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

[Rohzek]

That pendulum swing describes much of the Orthodox position on various Catholic areas as well. Sometimes the Papacy is completely unacceptable, other times the Pope is to have primacy; sometimes Transubstantiation is an acceptable statement, other times it’s too specific; sometimes Catholics are said to worship Mary, other times it’s acceptable. In the past, some Orthodox catechisms had swung all the way to Calvinism - this is not something that only affects Catholicism.

I highly doubt the last sentence. At any rate, how does any of this address the need for unanimity on these issues before reunion? That’s been my point the whole time. If you don’t like or find Orthodox going back and forth on an issue that’s fine. But like I said, unanimity is needed before reunion on the issues of the papacy, Original Sin, the IC, etc. Saying that we suffer from this problem too misses what I was saying completely. Nothing I have said was intended to come off as “Oh see, the Catholic Church has changed on this and that, therefore us Orthodox have two more points than them. Score!”

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

The problems with orthodoxy is their constant rejection of history with regards to St. Peter and His role as Pope. When Christ said to St Peter upon this rock I shall build my Church . He meant that Peter would always be the leader of the apostles and that Peter was the foundation that the Church was set on. History proves this fact after the schism orthodox pariarchs were used as political tools for the Ottomans and later the Russian tsars to exact political control over there churches. They would sell the right to be pariarchs to the highest bidder for profit and later would kill or exile them when they grew tired of them

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problems with orthodoxy is their constant rejection of history with regards to St. Peter and His role as Pope. When Christ said to St Peter upon this rock I shall build my Church . He meant that Peter would always be the leader of the apostles and that Peter was the foundation that the Church was set on. History proves this fact after the schism orthodox pariarchs were used as political tools for the Ottomans and later the Russian tsars to exact political control over there churches. They would sell the right to be pariarchs to the highest bidder for profit and later would kill or exile them when they grew tired of them

If you think that the same never happened with the papacy, then you must have a rather naïve reading of history.

 

[Ghosty]

It is quite true that Orthodox bishops accepted Calvinism, and did so without excommunication (see Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril). This was not due to some kind of widespread heresy, but seems to be due to a lack of understanding of Latin theological tradition and an opposition to the Catholic Church (Protestants hated Catholic teaching as well, and were ready allies).

It was an error, but an honest one. It happens, and it really isn’t a big deal. Same things have happened in the Catholic Church. These incidents help us realize that misunderstandings can and do happen, especially across cultures and languages.

That some Orthodox still speak as if the stain of sin is a thing, rather than the absence of a thing, and some Catholics think that the teaching of uncreated grace (which is an explicitely Catholic teaching as well, though expressed in many different ways) leads to pantheism is proof that neither side has a good grasp on the language and practice of the other.

These discussions can’t move forward because the intent is to debate rather than share, and debates can’t bring people together.

God is Wisdom and Communion, not strife. We won’t find God nor Communion nor Wisdom by proof-text arguing, and I don’t care to win arguments yet lose Communion with God.

If people want to know what the Church teaches it is very easy to find. If people can’t understand what was written it should be a matter for discussion rather than debate.

I say this as someone that has received the Body and Blood of Christ from an Orthodox priest as my Catholic Bishop concelebrated at a Catholic Divine Liturgy. That is reality, and no amount of debate will change it. That is what matters to me, and it didn’t happen because of a debate.

I also say this as someone that is no stranger to debate onthese matters, as folks like twf can attest.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is quite true that Orthodox bishops accepted Calvinism, and did so without excommunication (see Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril).

To be fair, at least one Eastern Catholic poster on this forum alleges that Cyril Loukaris was set up by the Jesuits and that he did not in fact write that confession of faith. It seems to be a somewhat common opinion.

 

[Peter_J]

I think he is spot on with Aquinas though.

For the record, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that Mary was not immaculately conceived. (I realize you probably know that already, but I’d bet there are a number of people who don’t know it who are reading this thread.) Pope Pius IX said definitively that he was wrong.

 

[Peter_J]

Ten years?! Wow…have you ever considered the amount of time wasted on a site like this. I’m sure you feel it somehow serves some sort of good, but ten years? Can you imagine what you might have done with that time and effort?

If I may be so bold, I think you’re being a little bit harsh here. Just speaking for myself (but I’d be very surprised if there aren’t a great many here who feel the same way as me) I try to limit my time on internet discussion forums (this one and other ones) in order to devote time to more worthwhile things … but of course I’m only human.

 

[Rohzek]

To be fair, at least one Eastern Catholic poster on this forum alleges that Cyril Loukaris was set up by the Jesuits and that he did not in fact write that confession of faith. It seems to be a somewhat common opinion.

Even if he did believe in Calvinism, one would still face the issue that he was virtually alone in his opinion. Additionally, it does not compare to what was proclaimed at the Second Council of Orange in the 6th century in the terms of scale. Having one lone wolf hardly qualifies as a pendulum swing when compared to the ebbs and flows of Latin councils.

