What is the Eastern Orthodox view of the Catholic Church?

[spina1953]

By Western captivity I am referring to the governments of the West who do not want to acknowledge what Christianity means to them. I was using the word as an example of what undisciplined governments and peoples can mean to the Church. What has happened in the West is just a wake up call that needs our participation meaning that more of the Laity needs to come to witness for God and His Church. The problems of the West are much different than what had occurred in the East. But we need to come together more here and not be so much trying to figure each other up and pointing out too many things that really are unimportant to God. I find the Laity are the Churches greatest treasures but they can be sometimes a great burden as well when they will not cooperate in trying to understand that one Church cannot do it all. The focus of our present dilemma is actually our own unwillingness to come to know each other as we are able to. We seem to want to join this Church or that Church. Isn’t what John Paul II was addressing was that we hardly even want to know what the other can give to us? We need to focus ourselves more towards engaging into dialogue in the same manner as the Holy Father presented to us and continues to do so with the present Holy Father. As yet I do not see this among the Laity. Yes from the highest office but not from the Laity. The Pope will want the Laity to be more involve into this dialogue.

I agree wholeheartily!!!

 

[spina1953]

I also agree!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I wish this opinion were more widespread. I honestly don’t understand what our stance on these things has to do with others practicing the Catholic faith.

I think, on an emotional level, there’s an irrational sense of entitlement going on: i.e., since the Catholic Church professes that Orthodoxy’s Mysteries are valid, efficacious, grace-filled, and that Orthodox churches are sister churches in imperfect communion with us, some Catholics instinctively expect such “nice” treatment in return.

Of course, that’s ultimately irrational. One church’s decision to take what feels like a kind-hearted position cannot oblige another church to adopt a similar position with respect to the first church. It just doesn’t work that way. Truth and honesty matter more than feelings. And, of course, your church’s position is not actually uncharitable in the slightest.

But the emotional shock remains nonetheless for some Catholics. I personally have witnessed a roomful of shocked faces’ being provoked at a Theology on Tap by a Catholic priest explaining to us audience members that Orthodox Christians do not permit us to receive their Holy Eucharist (under anything resembling normal circumstances, anyway).

The priest knew what he was talking about… it took a minute or two, however, for some of the audience members even to fully digest what he was saying. That’s how shocked they were.

For my part, as I said above, I recognize that a church has the right to guard its Sacraments. The Holy Eucharist is a deeply serious matter, and if the Catholic Church sees fit to deny it to most Protestant Christians, then I don’t see how I can get all huffy when Orthodoxy says, “Sorry, but the Holy Eucharist is only for full members of our church.” That’s the right of any church to say and to enforce. It’s not even being exclusive; if you want a church’s Holy Eucharist, you’re free to join that church.

Everyone who post about eastern orthodox in the non catholic section I hope you know that there is a whole section for this. I wish protestants could get a whole section instead of being lumped in with non christians.

The Eastern Catholicism board is, as others have indicated, for matters pertaining to Eastern Catholicism, which is different from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Of course, anything pertaining to eastern theology also pertains to Eastern Catholics, so a lot of discussion concerning eastern Christianity ends up in that forum, but technically any topic that pertains specifically to the Eastern Orthodox rather than to eastern Christians in general has to go in this forum. Hope that makes sense.

I’ve long thought this forum (and all similar forums) would be greatly improved by having a “converts” section, ideally with sub-forums for converts to and from the church it is advocating. I understand why that doesn’t happen (who would want to pay for bandwith for apostates to talk about their apostasy?), but I also think it might cut down on some of the misdirected/misinformed apologetics we see from RCs who address Orthodox, and vice-versa. I have read many a Catholic Answers tract, and many of them describe a thing they call “Orthodoxy” that bears essentially no relation to anything I’ve experienced since joining the Orthodox Church some two and a half years ago. If there were a place for those who are practicing a given tradition to talk about it openly and honestly from their own viewpoints, including reasons why they find it preferable to their previous faith tradition, it would make better Catholic apologists, better/more open and honest discussions between RC and non-RC folk, and an overall healthier environment. I truly do believe that we have a lot that we could learn from each other, even as we continue to disagree on central points of theology and ecclesiology, but the current format and/or environment stifles this a bit because Orthodox know that there are some things that we must be careful when broaching (or avoid entirely), given how quickly non-Catholics can find themselves under moderation for being honest and open about our disagreements, even in the context of topics that are explicitly about our differences.

