreement to the popes primacy, but he is still bishop and (i suppose) patriarch of the West, isn’t he?

• CB

This is a difficult issue to address because there is the quasi-official line coming from Roman Catholic apologists, and there are independent historical sources. A serious student of both will see that there are a lot of ways to look at it.

The bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the west. I don’t know when that title was agreed upon but “the west” is a pretty general description. I prefer Patriarch of Rome as more accurate. Your bishop of Rome Benedict has dropped the title altogether.

Considering just Europe for the moment, the western church had many forebears actually:

1. 
   *]The church in Iberia, essentially modern Spain and Portugal (called Mozarabic)
   *]The church of Transalpine Gaul
   *]The church of Milan, the Po valley etc.
   *]The Celtic church of Ireland, Scotland and northern England
   *]The North African church
   *]The church of Rome and central Italy
   *]The Greek church of southern Italy and Sicily
   All of these churches were capable of holding synods and councils. Some very important historic councils. The most prestigious of these by far was the church at Rome.
   
   Somehow all of these churches were absorbed by the church of Rome in time, and are now governed by it. Is it proper to the original ecclesiology of the church? I don’t know. But how we see that will have a great bearing on how we answer.
   
   It’s like asking about the British empire…“well you do believe the Queen of England is a legitimate monarch, don’t you?” Yes, I think so, but would she be a legitimate Empress of India?
   
   The church of Rome is recognized as the principal church of it’s synod and this is enshrined in the canons of the First Ecumenical council.
   
   Two canons stand out in this regard, the fourth, which states:
   Canon 4
   
   It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
   
   Interestingly, this is still the practice in the eastern Orthodox churches. The bishops of a province comprise a synod, and they elect new members for vacant offices, the choice being confirmed formally by the Metropolitan. The canon even makes a provision for absentee ballots! This was once the practice in the west as well.
   
   And canon Six, which states:
   Canon 6
   
   Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
   
   The Orthodox churches continue to adhere to these original canons. The bishops of Rome, as that of Alexandria and Antioch, have rights of jurisdiction over certain local dioceses (how that is exercised is another discussion).
   
   So the answer to your questions is yes, as the Patriarch of the church at Rome he is the head of that church. Orthodox Patriarchs have been according that recognition to Popes, even in areas of disagreement and even though we do not recognize his authority over our churches, and we do not commune or concelebrate with him.
   
   But the bishops of Rome no longer restrict themselves to jurisdiction in Italy, or even in the whole west. They now claim universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over all churches everywhere. And this right is claimed as a dogma, not merely a church discipline. Since this is contrary to the ancient understanding and the canons, Orthodox consider it to be an error.
   
   We cannot commune a church that teaches dogmatic error. We do not claim that church no longer exists, or anything of the sort.

 

[Contrabass101]

One need neither be in communion with Rome, nor out of communion with Rome. One should ideally be Orthodox, every one should ideally be Orthodox.
I don’t know. Why do you ask?

Because I don’t want to go to hell :nope:

My journey of faith has reached a crossroad, and the door to Protestantism seems to be shut behind me (lack of apostolic succession amongst other things). That leaves me with a somewhat limited choice, and all I see is people tossing bits and pieces of decrees and councils at each other, claiming that to be binding og non-binding… and I can’t find up or down in the awful mess.

I was thinking that if the Orthodox view was a bit softer than the Catholic, I would only have to do a Pascal’s Wager… and go Roman.

Sigh the whole reason I started going down the Sacred Traditon road, was that I lost confidence in my own “infallibilty” in such matters :ehh:

• CB

 

[Volodymyr]

I was wondering what Orthodox person’s opinion of Catholics is.

Is it necessary to be in communion with Rome

Are Catholics saved? Are they Church?

The Pope he is still bishop and patriarch of the West, isn’t he?

I have opinion closer to Hesychios. Catolics are very wonderful people here - mostly Polish or other kind origin, but very devote, loving God, great devotion to Mother of God. I try hard here to understand Catolic faith.

