Orthodox & Catholics: What Still Divides Us?

[josephdaniel29]

One of the major problems (that the Orthodox deny or play down) is that their churches are not united. Church A might be in communion with Church B and vice versa but Church A might also be in communion with Church C that Church B is not in communion with. The whole relationship/recognition situation is highly complex and often arises from territorial disputes (though they call them ‘jurisdictional’).

It’s not nearly the “problem” you make it out to be. How many Orthodox Churches are not in communion today? Also, the situation you describe above looks remarkably similar to the Church for the first thousand years prior to the Schism. Funny how that works huh?

The churches don’t always teach the same thing. The Echumenical Patriarch and the Russian O.C. recognises Catholic ordination, the Greek church does not. The Russians do not permit artificial contraception, the Greeks do. Etc, etc. etc.

These are not variations in teaching, these are variations in pastoral practice. I know it’s a novel idea, but we prefer to leave pastoral issues to the pastors, not the canonist.

Apart from which most of them despise Catholicism - just go to a few of their websites and check.

So I assume you have proof that “most” of them “despise” Catholicism? Did you ask most of them? Perhaps you know someone who has spoken to most of them? If so I would love to hear about it.

 

[JRKH]

Generally these threads devolve pretty fast from the intended OP. God willing, I’d like to slow down that process as much as possible.

I would say, personally, that there is a completely different mindset at play in both churches. In Orthodoxy, asceticism (fasting, prayer rule, spiritually etc) is much more emphasized than in Western confessions (Orthodox tend to lump Catholicism and Protestantism together because they are more alike than different). Ecclesiology is also very different, as is our idea on ‘doctrinal development’ (which we reject).

The two issues you have listed are major, but ultimately, I believe there are completely two different mindsets in both groups. My opinion, and the opinion of most of the clergy and laity I have met when discussing the issue say that Rome’s mindset would have to return to its Orthodox roots. We must have the same mindset and beliefs if we are to resume communion with one another. At present, we don’t have that.

In Christ,
Andrew

In the bolded section above I think that you have hit the real stumbling block to the whole matter.
After talking with a couple of Orthodox on another website I understand a bit better how different the approaches are.
The primary difference here manifests itself this way. The EO maintains a more mystical perspective while the west has followed the more “logical”, “rational” approach.
The West seems to have a greater “need” to explian things. The EO doesn’t seem to feel this same need.
The issue of purgatory is one example of this. The EO has a belief in a prgation or a perfection after death, but hasn’t really “defined” it in the same sense or degree that the West has.
The Real Presence is another example. The EO simply accepts the real presence while the West felt the need for a more clear definition.

I’m not saying that one approach is better than the other, I’m simply saying that such a fundemental difference in approach will take some time and effort to get past.

Peace
James

 

[JohnVIII]

One of the major problems (that the Orthodox deny or play down) is that their churches are not united. Church A might be in communion with Church B and vice versa but Church A might also be in communion with Church C that Church B is not in communion with. The whole relationship/recognition situation is highly complex and often arises from territorial disputes (though they call them ‘jurisdictional’). Local independence works when churches remain in their original territory but when they move into new areas, there is a ‘who got here first’ argument between the different churches as in the US.
The churches don’t always teach the same thing. The Echumenical Patriarch and the Russian O.C. recognises Catholic ordination, the Greek church does not. The Russians do not permit artificial contraception, the Greeks do. Etc, etc. etc.
Apart from which most of them despise Catholicism - just go to a few of their websites and check.

Since this thread is not about internal EO issues, but about issues that divide EO & RC are you saying that the RC Church would have a hard time tolerating different local churches practices in the same way each Orthodox jurisdiction tolerates all the others? I have heard that Rome has taken issue on what some have called “double-communion”. There’s not alot of that going on right now in the EO churches, but it is something that can happen, and as Brother josephdaniel29 pointed out this situation was common in the early years of the “undivided” Church. Right now RC are in double-communion not with a third church, with Christ Himself! Rome is communion with Christ, Orthodox in communion with Christ, but Rome & Orthodox not in communion.

May I say that if you wish to wait until we can work out all our issues before we unite, then we will never unite. But if something compels us to unite we will have to learn to respect each others ways. Absolutist’s on either side will have the hardest time being able to do this.

