Orthodox and Catholicism ???

[brigantine]

I was a Roman Catholic for fifty years, and spent five years in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic church.

I was raised Roman Catholic also. I spent my fist 25 years a RC and the next 11 Orthodox. I’m not sure I’m going to go back to the Roman Catholic Church yet. There are still some problems I have with the Papacy. I’m starting to believe their should be one Bishop in charge but I still believe in only the Bishops together can be infallible. I really believe this could be worked out between the two churches. Maybe I’m just a dreamer!

 

[Reader_John]

As well as I.

Me too! Yippee!

I don’t know about the others (Catholic and Orthodox alike) but following the “new calender” or “old calender” is hardly a schism among churches. Apart from this, the only differences in Orthodoxy are the languages in which worship is performed and other non-theological differences such as wafting the communion cloth over the gifts in Russian style or twirling it over the gifts in Greek style during the Creed.

[for more information on the new vs old calender issue, look at the Julian vs Gregorian calenders or go to http://audio.ancientfaith.com/orthodixie/odx_2008-12-27.mp3 if you’re more into podcasts]

Something I can comfortably say about the prime difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is that throughout the course of history, the Catholic Church has gone through many changes. Popes have issued decrees, many later to be overturned. Many of the catholic dogmas have changed throughout time (including style of worship … look at Vatican II).
The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has only clarified dogmas held since the beginning. Many heresies have arisen in the past; some by Orthodox bishops at the time, but the True Faith has continued to endure. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church is not defined as an “institution.”

Regardless of the ‘new calender’ vs ‘old calender,’ or any differences in local tradition, I am constantly humbled by the Orthodox Faith and generally brought to tears when Orthodox celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy (first Sunday of Lent for Orthodox Christians, March 8th this year).

Troparion, Sunday of Orthodoxy:
We venerate Your most pure image, O Good One,
and ask forgiveness of our transgressions, O Christ God.
Of Your own will You were pleased to ascend the Cross in the flesh
to deliver Your creatures from bondage to the enemy.
Therefore with thanksgiving we cry aloud to You:
You have filled all with joy, O our Savior,
by coming to save the world.

 

[Robertwilliam]

And for good reason!
It was not that way from the beginning.

This whole ‘submission’ concept has gotten way out of hand, completely alien to the early church practice, which is all Orthodox would know.

If the bishop of Rome would care to return to the practices of the early church I am sure we could work out some arrangement which is correct, scriptural and equitable in light of past practices.

The correctness of Holy Orthodoxy does not depend upon human political arrangements, but upon fidelity to the ancient received Faith. That means neither adding, nor rejecting what came before us. Frankly, we never needed the bishop of Rome nor any other to assure this, only Jesus Christ Himself.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cart05.jpg

Thank you Brother Hesychios. CHRISTOS ANESTI

 

[Robertwilliam]

As well as I.

I’m Antiochian.

 

[Patrick1982]

I’m Antiochian.

… As am I!

 

[chrisse]

What about all the anti-protestantism?

One thing we definitely have in common is the anti-Christianity movement by the secular society generally, and Islam in particular.

Hopefully, we can recognise this, and keep our disagreements between ourselves in order to be a united front for Jesus Christ.

Let’s face it, the arguments will still be there if we can overcome the current threat or we can continue arguing between ourselves in our shared persecution. Personally, I’d prefer the former to be the result.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know how many Old Calendar groups exist, I never took a tally and your figure surprises me. However Canonical Orthodoxy knows these to be true Orthodox churches if they teach no errors (these people tend to be very perspicacious), their sacraments are very real and the pewpeople usually have no difficulties when visiting the canonical church, which is huge by comparison.

I suppose then, that they would say something like the SSPX (and the multiple smaller sedevacantist bodies) would say about Vatican II. Does that answer your question?

I think the analogy between “traditionalist Orthodox” and “traditionalist Catholic” (or whatever they call themselves) groups is a good analogy. But what seems strange to me is when you to describe said “traditionalist Orthodox” groups as " … true Orthodox churches" – I consider any “traditionalist Catholic” group that isn’t in full-communion with Rome, to be a non-Catholic group.

 

[Peter_J]

This whole ‘submission’ concept has gotten way out of hand,

OK, I’m not about to claim that the “submission” concept has never gotten out of hand; but remember the old adage that the existence of counterfeit money doesn’t mean there isn’t any real money.

 

[brigantine]

I think the analogy between “traditionalist Orthodox” and “traditionalist Catholic” (or whatever they call themselves) groups is a good analogy. But what seems strange to me is when you to describe said “traditionalist Orthodox” groups as " … true Orthodox churches" – I consider any “traditionalist Catholic” group that isn’t in full-communion with Rome, to be a non-Catholic group.

