Eastern Orthodox?

[Jennifer132]

Can someone explain in a concise way the difference between RC and Eastern Orthodox? Why do they say they are the true church and RC is not?

 

[e_c]

A power struggle engendered by geographical, liturgical, cultural, linguistic, and theological differences that flared up when two figures in particular came to power in the East, Photius and Michael Caerularius, who essentially were offended by the pope enough to break from communion with him.

That’s a caricature. It is a super dense mess.

 

[RyanBlack]

A power struggle engendered by geographical, liturgical, cultural, linguistic, and theological differences that flared up when two figures in particular came to power in the East, Photius and Michael Caerularius, who essentially were offended by the pope enough to break from communion with him.

That’s a caricature. It is a super dense mess.

Yes, it is a caricature. It also leaves the impression that all of the fault for the schism lies with the Orthodox–a position that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would seem to reject.

“In fact, 'in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”’ (817)

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Wikipedia article on the Great Schism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

 

[Peter_J]

A power struggle engendered by geographical, liturgical, cultural, linguistic, and theological differences that flared up when two figures in particular came to power in the East, Photius and Michael Caerularius, who essentially were offended by the pope enough to break from communion with him.

I think I remember now why I stay away from this section of the forum.

 

[Micosil]

I think I remember now why I stay away from this section of the forum.

I was going to comment along the same lines, but I was worried it’d come across as uncharitable. Now I see I’m not the only person that noticed the odd “history” there.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

The only differences I am aware of is the primacy of Peter & the “filioque” in the creed, and the origins of the 2 issues are something maybe another member has more info on.

 

[Tomdstone]

A power struggle engendered by geographical, liturgical, cultural, linguistic, and theological differences that flared up when two figures in particular came to power in the East, Photius and Michael Caerularius, who essentially were offended by the pope enough to break from communion with him…

I thought it was the Roman Catholic legates who broke communion when they placed the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Can someone explain in a concise way the difference between RC and Eastern Orthodox? Why do they say they are the true church and RC is not?

I join everything mentioned above.

Also, in addition to what was said, the modern Orthodox, out of spite to Catholics, are trying to highlight the differences in accents in some theological questions and turn them into the full-scale theological differences. Namely:

1. They claim that the Pope is not a primate and not infallible. They recognize only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. And the Eighth one, which restored Photius into position in the 10th century.
2. They claim that the words “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the Creed should only read as “Who proceeds from the Father”, and that this is a matter of significance.
3. They claim that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an innovation of the Catholics. They also seem to be suspicious of the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption.
4. They usually deny our Catholic doctrine of substitutionary atonement of the Christ, usually claiming that Christ did not redeem humanity from our debt to God, but redeemed us from someone(thing) else. What did He redeemed us from, they have controversies about. Some say, from the Devil, some - from the “Death”, some - from “reality itself”.
5. They deny the doctrine of Purgatory. Instead, they usually believe in “Celestial Toll-Houses”, which are the private judgment over dead people, anticipating the Final Judgement at the Second Coming. Generally, the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife is less deterministic than that of the Western Christianity. There is an opinion among them that even after Your death, even if You die without a grave (mortal) sin, the demons may somehow capture Your soul, if You did not take enough sacraments in the earthly life. They also have a different understanding of the “Beatific vision”, claiming that even the saints cannot see the God as He really is.
6. There is an opinion, especially among the Russian Orthodox, that the Transubstantiation during the Eucharist occurs not at the moment of the Words of Institution, but during the Epiclesis. This is facilitated by the fact that in the Byzantine liturgy the Epiclesis follows the Words of Institution, not precedes them.
7. Finally, they have their own doctrine of Hesychasm, which was confirmed by one of their provincial councils. Long story short, according to this doctrine, one may see the mystical Divine Light even before death, by following certain meditative practices. The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has been very wary of this doctrine.

But all that is more of the way of putting the correct stresses than of the true differences (except the Papal superiority, maybe). The true reasons for the differences lie in the culture and politics, as well as the Orthodox intent to have as little in common as possible with the “God-damn Latins”. The Schism was not an instant event. The Russian Princes, for example, maintained relationships with Rome for about a century after the Schism; only the jealousy of the Greek-born theologians on Russian soil gradually persuaded the Rus that the West is “evil”.

