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

[marywarfield]

Sin is relative…Wow, that is a different perspective…probably not a view shared by all of the EOC’s…

Well probably not as there is no central authority…

Which may be why my husband asked our priest
how many Catholics are needed to screw in a lightbulb?
Three. One to find a lightbulb with the richest light,
one to determine if the light was out or just looked out
compared to the others and one to just decide to change the thing!
Haha!

 

[joe371]

Well probably not as there is no central authority…

Which may be why my husband asked our priest
how many Catholics are needed to screw in a lightbulb?
Three. One to find a lightbulb with the richest light,
one to determine if the light was out or just looked out
compared to the others and one to just decide to change the thing!
Haha!

LOL…It seems reasonable to conclude the following: If Jesus’ Church is a universal organism, then His Church must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity. However, Orthodoxy tells us that Jesus’ Church can have no visible head because Jesus is her Invisible Head. Well if that is true then the same logic applies to them. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each autocephalous church, i.e. the bishop. Hmm…

 

[Per_Crucem]

I don’t think anyone will mind: what’s the difference? Inerrant = truth that cannot be denied e.g. 2+2=4. Infallible = truth that cannot be denied e.g. 2+2=4. The source of that truth is God.

Sure. Inerrancy is that something is true. Infallibility is something that is true without the possibility of error. One could be inerrant without being infallible…e.g., scoring 100% on a spelling test, but still having the possibility of getting less than 100%. Wordy, I know lol

 

[joe371]

Sure. Inerrancy is that something is true. Infallibility is something that is true without the possibility of error. One could be inerrant without being infallible…e.g., scoring 100% on a spelling test, but still having the possibility of getting less than 100%. Wordy, I know lol

Ahh… The Lutheran church can define something as true but with one caveat: we could be wrong? Hmm…That said, I think it’s fair to say that the Holy Spirit does not inerrantly guide any churches because God is infallible. Agreed?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ahh… The Lutheran church can define something as true but with one caveat: we could be wrong? Hmm…That said, I think it’s fair to say that the Holy Spirit does not inerrantly guide any churches because God is infallible. Agreed?

Could be. But are not. I’m not sure what you mean by the second part?

 

[dzheremi]

One thing that Eastern Orthodoxy offers: No conversations like this one! ^

(But for real…huh? )

 

[Nine_Two]

To me personally, it seems rather obvious that both have valid holy orders/apostolic succession through the episcopacy which translates to both having 7 valid sacraments aka 7 mysteries. That’s just me though…If they view RC sacraments as invalid, then that would really obstruct the path to unity…That’s too bad…

I think you touch on things that make Dzheremi’s point that much stronger.

Our idea of what a Holy Mystery is is not exactly the same as a Catholic’s idea of a sacrament. While Seven are generally accepted, especially when speaking with Westerners, they have never been doctrinally numbered. To do so would be seen as limiting how God can work in our lives. It is for this same reason that we don’t exactly deal with “validity” in the same way the West does.

We don’t call them “Mysteries” without a reason. They are the ways through which God interacts with us personally, and they are not something our human minds can ever truly understand. Attempts to legislate them are pretty meaningless.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hey Mary. That is a good point. For example, let’s assume for the moment that they are right and that the pope’s primacy in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…centuries had only to do with his status as patriarch of the West alone i.e. the pope’s authority does not go beyond the jurisdiction of Rome, and the same goes for the others. Surely this would lead to a scheme of division into two parts: the West and the East. What about those areas, (back then specifically), beyond those particular cities i.e. if this was what God intended then who, in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…centuries, would hold the primacy over the various parts of the world that were unknown at the time of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem? Surely a universal primacy would be not only useful but also absolutely necessary in terms of maintaining unity such as the Petrine office. Hmm…

It was never a division into two parts, it was a division into many parts, and since Christianity did grow beyond the borders of the Roman Empire this issue did come up, and was generally settled painlessly.
I suggest looking into the history of the Christians of India to see what I mean (although it turns quite sad when Europeans show up on the scene).

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Sin is relative…Wow, that is a different perspective…probably not a view shared by all of the EOC’s…

No, in Orthodoxy, sin is not relative.