 

[Ghosty]

To be fair, at least one Eastern Catholic poster on this forum alleges that Cyril Loukaris was set up by the Jesuits and that he did not in fact write that confession of faith. It seems to be a somewhat common opinion.

Crazy conspiracy theories abound.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Even if he did believe in Calvinism, one would still face the issue that he was virtually alone in his opinion. Additionally, it does not compare to what was proclaimed at the Second Council of Orange in the 6th century in the terms of scale. Having one lone wolf hardly qualifies as a pendulum swing when compared to the ebbs and flows of Latin councils.

I assume that he wasn’t alone in that opinion, because he sent students to Calvinistic schools to learn that stream of Reformation theology, it was only later that Calvinism was kicked out of the Orthodox Catholic Church .

Keep the faith, Rohzek , Starwars

 

[Jon_Mallory]

The problems with orthodoxy is their constant rejection of history with regards to St. Peter and His role as Pope. When Christ said to St Peter upon this rock I shall build my Church . He meant that Peter would always be the leader of the apostles and that Peter was the foundation that the Church was set on. History proves this fact after the schism orthodox pariarchs were used as political tools for the Ottomans and later the Russian tsars to exact political control over there churches. They would sell the right to be pariarchs to the highest bidder for profit and later would kill or exile them when they grew tired of them

I think the history behind the papacy is a tad bit more complicated than you give it credit for. Did you not listen to the podcast? How do you reconcile your view of the history of the papacy with statements like “whoever calls himself a universal bishop is the precursor of the antichrist”. That one came from Pope Gregory the Great. Also, research the Tome of Leo, which affirmed the two natures of Christ. It was accepted but not because it simply came from a Pope. It was examined meticulously to see if it was orthodox.Yes, some people on this thread think Fr. Damick’s podcast is simplistic but its goal is not to get into the nitty gritty of Orthodox-Catholic debate/history. Its like a survey course on the differences between both institutions. The history is very complicated.

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

First of all I could less what an orthodox or protestant think about the Papacy so I consider the priest arugements pointless. They are the same arugements they have used since there schism from Rome. Etherway the Early Church Fathers were Catholic in doctrine and practice. I don’t think the orthodox will ever comeback because they don’t want to,they seem to be happier without us Catholics around. As much I would like to see reunion with them right now I don’t think its possible regardless of how much politeness there this between us.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

First of all I could less what an orthodox or protestant think about the Papacy so I consider the priest arugements pointless. They are the same arugements they have used since there schism from Rome. Etherway the Early Church Fathers were Catholic in doctrine and practice. I don’t think the orthodox will ever comeback because they don’t want to,they seem to be happier without us Catholics around. As much I would like to see reunion with them right now I don’t think its possible regardless of how much politeness there this between us.

Then why are you posting on this thread if you can’t/won’t engage in honest dialogue with a different faith tradition? I specifically requested that members listen to the podcast before they post and to avoid reactionary posts with little substance. Please respect that.

 

[Erich]

I think Orthodoxy should at least pause and consider before condemning this formulation.

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes the following points with respect to the filioque clause:
In Rev 22:1, it speaks of the “river of the water of life.” What is the “river of the water of life”? Well, it’s the Holy Spirit, right? After all, is not the Holy Spirit the living water that Jesus promised to give? Well, let’s look at where the Holy Spirit comes from according to Rev 22:1, “…flowing from the throne of God AND of the Lamb.” The Holy Spirit, according to Scripture, flows from the throne of the Father and the Son. Scripture says, “and the throne of the Lamb”…the Creed says, “and the Son.” Is the Lamb not the Son?

Also, the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6), the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9), and the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19); just as it calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of the Father” (Matthew 10:20) and the “Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2:11). In other words, the Bible attributes to the Holy Spirit the same relation to the Son as the Spirit has to the Father. So, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit is referred to in the Bible in the same relational way to both the Father and the Son, then the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father.

 

[truthseeker32]

This Bible Christian Society newsletter makes the following points with respect to the filioque clause:
In Rev 22:1, it speaks of the “river of the water of life.” What is the “river of the water of life”? Well, it’s the Holy Spirit, right? After all, is not the Holy Spirit the living water that Jesus promised to give? Well, let’s look at where the Holy Spirit comes from according to Rev 22:1, “…flowing from the throne of God AND of the Lamb.” The Holy Spirit, according to Scripture, flows from the throne of the Father and the Son. Scripture says, “and the throne of the Lamb”…the Creed says, “and the Son.” Is the Lamb not the Son?

Also, the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6), the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9), and the “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19); just as it calls the Holy Spirit the “Spirit of the Father” (Matthew 10:20) and the “Spirit of God” (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2:11). In other words, the Bible attributes to the Holy Spirit the same relation to the Son as the Spirit has to the Father. So, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit is referred to in the Bible in the same relational way to both the Father and the Son, then the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well as the Father.

