Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?

[AugustTherese]

Exactly! Especially when the ‘how’ of the Eucharist could actually be the Body and Blood when all that is physically sensed is the appearance of bread and wine! When you challenge this and start formulating novel theories such as ‘Consubstantiation’ and ‘Sacramental Union’, the Church is obliged to respond in the way She did.

 

[JRS_831]

If you want the liturgy of the orthodox but the fullness of the faith try a Byzantine mass

It’s the Byzantine Divine Liturgy.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

Maronite’s aren’t Orthodox, they are in communion with the Roman Catholic church. Syriac Orthodox are a special case, they aren’t in communion with either church (They are non-Chalcedonian). I don’t know about them receiving RC communion, but they would not be able to receive in the majority of Orthodox churches since they don’t accept the 4th Ecumenical Council.

Fr. Dcn. John

 

[JRS_831]

I agree. Just going by what the priest has said. I don’t think it’s an every Sunday occurrence, but it does seem to him, as I understand him, that the chances of being turned away are not very great. Plus considering communing in a local area where the priest probably already knows you or your home priest.
I will get him to try to clarify to me in more concrete terms.

 

[Genesis315]

It matters because Jesus founded only one Church as we profess in the Creed and intrusted it to Peter (“Feed my sheep, etc.”). The EO Churches cannot be said to be this one Church–in fact, they are not one at all.

The jurisdiction of the papacy is necessary for the Church to be one. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are a perfect example of why this is. They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. ROCOR, the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc., etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with other parts, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches, rather than just one.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was explicitly organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. Only a tiny percentage even had a deliberative vote. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church (or even a consensus of particular Churches), but rather a consensus of national Churches/patriarchates (which didn’t happen anyway).

The EO Churches cannot be said to have the note of “one” professed in the Creed. Since they are not the one Church, and Scripture forbids us to partake of schisms, it matters that one chooses to belong to the Catholic Church.

 

[Canvas]

I am Latin Rite, but sometimes I feel some people (not all) in the Catholic Church tend to be too legalistic (a fault which I share. My Confessor actually gets on me about this because it causes me to be more scrupulous—that I get hung up on rules and miss the forest for the trees, if you will), .

 

[FrDcnJohn]

Also Ephesus Canon 7

"WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

ishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. Only a tiny percentage even had a deliberative vote. What was sought was not a consensus of the bishops of one Church (or even a consensus of particular Churches), but rather a consensus of national Churches/patriarchates (which didn’t happen anyway).

The EO Churches cannot be said to have the note of “one” professed in the Creed. Since they are not the one Church, and Scripture forbids us to partake of schisms, it matters that one chooses to belong to the Catholic Church.

Take a look at the New Testament. The Epistles were written to various churches; Ephesians (Ephesus), Corinthians (Corinth), Romans (Rome), etc. There were always many local churches in communion with each other.

 

[Genesis315]

Take a look at the New Testament. The Epistles were written to various churches; Ephesians (Ephesus), Corinthians (Corinth), Romans (Rome), etc. There were always many local churches in communion with each other.

No argument from me on that. The Catholic Church also acknowledges the reality of particular/local/eucharistic Churches (bishop and flock celebrating the Eucharist) as well as the reality of the catholic (whole/universal) Church. But, we acknowledge that the “oneness” of the Church requires each particular Church to also be in communion with the catholic Church. Given that EO Churches may be in communion with some EO Churches, but not others, one can’t even really speak of one catholic Church. This is why, I think, some EO theologians these days want to only acknowledge the Eucharistic Churches–a pure eucharistic ecclesiology (in doing so they inadvertently deny the “catholic” of the Creed). For the reasons I note in my prior post, many EO theologians admit that acknowledging a universal ecclesiology necessarily leads to the papacy, which is unacceptable to them.

 

[Vonsalza]

But, we acknowledge that the “oneness” of the Church requires each particular Church to also be in communion with the catholic Church. Given that EO Churches may be in communion with some EO Churches, but not others, one can’t even really speak of one catholic Church.

