Why not Orthodoxy?

[DeFide]

The Iambic Pen:

This is the problem I have, as no one has been able to point to a specific point where the Orthodox rejected Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, or Original Sin. The Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church developed these doctrines after the Schism, and I have yet to see anything contradicting this.

Continued…

The Catholic.com library has info about Patrisitic commentary on Papal Primacy which is almost intrinsically linked to Papal Infallibility. The dates are long before the schism. That seems to be a slam dunk.

Original Sin is more of a word game that I think wouldn’t be an issue with many Orthodox, but I’m sure you’d find some sticklers.

The tougher question with regard to pure Patrisitic commentary is the Marian theology, even though the Orthodox I know have a strong Marian devotion… so much so that I suspect that if they had a chance to get together in a council and if they were unaware of their Catholic “rival” they might come to the same conclusions. But that’s just conjecture. Considering how cumbersome this discussion tree is getting, maybe you or I could start a thread on the historical evidence of the seeds of Marian theology in the Catholic Church regarding the interrelated subjects of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

Here’s a start:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

(See Tradition/Church Father’s sections)

I’m short on time, so maybe I’ll see y’all around next week.

 

[Mickey]

The differences between Catholics and Orthodox
By Fr. Dan Callam, c.s.b.
Issue: September 2001

In any dispute with the Orthodox, Catholics are at a disadvantage. We regard them as schismatics-i.e., the break between the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity in A.D. 1054 was more cultural and political than doctrinal-while they call us heretics-i.e., as preaching false doctrine. One immediate consequence of these different views is the presence in Catholicism of various groups of Eastern Christians, Ukrainian Catholics being the largest, which are recognized as authentically Catholic without any alteration required in their traditional liturgies, doctrines, and piety. But obviously there can be no counterpart in the Orthodox Church; that is, no Latin Christians whose bishops are in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople instead of the Pope: to accept Orthodoxy is to abjure the “heresy” of Catholicism.

A further consequence is that the differences between the two Churches are magnified by the Greeks, but downplayed by us. They present our teaching on Original Sin, for example, as falsifying both the fall of man and redemption. For the Orthodox, Adam’s sin introduced death into the world and with it, but subsequently, sin: anger, wrath, lust, greed. . . . Hence there is in man no inherited guilt (an idea they claim was invented by St. Augustine) because of which even an infant needs baptism. Since they see the two positions as incompatible, one must be right and the other wrong. Given their assurance that the Bible and Tradition are on their side, it follows that Catholics are wrong. And we have no easy riposte because we accept the theology of the Orthodox Church as complementary to our own.

That is why we look for ways of reconciling the two approaches. Consider our theology of Original Sin. Since no “sin” has been committed by the infant, he bears no personal guilt. The phrase is therefore shorthand for the fact that, because of Adam’s sin, the whole human race is alienated from God: “it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’-a state and not an act” (Catechism, paragraph 404). And so for us the two views are merely two sides of the same coin. In similar fashion, one could go through the extensive list of Orthodox objections to Catholicism and show that even long standing disputes about the Trinity or the role of the papacy are susceptible to harmonization, but only on condition that one wants them to be reconciled.

Rather than examine the catalogue of Orthodoxy’s grievances against Rome, I intend to account for the tragic break between the ancient churches of East and West historically.

---

**Preliminary insight
**The preliminary insight required is that, in revealing Himself to man, God spoke at a particular time and place to a people with a unique cultural identity. Their language was Hebrew, and their culture moved from patriarchy through tribe and kingdom to end in subservience to foreign rule and diaspora. This history, as recorded in the Old Testament, formed the inheritance of the Apostolic Church, which recognized itself as the continuation and fulfillment of what God had begun in “our father Abraham.” Saint Paul, for example, could write to the Christian Galatians: “Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God” (6:16). The first disciples were all Jews, but they formed a sector of Judaism that differed from their compatriots in the conviction that in Jesus the long awaited Messiah had come.
(continued)

 

[Mickey]

The advent of the messianic age was the signal for the universal mission of Israel to be realized, as the prophets had foretold: “All the nations shall say, ‘Come, let us go up . . . to the house of the God of Jacob’” (Is. 2:2 3). The “nations” that first received the Gospel dwelt in the Graeco-Roman world around the Mediterranean basin. The hyphenated adjective indicates that there were two pagan cultures which the early Church encountered, with the confidence that it could appropriate whatever was good and reject what was evil, and so re-express the apostolic proclamation in new cultural modes. But even then, as later, there were Christians who believed that adaptation was a corruption. Their conviction was that Jewish culture, as initially chosen and formed by God Himself, was, in its entirety, necessary for all believers. The decision of the apostolic Church to honour its Jewish inheritance but not to reproduce it had far-reaching results, one of which was the rejection of Christianity by most of the Jews. It should be noted, however, that the Semitic form of Christianity continued-and continues-in the Christian communities that moved east from Syria into modern Iraq and Iran.

