What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn't?

[Augustine3]

What does Eastern Orthodoxy offer that Eastern Catholicism doesn’t?

Freedom from purgatory which is good and bad thing! lol

 

[Per_Crucem]

The Catholic Church, with the use of sacred tradition and sacred scripture, resolved doctrinal differences at the various early-church councils e.g. Nicaea and Council of Ephesus - agreed?

That and having the emperor on their side Both sides used tradition and Scripture, though.

There will always be false teachers, as per scripture, which is why sola scriptura in my humble opinion, will not work, It’s been the Protestant standard since the reformation, and as a result of it we see hundreds of churches teaching something different about certain doctrines that continue to fracture Jesus’ Mystical Body.

Oh noes! Disagreement! We’re doomed!

If you will permit me to be snarky again, for just a moment…Why you think Catholicism is a solution to this problem goes a long way towards explaining why you are a Catholic and I am not: “Hey, if we could all just agree to abide by the declarations of this one guy, then we could all agree!”

But which Pope do we listen to, ultimately? I nominate Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized by name by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Such authority! Good times. Though Pope Liberius (aka Pope Not-a-Saint), who failed to defend the church against Arianism, might also be a good authority to have around. I could go on.

Then, of course, there’s the whole question of who is a pope, really. The list of antipopes isn’t exactly short, you know. “Oh, him? He is not the real Pope. Never was. That did not happen. Move along.”

But, of course, as long as we can all agree on which claimant to the papacy is the actual Pope, and as long as we can agree that the Pope is legitimately the head of the entire Church and has jurisdiction in whatever part of the world and primacy over any other church leader, and as long as we can all agree about which of his statements are infallible and which are not (“Oh, that? That was not ex cathedra, it turns out, because it clearly contravenes Catholic teaching.”), and as long as we can agree on the meaning of what he has actually said, then yes, indeed, that system leaves no room for doubt.

If in fact truth is infallibly knowable:

It’s not. We do not live in a Cartesian universe where such standards are attainable. However, I’m not saying that “there is no way to know for sure what the truth is.” No. I’m saying that there is no way for me to objectively prove to you (or vice versa) that you are wrong in your understanding of Scripture (on certain points). The fact is, however, that both you and I use our fallible understanding of knowledge to reach certain conclusions. That you claim the church is infallible only moves it back one step. You’re still left with your fallible belief that the church is infallible, i.e., you could still be wrong if, in fact, the church is not infallible.

God guides His church leaders, in perpetuity, just as God did at the council of Nicaea, in spite of the false teachers within His church - or God guides each and every Christian to interpret sacred scripture and determine which traditions are to be embraced and which traditions are to be rejected. Agreed? Is there a third option?

Yes, I agree that it is within and by the church that Scripture is interpreted.

Hmm…What happens when you and I defer to the bible as the final standard, and disagree? Who then resolves this doctrinal difference via God’s guidance? it’s not me, that much I know…LOL…

Like when the East disagreed with the West and the mutually exclusive infallible authorities couldn’t solve it?

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11826618]That and having the emperor on their side Both sides used tradition and Scripture, though.

So we agree that the Catholic Church, (it was one back then - before the east-west schism) with the use of sacred tradition and sacred scripture, resolved doctrinal differences at the various early-church councils e.g. Nicaea and Council of Ephesus - agreed?

Oh noes! Disagreement! We’re doomed!

LOl…

If you will permit me to be snarky again, for just a moment…Why you think Catholicism is a solution to this problem goes a long way towards explaining why you are a Catholic and I am not: “Hey, if we could all just agree to abide by the declarations of this one guy, then we could all agree!”

A little snarky is always fun…LOL…I think the Catholic Church is the solution because it was established by Jesus. I wanted to belong to the church established by Jesus, and my former church was not it was established by a man hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth.

What one guy?

But which Pope do we listen to, ultimately? I nominate Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized by name by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Such authority! Good times. Though Pope Liberius (aka Pope Not-a-Saint), who failed to defend the church against Arianism, might also be a good authority to have around. I could go on.

I think this is where snarky loses its panache…LOL… Pope Honorius I is a whole different thread, and it has been covered extensively. The Petrine office is solid because Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it…There were bad popes (some times really bad) and saintly popes. That goes without saying. However, the bad popes cannot teach erroneously when speaking from the chair, as per scripture. Popes are not infallible. It’s God who protects His church via the Petrine office + the Ecumenical Councils.

Then, of course, there’s the whole question of who is a pope, really. The list of antipopes isn’t exactly short, you know. “Oh, him? He is not the real Pope. Never was. That did not happen. Move along.”