Well said.

On another note, is it really true that you guys can get in trouble merely for describing honestly what Orthodoxy professes? That surprises me… if you’re willing, do you think you could PM me with an example? I’m curious to know what topics you find must be broached carefully or avoided entirely.

I’m that curious because I can’t think of any examples. I mean, people generally spaz when you guys mention the whole “ontologically different” thing, also when other Orthodox Christians have highlighted little-known (to Catholics) differences and asserted that they are just as divisive and important as the papacy, etc… and I imagine they’d spaz just as much if an Orthodox Christian speculated that our Sacraments are invalid or something, but those aren’t things I can see an Orthodox Christian getting suspended for.

Maybe I’m wrong about that, or maybe I’m right, and you’re referring to things of which I have no conception. Help me out?

(I’ll understand if you say no, dzheremi, but I’m genuinely curious. Is there really some kind of covert gag order on certain Catholic-Orthodox topics or information?)

 

[Peter_J]

I think, on an emotional level, there’s an irrational sense of entitlement going on

That makes sense.

At the risk of getting off-topic, there was an anecdote told here, not too long ago, about an Anglican going up to an Orthodox priest to say “My bishop said you have no right to refuse me communion!”

So maybe entitlement is Western thing.

(Just kidding.)

 

[josie_L]

Well said.

On another note, is it really true that you guys can get in trouble merely for describing honestly what Orthodoxy professes? That surprises me… if you’re willing, do you think you could PM me with an example? I’m curious to know what topics you find must be broached carefully or avoided entirely.

I’m that curious because I can’t think of any examples. I mean, people generally spaz when you guys mention the whole “ontologically different” thing, also when other Orthodox Christians have highlighted little-known (to Catholics) differences and asserted that they are just as divisive and important as the papacy, etc… and I imagine they’d spaz just as much if an Orthodox Christian speculated that our Sacraments are invalid or something, but those aren’t things I can see an Orthodox Christian getting suspended for.

Maybe I’m wrong about that, or maybe I’m right, and you’re referring to things of which I have no conception. Help me out?

(I’ll understand if you say no, dzheremi, but I’m genuinely curious. Is there really some kind of covert gag order on certain Catholic-Orthodox topics or information?)

If there is a covert gag order I have a hard time wondering how this could be said with little to no fuss made by Catholic and Orthodox posters:

Originally Posted by Misplaced_Book View Post
Thank you for your reply.

You state that he gets (name removed by moderator)ut and suggestions from all over the place. That is all well and good, but that is something he “allows”…he doesn’t have to do that, and if he decided not to anymore, who could say he was wrong? You may counter that he “would never do that” but that is not the point. No Bishop has that authority or power in the first place, and it shouldn’t even be an option, or on the books at all. THAT is the point we are making.

How is there a check and balance there? The various movements may balance each other by the influence that they are allowed to exert at the Vatican, but they have no say in the final decisions…that is reserved to the Pope alone. The Pope listens to who he wants to, and disregards who he wants to. He still has supreme authority, even if he exercises it in a spirit of generosity and has a very large council of advisors and committees.

In the strictest of senses, according to the definition of the word, the Pope is a dictator because all final authority rests in him. He has final say, final veto, final authority…he is not bound by Canon Law, or any Synod. I think Father’s use of that word was unfortunate, but it is not technically inaccurate. It is akin to saying that Sola Scriptura is a heresy…while that is technically true, it is a very loaded word with many negative connotations so it is not used much anymore.** I think one could accuse Father John of being tactless or “unecumenical”, but he is not wrong.**

God be with you as well, and us all.

And let me just say that I find this highly offensive.

