Orthodoxy vs Catholisism

  • Thread starter Thread starter excaliber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
These two different groups both claim to be Orthodox…can they both be correct?

If Not.

Why are they both called Orthodox?
Just to add to Hesychios excellent post:

Both groups do not recognize marriages outside their Church. Meaning if you married one in a church under the Vatican, neither Orthodox would recognize the marriage, and the Orthodox partner would be excommunicated until you married in an Orthodox Church (dual weddings are allowed). Not so with an Eastern Orthodox marrying an Oriental Orthodox in one ceremony in either Church: both Churches would recognize the marriage and their would be no excommunication. Officially neither Church objects to the children being raised in either Faith (because it’s the same: both would object to a mixed marriage where the one spouse in communion with the Vatican was raising the children in that faith), and officially there is semi-official intercommunion for these families. There is unofficial intercommunion, and in Antioch for instance, there is an open secret that the Eastern and the Oriental patriarchs would like their synods, upon there death, to drag their feet to elect a successor, so as to prompt recognition of the surviving patriarch.
 
Wynd, Hesychios, and Isa,

You all make good points, but at the same time I think it’s understandable that many of us Catholic are troubled by way the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are in “almost-full communion”. (You might compare it to the way many of you guys are bothered by the way the Catholic Church will administer holy communion to any Orthodox Christian who requests it.)
 
The Coptic/Oriental/Ethiopian etc. Orthodox are in communion with each other and confess the same Faith.
The Greek etc. Orthodox are in communion with each other and confess the same Faith.
And the two recognize the same Faith in the other and have begun intercommunion.
All without a supreme pontiff to keep them together.
With the supreme pontiff the churches splintered off: SSPX, Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Evangelical, Baptist,…
Is this not a direct result in having a pontiff?
It would hardly call it a result of having a supreme pontiff; but I do admit that having a supreme pontiff isn’t some kind of “magic bullet” in preventing schisms. (I actually get a little embarrassed when I hear/read some my fellow Catholics make statement like “Anyone not in the Roman Catholic Church is bound to go from bad to worse.” 😊 )
 
The Orthodox also believe that they are infalible. What evidence do they have to support this.
Scriptural-Historical etc…

I hear Arianism was TAUGHT in some Orthodox churches. Is this not true?
 
I also hear that the state took over
Orthodox churches throughout history.

I always wounderd how the hole protestant reformation happened, and apparently knowone had knowledge of the Orthodox church.

How can the reformation be the Catholics fault, I don’t remember reading that the Orthodox did anything to stop it.
Did Martin luther know that they existed…and if so why did knowone consider them?
 
The Orthodox also believe that they are infalible. What evidence do they have to support this.
Scriptural-Historical etc…
Can you give us citations or links to explain what you mean here?
I hear Arianism was TAUGHT in some Orthodox churches. Is this not true?
Anyone who taught or believed heresy was not Orthodox. That is a universal standing rule from the beginning of Christianity. If a cleric or congregation embraces heresy, they are no longer of the church.

What is more likely, heretics who renounced their errors were accepted into the church, if they were priests who controlled parishes, or bishops who headed dioceses their congregations would be accepted back into the church once the heretics were replaced or they renounced their errors.

This still occasionally happens, like when the Evangelical Orthodox church abandoned it’s Protestant origins and was accepted into Holy Orthodoxy.

A similar situation existed in the west. There was a prescribed procedure used in Gaul (France today) to receive Arian priests into the Catholic church. And, as you well know this situation existed in Gothic Spain as well. When the Gothic Arians renounced their heresy their churches became Catholic churches.

In Renaissance Europe churches went from Catholic, to Protestant, to Catholic again over time. So using your logic you can say " I hear Calvinism (Lutheranism, etc.) was TAUGHT in some Catholic churches" but that would be a gross misrepresentation. Everyone knows that once the priest and congregation embraced heresy the parish was no longer Papal Catholic church, and when the leadership and preaching changed it was again.

These things need to be put into perspective, and I feel some polemicists have been manipulative in the information you are being given.

There is great hope in this, the ancient practice of forgiving the errors of the past means that some day we may even be able to welcome the See of Rome back into Holy Orthodoxy. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing to behold! 👍
 
I also hear that the state took over
Orthodox churches throughout history.
Is that what they told you?