Its different in Orthodoxy. While many of these old calendar groups are not in communion with a Patriarchate the usually wait till they get a Bishop or two properly consecrated and then break away from a Church. Then they can claim apostolic succession. Take Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America they are not in communion with any Patriarchate (or world Orthodoxy) but they may have valid orders so what are we to make of them? Also many in world Orthodoxy respect the stance of these old calendar groups so they afford them respect instead of looking at them as the protestants they are. Its very weird and I don’t know how to explain it.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This may be a dumb question and maybe somebody can correct me here, but it seems I hear a lot anti-Catholicism in the world but I have yet to hear any anti-orthodox and it seems that both Churches somewhat share the same doctines. Am I right or wrong. If this is so, why do you think so? Thanks!

I wonder about that myself sometimes, why some Protestant churches who reject the Real Presence criticize Catholics for believing it, but never criticize Orthodox Christians for believing in the Real Presence. I think other posters have good points.

1 Cathoicism is the bigger target.

2 America inheirited anti-Catholicsm from Britian.

That being said, I have read posts from people who live in places such as Alaska, where there is a much higher percentage of Orthodox Christians, and they maintain that in communities with higher percentages of Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox Christians are much more likely to be attacked by some Protestants. But that is outside the realm of my experience.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter, my good friend

I think the analogy between “traditionalist Orthodox” and “traditionalist Catholic” (or whatever they call themselves) groups is a good analogy. But what seems strange to me is when you to describe said “traditionalist Orthodox” groups as " … true Orthodox churches" – I consider any “traditionalist Catholic” group that isn’t in full-communion with Rome, to be a non-Catholic group.

I realize that.

However, my response is this: It is not equitable to deny the Catholicity of Catholic splinter groups and then criticize the Orthodox for their splinter groups! It’s like throwing a rock at someone and then hiding behind mother’s skirt.

Haven’t we recently seen a thread where someone maintained “once a Catholic…always a Catholic” with some indelible mark? Well, are the “Catholic” splinter groups Catholic or are they not?

Is it the Hotel California?

To illustrate my point a little better, let’s take the Papa Stronsey group, out on that island.

They have only recently come into obedience to the Pope. Yet they continually taught and believed everything any other Catholic priests were taught to believe. Were they Catholic or not? Were they a splinter group?

Ok, I know that’s a grey area.

How about this? The Polish National Catholic church. This is an Old Catholic church not under the administration of Rome. It’s members are actually permitted to receive communion in Roman Catholic churches.

Are they Catholic or not?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Holy See has formally declared war on other countries. Whilst The Catholic Church and The Holy See are two different things, they usually work in mutual harmony with each other.

Gabriel of 12;

Tell me jblake, how can the Holy See formally declare war on other countries when the Holy See has no military? You lost me here or are you dealing with powers and principalities?

I think you got the just of it, being there is a difference between the juridical side of the Church and the Body of Jesus Christ, but I still cant find any fact of a Holy See declaring war on other countries? are we on the same page here? Can you give me some facts to go by when this declaration of war or wars ever happened?

Jblake:
This is without considering the issue of whether or not encouraging, or approving that countries to go war with each other is tantamount to directly going to war with a country.

Gabriel of 12:
Many of my family members have served in 5 different wars, as a Catholic family, I can attest to the fact, in my experience, not once did a Catholic Priest ever condone or preach for war at any time. Now I have witnessed non catholic Evangelicals on tv during these war times to give support to the cause for War, but never in my life have I heard from the Catholic podium any support of any War, if anything the Catholic church always preached against war.

Jblake;
There is also the issue of whether or not clergy of a church encouraging those of military age to go to war, is tantamount to that church going to war.

Gabriel of 12:

Now are we talking on an official capacity or a personal preference to a war from an individual priest? Please do not pass judgement on the whole of the Catholic church for one catholic individuals preference which may have nothing to do with the Catholic church. This has been my whole take on this thread about these historical events that lay blame to the Catholic church because of prejudices or false accusations that distort historical documented facts.

Peace be with you.

 

[Peter_J]

Haven’t we recently seen a thread where someone maintained “once a Catholic…always a Catholic” with some indelible mark? Well, are the “Catholic” splinter groups Catholic or are they not?

Yes, I think I remember the thread to which you are referring – you provided a link to a Catholic document that said that schism, heresy, and even apostasy do not necessarily entail a “formal defection from the Church” (or whatever the technical phrase is).

