D
dvdjs
Guest
I agree…
- Status
A
AlNg
Guest
I didn’t say it was.
A
AlNg
Guest
Do Eastern Catholics believe in Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception? What is the fasting requirement for Eastern Catholics before reception of Holy Communion?
S
Spyridon
Guest
Purgatory and Immaculate Conception are fully orthodox doctrines.
The fasting requirement depends on which particular Church you speak of.
The fasting requirement depends on which particular Church you speak of.
A
AlNg
Guest
Eastern Catholicism accepts them, but Eastern Orthodox do not.
At the local Eastern Catholic Church the fasting requirements are nothing like those of the local Eastern Orthodox Church which are much more severe.
C
Casilda
Guest
He is anti-Catholic AND had unethical medical opinions, short description, the devil incarnate. Yes, he bothered me.
D
dvdjs
Guest
This is not quite right.
They are integral parts of the teaching of the Catholic Church. They are not in EOC, but neither have they bee definitively rejected or contradicted by integral teachings.
Fasting as a severe requirement is really not part of the Eastern mindset. Have a look at Chrysostom’s famous homily at Pascha to see about severe fasting requirements.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Patriarch Bartholomew:
“we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don’t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception.”
Patriach Bartholomew on the "Immaculate Conception"
From: 30 Days The Catholic Church this year celebrates the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. How does the Eastern Christian and Byzantine Tradition celebrate the Conception of Mary and her full and immaculate holiness? Bartholomew I
www.orthodoxytoday.org
And Bishop WareL
Today most if not all Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory (Ware T. The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, London, 1997, p.255)
But the Eastern Catholic Churches accept the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory? So I disagree with the statement that
I believe that there are many other differences in addition to the papacy.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
So - who is he, Pope? BTW Ware, whom you later cite, had this as an acceptable theologumen. Lev Gillet wrote expansively in support to fit. And St Gregory Palamas developed an intricate theology in support of it. Etc.
That might be, if you polled them, but there is no conciliar finding on the subject. Moreover, if you read the critiques you will be hard pressed to find one that accurately expresses the de fide elements of the Catholic teaching.
It is easy to determine what is considered essential in Catholic teaching. Orthodox lack a working mechanism for this. You can’t just proof-text internet essays and say: there it is.
A
AlNg
Guest
It is just not the same as in Eastern Catholicism, which accepts the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory. The claim I disagree with is thatAlNg:
So - who is he, Pope? BTW Ware, whom you later cite, had this as an acceptable theologumen. Lev Gillet wrote expansively in support to fit. And St Gregory Palamas developed an intricate theology in support of it. Etc.
That might be, if you polled them, but there is no conciliar finding on the subject. Moreover, if you read the critiques you will be hard pressed to find one that accurately expresses the de fide elements of the Catholic teaching.
It is easy to determine what is considered essential in Catholic teaching. Orthodox lack a working mechanism for this. You can’t just proof-text internet essays and say: there it is.
“The papacy is the only difference between Eastern Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians”
It is not true. There are other differences. That is my point.
You must know that Patriarch Bartholomew is not the Pope. He is a major Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and as such he speaks for many Orthodox Christians. I believe that he is better acquainted with what the Orthodox Church teaches than some of the bloggers here. And he says that the Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching of the Immaculate Comception.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
He is not. He has no particular teaching authority vested in him. That is the point. He is entitled to his opinion, he my peach it. But nothing beyond that. Until the Orthodox meet in and Ecumenical Council and take up such matters al that we have is a bunch of individual opinions.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I have not contested that point.
Eastern Catholics do “accept” all Catholic teachings - even the ones that are part of the way we live and learn, and thus don’t matter much to us.
EOs do not have a coherent position on the matters that you raised, and many more.
A
AlNg
Guest
OK. I don’t claim that there is one precise Orthodox teaching on Purgatory or on the Immaculate Conception. My claim was that it is not true that
“The papacy is the only difference between Eastern Catholic Christians and Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christians”
D
dvdjs
Guest
That was your discussion with another poster.
I just wanted to clarify the possible misunderstanding of your post that might have led readers to think that the EOC’s reject the idea of Purgatory or the IC.
S
Spyridon
Guest
The reason why EO reject Purgatory and IC is because of the Papacy.
The EC don’t talk about purgatory or the IC - it’s not part of their patrimony. However, they do accept that the teachings are orthodox in the context of the Latin Church.
I stand by my assertion: the only real difference between EO and EC is EC accept the papacy and EO reject it. Everything else is secondary, and flows from either rejecting or accepting Peter.
I also assert that anti-Catholicism is built into Eastern Orthodoxy. So many Orthodox prayer books, disciplines, etc. all boil down to “we dont do what the western heretics do”.
