Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism; Does it matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CapitalistCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CapitalistCatholic said:
Does it matter whether I choose between EO and Catholicism?
Click to expand...
Have you looked into Eastern rite Catholic churches like the Byzantine Catholics, Melkites, etc? Their liturgy is nearly identical to EO but are in communion with the Catholic Church.
 
First among equals would be equivalent of a “senior partner”. In the ancient times, there were 5 Patriarchs among the Bishops. The Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were considered the senior Bishops of the Church. Of those, if there was a division on a doctrinal point, the Bishop of Rome, by way of his Petrine lineage, could be the “tie-breaker”. But the Bishop of Rome did not have authority over the governance of the See of Alexandria. Like now, in the USCCB, the Archbishop of New York can make specific rules for his Archdiocese, like for example, if the Feast of the Ascension is celebrated on the Thursday or the following Sunday. But his rules only apply where he is the Ordinary. The Archbishop of Chicago can have a different rule on this.
 
But in that case they’re either merely ceremonial “firsts” (case in which they aren’t actually first for all practical purposes) or they end up being first authoritatively. I get what you are saying though, there are “first among equals” in the ceremonial sense.
 
Yup, I’ve heard about the 5 Patriarchate system. But I’m actually confused about this. Say today what exactly can the Bishop of Rome do in Alexandria? Can the Pope declare that we’re all going to celebrate the Ascension of Thursday and thus overrule the bishop of Chicago?
 
The Pope doesn’t do that, but I think the Vatican could, theoretically, do it. Generally though, in many instances of judgement, governance is left to the Ordinary.
 
The Vatican? The Vatican isn’t a person, so that would require a group of people to agree right? Who is that group?
 
The Pope is the person in charge at the Vatican. Theoretically, the Pope could remove the Archbishop of Chicago on his authority and put someone else in charge. They generally don’t go to drastic measures unless the Bishop is seriously abusing their authority. For example, Pope Francis and the Bishops from Chile a few weeks ago when he demanded their resignation letters.
 
Oh ok fair enough. But what exactly does universal jurisdiction mean? It seems to be something people disagree on. Is it the Pope’s power to accept the resignation of bishops? What could the Pope do that another bishop could not besides define something ex-cathedra?
 
Not necessarily merely ceremonially first, although that is a possibility, of course. There are a range of possible powers. The chairman of my local historical society has great influence over the programme, and authority over the conduct of the meetings, but that is the limit of his powers. The Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to determine who attends the Lambeth Conference, but he can’t sack the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The chairman of a Senate committee has considerable power, but his/her authority over other members is limited.
 
All the Bishops have to answer to him. He can remove them at his discretion if he thinks they are abusing their authority.

From wikipedia:

“the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.”
 
So they have the highest authority in a particular context and for the rest of the time they have the same level authority, (ie they have the highest authority). That’s not first among equals though, that’s just first or unofficial first but I see what you mean. There’s more limit to their power.
 
Last edited:
For the question of who wrote the Athanasian Creed and whether it was compiled by Paulinus and published by Charlemagne in 802, please see:
Athanasian Creed by Charles Anthony Swainson
and
the Athanasian Creed: By Whom written and by whom published by Edmund S. Ffoulkes.
Wikipedia says that there are several reasons for rejecting Athanasius as its author:
the creed was originally in latin, but Athanasius wrote in Greek
Athanasius never mentioned the creed.
It addresses theological concerns that developed after the death of Athanasius (the filioque).
 
When I read some of the comments here I get very sad. I´m active on this forum for years, made friends here, recieved good advice and prayer,gave (hopefully good) advice and enjoy reading about similarities, differences, aspects and traditions of our life in christ - as roman catholic christians and eastern orthodox christians.
But I have to skip those threads to not feel deeply embarassed and hurt by some comments who are at least uncharitable, if not, worst, unchristian in their feel of pride and superiority, and often I think I should just leave this board. I studied history for years and won´t open that can of worms of the medieval schism history, but let me say one thing: it´s not that easy as some here want it to be, nor is it a theme one can discuss without ideology - so let´s leave it to a proper discussion on church history, not to a group of feverish discussing people. Clear is, we all love Christ, have valid sacraments/mysteries, honour our mother Mary and the saints and therefor, we should all not continue to promote schism in our comments and acts.
 
