What Are The Differences Between Orthodoxy And Roman Catholicism?

[ThomasV]

1. Faith and Reason
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy uses science and philosophy to defend and explain her Faith. Unlike Roman Catholicism, she does not build on the results of philosophy and science. The Church does not seek to reconcile faith and reason. She makes no effort to prove by logic or science what Christ gave His followers to believe. If physics or biology or chemistry or philosophy lends support to the teachings of the Church, she does not refuse them. However, Orthodoxy is not intimidated by man's intellectual accomplishments. She does not bow to them and change the Christian Faith to make it consistent with the results of human thought and science.
St. Basil the Great advised young monks to use Greek philosophy as a bee uses the flower. Take only the "honey," ---- the truth --- which God has planted in the world to prepare men for the Coming of the Lord.
For example, the Greeks had a doctrine of the Logos. The Gospel of John opens, "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, in Greek). For the pagans, the Logos was not God, as He is for Christians; rather he is a principle, a power or force by which "God: formed and governs the world. The Fathers pointed to the similarity between the Logos or Word of the Bible and the Logos of Greek philosophy as a sign of Providence. The difference between them, they attributed to the sinfulness of men and the weakness of the human intellect. They remembered the words of the Apostle Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2: 8).
Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason. Its history shows the consequence of that trust. For example, in the Latin Middle Ages, the 13th century, the theologian-philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, joined "Christianity" with the philosophy of Aristotle. From that period til now, the Latins have never wavered in their respect for human wisdom; and it has radically altered the theology, mysteries and institutions of the Christian religion.
2. The Development of Doctrine
The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time; rather that Christianity has remained unaltered from the moment that the Lord delivered the Faith to the Apostles (Matt. 28: 18-20). She affirms that "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is now what it was in the beginning. Orthodox of the twentieth century believe precisely what was believed by Orthodox of the first, the fifth, the tenth, the fifteenth centuries.
To be sure, Orthodoxy recognizes external changes (e.g., vestments of clergy, monastic habits, new feasts, canons of ecumenical and regional councils, etc.), but nothing has been added or subtracted from her Faith. The external changes have a single purpose: To express that Faith under new circumstances. For example, the Bible and divine Services were translated from Hebrew and Greek into the language of new lands; or new religious customs arose to express the ethnic sensibilities of the converted peoples, etc.; nevertheless, their has always been "one faith, one Lord, one baptism" (Eph. 4: 4).
The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.
Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.
All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation.
In any case, the truth of these dogmas have always belonged to the Christian Tradition. They have been present from the beginning of that Tradition as "hints," seeds that only waited for the right time to bloom.
3. God
Roman Catholicism teaches that human reason can prove that God is; and, even infer that He is eternal, infinite, good, bodiless, almighty, all-knowing, etc. He is "most real being," "true being." Humans are like Him (analogous), but we are imperfect being. The God of Roman Catholicism, born in the Latin Middle Ages, is not " the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the God of the savants and the philosohers," to adapt the celebrated phrase of Blaise Pascal.
Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist. Otherwise, unless God speaks to us, human reason cannot know more. The saving knowledge of God comes by the Savior. Speaking to His Father, He said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou has sent" (John 17: 3).
Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Fathers declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ.
Historically, the Roman Catholic theology never made the distinction between God's Essence (what He is) and His Uncreated Energies (by what means He acts). St. Gregory Palamas tried to explain this distinction through a comparison between God and the Sun. The sun has its rays, God has His Energies (among them, Grace and Light). By His Energies, God created, sustains and governs the universe. By His Energies, He will transform the creation and deify it, that is, He will fill the new creation with His Energies as water fills a sponge.
Finally, Roman Catholicism teaches that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (filioque). In so doing, it spurned the Apostolic Tradition which always taught that God the Father is the single Source ("monarchy") of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, the Latins added words to the Nicean Creed
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son . . .
They made this change on the authority of the Pope, in the 11th century, not any Council of the whole Church (Ecumenical Council).
4. Christ
Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question differs from the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).
The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.
According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."
He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future. For a long time, the Latins, whether among ordinary Catholics or intellectuals, little attention was given to the idea of deification. Not much attention was devoted to the concepts necessary to understanding this doctrine.
Roman Catholic theology is customarily legalistic and philosophical. For example, a "valid" (legal term) baptism into Christ is the result of the right intention (having the same understanding of baptism as the Church) and using the correct formula or words during the ceremony or rite. Thus, even an atheist, under certain conditions, could baptize a person. "Sprinkling" of water (effusion) over the head of the baptized is reasonable and sufficient.
Lately, some Latin theologians are rethinking the Christian teaching of salvation (soteriology). They are beginning to take the idea of deification (baptism as the first step) very seriously. They rightly insist that it belongs to Christian tradition, including "St. Augustine" and other Latin Fathers. In point of fact, a revolution in its theology is necessary if it is to become Scriptural and patristic; if it ever hopes to achieve the right understanding of Christ and His salvation.
5. The Church
The Roman Catholic view of the Church (ecclesiology) differs from the Orthodox teaching on this subject in several ways.
The Latins teach that the visible head of the Church is the Pope, the successor to St. Peter, who was appointed to that sacred position by the Lord Himself with the words, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church . . . " (Matt. 16:18).
The Pope is, then, "the Bishop of the Catholic Church," her teacher, the vicar (agent, deputy) of Christ on earth. He is the interpreter of the Christian Tradition. When he speaks for the whole Church (ex cathedra), the Holy Spirit does not permit him to err. He is, therefore, infallible on matters of morals and doctrine. Other bishops are his lieutenants. He is the symbol of the episcopate's unity.
The Orthodox Church teaches that all bishops are equal. To be sure, there are different ranks of bishops (patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan, bishop); nevertheless, a bishop is a bishop. Such differences apply to the administration of a church or group of churches, not to the nature of the bishop. The president of a synod of bishops is called archbishop (Greek custom) or metropolitan (Russian custom).
According to Latin ecclesiology, each local parish is part of the universal or whole Church. The totality of Catholic parishes form the Body of Christ on earth. This visible Body has a visible head, the Pope. This idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.
Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.
Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.
Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

[Knowledge3]

I'm a learner.