Ancient Greece and Rome
****That there were two pagan cultures in the Mediterranean world the Apostles entered is discernible even today in the Orthodox and CatholicChurches. Consider the achievements we admire most in ancient Greece: poetry, philosophy, architecture, mathematics, drama. These arts and sciences were brought to Christ in homage, like gifts of new magi, and are still discernible in the Greek Church with its elaborate liturgy, beautiful artwork, noble architecture, and subtle theology. The movement of Christianity into a Greek mode led to the great doctrinal disputes of the early Church, all of which took place in the East. The first seven General Councils, which, significantly, are the only ones recognized by the Orthodox, expressed and confirmed Christian teaching about the Trinity and the person of Christ.

Where the Greeks were intellectual, the Romans were practical. Their genius lay in law, in engineering, in the military and in governance. The last of these was of particular importance for the future. Rome’s ability to govern a vast empire has its modern counterpart in the remarkable unity which the See of Rome effects in Catholicism. In the early Church-the patristic era-these differences were recognized for what they were: two cultural forms which Christianity had appropriated (three, if we include Syria). It is worth noting, however, that during the first three or four centuries Latin speaking Christians had little influence outside of Roman Africa because Greek was the universal language of the Empire, even among Christians in Rome. In any case, contemporary Orthodox and Catholics, unlike Protestants, recognize the success of this great work of inculturation which took place in the first six or seven centuries of the Christian era. In it, the Greeks led the way by daring doctrinal and liturgical innovations, which were deeply marked by the development of trinitarian theology. The Latins, while accepting these developments, in the Nicene Creed, for example, were less adventurous and so kept closer to their Jewish roots in worship and doctrine. The ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer-canon 1-in its original form, for example, had no invocation of the Spirit to effect consecration of the bread and wine, unlike the Greek canons which incorporated theological disputes about the Trinity into their liturgies.

(continued)

 

[Mickey]

The advent of the messianic age was the signal for the universal mission of Israel to be realized, as the prophets had foretold: “All the nations shall say, ‘Come, let us go up . . . to the house of the God of Jacob’” (Is. 2:2 3). The “nations” that first received the Gospel dwelt in the Graeco-Roman world around the Mediterranean basin. The hyphenated adjective indicates that there were two pagan cultures which the early Church encountered, with the confidence that it could appropriate whatever was good and reject what was evil, and so re-express the apostolic proclamation in new cultural modes. But even then, as later, there were Christians who believed that adaptation was a corruption. Their conviction was that Jewish culture, as initially chosen and formed by God Himself, was, in its entirety, necessary for all believers. The decision of the apostolic Church to honour its Jewish inheritance but not to reproduce it had far-reaching results, one of which was the rejection of Christianity by most of the Jews. It should be noted, however, that the Semitic form of Christianity continued-and continues-in the Christian communities that moved east from Syria into modern Iraq and Iran.

**Ancient Greece and Rome
**That there were two pagan cultures in the Mediterranean world the Apostles entered is discernible even today in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Consider the achievements we admire most in ancient Greece: poetry, philosophy, architecture, mathematics, drama. These arts and sciences were brought to Christ in homage, like gifts of new magi, and are still discernible in the Greek Church with its elaborate liturgy, beautiful artwork, noble architecture, and subtle theology. The movement of Christianity into a Greek mode led to the great doctrinal disputes of the early Church, all of which took place in the East. The first seven General Councils, which, significantly, are the only ones recognized by the Orthodox, expressed and confirmed Christian teaching about the Trinity and the person of Christ.

Where the Greeks were intellectual, the Romans were practical. Their genius lay in law, in engineering, in the military and in governance. The last of these was of particular importance for the future. Rome’s ability to govern a vast empire has its modern counterpart in the remarkable unity which the See of Rome effects in Catholicism. In the early Church-the patristic era-these differences were recognized for what they were: two cultural forms which Christianity had appropriated (three, if we include Syria). It is worth noting, however, that during the first three or four centuries Latin speaking Christians had little influence outside of Roman Africa because Greek was the universal language of the Empire, even among Christians in Rome. In any case, contemporary Orthodox and Catholics, unlike Protestants, recognize the success of this great work of inculturation which took place in the first six or seven centuries of the Christian era. In it, the Greeks led the way by daring doctrinal and liturgical innovations, which were deeply marked by the development of trinitarian theology. The Latins, while accepting these developments, in the Nicene Creed, for example, were less adventurous and so kept closer to their Jewish roots in worship and doctrine. The ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer-canon 1-in its original form, for example, had no invocation of the Spirit to effect consecration of the bread and wine, unlike the Greek canons which incorporated theological disputes about the Trinity into their liturgies.

