Orthodoxy and Catholicism-comparisons

[mardukm]

Dear oneseeker,

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church (just as there are misconceptions about the EO - see my previous post). Please allow me to offer some responses to your points:

Gay priests/poor handling of such + ped. scandal

Every Church has had this problem, as well as Protestant communities.

changes in liturgy (only bread, no cup).

Too complicated to explain here. Please do a search for threads on “two species.” I should mention that the Church has ALWAYS permitted the reception of one OR the other for extraordinary reasons (normally, illness). The change in this regard was likewise prompted by an extraordinary reason.

filoque

You gotta read the apologetics on this issue. Please do a search for threads on it. Filioque was NEVER a problem for the early Church until a certain Photius (Patriarch of Constantinople) decided he would interfere in the theological business of the Western Church, something he had no right to do. The theology behind Filioque had been present in the Church for about 600 years before Photius decided to cause a division in the Church over it.

Bishops agreeing with homosexual adoption (San Fran)

The key to judging the Catholic Church is to look at her OFFICIAL TEACHING, not to look at the actions of wayward bishops or sinful members. Will you agree that in your study of the Catholic Church, you should study only its OFFICIAL teachings?

Additional doctrines added and dogmatized sometimes centuries later (Imm. Conception)

The Church has never added a new doctrine, though admittedly a dogma or two (do you understand the difference between doctrine and dogma?). The Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine (though it is a new dogma). This topic deserves more time than I have right now. I suggest doing a search on this topic for the several great threads on the issue.

whereas EO is pretty much changeless.

Where should I begin? Let’s correspond privately on this matter, if you so wish (check my profile to PM me or to e-mail me).

Majority of Catholic only follow selected teachings of Church

You must be talking about the tough moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Should you judge the Truth of the Church because there are sinners in the Church? Are you a sinner, brother? It’s a narrow gate, wouldn’t you agree?

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.”

You seem to understand that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to a deeper understanding of its Faith down through the centuries (that’s what development of doctrine is, and that is the job of the Holy Spirit according to Scripture). Can you provide a reason why it should stop if it was so evident in the first millenium of the Church? Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church all of a sudden?

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.

You gotta check out the ORIENTAL Orthodox Churches.

In Acts 15, wasn’t it a concilliar decision about the gentiles, not just one person’s decision?

This is true, but the Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope ever makes decision alone. I think that might be an idea you acquired from Protestant polemics. It is not the actual case, in theory OR practice within the Catholic Church.

Also, James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, not Peter.

That is true. The Church had grown quite a bit outside the bounds of Jerusalem by that time. St. Paul specifically states that he established bishops in other places.

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

Already answered by another. Just something else to think about - such a designation did not prevent Paul from preaching to Jews, nor Peter preaching to Gentiles, wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mchale]

Its always unfortunate when discussions like this develop, they essentially lead to people either denying the problems in their church or basically saying yeah, our problems are real but compared to your problems they are nothing.

In comparing churches, it is, I think always a mistake to concentrate on the human leadership of the Church. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics have had their share (and continue to have their share) of poor leadership. The more important questions are differences in doctrines/dogma and how structurally the differences between the churches can accentuate or mitigate the effects of bad leadership.

–
Bill

 

[mardukm]

"mardukm:

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

Already answered by another. Just something else to think about - such a designation did not prevent Paul from preaching to Jews, nor Peter preaching to Gentiles, wouldn’t you agree?

I would also like to add that St. Peter’s two Epistles are called “catholic epistles” specifically because they are addressed to the ENTIRE Church, Gentile and Jew alike - something the Church has ALWAYS recognized.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Its always unfortunate when discussions like this develop, they essentially lead to people either denying the problems in their church or basically saying yeah, our problems are real but compared to your problems they are nothing.

In comparing churches, it is, I think always a mistake to concentrate on the human leadership of the Church. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics have had their share (and continue to have their share) of poor leadership. The more important questions are differences in doctrines/dogma and how structurally the differences between the churches can accentuate or mitigate the effects of bad leadership.
Bill

GREAT POINT!!!

 

[ForeverAdam]

Its always unfortunate when discussions like this develop, they essentially lead to people either denying the problems in their church or basically saying yeah, our problems are real but compared to your problems they are nothing.