Would make for a great thread. You should start one. I have exhaustively covered everything on the Petrine office before becoming catholic…Easy topic…

But, of course, as long as we can all agree on which claimant to the papacy is the actual Pope, and as long as we can agree that the Pope is legitimately the head of the entire Church and has jurisdiction in whatever part of the world and primacy over any other church leader, and as long as we can all agree about which of his statements are infallible and which are not (“Oh, that? That was not ex cathedra, it turns out, because it clearly contravenes Catholic teaching.”), and as long as we can agree on the meaning of what he has actually said, then yes, indeed, that system leaves no room for doubt.

Hmm…you have not addressed anything that I mentioned. Start a thread about the popes and we can discuss it there. Snarky alert…LOL…

I

t’s not. We do not live in a Cartesian universe where such standards are attainable. However, I’m not saying that “there is no way to know for sure what the truth is.” No.

OK. How can we know the truth about a doctrine that continues to divide e.g. the interpretation of the Eucharist?

I’m saying that there is no way for me to objectively prove to you (or vice versa) that you are wrong in your understanding of Scripture (on certain points). The fact is, however, that both you and I use our fallible understanding of knowledge to reach certain conclusions. That you claim the church is infallible only moves it back one step. You’re still left with your fallible belief that the church is infallible, i.e., you could still be wrong if, in fact, the church is not infallible.

I never said the CC leaders are infallible; quite the opposite. I said: God infallibly guides the fallible leaders of His church and I said it a bunch of times…:banghead:LOL…

Yes, I agree that it is within and by the church that Scripture is interpreted.

Phew…OK, which one? The Lutheran church, my sisters church, one of the Evangelical churches…or the church founded by Jesus on Pentecost?

Like when the East disagreed with the West and the mutually exclusive infallible authorities couldn’t solve it?

That’s an easy one…The church of Matthew 16 is the church that continues to be guided by God…

 

[Nine_Two]

Your original claim: the RC Sacraments are not the same
as EO.
Did you read the USCCB link?
Can you show me how they are not the same?
Please skip the part about mystery as my answer
to that is clear: EO Sacraments are not " more mysterious"
by virtue of being called so.

So in light of that what other differences are there?
The fact that one divines seven of them and one
doesn’t does not change the nature of the
Sacrament/Mystery does it?

First I didn’t say “EO Sacraments” are “more mysterious”. So please don’t use the scare quotes there, and please don’t put words in my mouth. We call them “Holy Mysteries”. If you have an issue with what they call them then tough, we aren’t going to change that. Just like we aren’t going to start calling the Divine Liturgy “Mass” to make Catholics feel better about it. Similarly we don’t ask you to change your nomenclature.
I have read the USCCB link, and I’ve just opened it and looked at it again. To begin with it is a very vague, hardly a guide to what the Catholic Church believes about sacraments. It doesn’t even go into the number, or why they are numbered, when they became numbered, or anything like that.
The article also goes around the questions of what sacraments are, and why we have them, which is what I had been writing about in my own post.

The evidence for the difference is evident in the question that is being asked. If we both held them in the same light then no one would be asking questions of validity, as it would make little sense. The only possible exception to this is Baptism.

You need to give me something substantial- for
instance is the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ
different in substance in the Eucharist?
Is the Baptism more/less cleansing?
What?

I said nothing about the specific sacraments/mysteries (at least not until that last paragraph). We don’t quantify them in our own church, let alone in the churches of others. Which is once again a major difference in how we see them - the Catholic Church has degrees of illicitness and validity, we have none because it makes no sense.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So we agree that the Catholic Church, (it was one back then - before the east-west schism) with the use of sacred tradition and sacred scripture, resolved doctrinal differences at the various early-church councils e.g. Nicaea and Council of Ephesus - agreed?

For the sake of discussion, sure.

A little snarky is always fun…LOL…I think the Catholic Church is the solution because it was established by Jesus. I wanted to belong to the church established by Jesus, and my former church was not it was established by a man hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth.

Well, I’m not sure which you belonged to before, so I can’t say that Catholicism wasn’t an improvement. You have Jesus’ body and blood now.

What one guy?

That bastion bishop of unity (that led to all the schisms to begin with)

I think this is where snarky loses its panache…LOL… Pope Honorius I is a whole different thread, and it has been covered extensively. The Petrine office is solid because Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it…There were bad popes (some times really bad) and saintly popes. That goes without saying. However, the bad popes cannot teach erroneously when speaking from the chair, as per scripture. Popes are not infallible. It’s God who protects His church via the Petrine office + the Ecumenical Councils.