 

[dvdjs]

I think, on an emotional level, there’s an irrational sense of entitlement going on

Perhaps that may be true for some individuals, but…

Post-1054 relations have been highly mixed, with economy applied in good times and strictness applied in times of heightened tension. Moreover, there is the stubborn fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholics that have been received into Orthodoxy have been received without rebaptism, and without recanting anything theological - just changing affiliation - actively or passively. This all didn’t just start yesterday.

The EOC can, of course, govenr itself however it wants. It cannot, however, change history. So it is open to the change of inconsistency at least and also, arguably, hypocrisy.

 

[ScottEH]

The hostility exhibited by many people on this thread is one of the reasons why I think it’s highly unlikely we will ever see a reunion between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If the laity cannot even have a civil discussion on such a simple topic, they will never be able to accept each other. I won’t point my finger at anyone in particular, but some posters on this thread have been less than charitable.

Maybe we can take a step back and ask ourselves what we’re getting out of a post designed to bait someone else into acting in an un-Christian manner.

 

[Reuben_J]

Agreed. It is difficult to have good intention and explain your position without being attacked. I think all charity has been lost and we are surely not the people that Christ wants of us, not to mention of being unChrisrian.

 

[Nine_Two]

And let me just say that I find this highly offensive.

More recent popes haven’t acted the part, but they certainly have the power.

As Misplaced book said, your offense is over the use of a term with a stigma attached to it, not because the Pope doesn’t hold absolute authority.

 

[dzheremi]

Can I just say that I’ve already dealt with Fone Bone’s post privately, so it would be rather sad and unnecessary for that post to become the basis of further arguments between Orthodox and Catholic posters in this thread?

Hmm…I suppose I just did. Anyway, I suppose it still fits as it is one Eastern Orthodox Christian’s view, but really folks…is it necessary to argue about the Pope? Does anyone seriously expect any other person with whom they are not in communion to necessarily argue within the bounds of what your communion finds acceptable? Fr. John Morris and I argued quite a bit before I decided that it is probably better for both of us if I no longer exposed myself to his posts due to their often flagrantly offensive assertions about my communion and what we do or do not believe (again, from an OO point of view), but even in making those assertions in the way that he did I still recognize that he was doing nothing more than stating his view, in line with what he believes as an Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox, Christian. So, in a weird way, even though I voluntarily stopped exposing myself to them (not because I dislike Fr. John Morris personally or anything, but because it’d be pretty silly to respond in kind and hence risk receiving infractions for being uncharitable or unpleasant over topics that don’t even have anything to do with Catholicism), I can’t help but maintain a certain level of admiration for the fact that he even bothered to post his sincere thoughts in the first place. Would that everyone would do so!

Anyway, that’s just an example to take it out of the realm of EO-RC relations. My point is this: We have to be willing to be willing to take offense in order to hear what others sincerely believe. Heck, we have to be willing to take offense in order to understand and defend what we sincerely believe. An unchallenged belief is usually an unexamined belief, and an unexamined belief is usually just a few bad days away from being unbelief. While non-Catholics should certainly be mindful of the orientation of this message board (me too, so I hope I’m paying attention to…me), on an individual, person-to-person level, no one here or anywhere, be they Orthodox, Catholic, or other, is entitled to a disagreement that doesn’t hurt their feelings, since your personal barometer of emotions is not something that is even detectable via text post, and it sure as heck does not shape doctrine or serious apologetics in any given Church or communion.

 

[josie_L]

More recent popes haven’t acted the part, but they certainly have the power.

As Misplaced book said, your offense is over the use of a term with a stigma attached to it, not because the Pope doesn’t hold absolute authority.

No, they do not have dictatorial powers, in fact, I have responded to Misplaced book by stating that the Pope is more like a constitutional monarch, i.e., he is confined by the constitutional law of the Church. And there are many things which the Pope cannot do, i.e., he cannot dissolve the episcopate, he cannot change/take away/add to the deposit of faith, he cannot suddenly allow female priests or embrace gay marriage or allow contraceptives, he cannot annul any of the 22 ecumenical councils . . . etc. There are many things which the pope cannot do with regard to his “absolute” authority. Furthermore, he is no more “dictatorial” than was the royal steward (keeper of the keys) of the House of David, second in command to the king, which is to say he was not because his authority was/is by divine right. .

