Orthodox and Roman Catholic differences part 1 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick-ancient Faith Radio

[Ridgerunner]

There are lots of people who are far more familiar with the nuances of doctrine and the arguments that have presented over the centuries both within the Catholic Church and between the Church and Orthodoxy.

I also realize I will likely be blasted for saying the following.

For a time in my life, I decided to study the history of the schism and the events that led to it. Most of the reading I did was from historians who were neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Some were atheists or agnostics.

The more I studied it, the more I became convinced that the schism was actually fundamentally political, with each pointing to nuances of doctrine (largely unintelligible to lay people) as justification for the split and resultant hostility.

And I think it’s still largely true. The overwhelming majority of Orthodox today are Russians. There is a unity between the Russian branch of Orthodoxy and the Russian state that is no less tight today than it was under the Tsars. Moreover, it can strike a westerner as unseemly, as accustomed as we now are to non-union of church and state.

The mutual suspicions and hostilities between the west and the Russian state are still there, and have grown more intense in the last few years. I do not personally expect anything remotely resembling reconciliation as long as the political divide is there.

 

[twf]

1. Catholics also believe in uncreated grace. All of these various types of grace Latin theology defines are useful constructs to help us understand how the divine interacts with the soul. They aren’t literal separate substances or things. What is sanctifying grace for example? The divine life of the Trinity infused within the soul. The divine life of the Trinity obviously is uncreated. Grace is created in that the synergy, the union, the interaction of the Creator and creature starts in time creating something new- new life within the soul. That’s my understanding anyway.
2. I know Orthodox in real life who have no issue with the Immaculate Conception. What is the real point of the IC? Our Lady was all-holy, in communion with the Blessed Trinity, from the first moment of her conception. In the Byzantine tradition this is called the pre-sanctification of the Theotokos- even if some Orthodox don’t agree with that particular belief. My Orthodox friends definitely do.
3. Original sin isn’t a substance or a thing. It is the lack of something. Namely, the lack of sanctifying grace and original justice. That’s what baptism corrects. It restores full communion with God. While we express it differently the Orthodox believe this too. At least the ones I know in real life…

I should add that I’m not saying there aren’t true differences between West and East when it comes to grace, the conception of the Theotokos, or original sin…just that when Latin theology is properly understood, the differences aren’t as vast as some believe.

 

[truthseeker32]

For a time in my life, I decided to study the history of the schism and the events that led to it. Most of the reading I did was from historians who were neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Some were atheists or agnostics.

The more I studied it, the more I became convinced that the schism was actually fundamentally political, with each pointing to nuances of doctrine (largely unintelligible to lay people) as justification for the split and resultant hostility.

This might be due to the fact that, since the 1930s, historical scholarship has slowly become dominated by explanations that emphasize politics, economics, and other environmental factors because secular historians don’t tend to buy into the notion that religious ideas actually have power.

 

[truthseeker32]

I don’t care much for the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy blog or podcast. I think it perpetuates pop-apologetics that overlook issues that are much more nuanced and complicated than people would like them to be. Rather than taking an hour to listen to a podcast, I would recommend people dedicate the time to reading the great historical works on church history from authors like Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, and JND Kelly.

 

[brittrossiter]

I have listened to all of Fr. Andrew’s podcast series (every episode), and read his book. Unfortunately his summary of differences does not hold up to scruitny, at least not in its entirety.

As just one example, the Catholic Church absolutely does not teach that the fault/guilt associated with Adam’s transgression is transmitted to his descendants:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC, 405 (emphasis added).

 

[Peter_J]

JMO but I think it’s a huge mistake made by many Catholics to think that just going over to an Eastern Catholic parish/liturgy/jurisdiction is the easy answer to the very real differences between the CC and EO.

No question, there are Catholics who are naive in that regard. Nevertheless, assuming that a Roman Catholic is interested in Orthodoxy, it seems “only fair” for him/her to give Eastern Catholicism a try (so to speak) first.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t care much for the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy blog or podcast. I think it perpetuates pop-apologetics that overlook issues that are much more nuanced and complicated than people would like them to be.