The Catholic Church is MUCH more charitable toward the Orthodox. It is clear to me the CC is more overflowing with the love of God and good will toward men, and the Orthodox are more overflowing with pride, exclusivism, phyletism, prelest, and phariseeism.
Read Vladimir Solovyevs book “Russia and the Universal Church”. It’s a scathing indictment of the Orthodox for their consistent, irrational, hate and pride-driven anti-Catholicism, written by a Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher/theologian in the 19th century.
I think the book should be mandatory reading for any Byzantine Rite Catholic catechumen.
The EC don’t talk about purgatory or the IC - it’s not part of their patrimony. However, they do accept that the teachings are orthodox in the context of the Latin Church.
I stand by my assertion: the only real difference between EO and EC is EC accept the papacy and EO reject it. Everything else is secondary, and flows from either rejecting or accepting Peter.
I also assert that anti-Catholicism is built into Eastern Orthodoxy. So many Orthodox prayer books, disciplines, etc. all boil down to “we dont do what the western heretics do”.
The Catholic Church is MUCH more charitable toward the Orthodox. It is clear to me the CC is more overflowing with the love of God and good will toward men, and the Orthodox are more overflowing with pride, exclusivism, phyletism, prelest, and phariseeism.
Read Vladimir Solovyevs book “Russia and the Universal Church”. It’s a scathing indictment of the Orthodox for their consistent, irrational, hate and pride-driven anti-Catholicism, written by a Russian Orthodox Christian philosopher/theologian in the 19th century.
I think the book should be mandatory reading for any Byzantine Rite Catholic catechumen.
Last edited:
A
Augustinian
Guest
Here in Pittsburgh, there have always been a lot of Serbian, Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox folks, and I never saw a lot of animosity. People recognized that there are differences, but there wasn’t hatred.
0
0104
Guest
Eastern Orthodoxy are the closest to Roman Catholic. The only difference between the Eastern and Roman Catholics are the “filioque” Roman Catholics say that the (Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). We are in Union with the East because they have all seven Sacraments. Just the Pope’s athority and the filioque they don’t accept.
We as Roman Catholics can receive the Eucharist at a Eastern Orthodox Mass.
St. Pope John Paul 2 said about the Eastern Orthodox that we have to become United and breathe with both lungs with the East. God bless
We as Roman Catholics can receive the Eucharist at a Eastern Orthodox Mass.
St. Pope John Paul 2 said about the Eastern Orthodox that we have to become United and breathe with both lungs with the East. God bless
J
Jehu2077
Guest
If there were an EC parish near me I would possibly convert into that rite, since my mother is baptized EO and the EO liturgy was the first place I encountered Christ.
There’s 3 EO churches in my area and one EC Mission that meets once a month for Divine Liturgy. I’ve been to one EO parish and found it consisted mostly of converts. I wasn’t at all uncomfortable there and there was no real anti-catholicism present. However, at my mom’s parish there were some individuals who considered the Pope too be Satan himself, and Catholics were devil worshipers. So I guess it depends on the crowd.
Anyways, all that is to say that I’m converting to RCC over EOC because I believe in Papal authority and accept the Magisterium.
There’s 3 EO churches in my area and one EC Mission that meets once a month for Divine Liturgy. I’ve been to one EO parish and found it consisted mostly of converts. I wasn’t at all uncomfortable there and there was no real anti-catholicism present. However, at my mom’s parish there were some individuals who considered the Pope too be Satan himself, and Catholics were devil worshipers. So I guess it depends on the crowd.
Anyways, all that is to say that I’m converting to RCC over EOC because I believe in Papal authority and accept the Magisterium.
S
Spyridon
Guest
Very good.
The Eastern Fathers believed those things as well.
St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximus the Confessor were outspoken proponents of the Papacy.
St. John Chrysostom on the Papacy:
“For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (Chrysostom, On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
St. Maximus on the Papacy:
"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10
Last edited:
S
Spyridon
Guest
…cont…
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
These quotes are only the tip of the iceberg. Numerous Eastern Fathers and Ecumenical Councils affirmed the Primacy of the Roman Church headed by Peter. To deny such is to deny reality.
It wasn’t until the 9th century that anti-Catholic sentiment began to foment in the East. Then in the mid 11th century the great schism of 1054 began, and by the end of the 13th century the separation of the Eastern Churches from the Occidental Churches, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment within them was unhappily cemented in history.
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
These quotes are only the tip of the iceberg. Numerous Eastern Fathers and Ecumenical Councils affirmed the Primacy of the Roman Church headed by Peter. To deny such is to deny reality.
It wasn’t until the 9th century that anti-Catholic sentiment began to foment in the East. Then in the mid 11th century the great schism of 1054 began, and by the end of the 13th century the separation of the Eastern Churches from the Occidental Churches, as well as anti-Catholic sentiment within them was unhappily cemented in history.
Last edited:
- Status