In comparing churches, it is, I think always a mistake to concentrate on the human leadership of the Church. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics have had their share (and continue to have their share) of poor leadership. The more important questions are differences in doctrines/dogma and how structurally the differences between the churches can accentuate or mitigate the effects of bad leadership.

This is a good point. Your last paragraph reminded me of all the Roman Catholics who complain about the bad bishops they have in their Church. Most of these bad bishops were appointed by either Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI. I think there is currently a thread on Catholic Answers about the current Archbishop of San Francisco supporting gay adoption or something. He was appointed to this position by the current Pontiff, which makes the criticism of him seem a little awkward to me.

I know this is a limited perspective, but it appears like the teaching of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is increasing the amount of bad leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. What happens when you have Popes who, to say the least, don’t make the best choices of bishops? Catholicism circa 2007.

God bless,

Adam

 

[mchale]

This is a good point. Your last paragraph reminded me of all the Roman Catholics who complain about the bad bishops they have in their Church. Most of these bad bishops were appointed by either Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI. I think there is currently a thread on Catholic Answers about the current Archbishop of San Francisco supporting gay adoption or something. He was appointed to this position by the current Pontiff, which makes the criticism of him seem a little awkward to me.

I would be careful about which Catholics you listen to when they complain about a “bad” bishop. In some cases, they might well be complaining because the bishop in question is following the teachings of the Church. I would also way that by and large most bishops (Both Catholic and Orthodox) are good and honorable men who are attempting to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church as they see them. I haven’t followed what the Archbishop of San Francisco has said about gay adoption so I will not comment on it.

I know this is a limited perspective, but it appears like the teaching of the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is increasing the amount of bad leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. What happens when you have Popes who, to say the least, don’t make the best choices of bishops? Catholicism circa 2007.

The teaching regarding the Pope’s Universal Jurisdiction is not a new teaching. It was the argument over that Jurisdiction that was one of the immediate causes of the Orthodox/Catholic split. I would say that the quality of Church leadership has ebbed and flowed over the years and will continue to as long as the church is run by fallible men on Earth (note appointing of bishops is not something that falls under the perview of Papal infallibility. The Pope can and does make poor choices of whom to ordain as bishops.

–
Bill

 

[ForeverAdam]

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.

I’m not sure how the large presence of heretics in the East during the first millennium says anything against the Orthodox Church. From what I know, the majority of Christians during the first millennium lived in the East. Ergo, it only makes sense that most of the disputes would arise from here also. And even when these heresies did arise, nobody appealed to the Pope to issue an encyclical or an “ex cathedra” statement, which would clarify the truth and rally the faithful around him. No, Ecumenical Councils were convened. There, all the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, worked the issue out through a lot of prayer, debate, and the grace of the Holy Spirit. Such was the way of the ancient Church and such is the way of the Orthodox Church, today. The “authority of the Pope” was an authority that was shared equally by all bishops and was exercised in perfect collegiality within Ecumenical Councils.

Rejecting of historical church teaching, such as the nature of the Papacy, and recently, contraception.

In Orthodoxy, contraception use is a pastoral as well as doctrinal issue. Thus, it is a matter that should be discussed between the couple and their spiritual father. Orthodoxy teaches that all contraception is objectively sinful since the couple is being selfish with God’s gift of sexuality. However, as this is a pastoral issue, the Church can allow couples to practice non-abortive contraception in cases of true necessity where their desire for no children would not be selfish. However, the ideal remains openness to life in sexual relations and chastity outside of them and the couple is expected to recognize this ideal and continually strive to keep it.

When faced with the hard realities of life, like contraception or going to war, the Orthodox Church responds in a unique way. To better understand our position on contraception, it serves us well to understand our position on warfare. In the Orthodox Church, bishops and priests can bless weapons and people to engage in warfare. This is not a blessing of sin, for such is impossible by the Church. In certain limited situations, warfare is permissible by the Church. It isn’t sinful in certain situations. On the contrary, it can even be a responsible, Christian thing to do. However, war is never the ideal we should strive for. No, the ideal is peace, even the peace of God’s Kingdom. So, in a certain sense war never becomes “holy” or praiseworthy in an objective sense. However, in exceptional circumstances the non-sinful choice can be made to engage in it. These exceptions are never meant to overshadow or replace the ideal, which is always peace.