Last edited:
What I hope for and want to see is Rome make a magnanimous gesture - I want to see the Pope order the Filioque to be dropped from the Creed in all the Catholic Church’s Liturgies both East and West. Perhaps a papal document both ordering the removal of the Filioque clause, and explaining the theology of the Filioque in a way acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox.

After that, we could then move to the other two major historical issues between East and West - the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the role of the Papacy in the Church.

I would be fine with another compromise on the azymes issue - do what the Western Rite Orthodox do and start adding a small bit of leaven to our Communion bread.

Lastly, get a group of Catholic and Orthodox bishops, patriarchs, theologians come together with the Pope and define the role of the Papacy in a way acceptable to the Orthodox.

The biggest problem with making these concessions though, is that even if all 3 of these goals were accomplished, there would still be literally millions of Orthodox who would still refuse the orthodoxy of Rome and refuse communion with her. I’m not gonna bother listing all the issues they could come up with, but what it boils down to is these type of hardcore Byzantine Orthodox will accept nothing but the full conversion of Rome to the Byzantine Rite. Until the Papacy is celebrating Papal Masses in Church Slavonic in Moscow, these people won’t accept Rome. And there are literally millions of them, including dozens of Bishops.

If the canonical Eastern Orthodox came back into full Communion with Rome tomorrow, you can rest assure literally tens of millions of EO would dig in their heels and go into schism from the “neo-Uniates.”

There is a serious problem within Orthodoxy of religious fundamentalism which needs to be addressed for full Communion to work. The EO need to look inward and repent of the attitude of religious triumphalism and schismatic disposition of the heart, they need mass conversion and a desire for unity and peace.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
If the canonical Eastern Orthodox came back into full Communion with Rome tomorrow, you can rest assure literally tens of millions of EO would dig in their heels and go into schism from the “neo-Uniates.”

There is a serious problem within Orthodoxy of religious fundamentalism which needs to be addressed for full Communion to work. The EO need to look inward and repent of the attitude of religious triumphalism and schismatic disposition of the heart, they need mass conversion and a desire for unity and peace.
Click to expand...
Yes, I fear that would happen as well. In fact if the only exposure one has to Orthodoxy were the internet I fear that most people would walk away with that sense of triumphalism…those internet boards are pretty harsh.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
triumphalism
Click to expand...
Sister Doctor Vassa Larin is a Russian Orthodox nun and scholar, and IMO she’s also a living Saint and possibly even a Doctor of the Church. She’s talked a lot (critically) of fundamentalism, nationalism, phyletism, and triumphalism within Orthodoxy. She has done a great deal of work for the Church in fostering unity, charity, and understanding and helping heal the divisions between Orient and Occident.

In my mind, she embodies what a truly Orthodox Catholic Christian of the Byzantine Rite should be. She’s the exact opposite of the neo-Pharisees seething with disdain and hatred for anything which can even be remotely connected to the “filthy Western Latin heretics.”
 
Last edited:
This was referencing the creed of Nicaea, that of the 315 fathers. It does not ban the composition of new creeds but rather creeds that teach a new/heretical faith. If it is read as new creeds and not new faith, then the current creed we sing at mass (Nicene-Constantinople) is under this anathema as well as all the other creeds accepted at this very same council of Ephesus.

This was a fact pointed out by the latins at the council of Florence which refuted the the Greeks who argued the position that no new creeds were allowed. The Greeks accepted that the latins were right about this.
 
Last edited:
Such introspection and repentance will never happen. As I’ve pointed out before, Eastern Orthodoxy is bound up in Eastern European ethnic nationalism and THAT fact more than any theological considerations is what will always block any reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christianity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top