But I don’t recall that document using the phrase “once a Catholic…always a Catholic” or “indelible mark”.

I realize that.

However, my response is this: It is not equitable to deny the Catholicity of Catholic splinter groups and then criticize the Orthodox for their splinter groups! It’s like throwing a rock at someone and then hiding behind mother’s skirt.

I agree. But that isn’t what I’m doing – on the contrary I admitted that there’s a good analogy between “Catholic splinter groups” and “Orthodox splinter groups”.

What I’m criticizing (for lack of a better term – the actual words I used were “seems strange to me”) you for is saying that those “Orthodox splinter groups” are “true Orthodox churches”. )

How about this? The Polish National Catholic church. This is an Old Catholic church not under the administration of Rome. It’s members are actually permitted to receive communion in Roman Catholic churches.

Are they Catholic or not?

No, they’re non-Catholic, because they aren’t in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI.

Let me add that I don’t have any problem with calling them “the Polish National Catholic Church”. But for me to call someone “Catholic” (without qualifier) he/she would need to be Roman Catholic, i.e. in full communion with the Pope. (In the same way, I have no problem referring to Old Catholics as “Old Catholics”; but I don’t refer to them simply as “Catholics”.)

 

[Peter_J]

Its different in Orthodoxy. While many of these old calendar groups are not in communion with a Patriarchate the usually wait till they get a Bishop or two properly consecrated and then break away from a Church. Then they can claim apostolic succession. Take Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America they are not in communion with any Patriarchate (or world Orthodoxy) but they may have valid orders so what are we to make of them? Also many in world Orthodoxy respect the stance of these old calendar groups so they afford them respect instead of looking at them as the protestants they are. Its very weird and I don’t know how to explain it.

To my mind, calling them “Protestants” is going to the opposite extreme.

Granted, I’m not Orthodox; so let me just say that with regard to “Catholic splinter groups”, I don’t consider them to be “Catholic” if they aren’t in full communion with the Pope, but that doesn’t mean that I see them as Protestants. (In much the same way that I don’t consider the PNCC to be “Protestant”.)

 

[brigantine]

To my mind, calling them “Protestants” is going to the opposite extreme.

Granted, I’m not Orthodox; so let me just say that with regard to “Catholic splinter groups”, I don’t consider them to be “Catholic” if they aren’t in full communion with the Pope, but that doesn’t mean that I see them as Protestants. (In much the same way that I don’t consider the PNCC to be “Protestant”.)

How can they not be? Protestants are churches that broke away in protest for one reason or another. The only difference in Orthodoxy is they like to keep Orthodox in the name. So take for instance the Lutherans what if like the Greek splinter group “Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America” Luther had his group call themselves the “Genuine German Catholic Church” would this mean they are still Catholic? I was not around back then so I don’t know what the reaction would have been. This is what these splinter groups in Orthodoxy are doing. They pick and choose the canons they want to emphisise and they declare themselves the “true” Church that still upholds Orthodoxy unlike the Church it just broke form. How do you stop this? Who is right? I mean I’ve seen the same saints and canons used to defend both sides of a single issue! I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but there are problems that I see getting worse not better inside Orthodoxy.

The Traditional Catholics I see differently. Some that don’t recognize the Pope are basically protestants. Others that just have issues with V-II do not seem to be breaking away as much as trying to get the Church to see what V-II is doing to it. Again I don’t have the answer here but there is a strong central government to look to for some guidence. In Orthodoxy the there is no cenral government of figure and if you consider the EP to be one he has caused many of the splits and problems.

Another Ecumenical Council may be needed but that would require some egos to humble themselves before the Lord and I’m not sure that will happen!

 

[Peter_J]

How can they not be?

How silly of me. Indeed, how can they not be Protestants if you, brigantine, think that they are?

Thanks for the rant,

 

[brigantine]

How silly of me. Indeed, how can they not be Protestants if you, brigantine, think that they are?

Thanks for the rant,

lol what a comment!

 

[cretu]

I don’t know how many Old Calendar groups exist, I never took a tally and your figure surprises me. However Canonical Orthodoxy knows these to be true Orthodox churches if they teach no errors (these people tend to be very perspicacious), their sacraments are very real and the pewpeople usually have no difficulties when visiting the canonical church, which is huge by comparison.

I suppose then, that they would say something like the SSPX (and the multiple smaller sedevacantist bodies) would say about Vatican II. Does that answer your question?

As you probably know, doing commemorations on the wrong day can be problematic. The RC has what are called Holy Days of Obligation, and if one is skipped for a non-important reason, or forgotten, or “substituted” to another convenient day it may be considered a mortal sin! So suddenly these issues take on a dimension of great importance for the very scrupulous, which may be the case here.

