H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
What are the problems with Orthodoxy in view of Catholic theology and practices? I am doing some research on the Orthodox churches and I can’t seem to find an answer to the question.
- Status
H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
Ive noticed that 13 people have looked at this and no reply so maybe I should reform the question.
If a Greek Orthodox missionary came to your door and wanted to convert you to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, how would you defend your beliefs?
If a Greek Orthodox missionary came to your door and wanted to convert you to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, how would you defend your beliefs?
F
Fred_4
Guest
The primacy of Peter. Other than that… no clue.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Have never had that happen…ever.
Defend? Better to discuss and dialog with him and explain what we believe in ways that he can understand.
If one has a working knowledge of the faith one should have no problems. So far, I haven’t encountered any who were even interested in discussion. I pray for them. The Holy Spirit will do His job.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
The Primacy of Peter, historical Apostolic authority of Rome over Constantinople, authority/jurisdiction disputes in Eastern Orthodox lands among EO churches, no way to call an Ecumenical Council (not had one in over 1000 years), questionable view on Original Sin, questionable view on God’s nature, divorce and remarriage is allowed.
I
inthecloud
Guest
Typical EOC vs RCC “dialogue”:
Better to recognize that both churches are the past of Jesus’s original Apostolic Church that sadly are in schism and pray together that one day those problems will be solved and leave it at that. To my knowledge neither the EOC or the CC are trying to sheep steal to the other in the way fundangelicals are trying.
H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
I also noticed that they believe that the first Eucharist was not celebrated at the Last Supper. This is why Passover is not allowed to be celebrated at the same time as Orthodox Easter. This is also why they are able to use leavened bread (and also warm wine). They believe that it is symbolic of the risen Christ.
I have a few Greek Orthodox friends and I consider myself an amateur apologist and usually I can defend Catholicism from attacks by Protestants and some Atheists/Agnostics/Deists (the ones that understand logical proofs anyway). However the Orthodox make some incredible historical and doctrinal attacks against Catholics and many of them I really don’t know how to answer which is why I made this post.
I really doubt that we will be in communion with the Orthodox, but with God anything is possible. The Eastern Catholics accept all the doctrines of the Catholic Church but are allowed to keep their own rites. The Orthodox would have to accept ALL the doctrines of the Catholic Church which will prove to be very difficult, especially on things like the Eucharist, original sin, Catholic saints, Immaculate Conception, and papal infallibility and primacy. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church for Catholics. Therefore, yes I do ask “How do you defend against Orthodoxy?”
I have a few Greek Orthodox friends and I consider myself an amateur apologist and usually I can defend Catholicism from attacks by Protestants and some Atheists/Agnostics/Deists (the ones that understand logical proofs anyway). However the Orthodox make some incredible historical and doctrinal attacks against Catholics and many of them I really don’t know how to answer which is why I made this post.
I really doubt that we will be in communion with the Orthodox, but with God anything is possible. The Eastern Catholics accept all the doctrines of the Catholic Church but are allowed to keep their own rites. The Orthodox would have to accept ALL the doctrines of the Catholic Church which will prove to be very difficult, especially on things like the Eucharist, original sin, Catholic saints, Immaculate Conception, and papal infallibility and primacy. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church for Catholics. Therefore, yes I do ask “How do you defend against Orthodoxy?”
S
surgei
Guest
Yes, we should be working for unity not “sheep steeling.” Although from time to time their are some “run to another shepard” that is not what we should be doing. One of my friends who was a UGCC deacon became Orthodox. Their is the case of the priest in Romainia that converted to Catholocism. These are exceptions not rules.
I love your tag line about Fr Lemaitre.
Fundagelicals is just really funny.
S
surgei
Guest
And what if he was able to show you that the primacy is properly seen as that of elder brother and not emporer. Would you convert?
If so where do you live, will a Russian missionary work? I’ll be by at six, do you want krispy kreame or dunkin doughnuts.
If you think I am in any way shape or form serious please read my other posts.However if you are in the Va Beach are of Virginia and want to get coffee sometime let me know.
I
inthecloud
Guest
You inspired me to use that tagline. Science and religion together in one man.
I have seen the term fundangelicals in EOC or CC forums to make justice for those evangelicals that are NOT fundamentalists.
That breed do exists. Sadly the terms evangelical and fundamentalist are becoming interchangeable in the media.
I have seen the term fundangelicals in EOC or CC forums to make justice for those evangelicals that are NOT fundamentalists.
That breed do exists. Sadly the terms evangelical and fundamentalist are becoming interchangeable in the media.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
The problem is the assumption in the statement. This makes sense of some evangelicals and fundamentalists, however, the Orthodox would never do this. They don’t evangelize that way (and neither do Catholics).
The issues that divide the East and West center around the primacy. From there stem the other differences, the filioque, original sin, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and Uniatism.
It is not that the Orthodox really deny any of these. It is just that their concepts are quite a bit different.
But if you want to enter into dialogue with the Orthodox, throw out the apologetics materials as they are not applicable, and study the early councils, the Church Fathers, and the reasons that led to the East-West Schism, as well as the failed political attempts at reunification through the 2nd Christian millenium.
