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

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Your gonna have to elaborate here. What does “generally accepted” mean? You don’t have to accept there validity in you congregation? They are not infallible? You might want to re-think this.

The Sacraments are infallible or not? And what do you mean by not “exactly” the same, other than expression?

They have been doctrinally numbered and by your Church. And no the Seven which are counted doesn’t limit God, doesn’t stand to reason. Since there are “at least” seven Sacraments and according to “your Church”. That is unless the Patriarchs can say whatever they want and the faith full are allowed to believe what they want. Then again I remember this conversation about confusion with Baptism so its no surprise.

Is it still OK to believe Baptism for the Remission of sin isn’t required in the EO? You don’t have a Doctrine here, so you can believe what, exactly? But you still see no problem here? I guess this is what “generally accepted” means?

“Mysteries” you would think the word had an EO patent they way your speaking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

The right to believe Baptism isn’t for the remission of sin? I seem to remember you were a little confused about this last time around also. How are we today with the Creed? You know the Creed which the EO is so concerned about but its OK to believe Baptism isn’t for the remission of sin?

How’s that, are we “all” on the same topic now? “Sacraments”

It must have been the Cherry-Picking and different comprehension of the Cherry Picked reading which led to these different understandings? Like John Romanides for example?

 

[GaryTaylor]

May 15, 1576, Patriarch Jeremias - insists that there are “at least seven Sacraments”.

He insisted, does that mean “anything”?

Perhaps the conversation is different with Catholics and Protestants. Or you don’t have to believe what the Patriarch stated, or all the EO sights are wrong? I’m rather confused.

If you want the John Romanides links let me know. But remember…

The Church- “We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith.” 5th Ecumenical Council

That’s what the Catholic Church has the EO doesn’t. Good thing you all are having a Council. I see the Patriarchs are “confused” and have various thoughts on the Primacy of Rome. Bartholomew doesn’t agree with Krill. And Bartholomew holds the second chair of honor. Seems to me Krill has a different understanding here. You see “why” we are not proceeding in this all important area?

But those can be googled. Just type your favorite Patriarch in the search and add “Primacy of Rome” And presto…

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=84145

And if you continue you will see “various” thinking But what the heck we are talking Sacraments. But the point about various opinions does seem a consistent.

So as to the…OP “consistency” of consensus. Here you have none?

This confusion then becomes apparent here on CAF. We are sorry we don’t agree with you. And you are certainly entitled to all the various opinions. But frankly that’s for you guys to address, “then” we can have a focused conversation.

Much love and peace.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In my opinion being in the CC as opposed to the EO is in accord with Jesus Christ, scripture and Church unity. The EO, doesn’t have a universal voice for Church unity, again imho as indicated above this is the issue. This issue takes on a different meaning in various cultural-social-national areas again as indicated above with various views of the primacy. The posts above are not to debate points we all discussed many tines here. Nor to rehash old debates and complexities of them, Its to realize what many of us consider a very real issue in orthodoxy. There is no unity without consensus, and there is no consensus.

There has been three Popes to date willing to discuss the Primacy and the Popes responsibility and authority. Doesn’t seem to be any resolve, not because Rome doesn’t dialogue with various Popes and Patriarchs, but because there are various views of the Primacy unresolved in the EO in relation to responsibility and authority. Let alone the woeful situation with the Bishop of Rome in Russia which is a cultural-social-national view.

 

[Peter_J]

Inerrantly, yes. Infallibly, no. A minor, but huge difference.

It is for us as well (assuming something can be “minor, but huge” ).

(On a side note, when I checked this thread this morning I discovered it has about 3 dozen new posts. I’m going to try to resist the temptation to post a bunch of responses … If I did, I’m sure that the next thing I knew, the whole morning would be wasted. So, to all participants in the most recent conversation, I wish you good luck.)

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is for us as well (assuming something can be “minor, but huge” ).

(On a side note, when I checked this thread this morning I discovered it has about 3 dozen new posts. I’m going to try to resist the temptation to post a bunch of responses … If I did, I’m sure that the next thing I knew, the whole morning would be wasted. So, to all participants in the most recent conversation, I wish you good luck.)

Haha, Peter, I just noticed that too. Oh, by the way, my wife is Catholic and so we attended a Melkite liturgy in Milwaukee last Sunday. Beautiful stuff, right there.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Are you sure bout that? Infallibly speaking?

