A
AlNg
Guest
Catholics and Protestants allow women to distribute communion in the hand and they allow guitars during church services.
Protestant vs Orthodox - who's closer?
- Thread starter BlueKumul
- Start date
- Status
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Again you are portraying just Latin Rite (and even that isn’t universal by any means). Compare Eastern Catholics with Protestants and Orthodoxy
Catholic Church isn’t just Latin Church. For fair comparison we need Eastern Catholics too
and even then differences I pointed out are greater than “guitars”. It is essentially discipline vs dogma and you know which one carries more weight.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Eastern Catholics and Protestants do not object to the following western practices:
Use of unleavened bread
Use of guitars at Mass
The filioque in the creed
Women distributing Holy Communion in the hand.
…
Eastern Orthodox do object.
It is a huge difference.
Have you heard of anyone in the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church or other Eastern Catholic Church saying that those practices are wrong?
The Catholic Thomas Merton was into Buddhism as are several Protestant clergy. That is another difference when you consider what Eastern Orthodox believe.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Not as huge as Sacraments or view on Eucharist or so…
A
AlNg
Guest
Well, it is like I said. If Catholics are so close to the Eastern Orthodox Church, then it seems reasonable that Catholics would unite with the Eastern Orthodox Church and accept all of the shared teachings of the Church, East and West, as they were taught in 900 AD when the two churches were united and before any new teachings were added.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
That’s not true. Being close does not mean being identical. It’s logically inconsistent to claim that. Oriental Orthodoxy is close to Eastern Orthodoxy yet they haven’t reunified. Russian Church severed communion with Ecumenical Patriarchate and their faith is same. Arians were more similar to Church than Pagans yet Church didn’t just abandon Council of Nicea to reunite with them. It is historically inconsistent point you are making.
Again, inerrancy of Rome was a professed belief before but that is a thing for another thread.
A
AlNg
Guest
The OO and the EO have differences as to which Church Councils they accept as authentic teaching.
I was considering the words of Jesus as revealed to us in John 17. His words seemed to me to be more important than historical questions.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Yet he wouldn’t want us to abandon Truth to reunite… I’m sure you’d agree.
Yes but that’s it mostly. They are also fine with unleavened bread. Their ecclesiology is closer to Catholic one than Eastern Orthodox is. For purposes of this thread they are also Orthodoxy.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes, I know that the Catholic position is that the differences between the Catholics and E. Orthodox are not so great. But the E. Orthodox have maintained their traditions and beliefs from what they were in 900 AD, No? And the Church was one at that time, No? So since Catholics say that the differences are so small, why don’t they agree to unite on the basis of what the faith was in 900 AD before the papal legate decided to excommunicate Michael Cerularius and his followers and thereby break away from the E. Orthodox Church?
What I agree with is that the Catholics had no problem with the E. Orthodox beliefs and traditions as they were in 900 AD. The truth does not change. If the E. Orthodox had the truth then, then they have the truth now, No? Since the E. Orthodox have the same teachings now as they had in 900 AD, and the truth does not change, why not follow the words of Jesus and be one with the truth as it was in 900 AD, before the papal legate decided to excommunicate Michael Cerularius and his followers and thereby reject the words of Jesus that the churches should be united?
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Even if Church was one at the time… when Arius started introducing his Arian beliefs he was still part of the Church- he even voted at Nicea. It isn’t true that up until Schism everything must have been perfect. Anyway… Holy Spirit hasn’t stopped guiding us to Truth through Ecumenical Councils. Primacy of Rome fermented unity of the Church and we are not going to abandon that just to please Orthodoxy. We already are in the Church of Christ anyway. There isn’t need to move.
That isn’t true. There were already problems. They started during era of Patriarch Photius. Military invasion of Bulgaria to prevent them from accepting Latin Christianity and force them to be Greek Rite didn’t quite help either.