Posts like these are a dime a dozen. :thumbsup: :priest:

[ConanTheLibrarian]

I'm a learner.

Posts like these are a dime a dozen. :thumbsup: :priest:
This is most certainly true. Straw man, anyone?

[Knowledge3]

This is most certainly true. Straw man, anyone?

Keep in mind that I've been instructed and confronted by my TAW brethren about my reference to the CC.

So, let's not go there. :) :priest:

[Eusebios]

Thomas,
I am curious about two things:
1) Where did this extensive quote come from?
2) What is your purpose for posting it here and now?
As you know, we are in the period of Great Lent, and postings such as this one merely detract from our need to concentrate on our own sins and not to judge our brothers and sisters.
Although there may be some helpful points, it's generally nothing more than a polemic, and a rather long one at that.
My apologies if I have offended.
Eusebios
:bow:

[Xpycoctomos]

In regards to Development of doctrine, I htink Catholics would say the same thing even in regards to what we consider innovations:

They have been present from the beginning of that Tradition as "hints," seeds that only waited for the right time to bloom.

[ThomasV]

I WAS TRYING TO REPLY TO A POST THAT I SAW HERE SOMEONE WANT TO CONVERT TO Orthodoxy BUT DIDNT HAVE A CHURCH BUT HAD A Catholic CHURCH AND ASKED WHATS THE DIFFERENCE

[Akathist]

As I said on the other thread, I think the person was unable to get to an EO church because they were from Austrialia.

I can understand your wish to help someone understand that we have different beliefs on some matters than the Catholic Church. It just seemed to a few of us to be coming from no where and not a part of a discussion. (hense the "straw man" reference.)

Welcome to TAW. I hope that you will participate here and that you will start threads that encourage discussions. Most of us however, are not so interested in discussing the difference between us and the Catholic Church much unless it is to answer a question or to help someone who does not understand something particular.

[contriteheart]

Interesting replies. I thought it was a good post.

-Grace

[OnTheWay]

Copy and paste is always bad when there's no original thought with it to provide some direction for discussion. As it were I don't think you're going to succedd in squashing all the difference and similarities between the RCC and the EOC into a post.

[Tigg]

Interesting replies. I thought it was a good post.

-Grace
So do I.

-Peace-

[contriteheart]

Actually, I think this post and its accompanying part 2 may be the single most helpful thing I've ever read on TAW (and in two years, I've read quite a lot here).

Thank you for posting it.

-Grace

[Xpycoctomos]

i didn't think it was very fair.

[kamikat]

This was one of the very first articles I read in the begining of my inquirery. I found it very helpful and re-read it severals times last year.

[Rhamiel]

I read the part about Christ, it seems we think the same thing about the crucifixtion, we just explain it in differant ways.
So the Eo Church does not think the Holy Ghost comes from Jesus too?

[Xpycoctomos]

No. he may pass through but does not come from (as in originate) from Christ. For the EO a central Doctrine of God is that the Father is source and Christ and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. It's a pretty strict doctrine in the East and although I have heard good ways to explain how the Filioque does not threaten this central doctrine, to hte East the doctrine is superfulous and confusing at best, and destructive to the understanding of the Trinity.

John

That said, I still think the article in question is full strawmen. The Horses would be thrilled lol :)

[Protoevangel]

Yea, truth isn't very PC. ;)

[Tigg]

No. he may pass through but does not come from (as in originate) from Christ. For the EO a central Doctrine of God is that the Father is source and Christ and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. It's a pretty strict doctrine in the East and although I have heard good ways to explain how the Filioque does not threaten this central doctrine, to hte East the doctrine is superfulous and confusing at best, and destructive to the understanding of the Trinity.

John

That said, I still think the article in question is full strawmen. The Horses would be thrilled lol :)

Are you calling me a horse?! :eek: Well, I nev-ah! j/k with you, maybe... :D I thank Thomas V for his posts. And part 2. Caused me to do some googling for more info etc. So was good, was good. (Thanks also for your post above, as well.)

-Peace-

[Knowledge3]

imo, the Filioque is a doctrinal aberration of pure trinitarian orthodoxy.

[Tigg]

Thomas,
I am curious about two things:
1) Where did this extensive quote come from?
2) What is your purpose for posting it here and now?
As you know, we are in the period of Great Lent, and postings such as this one merely detract from our need to concentrate on our own sins and not to judge our brothers and sisters.
Although there may be some helpful points, it's generally nothing more than a polemic, and a rather long one at that.
My apologies if I have offended.
Eusebios
:bow:

My apologies for answering your number one question. If I am not mistaken, this is his source:

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

The rest is for Thomas to answer. As I said, I have been a-gooling. :wave:

-Peace-

[Xpycoctomos]

Yea, truth isn't very PC. ;)
I wasn't worried about PC... I was concerned about fair. The two are unrelated.