She’s has been misinformed - per her own posts this misinformation about Orthodoxy came to her from Catholics (not any Orthodox Christians) - by a Greek Orthodox Catholic woman (aka Eastern Catholic or Greek Catholic - many claim to be Orthodox, but are in fact in union with Rome and Not in union with the Orthodox Church) who told her that the Catholic Patriarchs voted on an issue & by an Eastern Catholic Monk.

What she may be misunderstanding, causing her to make that outrageous comment, is economia which is usually dispensed on a case by case basis by an Orthodox Christian spiritual father.

To understand economia in Roman Catholic terms, I’ll give you a real-life situation a devote Catholic I know personally: As a Catholic she is bound to attend Mass every Sunday, but on occasion takes a trip to visit non-Catholic family & while there it would be difficult (but not impossible) to get to Mass, so she requests a dispensation which she may or may not be given - so fat it’s always been given.

 

[Nine_Two]

One thing that Eastern Orthodoxy offers: No conversations like this one! ^

(But for real…huh? )

Latins.

I kid.

 

[joe371]

I think you touch on things that make Dzheremi’s point that much stronger.

Our idea of what a Holy Mystery is is not exactly the same as a Catholic’s idea of a sacrament. While Seven are generally accepted, especially when speaking with Westerners, they have never been doctrinally numbered. To do so would be seen as limiting how God can work in our lives. It is for this same reason that we don’t exactly deal with “validity” in the same way the West does.

We don’t call them “Mysteries” without a reason. They are the ways through which God interacts with us personally, and they are not something our human minds can ever truly understand. Attempts to legislate them are pretty meaningless.

 

[joe371]

Could be. But are not. I’m not sure what you mean by the second part?

so the LC could be wrong but they are not. How do you know the LC is not wrong?

You said: “Infallibility is something that is true without the possibility of error. One could be inerrant without being infallible…e.g., scoring 100% on a spelling test, but still having the possibility of getting less than 100%.”

So, regarding Lutheran teachings, since they do not teach infallibly, they still have the possibility of teaching erroneously - yes or no?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Forgive me, Cavaradossi, but St. Basil may disagree with the pope if it was truly warranted (such a case is readily available to us in scripture) without it hindering his role as visible head of the Church. Moreover, St. Basil confirms with his own letters the importance of that see and being in communion with it:

That is what you are reading into St. Basil’s writing (i.e., looking at first millennium documents looking to confirm a second millennium ecclesiology). Such appeals were not uniquely made by St. Basil to the bishop of Rome. In fact, he appeals with even stronger language to St. Athanasius in his six extant epistles to him.

I do not believe St. Basil would not deny the fact that to be part of the Church one had to be in communion with the bishop of Rome,

He explicitly denies this in letter 214. He congratulates the Paulinists on having received Rome’s approval, if such a rumor was true, but says that even such a testimony from men could never convince him of Paulinus’ legitimacy as bishop over Meletius.

Moreover, the bishop of Rome does not “GRANT” anything:

Their authority is of divine origin however that authority must be utilized within the confines of the Church, i.e., only those who are in communion with the head are able to exercise their authority legitimately, i.e., this is by divine institution.

Seems like the principle you outline here says explicitly that the Pope grants the legitimate and licit exercise of all episcopal authority by virtue of being in communion with other bishops. You would agree, after all, that outside of communion with the Pope, according to Roman Catholic ecclesiology, there can be no licit or legitimate exercise of episcopal authority, correct?

Was it not stated at a universal council that Pope Celestine, as perpetual successor to St. Peter, is the head of the universal Church/faith??

This is really not as clear of a question as you wish for it to be. Firstly, I deny the premise that every single statement utterance made by papal legates at an Ecumenical Council was uttered by some absolutely irrevocable authority (and this is certainly not true given the remarks of the Papal Legates concerning the exoneration of Ibas at Chalcedon by virtue of his letter to Mari, and the later reversal at Second Constantinople where that same letter was proclaimed to be heretical). In fact, it is quite inconceivable that the legates’ words would have been immediately accepted as truth, because the Greek-speaking bishops would not have immediately understood the Latin-speaking legates.

