question for Greek Orthodox

[JMBNH]

delete

 

[Volodymyr]

I believe Hesychios is again correct. Such differences as Mr. Yerusalim is mentioning should convince Greko Catolics that Latin Catolics do not consider them “real or actual” Catolics. Greko Catolic priests are married, they use bread and not wafers. I think in view of some here Latinism is same as Catolikism. This should be big relevation for Greko Catolics to consider return to Holy Orthodoxy.

It is just not a good way to ask another about his religion - how does it differ from my religion and do you really think that is important. If you want to know about Holy Orthodoxy - you can learn but is much more than just something “like” Catolicism spoken in slavonic with less Marian dogmas.

Study prayers of Orthodox church - in slavonic, Greek, English - see how we pray is what we believe. No non-Catholic church defines itself by how it is different from Catolicism - except perhaps for certain Protestants. Orthodoxy does not. Of course there are differences. But how are these important - many ask how is Catolicism different from Orthodoxy here - and Imust tell them it is much different - learn about it if you want, but first know what is Orthodoxy.

Same for Catolics - know Catolicism - is it Latinism only, what is role of Greko Catolics. Then study Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[JMBNH]

Greek Catholics are as Catholic as Latins it is just sad that there are much fewer of them. I think comparing Eastern Orthodox to Catholics can only be done fairly by comparing Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic, as most of the differences with Latins are cultural and a totally different way of looking at things (it’s indisputable that the West and East of the Church have always had big cultural differences from very early, long before the Great Schism). If I’m honest the intolerance of Rites other than the Byzantine by the Eastern Orthodox is the main reason that the Oriental Orthodox and not them are my second favourite Church (though both are far ahead of Protestants). I also don’t like them trying to tell all Eastern Catholics they should be Latins, though I do have to admit the actions of some Catholics in trying to Latinise Eastern Catholics were also clearly wrong.

 

[rinnie]

Greek Catholics are as Catholic as Latins it is just sad that there are much fewer of them. I think comparing Eastern Orthodox to Catholics can only be done fairly by comparing Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic, as most of the differences with Latins are cultural and a totally different way of looking at things (it’s indisputable that the West and East of the Church have always had big cultural differences from very early, long before the Great Schism). If I’m honest the intolerance of Rites other than the Byzantine by the Eastern Orthodox is the main reason that the Oriental Orthodox and not them are my second favourite Church (though both are far ahead of Protestants). I also don’t like them trying to tell all Eastern Catholics they should be Latins, though I do have to admit the actions of some Catholics in trying to Latinise Eastern Catholics were also clearly wrong.

Okay now dont get mad at me, Oriental Orthrodox are they Oriental like in race. I have never heard of them. Now all the other i have heard of. My Goodness are there alot of Orthrodox Religions. Also im sure they are also different, but are you guys pretty cool as far as going to eachothers church. Like for instance if there wasnt a Greek Orthrodox around would you go to the closest orthrodox Church. Like im RC But if there wasnt a RC in the area before id miss church Id go to the nearest CC.

 

[wynd]

Okay now dont get mad at me, Oriental Orthrodox are they Oriental like in race. I have never heard of them. Now all the other i have heard of. My Goodness are there alot of Orthrodox Religions. Also im sure they are also different, but are you guys pretty cool as far as going to eachothers church. Like for instance if there wasnt a Greek Orthrodox around would you go to the closest orthrodox Church. Like im RC But if there wasnt a RC in the area before id miss church Id go to the nearest CC.

The Oriental Orthodox are a group of churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian that I know of off the top of my head) in communion with all the others in that group, and the Eastern Orthodox are a group of churches (Greek, American/OCA, Antiochian, Russian, Polish, Japanese, and many more) in communion with all the others in that group.

These two groups of churches parted ways in the fifth century after the Council of Chalcedon (EO accepted the council, OO rejected it) because of disputes over the two natures of Christ, and are not in communion with each other.