 

[Micosil]

1. They claim that the words “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the Creed should only read as “Who proceeds from the Father”, and that this is a matter of significance.

The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t have the Filioque clause in their Creed either, and it’s totally fine (even though they do believe it as a theological truth).

1. They deny the doctrine of Purgatory. Instead, they usually believe in “Celestial Toll-Houses”, which are the private judgment over dead people, anticipating the Final Judgement at the Second Coming. Generally, the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife is less deterministic than that of the Western Christianity. There is an opinion among them that even after Your death, even if You die without a grave (mortal) sin, the demons may somehow capture Your soul, if You did not take enough sacraments in the earthly life. They also have a different understanding of the “Beatific vision”, claiming that even the saints cannot see the God as He really is.

My understanding is that the toll house thing is more of a Russian/Slavic Orthodox belief, rather than a universal belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.

1. There is an opinion, especially among the Russian Orthodox, that the Transubstantiation during the Eucharist occurs not at the moment of the Words of Institution, but during the Epiclesis. This is facilitated by the fact that in the Byzantine liturgy the Epiclesis follows the Words of Institution, not precedes them.

This is also a common understanding and emphasis in Eastern Catholicism. That Transubstantiation happens at the utterance of the Words of Institution by the priest is a valid theological opinion that is held in the West, but it isn’t a doctrine as far as I know. That it happens at Epiclesis is also a valid theological opinion.

1. Finally, they have their own doctrine of Hesychasm, which was confirmed by one of their provincial councils. Long story short, according to this doctrine, one may see the mystical Divine Light even before death, by following certain meditative practices. The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has been very wary of this doctrine.

Never heard of this before.

But all that is more of the way of putting the correct stresses than of the true differences (except the Papal superiority, maybe). The true reasons for the differences lie in the culture and politics, as well as the Orthodox intent to have as little in common as possible with the “God-damn Latins”. The Schism was not an instant event. The Russian Princes, for example, maintained relationships with Rome for about a century after the Schism; only the jealousy of the Greek-born theologians on Russian soil gradually persuaded the Rus that the West is “evil”.

This is my general impression as well.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Can someone explain in a concise way the difference between RC and Eastern Orthodox? Why do they say they are the true church and RC is not?

In addition to what I’ve said, there are also some differences in sacramental practice.

Namely, the Orthodox usually allow divorce in case of adultery and some other cases. As I understand, it is granted by a local bishop. They hold that every person may be married three times within one’s life. Although even here the practice was not always consistent. Russian Tsar Ivan IV (1533-1585) had four consecutive wives, forcing the church council to allow him to marry for the fourth time. Also, the availability of divorces seems to vary significantly with time. Back then it was hard. Nowadays it seems to be simple. Vladimir Putin had a sacramental marriage with his wife Ludmilla, but then they suddenly just informed the public they were not married anymore… and then there are news that she has married someone else since then.

They also allow contraception in some circumstances. “Some circumstances” seem to me quite arbitrary. For example, Andrey Kurayev at a lecture said that a woman may use “non-abortive” contraceptives in case she has already given birth to around 5 and more children and further childbirth might harm her health.

 

[JurisPrudens]

The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t have the Filioque clause in their Creed either, and it’s totally fine (even though they do believe it as a theological truth).

Yes, but this is NOT a matter of significance for the Eastern Catholics. While the Orthodox consider adding “and the Son” a heresy.

 

[Micosil]

Yes, but this is NOT a matter of significance for the Eastern Catholics. While the Orthodox consider adding “and the Son” a heresy.

Indeed; my point is, it isn’t something to worry about in essence, it’s just an overblown issue.

 

[Kosta]

Can someone explain in a concise way the difference between RC and Eastern Orthodox? Why do they say they are the true church and RC is not?

If I could just interject here, you’re not going to find a fair-and-balanced take on the differences between the two groups and why the schism happened. Already within five replies, the responses are borderline factually-inaccurate propaganda. Your best bet, in my opinion, would be published books over what some anonymous guy with a computer shouts out to you.

I thought it was the Roman Catholic legates who broke communion when they placed the letter of excommunication on the altar of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054.

Apparently when it suits Catholics to say that we broke communion from them, they’ll say it, otherwise the story goes that Humbert struck first when politically expedient. This site needs to open a book before they blurt things out and stop playing the victim card so often.