The “river of water and life” isn’t the Holy Spirit; it is a metaphor for the saving grace that God gives to humanity.

 

[Peter_J]

First of all I could less what an orthodox or protestant think about the Papacy so I consider the priest arugements pointless.

Admittedly I haven’t read the rest if your posts, but I just so happened to see the above sentence, and figured that I should read that post and respond.

I think that a “happy medium” approach is needed. In particular, I don’t hold with people who say “I don’t care what so and so posts, because he/she is Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic” … But on the other hand some people go to another extreme, I.e. you’ve got to read whatever anyone says no matter how extreme or even ridiculous. (As a concrete example, I mostly avoid any posts on this forum by so-called traditionalist Catholics.)

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I repeat my challenge: Catholics, please tell me why ultrampntanism hasn’t been condemned as a heresy and if it is not, please reconcile ultramontanism with Pope Gregory the Great’s statement, “whoever calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the antichrist”. Don’t deflect the issue by criticizing the Orthodox.

 

[Wesrock]

I repeat my challenge: Catholics, please tell me why ultrampntanism hasn’t been condemned as a heresy and if it is not, please reconcile ultramontanism with Pope Gregory the Great’s statement, “whoever calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the antichrist”. Don’t deflect the issue by criticizing the Orthodox.

What did Pope Gregory mean by denouncing the title “universal bishop?”

 

[Ghosty]

I repeat my challenge: Catholics, please tell me why ultrampntanism hasn’t been condemned as a heresy and if it is not, please reconcile ultramontanism with Pope Gregory the Great’s statement, “whoever calls himself universal bishop is the precursor to the antichrist”. Don’t deflect the issue by criticizing the Orthodox.

Pope Gregory didn’t even denounce it as heresy; he spoke out against a term that isn’t even consistantly used in the Catholic Church currently (this isn’t a criticism, but I should point out that the term is still used by the Eastern Orthodox, replacing “Bishop” with “Patriarch”), and we can only go from what he wrote on the matter to determine what he was actually complaining about. His writings are easily found online.

A brief response: Pope Gregory never condemned Papal Primacy, nor did he condemn the notion that the Bishop of Rome has the authority to unseat or otherwise deal with other Bishops. He denounced the notion that any Bishop is the Bishop of every locale, which the Catholic Church also denounces. Removing Bishops unilaterally is an authority that has been enjoyed by Patriarchs and Popes; even a casual study of the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch throughout history will demonstrate this. That doesn’t mean that these authorities were exercising power as if they were the sole Bishop.

The irony is that in the very sequence of letters in which Gregory condemned the honorific “Universal Bishop”, he clearly exercised Papal Primacy and expected to be followed. Indeed, the whole dispute played out as a clear exercise of Roman Primacy, and Gregory said as much in his letters; he was decidedly ultramontaine in his denouncements and expectations. If he wasn’t, he never would have gone against the title in the first place, since it was outside his “jurisdiction” according to anti-ultramontaine understandings of the Papacy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Pope Gregory didn’t even denounce it as heresy; he spoke out against a term that isn’t even consistantly used in the Catholic Church currently (this isn’t a criticism, but I should point out that the term is still used by the Eastern Orthodox, replacing “Bishop” with “Patriarch”), and we can only go from what he wrote on the matter to determine what he was actually complaining about. His writings are easily found online.

A brief response: Pope Gregory never condemned Papal Primacy, nor did he condemn the notion that the Bishop of Rome has the authority to unseat or otherwise deal with other Bishops. He denounced the notion that any Bishop is the Bishop of every locale, which the Catholic Church also denounces. Removing Bishops unilaterally is an authority that has been enjoyed by Patriarchs and Popes; even a casual study of the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch throughout history will demonstrate this. That doesn’t mean that these authorities were exercising power as if they were the sole Bishop.

The irony is that in the very sequence of letters in which Gregory condemned the honorific “Universal Bishop”, he clearly exercised Papal Primacy and expected to be followed. Indeed, the whole dispute played out as a clear exercise of Roman Primacy, and Gregory said as much in his letters; he was decidedly ultramontaine in his denouncements and expectations. If he wasn’t, he never would have gone against the title in the first place, since it was outside his “jurisdiction” according to anti-ultramontaine understandings of the Papacy.

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for the response. I’ll have to read some of Pope Gregory the Great. If his appeal to papal primacy is so clear, then I wonder why Fr. Damick uses the saying of a Pope that refutes his own argument when the context is considered. Although, I find the argument for papal primacy (which the Orthodox do not dispute) a little weak. So Pope Gregory was speaking authoritatively and hence expected to be heard and obeyed. A lot of bishops have spoken authoritatively. That does not mean they want to be over every bishop.