Are you not aware that this was a problem thoughout Europe, that the Catholic church was controlled and manipulated for many many centuries by political powers?

Did these “friends” of yours tell you about the Popes who were named by emperors? The investiture controversy? The warfare between the Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy? The Catholic church was the state church all over Europe.

If you have not noticed, this will be the main Catholic defense over the Spanish Inquisition: these friars and bishops were acting as agents of the state, because the church was the state church and controlled by the king.

In the Frankish empire the bishops were named by the king and they were typically such poorly selected men (being connected with the Frankish nobility) that they were not even invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it being generally accepted that they had nothing to contribute.
I always wonderd how the whole protestant reformation happened, and apparently know one had knowledge of the Orthodox church.
The protestant Reformation began with priests of the Latin Catholic church. They most certainly did know about the Orthodox church, but these were new thinking men with modern (for the time) western ideas. They were trained in Roman Catholic cathedrals and monasteries in the scholastic tradition. These men would be generally aware that the Orthodox rejected Scholasticism in favor of Patristic learning, and so were probably considered somewhat “backward”.

The Reformation was launched in reaction to abuses in the Latin Catholic church, which were only possible because of the unique style of governing which is shared by no Apostolic church in the east.

For instance, there were many instances of men buying Cardinal’s position for cash (paying the Pope for this privilege), because of the money to be made in that position. How could that possibly be? The church was charging for permission to recive sacraments, the money would be passed on to the appropriate office and the Cardinal would pay off his debt to buy the office, after a while this flow of money was mostly profit.

There were also men who held multiple bishoprics (in direct violation of church law) and received income from each diocese. This was only possible because the Pope would give a dispensation (a sort of waiver) from the canon law. In return the Pope collected a fee.

http://images.google.com/url?q=http...19.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHXVwlznbvPDUm1A3t2vWsVcyP9sg

The Orthodox east did not have a system in place that would make it possible for a Pope-like figure to give dispensations for Simony. If the Papacy had succeeded in taking over the east when it tried, then perhaps these abuses would have spread into the east as well, attacking the Body of Christ like a cancer.
How can the reformation be the Catholics fault, I don’t remember reading that the Orthodox did anything to stop it.
Did Martin luther know that they existed…and if so why did knowone consider them?
I think I answered this above.

The abuses in the Catholic west had the general effect of making skeptics out of the priests and people, they were unwilling to any longer accept traditional Christian beliefs (which often were shared by Orthodox and the Latin Catholics) and scrutinized the Holy Scriptures for new, yet to be discovered answers (we can see the confusion this caused). This type of skepticism did not arise in the east, and did not spread there from the west.

I would like to remind you of a series of communications between Protestant reformers of Catholic northern Europe and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Patriarch Jeremiah finally became frustrated with these men and wrote this:
Patriarch Jeremiah:
You reckon the invocation of the saints, their icons, and their sacred relics as futile…

…Moreover, you also reject confession to one another. In addition, you reject the angelic, monastic life…

…From whence have you reckoned better than Old and New Rome? Indeed, have you forsaken the interpretations of the true theologians and considered your own as more preferable?..

…We closely adhere to the teachings which have been uttered by the successors of the God-preaching Holy Apostles. We consider their interpretations as more precious than all the gold and gems. Indeed, we invoke the all-holy saints not as saviors and redeemers, God forbid, for only One is the Savior and Redeemer, the Christ; but we who are sinners and in the midst of evils hold them forth as intermediaries who have completed the journey of life in a holy and satisfactory manner and have departed to God, and who richly intercede for us…
And finally the distinguished old Patriarch had this to say in closing…
Patriarch Jeremiah:
Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you. Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship’s sake.

Farewell.

Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople
Issued in the year 1581, June 6
 
Can you give us citations or links to explain what you mean here? Anyone who taught or believed heresy was not Orthodox. That is a universal standing rule from the beginning of Christianity. If a cleric or congregation embraces heresy, they are no longer of the church.

What is more likely, heretics who renounced their errors were accepted into the church, if they were priests who controlled parishes, or bishops who headed dioceses their congregations would be accepted back into the church once the heretics were replaced or they renounced their errors.