 

[Peter_J]

The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t have the Filioque clause in their Creed either, and it’s totally fine (even though they do believe it as a theological truth).

It wasn’t in the creed of the West or the East, but the Carolingians pushed for it around 800.

Btw, I notice that my earlier statement, that I stay away from this section of the forum, is no longer true, as we’re now in the Non Catholic Religions section.

 

[Peter_J]

If I could just interject here, you’re not going to find a fair-and-balanced take on the differences between the two groups and why the schism happened. Already within five replies, the responses are borderline factually-inaccurate propaganda. Your best bet, in my opinion, would be published books over what some anonymous guy with a computer shouts out to you.

Apparently when it suits Catholics to say that we broke communion from them, they’ll say it, otherwise the story goes that Humbert struck first when politically expedient. This site needs to open a book before they blurt things out and stop playing the victim card so often.

Not to pick, but “this site” is more than what any one person does. If God wanted everyone to be the same, then we would all be traditionalist Catholics with braces on our legs, but apparently he doesn’t.

 

[prodromos]

I join everything mentioned above.

Also, in addition to what was said, the modern Orthodox, out of spite to Catholics, are trying to highlight the differences in accents in some theological questions and turn them into the full-scale theological differences. Namely:

1. They claim that the Pope is not a primate and not infallible. They recognize only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. And the Eighth one, which restored Photius into position in the 10th century.
2. They claim that the words “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the Creed should only read as “Who proceeds from the Father”, and that this is a matter of significance.
3. They claim that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is an innovation of the Catholics. They also seem to be suspicious of the dogma of Mary’s Bodily Assumption.
4. They usually deny our Catholic doctrine of substitutionary atonement of the Christ, usually claiming that Christ did not redeem humanity from our debt to God, but redeemed us from someone(thing) else. What did He redeemed us from, they have controversies about. Some say, from the Devil, some - from the “Death”, some - from “reality itself”.
5. They deny the doctrine of Purgatory. Instead, they usually believe in “Celestial Toll-Houses”, which are the private judgment over dead people, anticipating the Final Judgement at the Second Coming. Generally, the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife is less deterministic than that of the Western Christianity. There is an opinion among them that even after Your death, even if You die without a grave (mortal) sin, the demons may somehow capture Your soul, if You did not take enough sacraments in the earthly life. They also have a different understanding of the “Beatific vision”, claiming that even the saints cannot see the God as He really is.
6. There is an opinion, especially among the Russian Orthodox, that the Transubstantiation during the Eucharist occurs not at the moment of the Words of Institution, but during the Epiclesis. This is facilitated by the fact that in the Byzantine liturgy the Epiclesis follows the Words of Institution, not precedes them.
7. Finally, they have their own doctrine of Hesychasm, which was confirmed by one of their provincial councils. Long story short, according to this doctrine, one may see the mystical Divine Light even before death, by following certain meditative practices. The Roman Catholic Church, so far, has been very wary of this doctrine.

But all that is more of the way of putting the correct stresses than of the true differences (except the Papal superiority, maybe). The true reasons for the differences lie in the culture and politics, as well as the Orthodox intent to have as little in common as possible with the “God-damn Latins”. The Schism was not an instant event. The Russian Princes, for example, maintained relationships with Rome for about a century after the Schism; only the jealousy of the Greek-born theologians on Russian soil gradually persuaded the Rus that the West is “evil”.

Is it Lent already?

 

[Micosil]

Is it Lent already?

I’m willing to bet JurisPrudens didn’t write all of that to be met with patronizing one-liners. I would humbly suggest that maybe you should debate or discuss what JurisPrudens said instead of brushing it off with one-line comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

 

[prodromos]

I’m willing to bet JurisPrudens didn’t write all of that to be met with patronizing one-liners. I would humbly suggest that maybe you should debate or discuss what JurisPrudens said instead of brushing it off with one-line comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

Yep, definitely Lent.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m willing to bet JurisPrudens didn’t write all of that to be met with patronizing one-liners. I would humbly suggest that maybe you should debate or discuss what JurisPrudens said instead of brushing it off with one-line comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

Not meaning to put too fine a point on it, but Wow, are you saying you’re more bothered by Prodromos’s post than by the post he was responding to?