Are you a conciliarist?

Because I’m pretty sure the Pope can make an ex cathedra statement whenever he wishes (theoretically). And about Popes not teaching falsehood…only if teaching falsehood dies the death of a thousand qualifications before it can be considered teaching falsehood.

OK. How can we know the truth about a doctrine that continues to divide e.g. the interpretation of the Eucharist?

Prayer, Scripture, all that fun stuff. And if in the end, there is still disagreement…well, then we just get a bunch of emperors to invade each other and call one another heretics. The old fashioned way.

I never said the CC leaders are infallible; quite the opposite. I said: God infallibly guides the fallible leaders of His church and I said it a bunch of times…:banghead:LOL…

I’m not sure that squares with Roman dogma.

Phew…OK, which one? The Lutheran church, my sisters church, one of the Evangelical churches…or the church founded by Jesus on Pentecost?

The church founded by Jesus on Pentecost? That’s a redundancy because you already mentioned the Lutheran church.

That’s an easy one…The church of Matthew 16 is the church that continues to be guided by God…

And how do you infallibly decide between the two?

 

[twf]

Pretty sure he was.

At any rate it isn’t a metaphor I like. It is basically saying all the east = one Rome.

The Latin West, for historical reasons, did not evolve into the multiplicity of local, national churches that you see in the East, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be seen as being on the same footing. Surely numbers count for something . Even if we agree that the number of faithful means little (and with that I agree), isn’t it a fundamental EO belief that all bishops are equal? There are over 4000 Latin bishops and about 2000 particular churches (Eucharistic communities under a bishop) that comprise the Latin / Western tradition…that has to count for something and can hardly be reduced to just “Rome”.

 

[Taurks]

They are the same. Eastern Orthodox Church:

Baptism
Chrismation (like our confirmation)
Confession
The Eucharist
**Holy Unction (anointing)
**Ordination
Marriage

In our opinion the entire life of the Church is sacramental in nature. There is no one list of seven or eight or twenty sacraments; we don’t subscribe to the black-and-white, scholastic mindset of Latin Catholicism to define what part of Church “is” and “is not” a Sacrament. Anyone who produces such a list isn’t completely accurate.

 

[joe371]

Nine_Two;11826811]First I didn’t say “EO Sacraments” are “more mysterious”. So please don’t use the scare quotes there, and please don’t put words in my mouth. We call them “Holy Mysteries”. If you have an issue with what they call them then tough, we aren’t going to change that. Just like we aren’t going to start calling the Divine Liturgy “Mass” to make Catholics feel better about it. Similarly we don’t ask you to change your nomenclature.

I always remind my protestant brothers and sisters (family members included) that the CC and the EOC are pretty much the same in terms of worship semantics notwithstanding. I love the Mass and I love the Divine Liturgy. I love the seven sacraments, and I love the Holy Mysteries. Eastern Orthodoxy has an amazing liturgy; beautiful churches… You really feel that heaven is opening up during the divine liturgy…

 

[joe371]

In our opinion the entire life of the Church is Sacramental in nature. There is no one list of seven or eight or twenty sacraments; we don’t subscribe to the black-and-white, scholastic mindset of Latin Catholicism. Anyone who produces such a list isn’t completely accurate.

OK…Sorry…I got that list from an EO site…

 

[joe371]

The Latin West, for historical reasons, did not evolve into the multiplicity of local, national churches that you see in the East, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be seen as being on the same footing. Surely numbers count for something . Even if we agree that the number of faithful means little (and with that I agree), isn’t it a fundamental EO belief that all bishops are equal? There are over 4000 Latin bishops and about 2000 particular churches (Eucharistic communities under a bishop) that comprise the Latin / Western tradition…that has to count for something and can hardly be reduced to just “Rome”.

 

[Per_Crucem]

In our opinion the entire life of the Church is sacramental in nature. There is no one list of seven or eight or twenty sacraments; we don’t subscribe to the black-and-white, scholastic mindset of Latin Catholicism to define what part of Church “is” and “is not” a Sacrament. Anyone who produces such a list isn’t completely accurate.

By the way, the father of Latin scholasticism was an eastern bishop. Just saying.

 

[Taurks]

OK…Sorry…I got that list from an EO site…

It happens sometimes - it is definitely not wrong to say that those things are Sacraments. But it is also not right to say those are the only ones. Maybe the website was written by a person in a Western country, trying to show the similarity between our Church and others…

 

[Taurks]

By the way, the father of Latin scholasticism was an eastern bishop. Just saying.