One other argument some bishops favoring the Old Calendar have made is that it has the (unintended) effect of reducing the number of Fast days, which is true. From their point of view this unnecessarily endangers the Christian in their spiritual development. If that be the case, it would be a great moral failing for a spiritual leader to advocate the New Calendar. (This could, once again, compare to some conservative Catholic people’s opinion of the New Mass, the adjustment of the Friday Fast to allow substitution or the one hour pre-Eucharistic Fast).

Personally, I think the Orthodox have more than enough fast days any way one counts them.

I do not see the calendar issue as a good enough reason for schism, and it is unfortunate. There are Canonical Orthodox on both calendars, just as there are Eastern Catholic churches on both calendars, it should not have resulted in schism, but thankfully in those cases the small uncanonical groups are just as cautious about theology. In that sense they are truly Orthodox, prayers all around for reconciliation.

i didnt want to offend,if i did im sorry, i was just asking about the unity of the Orthodox Church, unity in doctrine sounds to be more superior than unity with a bishop(ofc as a simple view on the Pope,ignoring what Jesus said to Peter and the early fathers) ,but this unity is not quite unity, there were lots of situations when 2 patriarchs argued for jurisdiction, i remember a year or two ago when the serbian patriarch argued with the romanian one because of some parishes in Basarabia,

and no, the situation of the catholic splinter groups is a bit different than of the orthodox splinter groups, to be a catholic one must be in communiun with the Holy See, to be an orthodox, i guess you have to follow the 7 ecumenical councils and have apostolic succesion (the orthodox priests), what would make the Russian Orthodox Church more Orthodox then the Estonian Church , Church of Belarus and all the other churches that are not fully recognized?? or why would the orthodox splinter groups (like the 15 greek churches) be less Orthodox than the Greek Orthodox Church,

probably the calendar is not a big issue for a new calendarist, but for Mount Athos, Jerusalem and the splinter groups the calendar is a big issue, if it wouldnt be they would follow the same calendar,

im sorry again if i offended you but i only stated that in my personal opinion the OC doesnt seem to be ONE, a schism between Orthodox will barely heal, if it will ever heal that is.

 

[slavko]

i remember a year or two ago when the serbian patriarch argued with the romanian one because of some parishes in Basarabia,

This is hallucination at best, or misinformation at worst. Nothing of the kind happened.

what would make the Russian Orthodox Church more Orthodox then the Estonian Church , Church of Belarus and all the other churches that are not fully recognized??

While the former is an autocephalous Church, the latter two aren’t. Therefore, Orthodoxy of, say, Moscow Patriarchate, could be compared with the Orthodoxy of the autocephalous Church the referred two are part of.

or why would the orthodox splinter groups (like the 15 greek churches) be less Orthodox than the Greek Orthodox Church,

Their Orthodoxy would be examined if they claimed themselves Orthodox. But they refer themselves as Old Calendarists.

a schism between Orthodox will barely heal, if it will ever heal that is.

The only schism is with Greek Old Calendarist, and the root of the problem is the wish of several Ecumenical Patriarchs to enter into union with Roman Catholics. Once the issue is resolved (by either they finally enter into union, or cease acting as if they want it) the schism will heal immediatelly.

 

[Reader_John]

While there are certainly exceptions to this rule (because of human sin) there is generally only one Orthodox Church in any given area. In the case of America, this is certainly not the case, but in other countries such as Greece or Russia (the two heavy hitters) you will not find other Orthodox jurisdictions in those countries.

In the case of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), there was “autocephaly” granted by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970. Due to a variety of complications (many of which had to do with sending money back to mother churches) many other Orthodox jurisdictions held on to their branched churches in America. In the case of many Greek Orthodox who came to the US in the 1920’s, they still preferred a Greek-speaking church as opposed to an English speaking church. (Not to pick on the Greeks, but they are well-known enough.)

Whether or not the various Russian, Bolgarian, Ukrainian, Greek, American, Japanese… or any of the many other… Orthodox churches share one regional bishop, the bishops of the various regions are still in communion with each other, held to be “One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” through the Eucharist.

On a personal note, I’m from the Eastern bit of the US, which is generally new calender. I have spent a short amount of time in Alaska (which has an extremely rich history of Orthodoxy) and is old calender. Regardless of this fact, I have celebrated Liturgies both in my home region as well as in Alaska. More importantly however, both regions are under the same Bishop (in the Orthodox Church in America, His Eminence Metropolitan JONAH).