Are you infallibly sure I’m not

 

[Per_Crucem]

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?

Inasmuch as they are summaries of what Scripture teaches, they are inerrant. They are only not infallible because they are not, of themselves, inspired by God. Only God is infallible.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Earlier you said she was a Catholic, specifically a Greek Orthodox Catholic who follows a Patriarch - which would refer to a Melkite Greek Catholic who has a Patriarch that is in communion with Rome.

The Catholic Church is clear that woman may use abortive forms of medication & surgeries as long as the use of them is not intended to abort a child - per Pro-Life protest speaking on Catholic Answers. They gave some examples - a pregnant woman with cancer in the uterus may have surgery to remove the uterus based on the intent being to remove the cancer, but had the negative side affect of killing her baby. Another example, if the birth control pill fixes an ailment the woman is suffering, she can take it for that purpose.

An Orthodox spiritual father and a couple may end up discussing and receive a blessing to temporarily use a non-abortive birth control such as NFP - but you’re right, the spiritual father who knows the couple will discern whether or not such a dramatic thing is necessary for the health well being of the couple and their existing children.

In Orthodoxy, everything is surrendered to God and every one has a spiritual father to whom obedience is due. Orthodoxy isn’t just a “Jesus and me” religion. Christ established His Church to guide and direct us in all things!

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.

 

[Peter_J]

Earlier you said she was a Catholic, specifically a Greek Orthodox Catholic who follows a Patriarch -

For purposes of this forum “Catholic” is generally agreed to mean a member of the Roman Communion (unless otherwise specified, e.g. The Anglican Catholic Church or the Polish National Catholic Church, etc) … but on an Orthodox forum, wouldn’t “Catholic” mean Orthodox?

Anyhow, if the Roman Communion was meant, you at least wouldn’t say “Orthodox Catholic”.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The right to believe Baptism isn’t for the remission of sin? I seem to remember you were a little confused about this last time around also. How are we today with the Creed? You know the Creed which the EO is so concerned about but its OK to believe Baptism isn’t for the remission of sin?

How’s that, are we “all” on the same topic now? “Sacraments”

It must have been the Cherry-Picking and different comprehension of the Cherry Picked reading which led to these different understandings? Like John Romanides for example?

Baptism does remit sin, but not all persons baptized have sin - for example: Jesus, Mary, babies and those with no mental capacity to sin.

 

[marywarfield]

Earlier you said she was a Catholic, specifically a Greek Orthodox Catholic who follows a Patriarch - which would refer to a Melkite Greek Catholic who has a Patriarch that is in communion with Rome.

The Catholic Church is clear that woman may use abortive forms of medication & surgeries as long as the use of them is not intended to abort a child - per Pro-Life protest speaking on Catholic Answers. They gave some examples - a pregnant woman with cancer in the uterus may have surgery to remove the uterus based on the intent being to remove the cancer, but had the negative side affect of killing her baby. Another example, if the birth control pill fixes an ailment the woman is suffering, she can take it for that purpose.

An Orthodox spiritual father and a couple may end up discussing and receive a blessing to temporarily use a non-abortive birth control such as NFP - but you’re right, the spiritual father who knows the couple will discern whether or not such a dramatic thing is necessary for the health well being of the couple and their existing children.

In Orthodoxy, everything is surrendered to God and every one has a spiritual father to whom obedience is due. Orthodoxy isn’t just a “Jesus and me” religion. Christ established His Church to guide and direct us in all things!

A. She said Orthodox. I know of NO Orthodox churches
in Communion with Rome. Please list them for me.
B. she did not want me to have an abortion. She did
not want me to end an existing pregnancy. She wanted a tubal ligation
to prevent any future children based on a random
supposition that IF I became pregnant I MIGHT die,
but not necessarily.
Please show me in the RC where that is a permissible
action.
C. This was thirty years ago. I distemember whether
she said Patriarchs or what. My understanding was
somehow her own church had some sort of council
that left these decisions to the women. My understanding
from counseling other Orthodox women who have
had miscarriages stillborns and abortions that this
permission for birth control and tubal ligation is
the norm not the exception.