But even if I were to grant that premise, I still believe your interpretation of the Legate’s words to be flawed logically. The Legate remarks of Peter that he, “down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.” You interpret this to mean that Peter’s sole successor lives in Rome and forever shall remain there, but the actual utterance of the legate neither restricts Peter’s successors to Rome, nor makes the profession that Peter’s successors shall always remain there, but only mentions that Peter shall forever have successors. Indeed, I have no reason to accept this restrictive interpretation of the legate’s words, because numerous fathers confessed others beside the bishop of Rome as also being successors of Peter or inheritors of his power.

 

[marywarfield]

Could be. But are not. I’m not sure what you mean by the second part?

Are you sure bout that? Infallibly speaking?

 

[marywarfield]

No, in Orthodoxy, sin is not relative.

She’s has been misinformed - per her own posts this misinformation about Orthodoxy came to her from Catholics (not any Orthodox Christians) - by a Greek Orthodox Catholic woman (aka Eastern Catholic or Greek Catholic - many claim to be Orthodox, but are in fact in union with Rome and Not in union with the Orthodox Church) who told her that the Catholic Patriarchs voted on an issue & by an Eastern Catholic Monk.

What she may be misunderstanding, causing her to make that outrageous comment, is economia which is usually dispensed on a case by case basis by an Orthodox Christian spiritual father.

To understand economia in Roman Catholic terms, I’ll give you a real-life situation a devote Catholic I know personally: As a Catholic she is bound to attend Mass every Sunday, but on occasion takes a trip to visit non-Catholic family & while there it would be difficult (but not impossible) to get to Mass, so she requests a dispensation which she may or may not be given - so fat it’s always been given.

Actually no. How is I should know more on this and I am
not OC?
A. She was Greek Orthodox.
B. most Orthodox leave questions of birth control
as commonly stated between man, wife, priest and prayer.
Why? Except for abortifacients, sin depends on the reason
for committing it. Therefore- in matters of such- sin is
obviously relative.
C. You don’t understand either dispensations
or Roman economia.
I suggest you research your religion- a simple google
will bring up that info.
There is no such thing as a “dispensation” in the
RC in matters of birth control. Why? Because it
has been infallibly stated.
One cannot receive dispensation from something
that is infallibly declared. Dispensations in Orthodoxy?
Depend on individual conscience and anything is open
as Orthodox speak infallibly on nothing.

Bottom line? In RC God is creator of all life and
we are not to deliberately prevent its conception.
Orthodox disagree and believe there are occasional
and appropriate reasons for thwarting God.

 

[marywarfield]

I think you touch on things that make Dzheremi’s point that much stronger.

Our idea of what a Holy Mystery is is not exactly the same as a Catholic’s idea of a sacrament. While Seven are generally accepted, especially when speaking with Westerners, they have never been doctrinally numbered. To do so would be seen as limiting how God can work in our lives. It is for this same reason that we don’t exactly deal with “validity” in the same way the West does.

We don’t call them “Mysteries” without a reason. They are the ways through which God interacts with us personally, and they are not something our human minds can ever truly understand. Attempts to legislate them are pretty meaningless.

What good are they if they can’t be declared infallibly true without doubt and
therefore valid?
God is truth and God is infallible.
Which of course another reason abortion is declared
inherently evil. If God is the author of all life to
have an abortion is to suggest that somehow God
caused conception erroneously.
And this is a HUGE sticking point for OC.

 

[dzheremi]

What good are what if they can’t be considered infallible? The sacraments?

I must say, this conversation seems to be getting very abstract. Infallibility as exercised by the RCC is a personal power of the Pope concerning his ability to define doctrinal matters covering the subjects of faith and morals, no? If that is true (and that’s just my encyclopedia-level understanding, so it could not be; I welcome correction as needed), then I have to ask where this comes into play regarding the sacraments? The implication that there is some sort of confusion or disagreement or that the sacraments are “no good” unless you have an infallible Pope to tell you that they are in fact good strikes me as incredibly strange. I pray that I am reading you wrong…for the sake of your church and its faithful, as well as my own sanity, or what’s left of it as this thread progresses.

 

[joe371]

What good are what if they can’t be considered infallible? The sacraments?

