What is the difference between Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic?

[dochawk]

No. What we need is Popes who will reaffirm the traditional teachings of the Church.

For what value of “traditional”?

There is a an observation in the EC and EO churches that, “tradition means how it was done at the time of my Grandfather’s Chrsimation.” . . . that seems to be what you’re after.

If you want serious tradition, Roman liturgy should be in greek rather than that latin vernacular latin, and the norm is for the bishops of Rome and Byzantium to be in communion. But I take it that you want something more recent than that, but before this serious of anointed popes with whom you disagree . . .

The mildest term for your rejection of RCC teaching on this subject is “uncharitable” . . .

hawk

 

[Wandile]

If you want serious tradition, Roman liturgy should be in greek rather than that latin vernacular latin

That’s not tradition, that’s antiquarianism. Latin has been used for about 1700 years. Like it or not, that’s the tradition of the Latin Church. Not everything of the early church should be resuscitated. Bear in mind antiquarianism is actually an error condemned by the church.

and the norm is for the bishops of Rome and Byzantium to be in communion.

We tried on multiple occasions but the Byzantines broke the unions twice. The original schism was the fault of both sides but the schism after Florence is squarely on the Byzantines with some help from the Turks. “Better the turban of the sultan than the tiara of the pope” as they said.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I would like to ask what do you mean by active participation. If that means receiving Eucharist, I completely agree that symbol of unity should not be done if there is no unity. If it means visiting often I suppose there can be situations where it is fine. Imagine having Orthodox wife and attending Liturgy with her occasionally (yet often in practice).

However, I wholeheartedly agree that substituting Orthodox Church for Catholic Church can never be good. To have good relations with Orthodox, Protestants, Muslims, Atheists and every human is something we are called to. To support their errors, never.

From Catholic perspective, Eastern Orthodoxy is in error of schism. That is clear truth no one can and should deny. Popes have been charitable and despite schism acted very nicely towards our Orthodox separated brethren but never would imply there is no schism. Pope is guardian of Divine Truth, not maker of it. Pope, from his very nature, can not contradict anything that was true before. What we are called to do by Vatican 2 and recent Popes is to be charitable and nice, not anti-semitic. We are however NOT called to heresy of indifferentism neither to heresy of modernism. Trent is as true as Vatican 1 or 2. To criticize using Trent in debates to make a point would be like criticizing using Bible to make a point. Both are infallible sources guided by Holy Spirit.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

For the Year of Mercy, Metropolitan Stefan and the UGCC bishops issued a decree on how to gain a plenary indulgence during the year.

And yours truly definitely believes in them.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

In 1990, when my grandmother passed away, my Orthodox uncle & aunt stood like sentinels during the funeral Liturgy. They didn’t say a single word and sat down only for the homily.

When my uncle died, we had to attend his funeral. Full Parastas in the evening, full Parastas in the morning (no Liturgy) and Panakhyda at the grave. We stood respectfully but didn’t even say “Amen” during the service because it would be a sin against the virtue of Faith.

 

[tomgosse]

The Orthodox Church believes that Christ’s death on the cross is not a punishment from God, but delivers us from sin and death.

• Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Church
• Theosis in the Eastern Orthodox Church

 

[AlNg]

Pope, from his very nature, can not contradict anything that was true before.

One Pope allows torture, another forbids it.
One Pope says the creed without the filioque, another says the creed with the filioque.
One Pope allows capital punishment, another forbids it.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

let me rephrase, Pope can not infallibly contradict anything that was true before and is true now. He can however change discipline. Pope is still subject to time and place, he is still mortal. Torture argument makes no sense therefore; there were numerous occasions pro-latin Orthodox/Eastern priests were tortured and martyred.

Filioque? This again… saying it without Filioque does not mean it is not true with it. If you say “Jesus is God” does that mean he isn’t human? If you said “Jesus became human” does that mean he isn’t God? Nope. You did not deny the other. This is just your presumption. Mathematically speaking, Filioque or Non-Filioque are both true. Denying Filioque would not be true. No Pope denied Filioque, some just did not want it in Creed yet.

