Orthodoxy and Catholicism-comparisons

[oneseeker]

Now, I’m coming from a Prostestant point of view:wave: and I mean no disrespect with this question. It seems to me that the Catholic Church has a lot of different problems that aren’t affecting the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Gay priests/poor handling of such + ped. scandal
changes in liturgy (only bread, no cup), filoque
Bishops agreeing with homosexual adoption (San Fran)
Additional doctrines added and dogmatized sometimes centuries later (Imm. Conception), whereas EO is pretty much changeless
Majority of Catholic only follow selected teachings of Church

I’m especially confused about the idea of development of doctrine. I believe that some development is necessary, or we wouldn’t have the Trinity, the Bible, and many other important things. However, the EO don’t have so many “developments”, and the two churches were one for a thousand years. I don’t know whether I believe this, but I can understand why the EO think they are closer to the original, and the Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles. In Acts 15, wasn’t it a concilliar decision about the gentiles, not just one person’s decision? Also, James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Paul was the leader of the gentile mission, not Peter.

I like this board b/c there are so many knowledgeable and friendly people here, and I am anxiously awaiting your responses.

oneseeker

 

[chrisb]

Boy, have you just opened up a can of worms…

Man, you are going to get it…

 

[wynd]

Also, remember that if you have any questions about Eastern Christianity, there is a forum for that as well

 

[DeFide]

Now, I’m coming from a Prostestant point of view:wave: and I mean no disrespect with this question. It seems to me that the Catholic Church has a lot of different problems that aren’t affecting the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Gay priests/poor handling of such + ped. scandal
changes in liturgy (only bread, no cup), filoque
Bishops agreeing with homosexual adoption (San Fran)
Additional doctrines added and dogmatized sometimes centuries later (Imm. Conception), whereas EO is pretty much changeless
Majority of Catholic only follow selected teachings of Church

I’m especially confused about the idea of development of doctrine. I believe that some development is necessary, or we wouldn’t have the Trinity, the Bible, and many other important things. However, the EO don’t have so many “developments”, and the two churches were one for a thousand years. I don’t know whether I believe this, but I can understand why the EO think they are closer to the original, and the Church founded by Jesus and the Apostles. In Acts 15, wasn’t it a concilliar decision about the gentiles, not just one person’s decision? Also, James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter. Paul was the leader of the gentile mission, not Peter.

I like this board b/c there are so many knowledgeable and friendly people here, and I am anxiously awaiting your responses.

oneseeker

First, I recommend this site for a lot of resources:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

Second, there is no “Eastern Orthodox Church”. There are a bunch of EO churches who cannot even agree on who is and is not “Orthodox”. It is no surprise that disunity is a natural feature of schismatics.

The East has had a lot of “problems”:

-No functioning magisterium.
-No way to call or ratify ecumenical councils. (Hence zero since their schism).
-No way to respond to heretics.
-In the past there were an overwhelming number of heretic bishops in the East (which the EO will admit) which required the authority of the Pope to keep them from being Arians, iconoclasts, etc. today.
-Rejecting of historical church teaching, such as the nature of the Papacy, and recently, contraception.
-Disunity and confusion as to who is Eastern Orthodox.
-Hypocrisy on universal jurisdiction each time they proclaim excommunications of other churches.

So, the Eastern Orthodox have development where they shouldn’t. The Catholic Church has proper development where it should (such as defending traditional beliefs that only recently were challenged) and not where it shouldn’t, and has the authority and ability to do so, just like the early Church did… because it too was Catholic, not paralyzed.

It’s funny that if an Eastern Orthodox person wanted to believe in universal jursidiction and real primacy of the Pope, the Immacuate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary, he could, as EO (whoever they really are), have no official way of denouncing these ideas.

Indivuidual bad bishops or bad Catholics are immaterial. God does not take away their free will, and even heretical bishops (as the east has had in the past) does not affect the official infallible teaching of the Chruch. Even an infallible pope does not imply impeccability or the absence of personal sin.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is an example of concordant judgment. At that council James echoed the policy established through Peter by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10), explained by Peter to the leaders in Jerusalem (Acts11), and enunciated by Peter at the council (Acts 15).

Next time, keep it to one question per post.

 

[FCEGM]

First, I recommend this site for a lot of resources:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

Second, there is no “Eastern Orthodox Church”. There are a bunch of EO churches who cannot even agree on who is and is not “Orthodox”. It is no surprise that disunity is a natural feature of schismatics.

The East has had a lot of “problems”:. . .[etc.].

This was seen at the “micro-level” at the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Charlotte, NC, that in 1998 had two factions, each with its own parish council, battling it out with lawyers, police being called in, and some Holy Liturgies cancelled because of the tumult. One group eventually left and founded another Greek Orthodox parish in the city.

