Eastern Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul11b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paul11b

Guest
Hello, I have some questions about the Eastern Orthodox religion. What is the main difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Does their bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus during the Eucharist? Why did they separate from us? What makes us the “correct” Church as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox religions? Does it fulfill a Catholics obligation if he/ she were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass? Thank you very much.
 
The Orthodox have valid orders, which means they have valid sacraments. They believe, just as Catholics do, that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the elements of bread and wine are changed to the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I’ve never heard the Orthodox speak of the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of our Lord-just body and blood.
 
paul11b said:
Hello, I have some questions about the Eastern Orthodox religion.
  1. What is the main difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?
  2. Does their bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus during the Eucharist?
  3. Why did they separate from us?
  4. What makes us the “correct” Church as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox religions?
  5. Does it fulfill a Catholics obligation if he/ she were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass? Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
  1. Da pope. Seriously. There are other issues, but they are vanishingly minor when scrutinized closely. At surface they can appear substantial, but close investigation shows that most revolve around different cultures expressing their view of the same revelation differently. EO tend to distrust the very idea of “doctrinal development” the way we see it (though what they really mean IMO is any development less than 1,000 years old).
  2. Yes. They have valid Holy Orders (priests), and all the sacraments. They don’t use the word ‘transubstantiation’ partly because they didn’t think it up and partly because they distrust doctrinal development. They’ve left the understanding more vague, but I’m not good enough to tell it from their perspective. It IS a “Real Presence” idea though, just less specific than transubstantiation.
  3. Human pride and arrogance (ours and theirs), covered with trumped up theological issues. It really comes down to arguments about “mine is bigger than yours.” Sad, eh? What do you expect from humans?
  4. Da pope. Jesus really did create a role for Peter and his successors that isn’t quite the same as that of the other apostles. Not absolute dictator, but not mere figurehead either. EO see the papacy as a ceremonial headship with no special authority other than that held by other bishops/patriarchs. As a result, we have both the advantages of issue specific leadership and the disadvantages of potential scandal and corruption. IMO, this difference plays a key role in the relative successes experienced by each group in fulfilling Jesus’ command “Go forth and make disciples of all the world”.
  5. Yes, if there is no catholic mass available. But doing so would be very disrespectful to the EO because THEIR rules prohibit it. It varies, but many of them aren’t too sure we’re really part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church like they are.
The above is horribly over simplified, but it should prompt some conversation!
 
The above is horribly over simplified, but it should prompt some conversation!
Click to expand...
Oh and how, lol 😃
  1. Da pope. Seriously. There are other issues, but they are vanishingly minor when scrutinized closely. At surface they can appear substantial, but close investigation shows that most revolve around different cultures expressing their view of the same revelation differently. EO tend to distrust the very idea of “doctrinal development” the way we see it (though what they really mean IMO is any development less than 1,000 years old).
Click to expand...
You’re right in referencing the Pope of Rome as the biggest issue, but I think it is a mistake to minimize the issue of how we view Christianity. The “Orthodox mindset” or “philosophy” is huge in Orthodoxy, pervading theology, practice, and Liturgy, and we are very divided on this issue from the West. From the surface we appear very similar, but our intentions and foundational beliefs can be very different.
  1. Human pride and arrogance (ours and theirs), covered with trumped up theological issues. It really comes down to arguments about “mine is bigger than yours.” Sad, eh? What do you expect from humans?
Click to expand...
I have to concede that pride on both sides is a major issue, but the theological issues are not “trumped up”. They’re a very serious divide that needs to be examined and settled before reconciliation would ever be possible.

As an aside, the fact that Catholics brush this off so often is a source of endless frustration to Orthodox. It is not just “ancient politics” or “cultural issues” or “language” which divide us, though over and over and over again Catholics insist it is so. True reconciliation could never occur until the Catholics begin to actually listen when we say that there are serious issues that divide us.
  1. Yes, if there is no catholic mass available. But doing so would be very disrespectful to the EO because THEIR rules prohibit it. It varies, but many of them aren’t too sure we’re really part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church like they are.
Click to expand...
I actually thought this too, but recently discovered that if there is no Catholic Liturgy available the Catholic obligation is removed entirely. They’re allowed if they wish to then attend an Orthodox Liturgy for educational purposes, but at no time does the Orthodox Liturgy provide for the Catholic Obligation (at least, in the Roman rite. It MAY be different in the Eastern Rites but I’m not sure).

Our rules prohibit you from receiving Communion, but you are more than welcome to actually attend.
 