D. If the Orthodox opinion is that all must be obedient
to God and all submitted to God- then answer
the following- is God infallible?

If the answer is yes God is infallible if I say God
is infallible is there some possibility I could be wrong?
Because I’m a fallible human being, does my stating
God is infallible subject to error?

If yes than God is NOT infallible is he?

If God Himself is not infallible than the Orthodox yes
have made their point and the Petrine seat should
step down immediately.

If God is infallible then the Orthodox should rightly
assume that he who says God is infallible is a fallible
human being and has spoken infallibly on Gods infallibility.
And should immediately recognize their own error
in refusing to state clearly who and what God actually is.

If God is the creator intentionally of all living beings
and is the creator of conception do the Orthodox
then put forth that the infallible God makes mistakes
in conception? If so God is not infallible.
If God, being infallible, cannot make a mistake in
conception, then there is no possibility that there is
ever a divine reason for birth control or abortion.
If there is never a holy reason to assume that God
erred in the conception of s human being within a
human being than all cases of abortion become
a matter of grave issue and abortion becomes
an inherently evil act.

If the Pope states this, defends God’s infallibility
in matters of procreation, he himself is a fallible
human being who has made an infallible statement.
It is the subject being addressed that is infallible in
Nature and not the Pope himself.

So what I see when I view all the Orthodox views
on the subject on CA is a. Either the Orthodox believe
still that their God is not infallible and could potentially
err so do not allow the nature of His infallibility
to be stated by fallible humans, or B. they know
God is infallible but refuse to state such as an infallible
statement because of either obstinate or fear
of reprisal but who knows why?

If God is infallible, than my saying God is infallible
IS infallible- not me but the statement.

And it should be considered infallible coming from
the mouth of any Tom, Dick and Harry and should
have not caused fear and anger out of the mouth
of the Pope. It should not have taken a Pope to
say it- you should have said solong ago.

Unless of course a nagging suspicion remains that
there might be the occasional error on the part of
God, he makes mistakes when creating life that
are subject to our correction on His behalf.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

For purposes of this forum “Catholic” is generally agreed to mean a member of the Roman Communion (unless otherwise specified, e.g. The Anglican Catholic Church or the Polish National Catholic Church, etc) … but on an Orthodox forum, wouldn’t “Catholic” mean Orthodox?

Anyhow, if the Roman Communion was meant, you at least wouldn’t say “Orthodox Catholic”.

Idk, the Melkites (in union with Rome) that I personally know refer to themselves as Orthodox. They tell me even their Patriarch calls himself Orthodox. In that light reading her post, I understood her to clearly be Catholic in the modern-understanding of the term.

 

[Josephene]

Have not read most of the posts but having seen this heading , at the main page , thought the following also would be of help -

most of those who are devotees of the Divine Mercy devotion are getting ready for The Feast , which would include the prayers that pertain specifically to the Holy Wounds from the separation in the Churches , this esp. so , one would think in those who have valid sacraments yet are separated , thus helping to bring forth heart felt prayers in this area -

ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm#5

Uniting the pain of separations in difft realms , such as even the pain of a parent who has to leave a child at day care , to that of The Holy Face who would have also taken up the pain of separation from His parents / land ( such as during the flight to Egypt ) at difft stages and offering all such , in unity with that of The Lord , to help us all , to do His holy will , in and through His Church , thus could help to make the prayer experience a deeper and more meaningful one .

Thus , we also get to contemplate The Holy Face , that would have taken in the pain and anxiety of His parents , when He stays behind in the Temple , at age 12 , doing so ,possibly to remind us through His holy parents that it had to be so , in order to help many to undo the possessive tendencies
from fallen nature that want to hold on to ties that are mostly of nature, not giving primacy to what is God ordained, with the sad results that St.Paul warns us about in Romans !

Similarly so , during The Stations of The Cross,beholding The Holy Face that also has taken in the pain of The Mother …and so on …offering all up, in union , to The Father , for conversions and against enemy ploys /claims , that have led to many being separated from Him , in disbelief / fear , with its devsatating results world over !

A Blessed Lenten Season !