Popes allowing Capital Punishment? Before Pope Francis, Capital Punishment was only allowed in circumstances where nothing else was possible- but those circumstances don’t exist nowadays in our age. Pope just forbid it because circumstances never apply anymore.

Let me strike back with one question; why does 5th Ecumenical Council, infallible Eastern Council guided by Holy Spirit state this: " 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. "(emphasis added). But Orthodox theologians deny Augustine’s theology (for example original sin) as “being cause of almost every error of the West”. Do modern Orthodox scholars have more authority than 5th Ecumenical Council? Aren’t Ecumenical Councils highest ecclesial authority in Orthodoxy? Aren’t they highest form of collegiality? Was infallible council wrong?

And you can’t dodge this with discipline being the case. This is dogmatic, doctrinal and theological in nature. If you presume to deny Augustine you deny Orthodoxy. If you support Augustine you deny Orthodoxy. There is therefore contradiction and hence Orthodoxy is wrong about this matter.

 

[AlNg]

Before Pope Francis, Capital Punishment was only allowed in circumstances where nothing else was possible

From 1815 to 1870, the Popes ordered the executions of hundreds.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Again, nothing doctrinal nor dogmatic. Proves nothing. One of Apostles sold out Jesus and betrayed them, are all Apostles now false and sinful? This is disciplinary issue. Popes are not exempt from sin, just from proclaiming doctrinal error.

 

[AlNg]

Again, nothing doctrinal nor dogmatic. Proves nothing.

Pope Innocent III 1210:
“We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgment of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but in good judgment; not inconsiderately but after mature deliberation.”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Good judgment is basically implying what I said about conditions. I’ll just quote myself. Saint Paul said State has power of the sword and Saint Augustine implied same about Church. Would you presume to deny Saint Paul’s teaching?

Capital Punishment was only allowed in circumstances where nothing else was possible- but those circumstances don’t exist nowadays in our age. Pope just forbid it because circumstances never apply anymore.

 

[AlNg]

From 1815 to 1870, the Popes ordered the executions of hundreds.

Proves nothing. One of Apostles sold out Jesus and betrayed them, are all Apostles now false and sinful? This is disciplinary issue. Popes are not exempt from sin, just from proclaiming doctrinal error.

The Popes from 1815 to 1870 were holy men dedicated to Our Lord and to His Holy Catholic Church.
His Holiness Pope Pius VII
His Holiness Pope Leo XII
His Holiness Pope Pius VIII
His Holiness Gregory XVI
His Holiness Pius IX
These were men of extraordinary holiness and sanctity. After I mentioned the popes of this period, 1815 to 1870, Mr. Orbis brings up the fact that one of the twelve Apostles sold out Jesus and betrayed Him and then questions as to whether or not all Apostles were false and sinful. And Mr. Orbis says that Popes are not exempt from sin. I am at a loss to understand what the betrayal of Jesus by one of the Apostles has to do with the declarations and activities of these Holy and dedicated Popes who reigned during the period in question. I do not understand why the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was brought up in this discussion on capital punishment?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’m saying that sins of one Pope do not discredit others, neither of two Popes, three…
Same would apply to sin not discrediting entire person.

Popes are not exempt from sin, yes. Peter himself has sinned numerous times in Scriptures and yet was Rock upon which Church was built. Their conscience is known to God who made them Saints. We can judge their actions perhaps, but they are ultimately in Heaven. We ought to take example from them in things that are pleasing to God. Capital Punishment itself was justified IF it was to protect people from someone and there was no other way to reform the person or contain him. Right now however, we have means to reform or contain person. Therefore those conditions do not apply anymore and therefore capital punishment is now not plausible. Read St. Augustine’s ideas about Just War, similar concept.