I’ve tried, but I haven’t heard anything on the EO side that is incompatible with catholic teachings. You’re right that the common application is often quite different, but that’s wholly a different matter than differences in ‘de fide’ teaching.

Filioque is a total non-issue, IMO (theologically, at least). The catholics added “and the son” to avoid the appearance of the Father being a separate Being from the Son, the EO reacted with horror thinking that the catholics were teaching that the Holy Spirit had two sources. Neither concern was true of the other. Tempest in a tea pot boiled over by misunderstanding, bad translation and ego. Would have been resolved over a nice dinner without the ego part.

I fail to see the basic difference between Purgatory and toll houses. I get the EO objection to the definition of Original Sin, but again it is a matter of being too specific for EO comfort in regards to what is in Scripture or 1,000+ years old writings.

Keep in mind that I’m not intending to write a catholic vs EO Summa here. A new person just wanted to comprehend the basics. You gotta start somewhere. No disrespect was intended to my EO brothers, who obviously do have a different take on these things. Feel free to elaborate for him.
 
paul11b said:
Hello, I have some questions about the Eastern Orthodox religion. What is the main difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Does their bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus during the Eucharist? Why did they separate from us? What makes us the “correct” Church as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox religions? Does it fulfill a Catholics obligation if he/ she were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass? Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
the Orthodox have the Sacraments but they don’t have the Pope. That is the main difference. (they are in schism). It doesn’t fulfill the Sunday obligation to go to the Eastern Orthodox liturgy unless you’re in a country with no Catholic churches within reasonable distance. However, we can go to Eastern Catholic liturgies which are just like the Orthodox, but in communion with the Pope and fully Catholic 🙂

as for the schism …it’s a very complicated topic. A lot of it was political.

God bless
 
I didn’t think you were being disrespectful at all manualman. I hope I didn’t convey that in my tone. If so I apologize, I certainly didn’t mean to.

The Orthodox may be willing to listen to the theological meaning behind the filioque, but they will never accept that the way it was added was alright. The Pope, of his own volition, added it, and that is unacceptable to the Orthodox. Many, however, still think the theology behind it is incorrect as well (though I think you may be right in that what the Catholics mean by it and what the Orthodox think the Catholics mean by it are two different things). The dinner would never have worked - one side would be demanding lamb cooked on a spit and the other would want tortellini.

Toll houses aren’t Orthodox doctrine, and are actually rejected by the vast majority of those who even have heard of the theory.

And I knew you weren’t meaning to produce an “EO Summa”, I just found that responding to your comment provided an excellent framework to present “the other side”.
 
paul11b said:
Hello, I have some questions about the Eastern Orthodox religion. What is the main difference between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? Does their bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus during the Eucharist? Why did they separate from us? What makes us the “correct” Church as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox religions? Does it fulfill a Catholics obligation if he/ she were to go to an Eastern Orthodox mass? Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
The main difference is Catholics are united under the Pope, and all Catholics fall under him as the Universal and Supreme Pontiff of the Church. The Orthodox are united under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, but he occupies just a “first among equals” role where he has a place of honor, but no actual authority over other Churches. Each particular Church is headed by a Patriarch who has full and total authority over their Church.

No, we do not fulfill our Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Liturgy.

Yes, their Eucharist is valid.

We separated because of disagreements in theology.

What makes us the correct one? Because we follow the successor of Peter. But in fairness to them, they also view themselves as the correct one.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Orthodox are united under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople…
Click to expand...
Being in Communion with the Orthodox Church is not defined as being in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but with all other Orthodox. Unless one is under the EP’s jurisdiction, he has pretty much nothing to do with you. My priest, for example, is not “under” the Ecumenical Patriarch, but is in communion with him.

A small difference, but an important distinction.
 
manualman said:
I’ve tried, but I haven’t heard anything on the EO side that is incompatible with catholic teachings. You’re right that the common application is often quite different, but that’s wholly a different matter than differences in ‘de fide’ teaching.

Filioque is a total non-issue, IMO (theologically, at least). The catholics added “and the son” to avoid the appearance of the Father being a separate Being from the Son, the EO reacted with horror thinking that the catholics were teaching that the Holy Spirit had two sources. Neither concern was true of the other. Tempest in a tea pot boiled over by misunderstanding, bad translation and ego. Would have been resolved over a nice dinner without the ego part.

