Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[pr_catholic]

Think about it. Martin Luther was an Augustinian priestmonk. Calvin was a priest. Protestants usually use St Augustine against you. They came from the Roman Catholic Church.
The Sacred Tradition interprets the Sacred Scripture. If you see nothing in Sacred Tradition, and the majority of Fathers are silent about it, then there is no reason to believe it.

In what way? I am not insulting you or violating any of the forum rules.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not act as if I never were Roman Catholic. I always talk about my roots. The Roman/Eastern Catholic Church taught me much (especially the Eastern Catholic Church) and I will always cherish that experience–but it was time to go deeper. I love my Roman Catholic family and friends.

Please stop with your uncharitable projections.

Like my previous posts I just post objections on your points

1)The protestants who sometimes can’t interpret correctly the Bible, how can they interprete what st. Augustine wrote in its context? And comments like this proves my point of you totally feeling alien of your roots. The West & East are in communion with each other through its Tradition and Sacraments. These comments from you are what irk me because what is different between protestants and catholic/orthodox because of that very tradition they don’t believe in. That’s the major difference between them and us.

2)About the fathers being mute about it my answer would be two fold; first, since some early fathers ( not one specifically comes to mind right now) said the jews were cursed to walk in exile until they recognise Christ, am I am to believe them since it has been shown to be wrong?

Check out this point and tell how can it contradict Tradition because the early fathers were mute about it. If I were to tell you that the twelve tribes of Israel forshadow the nature of God & the redemption at the cross like so; there were three patriachs & four matriarchs; the descendants of third son of Jacob were chosen to be priests by God just has the descendants of the fourth son were chosen to be kings over Israel (David & Jesus); check it out 3 (trinity) + 4 (cross) =7(days of creation, perfection), 3 (trinity) x 4 (cross) =12 (num. of tribes); 1+2=3 ( the holy trinity). The Traditon is mute on this (both Jewish & Christian) should we not see that it is true ( to see my point check out Nm 2)

3)My recomendation was that you should be made a little more clear as to be free from misinterpretation from other’s part.

4)For this I would have to abide in my first point been made.

 

[PJM]

I’ve just never fully understood the Orthodox claim (but I have tremendous respect for them, don’t get me wrong). But how can they claim to be the Church when they are a collection of separate churches divided by national lines? Don’t get me wrong, I want to see the Orthodox churches unite with the Catholic Church, I just don’t know why they don’t see that division is not good?

Hope this helps.

Reply:

“Satan is The father of All Lies”

And Pride is the father of all sins:thumbsup:

We forget to actually listen to what we pray:

Our Father, who art in heaven… “THY WILL BE DONE” here on earth as it is in heaven.

And just how is that you ask? Good question

In FULL accord with God’s PERFECT WILL. Amen?

God bless and help us,
PJM m.c.

 

[Mickey]

That’s the major difference between them and us.

The protestants have more in common with Roman Catholics than they do the Orthodox. They came from you.

About the fathers being mute about it my answer would be two fold; first, since some early fathers ( not one specifically comes to mind right now) said the jews were cursed to walk in exile until they recognise Christ, am I am to believe them since it has been shown to be wrong

Now you are rambling a bit. The Fathers and Tradition say nothing of your previous analogy–case closed. If you want to talk about the Jews, then start a separate thread.

check it out 3 (trinity) + 4 (cross) =7(days of creation, perfection), 3 (trinity) x 4 (cross) =12 (num. of tribes); 1+2=3 ( the holy trinity).

Now you are preaching numerology. That is new age isn’t it? Sheesh!

My recomendation was that you should be made a little more clear as to be free from misinterpretation from other’s part.

My recommendation is that you study a bit more before you try to set forth your odd theology.

For this I would have to abide in my first point been made.

Huh?

 

[PJM]

Agreed, but if one of the twelve had overstepped his bounds, would the rest be too respectful to correct him?

Reply:

Your OP reminds me that even today, we at times see the wonderful, holy gullibility of priest and bishops.

I recon my grandpappy was right: "if you don’t look for troublr your alot less likely to fond it.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for the gift of our Bishops and Priest! Amen

PJM m.c.

 

[pr_catholic]

The protestants have more in common with Roman Catholics than they do the Orthodox. They came from you.
Now you are rambling a bit. The Fathers and Tradition say nothing of your previous analogy–case closed. If you want to talk about the Jews, then start a separate thread.

Now you are preaching numerology. That is new age isn’t it? Sheesh!
My recommendation is that you study a bit more before you try to set forth your odd theology.
Huh?

1. Stop with comparing the reformers with Catholics. Obvious they would be similar, what about the roman rite, huh?

2)What about Chrysomtome or someone of the like(I think). But think as you wish.