I hope you have same feeling for Orthodox peoples.

But why do you care what I feel about your doctrines. Obviously if I am not Catolic there are many such doctrines that I do not believe. God is merciful - even Orthodox people may be saved - how am I to know if a Catolic is to be saved. Do I think being “in communion” with Bishop of rome is important - obviously not. Do I believe Catolics should be under Pope - I suppose they should - and I hope we will all be able to return to Unity of Christ’s Churches as before Schism. But, dear friend, we are not Catolics - do not expect us to use Catolic terms, support all Catolic doctrines.

We are Christians who receive Body and Blood of Christ in our Communications, we confess ourselves for forgiveness of sins, we are married in Church, and prayed for in church after dead. We pray to Mother of God and Holy Saints. We are lead by Bishops, Metropolits and Patriarchs, who are men monks. We have women-monks. Much of this sounds so similar to Catolic Church. So let it be like that.

I would like to visit Catolic countries. I would be very hopeful someday to travel to Italy - primary to see Shrine of St Nikolai at Bari but also want to see Catacombs in Rome and tomb of St. Peter who with St. Andrei, St. Tomas and other Holy Apostls must all be surprised at lack of unity of Christ’s Churches.

 

[prodromos]

My journey of faith has reached a crossroad, and the door to Protestantism seems to be shut behind me (lack of apostolic succession amongst other things). That leaves me with a somewhat limited choice, and all I see is people tossing bits and pieces of decrees and councils at each other, claiming that to be binding og non-binding… and I can’t find up or down in the awful mess.

Internet forums are probably not the best avenue for determining your direction as very few of us are particularly good ambassadors for our faith. We are still too caught up in our passions and this is often reflected in our posts, often distorting the information we are trying to present. It would be better for you to start attending services at both Catholic and Orthodox churches, asking questions of the priests at both and gaining an understanding of the services. I would also suggest you follow the example of our Lord before embarking on this journey, by fasting along with your prayers to God on this issue. Try to keep your food simple and minimal and avoid having snacks so that you always remain just a little bit hungry. If you can stop eating meat that would be ideal, but it may be too difficult if you have not done this before. Start with something you can manage.
If you find that you need to fast for a long period, take note that we do not fast between Christmas and Epiphany That is a time of celebration. There is a season for everything and many of us have been fasting throughout Advent in preparation for the Birth of Christ.

John

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have time only to be brief:

Only my personal opinions.

B XVI and JP II is/was heriarchs who, in the main, establish their throne by their confession, and do not try to issue their confession from their throne. (We do have memories of another type of pope ). If their caliber keeps up, I may live to see 1054 undone (God grant!).

I cross myself in front of Latin churches, as I think their consecrated host is HIM. I have posted that recently I went into a Latin church (I stop in if they’re open), and finding that Adoration was going on, prostrated.

I have, and will, defend the Latins against many of their detractors. The Latin church has done much good by any standard, and give credit where credit is do.

I could do without the NO, however.

 

[Thomas_a_Sinner]

I am sorry Thomas, but you are going to have to clarify this statement for us. Do you have references?

If there is a Greek bishop in Rome (and why not, if there are Greeks there who need a bishop) this is not considered a replacement for the ancient line of bishops at Rome, any more than a Roman Catholic bishop in Athens is replacing the historic line of bishops of Athens. There is no policy to rebuild the western church anew, or replace it.

But I agree, the “two lung” theory is an inadequate analogy and we do not subscribe to it.

I dislike the theme of this thread. But since I have been drawn in I will address the OP as well…
*
Michael*

Hesychios;
Here is your reference. He is not “considered a replacement” for the Bishop of Rome he is the Orthodox Bishop of Rome. Do you feel the OCA Bishops are replacement Bishops for the Russian Church? There have been Russian Bishops in North America for over 200 years now?
Italian Orthodox official website.
chiesaortodossa.it/
Bishop of Rome
S.Em. Rev.ma mons. Antonio De Rosso
Thomas a Sinner

 

[prodromos]

The web site calls him Bishop of Ravenna, not of Rome. My Italian is not very good so would someone be able to tell me which Patriarchate he is under. To the best of my knowledge there is no autonomous Orthodox Church in Italy, just a number of Churches serving the various migrant populations there.