As you identified with the oft-used device above, some Churches may not be directly in communion with one another as an expression of protest over a particular issue. But because they share communion with each other through the rest of the Church, they’re still very much in the same communion.

Based on the text we read, if one were to profess to be fully “in communion” with the Church in Corinth depicted in scripture, I would imagine one could hear Satan screaming in delight…

Luckily, these issues tend to resolve and life in the Orthodox Church goes on.

For the reasons I note in my prior post, many EO theologians admit that acknowledging a universal ecclesiology necessarily leads to the papacy, which is unacceptable to them.

I’m not going to directly hang it on your reasoning, but I’ll agree that many-if-not-most EO theologians support the notion of the Petrine Seat being a necessary functionary of the Church.

It’s just that this role isn’t the same as the O.T. “we want a king”, Saul-esque attributes currently exercised by the Bishop of Rome over the Latin Church.

For example, it’s not his job to appoint every bishop per canon 4 of Nicaea:
“It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province…”

Per the same council, the Bishop of Rome didn’t appear to be the only “super-bishop”:
“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.”

Again, you won’t find many in Orthodoxy that would argue against the necessity of headship. That is, after all, why the Patriarch of Constantinople serves as the Ecumenical Patriarch.
But this headship is one of primacy, not immediate supremacy. And the discussion can’t meaningfully continue unless all parties are capable of at least seeing the difference.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Yep, I understand. I used to be pretty legalistic myself. I’ve been able to overcome it a lot partly due to embracing Eastern Theology…it just spoke to me in a way that totally calmed me down.

 

[AlNg]

The EO Churches cannot be said to have the note of “one” professed in the Creed. Since they are not the one Church

Is the Catholic Church one? There seem to be huge differences in the Catholic church.

1. Some say dancing during Mass is acceptable, others say not.
2. Some say capital punishment is morally wrong, others say it is allowed.
3. Some say unbaptized babies will go to limbo, others say no.
   4.Some say the Blood was shed for many, but in the past others have said that the Blood was shed for all.
4. Some say torture was acceptable in the Inquisition, others say no.
5. Some say current marriage annulment practices are acceptable, but Cardinal Kasper says that some marriage annulments may be Catholic divorces in a dishonest way.
6. Most Catholics say the filioque in the creed, but in some Eastern Catholic churches, the creed is said without the filioque.
7. Some Catholics observe the Apostles fast, but others say it is not necessary to observe it.
8. Some Catholics say that the fires of Purgatory are literal fires and the pain suffered is equal to that endured in hell.
   Now we are going to hear the objection that these differences are not essential. Well, the Orthodox will say the same about their differences, namely that they are not essential differences and that the faith and beliefs are the same in all Orthodox churches, so that they are ONE in essential beliefs.

 

[Ioana]

Does it matter? At the end of the day the question is quite simple; in which community will you be closer to Jesus and which one was the one Jesus intended to found (the two are really the same question) I was baptized Orthodox but became Catholic, so I’m biased. Anybody is biased with this question though; so I’ll try to answer from my point of view.

Why Catholics are right about Peter:

1. The whole of Matthew 16:13-20. That’s pretty obviously describing the first ever ex-cathedra pronouncement. Also in my language there’s no way anybody could stand up and debate that Peter isn’t the rock. Why? Because Peter=Petru and rock=piatra. They’re two different words, yes, but they’re clearly derivations of each other, arguing anything else just won’t stand for us. Also the whole keys thing and the role he takes through Acts are just extra proofs as well as the whole “Feed my sheep” dialogue. I’m sure you know these already so I won’t go into much detail.
2. The moment you agree that the bishop of Rome was primus inter pares then the whole development of papal infallibility and other doctrines related to the papacy really aren’t that big of a stretch. What does first among equals even mean? No offense but an Orwell quote comes to mind “all animals are equal but pigs are more equal than others”. The same way many doctrines have developed over an arguably shakier basis, the primus inter pares is actually a pretty solid basis to develop all other papal doctrines from. Also, I read somewhere (pardon the lack of source) that Rome was indeed used to clarify theological disputes early on. You might say the foundation for the papacy is rock solid
3. Why is this significant? Because if a new theological conflict comes up or if something needs clarification the Pope can offer it. Think of the very organized way in which Communism was denounced by the Catholic Church as an example. It is advantageous for many reasons to have a clear head of authority. Also whether you accept or deny this authority it exists, so you may miss future developments by not accepting it. It is also significant for the same reason why it is significant to have a President and not just a Congress, sometimes we need a referee.