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I don’t think I fully understand what you are trying to convey to me, do let me ask you some clarifying questions:

1. Are you saying that not only the Catholic Pope is infallible, but all Catholics “Tom, Dick & Harry” are infallible when they speak because God is infallible?
2. Are you saying that somewhere on this CA Forum one or more Orthodox Christians have stated that God is fallible?
3. Are you saying that Orthodox must immediately repent because they’re in sin because they don’t believe everyone, including the Catholic Pope is infallible?

For your points I did understand, or believe I do:

You’ve counseled Orthodox women who used tubal ligation and came to the conclusion that this must be an accepted practice in the Orthodox Church; however, bodily mutilation has always been condemned by the Orthodox Church. The last statistics I heard on Catholic Radio is that the majority of U.S. Catholic women either are using or did use artificial birth control, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church condemns that practice. For Catholic women, I personally know had abortions, this doesn’t mean the Catholic Church had changed it’s stance on abortion. Likewise, please don’t judge the teachings of the Orthodox Church on the bad actions of the many Orthodox women you have personally met that were clearly not living up to the Orthodox Faith.

The Orthodox Church has proclaimed God is Trinity - three district Persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The Son, Jesus Christ, became Man so that man might become divine through direct participation in the divine nature, not in His Divine Essence which is unknowable, but in His Divine Energies. The process is known as Theosis.

A. She said Orthodox. I know of NO Orthodox churches
in Communion with Rome. Please list them for me.
B. she did not want me to have an abortion. She did
not want me to end an existing pregnancy. She wanted a tubal ligation
to prevent any future children based on a random
supposition that IF I became pregnant I MIGHT die,
but not necessarily.
Please show me in the RC where that is a permissible
action.
C. This was thirty years ago. I distemember whether
she said Patriarchs or what. My understanding was
somehow her own church had some sort of council
that left these decisions to the women. My understanding
from counseling other Orthodox women who have
had miscarriages stillborns and abortions that this
permission for birth control and tubal ligation is
the norm not the exception.

D. If the Orthodox opinion is that all must be obedient
to God and all submitted to God- then answer
the following- is God infallible?

If the answer is yes God is infallible if I say God
is infallible is there some possibility I could be wrong?
Because I’m a fallible human being, does my stating
God is infallible subject to error?

If yes than God is NOT infallible is he?

If God Himself is not infallible than the Orthodox yes
have made their point and the Petrine seat should
step down immediately.

If God is infallible then the Orthodox should rightly
assume that he who says God is infallible is a fallible
human being and has spoken infallibly on Gods infallibility.
And should immediately recognize their own error
in refusing to state clearly who and what God actually is.

If God is the creator intentionally of all living beings
and is the creator of conception do the Orthodox
then put forth that the infallible God makes mistakes
in conception? If so God is not infallible.
If God, being infallible, cannot make a mistake in
conception, then there is no possibility that there is
ever a divine reason for birth control or abortion.
If there is never a holy reason to assume that God
erred in the conception of s human being within a
human being than all cases of abortion become
a matter of grave issue and abortion becomes
an inherently evil act.

If the Pope states this, defends God’s infallibility
in matters of procreation, he himself is a fallible
human being who has made an infallible statement.
It is the subject being addressed that is infallible in
Nature and not the Pope himself.

So what I see when I view all the Orthodox views
on the subject on CA is a. Either the Orthodox believe
still that their God is not infallible and could potentially
err so do not allow the nature of His infallibility
to be stated by fallible humans, or B. they know
God is infallible but refuse to state such as an infallible
statement because of either obstinate or fear
of reprisal but who knows why?

If God is infallible, than my saying God is infallible
IS infallible- not me but the statement.

And it should be considered infallible coming from
the mouth of any Tom, Dick and Harry and should
have not caused fear and anger out of the mouth
of the Pope. It should not have taken a Pope to
say it- you should have said solong ago.

Unless of course a nagging suspicion remains that
there might be the occasional error on the part of
God, he makes mistakes when creating life that
are subject to our correction on His behalf.

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

Abortion, nor the question of infallibility, have anything to do with what I said and abortion is very clearly against the teachings of the Church. Perhaps you meant to quote another post - though I can’t see anyone sticking up for abortion. That doctor of yours certainly wasn’t a theologian or an authoritative teacher on the precepts of Orthodoxy if that is what you’re getting at.

 

[Nine_Two]

Your gonna have to elaborate here. What does “generally accepted” mean? You don’t have to accept there validity in you congregation? They are not infallible? You might want to re-think this.