John

 

[Hesychios]

Hesychios;
Here is your reference. He is not “considered a replacement” for the Bishop of Rome he is the Orthodox Bishop of Rome. Do you feel the OCA Bishops are replacement Bishops for the Russian Church? There have been Russian Bishops in North America for over 200 years now?
Italian Orthodox official website.
chiesaortodossa.it/
Bishop of Rome
S.Em. Rev.ma mons. Antonio De Rosso
Thomas a Sinner

Sorry,
The way things are interpreted around here I have every reason to expect somebody would claim we have appointed our own Pope.

People get very creative with the facts sometimes. I only wanted to be very explicit about it.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Hesychios]

Because I don’t want to go to hell :nope:

Dear friend in Christ,

If our salvation was up to us…no one would have a chance. Forget being able to do this on your own. It’s not in your hands.

Our God is Love and kindness. You have to make a decision in good faith, taking a chance and trusting in your sources. Based upon that alone, do you think Almighty God will damn you for seeking Him sincerely?

I think not!

We are all schismatics, all of us. It should not be this way but you cannot be part of an unschismed church no matter which way you turn. In the future, with the grace of God, we might get passed all of that, but not yet.

Heresy (not shism) is the real danger. Innocent people can be led astray into all kinds of incorrect notions and behaviors that can really hurt their future prospects. That is why it was treated so harshly in the past.

Heretics are killers of souls.

I think a case in point might be the Faith Alone argument…if people have adopted the idea that faith alone will save them, and thereby make no positive changes in their lives when they have the chance, they could be in for trouble later. It would firstly be the fault of those who invented such an interpretation and secondly their own faults for not taking the Gospel to heart. After all, as James does say even the devil has faith.

But who doesn’t change their lives and act different when they acquire faith? Very few I think, and it seems like the balance are just selfish by nature, a sinful state of mind they ought to be working on. They are the ones who will suffer because of that teaching, not the many others who might have come to believe that faith alone is necessary, yet soften their hearts in the Gospel and do good works anyway!

Many do not believe in the efficacy of the sacraments, because others before them have rejected them. Such people are denied the spiritual gifts and helps of the ancient mysteries, but that alone should not destroy them, they might have less ability to cope and grow in Christ, but not devoid of hope if they have faith and act upon it.

My journey of faith has reached a crossroad, and the door to Protestantism seems to be shut behind me (lack of apostolic succession amongst other things).

Well, congratulations are in order! Welcome to the Faith once handed to the saints!

Just pray, God has a plan for you. It’s your turn to listen for that still, small voice now

I was thinking that if the Orthodox view was a bit softer than the Catholic,

Not a chance.

I would only have to do a Pascal’s Wager… and go Roman.

Well…good luck!

Sigh the whole reason I started going down the Sacred Traditon road, was that I lost confidence in my own “infallibilty” in such matters :ehh:

• CB

Well put. It was a delusion anyway.

When we were in school we didn’t think to argue about math or science with our teachers, we were in over our heads most of the way through. We didn’t have our own opinions to override the authority of our teachers, no one had that much arrogance. After you have picked a spiritual Father, listen…and learn. Do the exercises. It will take all of the rest of your life.

Put on Christ.

*Michael

*For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:27

 

[Irish_Melkite]

The web site calls him Bishop of Ravenna, not of Rome. My Italian is not very good so would someone be able to tell me which Patriarchate he is under. To the best of my knowledge there is no autonomous Orthodox Church in Italy, just a number of Churches serving the various migrant populations there.

I agree with John, he is styled Bishop of Ravenna and Metropolitan of Italy. My Italian is only passable, but I don’t see any specific reference as to which Patriarchate he belongs. There is a picture of him with Patriarch Filaret, UOC-KP, closest I can come to noting any reference to jurisdiction.

Many years,

Neil