But they do not. Eastern Orthodox no longer believe in inerrancy of Rome but we see that Georgian Church has maintained that belief even as far as 1060 AD. If you want to talk about new stuff, would Eastern Orthodox reject Hesychasm and Gregory Palamas just to reunite with Catholic Church (if it were indeed needed)? Same principle.
As much as Nicea excommunicated Arians and thereby rejected words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that Churches should be united. Should they have accepted Arians back for sake of unity?
Well, excommunication was invalid as I have pointed out to you numerous times and Michael Cerularius did not deal with someone stepping on Latin Eucharist. He also held that Latin Church has invalid Eucharist and hence he was the one who tried excommunicating the Pope - therefore he excommunicated himself and separated Greek Church from One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which subsists in Catholic Church.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
You need to hear some Latino guitar groups like we have at the Spanish language Masses. They’re great.
As for the original question: Orthodox all the way.
As for the original question: Orthodox all the way.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
I said 900 AD.
If so, why was it lifted by Pope Paul VI and not before?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
D
dochawk
Guest
An obscure prelate suggested that in living memory, in particular that nothing more could be asked of the East. Something like “J. Ratzinger” . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
must have faded into obscurity . . . maybe we should form a search party
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Orthodox are infinitely closer. They have valid sacraments. Jesus (God Himself) is substantially present in the Eucharist with them.
I think only an atheist or Protestant could think Catholics and Protestants are closer, and only if they evaluate on SUPER shallow criteria like… I don’t even know what. If the Protestants are comparing themselves to the Latin rite, maybe they reckon they have culturally Western traits in common with many Latin Catholic laypeople in spheres outside of religion?
Atheists and Protestants might not understand the sacraments, so that’s why they might not realize how much closer Catholics and Orthodox are.
Again, both Orthodox and Protestants split from the Catholic Church, so it makes sense that they both compare themselves to it… but from the Catholic perspective, Orthodox are closer. No question at all.
I think only an atheist or Protestant could think Catholics and Protestants are closer, and only if they evaluate on SUPER shallow criteria like… I don’t even know what. If the Protestants are comparing themselves to the Latin rite, maybe they reckon they have culturally Western traits in common with many Latin Catholic laypeople in spheres outside of religion?
Atheists and Protestants might not understand the sacraments, so that’s why they might not realize how much closer Catholics and Orthodox are.
Again, both Orthodox and Protestants split from the Catholic Church, so it makes sense that they both compare themselves to it… but from the Catholic perspective, Orthodox are closer. No question at all.
Last edited:
J
JerryZ
Guest
Orthodoxy has all the seven Sacraments that Catholic Church has. The differences are not that big in terms of theology. We sometimes express the same ideas using different apparent terms but when you boil it down we both say the same. It is my personal belief that it is mostly politics that keep us separate.
Peace!
Peace!
BlueKumul
Active member
The guy who originally said that Catholics and Protestants are closer probably was an atheist… IDK I don’t talk to him anymore. He was a great fan of Putin, and bashed both Catholicism and Protestantism for not promoting strong national identity the way Russian Orthodoxy does. He wanted Christians to do certain things, but never pursued a relationship with Jesus.
Culturally Western traits? If you mean Roman heritage, then the Russians have it too. They even called Moscow Third Rome, rather than Third Mecca or Third Beijing or Third Aztlan. But from a Catholic point of view, this is an usurpation. Our Rome is the Vatican, and it’s alive and well. No need for a successor.
Culturally Western traits? If you mean Roman heritage, then the Russians have it too. They even called Moscow Third Rome, rather than Third Mecca or Third Beijing or Third Aztlan. But from a Catholic point of view, this is an usurpation. Our Rome is the Vatican, and it’s alive and well. No need for a successor.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Which would border Phyletism, heresy aven according to Russian Orthodox Church… how funny.
It’s more about terminology and approach. East is completely different from West in thinking- but not in substance.
Because Second Rome was Constantinople- Eastern city. However that is secular view and/or it assumes that first Rome fell to heresy as second Rome fell to Muslims.
- Status