(continued)

 

[Mickey]

Reunion
Reviewing what I have written, I see that I have left my reader in something of a quandary. Is reunion with the Orthodox likely, possible or even desirable? In some ways, from our side, it is at least two of the three. As the Holy Father has repeatedly made clear, liturgically, doctrinally, historically our Churches are close. Besides, after the break of A.D. 1054, two-admittedly short-lived-reunions have been effected, at the Councils of Lyons (A.D. 1274) and Florence (A.D. 1431-1445). That the Orthodox Church subsequently repudiated these Councils does not erase the fact that twice Orthodox and Catholic bishops have arrived at formulations of doctrine that were acceptable to both sides. A good indication of the difference between the Orthodox and Catholics is our listing Lyons and Florence among the General Councils. They are therefore as binding on us as the Councils of Nicaea and Trent. The actual presence in the Catholic Church of many groups (rites) of the Eastern Churches is another indication that the separation of the Churches is not inevitable. Reunion is therefore both possible and desirable.

I fear, however, that it is not likely. There is a deep-grained dislike, which at times has descended into something like hatred, for Catholics on the part of the Orthodox. A heavy reliance on Tradition has kept alive the still-smoldering resentment arising from events such as the brutal sack of Constantinople in A.D. 1204 by the Latin armies of the fourth Crusade. An ineradicable sense of superiority, coupled with a contempt for what are perceived as doctrinal and liturgical corruptions, means that the Orthodox look upon any accommodation to Catholicism as synonymous with betrayal. Perhaps, too, the not insignificant number of Protestant, and Catholic, converts to Orthodoxy who want a traditional form of Christianity without an active papal or episcopal Magisterium illustrates the widening gap between us.

Finally it must be said that Orthodoxy’s otherworldly liturgy and monastic spirituality have led to a neglect of the here and now that shows itself in moral compromise at the individual as well as the political level. Not only has the Orthodox Church departed from the Gospel and the early Church by allowing remarriage after divorce, but also it has begun to alter its teaching on contraception. In the first edition of The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin,1963), Timothy Ware (now Bishop Kallistos Ware) wrote, “Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.” The revised edition (1980) reads:

The use of contraceptives and other devices for birth control is on the whole strongly discouraged in the Orthodox Church. Some bishops and theologians altogether condemn the employment of such methods. Others, however, have recently begun to adopt a less strict position, and urge that the question is best left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with the spiritual father (p. 302).

Similarly, Thomas P. Hopko in volume 2 of The Orthodox Faith (New York: OCA, 1976) exhibits a softening of the Orthodox position on abortion with a statement whose muddled logic opens the path to abortion on demand:

Abortion cannot be justified in any way, except perhaps with the greatest moral risk and with most serious penitence in most extreme cases as that of irreparable damage to the mother or her probable death in the act of childbirth (Quoted in Ecumenism, no. 84, December 1986, 29).

There is more to Church union than mutually agreed-upon doctrinal statements. Overall, my conviction is that reunion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches is impossible in the foreseeable future. But the openness of John Paul II to the East rebukes my pessimism, and so, docile to his leadership, I too dare to hope.

Fr. Daniel Callam, of the Congregation of St. Basil (C.S.B.), is Associate Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas**.**

 

[Palamite]

Mickey,

Here is an observation. I have noticed that the most vitriolic and vehemently anti-Catholic protestants, are those who were Catholic at one time. Perhaps the reason for this is that they are aggressively defending their decision to leave the Catholic Church. Most of the Orthodox on the Eastern forum were Catholic at one time. Just an observation.

I’ve also noticed that some people, when they are at a loss to refute something they object to, resort to character assasination and implying unsavory motives to others and screaming “charity alert” at every possible opportunity. Just an observation.

 

[Palamite]

LatinCat,

Actually the Orthodox do need a council since they are very divided on many issues: the theology of the sacraments, post death purification, ideas like transubstantiation, Church government. They funcition more like a conglomeration of Chruches, rather than as the unified body of Christ.