Filoque

1. As somebody noted below (I think) the point is “through the Son”. In Latin this was clear but we’d agree that had the addition been in Greek it would be heresy. Tertullian in 216 wrote “I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son”. That summarizes the position.
   2… There’s this whole thing about Rome adding to the Nicene Creed when the Canons in council said nobody should. I don’t know much history, but from what I know that’s incorrect. The Council of Nicene merely stated “We believe in the Holy Spirit” and ended the matter there (no Father, no Son, no procession, just a general condemnation of Arianism). The other stuff was added at a different council, Constantinople which drafted a different creed. In short, the West’s addition could be called rude and it has caused misunderstandings due to translation issues but it is by no means heretical.

If you’d like anything better developed, shout.

 

[Genesis315]

one Church

I agree that both the Catholic Church and EO Churches share the common concept that some articles of faith are essential while others are not. I was talking about oneness not in faith (which both agree is an important element of the unity of the Church), but in the very nature of the Church as one society–as one communion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Why Catholics are right about Peter:

1. The whole of Matthew 16:13-20…
2. The moment you agree that the bishop of Rome was primus inter pares then the whole development of papal infallibility and other doctrines related to the papacy really aren’t that big of a stretch. What does first among equals even mean?
3. Why is this significant? Because if a new theological conflict comes up or if something needs clarification the Pope can offer it.

1. The Orthodox understanding of Primus rather than Supremus exists in light of the same passage. They do not use an abridged bible.
2. They may not be that big of a stretch to you, but it was a huge stretch for the majority of the Church that wasn’t assumed until the virtual entirety of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communities were firmly under Muslim suzerainty. In short, the pope could only assume his current, awesome power when the rest of the ancient Church (which was more populous than the Latin west) was effectively silenced.
3. Ecumenical council can and should provide the lasting answers. The Primus would offer a ruling on a case-by-case basis until the issue was broached at council.

Filoque
…
In short, the West’s addition could be called rude and it has caused misunderstandings due to translation issues but it is by no means heretical.

The biggest issue is “by what right are these additions made?”.

 

[Ioana]

I don’t like arguing with people because this will lead us exactly nowhere and one or the other will start being uncharitable. Both views are internally consistent so the argument is basically “But it could be this…”. Sure it could be this other thing, but that’s not the natural way I’d interpret it at least. That being said I’ll reply.

1. What exactly does first among equals mean? In fact if we’re all equal there can be no first, it is a contradiction, much like (pardon the comparison) Orwell’s animal farm “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. What does that mean, outer respect? Considering that the greatest of you should be a servant of all is a line in the Bible it probably isn’t that. Does it mean that the opinion holds more weight? If we admit that we’re getting somewhere. Also Christ is kind of suggesting a bit more than primus. I mean rock, feed my sheep, getting the keys. All these aren’t small things. Rome also historically had a primacy.
2. I mean; a lot of things aren’t officially defined but they work that way. Papal infallibility was defined in 1870. It seems odd to pretend it had to do with the East being shut up. If it did it could’ve been defined way earlier than 1870. So what exactly is the distinction? What’s the big problem? Papal infallibility? Considering that Peter didn’t have a council to back him up when he declared whom Jesus is we can say there’s once again a solid basis for this. Also how are we to apply primus right now if we accept that supremus is wrong? Can the primus be so very wrong? If he can be then why in the world is he primus in the first place? I don’t see the fine line between primus and supremus. After all at least where I come from “primul” and “supremul” are frequently used words and they are synonyms and I can assume they’re also really close in Latin. The Pope arguably had more political power before the 1800’s.
3. Ok.

