Why not the Orthodox church?

[chris_molter]

Other posters have covered the primary ecclesiological differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. There is another thing to consider: their theology. While Catholics and Orthodox do belive many, even most, of the same things in regards to doctrine, they have a VERY different way of arriving at those doctrines.

I’m certainly no expert on Eastern theology or thought, but it certainly takes a different approach than Western theology. Sometimes it’s like talking two different languages. In some cases it IS because we’re talking two different languages!!

Now, many of these Eastern theological approaches do not strictly contradict Catholic teaching (although most Catholic teaching is formulated using Western thought, such as scholasticism) and therefore the Eastern Catholic Churches often hold theological beliefs which are closer to the Orthodox than the Western (Latin) Catholics. It can get almost dizzying!

Personally, when I was considering both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the one thing I could NOT get around when looking East was the Pope. The necessity of having a final authority to teach, interpret, and settle differences seems obvious to me, especially coming from Anglicanism where such authority is not only lacking, but is totally anathema to the structure of Anglicanism itself!

Anyway, there are some good resources to find online. I honestly wouldn’t try the eastern forums on here, since they get a little too contentious. You may want to try looking up Fr Stephen Freeman’s weblog (he’s Orthodox) and check his archives and links, as well as Dr Mike Liccione’s blog (RC) and related links.

Unfortunately, two of the best Catholic-Orthodox blogs are now down (Pontifications and Catholidoxies)

 

[tdgesq]

“Hey, did you notice that what the pope said totally contradicted that council?”

“Yeah, he must not have been speaking ex cathedra.”

“Oh, righto! (wink)”

What an easy way to never have to explain contradictions.

Although it might seem that way to you, it is the infallibility criterion of Vatican I that must be referenced when deciding whether a particular statement is made ex cathedra or not. I’d be interested in hearing about a statement that you believe meets this criterion and also contradicts an ecumenical council.

Absolutely, positively not! What I am going to say is largely what I have gathered from the Orthodox who post in this forum. I take them at their word.

The Orthodox churches consider the Catholic Church heretical; the Pope illegitimate and Catholic sacraments (except baptism) invalid.

I agree, except for many Orthodox rejection of the Catholic sacraments also extends to baptism. So for 1000 years the baptisms in the Catholic Church, the largest Christian church in the world, are supposedly invalid.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Let it be always remembered that the rise of Constantinople, its jealousy of Rome, its unhappy influence over all the East is a pure piece of Erastianism, a shameless surrender of the things of God to Caesar.

For several hundred years secular rulers appointed the Pope of Rome. The Emperor did this directly and, sometimes, through the Exarch at Ravenna. The Pope also had to pay a considerable sum of money to the Emperor as a “thank you.”

The Emperor had not just a right of veto but of outright appointment. Just start reading some of the lives of the Popes.

Moving back into the period when East and West were united…

"In these earlier centuries of the Byzantine Empire, the problem of ecclesiastical polity (government of the church) was rather complex.

"Complicating matters was the fact that the Pope of Rome was subordinate politically to the Byzantine Emperor, who sat in Constantinople. Up until the eighth century (as is usually not noted) the pope was in fact even appointed by the Emperor or, more directly, through his civil governor in Italy."
http://archons.org/patriarchate/history/pentarchy.asp

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

There is another thing to consider: their theology. While Catholics and Orthodox do belive many, even most, of the same things in regards to doctrine, they have a VERY different way of arriving at those doctrines.

I’m certainly no expert on Eastern theology or thought, but it certainly takes a different approach than Western theology. Sometimes it’s like talking two different languages. In some cases it IS because we’re talking two different languages!!

From “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware):"…the Orthodox Church has not undergone either a Reformation or a Counter-Reformation."

“All Protestants are Crypto-Papists. To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum ‘a’; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the ‘a’ remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world.”

"Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum ‘a’, had in mind the fact that western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past. All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralisation and the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. But behind members of the Orthodox Church-Greeks, Russians, and the rest-there lies a very different background. They have no Middle Ages (in the Western sense) and they have undergone no Reformations or Counter-Reformations; they have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

**Christians in the West, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different- the questions themselves are not the same as in the West. **

Orthodox see history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude towards religious disputes. In the West it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox they appear as two sides of the same coin. Khomiakov calls the Pope ‘the first Protestant’, ‘the father of German rationalism’…

**“A new and unknown world”: Khomiakov was right to speak of Orthodoxy in this way. Orthodoxy is not just a kind of Roman Catholicism without the Pope, but something quite distinctive from any religious system in the West. **

 

[Teflon93]

From “The Orthodox Church” by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware):"…the Orthodox Church has not undergone either a Reformation or a Counter-Reformation."

“All Protestants are Crypto-Papists. To use the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum ‘a’; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +, as with the Romanists, or with the negative -, as with the Protestants, the ‘a’ remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world.”

"Khomiakov, when he spoke of the datum ‘a’, had in mind the fact that western Christians, whether Free Churchmen, Anglicans, or Roman Catholics, have a common background in the past. All alike (although they may not always care to admit it) have been profoundly influenced by the same events: by the Papal centralisation and the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, by the Renaissance, by the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. But behind members of the Orthodox Church-Greeks, Russians, and the rest-there lies a very different background. They have no Middle Ages (in the Western sense) and they have undergone no Reformations or Counter-Reformations; they have only been affected in an oblique way by the cultural and religious upheaval which transformed Western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

**Christians in the West, both Roman and Reformed, generally start by asking the same questions, although they may disagree about the answers. In Orthodoxy, however, it is not merely the answers that are different- the questions themselves are not the same as in the West. **

Orthodox see history in another perspective. Consider, for example, the Orthodox attitude towards religious disputes. In the West it is usual to think of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as opposite extremes; but to an Orthodox they appear as two sides of the same coin. Khomiakov calls the Pope ‘the first Protestant’, ‘the father of German rationalism’…

**“A new and unknown world”: Khomiakov was right to speak of Orthodoxy in this way. Orthodoxy is not just a kind of Roman Catholicism without the Pope, but something quite distinctive from any religious system in the West. **

In the interest of accuracy the changes wrought by the Soviet domination of the Russian Orthodox Church were much more significant than the Reformation’s impact on the Catholic Church.

Let’s not pretend that the Soviet disaster never happened. I am very happy that the Russian church persevered, but it had its price, too.

 

[Teflon93]

In the interest of accuracy the changes wrought by the Soviet domination of the Russian Orthodox Church were much more significant than the Reformation’s impact on the Catholic Church.

Let’s not pretend that the Soviet disaster never happened. I am very happy that the Russian church persevered, but it had its price, too.

In a similar vein, one might want to review Pope John Paul II’s experience in Poland, where the Catholic Church had to essentially go underground to preserve its mission. I don’t think the general public is aware of how heroic young Karol Wojtyla was during this period, and so don’t appreciate why his return to Poland as pontiff marked the death knell of Communism.

Hint: The Solidarity movement was one of Catholic solidarity, not simply a labor union.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

In the interest of accuracy the changes wrought by the Soviet domination of the Russian Orthodox Church were much more significant than the Reformation’s impact on the Catholic Church.

Let’s not pretend that the Soviet disaster never happened. I am very happy that the Russian church persevered, but it had its price, too.

Yes, the ghastly Soviet period gave to the Russian Church approximately 20 million holy martyrs who intercede before the Throne of the Lamb.

Since the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Orthodox Church has built 27,000 new churches and provided priests and deacons for them. They are consecrating new churches at the rate of 3 a day!

Monasteries, which were limited to a total of 4 under communism, now number in the hundreds. Many of them have several hundred monks or nuns. Everywhere novices are being asked to wait while more and more accommodation is being built for them.

The devastation wrought by the atheistic regime is now blossoming, thanks to the blood of the Martyrs, in a new springtime for the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, the ghastly Soviet period gave to the Russian Church approximately 20 million holy martyrs who intercede before the Throne of the Lamb.