You can be fair and not PC, example: Abortion is murder. This is fair, though not PC and perhaps not very effective.
Unfair would be- therefore I would not trust a women who had an abortion because she is a murderer and might kill me.

The article, while fair in some sections, put the RCC in a petrie dish and examined it out of context exploiting beliefs. It was strawman in many areas. And unfair. I'm not going to argue why I see this as unfair becuase it's pointless. At this point, most of us are going to believe what we will about the Catholic Church regardless of what anyone says becuase it comforts us to know that those outside of the True Church are wrong in fundamentally messed up (which is what the article proposes)... it makes us feel truer.

But I at least wanted to let other Catholics know that not all of us take all of the pro-Orthodox anti-RCC propoganda hook line and sinker (which some of this was, for good or bad)

John

[ThomasV]

Its not anti-Catholics its true since 33 A.D. Iam not putting anyone down that would be nonchristian but I am not going to lie your job is to tell the truth no matter what Iam sorry if I offended anyone

[Xpycoctomos]

Thomas...

You didn't offend me. You posted an article you thought would help someone. I'm not judging you or your intentions. Now, I'm not goingt o argue how anti-catholic the article is... I suppose that's a bit subjective... perhaps. However, I want to make it clear that I do not believe that you are anti-Catholic or anyone who likes the article.

The problem with the article is that it gives a very inadequate picture (in many although not all places) of what and especially HOW the Catholic Church views certain issues.

There are some good thorough articles I have read regarding errors within the Catholic Church. This just isn't one of them.

Articles liek this do not inform of any reality as much as use some true statements and come to erroneous conclusions based on an erroneous understanding of HOW exactly the statement is understood by those who are loyal to it. So, in the end, it just creates more prejudice based on shady reasoning.

You are the second person to somehow come to the conclusion that I don't like this article because it wsan't tactful enough and Im afraid it might offend people. But I have never once said anything like that. That article is full of strawmen meaning it creates situations that don't actually exist and then attacks these ghosts. That's what i don't like about it. So no, it's not fully the truth and seriously misrepresents Catholic Understanding.

[Protoevangel]

I wasn't worried about PC... I was concerned about fair. The two are unrelated.

You can be fair and not PC, example: Abortion is murder. This is fair, though not PC and perhaps not very effective.
Unfair would be- therefore I would not trust a women who had an abortion because she is a murderer and might kill me.
This is the strawman; it in no way relates to the article. The article describes RCC belief and compares it to Orthodox belief, it in no way says that means the RCC are untrustworthy, it makes no judgments on those beliefs.


The article, while fair in some sections, put the RCC in a petrie dish and examined it out of context exploiting beliefs. It was strawman in many areas. And unfair. I'm not going to argue why I see this as unfair becuase it's pointless.
You claim it is bad, but refuse to say where. That'd beyond ridiculous, it's just plain sad.

At this point, most of us are going to believe what we will about the Catholic Church regardless of what anyone says becuase it comforts us to know that those outside of the True Church are wrong in fundamentally messed up (which is what the article proposes)... it makes us feel truer.
So you refuse to explain where the flaws are because you judge the rest of us as too ignorant and unable of critical thought to understand the rational argument you refuse to grace us with. Very nice.


But I at least wanted to let other Catholics know that not all of us take all of the pro-Orthodox anti-RCC propoganda hook line and sinker (which some of this was, for good or bad)
And yet you refuse to point out what is specifically erroneous. Thanks for deciding to keep everyone else in ignorance, Josh, I'm sure it makes you feel truer.

[Knowledge3]

*yawn* :yawn:

The primary differences between CC and EO

1) Purgatory
2) Papal infallibility
3) Selling of Indulgences
4) Filioque
5) Various theological approaches/differences

That's it in a nutshell.

[Eusebios]

Brothers and Sisters,
Please see the prayer of St. Ephraim below. STOP the arguing please.
Don

[Xpycoctomos]

This is the strawman; it in no way relates to the article. The article describes RCC belief and compares it to Orthodox belief, it in no way says that means the RCC are untrustworthy, it makes no judgments on those beliefs.



You claim it is bad, but refuse to say where. That'd beyond ridiculous, it's just plain sad.


So you refuse to explain where the flaws are because you judge the rest of us as too ignorant and unable of critical thought to understand the rational argument you refuse to grace us with. Very nice.



And yet you refuse to point out what is specifically erroneous. Thanks for deciding to keep everyone else in ignorance, Josh, I'm sure it makes you feel truer.

I'm sorry for the post that was here.

My name is John.

Forgive me brother.

[Protoevangel]

I'm sorry for pulling us into an argument.
Don't worry about it. Remember, I am coming out of Lutheranism, and from the TC-L forum. From where I stand, we aren't even arguing yet, we're just having an animated discussion. ;)

The reason I did not want to discuss the reasons are two-fold:
1) I didn't want to get into a back and forth debate over something that is so obviously heated in people's minds.
2) I am not the one to teach others about Catholicism... that's for Catholics to do (ie, OBOB).

I'm sorry that this post has seemed to ruin any kind of understanding we've had. You're a good guy and I regret that our disagreement on this article (which I presume you did not write, so I didn't mean for it to be personal) made you feel you needed to answer me with such a harsh tone. But, for you that seemed necessary and I'll respect that.
My intention was to show your arguments to be the sophistry they are. It wasn't meant personal (against who you are), but it was meant to hopefully wake you up to see the silliness of the position you were proffering. If you are going to tear apart someone's work and ridicule it, you need to be prepared to show where it deserved that ridicule, otherwise you are simply being destructive and petty.