Today, many on both sides say that the disputes are really just misunderstandings due to linguistics, and communion between the two groups is likely to happen in the near future (relatively speaking of course).

 

[josephdaniel29]

Okay now dont get mad at me, Oriental Orthrodox are they Oriental like in race. I have never heard of them. Now all the other i have heard of. My Goodness are there alot of Orthrodox Religions. Also im sure they are also different, but are you guys pretty cool as far as going to eachothers church. Like for instance if there wasnt a Greek Orthrodox around would you go to the closest orthrodox Church. Like im RC But if there wasnt a RC in the area before id miss church Id go to the nearest CC.

The Oriental Orthodox Church is a totally different communion from what is called the Eastern Orthodox Church and we are not in communion with each other. Think of the example of the Old Catholics. They use Catholic in their name but they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Would you call the Old Catholics another Catholic religion?

Rinnie I’m afraid you still don’t quite understand the nature of the Church. The division of the Orthodox Church into various national jurisdictions is nothing more than an accident of history. In the end they are nothing more than administrative divisions but we are all one Church as evidenced by our common faith and Eucharist.

If it helps think of your typical mix of Catholic parishes in a large American city. On one side of town you have a Polish Catholic parish and on the other you have a Spanish parish and on another you have an Italian parish. The liturgy may be in different languages and some of the customs of the parishes may differ but they are all Catholic and as such any Catholic regardless of their ethnicity can receive the Eucharist in any of these parishes.

In some respects it’s the same with the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Whether it’s a Greek parish or a Russian parish or an Antiochian parish they are all Orthodox and as such any Orthodox Christian may receive the Eucharist in any Orthodox church regardless of that person’s ethnicity.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Hesychios]

What Wynd posts here is essentially correct. I believe “Oriental” Orthodox is a label the Vatican has slapped on non-Chalcedonians for it’s own purposes. I think that if I were one I’d reject the term out of hand.

The non-Chalcedonians…reject the Council of Chalcedon. The Orthodox accept the seven Councils, and Rome was counted among them at the time.

The Council of Chalcedon is notable for the dispute about the “TWO NATURES” of Christ. Those who accept Chalcedon are Diophysites (both the EO and the RC), those who reject the Council are Miaphysites.
*
Michael*

 

[rinnie]

The Oriental Orthodox Church is a totally different communion from what is called the Eastern Orthodox Church and we are not in communion with each other. Think of the example of the Old Catholics. They use Catholic in their name but they are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Would you call the Old Catholics another Catholic religion?

Rinnie I’m afraid you still don’t quite understand the nature of the Church. The division of the Orthodox Church into various national jurisdictions is nothing more than an accident of history. In the end they are nothing more than administrative divisions but we are all one Church as evidenced by our common faith and Eucharist.

If it helps think of your typical mix of Catholic parishes in a large American city. On one side of town you have a Polish Catholic parish and on the other you have a Spanish parish and on another you have an Italian parish. The liturgy may be in different languages and some of the customs of the parishes may differ but they are all Catholic and as such any Catholic regardless of their ethnicity can receive the Eucharist in any of these parishes.

In some respects it’s the same with the various Orthodox jurisdictions. Whether it’s a Greek parish or a Russian parish or an Antiochian parish they are all Orthodox and as such any Orthodox Christian may receive the Eucharist in any Orthodox church regardless of that person’s ethnicity.

Yours in Christ
Joe

OK This i understand, I never realized how many there were i am shocked. And i am reading the web site, very long, alot to take in. Alot i big words to have to define. But i do see alot we have in common, and alot that we also dont. I have heard that some day we will all come together and become one Church again, i can see it will take awhile, but i can also see that i believe that these Churchs although different, may be able to be one of the first to combine. Im sure not in our lifetime though. But I can see that we do agree on alot of important issues.