Even at Mount Athos, one of the holiest sites of Orthodoxy, there was a battle among some monks for control of a monastery:

asia.news.yahoo.com/061220/ap/d8m4rn180.html

Perhaps because Orthodoxy is not as “visible” in the U.S. as Catholicism is, we can be tempted to assume that all is peaches-and-cream among them.

 

[DeFide]

Next time, keep it to one question per post.

Here are some resources for the other topics you brought up:

Filioque (3rd question in article)

The undivided Christ in either species
More

 

[thomon16]

Re: Gay priests/poor handling of such + ped. scandal, please
check out the following site:

pokrov.org

for information on Orthodox priests and ped. scandals. This is
a problem in ALL denominations. No Church has a monopoly
on moral purity.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

 

[oneseeker]

Next time, keep it to one question per post.

Excuse the fire out of me! Attitudes like yours don’t exactly make folks like me run straight to the nearest parish! If you read my post carefully, you will see that it IS one question. Everything I asked about had to do with comparing the two churches.

BTW, you don’t have to put down EO in order to make your point. My EO friends don’t put down the RC to make theirs. Just something you might want to think about in the future.

oneseeker

P.S. However, I do want to thank you for the link.

 

[thomon16]

Reread my post CAREFULLY:

This is a problem in ALL denominations. No Church has a
monopoly on moral purity.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

I did not attempt to “put down EO in order to make your point.”
I stated a recognized problem afflicting ALL churches and
Christians, not just the Orthodox Church. ALL Christians must
address the problem of sexual abuse.

 

[DeFide]

Excuse the fire out of me! .

I meant it in a friendly tone of voice, but that does not transmit in plaintext.

It’s just a rule of the forums, and bringing up several topics makes it difficult to stay focused.

 

[oneseeker]

I wasn’t talking to you, thomon16. That quote and the following post was for DeFide, who said one question at a time and, IMHO, put down the EO. Unless I missed you saying keep it one question at a time, that post had nothing to do with you.

oneseeker

 

[DeFide]

… and, IMHO, put down the EO. .

Really? What precisely do you think was a “put down”?

 

[RNRobert]

This was seen at the “micro-level” at the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Charlotte, NC, that in 1998 had two factions, each with its own parish council, battling it out with lawyers, police being called in, and some Holy Liturgies cancelled because of the tumult. One group eventually left and founded another Greek Orthodox parish in the city.

Even at Mount Athos, one of the holiest sites of Orthodoxy, there was a battle among some monks for control of a monastery:

asia.news.yahoo.com/061220/ap/d8m4rn180.html

Perhaps because Orthodoxy is not as “visible” in the U.S. as Catholicism is, we can be tempted to assume that all is peaches-and-cream among them.

I recall reading a few years ago that the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Constantinople were arguing over which had authority over a certain area (I think it was the Ukrainian churches). I don’t think you would see that in the Catholic Church.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Re: Gay priests/poor handling of such + ped. scandal, please
check out the following site:

pokrov.org

for information on Orthodox priests and ped. scandals. This is
a problem in ALL denominations. No Church has a monopoly
on moral purity.

Let me say, as an Orthodox priest, that I am PROUD of that Pokrov site. Why? Because it documents that the level of sexual offending among our clergy is very very low. Of course all abuse is shameful, but our Lord tells us "scandals there must be but woe to him through whom they come.’

What annoys us is the implication you have made that the level of offending is the same or even worse than in the Roman Catholic Church.

Go to the webpage of that site which lists the perpetrators in the Orthodox Church.

pokrov.org/Abusers/perpetrators.html

The three ladies who run Pokrov (Protection, Mantle of the Holy Virgin)) are quite fierce in their work and good for them. But they include in their list of perpetrators people who I do not think should be included.

For example, they include a few ex priests who were defrocked 20 or 30 years ago and have now re-offended.

They have included one or two bogus “priests” who were never Orthodox but who set up their own fake Churches with “Orthodox” in the name.

They have included a boy of 17 simply because he is the son of an Orthodox priest.

They have included a seminarian who was ejected from the seminary in Alaska.

They have included a catechumen or two.

I would not count these as sexual abuse cases by clergy. These people are not clergy.

So thank God for this website.

For anyone interested, there is a Catholic equivalent of Pokrov - a extensive database of offenders and a lot of information.

bishopaccountability.org/

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Second, there is no “Eastern Orthodox Church”.

Yes, there is.

There are a bunch of EO churches who cannot even agree on who is and is not “Orthodox”.