That is all I care about here. I have very little against Catholicism, and I applaud what His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is doing in extending the hand of friendship to the Catholic Pope. I hope the dialog can lead to eventual, and genuine reunification.

I like you John, and greatly respect the vast majority of what you have to say. But every once in a while, like on this thread, I really have to scratch my knoggin and wonder where you are coming from. I suppose that's part of being human, though. :)

I would be happy to discuss this with you through OBOB... although I must heed to anything they say in regards to Catholicism because 1) it's their forum and 2) it's their religion and they know it better than I do.
This isn't an OBOB issue. The article, and anything the author has said that you felt the need to ridicule is an TAW issue. That is the only issue I have here, you showing contempt, and refusing to give any concrete reason for disrespecting your Orthodox brother's work.

God bless and I apologize for having offended you Brother.

John

PS: My name is John
Don't worry about offending me. I've been lurking in TCL recently, just because I kinda miss being able to argue vehemently with a brother in one thread, and offer him my prayers and love in the next. Arguing gets a bit of a bad rap here, imho. Family - loved ones argue, but that does not (or should not) diminish the love they feel for each other. Arguing is only a bad thing if there is no purpose, or when that purpose is overshadowed by the argument. My purpose was and is to learn from you, why you disrespected the work (both by what you said and by what you refused to say) of your brother.

God bless you too John. And I should have remembered your name, but I was queuing from how you signed in post #21 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32324775&postcount=21) (typo).

[Protoevangel]

I'm sorry for the post that was here.

My name is John.

Forgive me brother.
You have done nothing to me that needs forgiveness. We are brothers who disagree on how to approach an issue. As long as we are willing to talk about the issues, and don't wall each other off, there is nothing wrong.

On the other hand, if you want me to delete my previous reply/replies, tell me, and I will do so.

[nestoj]

Dear brothers,
I’m not going to get into the reasons why Thomas started question about differences between RC and OC – that is on him to say, but I will examine one important issue that was raised here.

It seams to me that the real question and matter of dispute is: did Thomas told a lie when he spoke of differences, or was he true, yet unfair. For those of you that do not realize it – you are poking in the heart of our faith.

If some think that Thomas was untrue, then please be open with it and point precisely on his lies, for this is not small thing, and we are talking about our brother.

But, if we agree that what he said was truth, yet unfair, then tell us with what we substitute truth, and for what should we trade it. For political correctness? For fairness? Be very careful what we are substituting here, for we say that “God is truth“. Some of us accuse Russian Orthodox Church of not being fair, not being PC, because she destroyed her own temple that was defiled by gay marriage. She send harsh message in to the world – yes she did! What should she do? Be silent, not saying what she believes, pat our stumbled brothers on their back? Then what do we believe? Why does the world needs us – are we the salt that has no taste? Let them go on with whatever they are doing, let them sleep, it is not our business, we should think of us. Perhaps you’re right, but I believe that there is sin in not doing god as well as in doing bad. We speak of parents that committed murder of their own child - be fair to them, comfort them, be kind – yes, but ACT also. Tell them the truth, don’t be silent. For when time comes, it will be too late and they will be beyond saving and we are going to be satisfied, for we ware right and they ware wrong? Should we be thrown in front of the feats of men then?

Maybe I should ask this first – do we all believe that we are the Church of Christ, and if we do, should that church put the candle under the bucket, and try to hide the city that is on the hill?

So brothers, do we call Thomas a liar, or do we trade truth – and for what?

Nestoj
God helps

[nestoj]

Forgive me, for speaking harshly, but that's what I believe and it is good to speak freely some time.

nestoj
God helps

[ThomasV]

IF YOU BELIVE IN JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR
IF YOU HAVE FAITH WITH AN UPRIGHT HEART IN GOD IN ALL YOU DO
IF YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE BY GODS LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS

IF YOU BELIEVE AND FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AND YOUR CHURCH TRADITIONS WITH FAITH THAT IS THE TRUE WAY

THEN I THINK WITH GOD’S LOVING CARE AND SALVATION YOU WILL BE SAVED BUT ONLY GOD KNOWS THAT

BUT IF YOU KNOW THE TRUTH AND IGNORE IT, OR IF YOU HAVE A BURNING DESIRE WITHIN YOU TO FIND THE TRUTH AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT DESIRE,

THEN I BELIEVE YOU WILL BE JUDGE ACCORDINGLY BY GOD

[thereselittleflower]

I wasn't worried about PC... I was concerned about fair. The two are unrelated.

You can be fair and not PC, example: Abortion is murder. This is fair, though not PC and perhaps not very effective.
Unfair would be- therefore I would not trust a women who had an abortion because she is a murderer and might kill me.

The article, while fair in some sections, put the RCC in a petrie dish and examined it out of context exploiting beliefs. It was strawman in many areas. And unfair. I'm not going to argue why I see this as unfair becuase it's pointless. At this point, most of us are going to believe what we will about the Catholic Church regardless of what anyone says becuase it comforts us to know that those outside of the True Church are wrong in fundamentally messed up (which is what the article proposes)... it makes us feel truer.

But I at least wanted to let other Catholics know that not all of us take all of the pro-Orthodox anti-RCC propoganda hook line and sinker (which some of this was, for good or bad)

John

Thank you John, it is much appreciated. :)


.