 

[JMBNH]

The Oriental Orthodox are the following Churches:

Coptic Orthodox Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Armenian Apostolic Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Eritrean Orthodox Church

Note: The Eritrean Orthodox Church recently split off from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (purely organisational reasons, they still get on fine and have all the same traditions) and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church itself only split off from the Coptic Orthodox Church in the 1950s, so until then there were only three Oriental Orthodox Churches. Also the Syrian Orthodox Church includes an autonomous Malankara branch in India (though there’s a separate Malankara Orthodox Church in India as well that is excommunicated from the communion, though this is too complicated to explain if only because I don’t understand it well enough).

The reasons they split are already well discussed and it was at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, at the time they were Monophysites, so long before the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches split.

To complicate matters there also an Assyrian Church of the East (based originally in Iran/Iraq but now largely in India and the USA as far as I know) that split off from the Church after the Council of Ephesus in 431 and they were then called Nestorians as they believed that Jesus not only had two natures but was also two persons Divine and human, and thus they were the opposite of the Monophysites. Their tradition is most similar to but not identical to that of the Syrian Orthodox Church

 

[Hesychios]

It is important to recognize that the ‘splits’ are not schisms, nor are they to be viewed in any way as negative (although some people might make that assumption). The churches teach identical theology and are in communion with each other.

They are in keeping with the ecclesiology of the church. These are simply new synods being formed, sometimes after inordinately long (and probably unfortunate) delays.

The same process has always held true in the west as well. For instance the Central American RC churches are not part of the church of Spain although that is the church of their origin. Likewise Quebec is not part of the church of France.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Happy Easter to you too (if it’s Easter for you?)

Hello JMBNH, I hope your Easter was wonderful.

…I’d be interested to know what was wrong, as I got most of this information off an Orthodox site saying how they were different to Catholic. I’m guessing the main things wrong (other than the Crucifixion different view) were on Purgatory and Original Sin which I’m not 100% on the Orthodox view if there is any. Am I right in thinking a lot of issues have more variety in the Orthodox views as the Church is less dogmatic than the Catholic Church (partly as it never had a Protestant ‘Reformation’ to deal with and subsequently a Counter-Reformation and partly just a different approach and partly not having a Pope figure)

I will make comments on a few of your points to help illustrate what I mean.

As far as I know (I’m Catholic so not the best qualified) the main differences in doctrine (as opposed to Church practice as the Greek Catholic Churches follow Eastern Orthodox practice very closely) are:

It is far from a foregone conclusion as to what Eastern Catholics believe. The consensus among Latin Catholics is that Eastern Catholics must believe what Latin Catholics believe, yet from my own exposure as an Eastern Catholic that is more true in the diaspora in modern times but not always the case. Were the earlier generations wrong? Were they not fully “converted”? I don’t know, I do know Latin theology has been flowing eastward into the Eastern Catholic churches.

Ecumenical Councils rather than the Pope the supreme authority

Jesus Christ is the Supreme Authority (as I am sure you agree).

Otherwise the church is conciliar (actually, I believe the RC communion has declared Conciliarism a heresy, correct? I am interested to learn more about that if possible). This means that when the bishops of the church are gathered in Council it can be a higher authority, but it must be formally accepted by the local churches. Local or regional Councils sometimes establish precedents which can then be reconfirmed and adopted for the greater church in Council.

When there is no Council in session, authority devolves to the synods (of autocephalic churches), which are gatherings of bishops. Primarily the bishops will operate under their knowledge of past policy of their synod, and use their own best judgment when referring to the ancient canons.

If they are not sure of the best approach they can pick up the phone and ring up another bishop or two.

…believing the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and not the Father and the Son

It would be helpful if you clarified what “the Father and the Son” actually means. I have been getting conflicting responses. There may or may not be a difference!

• If you mean From the Father and the Son as a dual Procession eternally, that is wrong.
• If you mean From the Father and the Son as a dual Procession temporally, that is wrong.
• If you mean From the Father through the Son as a single spiration temporally, that might be ok judging by what some early fathers have written, but NOT according to the Creed defined in Council.
  The Fathers of the church at Constantinople were well aware of the entire issue. Several had written about it before the Council. But they chose not to expound on this in the Creed at all.