I thought it was St. Thomas Aquinas, or at least that many people trace it back to him

 

[Nine_Two]

The Latin West, for historical reasons, did not evolve into the multiplicity of local, national churches that you see in the East, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be seen as being on the same footing. Surely numbers count for something . Even if we agree that the number of faithful means little (and with that I agree), isn’t it a fundamental EO belief that all bishops are equal? There are over 4000 Latin bishops and about 2000 particular churches (Eucharistic communities under a bishop) that comprise the Latin / Western tradition…that has to count for something and can hardly be reduced to just “Rome”.

You have that backwards. The West was the same multiplicity of churches and evolved into one homogenous organization.

As for being national, it has always been easiest to draw ecclesiastical boundaries based on secular boundaries.

Not sure what you’re getting at with the bishops. The argument fails the same way claiming more laity does. Both the Arians and Nestorians at one time had more bishops than the pre-Great Schism church. Does that mean they were right all along?

 

[Nine_Two]

From the two links the difference may not be that clear, but neither of those articles were written for the purpose of differentiating themselves from the other group.

The difference is likely to be found in the perception of the sacrament itself and the manner in which it works. There is a certain transactional and scientific quality that is present in Catholic sacramental theology whereby one receives a sacrament and the act of receiving the sacrament is the exact moment when the grace itself is given. Orthodoxy does not necessarily think in this fashion.

Orthodoxy does not feel the need or have the desire to explain how sacraments work the way Catholic theologians do. For example, there is a doctrine of the real presence in Orthodoxy, but not of transubstantiation for the simple reason that one cannot (or should not) explain one of the great mysteries of the faith. So when Catholics read some Orthodox writings on the Eucharist they may think “that’s what we believe,” but the Orthodox are much less likely (if at all) to read something on transubstantiation and think, “that’s what we believe.” From a Catholic perspective things look more similar because Catholics tend to have a mechanistic view of how sacraments work. So if criteria A, B, C, and D are met: it’s a sacrament, but if only B, C, and D are met: it’s valid but illicit, and on and on. Orthodoxy tends to have the simple position that if the Orthodox Church does it, then it’s a sacrament; if someone else does it, then it’s not relevant to them because they are not Orthodox.

The idea of numbering the mysteries or sacraments is a Western one. In John McGuckin’s book on Orthodoxy I believe he mentions that there is no real limit on the number mysteries, but there may be a system of ordering them into “major” or “minor” mysteries. But then I believe he goes on to say that even this distinction is arbitrary and reflects a Western need for ordering things.

I believe I addressed this above; but to sum up: Catholic theology permits sacraments to be understood in a mechanistic, ordered fashion to a degree not acceptable in Orthodoxy. The difference is not so much in how Catholicism and Orthodoxy claim sacraments or mysteries to help the believer, but in how the sacraments or mysteries themselves are said to function.

You have it right. The whole reason I brought up the distinction is because every time the issue of “validity” comes up we get historical examples “proving” the Orthodox see it as valid or invalid. In my mind this just proves that we don’t see it as either. The grace of God is not subject to questions of validity.

 

[joe371]

You have it right. The whole reason I brought up the distinction is because every time the issue of “validity” comes up we get historical examples “proving” the Orthodox see it as valid or invalid. In my mind this just proves that we don’t see it as either. The grace of God is not subject to questions of validity.

Do you have a personal opinion regarding the notion that sanctifying grace is conferred via the catholic sacraments?

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem

But which Pope do we listen to, ultimately? I nominate Pope Honorius I, who was anathematized by name by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Such authority! Good times. Though Pope Liberius (aka Pope Not-a-Saint), who failed to defend the church against Arianism, might also be a good authority to have around. I could go on.

Regarding Pope Honorius, Robert Sungenis refutes the claims hands down. Give it a looksy if interested…

youtube.com/watch?v=avL6vJw5ZBE

 

[marywarfield]

Wow. It’s been interesting. I had no idea so much
bitterness existed within the Orthodox.
But bitterness since the posters have managed to
attack everything in the RC including the Body and Blood
of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its “mechanistics” etc.
That is where I depart as a refuse to sling His Body
and Blood back and forth with you. Your willingness
though to attack our Eucharist or anything else held sacred within
the RC displays quite frankly
everything I find unacceptable and dishonest in Orthodoxy and
why I will not visit an Orthodox Church.

Peace.