I fail to see the basic difference between Purgatory and toll houses. I get the EO objection to the definition of Original Sin, but again it is a matter of being too specific for EO comfort in regards to what is in Scripture or 1,000+ years old writings.

Keep in mind that I’m not intending to write a catholic vs EO Summa here. A new person just wanted to comprehend the basics. You gotta start somewhere. No disrespect was intended to my EO brothers, who obviously do have a different take on these things. Feel free to elaborate for him.
Click to expand...
mostly it was the idea of the pope unilaterally adding something to the Creed, forbidden by the 3rd Ecumenical Council which forbade any changes and Anathemized those who did so

The addition is problematic and heretical in greek, the original language of the creed, which the Pope reconizes by omitting it when he celebrates the Mass in greek

(if i say error, please correct)
 
Montalo said:
mostly it was the idea of the pope unilaterally adding something to the Creed, forbidden by the 3rd Ecumenical Council which forbade any changes and Anathemized those who did so. (if i say error, please correct)
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for your care in adding that parenthetical remark.

The third ecumenical council proscribed that changing of the* faith* - in particular as a concession to reconcile heretics - not the precise words of the Creed. Interestingly, the Creed in use at the council was the creed of Nicea from EC1, without the additions and changes made in Constantinople at EC2, which was a local council, whose changes to the symbol of faith were not adopted (and the council thus recognized as ecumenical) until EC4. Proscriptions about changing any words were, IIRC, incorporated into writings from a later council (the last of the “eighth councils”) that neither the OC (in the mainstream) nor the CC regard as an ecumenical council. Some regard this incorporation as one of the post-council unilateral additions made by Constantinople.

As for the unilateral action of the Pope, the reality is that the filioque had been being used for upwards of six centuries in the West, and had become very widespread, before the Bishop of Rome accepted its use in Rome; the theology behind it was, however, accepted much earlier. Acceptance of this addition for use in the West was achieved at Florence. But this council was rejected in the East by unilateral action of the Czar in Moscow, and later in Constantinople and throughout the Rum Millet after the conquest by the Ottomans.

The most recent discussion among mainstream theologians in the East and West, have concluded that the filioque should no longer regarded as a church dividing issue. One could make interpretations of it that are heretical, but it is understood that its meaning in the CC is not; that idea actually has deep roots (well over a millennium) in the East. Whether or not the opinions of current theologians of the East will gain traction in the Eastern churches remains to be seen.

There are many, many threads on the filioque on the EC forum. I am writing quickly from memory, but sources can be found on threads there. If my memory on some details is faulty, and if I say error, please correct.
 
I think the main issue is the papacy. The Orthodox and Catholics were able to live side by side even while the West utilized the filioque. The Orthodox weren’t thrilled about it but were ok as long as it wasn’t imposed on them. They were actually pretty tolerant. The leavened or unleavened bread thing wasn’t a big woop either as both tolerated the differences. Augustinian thought and the perspective of Chrystostom lived side by side.

A language barrier did develop and both sides lost a lot of cross pollination from what I’ve read. It did affect communication and theological exchange. Both retreated more into their corners…

But ultimately the papacy was the big elephant in the room that caused the rift. Primacy of honor vs. universal ecclesiastical supremacy. Infallible magisterium over the entire Church Catholic or venerable See that is arbitor, highly-respected, and regarded as a serious voice of reason and trust in times of peril? It seems like the East and West saw things too differently here.

I cannot fathom, I hate to sound cynical, a reunion. The East is not willing to talk with the terms of infallibility and universal supremacy on the table and the West isn’t willing to throw away the last 200 years of de fide articles, proclamations, edicts, canon laws, infallible statements, and admit they were wrong about the papal place in the grand scheme of things…Neither side will reall come to the table. And I think as these BIG issues make things uncomfortable and distant, sadly other things come along periodically to only make matters worse for Orthodox to want to talk with the CC. Seeing the Pope kiss the Koran, reading the Muslims are chief amongst those able to be saved who supposedly worship the same God as Christians (in the catechism), Lumen Gentium raising the papacy even higher even when not speaking infallibly, Vatican II making the Novus Ordo even more unrecognizable to Orthodox, and some of the statements of Benedict XVI saying that the Orthodox are “defective” because they lack the papacy. It doesn’t look good…
 
Rawb said:
Being in Communion with the Orthodox Church is not defined as being in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but with all other Orthodox. Unless one is under the EP’s jurisdiction, he has pretty much nothing to do with you. My priest, for example, is not “under” the Ecumenical Patriarch, but is in communion with him.

