JohnStrachan
New member
If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
If RC and Orthodox follow the same apostolic tradition
- Thread starter JohnStrachan
- Start date
- Status
I
Isaac14
Guest
John: I personally don’t think either church follows Apostolic Tradition exactly, perfectly, though I’m sure apologists/die-hards of from either church would disagree with me quite strongly. But I would also say that both churches are faithful to Tradition.
I think what seems very different on the surface is actually much more similar than either is willing to admit. I’m Orthodox but all I think that separates us is how to understand the role of the Pope.
I think what seems very different on the surface is actually much more similar than either is willing to admit. I’m Orthodox but all I think that separates us is how to understand the role of the Pope.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
define “so different” though
Eastern Orthodox dogmas do not contradict Catholic dogmas, it’s just that Catholics defined much more. Nestorians, Oriental Orthodox and some other Churches all claim to follow Apostolic Tradition (well, even Protestants do), but claim does not equal reality. While all Churches hold something of Apostolic Tradition, if it were fullness they would not be separated 
Schism is about obedience and authority, heresy is about dogmatic difference. Catholic Church considers Orthodoxy to be in Schism, not sure about Orthodox Churches stance. Schism is therefore not about Apostolic Tradition at all.
I also don’t quite believe Churches are too different in dogmas, we understand things differently but they are same things.
Last edited:
J
jesusmademe
Guest
Exactly!
This is why I like the Church with the magisterium. It is my understanding that the Eastern and Oriental orthodox dont easily accept something that is not really a part of there tradition. They seem to have issues with some of the Latin way of thinking. The Church accepts all traditions but only as long as the papay is added to the faith.
Am I right?
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Not all, only valid ones. Oriental Orthodox don’t accept our definition of very same Christology, but we accept theirs- that is why they are in schism from their own choice. Eastern Orthodoxy kinda has it same. To deny Papacy is to not be in communion with Catholic Church by default, whether done by Latin or by Easterner. Papacy is not added to the faith, Papacy is simply part of Faith. Papacy got removed from Faith of some separated Churches (in Catholic view ofc), not added to Catholic Faith.
Neither does Catholic Church, we just clarify when needed. Maybe one day we will need to clarify even things like saying “Amen”- in Early Church almost no clarifications were needed, but times change. We clarify what is authentic part of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Faith (Catholic, not just Latin, but every Rite of Church)
Same here friend, same here
Last edited:
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
First, culture and ones history have to do a lot with how the faith is expressed. Second, we Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome yet express the faith in the same way as our Orthodox counterparts.
As a certain Austrian college professor who moved onto bigger things put it:
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than what had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium . . . Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”
~ Joseph Ratzinger, “Principles of Catholic Theology” (San Francisco), Ignatius, 1987, p. 199.
ZP
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I don’t think so. I think that there is a serious and grave difference in how the Orthodox and the Catholics, East or West, view the teaching on papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction. The Eastern Catholics accept the universal papal jurisdiction over their churches whereas the Orthodox do not. Further, as far as Lenten fasting is concerned, the Eastern Catholic Lenten fasting is generally more lenient compared to the Lenten fasting requirements of the Orthodox Churches.
T
TomH1
Guest
The approach of Catholics and Orthodox to the See of Rome and its authority, or lack of it, over the entire church is part of the problem. However, it is far from the only one. Every time I read up on this I always find another issue that separates the churches. Not only are there many differences they are a very long way from being resolved.
There is also the problem of the Orthodox Church itself. I do not mean by that the Orthodox are the problem and we Catholics are not. The problem is there is no Orthodox Church but rather there are 15/16 Orthodox churches. Whilst the Pope can speak for the Catholic Church there is no one hierarch or body that can speak for the Orthodox Communion.
I suspect for reasons political as much as theological that the Russian Patriarchate would be the one most opposed to rapprochement with the Catholic Church. The size and influence of the Russian Patriarchate means re-union of the Apostolic churches is most unlikely to occur unless the Russians say да.
There is also the problem of the Orthodox Church itself. I do not mean by that the Orthodox are the problem and we Catholics are not. The problem is there is no Orthodox Church but rather there are 15/16 Orthodox churches. Whilst the Pope can speak for the Catholic Church there is no one hierarch or body that can speak for the Orthodox Communion.
I suspect for reasons political as much as theological that the Russian Patriarchate would be the one most opposed to rapprochement with the Catholic Church. The size and influence of the Russian Patriarchate means re-union of the Apostolic churches is most unlikely to occur unless the Russians say да.
M
Michael_Anthony
Guest
The main issue is the role of the Pope, and when the two sides disagreed they mutually excommunicated the other, as such the Catholic Church(es) namely the west have many theological/doctrinal developments that the east doesn’t because the east lacked a leader to declare doctrine, or to authenticate Ecumenical Councils.