[Xpycoctomos]

IF YOU BELIVE IN JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR
IF YOU HAVE FAITH WITH AN UPRIGHT HEART IN GOD IN ALL YOU DO
IF YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE BY GODS LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS

IF YOU BELIEVE AND FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AND YOUR CHURCH TRADITIONS WITH FAITH THAT IS THE TRUE WAY

THEN I THINK WITH GOD’S LOVING CARE AND SALVATION YOU WILL BE SAVED BUT ONLY GOD KNOWS THAT

BUT IF YOU KNOW THE TRUTH AND IGNORE IT, OR IF YOU HAVE A BURNING DESIRE WITHIN YOU TO FIND THE TRUTH AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT DESIRE,

THEN I BELIEVE YOU WILL BE JUDGE ACCORDINGLY BY GOD
sigh... so Thomas, was that to me (At least in part)?

Let me state again. Fair and PC are two different terms. PC means to say nice words instead of mean ones and doing so sometimes even at the expense of truth.

A few months ago I went to a Lutheran site (after Fr. Fenton left to become Orthodox) that posted an article on the Orthodox Church. There are nothing but true snipits of information in the article. True as the statements were, it purposely ignored the life and experience of the Orthodox Church giving our beliefs no context except the anti-catholics context many already hold there, using our own words to make us look like idolaters, too caught up in tradition and so on (you know the regular routine). And bloggers praised the author (the owner of the blog) for such a wonderful post... but he was preaching to the choir! Most of them didn't even have any positive in-depth experiences with the Orthodox Church much less extensive reading of our beliefs from our POV. They knew they were upset about all of these pastors and parishioners leaving for the OC and this article told them what they wanted to hear.

The problem is when we start out with an idea and THEN set out to prove it. So, one says "Sola Scriptura is true... let's find verses in the bible to support this truth". "The Orthodox Church supports idol worship even if they don't call it that... I know this because I saw them kissing icons and they admit venerating and even "praying to" saints... now let's look for more information to support that truth." It's not that they did so with an evil smirk on their face and said "I'm going to ignore any info that doesn't support my theory" but that's what happens in the end beacuse the original purpose of the research was to support an idea, not to find the truth.

In Orthodoxy (especially us converts becuase of zeal that can be so good many times... and sometimes so easily misplaced) we have a tendency to start off with an idea "the Catholic Church is not the true Church" (and I am with you, it's not) but we constantly need to be aware and critical of what we read. I will (or at least should) take hook line and sinker what I read from the fathers regarding our theology and thought unless the Church has said otherwise. But I won't take it at face value when when they comment on what other Churches believe... becuase they have often 1) been wrong, or 2) have offered correct information, but not the whole picture thereby coming to very serious conclusions that in all honesty are not true by and large (this is what I mean by fair... it has nothing at all to do wtih PC). I see the latter here.

Do you know how many articles and priests I have had to endure purporting that the Lutheran Church (at least Missouri Synod) does not believe in Real Presence? They suggest to me that although the LCMS uses the term, in all reality they don't believe this because... [and then they go on to pull out snipits of true info and analyze it to death with philsophy and complex theology] coming to a convincing conclusiong to anyone who was not Lutheran that indeed the LCMS does not really beleive in Real Presence. Yet, I can offer that myself, my family, my pastor, and my chatechism class all taught me very strictly that this was indeed the Real Body and the Real True Blood of Christ and that it was something that we couldn't understand but that we must accept. And I have never been taught otherwise in the 4 parishes I had attended. The point is not whether or not the Lutheran Eucharist is valid or not... the point is that I was told by non-lutherans vehemently that Lutherans don't really believe this... and finally I thought... you know this preist knows more than I will ever know about the Church... but he simply doesn't know that much about the Lutheran CHurch except what he has read from the OC POV... and in the end.. who cares.. why should he know.. he's an Orthodox preist not a Lutheran pastor. :)

Personally, from my experiences, this article does not provide the entire picture on all subjects (for example the one on Science and God). That's my opinion. And this is why I say that it is "unfair"... but not becuase it is rude or tactless... I don't think the article is rude or tactless. In fact, it's very matter of fact. And that is actually a plus. So, really there is nothing that struck me as Politically incorrect... but that's entirely subjective and an unrelated issue. Now, you and I can disagree on how I view the rationality behind this article. That;s fine. Kamikat (who was Catholic) appreciated the article and she did live it.

So, accuse me of being wrong (kamikat surely has the credentials to do so, having been Catholic for such a long time), but please, don't accuse me of being polite at the expense of avoiding truth . Just because I disagree with this article doesn't mean I am avoiding anything.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Hey THomas,

One more thing unrelated to this thread. It would proably be a good idea not to write in all caps. I tell you this becuase I know you are new here and probably to the forum world (hence the accident behind the creation of this thread which was originally just supposed to be a part of another thread) and you probalby don't know that people often percieve CAPS as shouting. I have noticed you have typed in CAPS in other threads too.