Not true. The Orthodox form a united family of national Churches who see themselves as the one true Church. They are all in communion with one another, their apostolic doctrine is identical and their clergy are fully interchangeable.

It is no surprise that disunity is a natural feature of schismatics.

There is no disunity.

When some of the Orthodox Churches adopted the Gregorian Calendar in the 1920s this lead to schism in those countries -Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - small groups would not accept the change in calendar. Maybe you could think of them as something like the SSPX and other church groups currently in schism from the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church has remained remarkably united over the last 1000 years. On the other hand the Catholic Church has seen some massive schisms - those caused by the Protestant Reformation where entire countries were torn away from the Catholic Church. These schisms from the Roman Catholics still divide all the Western Christian world and show no signs of healing or slowing down. There is also the Old Catholic Church which went into schism because of papal claims of infallibility in 1870 at Vatican I. In the United States there is also the sad schism of the Polish National Catholic Church.

Looking at the overall situation I would say the Orthodox have been very blessed in their unity and have not undergone the massive schisms which have damaged the Catholic world and which are ongoing.

 

[Atreyu]

Paul was the leader of the gentile mission, not Peter.

Are you sure? Acts 15:
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 

[thomon16]

“implication you have made that the level of
offending is the same or even worse than in the Roman Catholic Church.”

I made no such implication. I just stated a fact - sexual
offenses exist in the Orthodox churches just as they do in
every other denomination. And, you have not disproved
that fact.

 

[thomon16]

“The Orthodox Church has remained remarkably united over the last 1000 years…Looking at the overall situation I would say the Orthodox have been very blessed in their unity and have not undergone the massive schisms which have damaged the Catholic world and which are ongoing.”

That is not true - just look at the schisms/heresies in the
Russian Orthodox Church alone:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Eastern_Orthodox_minor_churches_and_movements

And, for a more detailed account, check out a previous thread
on this Catholic Forums site:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90821&highlight=Russian+Sects

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Let me say, as an Orthodox priest, that I am PROUD of that Pokrov site. Why? Because it documents that the level of sexual offending among our clergy is very very low. Of course all abuse is shameful, but our Lord tells us "scandals there must be but woe to him through whom they come.’

What annoys us is the implication you have made that the level of offending is the same or even worse than in the Roman Catholic Church.

Where is this implication Father? Did you gather it just by the fact that the website was posted? As a matter of fact, no matter how many are abused in either Church, the offense against God is THE SAME, so I do not like your implication that it is not.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear DeFide

There are a lot of misconceptions and unfair misrepresentations in your post.

there is no “Eastern Orthodox Church”. There are a bunch of EO churches who cannot even agree on who is and is not “Orthodox”. It is no surprise that disunity is a natural feature of schismatics.

This is patently untrue. Your statement itself is an oxymoron. How can you say there is “no Eastern Orthodox Church” and then in the very next sentence assign an identity to the “EO churches”?

The East has had a lot of “problems”:
-No functioning magisterium.

Not true. Though I certainly disagree with and criticize the EO for demeaning the prerogatives of its bishops, they indeed have a “magisterium” or an authoritative voice to which they can look to. Its juridical voice is not exercised that often, but it is there. As proof, just last year a local council of the EO deposed one of its bishops (I think it was in Athens).

-No way to call or ratify ecumenical councils. Hence zero since their schism.

I do not at all appreciate that you criticize this feature of Eastern Orthodoxy. I believe this demonstrates an inherent and humble realization by the EO that it is not possible to do so without the Western See. We should appreciate this, instead of demean it.

-No way to respond to heretics.

Not true. Just as an example, there was an Eastern Council of Jerusalem to respond to certain inroads being made into the East by the Reformers. That local Council was more effective for the East in halting Protestantism than the Council of Trent was for the West!

-In the past there were an overwhelming number of heretic bishops in the East (which the EO will admit) which required the authority of the Pope to keep them from being Arians, iconoclasts, etc. today.

No argument there.

-Rejecting of historical church teaching, such as the nature of the Papacy

The “nature of the Papacy” is a development. It’s full definition is not exactly “historical Church teaching,” though its foundational elements are definitely contained in the history of the Church.

and recently, contraception.

No argument there. I might also add the canonization of divorce an remarriage.

-Disunity and confusion as to who is Eastern Orthodox.

That is NOT true. That is just about as valid as saying Catholics are confused because of the existence of SSPX, and the Old Catholics. It’s pretty obvious who is or who is not Catholic, just as it is pretty obvious who is and who is not Eastern Orthodox.

-Hypocrisy on universal jurisdiction each time they proclaim excommunications of other churches.

They don’t claim “universal jurisdiction,” so your point is lost.

Blessings,
Marduk