The same applies to contraception. It’s never ideal or normal for couples to seek to avoid procreation in their sexual activity. The ideal is to never be selfish with God’s gift of sexuality. However, now more than ever, couples cannot afford to raise very large families. Some can, that is true. But others cannot. And the Church has never taught that the responsibilities of Christian parenthood are limited to procreation. Parents have an equal responsibility to provide for the spiritual, intellectual, and financial needs of their children. And when this becomes impossible, couples may use non-abortive forms of contraception without sinning. However, this is never to become the ideal, which is always openness to life in the marital act or chastity, which is reflected in the lives of several married saints.

I find it odd that the Orthodox are condemned for allowing artificial forms of contraception in exceptional circumstances when Roman Catholics can use natural contraception. Just to clarify the position, Catholicism has no problem with people intending to have sex but avoiding the responsibility of children. And Catholicism has no problem with taking concrete measures to ensure that sexual activity will not be fruitful. Catholicism doesn’t even have a problem with barriers during sex. The only problem is that these barriers must be in the form of “planning” and introduce barrenness into the marital act, indirectly, before the act occurs. However, whether you are using natural or artificial contraception, you are messing with fertility in that infertility is being introduced into sexual acts, where it wouldn’t normally be present in. Both of our Churches permit contraception in exceptional circumstances. The difference is that Catholicism refuses to admit that certain actions may be permitted that while, non-sinful, are not a normal part of Christian life. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is willing to call a spade a spade, and work on keeping people in communion with God and the Church, despite our failing to keep the objective ideal.

God bless,

Adam

 

[ForeverAdam]

Many times the Church Fathers are quoted as condemning contraception. I don’t deny that they did. However, the early Fathers condemned warfare in the same manner. However, as society changed and war became something that Christians had to deal with, a “new consensus” if you will, emerged. This new understanding didn’t contradict the Fathers on the condemnation of war, it simply recognized that the issue is not only a doctrinal one - it is also pastoral. And for this reason the later Fathers allowed Christians to fight in war. However, at no time did the principle of peace as the ideal and norm of Christian life get lost. The same applies to the “new consensus” regarding exceptional use of contraception among Orthodox couples.

Unfortunately, in Orthodoxy we have hawks and those who desire to make contraception some type of ideal within marriage. Such is to be expected, I suppose. However, the ideal remains both peace and no contraception, and from what I understand, this is the majority position within Orthodoxy. And it is in perfect agreement with the Church Fathers, in much the same way as the Christian allowance of warfare is.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

“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.

My sincere apology.

I simply re-posted this message from one I had previously posted in the Eastern Christianity section. I ought to have edited that sentence out.

Please forgive me.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Where is this implication Father? Did you gather it just by the fact that the website was posted?

As I say, that was a re-post which I ought to have edited. It was posted to Thomon in another thread on Eastern Christianity.

See Message # 16 in
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1568910

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

“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

Some of these are strange and primitive groups in villages and were never Christian. Some of them were never more than a few hundred people. Some of them died out centuries ago. The one thing they have in common is that they are Russian.

The one which is certainly a schism is the Old Believers. But they are merely a blip on the horizon compared to the large sects which came from Catholicism - Lutheranism, Calvinism, Old Catholics, etc.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

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

The canonisation of divorce and remariage was undertaken from the 5th century onwards and was done under the supreme authority of the Pope. Catholics throughout the East (the much larger section of the Catholic Church at that time) and also in southern Italy (which was under Constantinople’s and not Rome’s oversight) were permitted to divorce and remarry by the Popes. When the Orthodox Church came into existence in the East in 1054 AD it inherited these marriage laws from the Catholic Church.

Isn’t this the way that Catholics see their own history?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I would also like to add that St. Peter’s two Epistles are called “catholic epistles” specifically because they are addressed to the ENTIRE Church, Gentile and Jew alike - something the Church has ALWAYS recognized.

Doesn’t really mean that much.

The first three Epistles of St John are called “Catholic Epistles.”

So is the Catholic Epistle of Saint James and the Catholic Epistle of Saint Jude.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia “Catholic Epistle”
newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm

 

[Mickey]

Doesn’t really mean that much.

The first three Epistles of St John are called “Catholic Epistles.”