 

[joe371]

Wow. It’s been interesting. I had no idea so much
bitterness existed within the Orthodox.
But bitterness since the posters have managed to
attack everything in the RC including the Body and Blood
of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its “mechanistics” etc.
That is where I depart as a refuse to sling His Body
and Blood back and forth with you. Your willingness
though to attack our Eucharist or anything else held sacred within
the RC displays quite frankly
everything I find unacceptable and dishonest in Orthodoxy and
why I will not visit an Orthodox Church.

Peace.

The one thing I took for granted was the idea that the EO churches would openly admit that we (catholic church) have valid sacraments, the very essence and source of grace. However, it’s important to remember that they really don’t define much of anything, which was one of the reasons why I steered clear of those churches…

 

[Cavaradossi]

“On the insistence of the Roman legates, Dioscorus was denied a place among the council fathers.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria

That’s nice, but I’ve actually read the acts of the council and have even posted excerpts (in English translation) on this very forum before. Contrary to whatever is claimed on Wikipedia (which is hardly a reliable source on less well-known topics, such as Church Councils), the Senate at the council only agreed to refuse to seat Dioscoros for the reason that charges were going to be brought against him.

From the acts of the council (as translated by Price and Gaddis) 5. Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, took his stand in the centre together with his companions and said: ‘We have {at hand} instructions from the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the churches, in which he has thought it right to declare that Dioscorus should not take a seat at the assembly, and that if he has the effrontery to attempt to do so, he should be expelled. This we are obliged to observe. Therefore, if it pleases your greatness, either he must leave, or we shall leave.’

1. When these words had been translated into Greek by Veronicianus, the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory, the most glorious officials and the eminent senators
   said: ‘What particular charge do you bring against Dioscorus the most devout bishop?’
2. Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, said: ‘His entrance makes it necessary to oppose him.’
3. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘As we have already proposed, let the charge against him be specified.’
4. Lucentius the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘He should render an account of his judgement. Although he did not possess the role of a judge, he usurped it. He presumed to hold a council without the leave of the apostolic see, which has never been allowed and has never been done.’*
5. Paschasinus the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We cannot go against the instructions of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who occupies the apostolic see, nor against the ecclesiastical canons or the traditions of the fathers.’
6. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘You need to make clear his specific offence.’
7. Lucentius the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We will not tolerate so great an outrage both to you and to us as to have this person taking his seat when he has been summoned to judgement.’
8. The most illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘If you are taking the role of a judge, you cannot in that capacity plead your cause.’**
9. When at the bidding of the most glorious officials and of the holy senate Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria had taken a seat in the centre, and the most devout Roman bishops had also sat down in their proper places and had ceased speaking, Eusebius the most devout bishop of the city of Dorylaeum came to the centre and said: ‘By the preservation of the masters of the world, order my petition to be read, in accordance with the wishes of our most pious emperor. I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged; Bishop Flavian was murdered. He together with me was unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Order my petition to be read.’

*Here in the commentary, price notes that this charge was unfounded since The Second Council of Ephesus was in fact convened by Emperor Theodosius II, according to custom

**Here in the commentary, Price remarks that traditionally, this line has been interpreted as the senate admonishing the legates, telling them that they cannot in their capacity as judges also act as prosecutors. Price disagrees with the traditional interpretation, arguing that the senate was referencing the situation of Dioscoros, who could not sit as a judge if charges were to be brought against him

Notice that as I said before, the council senate did not refuse to seat Dioscoros simply because the legates instructed them to do so, but rather they insisted that they would only deny Dioscoros a seat if he was meant to defend himself against charges, since one who acts as a defendant (one who pleads his cause), cannot also act as a judge. We see then in 14 that at the behest of the senate officials, Dioscoros was seated in the center of the council, to hear the charges being brought against him by Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, consistent with the senate’s refusal to deny Dioscoros a seat unless charges were to be brought against him.

So because the Eastern half of the empire was wrong, and the primacy of Rome became more and more disputed as the empire divided along east and west, this proves the Pope didn’t have authority?

I suppose you did not actually read what I wrote. You are reading the post-Vatican I/II definition of an ecumenical council as a general council of the Church in conjunction with the Pope back into the situation after Ephesus II. If it were a common article of faith that the Pope possessed the power to render any synod null and void, it should be true that in the two years between Ephesus II and Chalcedon, Ephesus II would not have gained widespread acceptance as an ecumenical council. In fact, there would have been no need to call the Council of Chalcedon at all. But this is all contrafactual, for not only was the council called to solve this problem, but the council did not accept Pope Leo’s refusal to approve of the council as reason enough to overturn the council, but rather conducted its own investigation into the minutes of the council in order to determine whether the council was conducted properly.