It seems that the Fathers in Council were reluctant to dig very deep into this, found it unnecessary to do so, and desired that we not open that can of worms. So they omitted any reference to this idea in the Creed. In fact, they specifically forbad anyone to alter the Creed in any fashion. One can take that a lot of ways but Orthodox feel bound to honor their wishes.

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above…}

…no Purgatory in the same defined way, but there is a possibility of going from punishment to reward

The means of salvation is Theosis. This is a never-ending process, a path to Holiness. No one graduates, it is impossible to bridge the gap between the Uncreated Divine and creatures. There is no finality to Theosis.

There is no theology of systematic punishment to achieve holiness.

…no formal Indulgences but the prayers and good works of the living can help the dead and can reduce their own time of punishment

The Anselmian theory of Satisfaction is not known. God has His own ways of dealing with us in this life and the next. We pray for the living and the dead, we don’t feel a need to explain why with a theory.

…less defined view of Original Sin, merely a hereditary predisposition to sinfulness

The Orthodox do not have a less defined view of original Sin. We simply have a more ancient view.

…no Immaculate Conception for Mary

This is not an appropriate comment because Orthodox Christianity has an understanding of humanity that does not require a special mode of conception for the Theotokos.

Secondarily, we do not recognize any single bishop’s ability to define a dogma for the entire church. It is especially telling that when this happened in 1854AD (the first time such a thing was attemted in world history), the dogma was constructed without any reference to the Orthodox Christian understanding of Ancestral Sin (which actually does not need it), so it is quite meaningless as well as illegal.

CHRIST IS RISEN!
Michael

 

[JMBNH]

Jesus Christ is the Supreme Authority (as I am sure you agree).

Of course, I meant the method the Holy Spirit uses as supreme authority to guide the visible Church.

Otherwise the church is conciliar (actually, I believe the RC communion has declared Conciliarism a heresy, correct? I am interested to learn more about that if possible).

Yeah Conciliarism got condemned at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). What was condemned was the view that Councils held power over the Pope (the Conciliar movement started in the 1300s as an opposition to abuses by the Avignon Papacy I believe, and grew in influence due to the existance of a lot of Antipopes, at least in the west, of course a conciliar way of thinking existed earlier in the east). This view was promoted by the French King in French Law without Church approval. In Catholic teaching (as you probably know) Ecumenical Councils have to be either called by the Pope or later ratified by him and the Pope can veto anything voted in. I’ll try reading up on the canons at 5th Lateran some time, but I couldn’t find them in easy form with just canons only in the full text of everything said

It would be helpful if you clarified what “the Father and the Son” actually means. I have been getting conflicting responses. There may or may not be a difference!

• If you mean From the Father and the Son as a dual Procession eternally, that is wrong.
• If you mean From the Father and the Son as a dual Procession temporally, that is wrong.
• If you mean From the Father through the Son as a single spiration temporally, that might be ok judging by what some early fathers have written, but NOT according to the Creed defined in Council.
  The Fathers of the church at Constantinople were well aware of the entire issue. Several had written about it before the Council. But they chose not to expound on this in the Creed at all.

Definitely from the Father through the Son (the formula agreed upon at the reunion Council of Florence I believe), which does have basis in the Fathers and in Scripture (though I do think it’s sad the amount of trouble one word has caused)

 

[JMBNH]

Secondarily, we do not recognize any single bishop’s ability to define a dogma for the entire church. It is especially telling that when this happened in 1854AD (the first time such a thing was attemted in world history), the dogma was constructed without any reference to the Orthodox Christian understanding of Ancestral Sin (which actually does not need it), so it is quite meaningless as well as illegal.
CHRIST IS RISEN!
Michael