I want to re-state that arguing is pointless. You won’t be convinced and I won’t be.

 

[Genesis315]

Let’s take the agreed upon premise that the Petrine office is a constituent element of the Church. The Catholics and EOs disagreement is then as to degree. The Catholic Church retains this element (at least in some degree), while the EO Churches lack this constituent element of the Church completely. By default the Catholic conceptions therefore must be correct (or else the Church no longer exists as founded by Christ).

The Catholic definitions concerning the primacy are logically necessary for how the primacy has been exercised in different contexts both pre-and post-schism. Universal jurisdiction is necessary for the Pope to act authoritatively outside Rome, whether it be only once in a while or every day. The jurisdictions of the other Patriarchates were delegated in one way or another–in the example you gave, by a general Council (note how Rome is taken as already existing and the other Patriarchates are being modeled on it).

But what the Pope can do and should do are two different things. Catholic dogma on the Pope’s jurisdiction focuses on the abstract principles, because the “should” of every situation cannot be foreseen. The Pope appointing bishops, for example, is pretty new and was occasioned by certain circumstances (even then, there is a process originating at the episcopal level that gives the Pope a few choices).

The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. But, sometimes he needs to take action to serve unity. Just spitballing hypothetical examples: should there be a dispute as to the rightly elected Patriarch, the Pope would serve as the final court of appeal to settle the issue, so that peace would be resolved. Or say a See or region had been sufficiently corrupted that it became necessary for the unity of faith and charity that someone “outside” be appointed. That could serve unity. Etc., etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t like arguing with people because this will lead us exactly nowhere and one or the other will start being uncharitable…
That being said I’ll reply.

1. What exactly does first among equals mean?
2. I mean; a lot of things aren’t officially defined but they work that way. Papal infallibility was defined in 1870. It seems odd to pretend it had to do with the East being shut up.
3. Ok.

1. I completely agree that it’s a silly phrase, which is why I try not to use it and defer to “Primus” when I’m more cognizant of the issue.
2. The development of papal power has a very tight correlation with the progressive march of Islam over the eastern Med… Papal infallibility was finally dogmatically defined in order to give the pope an ice cream cone to lick as compensation for the loss of his temporal dominions in the Italian Unification (specifically the Third Italian War for Independence). It had been a growing reality since the contraction of Byzantium became apparent in the request for the opening Crusades.
3. 

 

[Vonsalza]

Let’s take the agreed upon premise that the Petrine office is a constituent element of the Church. The Catholics and EOs disagreement is then as to degree. The Catholic Church retains this element (at least in some degree), while the EO Churches lack this constituent element of the Church completely.

That’s not correct though. It’s filled by the Patriarch of Constantinople which serves as the “Ecumenical Patriarch”.

The Catholic definitions concerning the primacy are logically necessary for how the primacy has been exercised in different contexts both pre-and post-schism. Universal jurisdiction is necessary for the Pope to act authoritatively outside Rome, whether it be only once in a while or every day.

An Orthodox would argue that the universal jurisdiction of the pope is only realized in his function as an arbiter of last resort.

As such, he can’t go looking for the problems. They have to come to him. That’s a pretty big difference, particularly as it pertains to “reach” (a la “the immediacy” of his universal jurisdiction). Being arbiter of last resort logically necessitates that he’s not the first arbiter.

 

[PickyPicky]

What exactly does first among equals mean? In fact if we’re all equal there can be no first, it is a contradiction

Surprising how often this is said, when in fact we see examples of “first among equals” all around us all the time. Almost every secular association and society has a chairman or president who is first among equals, who has some special rôle or authority, but has no hierarchical command over other members. Same with the Archbishop of Canterbury among the primates of the Anglican Communion.

Whether this is a fitting rôle for the Bishop of Rome to play is not for me to say (and I realise the Cantuar example might not attract a Catholic) but to suggest there can be no such rôle is unconvincing…