Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?

[SacredHeartBassist]

why is everyone defending the orthodox when they don’t accept papal infallibility?

 

[twf]

Because the dogma was defined 800 years after the schism became reality. The vast majority of Orthodox Christians were born and baptized into a state of schism with Rome.

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

sorry i meant papal supremacy/primacy which existed before the schism

 

[dochawk]

Please quote? I haven’t heard of any such council, but to be fair I’m not too read up on my councils.

The Nicean Creed came from the Council of Nicea It was further clarified at the Council of Constantinople.

The Filioque unilaterally changed it (and the popes fought and denounced it for a century before suddenly grabbing it to fight the same heresy).

Based on what I’ve read, “from the Son” and “through the Son” mean essentially the same thing based on the context. We know that everything the Son has comes from the Father, and so the Son can send forth the Spirit (even if it says “in origin”) and it will still mean that the absolute origin comes from the Father, since everything the Son has comes from the Father. This is not something one would get just from reading the text, so it’s pretty important to first know that everything the Son has comes from the Father.

This also comes from speaking english/latin. The greek explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father. tacking on a word without another verb to add the Son, even though sensible in latin, leads to Bad Things ™

John 15:26
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father , even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;”

The bolded part is what I think seems to support Filioque. Although I’ve looked it up on a Lexicon, like I said, I’m not very learned on these languages.

To be clear: the EO and EC do NOT dispute that the Spirit proceeds temporally through the Son. Most, at least would agree. But between language and the unilateral modification, it’s a problem for the East.

Note that EC use the original, not modified, creed.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

sorry i meant papal supremacy/primacy which existed before the schism

Which they don’t deny, but don’t let facts get in the way . . .

The entire Orthodox Catholic church ALWAYS accepted Roman primacy.

“supremacy”, in the sense you use it, is a post-schism innovation.

hawk

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

so dochawk, what’s the essential difference then? the filioque?

 

[AlNg]

Catholics are right and the orthodox are wrong

Catholics have added the filioque to the creed which was forbidden and anathematized by two infallible ecumencal councils.

 

[AlNg]

No it’s not okay to reject the pope or be in schism. To be in schism is a sin

Is it OK to add things to the creed, when that has been forbidden by an infallible ecumenical council?

 

[MP_Kid]

1. Catholic’s cannot get communion at Orthodox Churches.
2. Roman Catholics can get communion at Byzantine Catholic Churches.
3. The Orthodox do not like the pope and therefore refuse to give any Catholics communion in their churches.
4. I have been to Orthodox churches before, did not have a good experience. The Orthodox priest talked to me like I was going to hell for being Catholic and he pushed conversion to Orthodoxy.

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

papal infallibility

 

[MP_Kid]

If you are torn between the both just become Byzantine Catholic. Byzantine Catholics recognize the Pope.

 

[AlNg]

Some of these quotes are forgeries which are not recognized by many scholars as being authentic.

 

[MP_Kid]

False. Catholics cannot receive communion at an Orthodox Church. I tried and the priest said no. He said I would have to renounce the Pope and convert to Orthodoxy.

 

[Canvas]

It was hundreds of years old by 1014. It was that it was inserted into the Creed without a formal council that really made the issue boil over.

 

[MP_Kid]

My post was based on facts. The Orthodox Church is not that accepting of others. That is probably why the Orthodox Church is not as large as the Catholic church as a whole.

 

[Canvas]

I think he is right. While EO may, in limited circumstances, receive in a Catholic Church, the Orthodox are often far more strict about Catholics in their Churches.

Orthodox tend to believe the differences between Catholics and Orthodox are greater than the inverse.

 

[MP_Kid]

It is. I know that the Orthodox are allowed to receive communion at any Catholic Church. So are a few of the other churches that broke away from Rome, such as Polish National Catholic Church. From the Catholic perspective. But the Orthodox forbid their members to get communion anywhere else other than their own church.

 

[AlNg]

Father Constantine Simon was a Catholic priest who advised the Vatican on the Eastern
Church. He eventually converted to the Russian Orthodox church.

 

[dochawk]

“I believe in one God, Creator of heaven and earth . . .”

I’m not sure you’re going to find a source more specific than being the Nician-Constantinople creed, and the decrees of the council. I don’t mean to be pejorative, but this sourcing is one of those basic educational blocks and an assumed knowledge when discussing such things.

In this case, they seem to be not so much “in the way”, but the source of the problem . . .

"Allowed’???

It is a term of the Treaties of Brest and Uzhorod that we keep the councilor wording, our married priests, and so forth.

hawk

 

[Vico]

…

Catechism

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

817 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."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272