 

[josie_L]

Can I just say that I’ve already dealt with Fone Bone’s post privately, so it would be rather sad and unnecessary for that post to become the basis of further arguments between Orthodox and Catholic posters in this thread?

Hmm…I suppose I just did. Anyway, I suppose it still fits as it is one Eastern Orthodox Christian’s view, but really folks…is it necessary to argue about the Pope? Does anyone seriously expect any other person with whom they are not in communion to necessarily argue within the bounds of what your communion finds acceptable? Fr. John Morris and I argued quite a bit before I decided that it is probably better for both of us if I no longer exposed myself to his posts due to their often flagrantly offensive assertions about my communion and what we do or do not believe (again, from an OO point of view), but even in making those assertions in the way that he did I still recognize that he was doing nothing more than stating his view, in line with what he believes as an Eastern Orthodox, not Oriental Orthodox, Christian. So, in a weird way, even though I voluntarily stopped exposing myself to them (not because I dislike Fr. John Morris personally or anything, but because it’d be pretty silly to respond in kind and hence risk receiving infractions for being uncharitable or unpleasant over topics that don’t even have anything to do with Catholicism), I can’t help but maintain a certain level of admiration for the fact that he even bothered to post his sincere thoughts in the first place. Would that everyone would do so!

Anyway, that’s just an example to take it out of the realm of EO-RC relations. My point is this: We have to be willing to be willing to take offense in order to hear what others sincerely believe. Heck, we have to be willing to take offense in order to understand and defend what we sincerely believe. An unchallenged belief is usually an unexamined belief, and an unexamined belief is usually just a few bad days away from being unbelief. While non-Catholics should certainly be mindful of the orientation of this message board (me too, so I hope I’m paying attention to…me), on an individual, person-to-person level, no one here or anywhere, be they Orthodox, Catholic, or other, is entitled to a disagreement that doesn’t hurt their feelings, since your personal barometer of emotions is not something that is even detectable via text post, and it sure as heck does not shape doctrine or serious apologetics in any given Church or communion.

The words a person chooses to use when arguing matters of faith/truth matter (I think it was the first pope who said something along these lines) because there are a plethora of ways to express oneself charitably, i.e., surely people here have enough sense not to go around calling others heretics or schismatics, even if they be true, simply because it is mean-spirited.

p.s. So if I hear one more person labeling the pope a dictator I’m gonna . . . . npatrol:

 

[Nine_Two]

No, they do not have dictatorial powers, in fact, I have responded to Misplaced book by stating that the Pope is more like a constitutional monarch, i.e., he is confined by the constitutional law of the Church. And there are many things which the Pope cannot do, i.e., he cannot dissolve the episcopate, he cannot change/take away/add to the deposit of faith, he cannot suddenly allow female priests or embrace gay marriage or allow contraceptives, he cannot annul any of the 22 ecumenical councils . . . etc. There are many things which the pope cannot do with regard to his “absolute” authority. Furthermore, he is no more “dictatorial” than was the royal steward (keeper of the keys) of the House of David, second in command to the king, which is to say he was not because his authority was/is by divine right. .

I would argue a number of those assertions. But it is late, and I’m not sure it can go anywhere good.

I will say that I have had people go off on me, on this very forum, for calling the Papacy a “Monarchy”, your own terminology might be very offensive to some. It is that easy to offend.

 

[josie_L]

I would argue a number of those assertions. But it is late, and I’m not sure it can go anywhere good.

I will say that I have had people go off on me, on this very forum, for calling the Papacy a “Monarchy”, your own terminology might be very offensive to some. It is that easy to offend.

I added CONSTITUTIONAL in order to delineate the limitations of that authority, either way, if something such as the papacy with all its privileges was instituted by divine right, then it is not dictatorial, i.e., an usurpation of power.