This still occasionally happens, like when the Evangelical Orthodox church abandoned it’s Protestant origins and was accepted into Holy Orthodoxy.

A similar situation existed in the west. There was a prescribed procedure used in Gaul (France today) to receive Arian priests into the Catholic church. And, as you well know this situation existed in Gothic Spain as well. When the Gothic Arians renounced their heresy their churches became Catholic churches.

In Renaissance Europe churches went from Catholic, to Protestant, to Catholic again over time. So using your logic you can say " I hear Calvinism (Lutheranism, etc.) was TAUGHT in some Catholic churches" but that would be a gross misrepresentation. Everyone knows that once the priest and congregation embraced heresy the parish was no longer Papal Catholic church, and when the leadership and preaching changed it was again.

These things need to be put into perspective, and I feel some polemicists have been manipulative in the information you are being given.

There is great hope in this, the ancient practice of forgiving the errors of the past means that some day we may even be able to welcome the See of Rome back into Holy Orthodoxy. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing to behold! 👍
I spoke to an Orthodox priest, and infact my mouth droped when I saw his wife and child.
He said its the WHOLE church that is not falible…not one person.

How dose the WHOLE church make decisions?
 
The Orthodox also believe that they are infalible. What evidence do they have to support this.
Scriptural-Historical etc…

I hear Arianism was TAUGHT in some Orthodox churches. Is this not true?
No, it’s not.
And since there is CONSTANT reference to “Christ Our God,” and “the Ever Virgin Mother of God Mary” etc. in the services I wouldn’t be able to image how it could.

Don’t believe everything you hear (or read).😛
 
No, it’s not.
And since there is CONSTANT reference to “Christ Our God,” and “the Ever Virgin Mother of God Mary” etc. in the services I wouldn’t be able to image how it could.

Don’t believe everything you hear (or read).😛
It’s an odd accusation. Considering bishops in the West also had large numbers of Arians in it. Neither East nor West ever officially taught Arianism. Of course, there was Liberius and the Arian confession of faith, but that’s been beaten to a dead pulp, I am sure.
 
I spoke to an Orthodox priest, and infact my mouth droped when I saw his wife and child.
You have a problem with this?
He said its the WHOLE church that is not falible…not one person.
This is true
How does the WHOLE church make decisions?
What decisions? :confused:

The church has the responsibility to preserve the Apostolic Faith it receives, and pass this on to the future.

There is no need to invent New Light.

We just have to be true to the received faith. All of the bishops are successors to all the Apostles. We have the Holy Mysteries (sacraments) and the Holy Gospel. Holy Orthodoxy teaches the same Truth everywhere.
 
I spoke to an Orthodox priest, and infact my mouth droped when I saw his wife and child.
He said its the WHOLE church that is not falible…not one person.

How dose the WHOLE church make decisions?
In Ecumenical Council.

I hope I do not bring you further harm by pointing out that St. Peter was married, and according to Western tradition, had a least a daughter.
 
You have a problem with this? This is true What decisions? :confused:

The church has the responsibility to preserve the Apostolic Faith it receives, and pass this on to the future.

There is no need to invent New Light.

We just have to be true to the received faith. All of the bishops are successors to all the Apostles. We have the Holy Mysteries (sacraments) and the Holy Gospel. Holy Orthodoxy teaches the same Truth everywhere.
Its a funny story. In short it was a Roman Catholic that opened his mouth about the Orthodox…until then I knew NOTHING about it.
I thought all priests were celibate,
So imagine my shock when the priest says…meet my wife and child…yes my mouth droped open…no I don’t have a problem with it.

I am not talking about new light.
Society changes,morals must be defined acording to the NEW challenges…such as contraception…People that are homosexual…the place of women in church…etc…etc…etc…
 
Its a funny story. In short it was a Roman Catholic that opened his mouth about the Orthodox…until then I knew NOTHING about it.
I thought all priests were celibate,
So imagine my shock when the priest says…meet my wife and child…yes my mouth droped open…no I don’t have a problem with it.
Actually, that is funny.

