Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?

[twf]

It still wasn’t clearly defined. The doctrine of the papacy has developed gradually. Certainly the East recognized Rome as a final court of appeals, but there was no concept of Rome micromanaging the global Church as we see today. Don’t get me wrong, I fully accept the papacy, but the Church understands that we can’t really fault individual Orthodox Christians born into their tradition.

 

[MP_Kid]

The Orthodox are extremely strict about communion even with their own members. I have been told by my Orthodox friend that if they travel and are visiting another parish, they must call where they are visiting first and must ask permission to get communion. Even if the person is Orthodox, the priest can refuse them. Some Orthodox priests have been known to play 21 questions before they give a visitor communion.

 

[dochawk]

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

If it weren’t disrespectful to say so, I’d say “hierarchical recto-cranial inversion.”

Hmm, I’ll say it anyway.

As with so many things, it’s pride.

The sides are in “violent agreement” on the basic issues, and the theology. But there’s pride to be stalled about how hierarchs have created and sustained this mess.

Both agree that the Spirt originates in the Father, and proceeds temporally through the Son. Who gets to declare what is an issue. +Bartholomew and +Benedict could have, if the ROC would go along, have ended the schism. Similarly now, I suspect, with +Frances, as well as +John in the 60s. I can’t speak for +Paul, nor for the EP at the tie.

But, the short and long is pride.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

That would be Nice I and Constantinople.

hawk

 

[dochawk]

No, you’re missing the point: Nicea and Constantinople, in their decrees, prohibited changing in the creed.

It kind of begins and ends there: either the Pope can disregard an accepted Ecumenical Council, or he cannot.

That’s exactly what I’m saying: the whole thing *isI semantics, particularly in the differences between greek and latin.

This one is hardly semantics: the EC are not “allowed” to use the actual creed; their use was a condition Rome agreed to in re-establishing union.

You can look those up and goole as well as we can. These are basics in entering ti skind of discussion.

hawk

 

[AlNg]

That’s exactly what I’m saying: the whole thing *isI semantics

This illustrates the problem that many Eastern Orthodox have with Catholicism. In the Orthodox Church the creed is not a matter of semantics, but of orthodox belief.

 

[exnihilo]

Does it matter whether I choose between EO and Catholicism? I know Catholics can receive communion at Orthodox churches and vice versa. I’m pretty torn between both.

Yes. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy teach that they are right and the other group seriously wrong.

But how do we know that the EO isn’t right and the Catholics are the ones in schism?

It is tough. The Orthodox claim isn’t that the Pope isn’t the successor of Peter. Their claim is that he doesn’t have wide authority over the Church. It seems to me Peter clearly was the leader of the Church and that included a special authority. If the Pope is the successor he would have an authority over the Church too.

But what made the decision easier for me was I realized I’m Western. As much as Eastern Christianity appeals to me in many ways I’m more Western. And my roots are in the Catholic Church. It was that Church my ancestors left. So returning to Catholicism made more sense.

What sured up my decision was learning that the Orthodox were in the past ready to end the schism. It was worked out but they never followed through. So to me it is clear they are the ones in schism.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

I don’t understand the whole filioque thing. Is it really that important?

 

[FrDcnJohn]

Have you heard of the EO before 1054AD? Have you heard of the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years?

This is not only offensive, but inaccurate. Our liturgy dates back to the year 398. I am older than the Roman Catholic liturgy. The Roman Catholic church was in communion with the Orthodox until the Roman Catholic Church unilaterally changed the Creed which was decided upon at an ecumenical council. This changed the fundamental character of the Trinity by espousing the notion that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Son. Also, The Roman Church’s claim of infallibility and primacy of the Bishop of Rome is a modern (from an Orthodox perspective) innovation. People of good will may disagree on these topics, but it isn’t helpful to make snide comments.

For the OP, while Roman canon law permits Orthodox to receive in the Roman church and in the Orthodox church (in limited circumstances), the Orthodox church will not permit either of these things.

For what it is worth, I love the Roman Catholic Church and am close friends with many members and clergy. I hope to see reconciliation in my lifetime and spend a good bit of my time correcting inaccurate ideas and statements from members of both churches and hopefully promoting healing from past abuses and persecutions.

Fr. Dcn. John

Edit: I should have read the entire thread before responding. Lots of this has already been covered. Needless to say, it is not as cut and dry as some of the RC posters here would suggest.