What? There are websites that do that?? :bigyikes:

(Kidding. )

 

[Louie1983]

There was poster here named Randy Carson (from memory) who seemed to defend the Catholic position pretty well.

I remember Him and Cav having some epic debates.

You might want to contact him if you are not satisfied with the responses here?

 

[truthseeker32]

What? There are websites that do that?? :bigyikes:

(Kidding. )

Lol, this website may or may not be guilty of the same problem

 

[marlo]

it is interesting to note that even though, English speaking Eastern Orthodox still uses the greek word because they can’t find the equivalent meaning in todays language, like the Theotokos, they would prefer to use the ancient word just to make is sure that they are safe in sticking to the correct tradition by using the same words used by the ancient Fathers.

Here is a concrete example of Rome’s view of doctrine and its development. This is a quote from a CAF poster:

“…although we must bear in mind that while what has been declared true in the past will never become false, we cannot think it legitimate to explain the truth according to the comprehension of prior generations. The Church today has a more developed insight into divine revelation because of advancements in human learning as a whole, as well as the great changes that have occurred in society, as directed by the Holy Spirit. Centuries from now, later generations of ecclesiastics will say the same regarding our time. The truth is constant but it does develop according to the needs of different ages, without losing its substance - indeed its reality becomes more clearly refined and sharpened with time.”

For the Orthodox, doctrine never develops according to the need of generations. Also, needless to say, the Orthodox regard all these developments as guided by the Holy Spirit as a very dubious claim. The evaluation of whether or not a development is consistent with the doctrine it attempts to build upon depends upon Newman’s 7 criterion. By all appearances, the development of doctrine appears as a completely rational process. How is the supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit evident when the process is guided by logicians, canon lawyers, and an army of other theologians relying on their intellectual powers?

It’s interesting that from an Orthodox perspective, a theologian is one who prays. To quote Fr. Damick, “even a retard can be considered a theologian”. You don’t need the intellect of scholars to know God deeply/profoundly.m

 

[Rohzek]

Here is an interesting podcast on ancient Faith radio that is part of a series called “Orthodoxy and heterodoxy”. I want to know how a Catholic answers some of the objections to the Catholic Faith from this very knowledgable Orthodox priest.

Here are some of the issues he brings up:

1. The development of doctrine

I don’t like his treatment on this point because the use and veneration of icons was a chronological development. That’s why it took 700 years to even have a controversy over it. There are indications too that for a time Jerome and others doubted whether the Holy Spirit was a divine person. I think he could have much better job on this point.

I think he is spot on with Aquinas though.

1. The filioque and Pope John the VIII’s opposition to it.

I wish he discussed this point more in detail.

I agree with his assessment of the filioque clause. However, I am not fully in Photius’ camp on the Trinity. I wonder if perhaps the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally. I think Orthodoxy should at least pause and consider before condemning this formulation. At the end of the day though, the formulation I presented should neither be considered dogma or heresy.

1. The distinction between uncreated and created grace.

I found his questioning of divine simplicity truly fascinating. I have to look further into this. I wonder if the Latin Father, Tychonius of Africa, and his framework of understanding scripture can be of any help on this point. Really, I never questioned much divine simplicity, although I never felt that the idea of essence and divine energies as being contrary to it. Much to think about here.

1. The practical problem of papal infallibility in the Church.
2. Papal supremacy and infallibility and how they can be believed in light of some of the Popes being condemned as heretics by councils and even some Popes.

I like his points about the cultural shift of the 11th century. Personally, I think a lot of the major roots were set in the 9th century.

I wished he went more into the supposed repression of the Honorius incident. It was discussed at Vatican I, and while the answers arrived at seem wrong, I wonder what he means by suppressed.