 

[StevieD]

Since this thread is not about internal EO issues, but about issues that divide EO & RC are you saying that the RC Church would have a hard time tolerating different local churches practices in the same way each Orthodox jurisdiction tolerates all the others? I have heard that Rome has taken issue on what some have called “double-communion”. There’s not alot of that going on right now in the EO churches, but it is something that can happen, and as Brother josephdaniel29 pointed out this situation was common in the early years of the “undivided” Church. Right now RC are in double-communion not with a third church, with Christ Himself! Rome is communion with Christ, Orthodox in communion with Christ, but Rome & Orthodox not in communion.

May I say that if you wish to wait until we can work out all our issues before we unite, then we will never unite. But if something compels us to unite we will have to learn to respect each others ways. Absolutist’s on either side will have the hardest time being able to do this.

What I am saying is that there is no hope of the Orthodox uniting with any other Church until they achieve internal unity which seems quite distant to me. Deny it as you may, and will, there is no Orthodox unity and where it apparently exists it is fragile.

 

[JRKH]

Since this thread is not about internal EO issues, but about issues that divide EO & RC are you saying that the RC Church would have a hard time tolerating different local churches practices in the same way each Orthodox jurisdiction tolerates all the others? I have heard that Rome has taken issue on what some have called “double-communion”. There’s not alot of that going on right now in the EO churches, but it is something that can happen, and as Brother josephdaniel29 pointed out this situation was common in the early years of the “undivided” Church. Right now RC are in double-communion not with a third church, with Christ Himself! Rome is communion with Christ, Orthodox in communion with Christ, but Rome & Orthodox not in communion.

May I say that if you wish to wait until we can work out all our issues before we unite, then we will never unite. But if something compels us to unite we will have to learn to respect each others ways. Absolutist’s on either side will have the hardest time being able to do this.

BINGO!!
Let us pray that those charged with talks to bring the Churches closer will not be sidetracked by secondary issues. Let us pray that we all seek to understand each other and come to union by consensus; by a building up of our strengths in faith.

Peace
James

 

[JohnnyReb]

I will openly admit that if Catholicism and Orthodoxy reunited, that would be a great witness to Protestantism, and would probably be enough to get me to return to this Apostolic church. Right now, I see the CC and OC has both having equally valid claims to being the ancient church, and in schism from each other. I really cannot decide which one to be a part of if either. Reunification would show a willingness to address the issues that seperate the two communions (Purgatory, Filoque, Papal Jurisdiction etc…).

 

[Randy_Carson]

What I am saying is that there is no hope of the Orthodox uniting with any other Church until they achieve internal unity which seems quite distant to me. Deny it as you may, and will, there is no Orthodox unity and where it apparently exists it is fragile.

I’m not so sure internal unity would be neccessary. Couldn’t the Russian Orthodox Church re-unite with Rome independently of the Greek Orthodox Church?

What if the Pope made a provision for the Orthodox similar to the one recently announced for the Anglicans?

 

[josephdaniel29]

What I am saying is that there is no hope of the Orthodox uniting with any other Church until they achieve internal unity which seems quite distant to me. Deny it as you may, and will, there is no Orthodox unity and where it apparently exists it is fragile.

There is no greater unity than unity in the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ. That you and so many others seem to have forgotten that many years ago is indeed a tragedy. It testifies to the real reason Orthodox and Catholics do not have unity. As our beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said:

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

Because of that difference, statements like yours and Cardinal Kasper who said “We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist”, really are quite perplexing to us. It’s a mindset that’s so foreign that there’s not even a little common ground on which to base an understanding of each other. Unless/until a change occurs we can’t even begin to talk about unity.

 

[porthos11]

BINGO!!
Let us pray that those charged with talks to bring the Churches closer will not be sidetracked by secondary issues. Let us pray that we all seek to understand each other and come to union by consensus; by a building up of our strengths in faith.

Peace
James

I think that in recent years, Rome has shown a lot of openness and willingness to let Eastern Churches just stick with expressions they feel comfortable with. The Orthodox like to say they reject this, reject that when in fact, they actually accept them (Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, even papal primacy to a certain degree) although they would never use those terms or express them the way we do. However, we would have absolutely no problem accepting their expressions as theologically sound.

No, I think (just my own personal opinion) what still divides us is that we were mean to them many centuries ago, and although we said we were sorry, they’ve never really forgiven us. Unfortunately for us, the Orthodox have long memories and sure know how to hold a grudge.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Great question, Randy.

Jon

Protestant [though, you did not specify such], Orthodox, and Catholic are united in their belief in Christ, as their God, Lord, and Savior.

The rest, though important, is not determinative, for the Christian.