Anyway, just a word of advice. God bless brother,

John

[ThomasV]

Ya I was told about that thanks and GOD BLESS

[Philothei]

IF YOU BELIVE IN JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR
IF YOU HAVE FAITH WITH AN UPRIGHT HEART IN GOD IN ALL YOU DO
IF YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE BY GODS LAWS AND COMMANDMENTS

IF YOU BELIEVE AND FOLLOW THE SCRIPTURE AND YOUR CHURCH TRADITIONS WITH FAITH THAT IS THE TRUE WAY

THEN I THINK WITH GOD’S LOVING CARE AND SALVATION YOU WILL BE SAVED BUT ONLY GOD KNOWS THAT

BUT IF YOU KNOW THE TRUTH AND IGNORE IT, OR IF YOU HAVE A BURNING DESIRE WITHIN YOU TO FIND THE TRUTH AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THAT DESIRE,

THEN I BELIEVE YOU WILL BE JUDGE ACCORDINGLY BY GOD
I want you to know I am with you on what you are saying just quit the caps my friend.... people think you are shouting.... And believe me I know where you are coming from. Never stop proclaiming your faith. Do it humbly, always with love and compassion in mind. LOUD is not always effective, only in Lord's time the hardened hearts will turn to God. Not ours.


Lord have mercy on us.
God bless,
Philothei

[Protoevangel]

Let me state again. Fair and PC are two different terms. PC means to say nice words instead of mean ones and doing so sometimes even at the expense of truth.
Despite what you are claiming, that appears to be exactly what you are doing. You are saying nice things to the Catholics (the article is not fair... etc), and avoiding the truth... In addition to being PC, your argument, or more accurately, your lack of an argument, is completely passive-aggressive. This is not what I have come to expect from you, which is why I'm so baffled. If the article has a problem, step up to the plate... let's get it out in the open.

A few months ago I went to a Lutheran site (after Fr. Fenton left to become Orthodox) that posted an article on the Orthodox Church. There are nothing but true snipits of information in the article. True as the statements were, it purposely ignored the life and experience of the Orthodox Church giving our beliefs no context except the anti-catholics context many already hold there, using our own words to make us look like idolaters, too caught up in tradition and so on (you know the regular routine). And bloggers praised the author (the owner of the blog) for such a wonderful post... but he was preaching to the choir! Most of them didn't even have any positive in-depth experiences with the Orthodox Church much less extensive reading of our beliefs from our POV. They knew they were upset about all of these pastors and parishioners leaving for the OC and this article told them what they wanted to hear.

The problem is when we start out with an idea and THEN set out to prove it. So, one says "Sola Scriptura is true... let's find verses in the bible to support this truth". "The Orthodox Church supports idol worship even if they don't call it that... I know this because I saw them kissing icons and they admit venerating and even "praying to" saints... now let's look for more information to support that truth." It's not that they did so with an evil smirk on their face and said "I'm going to ignore any info that doesn't support my theory" but that's what happens in the end beacuse the original purpose of the research was to support an idea, not to find the truth.

In Orthodoxy (especially us converts becuase of zeal that can be so good many times... and sometimes so easily misplaced) we have a tendency to start off with an idea "the Catholic Church is not the true Church" (and I am with you, it's not) but we constantly need to be aware and critical of what we read. I will (or at least should) take hook line and sinker what I read from the fathers regarding our theology and thought unless the Church has said otherwise. But I won't take it at face value when when they comment on what other Churches believe... becuase they have often 1) been wrong, or 2) have offered correct information, but not the whole picture thereby coming to very serious conclusions that in all honesty are not true by and large (this is what I mean by fair... it has nothing at all to do wtih PC). I see the latter here.

Do you know how many articles and priests I have had to endure purporting that the Lutheran Church (at least Missouri Synod) does not believe in Real Presence? They suggest to me that although the LCMS uses the term, in all reality they don't believe this because... [and then they go on to pull out snipits of true info and analyze it to death with philsophy and complex theology] coming to a convincing conclusiong to anyone who was not Lutheran that indeed the LCMS does not really beleive in Real Presence. Yet, I can offer that myself, my family, my pastor, and my chatechism class all taught me very strictly that this was indeed the Real Body and the Real True Blood of Christ and that it was something that we couldn't understand but that we must accept. And I have never been taught otherwise in the 4 parishes I had attended. The point is not whether or not the Lutheran Eucharist is valid or not... the point is that I was told by non-lutherans vehemently that Lutherans don't really believe this... and finally I thought... you know this preist knows more than I will ever know about the Church... but he simply doesn't know that much about the Lutheran CHurch except what he has read from the OC POV... and in the end.. who cares.. why should he know.. he's an Orthodox preist not a Lutheran pastor. :)
Completely and totally irrelevant. Am I wrong? OK, simply relate your above points to the article in the OP. Please be specific.

Personally, from my experiences, this article does not provide the entire picture on all subjects (for example the one on Science and God). That's my opinion.
This is completely absurd criteria to judge any article by. The "entire picture on all subjects"?:confused: :scratch:

Maybe it didn't come out right... Feel free to revise or clarify. You see, I'm really not trying to beat you down or anything... I'm just trying to see what the specific problem is with the article you keep calling "unfair". I think the only "fair" thing to do is to be open and up-front about the problems.

And this is why I say that it is "unfair"... but not becuase it is rude or tactless... I don't think the article is rude or tactless. In fact, it's very matter of fact. And that is actually a plus. So, really there is nothing that struck me as Politically incorrect... but that's entirely subjective and an unrelated issue. Now, you and I can disagree on how I view the rationality behind this article. That;s fine. Kamikat (who was Catholic) appreciated the article and she did live it.

So, accuse me of being wrong (kamikat surely has the credentials to do so, having been Catholic for such a long time), but please, don't accuse me of being polite at the expense of avoiding truth . Just because I disagree with this article doesn't mean I am avoiding anything.