I mean if you say “Baptism is a Holy Mystery”, people aren’t going to argue with you, same for the other six which are Roman Catholics call Sacraments.

The Sacraments are infallible or not? And what do you mean by not “exactly” the same, other than expression?

I said what a “Mystery” is. Is that the same as the RC definition? Does the idea of infallibility make sense under that definition?
Lets look at Marriage. According to Scripture, and the Fathers, a marriage between two Christians is a work of God, and is sacred. A marriage between two non-Christians has none of that. However, I believe it was St. Ambrose of Milan (though I might be wrong, it was several years ago), should one of the partners in a marriage convert to Christianity, their faith in God takes that marriage to the same level as a marriage between two Christians - it is now a sacred joining.
Now in all of this, where does the concept of infallibility come in? I just don’t see it.

They have been doctrinally numbered and by your Church. And no the Seven which are counted doesn’t limit God, doesn’t stand to reason. Since there are “at least” seven Sacraments and according to “your Church”. That is unless the Patriarchs can say whatever they want and the faith full are allowed to believe what they want. Then again I remember this conversation about confusion with Baptism so its no surprise.

They have? Every priest and Bishop I’ve ever spoken to about/heard speak on the subject has said something quite different. Can you provide documents to back it up?

Is it still OK to believe Baptism for the Remission of sin isn’t required in the EO? You don’t have a Doctrine here, so you can believe what, exactly? But you still see no problem here? I guess this is what “generally accepted” means?

When did I say anything like that?

“Mysteries” you would think the word had an EO patent they way your speaking.

Excuse me? Why the sudden hostility? I’m merely trying to clarify that we don’t look at them the same way as the West.

 

[marywarfield]

I don’t think I fully understand what you are trying to convey to me, do let me ask you some clarifying questions:

1. Are you saying that not only the Catholic Pope is infallible, but all Catholics “Tom, Dick & Harry” are infallible when they speak because God is infallible?
   I’m sorry. What part of I am not infallible and the Pope is not
   infallible did you not understand? And what part of if God is infallible
   then stating “God is infallible” is an infallible statement
   did you not understand? God is infallible. Please show
   the fallacy in the statement that God is infallible. If you cannot
   find the fallacy in the statement that God is infallible, you
   are left with no choice but to admit that I, a fallible human,
   just made an infallible statement. Something the Orthodox
   claim cannot be done.
2. Are you saying that somewhere on this CA Forum one or more Orthodox Christians have stated that God is fallible?
3. Are you saying that Orthodox must immediately repent because they’re in sin because they don’t believe everyone, including the Catholic Pope is infallible?

For your points I did understand, or believe I do:

You’ve counseled Orthodox women who used tubal ligation and came to the conclusion that this must be an accepted practice in the Orthodox Church; however, bodily mutilation has always been condemned by the Orthodox Church. The last statistics I heard on Catholic Radio is that the majority of U.S. Catholic women either are using or did use artificial birth control, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church condemns that practice. For Catholic women, I personally know had abortions, this doesn’t mean the Catholic Church had changed it’s stance on abortion. Likewise, please don’t judge the teachings of the Orthodox Church on the bad actions of the many Orthodox women you have personally met that were clearly not living up to the Orthodox Faith.

The Orthodox Church has proclaimed God is Trinity - three district Persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The Son, Jesus Christ, became Man so that man might become divine through direct participation in the divine nature, not in His Divine Essence which is unknowable, but in His Divine Energies. The process is known as Theosis.

 

[josie_L]

I’m having a hard time following this thread. Just saying.

 

[josie_L]

I’m sorry. What part of I am not infallible and the Pope is notinfallible did you not understand? And what part of if God is infallible
then stating “God is infallible” is an infallible statement did you not understand? God is infallible. Please show the fallacy in the statement that God is infallible. If you cannot
find the fallacy in the statement that God is infallible, you are left with no choice but to admit that I, a fallible human, just made an infallible statement. Something the Orthodox
claim cannot be done.

Mary to wrap quotes around certain paragraphs you are responding to, use the bubble quote (to the right of the icon with the mountains), i.e., highlight the part you want to respond to, then press on the bubble quote to wrap or envelope it. This way you can segment the post into particular parts you can respond to.