I
Isaac14
Guest
We are, in fact, one church. We have one faith and are in communion. The various jurisdictions serve to meet local needs in unique ways. That we sometimes act more like bratty siblings rather as the one church is to our shame, but it doesn’t change the fact we are one. Eastern ecclesiology has never required there to be one hierarch to speak for all, including when we were in communion with Rome.
Orthodox and Catholic bishops participating in dialogues between our churches have issued joint agreed statements that the Pope never exercised canonical authority over Eastern churches. See for example this statement from the North American Catholic/Orthodox dialogue (pdf) Chieti response
What are these differences you’ve found?
A
awesomecatholic
Guest
The Orthodox church does not accept the papacy,so that means we are not in communion.
T
twf
Guest
Oh come, we all know St Peter celebrated the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom wearing imperial Byzantine vestments!
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Agreed
I know plenty of Eastern Catholics that are not keen on universal jurisdiction. I like the Melkite perspective (Zoghby Initiative):
- I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
- I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
ZP
N
niceatheist
Guest
The topic of reunion is one I’m most interested in. There were divergences between the Eastern and Western churches all the way back to at least the Third Century, and some, like the Nestorians, sat outside both spheres. The cracks could be papered over for a while, but I’d say schism was inevitable. While the Papacy is the dead horse (forgive the reference) that Orthodox churches like to beat, but I think that’s the lowest hanging fruit.
If something like a Fourth Century accommodation could be made, where Rome is treated more like a first among equals, that might be a positive move. But even the most, er, liberal ideas on reunion coming out of the Catholic Church cannot rid themselves of the stronger notions of Papal supremacy. So long as the Orthodox Churches see any chance that Rome could intervene in even the most mundane aspects of their churches, I don’t see it happening.
If something like a Fourth Century accommodation could be made, where Rome is treated more like a first among equals, that might be a positive move. But even the most, er, liberal ideas on reunion coming out of the Catholic Church cannot rid themselves of the stronger notions of Papal supremacy. So long as the Orthodox Churches see any chance that Rome could intervene in even the most mundane aspects of their churches, I don’t see it happening.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
The Chieti document states that, “Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.” I believe that this document will be the spring board to continued dialogue takes place. In particular when discussing the second millennium.
I agree. Orthodox theologians that are part of Catholic/Orthodox dialogue have less concern about papal infallibility (chances of another ex cathedra statement happening are pretty slim) and are more concerned about immediate universal jurisdiction.
ZP
A
adf417
Guest
A
AlNg
Guest
Not sure about marriage annulments, divorce and artificial birth control. Further, as mentioned above the fasting rules are more severe in most Orthodox Churches. There was a lady at the local Eastern Catholic Church who was asking the priest after liturgy if she could obtain a marriage annulment (not a divorce as is the custom in the Orthodox churches).
A
AlNg
Guest
universal papal supremacy
indulgences
icons only, not statues as a general rule with a few exceptions due to western influence.
married clergy allowed as a general rule
Divorce rather than marriage annulments
leavened bread
believing the filioque. Eastern Catholics omit the filioque, but are they required to believe the filioque. Some Roman Catholics say yes.
Purgatory suffering with fire.
Baptism by sprinkling as a general rule. Baptism by triple immersion should be the norm.
Baptism, confirmation and Holy communion for infants.
Date of Easter.
Liturgical anomalies. Puppet masses.
Use of musical instruments during liturgy. (Except for bells)
For other issues see the letter of Metropolitan Seraphim to Pope Francis:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle-to-pope-francis.pdf
https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1431529898621-1.pdf
H
Hodos
Guest
They don’t follow apostolic oral tradition exactly. Because we don’t have a record of the oral teaching of the apostles apart from what was recorded in the scriptures, there is no way to verify what is or is not authentic apostolic oral tradition (apart from comparing claims of oral tradition against what the apostles wrote). When we look at the patristic writings we see contradictions, one from another (compare what Clement wrote about justification for example with Justin Martyr’s writings, or compare Origen’s Christology or Pneumatology with say the Cappadocian Fathers). In other words, on topics which are not explicitly written about in the scriptures there is rarely unanimous consent. This is why Church councils (at least in the early centuries) attempted to draw dogmatic distinctions as broadly as possible. You can also see differences in practice that are frequently chalked up to oral tradition, but cannot be positively verified (the early disagreements about things such as when we should celebrate Easter come to mind). We also frequently find writings (primarily early writings) that may have described practices in one area, that we assume was universal; however, this is often unverifiable given the scarcity of surviving documents from the same timeframe that touch on the same topics. What we do have is the writings of the apostolic fathers which offer us the best lens with which to judge he faithfulness of oral tradition. Where oral tradition cannot be verified because scriptures don’t directly address that oral tradition, the best practice is frequently not to base a dogmatic teaching on speculation that an oral tradition is or is not authentic.
Last edited:
- Status