The Latin Catholic church is the only church claiming to be Apostolic which has made clerical celibacy the norm, and that rule does not extend back into the early church. It was introduced in fits and starts over centuries in different parts of the west by local synods until it came to be dominant in the west. I am not sure what century, I suspect sometime between the sixth and the eight century.

Later, the western church tried to impose this practice on the eastern church, with mixed results.
I am not talking about new light.
Unfortunately, with that system, it’s what you get.
Society changes,morals must be defined acording to the NEW challenges…such as contraception…People that are homosexual…the place of women in church…etc…etc…etc…
The bishops of the church are the shepherds of the faithful. That is their job. I must say that after all this time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they have done alright, considering everything the devil has thrown at them for centuries.

They have the ancient canons of the church for guidance, the synods of bishops meet regularly to establish policy and if they have some pressing new conundrum between session, they can always pick up the phone. 🤷
 
Actually, that is funny.

The Latin Catholic church is the only church claiming to be Apostolic which has made clerical celibacy the norm, and that rule does not extend back into the early church. It was introduced in fits and starts over centuries in different parts of the west by local synods until it came to be dominant in the west. I am not sure what century, I suspect sometime between the sixth and the eight century.

Later, the western church tried to impose this practice on the eastern church, with mixed results. Unfortunately, with that system, it’s what you get. The bishops of the church are the shepherds of the faithful. That is their job. I must say that after all this time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit they have done alright, considering everything the devil has thrown at them for centuries.

They have the ancient canons of the church for guidance, the synods of bishops meet regularly to establish policy and if they have some pressing new conundrum between session, they can always pick up the phone. 🤷
I did not know they meet regularly.
My impresion was that eastern Orthodox churches were not coordinated, each church different
because of no visible head.

Do the Orthodox have a priest shortage in America?

How many deacons are in a normal congregation?

And how active are parishes?
 
I did not know they meet regularly.[Q
yearly, at some level, at least.
Each of the autocephalous (independent) Churches has a metochion an “embassy Church” in the others, to keep in touch. The system used to be in Rome, where it has become the Titular Church system. Ironically, St. Peter’s in the Vatican is the Titular Church, formally the metochion, of Constantinople.
If you go to any mass at a church under the Vatican, at mass they will commemorate the pope of Rome, and then the local bishop. This is also a change, an important one, that the Vatican has instituted in a practice called the diptychs, and the Orthodox practice is still as it was in the first millenium: when I go to Divine Liturgy, the priest has a cloth, called the antimens, with means (in Latin!, the term came about when both Old and New Rome used Latin officially) “instead of the table” i.e. the bishop’s altar. It is signed by the bishop, given us permission to celebrate Divine Liturgy on it, because the bishop is the oridinary minister. As St. Ignatius writes:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8,

Now at Divine Liturgy the priest commemorates our bishop (Mark, a former Pentacostal, btw) and our primate (Phillip) of the Autonomous Archdiocese of North America, to show our communion with our bishop and the head of the synod to which he belongs. Where Bishop Mark celebrates, he has no antimens (as bishop, he needs no permission) but he commemorates all the bishops of the archdiocese and and the synods head, Metropolitan Philip, to show their communion. When Metropolitan Philip celebrates DL, he commemorates the heads of all the heads of all the Archdioceses/synods of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Patriarch, Ignatius IV (the 163rd successor of St. Peter in his first See, Antioch). Patriarch Ignatius at DL commemorates all the other patriarchs of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church. This practice of diptychs is meant to show the unity of the Church throughout the world, and as a sign of who is Orthodox. When someone is struck from the diptychs, it means that bishop, and all who commemorte him, are not in communion. This happened recently with the patriarch of Jerusalem, who had been mismananging Church property amongst other problems. The synod of Jerusalem, met, struck him from the diptychs, the other patriarchs, investigating the situation in a synod of their own in Constantinople supported the synod and struck him from the diptychs, and he was deposed. It also happened in Moscow, where the argument with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople reached a point that the PoM struck the EP from the diptychs. The other patriarchs, however, told both of them that they, the remaining patriarchs, were striking neither from their diptychs. So they were going to keep them in one Church so they had better come up with a solution, which they did.