None of this is factual. I’ve yet to meet an Orthodox Priest or read an Orthodox theologian (I cannot say this in my experience of RC clergy/theologians, OTOH) who has disputed that the bread and wine offered in the Holy Oblation become the true Body and Blood of the Saviour. Nor are we confused about the other Sacraments, etc. This is really a strange angle for you to pursue, since it pretends that there have never been very weighty issues which have been allowed to remain “matters of opinion”, even to the present day, within Catholicism (for example, Molinists against Thomists, the exact difference between the episcopate and the presbyterate, etc.) Since when does being a Christian require that every single hidden thing (read - not revealed to mankind! God has secrets my friend!) in this world or the next, has to be defined? In my opinion, insisting on the contrary really just means you’re dogmatizing speculation.

 

[Palamite]

LatinCat,

I am not saying the Eastern Orthodox don’t believ in the real presence. What I am saying is they have no way of answering the thinking man’s questions about the real presence.

And you think shackling yourself to Aristotelian metaphysics does?

Indeed, to Orthodox ears at least, there is something very impious about this kind of thinking. After all, while I can say Christ is true God and true man, can I as a “thinking man” comprehend this great mystery? Or just how does a maiden conceive and give birth while maintaining her virginity? Or again, just how is it that humble bread and wine, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, become the true, worshipful Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ?

 

[Palamite]

De Fide,

catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

You do realize that one can read everything in that tract you link to, and still not accept the existance of “purgatory”? Goodness, some of the references are specifically talking about souls in hades (ex. Martyrdom of Sts.Perpetua and Felicity). While I know the possibility of this is anathema to modern day Catholicism, it still is not believed to be utterly beyond the pale in Orthodoxy.

In fact, many (like Tertulian’s recognition of prayer for the dead) speak to the possibility of helping the state of those who are awaiting the ressurection enjoy greater blessedness.

 

[ByzantineCatho]

I was Orthodox and now I’m Eastern Catholic. The papacy convinced me to be Catholic. Also, according to me, the Catholic Church is more faithful to Bible’s teaching about divorce, contraception, etc.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

DeFide:

The Catholic.com library has info about Patrisitic commentary on Papal Primacy which is almost intrinsically linked to Papal Infallibility. The dates are long before the schism. That seems to be a slam dunk.

Thanks for the link! I do wonder how the Orthodox explain all these quotes (even from Eastern Fathers) in support of Papal Primacy.

Original Sin is more of a word game that I think wouldn’t be an issue with many Orthodox, but I’m sure you’d find some sticklers.

That is the big debate. Here’s the question, then. From the moment of our conception, are we already in a state meriting Hell? Do the Catholics and Orthodox have different answers to this question? This relates to the Immaculate Conception, because if my question is answered, “Yes,” then I can see how the Mother of God may have needed to be spared from such a state.

The tougher question with regard to pure Patrisitic commentary is the Marian theology, even though the Orthodox I know have a strong Marian devotion… so much so that I suspect that if they had a chance to get together in a council and if they were unaware of their Catholic “rival” they might come to the same conclusions. But that’s just conjecture. Considering how cumbersome this discussion tree is getting, maybe you or I could start a thread on the historical evidence of the seeds of Marian theology in the Catholic Church regarding the interrelated subjects of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

You are certainly welcome to start a thread on the subject (let me know if you do). I have seen quotes supporting both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. I must say, though, that it gets exhausting seeing each side present their supporting quotes. Actual Church teaching, as opposed to the opinions of men, would be much appreciated.

I’m short on time, so maybe I’ll see y’all around next week.

See you later! Have a happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Palamite:

I’ve also noticed that some people, when they are at a loss to refute something they object to, resort to character assasination and implying unsavory motives to others and screaming “charity alert” at every possible opportunity. Just an observation.

So, I’m not the only one who’s noticed this…

Since when does being a Christian require that every single hidden thing (read - not revealed to mankind! God has secrets my friend!) in this world or the next, has to be defined? In my opinion, insisting on the contrary really just means you’re dogmatizing speculation.

Well, that pretty much sums up my primary problem with Catholicism. I’m not saying it means they’re wrong (I’ve been going back and forth between being pro-Catholic and pro-Orthodox all day ), but it’s nice to know I’m not the only person who has thought of this.

ByzantineCatho:

I was Orthodox and now I’m Eastern Catholic. The papacy convinced me to be Catholic. Also, according to me, the Catholic Church is more faithful to Bible’s teaching about divorce, contraception, etc.

The Bible’s teachings about divorce are a little unclear it seems. Since we all know what sola scriptura leads to, does anyone know any Early Church teachings on the matter? Also, where exactly are the Bible’s teachings on contraception?