John
But you are avoiding. All you have done is criticize the article, and avoid giving any specific reason. Where - specifically - does the article fail to offer accurate and fair differentiation between Catholic and Orthodox belief?

I really hate harping on you like this John. You have always been one of the kindest, most genial people here. And here I am making an ass of myself. :sigh: Why can't you just be forthright and straightforward about your criticism? I am genuinely bewildered... Help me out here, please.

If you still refuse to be aboveboard, then fine, I give up.

[Akathist]

sigh... so Thomas, was that to me (At least in part)?

Let me state again. Fair and PC are two different terms. PC means to say nice words instead of mean ones and doing so sometimes even at the expense of truth.

A few months ago I went to a Lutheran site (after Fr. Fenton left to become Orthodox) that posted an article on the Orthodox Church. There are nothing but true snipits of information in the article. True as the statements were, it purposely ignored the life and experience of the Orthodox Church giving our beliefs no context except the anti-catholics context many already hold there, using our own words to make us look like idolaters, too caught up in tradition and so on (you know the regular routine). And bloggers praised the author (the owner of the blog) for such a wonderful post... but he was preaching to the choir! Most of them didn't even have any positive in-depth experiences with the Orthodox Church much less extensive reading of our beliefs from our POV. They knew they were upset about all of these pastors and parishioners leaving for the OC and this article told them what they wanted to hear.

The problem is when we start out with an idea and THEN set out to prove it. So, one says "Sola Scriptura is true... let's find verses in the bible to support this truth". "The Orthodox Church supports idol worship even if they don't call it that... I know this because I saw them kissing icons and they admit venerating and even "praying to" saints... now let's look for more information to support that truth." It's not that they did so with an evil smirk on their face and said "I'm going to ignore any info that doesn't support my theory" but that's what happens in the end beacuse the original purpose of the research was to support an idea, not to find the truth.

In Orthodoxy (especially us converts becuase of zeal that can be so good many times... and sometimes so easily misplaced) we have a tendency to start off with an idea "the Catholic Church is not the true Church" (and I am with you, it's not) but we constantly need to be aware and critical of what we read. I will (or at least should) take hook line and sinker what I read from the fathers regarding our theology and thought unless the Church has said otherwise. But I won't take it at face value when when they comment on what other Churches believe... becuase they have often 1) been wrong, or 2) have offered correct information, but not the whole picture thereby coming to very serious conclusions that in all honesty are not true by and large (this is what I mean by fair... it has nothing at all to do wtih PC). I see the latter here.

Do you know how many articles and priests I have had to endure purporting that the Lutheran Church (at least Missouri Synod) does not believe in Real Presence? They suggest to me that although the LCMS uses the term, in all reality they don't believe this because... [and then they go on to pull out snipits of true info and analyze it to death with philsophy and complex theology] coming to a convincing conclusiong to anyone who was not Lutheran that indeed the LCMS does not really beleive in Real Presence. Yet, I can offer that myself, my family, my pastor, and my chatechism class all taught me very strictly that this was indeed the Real Body and the Real True Blood of Christ and that it was something that we couldn't understand but that we must accept. And I have never been taught otherwise in the 4 parishes I had attended. The point is not whether or not the Lutheran Eucharist is valid or not... the point is that I was told by non-lutherans vehemently that Lutherans don't really believe this... and finally I thought... you know this preist knows more than I will ever know about the Church... but he simply doesn't know that much about the Lutheran CHurch except what he has read from the OC POV... and in the end.. who cares.. why should he know.. he's an Orthodox preist not a Lutheran pastor. :)

Personally, from my experiences, this article does not provide the entire picture on all subjects (for example the one on Science and God). That's my opinion. And this is why I say that it is "unfair"... but not becuase it is rude or tactless... I don't think the article is rude or tactless. In fact, it's very matter of fact. And that is actually a plus. So, really there is nothing that struck me as Politically incorrect... but that's entirely subjective and an unrelated issue. Now, you and I can disagree on how I view the rationality behind this article. That;s fine. Kamikat (who was Catholic) appreciated the article and she did live it.

So, accuse me of being wrong (kamikat surely has the credentials to do so, having been Catholic for such a long time), but please, don't accuse me of being polite at the expense of avoiding truth . Just because I disagree with this article doesn't mean I am avoiding anything.

John

I am with you on this John. The article is about proving wrong another faith. If this was posted in say, Denominational Specific Theology (part of GT) for just Orthodox and Catholic to debate the content of, than I would say that this was fair.

However, I do not think that we here in TAW need to be focused on proving that someone else is wrong. I like the approach we usually take were instead of proving someone else wrong, we simply show what we believe. This article appears polemic to me yet, no one but EO's are allowed to debate here. Therefore, I say it is unfair. I might feel otherwise if this was posted on Orthodox Circle or Orthopraxis or another only EO forum site. But this is CF which is ecumenical. Therefore, Catholics can read this and be offended and are not allowed to debate with us. I do not feel that this unnecessary potential offending puts us in the best of lights.

[Protoevangel]

.

[Xpycoctomos]

proto... I know you don't mean to, but you're unintentionally twisting my words. Yes, I am avoiding a futile argument (I suppose I am replacing it with another one), but I am not avoiding the the Truth of where the Church is.