So, a Christian who moves from one Church to another and, yet another, is not as displaced, as some might suggest.

If I believe in the Papacy, or not; if I believe in purgatory, or not; if I read the KJV of the Bible, or not; if I want to be a Greek Orthodox priest, or not: the wash of it all, need not interfere with our appeal of Luke 23:42 and Christ’s response of Luke 23:43 - the rest is comparatively only fodder for the Forum.

 

[StevieD]

Since this thread is not about internal EO issues, but about issues that divide EO & RC are you saying that the RC Church would have a hard time tolerating different local churches practices in the same way each Orthodox jurisdiction tolerates all the others? I have heard that Rome has taken issue on what some have called “double-communion”. There’s not alot of that going on right now in the EO churches, but it is something that can happen, and as Brother josephdaniel29 pointed out this situation was common in the early years of the “undivided” Church. Right now RC are in double-communion not with a third church, with Christ Himself! Rome is communion with Christ, Orthodox in communion with Christ, but Rome & Orthodox not in communion.

May I say that if you wish to wait until we can work out all our issues before we unite, then we will never unite. But if something compels us to unite we will have to learn to respect each others ways. Absolutist’s on either side will have the hardest time being able to do this.

Interesting that you should mention Communion. Rome is quite happy to allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist in Orthodox churches where they cannot reach a Catholic church but the Orthodox will not permit it. We can accept intercommunion, the EO won’t and says it can’t? When you have the leader of the Cypriot church describing the Pope as ‘a layman’, the Ecumenical Patriarch’s honey words appear to have little practical effect. As he has no real authority, there is not much he can do to get things moving and if he did, there would obviously be further schism within Orthodoxy.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Interesting that you should mention Communion. Rome is quite happy to allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist in Orthodox churches where they cannot reach a Catholic church but the Orthodox will not permit it. We can accept intercommunion, the EO won’t and says it can’t? When you have the leader of the Cypriot church describing the Pope as ‘a layman’, the Ecumenical Patriarch’s honey words appear to have little practical effect. As he has no real authority, there is not much he can do to get things moving and if he did, there would obviously be further schism within Orthodoxy.

This is an address by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew made at Georgetown University in 1997. If you want to understand what really separates us, at least from our perspective, this is probably the best explanation I’ve read. I highly recommend it.

Text

 

[StevieD]

This is an address by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew made at Georgetown University in 1997. If you want to understand what really separates us, at least from our perspective, this is probably the best explanation I’ve read. I highly recommend it.

Text

I admire the Patriarch and agree with much of what he says, unfortunately his own flock do not and any moves by him to unity will fall on deaf ears from his own.

 

[JRKH]

I think that in recent years, Rome has shown a lot of openness and willingness to let Eastern Churches just stick with expressions they feel comfortable with. The Orthodox like to say they reject this, reject that when in fact, they actually accept them (Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, even papal primacy to a certain degree) although they would never use those terms or express them the way we do. However, we would have absolutely no problem accepting their expressions as theologically sound.

Agreed. It is up to the good people in both groups to seek understanding, and perhaps, eventually, a common terminology to express the understandings.

No, I think (just my own personal opinion) what still divides us is that we were mean to them many centuries ago, and although we said we were sorry, they’ve never really forgiven us. Unfortunately for us, the Orthodox have long memories and sure know how to hold a grudge.

I don’t particularly agree with bringing this up. Yes there has been bad treatment and yes there undoubtely hardliners on both sides of the fence. Better to ignore these and concentrate on building bridges.

Peace
James

 

[JackQ]

I admire the Patriarch and agree with much of what he says, unfortunately his own flock do not and any moves by him to unity will fall on deaf ears from his own.

I like Patriarch Bartholomew too. But the real power in the Orthodox Church is in Moscow, and as far as unity between Catholics and Orthodox the current Patriarch of Moscow will have none of it. And that’s about all she wrote on the subject, for now.

What I think we should do instead is try to cultivate the relationship between the Latin Catholics and the Eastern Catholics. We need to strengthen those bonds, with sensitivity to their concerns of being dominated by the Latin side of the Church. We certainly shouldn’t consider throwing them under the bus in order to foster relations with the Moscow Patriarch. For starters, a Patriarchate in the Ukraine should be evaluated independently of any ecumenical concerns.

 

[chrisb]

Let me see… what still divides us?

How about Clown Masses and a disregard for Tradition?

If I were Orthodox and I saw Roman Catholics in these Clown Masses and whatnot I wouldn’t want unity either.

