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

[marywarfield]

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

Me too.

But apparently the question was put “What Does
Orthodoxy Offer that Eastern Catholicism Does Not?”

And my answer is “unwillingness to use what they have”.
OC is simply reluctant to introduce the fullness of
God to the rest of the world. They know who He is,
they contain the fullness within but are somehow
reluctant to share Him, believing proclaiming who
and what He is would be “disobedient”.

What OC has to offer that EC doesn’t in my opinion
is a whole lot of sludge in the gears.

 

[marywarfield]

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.

Ah thank you. Not Internet proficient especially
on an I Phone. So I bolded my response.
I will put your directions on favorites lol

 

[Peter_J]

Idk, the Melkites (in union with Rome) that I personally know refer to themselves as Orthodox.

Yes, I myself have many times used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. Note two things however: I generally don’t write it without the quotation marks, and I definitely don’t just say “I’m Orthodox” without a qualifier. Even so, the phrase is somewhat controverted – cf frjohnmorris. Rome’s position, in brief, is that Vatican I, Trent, etc are ecumenical council, and hence that their teaching are mandatory for all Catholics including Melkites.

 

[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.

Really? Not the same?

The US Council of Catholic Bishops on
the Visible and Invisible Reality of the Sacraments
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/

The Orthodox of Antioch on the Mysteries (called sacraments in the title)
antiochian.org/discover/sacraments

Hmmm. Calling something a mystery doesn’t make it
more mysterious.

 

[marywarfield]

Yes, I myself have many times used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. Note two things however: I generally don’t write it without the quotation marks, and I definitely don’t just say “I’m Orthodox” without a qualifier. Even so, the phrase is somewhat controverted – cf frjohnmorris. Rome’s position, in brief, is that Vatican I, Trent, etc are ecumenical council, and hence that their teaching are mandatory for all Catholics including Melkites.

The Melkite Monks in Ukiah never tell me they are
Orthodox. Just joyfully Catholic according to Melkite
tradition.
They don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet.
Maybe they didn’t know?

 

[Peter_J]

They don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet.

Impossible!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Nine_Two;11825475:

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…

No argument, but all are required belief which is where infallible comes into play.
Nine_Two;11825475:

I said what a “Mystery” is. Is that the same as the RC definition? Does the idea of infallibility make sense under that definition?..

Sure it does, in that the Sacraments are mysteries as in the Eucharist, Baptism or Marriage for example means it was elevated by Christ Himself, in His participation in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), to be one of the seven sacraments. Then marriage is understood from supernatural, then to elements of a natural marriage. Most definitely its infallible as is the Eucharist, Baptism and so forth because of the supernatural.
Nine_Two;11825475:

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.

I’d have to see what was said by the Saint. Nevertheless it sounds like what I’m talking about between what is supernatural then means the requirements of natural marriage…
Nine_Two;11825475:

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?.

They all said something how? I showed you the Patriarch above.
Nine_Two;11825475:

When did I say anything like that?.

We’ve had the conversation here a few times about different teachings being acceptable and on the remission of sin.
Nine_Two;11825475:

I’m merely trying to clarify that we don’t look at them the same way as the West.

And I’m suggesting the East has a few ways of looking at them and depending who your talking too. And I gave you an example, which lead to my last post above.

 

[Nine_Two]

Really? Not the same?

The US Council of Catholic Bishops on
the Visible and Invisible Reality of the Sacraments
usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments/

The Orthodox of Antioch on the Mysteries (called sacraments in the title)
antiochian.org/discover/sacraments

Hmmm. Calling something a mystery doesn’t make it
more mysterious.

Did you actually read what Fr. Thomas wrote? It was quite in line with what I wrote - certainly didn’t contradict it.

 

[Nine_Two]

No argument, but all are required belief which is where infallible comes into play.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I must assume that I have no idea what you mean by “infallible”. Do you mean they’ve been infallibly defined?

They all said something how? I showed you the Patriarch above.

You mean your quote of Patriarch Jeremiah? First a Patriarch saying something doesn’t make it doctrine, but most importantly, what he said doesn’t disagree with what I said (and in fact agrees with what I believe that I didn’t say). I’m not making the argument some have made that there are only two, or only five sacraments (or zero, as you strangely seem to think I’m saying). I’m saying that we don’t number them. I’ll expand on that now, most (and everyone, including those priests and bishops I’ve spoken to, and as that quote of Patriarch Jeremiah says) would say there are more than seven.

We’ve had the conversation here a few times about different teachings being acceptable and on the remission of sin.

We may have discussed the issue of the sacraments/mysteries, but I certainly have never said that Baptism is not a Holy Mystery. If you’re going to use what I’ve said in the past against me at least have the decency to quote it, with a link so I can actually see the context. Perhaps even admit I was wrong. However on this I’m certainly not wrong, I certainly have never, and would never deny the place of Baptism in the Church, as a Holy Mystery of Christ.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

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

Me, too. I feel like my brain is being taken in circles in the shape of a triangle…what?! Exactly. lol

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Yes, I myself have many times used the phrase “Orthodox in communion with Rome”. Note two things however: I generally don’t write it without the quotation marks, and I definitely don’t just say “I’m Orthodox” without a qualifier. Even so, the phrase is somewhat controverted – cf frjohnmorris. Rome’s position, in brief, is that Vatican I, Trent, etc are ecumenical council, and hence that their teaching are mandatory for all Catholics including Melkites.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[marywarfield]

Did you actually read what Fr. Thomas wrote? It was quite in line with what I wrote - certainly didn’t contradict it.