Since the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Orthodox Church has built 27,000 new churches and provided priests and deacons for them. They are consecrating new churches at the rate of 3 a day!

Monasteries, which were limited to a total of 4 under communism, now number in the hundreds. Many of them have several hundred monks or nuns. Everywhere novices are being asked to wait while more and more accommodation is being built for them.

The devastation wrought by the atheistic regime is now blossoming, thanks to the blood of the Martyrs, in a new springtime for the Church.

And thank God for that!

At the risk of sliding slightly OT, Fr Ambrose, how is the Russian church handling the corruption of the Communist era? It strikes me that there was some degree of similarity to the Donatist problem in that the Soviets certainly sought to warp the church for its own purposes.

I’m familiar with our own troubles with the Chinese on this score and wonder if you might provide some more insight as to how our Russian brethren have dealt with this.

Likewise, the Polish Catholic Church is still not in full communion with Rome if I recall correctly because we have some work to do between us.

 

[guanophore]

I’m trying to understand the main differences between the Catholic and Orthodox church. I have recently decided I will most likely join the Catholic church, but I need to know more about why I shouldn’t consider the Orthodox church. Please help.

Thanks-

Absolutely. I suggest you visit the Eastern forum here. It is also helpful to google Eastern Orthodox and read some websites.

I thought they claimed that they were the actual Church found by Christ, and it was Catholics that remain seperated?

They do, and from their point of view, they are. However, the Latin Church has realized that all those things that separated us 1500 years ago have been resolved. The Latin church recognizes that they have valid apostolic succession, valid holy orders, valid sacraments, etc. To the Latin Church, they are as Catholic as we are. They reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and some of the later ecumencal councils in which they did not participate, but share the first 7 in common with the Latins.

Does the Orthodox church accept Catholics in the same way that Catholics accepts Orthodox?

No, they will not admit Latins to the Sacraments, and they object to the notion of “doctrinal development”, the infallibile notion, and thus the pronouncments emanating from it.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

At the risk of sliding slightly OT, Fr Ambrose, how is the Russian church handling the corruption of the Communist era? It strikes me that there was some degree of similarity to the Donatist problem in that the Soviets certainly sought to warp the church for its own purposes.

In much the same way as they did with the Donatists. Some who were just too far outside the pale (such as the Metropolitan of Kiev who even had a wife and daughter) were returned to the rank of laymen. Most have remained in office though and one assumes a degree of repentance. This was a major problem for my own Church (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) as we negotiated our reunion with Moscow; our reunion actually took place on Ascension Thursday, 17th May. In the end our people were satisfied that overall the “Donatist” bishops have repented. Many are elderly now and either already retired or are soon to retire. A new generation of bishops is starting to replace them.

 

[Teflon93]

In much the same way as they did with the Donatists. Some who were just too far outside the pale (such as the Metropolitan of Kiev who even had a wife and daughter) were returned to the rank of laymen. Most have remained in office though and one assumes a degree of repentance. This was a major problem for my own Church (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) as we negotiated our reunion with Moscow; our reunion actually took place on Ascension Thursday, 17th May. In the end our people were satisfied that overall the “Donatist” bishops have repented. Many are elderly now and either already retired or are soon to retire. A new generation of bishops is starting to replace them.

That is wonderful news!

Do you happen to know if there’s a good English history of the Russian Orthodox Church during the 20th century (or even a good general history for that matter)? I took Russian in college but recall too little of it at this point to read without lots of stopping.

If anyone wants to hear a truly beautiful liturgy, there are some good CDs out there of the Russian Easter liturgy which are well worth a listen in my opinion.

 

[Baraq]

I’m trying to understand the main differences between the Catholic and Orthodox church. I have recently decided I will most likely join the Catholic church, but I need to know more about why I shouldn’t consider the Orthodox church. Please help.

Thanks-

The Eastern Christianity Forum would be an ideal place to ask questions, I have found members there helpful, although some at times will be over zealous like the RCC member answer ohere of " blah bllah we are the only church blah blah blah).