 

[Vonsalza]

Right on.

If the pope would resume his position as primus of the Church and yeild to the supremacy of ecumenical council, schism over.

 

[AugustTherese]

This is not only offensive, but inaccurate.

I am sorry if that came off as offensive. It was more of a rhetorical question to provoke thinking. Again, I am sorry.

The Roman Catholic church was in communion with the Orthodox until the Roman Catholic Church unilaterally changed the Creed which was decided upon at an ecumenical council

But, there was no Orthodox Church, yes? Also, what about not recognizing the validity and authority of Ecumenical Councils after Nicaea II in 787AD? Where were the Orthodox from 787-1054AD, or more accurately 787-1450AD?

 

[Vonsalza]

But, there was no Orthodox Church, yes? Also, what about not recognizing the validity and authority of Ecumenical Councils after Nicaea II in 787AD? Where were the Orthodox from 787-1054AD, or more accurately 1450AD?

I think @dochawk nailed it a few posts up and you’re just not seeing it.

The Orthodox claim to be the “‘Catholic’ Church”. They pull back exactly none from any claim of catholicity on their part.

They would argue that there was no Roman Catholic Church until the pope assumed more power than he was intended to have.

 

[AugustTherese]

The Orthodox claim to be the “‘Catholic’ Church”. They pull back exactly none from any claim of catholicity on their part.

They would argue that there was no Roman Catholic Church until the pope assumed more power than he was intended to have.

Of course! They ‘claim’ and ‘argue’. That doesn’t mean they’re right, with all due respect to them.

 

[Vonsalza]

Of course! They ‘claim’ and ‘argue’. That doesn’t mean they’re right, with all due respect to them.

Same goes for Catholics, quite obviously.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Of course! They ‘claim’ and ‘argue’. That doesn’t mean they’re right, with all due respect to them.

Same goes for Catholics, quite obviously.

Except, submission to the Bishop of Rome goes back to Saint Peter. That claim not only be backed up, but by the authority the Pope has, he has a divine right to make that claim.

 

[Vonsalza]

Except, submission to the Bishop of Rome goes back to Saint Peter. That claim not only be backed up, but by the authority the Pope has, he has a divine right to make that claim.

99% of Orthodox have little problem with submission to the Chair of Peter as a matter of last resort. That was arguably his greatest duty as Primus.

This whole idea of supremacy and immediate jurisdiction is kinda what has their panties all in a twist. And maybe rightfully so.

 

[AugustTherese]

This whole idea of supremacy and immediate jurisdiction is kinda what has their panties all in a twist. And maybe rightfully so.

Sure, I see that, too. Can’t we just all get along!

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

This whole idea of supremacy and immediate jurisdiction is kinda what has their panties all in a twist. And maybe rightfully so.

Sure, I see that, too. Can’t we just all get along!

I think Vatican 1 might have screwed it up for good

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

If the pope would resume his position as primus of the Church and yeild to the supremacy of ecumenical council, schism over.

I would go as far to say that the EO would even be ok with him having supremacy over the entire Latin Church, but leave the Eastern Churches alone unless they ask for help. He should be the last court of appeals, as it were.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

The Orthodox are extremely strict about communion even with their own members. I have been told by my Orthodox friend that if they travel and are visiting another parish, they must call where they are visiting first and must ask permission to get communion. Even if the person is Orthodox, the priest can refuse them. Some Orthodox priests have been known to play 21 questions before they give a visitor communion.

This is correct. Clergy must answer to God for anyone who they commune so it is imperative to be certain of the person communing. It is the norm for a parishioner to let their priest know they will be traveling. The priest will give a travel blessing and contact the priest at the parish they will be visiting. The receiving priest may ask that the visitor receive confession and attend Vespers with him the evening before communion (this last bit is mostly for ROCOR parishes).

As clergy, it is a bit more difficult. I must ask my priest permission to ask my bishop to travel. My bishop then contacts the receiving bishop and gives permission (to attend, commune, serve, or all three). The receiving bishop then communicates this to the receiving priest.

This may sound difficult, but in practice it is really rather nice. Having been on both sides it is nice to be able to properly welcome visiting parishoners or clergy and when traveling you feel like visiting royalty.

Our parishes are kept smaller by design typically with only one liturgy. We are a family and while we love visitors, it is only polite to let someone know prior to dropping by if you intend to receive communion.

Fr. Dcn. John