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?

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?

 

[sharpag]

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

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

 

[joe371]

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.

 

[joe371]

Are you infallibly sure I’m not

The Bible is the infallible word of God, and the bible reminds us that the Holy Spirit will infallibly guide Jesus’ fallible church leaders into all truth until the end of time. It’s a promise of perpetuity, as per Matthew 16 (…and the gates of hell will not overcome it), John 16 (But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth, and John 14 (And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever). Pretty awesome the way God keeps His promise.

If God is infallibly guiding His church into all truth, then His fallible church teaches infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus only. God gets all the credit in view of the fact that all people are fallible!!! Surely God could ineffably/infallibly guide His church comprised of all fallible folks? He infallibly guided the fallible apostles (the very first leaders of His church). The question I had to ask myself was: did God stop infallibly guiding His church after the apostolic age, or did God continue to infallibly guide His fallible church into all truth until the end of time! I concluded, based on scripture, that God will continue to infallibly guide every generation of leaders, within His church, until the end of time. After all every generation is entitled to infallible truth; not just the first generation comprised of all fallible leaders - agreed?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Actually, no, they did not acquiesce. The Senate refused to exclude Dioscoros from being seated until specific charges were brought against him, meaning that Poe Leo simply saying that Dioscoros should not be seated among the council did not itself warrant excluding him.

“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

This approaches the matter of a first millennium council from the anachronistic lense of a late second millennium ecclesiology. The legates and the pope were not understood as having the authority to nullify what was considered valid, which is why the council for two years was official religious policy in the Eastern half of the Empire. Rather, they only had the ability to object that what was regarded as valid by some was in fact not valid. It was, therefore, not by the Pope’s authority that the Second Council of Ephesus was found to be null by the Council of Chalcedon, but it was by the fact that the Second Council of Ephesus was conducted improperly under Patriarch Dioscoros’ Presidency.

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?

 

[joe371]

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?

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?

They are the same. Eastern Orthodox Church:

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

 

[Per_Crucem]

The Bible is the infallible word of God, and the bible reminds us that the Holy Spirit will infallibly guide Jesus’ fallible church leaders into all truth until the end of time. It’s a promise of perpetuity, as per Matthew 16 (…and the gates of hell will not overcome it), John 16 (But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth, and John 14 (And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever). Pretty awesome the way God keeps His promise.

I think, though, there is a great difference between saying that the Holy Spirit will guide the church and that the church will never have false teachers in it. That is in Scripture, too. There must be a standard to determine when false teachers come along. That standard cannot be the church itself, or then the danger of circularity enters in.

If God is infallibly guiding His church into all truth, then His fallible church teaches infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus only. God gets all the credit in view of the fact that all people are fallible!!!

Negatron! The apostles left us an infallible standard to determine when the church is right or wrong.

Surely God could ineffably/infallibly guide His church comprised of all fallible folks? He infallibly guided the fallible apostles (the very first leaders of His church). The question I had to ask myself was: did God stop infallibly guiding His church after the apostolic age, or did God continue to infallibly guide His fallible church into all truth until the end of time! I concluded, based on scripture, that God will continue to infallibly guide every generation of leaders, within His church, until the end of time. After all every generation is entitled to infallible truth; not just the first generation comprised of all fallible leaders - agreed?

Well, he could, yes. I just don’t believe it is taught that the authority within the church itself needs be infallible. Only the Guide. He does still guide the church, that much is true (especially when it is in need of reformation )

Be that as it may, I don’t worry about the eternal destination of (many) Catholics. I worry more about the atheists, secularists, and namby pamby evangelicals.

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11826478]I think, though, there is a great difference between saying that the Holy Spirit will guide the church and that the church will never have false teachers in it. That is in Scripture, too. There must be a standard to determine when false teachers come along. That standard cannot be the church itself, or then the danger of circularity enters in.

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?

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. Very sad. There really are only 2 options, if in fact truth is infallibly knowable: 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?

Negatron! The apostles left us an infallible standard to determine when the church is right or wrong.

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…

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem

Well, he could, yes. I just don’t believe it is taught that the authority within the church itself needs be infallible. Only the Guide. He does still guide the church, that much is true (especially when it is in need of reformation )

Be that as it may, I don’t worry about the eternal destination of (many) Catholics. I worry more about the atheists, secularists, and namby pamby evangelicals.

If God did not, and does not continue to infallibly guide His church, then there is no assurance that my sister is wrong about her symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. She will simply agree with you and say: we have an infallible Bible, with no one to infallibly discern the truth found in it, all the while claiming to be moved by the Holy Spirit when she teaches truth. :whackadoo:

Regarding the OP: I eventually leaned that the laity within Eastern Orthodoxy, play a role in discerning doctrinal truth, in an official capacity. That is something offered that Eastern Catholicism doesn’t?