That’s debatable that it’s the first as there does seem to be a pronouncement in 1336 by Pope Benedikt XII on the beatific vision of the just prior to the final judgment (which may or may not be possible under the Theosis concept I’m not sure, though it’s a whole different way of thinking). In the early Church before the Roman Emperor decided that Ecumenical Councils would be the way that the Church would decide doctrine quite often people turned to Rome for pronouncements on certain issues, though I do agree that this is not the same as the Bishop of Rome making a pronouncement of their own initiative (though the two most recent examples were both for things that had long held feast days on the Catholic Church calendar and one that the East would believe, the other as you’ve now said making little sense from an Eastern Orthodox perspective of Ancestral Sin)

 

[Hesychios]

That’s debatable that it’s the first as there does seem to be a pronouncement in 1336 by Pope Benedikt XII on the beatific vision of the just prior to the final judgment

Interesting.

Then some would consider this an infallible pronouncement of dogma…Ex Cathedra?

 

[rinnie]

Thank-you guys for all being very nice to eachother, And i am learning alot. Although I am RC and will always be it is nice to see what the differences really are. And from what i hear from you guys if i ever cold not go to a RC for some reason, i would not have a problem being a guest at your church. We cant help what belief we are i see that now, but it would also be nice to know others beliefs too, so if i every did hear something horrible said about your faith i could say i may not be the faith, but that not true about it. And i would hope you could be the same about my faith. I think sometimes it the people who ruin the faith and Church instead of vice-versa. But thankyou and i am learning.

 

[JMBNH]

Interesting.

Then some would consider this an infallible pronouncement of dogma…Ex Cathedra?

Yeah though I’m not sure if there’s an official view on whether it was definitely ex cathedra or whether this question is unanswered, as there’s no official list of ex cathedra pronouncements, though what it says is nonetheless standard Catholic doctrine and quite likely was reconfirmed at Trent anyway (there were that many doctrines both defined and redefined there that it wouldn’t surprise me)

 

[GreenLantern]

I also have a question.
For Catholics, in order that an Ecumenical Council be infallible it must be affirmed by the Pope. I know this isn’t the case in Eastern Orthodoxy so what makes Ecumenical Councils infallible and not Vatican 1 or the councils Arian bishops held as a response to Nicea?

 

[Volodymyr]

ISo what makes Ecumenical Councils infallible and not Vatican 1 or the councils Arian bishops held as a response to Nicea?

Orthodox church is faithful to teaching of Fathers and traditions. It has pneumatological (of Holy Spirit) understanding of Truth of church. Orthodoxy has no idea of infalliblity (so much so that there is even no Russian and probably no Greek word for this - we call it something like not-making-sinful-mistakeness). We believe Holy Spirit protects the Holy Orthodox Church. We are to be faithful to that Church. Such Ecumenical councils were instituted by Roman Emperors - they have no promises of no error - only Church has such a promise. You should read Ivan Meyendorff’s article on Orthodox view of Sobornost and possibly Kholmjakov’s articles from 19th century about infalliblty.

 

[JMBNH]

{continued from above…}

The means of salvation is Theosis. This is a never-ending process, a path to Holiness. No one graduates, it is impossible to bridge the gap between the Uncreated Divine and creatures. There is no finality to Theosis.

There is no theology of systematic punishment to achieve holiness.

Actually been thinking about this. It depends what you view Purgatory as. If you view it as a mini-Hell for naughty Christians then yes that is very different to the Eastern view. However, if you view it instead as a method of purification for those who will be saved but are not yet ready to enter into God’s presence straight on death, then it is not incompatable with the idea of Theosis and actually would be part of the process. I and as far as I can tell most Catholics would see Purgatory in the latter terms and it is the view I get from reading Sacred Scriptures and the Church Fathers, though I do admit the former perspective was the more common one in the Middle Ages. Interesting the idea that there is no finality to Theosis, as I would have always thought the salvation process is complete by the Resurrection of the Dead and Final Judgment, though then again it is a different perspective on things entirely and thus hard to directly compare