I have been accused of 1) saying that this article is too political incorrect for my taste and 2) saying that it's controversial so we should just sweep the truth under the rug. Neither of which I believe. So, that is my first issue. Is the bolded part clear enough? In whatever way you have misunderstood my original posts, forget about them then. Now we are clear on this. I not only hope you will take my word at that, but I also expect you to take my word on that if what you were saying early about me usually being genuine was true and not just rhetoric to make a debate seem civil. Now that that's settled.

In my last post and the one before I have actually pointed toward my main problem which can't be proven with simple prooftext. It starts with an agenda (to show why the Catholic Church is wrong) and highlights points about it that sound bad while highlighting the good stuff about us. Protestants do the same thing with us, using our own wording against us.

This whole stupid argument started off innocently enough when some people said its a great article and then I came by and offered my personal opinion that it's not that great. If someone wants to learn about what the RCC believes, I would suggest not seeking out the advice of an Orthodox monk much less TAW. It is unfair that we somehow think that an Orthdoox writer is able to give the most balanced view on Catholicism especially when the whole point of the article is to put Orthodox belief in a better light than Catholic belief. I think if we post this in OBOB, it will get torn to shreds for not having given the entire picture. I mean, the article, for one, made it sound like Latin theology bows down to science... if this were true, then we all have to say that the Catholic Church is demonic to its core and has a theology that is ultimately bound for the bowels of hell. And that certainly exists (the more I read about certain other religions, the more I am convinced of such) but I personally do not believe such is true of the Catholic Church. If I did, I could never call devout Catholics Christians. If that's where you stand, fair enough. (Notice, I said "fair"... obviously that's not a PC belief, but if that's your belief then you have to stay true to that... that is not only your right but your duty as an honest human being). You're consistent. But that's not what I see when i look into their theology and where their theology has brought them.

Honestly, I thought when I said that I didn't think it was fair, I thought it would be left at that. An opinion. Yeah, the guy who wrote it is my brother in Chrsit, but I don't think his well being rests on whether I liked his article. If others found it helpful, great. Who am I to judge? It just wasn't my cup of tea.

Also, I never said that the article didn't have any good or interesting points. It did. I thought I expressed that, but I may not have, so if I haven't... well, I have now. I have read a lot of things that I don't appreciate overall but that had good,useful portions or points to it.

I think you are taking this much too personally. So I don't find Catholic Theology that threatening... I'm not alone in the orthodox world in this. While in TAW I may be a renegade, in the Orthodox world at large I am not. that does not mean I am any more right on this issue. It also doesn't mean I am anymore wrong on this issue. But in the end, it's my opinion and I don't think my opinion on this particular article says anything about me... at all.

I'm sorry if you don't like my words, but I must say the truth at all expense and if that offends you then that's your own personal issue.

I agree, the above paragraph is absurd and unfair and comes out of left field. That's how I felt when the same was said of me. I don't imagine you or anyone here somehow "fleeing the truth" just because you don't agree with my take on the article.

[Xpycoctomos]

Out of respect for others, I will stop posting in this thread, not as a form of protest, but simply becuase we all can see that this debate is futile at best and in all reality harmful to others.

By the way, Proto and Thomas V. I don't think your responding to my post would be at all ridiculous. It's only fair. This is not some ploy so i can have the last word and look like the bigger man. I jsut think that you and I can agree that it's just getting dumb.

[ThomasV]

Thats what you wrote look at this article from wikipedia and that dose not mean the member's of the church

The Fourth Crusade (1201 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1201)–1204 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1204)), originally designed to conquer Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem) through an invasion of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt), instead, in 1204, invaded and conquered the Eastern Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox) city of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople), capital of the Byzantine Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire).
Pope Innocent III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_III) began to call for a Crusade in 1198. A crusading army led by Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_people) Count Boniface of Montferrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boniface_of_Montferrat) negotiated in 1200 with the Doge of Venice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice) for transport of 33,500 Crusaders to Egypt. When a reduced Crusader army in 1201 could not pay the original price, the Venetians proposed they pay their debt by attacking the port of Zara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadar) in Dalmatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatia), a former Venetian city under the protection of the Catholic King Emeric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeric_of_Hungary) of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary).
Meanwhile, Boniface met with Alexius IV Angelus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_IV_Angelus), son of the recently-deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_II_Angelus); Alexius offered to reunite the Byzantine church with Rome, pay the crusaders an enormous sum, and join the crusade to Egypt with a large army, if the crusaders would sail to Constantinople and restore his throne. Boniface agreed, and Alexius returned with Boniface to rejoin the fleet at Corfu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfu) after it had sailed from Zara. The fleet arrived at Constantinople in late June, 1203, and the Crusaders took the city on April 12, 1204.
The empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Empire) of Constantinople was established. Almost none of the crusaders ever made it to the Holy Land, and the unstable Latin Empire siphoned off much of Europe's crusading energy. The legacy of the Fourth Crusade was the deep sense of betrayal the Latins had instilled in their Greek coreligionists. With the events of 1204, the schism between the Catholic West and Orthodox East was complete.
The Fourth Crusade was one of the last of the major crusades to be directed by the Papacy; later crusades were directed by individual monarchs, mostly directed against Egypt, and only one subsequent crusade, the Sixth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade), succeeded in restoring Jerusalem to Christian rule.

[ThomasV]

I think this is history a fact

[choirfiend]

And sometimes history can be interpreted in different ways.

In any case, going into a denomination's forum and debating with them is not allowed. There are forums expressly for debate, if you are so inclined. You would probably do well to sit back and get a feel for this site before jumping right in with offensive and debative posts.

[ThomasV]

ok I guess Iam worng