A small difference, but an important distinction.
Click to expand...
I did point that out that he has no real authority in other Churches. But isn’t he the point of communion?
 
Rawb said:
What do you mean by “point of communion”?
Click to expand...
Catholics are so interested in the church as organization that it is hard for them! We think of church as more organism than organization. Ecclesiology separates Catolics from Orthodoxy!! They have great deal of time money invested in organization with their own little country and bureaucrats for everything! Hard to give it up for simplicity of holy orthodoxy! And many here perhaps
love bishop of Rome as much or more as Christ! But maybe I am too like Ivan Karamazov!
 
Volodymyr said:
Catholics are so interested in the church as organization that it is hard for them! We think of church as more organism than organization.
Click to expand...
Interesting statement. The problem with the “organism” approach practiced by the EO is that it’s hard to actually get anything done. It’s systematically almost guaranteed to result in failure to achieve Christ’s Great Commission. History is a brutal thing to interpret and y’all have surely suffered greatly in the mission by being pressed in on by Islam, but it is worth wondering if the ‘headless’ system adopted by the Orthodox since the schism isn’t at least partially to blame.

The problem with the “organization” approach practiced by catholicism is that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Even infallible protections (which you guys obviously don’t believe exist) don’t provide good leadership, just prevent irreversible backwords leadership. We’ve certainly had our fair share of bad leadership, especially when the Church was too cozy with the state.

Perhaps what the church needs is a healthy misture of BOTH approaches, much like the human body is a comprehensive organism, but with a defined nervous system and a brain that provides direction.

I think the Schism will be resolved someday in Africa. It is there where humanity will see if the catholic approach to christianity can evangelize muslims and change societies where the orthodox approach has so far failed. Africa is the only place where vibrant and healthy catholicism is in direct contact and conflict with Islamic culture. If the tide of Islam can be rolled back there, the fruit of the Holy Spirit will be made manifest. (in my humble opinion, of course! 😉 )

In the meantime, I’d sure like to have some of those lamb kebabs, please!
 
The only thing I can say is that the EO’s haven’t had a Reformation? They haven’t changed their liturgy except in small ways? They’ve never had a Vatican II type situation either? They’ve maintained pretty solid morality despite having no catechism and central authority and theologically speaking they’ve maintained solid ground? I can’t see where the “headless” aspect has hurt them? It’s one reason I find them compelling. When I went to a Divine Liturgy, despite it seeming tough to follow, I was wowed at how ancient it felt and unchanged? No yielding to modernity in the slightest. Coffee hour was about the most innovative the EO’s got when I was there! 😛 Doctrinal developement hasn’t been a problem for the EO’s either. That kind of consistency, faith, morality, and solid theological exploration despite being persecuted by communism and Islam and secular pressures is impressive IMO. The Eastern Orthodox look at Church through the local diocese just like the Ancient Church did. The parish is a microcosm of all Christianity, called Eucharistic Ecclesiology. One’s bishop, the sacraments, the worship, lex orandi lex credendi, it’s all the Faith. Isn’t it impressive that they avoided a Reformation and the schisms of tens of thousands of break-away churches and heretics despite Communism and Islam and the temptations around them to become hip, cool, and more modern? I find them impressive.
manualman said:
Interesting statement. The problem with the “organism” approach practiced by the EO is that it’s hard to actually get anything done. It’s systematically almost guaranteed to result in failure to achieve Christ’s Great Commission. History is a brutal thing to interpret and y’all have surely suffered greatly in the mission by being pressed in on by Islam, but it is worth wondering if the ‘headless’ system adopted by the Orthodox since the schism isn’t at least partially to blame.

The problem with the “organization” approach practiced by catholicism is that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Even infallible protections (which you guys obviously don’t believe exist) don’t provide good leadership, just prevent irreversible backwords leadership. We’ve certainly had our fair share of bad leadership, especially when the Church was too cozy with the state.

Perhaps what the church needs is a healthy misture of BOTH approaches, much like the human body is a comprehensive organism, but with a defined nervous system and a brain that provides direction.

I think the Schism will be resolved someday in Africa. It is there where humanity will see if the catholic approach to christianity can evangelize muslims and change societies where the orthodox approach has so far failed. Africa is the only place where vibrant and healthy catholicism is in direct contact and conflict with Islamic culture. If the tide of Islam can be rolled back there, the fruit of the Holy Spirit will be made manifest. (in my humble opinion, of course! 😉 )

In the meantime, I’d sure like to have some of those lamb kebabs, please!
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top