1. The Western legalistic mindset and its need for absolute certainty and assurance.

Slightly unrelated, but I think he stresses the material focus of Catholicism (stigmata, etc.) too much. As for the legalism charge, I personally felt when I was a Catholic that it was a bit too legalistic to say the least.

1. The Role of Peter in the council of Jerusalem and the absence of papal authority in the early Church.

I think he has a good point here and concerning the use of plural verbs/pronouns.

Additionally, the arguments concerning the Council of Chalcedon I consider pretty strong.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I don’t like his treatment on this point because the use and veneration of icons was a chronological development. That’s why it took 700 years to even have a controversy over it. There are indications too that for a time Jerome and others doubted whether the Holy Spirit was a divine person. I think he could have much better job on this point.

I think he is spot on with Aquinas though.

I wish he discussed this point more in detail.

I agree with his assessment of the filioque clause. However, I am not fully in Photius’ camp on the Trinity. I wonder if perhaps the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally. I think Orthodoxy should at least pause and consider before condemning this formulation. At the end of the day though, the formulation I presented should neither be considered dogma or heresy.

I found his questioning of divine simplicity truly fascinating. I have to look further into this. I wonder if the Latin Father, Tychonius of Africa, and his framework of understanding scripture can be of any help on this point. Really, I never questioned much divine simplicity, although I never felt that the idea of essence and divine energies as being contrary to it. Much to think about here.

I like his points about the cultural shift of the 11th century. Personally, I think a lot of the major roots were set in the 9th century.

I wished he went more into the supposed repression of the Honorius incident. It was discussed at Vatican I, and while the answers arrived at seem wrong, I wonder what he means by suppressed.

Slightly unrelated, but I think he stresses the material focus of Catholicism (stigmata, etc.) too much. As for the legalism charge, I personally felt when I was a Catholic that it was a bit too legalistic to say the least.

I think he has a good point here and concerning the use of plural verbs/pronouns.

Additionally, the arguments concerning the Council of Chalcedon I consider pretty strong.

I brought up the issue of authority to my RCIA director. Who has more authority, Popes or councils? he just replied that the Catholic tradition is bigger than what any one Pope or Bishop said or ever will say. The tone of the post Vatican ii church is very different from the arrogant sayings and doings of Pope innocent iii’s and Pope Gregory vii. Very few Catholics are diehard ultramontanists and take a more conciliar approach to the great issues of our time. I’ve also received nothing but love from the Catholic Church so far. I actually experienced some legalism during my time in the orthodox church. The pressure to perform the fasts was immense and I always thought I was too weak. I think I was just too hard on myself though and I set up unrealistic expectations. But then again, everyone’s experience is different and should never be used to judge a faith. I am sure there are Catholic legalists.

As an aside, I’ve never heard Catholics stress sin as something we must make satisfaction for as some fulfillment of a legal requirement. They’ve mostly emphasized that the Church is a hospital and the sacraments help heal us.

 

[rcwitness]

I brought up the issue of authority to my RCIA director. Who has more authority, Popes or councils? he just replied that the Catholic tradition is bigger than what any one Pope or Bishop said or ever will say. The tone of the post Vatican ii church is very different from the arrogant sayings and doings of Pope innocent iii’s and Pope Gregory vii. Very few Catholics are diehard ultramontanists and take a more conciliar approach to the great issues of our time. I’ve also received nothing but love from the Catholic Church so far. I actually experienced some legalism during my time in the orthodox church. The pressure to perform the fasts was immense and I always thought I was too weak. I think I was just too hard on myself though and I set up unrealistic expectations. But then again, everyone’s experience is different and should never be used to judge a faith. I am sure there are Catholic legalists.

As an aside, I’ve never heard Catholics stress sin as something we must make satisfaction for as some fulfillment of a legal requirement. They’ve mostly emphasized that the Church is a hospital and the sacraments help heal us.

Interesting post for you to share.

I just wanted to jump in here to keep reading,… if this thread continues. I know the Orthodox faith has deep and complex history with our faith. Lots in common and lots of division. How real is this division, I wonder.