So is the Catholic Epistle of Saint James and the Catholic Epistle of Saint Jude.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia “Catholic Epistle”
newadvent.org/cathen/03453a.htm

I thought that the Epistles of St John, St James, and St Jude were considered universal–but not St Peter?

 

[thomon16]

Some of these are strange and primitive groups in villages and were never Christian. Some of them were never more than a few hundred people. Some of them died out centuries ago. The one thing they have in common is that they are Russian.

The one which is certainly a schism is the Old Believers. But they are merely a blip on the horizon compared to the large sects which came from Catholicism - Lutheranism, Calvinism, Old Catholics, etc.

Some western churches (Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah
Witnesses) are not Christian either, so what? They still
arose out of the Western church just as these Russian
schisms, heresies, and sect arose out of the EASTERN
church.

I can assure you that the Molokans and Doukhobors are
more than “a few hundred people” and have not “died out
centuries ago.” Do a search on Google and learn about
these contemporary and still-present Eastern (Russian)
Orthodox schisms, heresies and sects. Even the Old
Believers number in the millions, both the priested and
the priestless - although it is difficult to obtain accurate
numbers because of past EASTERN (Russian) Orthodox
persecution.

And what, may I ask, came out of EASTERN Christianity -
Arianism, monophysitism (Oriental Orthodoxy), and
Nestorianism (Church of the East)? They are also more than
“a few hundred people” and have not “died out centuries
ago”. They are hardly “a blip on the horizon (as Old Catholics
are).” In some countries, they are the majority of Christians
(Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia).

 

[oneseeker]

I guess it’s inevitable, and I have learned a few interesting things. It’s just kind of funny how off track it’s become.

oneseeker

 

[thomon16]

I guess it’s inevitable, and I have learned a few interesting things. It’s just kind of funny how off track it’s become.

oneseeker

I agree - and for my contribution to those diversions, I
apologize and ask forgiveness for any unChristian comments.

Sometimes, I just can’t help it. Part of it is my natural
reaction as a Catholic to what I perceive as anti-Catholic
remarks (even when no insult was intended). More of my
reaction, however, is due to my natural desire as an
educated historian to correct “the historical record”. In
any case, for the record, in spite of what it may look
like, I have great respect and affection for the Eastern
Churches. Again, I ask your forgiveness.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

And what, may I ask, came out of EASTERN Christianity -
Arianism, monophysitism (Oriental Orthodoxy), and
Nestorianism (Church of the East)? They are also more than
“a few hundred people” and have not “died out centuries
ago”. They are hardly “a blip on the horizon (as Old Catholics
are).” In some countries, they are the majority of Christians
(Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia).

Sorry, but when we study Catholic history we see that these schisms have nothing to do with my Church. They are schisms in the early centuries from the Pope and from the Catholic Church. Any Catholic historian will tell you that the Orthodox Church did not exist in those centuries but was formed at the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Its always unfortunate when discussions like this develop

But inevitable when the OP is asking for comparisons.

The more important questions are differences in doctrines/dogma and how structurally the differences between the churches can accentuate or mitigate the effects of bad leadership.

Seems a bit pessimistic, about the leadership of the Popes and the Bishops.

 

[thomon16]

Sorry, but when we study Catholic history we see that these schisms have nothing to do with my Church. They are schisms in the early centuries from the Pope and from the Catholic Church. Any Catholic historian will tell you that the Orthodox Church did not exist in those centuries but was formed at the Great Schism of 1054 AD.

Correct me if I am wrong, but these “schisms” (actually,
heresies condemned by ecumenical councils) arose in the
EASTERN Christian provinces - NOT the Western, Catholic
areas. Even later, monophysitism and Nestorianism remained
in the EASTERN Roman (Byzantine) Empire - NOT the Holy
Roman Empire. Eastern Orthodoxy can try to “wash its hands”
of monophytism and Nestorianism; but ask any monophysite
or Nestorian about who persecuted their churches and
they will reply “Byzantines”. Just because we Catholics
(as well as Eastern Orthodox) claim that there was one,
united Church in those day does not mean that these were
“Catholic” heresies. Unless, that is, you DO want to admit
that there was no Orthodox Church until the Great Schism
of 1054? Do you?

Sorry, there I go again! Why don’t I stop when I am ahead?