1. I have never studied much less know about all that new age stuff. So God must be in accord with numerology too since he did permit to narrate creation with seven days in mind, hmmm? Besides, does it contradict the truth that Jesus is the Christ?
   I thought so.
2. I guess this will be my last post with you on this subject because clearly you don’t think much in terms of what goes “agaisnt” what you want to thing (Note the last few posts of mine hadn’t even touch again on Papal Infallibillity).

 

[Mickey]

Stop with comparing the reformers with Catholics. Obvious they would be similar

But that is why I am comparing them—because they are similar.

what about the roman rite, huh?

What about it?

What about Chrysomtome or someone of the like(I think).

Huh?

Besides, does it contradict the truth that Jesus is the Christ?

Seven days is Biblical. The other stuff?

I guess this will be my last post with you on this subject because clearly you don’t think much in terms of what goes “agaisnt” what you want to think.

I try to stay within the bounds of the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. This includes Sacrd Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teachings of the holy Fathers.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by pr_catholic:
Stop with comparing the reformers with Catholics. Obvious they would be similar

I don’t want to presume to speak for pr_catholic, but perhaps what he meant is that there are the obvious similarities between Catholics and Protestants, but there aren’t deeper, meaningful similarities that would be worth talking about. (Or something like that.)

P.S. To take one of the most obvious examples, Orthodox often point to the fact that Catholics and Protestants both have the filioque insertion in the Creed, and call that a similarity. But as I like to point out, Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque, but reject the very authority (the Pope) that authorized the insertion in the first place. Doesn’t sound very similar to me!

 

[StMarina303ad]

P.S. To take one of the most obvious examples, Orthodox often point to the fact that Catholics and Protestants both have the filioque insertion in the Creed, and call that a similarity. But as I like to point out, Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque, but reject the very authority (the Pope) that authorized the insertion in the first place. Doesn’t sound very similar to me!

Many Protestants don’t even use the Creed though. At least not the Protestant members of my family who are Baptist, Nazarene, Friends, Assemblies of God and Non-Denominational.

But other similarities are:

Celebrating Pascha (Easter) on the wrong date most years…in direct violation of Canon 70 of the Apostles.

Misunderstanding of Original Sin and how it affects all of us born after Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin.

Both Catholics and Protestants are missing parts of the Old Testament…although Protestants are missing more of it than the Roman Catholics.

Wearing the Wedding Ring on the wrong hand…the right hand is the hand of Covenant, not the left. (Although some Orthodox Christians in the U.S. will wear two wedding rings…one of the Covenant of Marriage and the other for the “world” to know they are married).

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants miss the 2nd part of each Marriage Ceremony…the Crowing…but they only keep the Betrothal part of the Service with the exchanging of the rings.

Use of unleavened bread for communion services.

“Protestants and Catholics are like opposite sides of the same coin” - is a phrase I’ve heard repeatedly.

 

[PJM]

Know what’s comming, start praying now

And that’s not all.

MSN.com home page today is running an article on PE Obama, and what he plans to do to “religion.” It’s scary stuff and “A MUST read.”

Pray brethern, pray,

PJM m.c.

 

[Mickey]

Pray brethern, pray.

Amen, amen, amen.

 

[Peter_J]

Many Protestants don’t even use the Creed though. At least not the Protestant members of my family who are Baptist, Nazarene, Friends, Assemblies of God and Non-Denominational.

Good point, thanks.

But other similarities are:

Celebrating Pascha (Easter) on the wrong date most years…in direct violation of Canon 70 of the Apostles.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if the Catholic Church switched and used the Orthodox Easter date. (Some Catholics already do, as you probably know.)

Misunderstanding of Original Sin and how it affects all of us born after Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin.

I’m no expert, but I tend to think that both sides are a little too dogmatic about their understanding of Original Sin.

Both Catholics and Protestants are missing parts of the Old Testament…although Protestants are missing more of it than the Roman Catholics.

I wasn’t aware that Eastern Orthodox consider that a big problem.

Wearing the Wedding Ring on the wrong hand…the right hand is the hand of Covenant, not the left.

That one I didn’t even know about.

Both Roman Catholics and Protestants miss the 2nd part of each Marriage Ceremony…the Crowing…but they only keep the Betrothal part of the Service with the exchanging of the rings.

Use of unleavened bread for communion services.

Legitimate differences. (Wasn’t there a difference in practice between the East and the West, even back when we were united, about leavened bread vs. unleavened bread?

 

[Peter_J]

“Protestants and Catholics are like opposite sides of the same coin” - is a phrase I’ve heard repeatedly.