The Truth is God’s People can be found in each Church you are considering. There are some theological, doctrinal, cultural, and governmental differences. A westerner might not lose sleep or even completely understand their Churchs position on the origin of the Holy Ghost, leavened sacraments, heirarchy but the Eastern mystical thought in worship will be tough. Flat out, the Easterners have a different thought process in their Church.

When FthrAmb calls me(in the Reformed Church) a Cryto papist Im not offeneded(though I should be) He sees us as the same, when we are actually very different. I dont think FthrAmb is ignorant or mean spirited, but rather just making matters simple for himself. However, his view does show an inability to understand brothers and sisters in Christ in the Reformed Church. Western and Eastern have a cultural divide that is magnified by a mystical view they take in their faith. Its difficult to fully appreciate Eastern Worship with a western mindset. With that said, Read Scripture, Pray, Read the Church Fathers(dont forget Thomas Aquinas), find understanding in the theolgy of both then determine what Church you will be joined to.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When FthrAmb calls me(in the Reformed Church) a Cryto papist Im not offeneded(though I should be) He sees us as the same, when we are actually very different.

I think he was actually quoting someone else, though he seemed to be adopting the statement. I think those who believe this get confused because most RC and most Protestants are westerners. Western ways of thinking might cause an easterner to think all westerners are saying the same thing; in the same sort of way that, e.g., a non-Chinese-speaker might think all Chinese are speaking the same language when they are not. It just “sounds” the same to them because their own language is so very different. Reminds one of “they all look alike to me”, and the spirit of it is sometimes not terribly different from the usual context of that old saw.

 

[tomarin]

jim, if you’re still reading this, a few more thoughts:

at some point in your investigation you’re going to have to wrestle with how the orthodox churches, who do not recognize the authority of the pope (or any single central authority as far as i can tell) interpret the scriptural verse in matthew where jesus renames peter (previously simon) peter – the rock – and says “upon this rock i will build my church”. to me, that meaning is pretty straightforward and i have yet to read a convincing argument that it meant anything other than what the catholic church teaches it to mean (with respect to the primacy of the see of peter in rome).

also, the ethnic and territorial nature of the orthodox churches seem to me to fall short of what we both profess to believe in when we recite the nicene creed: in one holy catholic and apostolic church. here catholic means universal and is part of jesus’ exhortation to his followers to spread his message of salvation throughout the world.

now it’s entirely possible that the larger number and greater global spread of catholics in the world are due to historical contingencies alone, yet i can’t help but feel it is also due to the catholic church’s dedication to the principle of evangelization and greater inherent catholicity. i find the universal outlook of catholicism a point in its favor and an indication that it contains the fuller truth of christianity.

i hope you make sure to get the orthodox side of this too. i’m sure they have plenty of rebuttals to what i’ve written.

 

[Syele]

Surely it beats the Protestant Dodge: “Not all Protestants believe that.”

I’d say they are about even …

 

[Baraq]

I think he was actually quoting someone else, though he seemed to be adopting the statement. I think those who believe this get confused because most RC and most Protestants are westerners. Western ways of thinking might cause an easterner to think all westerners are saying the same thing; in the same sort of way that, e.g., a non-Chinese-speaker might think all Chinese are speaking the same language when they are not. It just “sounds” the same to them because their own language is so very different. Reminds one of “they all look alike to me”, and the spirit of it is sometimes not terribly different from the usual context of that old saw.

We must be on the same wavelength. When I first read the post I remembered an OLD episode of “Get Smart.” In this episode, Max had to catch a diabolical Chinese kidnapper who was kidnapping young blonde girls from an exclusive Hotel in DC. It turns out that the Chinese terrorist was trying to kidnap the daughter of a wealthy tycoon to extort the father, but kept catching the wrong girls. After Max caught him and inquired about the kidnappings, the “Craw”(the Chinese Crook) answered 'You arr rook arike to us"

Classic

.