Now, in the diptychs as modified by the Vatican, the pope of Rome’s name is mentioned at every mass in every church all over the world. In the Early Church, we don’t see that: no Church in Egypt, for instance, commemorated the Pope of Rome except the Church where the Pope of Alexandria was celebrating Divine Liturgy. The Vatican sends out who is in the diptychs, and he alone decides the list. In the early Church, it was not so, and Popes of Rome on occasion were struck from the diptychs: for instance the date 1054 is really not the correct date for the schism, but has been promoted in the West. For the Orthodox, the split occured when Benedict VIII inserted the filioque (at the emperor Henry II’s demand) into the Creed recited at the DL. When the EP received the notice of Benedict’s ascension with the filioque in his confession, the pope was struck from the diptychs. (The Universal Ecumenical Councils had forbidden altering the Creed on the pain of deposition). One of the issues of the delegation from Rome in 1054 was to insist that the other Patriarchs put the pope of Rome back into the diptychs.
cont.
[/quote]
 
cont.
Another practice that the Vatican has done is the metochia/titular Churches. The metochion is an “embassy” Church: each patriarchate has a parish in each of the the other patriarchates. In that Church, the patriarch of the “foreign” patriarch is commemorated, not that of the patriarch. For instance, St. Rafael Hawaaweeny (1st Orthodox bishop ordained in the New World, and Arab ordained by Russians). was attached as deacon in the metochion of Antioch in Moscow. In that Church the Patriarch and Synod of Antioch, not Moscow, were commenorated. The metochian coordiantes relations between the patriarchs and their patriarchates. The way the Vatican has it now, they have instead titular Churches: each cardinal (the college itself being an innovation that doesn’t date until after the Greast Schism) gets a titular Church in Rome, although he has no function in it, its just there to justify him as being a member of the curia electing the pope of Rome, although the bishop in question may never otherwise set foot in Rome, except for his mandatory ad limina visit (an innovation of only the last 5 or 6 centuries). The major basilicas are the metochia of the other patriarchates: since they are not in communion with the Vatican, they are defunct. Ironically the Vatican, St. Peter’s is technically the metochion of Constantinople.

Now this all may sound unimportant, just symbolic. But it is not symbol over substance, but the substance of the symbol.

As SS Ignatius and Clement show, the Early Church saw the bishop as the font of Catholicism and unity. And when you look into how the Church of the first milleminium wove that into the life fo the Church, you see that the Orthodox continue the same, whereas the Vatican has changed them into “all roads lead to Rome,” which was not the practice of the Church.

I’ll post more later, I think I’m at the limit.
My impresion was that eastern Orthodox churches were not coordinated, each church different
because of no visible head.
we have something called the diptychs, in which each Church commorates the heads of the others.
Do the Orthodox have a priest shortage in America?
It doesn’t seem so, except in places like Alaska.
How many deacons are in a normal congregation?
Varies greatly.
And how active are parishes?
varies greatly.
 
Do the Orthodox have a priest shortage in America?
As Isa states above, it does not seem so. Of course, one must take the long view in an issue like this. It takes such a long time to prepare clergy, so it is always going to be a concern.

Interestingly, the call to holy orders often runs in families, so a priest may have a son, or a couple of grandsons follow him. This pattern can be seen to repeat itself over many generations and probably lifts vocations by a significant percentage.

Orthodox in North America are also blessed to have a disproportionate share of vocations come out of the convert ranks. Many young men convert and find their way into the seminary after a few short years.

Parishes can be rather small, I have seen attendance from 200 to 1000 at a liturgy from parish to parish (some may be bigger but I haven’t seen them). That represents the entire congregation because the canons prescribe only one liturgy per altar per day. No second or third or fourth liturgies.

Some parishes are really tiny, with fifty people or less in remote areas.
How many deacons are in a normal congregation?
Ideally there would be at least one deacon and a cantor. If there is no deacon the priest can perform the liturgy without him. Cathedrals and larger parishes may have several deacons attached.

The responses are utterly important, thus the need for a cantor (or choir director) and readers. Others may stand in but they will need to know the requirements of the typicon for the day.
And how active are parishes?
From my experience the parishes are smaller congregations over all and require a lot of involvement from the laity. It is hard to be a wallflower in such a situation. Everybody helps out in some way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top