So, I try to read some of these threads when I’m motivated. Usually, it seems too complicated to compel much of a strong position. But as I am Catholic, I don’t believe it’s the Holy Spirit drawing me to the Orthodox side of the divisions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This might be due to the fact that, since the 1930s, historical scholarship has slowly become dominated by explanations that emphasize politics, economics, and other environmental factors because secular historians don’t tend to buy into the notion that religious ideas actually have power.

Maybe, but even Gibbon says it, and he’s 18th Century.

 

[PatrickC]

I have listened to all of Fr. Andrew’s podcast series (every episode), and read his book. Unfortunately his summary of differences does not hold up to scruitny, at least not in its entirety.

As just one example, the Catholic Church absolutely does not teach that the fault/guilt associated with Adam’s transgression is transmitted to his descendants:

CCC, 405 (emphasis added).

You’re rather young, or brushing aside some of the things taught be previous generations. When I was a young Catholic, it was absolutely taught that Original Sin was a “stain”, a residue left on the soul that had to be cleansed by baptism. The simple act of being born meant you were guilty of Adam’s sin, and would go to hell unless baptized, which is why places like “limbo” were invented, to make it stomachache to imagine an innocent baby in hell. It’s easy now to look at the catechism and imagine this was simply naieve teaching, but it’s what my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were taught.

 

[Ghosty]

You’re rather young, or brushing aside some of the things taught be previous generations. When I was a young Catholic, it was absolutely taught that Original Sin was a “stain”, a residue left on the soul that had to be cleansed by baptism. The simple act of being born meant you were guilty of Adam’s sin, and would go to hell unless baptized, which is why places like “limbo” were invented, to make it stomachache to imagine an innocent baby in hell. It’s easy now to look at the catechism and imagine this was simply naieve teaching, but it’s what my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents were taught.

I can’t speak for what you were taught, since I can’t account for how good your teachers were, but I will say that the Catechism now has the exact same teaching on sin as the Church always has. If it was poorly taught to you that is a problem, but you don’t have the right to claim that the Church teachings have changed just because they don’t sound like what you remember; it is far more likely that you misremember or were mistaught. This is especially clear since the “old” teachings can be found in the Catechism of Trent and the writings of folks like Aquinas that directly contradict that nonsense of a “residue” left on the soul. In fact, Aquinas dealt extensively with the subject, and he makes it quite clear that the “stain” is not a residue at all, but a privation of grace.

Some people make it sound as if the Church just made things up out of whole cloth after Vatican II, or that the new Catechism has some bold changes. In fact, the modern Catechism is nothing other than a more detailed version of the Catechism of Trent, issued at the behest of the Council of Trent, which is still available here and in book form. The new one is much, much clearer and in-depth, mind you, and stands that the current “best source” of Catholic teaching, but it merely builds on the previous work, and while it addresses things like social justice and drug use, things that weren’t addressed as such previously, the teachings haven’t changed a bit.

Peace and God bless!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rohzek]

I can’t speak for what you were taught, since I can’t account for how good your teachers were, but I will say that the Catechism now has the exact same teaching on sin as the Church always has. If it was poorly taught to you that is a problem, but you don’t have the right to claim that the Church teachings have changed just because they don’t sound like what you remember; it is far more likely that you misremember or were mistaught. This is especially clear since the “old” teachings can be found in the Catechism of Trent and the writings of folks like Aquinas that directly contradict that nonsense of a “residue” left on the soul. In fact, Aquinas dealt extensively with the subject, and he makes it quite clear that the “stain” is not a residue at all, but a privation of grace.

Some people make it sound as if the Church just made things up out of whole cloth after Vatican II, or that the new Catechism has some bold changes. In fact, the modern Catechism is nothing other than a more detailed version of the Catechism of Trent, issued at the behest of the Council of Trent, which is still available here and in book form. The new one is much, much clearer and in-depth, mind you, and stands that the current “best source” of Catholic teaching, but it merely builds on the previous work, and while it addresses things like social justice and drug use, things that weren’t addressed as such previously, the teachings haven’t changed a bit.