 

[JackQ]

Let me see… what still divides us?

How about Clown Masses and a disregard for Tradition?

If I were Orthodox and I saw Roman Catholics in these Clown Masses and whatnot I wouldn’t want unity either.

I’ve never seen a clown mass.

 

[rr1213]

The Papacy
The Filioque

Anything else? IOW, if there was agreement between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church on those two issues, would anything else prevent re-unification?

The Fourth Crusade. The Orthodox seem still to be mighty peeved about it.

 

[manualman]

Same as ever: pride. On both sides, mind you. Pride is the ultimate root of what divides us. The doctrinal stuff is just trumped up rationalizing.

The opportunity for growth by BOTH sides is truly extraordinary. It’s kind of like having the testimony of TWO men who spent an hour in a pitch black room with a statue. The sum of both their testimonies is going to better reveal what the statue is than either one of them alone, even though both are telling the truth and describing the same thing.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Philip Rolfes:

Toll Houses vs. Purgatory is not really an issue. The Toll Houses is a theory which is not universally accepted by the Orthodox; in fact many condemn it as a heresy. While not explicitly using the word “purgatory” the Orthodox do have a concept of a continued theosis/divinzation that continues after death. Primarily what tends to be rejected by the Orthodox (and incidentally we Eastern Catholics as well) is the notion of purgatory being a place of pain and suffering, a sort of “temporary Hell.” This notion of purgatory is not even completely accepted in Roman Catholic theology and mysticism.

Something that should be pointed out is that the teaching in the Orthodox Church of aerial Toll Houses is different from the Latin Catholic teaching of Purgatory. The Toll Houses have the character of a trial (or series of trials), and one can be dragged down to Hell or enter Heaven. The teaching of Purgatory, however, is that all souls in Purgatory are destined for heaven but first need purification. Both teachings have the nature of temporary after-death experiences, but the nature of each is markedly different.

As to Purgatory being a kind of “temporary Hell,” this is the impression I received from Fr. Schouppe’s Purgatory Explained, which I read when still Latin Catholic. In this book, Fr. Schouppe describes souls from Purgatory who appear before living Catholic saints and religious, and describe the pains they experience as infinitely worse and longer than any pain experienced on earth. Many artistic depictions of Purgatory show people engulfed in Hell-like flames. Dante’s depiction of Purgatory is rather different, yet the predominant image of Purgatory (as from the lives of the saints which Fr. Schouppe relates) is that of a place of Hell-like sufferings. For example, Mirjana, one of the Medjugorje visionaries, has this to say about Purgatory:

There are several levels in Purgatory. The more you pray on earth, the higher your level in Purgatory will be…The lowest level is the closest to hell, where the suffering is the most intense. The highest level is closest to Heaven, and there the suffering is the least.

medjugorje.com/medjugorje/heaven-purgatory-hell/612-description-of-purgatory.html

I know Medjugorje is not accepted by all Catholics, but I know similiar descriptions are found elsewhere from more generally accepted Catholic sources.

Immaculate Conception isn’t really a problem either. Indeed many Orthodox do believe in it. What differs primarily is the notion of Original Sin, although with the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church it has been shown that Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians (both Catholic and Orthodox) have similar concepts of the Original/Ancestral Sin and its effects. Where we differ is primarily in emphasis. However, throughout our Liturgies we constantly refer to the Theotokos (i.e. the Blessed Virgin) as “All Holy, All Pure, Most Highly Blessed, and Glorious Lady… who without corruption (i.e. the corruption of sin) gave birth to God the Word.”

Two Orthodox friends and I recently had a dinner discussion with a well-read Catholic priest on this. It seems to me that the West focuses more on how Mary was elected (and perhaps even predestined) to be the Theotokos and so preserved from Original Sin, whereas the East focuses on how Mary through constant prayer and struggle lived a pure and holy life and accepted becoming the Theotokos. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe she was pure and without sin, and that she maintained her ever-virginity.

Incidentally a widowed priest is sometimes allowed to remarry at the discretion of his bishop for the sake of the children. Typically in this case the priest, while remaining a priest, is no long permitted to function as a priest, although I have heard of at least one case where a widowed priest was permitted to remarry and continue his priestly ministry.

Interesting. I’ve heard of this somewhat, but have never seen it actually happen. Is a priest in the typical case then considered laity? Can he function as a deacon (e.g. reading the deacons’ prayers in the Divine Liturgy)?