I must say, this conversation seems to be getting very abstract. Infallibility as exercised by the RCC is a personal power of the Pope concerning his ability to define doctrinal matters covering the subjects of faith and morals, no? If that is true (and that’s just my encyclopedia-level understanding, so it could not be; I welcome correction as needed), then I have to ask where this comes into play regarding the sacraments? The implication that there is some sort of confusion or disagreement or that the sacraments are “no good” unless you have an infallible Pope to tell you that they are in fact good strikes me as incredibly strange. I pray that I am reading you wrong…for the sake of your church and its faithful, as well as my own sanity, or what’s left of it as this thread progresses.

I am not sure of the context… but I will say just one thing: no infallibility - which comes from God - no way to know absolute truth …Does God infallibly guide the EO churches into all truth?

 

[marywarfield]

What good are what if they can’t be considered infallible? The sacraments?

I must say, this conversation seems to be getting very abstract. Infallibility as exercised by the RCC is a personal power of the Pope concerning his ability to define doctrinal matters covering the subjects of faith and morals, no? If that is true (and that’s just my encyclopedia-level understanding, so it could not be; I welcome correction as needed), then I have to ask where this comes into play regarding the sacraments? The implication that there is some sort of confusion or disagreement or that the sacraments are “no good” unless you have an infallible Pope to tell you that they are in fact good strikes me as incredibly strange. I pray that I am reading you wrong…for the sake of your church and its faithful, as well as my own sanity, or what’s left of it as this thread progresses.

I understand you feel nuts. You don’t understand the
discussion. The RC never said the Pope was infallible and
it is either ignorance or malice on your part to suggest so.

Three times the Pope has spoken on behalf of the
Holy Spirit infallibly. If you cannot believe that is possible
you won’t believe 99 percent of the Christian mystery
anyway. But nevertheless let’s look at abortion.
It is becoming tiresome to repeat myself but whatever.

The RC holds God is the INTENTIONAL author of
all life. And God is infallible.
And the action of birth control or abortion
-to put it as simply as possible for all to understand-
is to suggest that God made a mistake at conception.
Don’t you understand that?
What kind of a God would He be if He was constantly
creating wrongly or by accident? I mean really people?

Someone had to say it and bless his heart the Pope did.
Abortion is always an inherently evil act.
God is always infallible in His Creations.
There is no reason ANY human on earth could
not have said INFALLIBLY the same thing. Me, you,
the Pope. Anyone can state infallibly that abortion
is always evil IF a. they believe God purposely creates
all life and b. God is infallible.

Now which part of A or B does the OC deny? That God is
the intentional author of all life or that God is infallible?

 

[dzheremi]

I understand you feel nuts. You don’t understand the
discussion. The RC never said the Pope was infallible and
it is either ignorance or malice on your part to suggest so.

What on earth…? Wow.

Uh, anyway…from Pastor Aeternus (First Vatican Council, 1869-1870):

We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex Cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church,

^ This is what I am basing my understanding on. It clearly states that such definitions are to be treated as infallible when coming from the Pope under conditions XYZ, and that this power is something which is derived and exercised “not from the consent of the Church” (this is what I meant by saying that it is a personal power which he possesses, since it’s not like it needs to be agreed upon by any other member of the church that he has taught correctly).

Three times the Pope has spoken on behalf of the
Holy Spirit infallibly. If you cannot believe that is possible
you won’t believe 99 percent of the Christian mystery
anyway.

On what basis do you make the rather large leap from the first sentence to the second? You need an infallible Pope in order to believe in Christianity?

But nevertheless let’s look at abortion.

Why? Let’s not and say we did.

Abortion is always an inherently evil act.

Yes.

God is always infallible in His Creations.

Again, yes.

There is no reason ANY human on earth could
not have said INFALLIBLY the same thing. Me, you,
the Pope. Anyone can state infallibly that abortion
is always evil IF a. they believe God purposely creates
all life and b. God is infallible.

Okay…

Now which part of A or B does the OC deny? That God is
the intentional author of all life or that God is infallible?

I am not following your train of thought here. I thought we were talking about the sacraments?

Can you please stick to one subject? I asked you if you meant that the sacraments are somehow “good for nothing” without an infallible Pope, as that’s what it seemed to me you were saying in your reply to Nine Two. That is confusing to me. Can you please explain that without bringing in other issues that muddy the waters? I’d appreciate hearing your explanation of what you meant in that reply.