Peace and God bless!

Peace and God bless!

I’m not familiar with Thomas Aquinas, but I am plenty familiar with the various Latin writings prior to the 12th century. If you would like, we can go over in-detail the text of the Second Council of Orange, Augustine’s 20th book from the City of God, and other various exegeses. These matters are intimately related to predestination. If Aquinas differed from what Patrick described, then good for Aquinas. But with the exception of Bede, most Latin theologians before him believed otherwise as what Patrick has shown us.

 

[Rohzek]

I brought up the issue of authority to my RCIA director. Who has more authority, Popes or councils? he just replied that the Catholic tradition is bigger than what any one Pope or Bishop said or ever will say. The tone of the post Vatican ii church is very different from the arrogant sayings and doings of Pope innocent iii’s and Pope Gregory vii. Very few Catholics are diehard ultramontanists and take a more conciliar approach to the great issues of our time. I’ve also received nothing but love from the Catholic Church so far. I actually experienced some legalism during my time in the orthodox church. The pressure to perform the fasts was immense and I always thought I was too weak. I think I was just too hard on myself though and I set up unrealistic expectations. But then again, everyone’s experience is different and should never be used to judge a faith. I am sure there are Catholic legalists.

As an aside, I’ve never heard Catholics stress sin as something we must make satisfaction for as some fulfillment of a legal requirement. They’ve mostly emphasized that the Church is a hospital and the sacraments help heal us.

When I first began my conversion to Orthodoxy, the priest I was originally working with was pretty strict on the fasting. Not so much for myself since I was in the process of converting. But rather for his own parishoners. Still I tried to follow the rules as though I had already converted, and I failed pretty hard. When I found my current priest, he was much more lax and understanding. My fasting rules and regulations that I currently abide have much more in common with what I did as a Catholic, such as the fact that I still permit myself ALL seafood (which Orthodox don’t). So yes, there is plenty of legalisms on both sides, especially with the Orthodox when it comes to hymns and liturgy.

As for ultramontanist popes, I think the popes for the last century have been pretty tame compared to the previous popes. I think being deprived of the Papal State really did a lot of good in those regards. As a result, the atmosphere in the Catholic Church is much more collegial. I was thinking of the grand history, however, specifically the 9th century onwards.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

I was disturbed by inaccuracies in a pamphlet distributed by the Orthodox Church that spoke about the supposed differences. For example, it claimed that Catholics “made up” the Immaculate Conception doctrine in the 1800s. Until we show a little more respect for each other’s doctrines, we won’t get anywhere. I would expect such an offensive statement from various Protestant faiths, but not the Orthodox Church.

From my standpoint, it appears that the Catholic side has moved a lot closer towards reconciliation than the Orthodox side.

BTW, the early Church Fathers had something to say about Mary’s conception, so, no, Catholics did not “make this up” 1,800 years later.

 

[Rohzek]

I was disturbed by inaccuracies in a pamphlet distributed by the Orthodox Church that spoke about the supposed differences. For example, it claimed that Catholics “made up” the Immaculate Conception doctrine in the 1800s. Until we show a little more respect for each other’s doctrines, we won’t get anywhere. I would expect such an offensive statement from various Protestant faiths, but not the Orthodox Church.

From my standpoint, it appears that the Catholic side has moved a lot closer towards reconciliation than the Orthodox side.

BTW, the early Church Fathers had something to say about Mary’s conception, so, no, Catholics did not “make this up” 1,800 years later.

Orthodox would generally say that there is plenty of tradition to say that Mary was immaculate, but not ancient evidence to argue that she was born without being fallen. The difference really comes down to our different conceptions of Original/Ancestral Sin. Hence, why one side of the debate considers the doctrine either unnecessary for communion or fabricated.