I think there’s a lot of truth to that – if you’re just looking at ‘Popular Catholicism’, and downplaying or ignoring official statements from the Catholic Church.

 

[pr_catholic]

To fellow memeber Mickey; Here was the Bishop of Constantinople & Saint John Chrysostom. Just scroll down to where it says about his homilies of the Jews. He’s considered a doctor of the church & part of the church fathers (tecnically, expounder of the tradition).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_Chrysostom#Sermons_on_Jews_and_Judaizing_Christians

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I am not either Orthodox or Catholic but I want to join one of them. I have been reading a lot about them and am not sure what one to join.To be honest I think I am leaning more towards Catholicism. Can someone tell me the differences between the two and why the Catholic way is right? Much appreciated

I know this thread has been going on for quite some time (though with a slight lull since the last post), but I would like to revisit the original post. I am also neither Orthodox or Catholic and would like to join one of them, so I am always interested to see others working through the same decision process.

I’m not going to suggest why the Catholic way is right, as I simply do not know if it is. However, I cannot make a strong suggestion the other way, either. I can mention a few differences I have noticed, however, as well as my thoughts on them.

One key difference for me is the marriage issue. The Orthodox Church allows remarriage after divorce, in certain cases, while the Catholic Church does not. However, many Orthodox and others would say that the Catholic annulment process has the practical result of *nullifying *the strong Catholic stand on the matter.

Another issue is contraception. The Catholic Church forbids it, and they make some pretty compelling arguments (in my opinion, at least), while the Orthodox Church does tend to allow it (though perhaps without fully approving of its use).

These two issues are quite significant, because you have the Orthodox Church allowing that which is a *mortal sin *in the Catholic Church. One would really want to make sure one is making the right decision on something so serious.

It is also my understanding (and I welcome correction, if wrong) that the Orthodox Church tends to have a slightly higher view of the current human condition, as opposed to the view of the Catholic Church. I refer specifically to the effect of Adam and Eve’s sin on their descendants. For example, while some Catholics have believed that this inherited stain and/or lack of sanctifying grace was sufficient grounds in and of itself for damnation, even for unbaptized infants who die in the womb, the Orthodox tend to be more hopeful.

In a related issue, the Orthodox tend to put more emphasis on Christ coming to Earth to save us from death, rather than coming to Earth to take our just punishment from an angry Father. This is not to imply that the latter is the Catholic view, but I believe the Orthodox would see the Catholics as being much closer to that view than they are.

Fasting in Orthodoxy is a great deal more demanding than in Catholicism, something which I, with my Evangelical Protestant background, would likely find to be a struggle. Plus, for all the Orthodox Church’s permissiveness when it comes to contraception, they don’t hesitate to tell married couple’s which nights of the year (less than half, I believe) they are allowed to have sexual intercourse. This is a huge change from Evangelical Protestantism, where the general attitude is “the more the better, and praise God for how awesome it is.”

I don’t know what to think about Marian apparitions, weeping icons, or the Holy Fire. I’m really not trying to make a decision based on such things. After all, even pharaoh’s magicians could turn staffs into snakes, and Joseph Smith and Mohammed both claimed to be visited by heavenly apparitions.

It is difficult for me to study the early Church fathers, Scripture and history and determine which Church was right in their disputes. With the Reformation, one can clearly see the Protestants saying, “The pope was over us, now he is not, and we shall go our own way.” With the Catholic-Orthodox split, I don’t see the Orthodox saying anything like this. It seems that there were different attitudes about papal authority very early on, and that the split did not require either side to reject that which was previously held.

The Orthodox Church seems to have “less” doctrines, and they have changed very little in the last thousand years. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has officially defined a number of doctrines that would not have been required belief for a Christian in the undivided Church of the first millenium. The Orthodox Church prides itself on not using scholastic analysis to define that which is ultimately unknowable. Still, go to an Orthodox forum, search for “essences,” “energies,” “created,” and “uncreated,” and you will be treated to a very passionate display of what I like to call “Eastern scholasticism.”

Which Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ? The cynic in me is tempted to say that we seriously messed up a while back, and it doesn’t exist anymore, but there is a hopeful side to me, too, and it is a great deal stronger. So, I will continue searching, praying that God will guide me to His Church.

May God bless you all!