The Orthodox have an Eastern mindset, not a western from. So a lit of times, we talk past each other due to our differing traditions.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
It may also help to note that the Orthodox sort of think of Catholics, as we think of Protestants; namely, that Catholics left the Apostolic faith and have introduced novel beliefs that are not consonant with the tradition handed down from the Apostles, and that the return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church needs to be done by the Catholic Church, since the Orthodox claim to be the One true Church.
While the CC claims that the Orthodox went into schism, the Orthodox claim that the Catholics went into heresy.
While the CC claims that the Orthodox went into schism, the Orthodox claim that the Catholics went into heresy.
H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
Now the Filioque is something I can defend.
The “Ecumenical” Council of Florence, in the 1400s, where both Latin and Greek bishops settled the issue of the Flilioque. The Greeks agreed to accept it (but I don’t think they were required to say it in their Divine Liturgy). I also understand that the Greeks were looking for support to defend against the Turks. I also understand that Mark of Ephesus was the only Greek there who was opposed to accept the Filioque. Everyone agreed but the laity and other clergy in the East, after their Synod met, did not accept the verdict of the Council of Florence.
The Holy Spirit does proceed THROUGH the Son. In the New King James Version of the Bible (the version of the Bible that is used for the famous Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament), in the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke chapter 24 verse 49 it says “Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” The note at the bottom of the page states that "Endued with power from on high means filled with the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition, NAB, Oxford, says the same thing but in the footnote on the bottom of the page it says “The Promise of my Father means that this is the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
In otherwords Jesus SENDS the Holy Spirit to the apostles. So in a sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Now we can get into a giant argument about the dark history of how the Filioque may have originated but the Church did not illegally add it into the Nicene Creed.
At any rate the Pope has the power to make something infallible if it is a point of morals or faith so in other words the Pope could make changes to the Nicene Creed if the Holy Spirit did not kill him first. (This is where Orthodox and Catholics disagree I am aware but my whole question was how to defend against Orthodoxy in light of Catholic theology and practices).
The Bishop of Antioch would probably have had the same ability but the lineage from Peter died off at some point and I think they started using bishops from Constantinople who derive their apostolic succession from St. Andrew. Now I am not exactly sure on this point (about the Bishop of Antioch) and I could be wrong.
The “Ecumenical” Council of Florence, in the 1400s, where both Latin and Greek bishops settled the issue of the Flilioque. The Greeks agreed to accept it (but I don’t think they were required to say it in their Divine Liturgy). I also understand that the Greeks were looking for support to defend against the Turks. I also understand that Mark of Ephesus was the only Greek there who was opposed to accept the Filioque. Everyone agreed but the laity and other clergy in the East, after their Synod met, did not accept the verdict of the Council of Florence.
The Holy Spirit does proceed THROUGH the Son. In the New King James Version of the Bible (the version of the Bible that is used for the famous Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament), in the Holy Gospel according to St. Luke chapter 24 verse 49 it says “Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” The note at the bottom of the page states that "Endued with power from on high means filled with the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Study Bible, 2nd edition, NAB, Oxford, says the same thing but in the footnote on the bottom of the page it says “The Promise of my Father means that this is the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
In otherwords Jesus SENDS the Holy Spirit to the apostles. So in a sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Now we can get into a giant argument about the dark history of how the Filioque may have originated but the Church did not illegally add it into the Nicene Creed.
At any rate the Pope has the power to make something infallible if it is a point of morals or faith so in other words the Pope could make changes to the Nicene Creed if the Holy Spirit did not kill him first. (This is where Orthodox and Catholics disagree I am aware but my whole question was how to defend against Orthodoxy in light of Catholic theology and practices).
The Bishop of Antioch would probably have had the same ability but the lineage from Peter died off at some point and I think they started using bishops from Constantinople who derive their apostolic succession from St. Andrew. Now I am not exactly sure on this point (about the Bishop of Antioch) and I could be wrong.
J
jam070406
Guest
There is not a Catholic understanding of the Pope being Emperor. So when will you convert?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Orthodox Theology and Praxis are not in conflict with Authentic Catholic teaching.
S
surgei
Guest
Pontificus Maximus is the title of the emporer. Not the title of a cleric. Good old Benedict shares the title with such notable men as Nero and Dioclecean. Both men of astounding holiness might I add.
H
HolyWhiteKnight
Guest
I need to make 3 points:
- Sometimes I say one thing and mean another and I apologize for that; it is a bad habit. Maybe I should ask what are the important differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
- I am not trying to hijack my own thread in regards to the Filioque. In retrospect I probably shouldn’t have said anything about the Filioque.
- The Greek Orthodox missionary was a hypothetical situation. What I am interested in is why would a person be Catholic instead of Orthodox.
G
guanophore
Guest
Why would you want to 'defend against" Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy shares the vast majority of the Catholic faith. There are very few issues/disagreements.
S
surgei
Guest
I agree. It is the novelties that are in contradiction to the Catholic church (orthodox use of the term Catholic here) that the Orthodox reject. They in truth are not even a part of western Tradition in the pure sense.
S
surgei
Guest
Because they don’t know the fulness of either?- Status