And so the journey continues…I can’t call myself a Protestant anymore, but I still don’t know what to call myself instead. Today I was reading my Bible Study notebook (I’m in a Navigator’s Bible Study here on post, the Navigators being an inter-denominational group without anti-Catholicism, so far as I can tell, but also possessing a definite Protestant theological outlook), and I noticed the statement, “It is faith alone that saves.” It’s especially interesting that I read this, since I had read James 2:24 earlier in the day (before knowing the focus of the study was good works) as my “verse of the week” (we pick one verse to memorize per week, in addition to our other reading).

James 2:24 - You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Anyway, I mentioned my objection to the “faith alone” passage during Bible Study tonight (without shocking anyone, so far as I could tell), but it made me realize something. I’m definitely not a Protestant anymore. Still, it’s hard to give up something without exchanging it for something else. Please pray that God will guide me to the truth in all things. Thanks!

God bless!

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

Here’s the question, then. From the moment of our conception, are we already in a state meriting Hell? Do the Catholics and Orthodox have different answers to this question?

I don’t know how the Orthodox would answer that, but as for the Catholic answer, all I can say is that the Council of Florence defined, in Session VI, the following:

“The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’” (John 3:3)

Hence the absolute necessity for baptism to attain salvation whether it be by water, blood, or desire.

 

[JSmitty2005]

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’” (John 3:3)

I’m sure you already know this, but the Greek word for “above” also means “again,” and that is why the guy Jesus was talking with asked how he could be born again and why it’s sometimes translated that way. In any case, this was always understood as referring to Baptism and NOT “accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior.”

 

[Mickey]

Palamite:

Mickey,
I’ve also noticed that some people, when they are at a loss to refute something they object to, resort to character assasination and implying unsavory motives to others and screaming “charity alert” at every possible opportunity. Just an observation.

Hmmm? I don’t recall assasinating anyone’s character or screaming “charity alert” on my last post. Although I have noticed that most of your posts include a subtle yet intentional jab at the Catholic faith. My post was an honest observation. Most on the Eastern forum were indeed Catholic at one time. I have mostly stopped posting there because the charity level is indeed lacking.

My motives are not unsavory my dear friend. I am an Eastern Catholic who cherishes the unity within the Catholic Church. I pray for Orthodoxy often.

 

[Mickey]

The Iambic Pen:

I’ve been going back and forth between being pro-Catholic and pro-Orthodox all day

Although you can find good information on this forum, ultimately you will be confused by the end of the day because Catholics and Orthodox have been refuting eachothers positions in some areas for many centuries. The schism is a tragedy. My best advice to you is to pray about it. Pray often. Pray for discernment. God will answer your inquiries.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

JSmitty2005:

I don’t know how the Orthodox would answer that, but as for the Catholic answer, all I can say is that the Council of Florence defined, in Session VI, the following:

“The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.’” (John 3:3)

Hence the absolute necessity for baptism to attain salvation whether it be by water, blood, or desire.

There was a tract somewhere on this site that said something to the effect of, everybody in Hell is there because of their own choosing. In other words, it’s their own fault. If inherited mortal sin alone is sufficient to condemn someone, then the former statement must be false. Any thoughts?

Mickey:

Although you can find good information on this forum, ultimately you will be confused by the end of the day because Catholics and Orthodox have been refuting eachothers positions in some areas for many centuries. The schism is a tragedy. My best advice to you is to pray about it. Pray often. Pray for discernment. God will answer your inquiries.

Oh yes! And I certainly have been praying. I’m not depressed or anything, just annoyed at times. Still, I know God will guide me into all truth.

God bless!

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

So, since the Orthodox assert that they are merely teaching the same doctrines that they always have been, do Catholics see them as being in any way heretical?

God bless!

 

[JSmitty2005]

The Iambic Pen:

So, since the Orthodox assert that they are merely teaching the same doctrines that they always have been, do Catholics see them as being in any way heretical?

God bless!

I believe that they are only to be considered schismatic because they hold the Catholic faith but reject papal authority.

 

[Eden]

The Iambic Pen:

So, since the Orthodox assert that they are merely teaching the same doctrines that they always have been, do Catholics see them as being in any way heretical?

God bless!

I think you might find this website useful for understanding the Catholic position on the Orthodox:

www.catholictradition.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_catholictradition_archive.html

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

JSmitty2005:

I believe that they are only to be considered schismatic because they hold the Catholic faith but reject papal authority.

Yes, but they also reject post-Schism doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Original Sin and the Atonement (as Anselsm understood it). Does this make them in any way heretical, or is a heretic one who rejects a previously held belief? To continue along that line of thinking, are modern Protestants heretics? After all, the vast majority of them didn’t reject Catholicism. They weren’t part of it to begin with.

Eden, thanks for the link. It certainly sheds a new light on Photius. I’ll have to see what the Orthodox have to say about it.

God bless!