 

[pr_catholic]

In response to The lambic pen:

I would like to explain and clear things up for you concerning the Catholic Church. The CC doesn’t obligate anyone to accept any marian apparitions or any at all whatsoever. The only things concerning Mary that it does bind on the faithful is dogmas regarding Mary’s Immaculate Conception ( that she bore no stain of original sin) and her Assumption with body and soul intact ( this of course stems from Sacred Tradition and, technically both the CC and the Orthodox churches believe it but are at odds concerning it a dogma of the faith)

Even if we sometimes don’t agree with the CC teachings on some things, we should consider that the Magisterium (the Church teaching authority) does so for our own good and well being. Remember that God wants us to be holy like he is holy. Lastly, I believe that the Church that Christ established still exists today because he promised to his apostles before his ascension that he’ll be with us always until the end of the world. Now regarding the CC as the Church on which this was promised you should take this into account and study it for yourself all the interpretations regarding it and which one seems the most logical:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt 16:17-19

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I would like to explain and clear things up for you concerning the Catholic Church. The CC doesn’t obligate anyone to accept any marian apparitions or any at all whatsoever.

Of course. The reason I mention it is that some Catholics use apparitions, such as Lourdes, as evidence supporting a doctrine (in this case, the Immaculate Conception) of the Catholic Church. The doctrine may very well be true, but I am not comfortable, at this time, using the alleged apparition as evidence to support my own conclusions.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Mt 16:17-19

Definitely worth noting. It is interesting that this was part of the Gospel reading at the very first mass I attended.

I have had an uncomfortable amount of changes of thought between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. There was a time, not so long ago, that I had decided the matter was settled in my mind, and I was going to enter the Catholic Church as soon as possible. An e-mail I had sent to an apologist here to that effect was even featured in the print version of “The Catholic Answer,” along with a picture of me standing atop my Bradley in the Kuwaiti desert. Aww…the Kuwaiti desert…

Unfortunately, it seems that simply reacquainting myself with the teachings of the Orthodox Church was enough to make me doubt my certainty, but was not nearly enough to make me fully convinced of Orthodoxy. As such, I am still in the middle, and I am still studying.

 

[Peter_J]

It is difficult for me to study the early Church fathers, Scripture and history and determine which Church was right in their disputes. With the Reformation, one can clearly see the Protestants saying, “The pope was over us, now he is not, and we shall go our own way.” With the Catholic-Orthodox split, I don’t see the Orthodox saying anything like this. It seems that there were different attitudes about papal authority very early on, and that the split did not require either side to reject that which was previously held.

Yes, I think you’re right.

Before the East-West schism, one side was saying “We believe X”, and the other was saying “We believe Y”. After the schism, one side was saying “We believe X, and we can’t be in communion with anyone who doesn’t believe X”, and the other side was saying “We believe Y, and we can’t be in communion with anyone who doesn’t believe Y”.

 

[WetCatechumen]

I suppose this is the right thread for this, and I don’t want to drive everyone too far off topic but I am in the midst of examining the Catholic church and considering being confirmed (I come from a Protestant background).

Of course, I want to look at all the issues and this Sunday I’m going to an Orthodox Church of America Divine Liturgy. I’m really looking forward to it.

Anything I should expect? I know their liturgy is different from the Mass, but isn’t it older? Like dating to the sixth century?

Any reason that the West has changed theirs so frequently?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

After the schism, one side was saying “We believe X, and we can’t be in communion with anyone who doesn’t believe X”, and the other side was saying “We believe Y, and we can’t be in communion with anyone who doesn’t believe Y”.

I see this, but I can also understand why the two Churches believe this. I personally hesitate to adopt the Protestant practice of labeling all areas of disagreement as “non-essentials,” and then acting as if all is well.

Personally, I think it might be better if the post-Schism Catholic dogmas were simply popular opinions. Then, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church could still be united, and people could agree to disagree on these issues. Once these matters have been dogmatically defined by pope and council, there really seems to be no going back.

Anything I should expect? I know their liturgy is different from the Mass, but isn’t it older? Like dating to the sixth century?

Their liturgy is very old. They use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, who lived from AD 347 to AD 407 (according to good ol’ wikipedia… ). The two churches I have attended both had books (like missals, I suppose), so I could follow along with the liturgy. Be prepared to say, “Lord, have mercy” many, many times. Also, be aware that people will be crossing themselves repeatedly (in the Eastern fashion).

Here is a useful article on what to expect: 12 Things I Wish I’d Known…

Any reason that the West has changed theirs so frequently?

To keep it relevant and easier to understand, perhaps? I tend to prefer the Tridentine Latin Mass, so perhaps I’m not the best person to properly explain the changes.

 

[Peter_J]

I see this, but I can also understand why the two Churches believe this. I personally hesitate to adopt the Protestant practice of labeling all areas of disagreement as “non-essentials,” and then acting as if all is well.

But as Joseph Ratzinger said:

Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

Personally, I think it might be better if the post-Schism Catholic dogmas were simply popular opinions.

I agree, at least for some of them e.g. Papal Infallibility.